Security Council demands immediate cease-fire as first step towards negotiated settlement of Iran-Iraq war.

Security Council demands immediate cease-fire as first step towards negotiated settlement of Iran-Iraq war 

Asks UN observers be sent to area

THE SECURITY COUNCIL on 20 July demanded that, as a first step towards a negotiated settlement, Iran and Iraq observe an immediate cease-fire, discontinue all military actions on land, at sea and in the air, and withdraw all forces to the internationally recognized boundaries without delay. The Council asked Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar to dispatch a team of United Nations observers to "verify, confirm and supervise the cease-fire and withdrawal', to make the necessary arrangements in consultation with the parties, and to report thereon to the Council.

The Secretary-General was also asked to explore, in consultation with Iran and Iraq, the "question of entrusting an impartial body with inquiring into responsibility for the conflict' and to report to the Council as soon as possible.

In unanimously adopting resolution 598 (1987), the Council also urged that prisoners of war be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities in accordance with the Third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949.

Iran and Iraq were called upon to co-operate with Mr. Perez de Cuellar in implementing the resolution and in mediation efforts to "achieve a comprehensive, just and honourable settlement, acceptable to both sides, of all outstanding issues', in accordance with the United Nations Charter principles. All other States were called upon to exercise "utmost restraint' and to refrain from any act which might lead to further escalation and widening of the conflict.

The Council recognized the magnitude of the damage inflicted during the conflict and the need for reconstruction efforts, "with appropriate international assistance, once the conflict is ended'. In that regard, the Secretary-General was asked to assign a team of experts to study the question of reconstruction and to report to the Council. The Secretary-General was also asked to examine, in consultation with Iran and Iraq and with other States of the region, measures to enhance the region's security and stability.

Finally, the Council decided to "meet again as necessary to consider further steps to ensure compliance' with the resolution.

In a preambular paragraph, the Council reaffirmed its resolution 582 (1986), by which Iran and Iraq were asked 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 international recognized boundaries without delay'.

Both parties, in resolution 582, were also called on to submit immediately "all aspects of the conflict to mediation or to any other means of peaceful settlement of disputes'. Under other of its provisions, the Council had 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'. (Both Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol, which calls for "the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare'.)

Resolution 582 also urged that a comprehensive exchange of prisoners of war be completed within a short period after the cessation of hostilities in co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). 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.

"A breach of the peace'

Other preambular paragraphs of resolution 598 determined that "there exists a breach of the peace as regards the conflict between Iran and Iraq', and that the Council was acting under Articles 39 and 40 of Chapter VII of the Charter.

Article 39 says the Council "shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken . . . to maintain or restore international peace and security'.

Article 40 states that in order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. "Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.' The Council, it states, "shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures'.

Some Council members termed the adoption of resolution 598 "historic'. It was pointed out that Articles 39 and 40 of Chapter VII were the Charter's most forceful provisions, that the resolution was only the third in the life of the United Nations to exhaust all means envisaged in the Charter, and that for the first time ever, the Council was mandatorily deciding a cease-fire and withdrawal of troops.

The text (S/18983) had been agreed upon during private consultations and was introduced by Council President Jean Bernard Raimond, who is also the Foreign Minister of France. Foreign Ministers of Argentina, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan also addressed the meeting.

Culmination of joint efforts

Speaking immediately after the resolution's adoption, the Secretary-General said the resolution was the culmination of the joint efforts by Council members to establish the basis for a comprehensive, just and honourable settlement between Iran and Iraq. In order to end the war, it was necessary that national policies and actions of all Member States be harmonized with the Council's declared will.

"We all rely firmly on the cooperation of the two belligerents to establish the cease-fire immediately' and thus to facilitate the implementation of the resolution's other provisions, he said. Once a cease-fire was established, the first priority for the United Nations must be to ensure that it held.

The Secretary-General said he intended to draw upon the resources of existing United Nations operations, for example the truce supervision organization in the Middle East, to ensure the earliest possible deployment of observers.

A general cease-fire, he said, would entail a halt to the "deplorable practice of deliberate attacks' on merchant shipping in the region. It would be essential, however, to develop arrangements for the region's long-term security and stability such as were envisaged in the resolution. He would endeavour speedily to explore the possibility of entrusting an impartial body with the task of inquiring into the matter of the assignment of responsibility for the conflict.

The ICRC could depend on his full support when it undertook the repatriation of thousands of prisoners of war, Mr. Perez de Cuellar went on. As regards reconstruction efforts, he would proceed with care towards the preparations required, utilizing the best expertise available.

Full co-operation by Iran and Iraq was indispensable for progress toward peace. That could make possible the achievement of a comprehensive, just and honourable settlement, acceptable to Iran and Iraq., and ensure security and stability in the region. He would not be able to fulfil his mission without the support of Council members.

Debate

Huang Jiahua (China) said there was an imminent danger of the Iran-Iraq war becoming internationalized. China was strictly neutral in the war and actively promoted reconciliation, and expected that other countries concerned, the major Powers in particular, would exercise restraint and refrain from doing anything to exacerbate the situation. China also supported the Secretary-General in his continued mediation efforts and in any other endeavour in that regard.

Rashid Abdullah Al-Nuaimi, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates, was concerned over the constant threat the war posed to the region's security, by its grave future consequences for peaceful coexistence among its peoples, and by its continuing threat to international peace and security. The resolution expressed international positions that rejected the war's continuation, and represented an important attempt to lay the proper foundations for a peaceful settlement, and it did not prejudice the legitimate sovereign rights of either country. It did not and must not aim at prejudicing the right of either country to live in peace within its internationally recognized borders.

Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Relations of the United Kingdom, said the conflict between Iran and Iraq was "bloody and senseless'. More and more attacks on shipping, right down the Gulf, posed an unacceptable threat to freedom of navigation and produced a dangerous increase in tension in the area. The adoption of mandatory action under Chapter VII of the Charter should send a clear signal to both sides.

Both parties should abide scrupulously by the provisions of the carefully balanced resolution. Every member of the international community should avoid any action which might increase tension in the region and should support the resolution.

George P. Shultz, Secretary of State of the United States, said the dangerous, destructive and devastating war between Iran and Iraq should not be permitted to continue. The conflict posed new and serious dangers to regional stability, to the welfare of non-belligerent nations and to world peace. Through the binding and even-handed resolution, the international community sought to create the framework for an equitable and lasting peace, with neither victor nor vanquished, without loss of national territory by either of the combatants. The United States would support the Secretary-General in his efforts and decisive application of enforcement measures, should either or both parties reject the Council call.

A "bitter internecine war'

Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, said the bitter, internecine Iran-Iraq war could drag the world into the most awful catastrophe. The war must be stopped as quickly as possible, and a political solution to the underlying conflict must be found. Important new elements in the resolution could pave the way for a peaceful settlement of the conflict by negotiation. The binding call for a cease-fire followed by the withdrawal of troops was imperative. The point of the resolution was to stop the bloodshed and to make it easier for both parties to tread the path to a negotiated settlement. All other countries should exercise the greatest restraint. The tensions in the region should not be exacerbated.

Giulio Andreotti, Foreign Minister of Italy, said there was an ever-present danger of the Iran-Iraq conflict "shifting towards other areas and extending to neighbouring regions'. The conflict caused repeated and serious violations of fundamental principles of international law and norms which regulated freedom of navigation. Because Iran and Iraq could not by themselves end hostilities, the international community must use the means provided by the Charter to restore a just and equitable peace.

James Victor Gbeho (Ghana) said all elements of the resolution were integral to achieving a negotiated peace through the Secretary-General's mediation. The resolution should in no way constitute the basis for premediated aggression or any unilateral action by any State or group of States or major Powers against Iran or Iraq. Any follow-up action that might be required should be within the United Nations framework and should first be discussed and agreed upon by the Council.

Peter D. Zuze (Zambia) said efforts aimed at ending the war were in the interest of both Iran and Iraq, and of the international community at large. The resolution was a balanced text which had, to a large extent, taken into account the concerns of both parties to the conflict. Zambia hoped that the parties would co-operate in its implementation so that peace and stability might be restored in the region.

Dante Caputo, Minister of External Affairs and Worship of Argentina, said the resolution established an appropriate basis for the creation of necessary conditions for negotiations between Iran and Iraq. Both Iran and Iraq should correctly interpret the constructive spirit in which the Council had demanded that, as a first step towards a negotiated settlement, they observe an immediate cease-fire, discontinue all military actions and withdraw all forces to the internationally recognized boundaries without delay.

Martin Adouki (Congo) hoped that in its pursuit to peace in the Gulf, the Council would be able to secure the confidence and co-operation of the parties directly concerned, for that was the only way to guarantee good results. The role of the Secretary-General was fundamental, and nothing and no one should impede the exercise of his functions, particularly as regards the prerequisite of agreement among the parties to determine the ways and means of application of the cease-fire and the entire process that should lead to the final settlement of the problem.

Reinaldo Pabon-Garcia. (Venezuela) said the balanced resolution took into account the rights and interests of both parties. Its implementation, however, would entail difficulties and sacrifices for both the parties involved. No other State, under any pretext or in any circumstance, should intervene in the conflict. Venezuela condemned the use of chemical weapons and appealed for flexibility and genuine good will in ending the conflict.

Jean-Bernard Raimond, Foreign Minister of France, was aware of the danger which the Iran-Iraq conflict represented for the security of neighbouring States and of the Gulf. The time had come to demand that hostilities cease and to repeat the appeal for the observance of international law and to find a settlement acceptable to both sides. A lasting settlement must be founded on respect for the sovereignty of the two States, within their internationally recognized boundaries. The realistic and balanced resolution paved the way for a political solution, without victor and without vanquished, and must not go unheeded.

Aleksandr M. Belonogov (USSR) said there were no insuperable obstacles to ending the war and establishing peace. Both sides should demonstrate political will and good sense, and a desire to reach mutually acceptable agreements that would take into account their legitimate interests. The resolution provided the necessary and just basis for a settlement of the conflict. The Soviet Union wished to avoid a degeneration of the conflict into an international crisis. The continuing concentration of the armed forces of third parties in the Gulf area was dictated by an attempt by one party to use the present alarming situation in the Gulf area to realize long-held plans to acquire new military strongholds for its air force and navy.

Ryohei Murata, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said the Iran-Iraq conflict had resulted in heightened tension throughout the Gulf region and had seriously affected countries outside the region as well by disrupting free and safe navigation in the Gulf. The international community demanded the prompt and peaceful settlement of the conflict through negotiations. The resolution provided a frame-work for a comprehensive, just, honourable and durable settlement of the conflict.

Ivan Garvalov (Bulgaria) said the resolution was a step towards ending the Iran-Iraq war. The latest events in the Persian Gulf, with the involvement of certain interests, showed that the conflict could endanger international peace and security. In that respect, it was appropriate that the resolution called upon all other States to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any act which might lead to further escalation and widening of the conflict.

Parties' views

Ismat Taha Kittani (Iraq), said his country never wanted the war imposed on it since 4 September 1980, and had always called for the establishment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace with Iran. It also had always called for settlement of the conflict by peaceful means, on the basis of the Charter and the rules of international law. It had accepted previous Council resolutions on the conflict and had made clear its complete willingness to implement them in good faith. It valued the importance the Council attached to a comprehensive settlement.

Iraq appreciated the concern shown by the Council throughout the past seven years vis-a-vis this grave conflict and for the efforts made to find a just, comprehensive and durable solution to the dispute. The Secretary-General's initiative had stressed the need for a new level of concern to be shown to reflect the seriousness of the conflict and the grave threat it still posed.

Iran did not participate in the Council meeting. On 22 July Iran-ian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, in a letter to the Secretary-General (S/18993), said that the Council resolution, from the point of view of procedure and substance, suffered from "fundamental defects and incongruities'. Permanent Council members, under pressure from the United States, undertook behind closed doors to "prepare a predetermined prescription for the war' without consulting both the non-permanent members and Iran.

However, considering Iran's confidence in the Secretary-General's efforts, the resolution would be carefully considered. The Secretary-General must make all possible efforts to prevent further expansion and escalation of the crisis, and should call on the United States to halt immediately the expansion of its military presence in the Persian Gulf.

Photo: Security Council President for July, Jean-Bernard Raimond, Foreign Minister of France (centre), addresses the 15-member body. Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar is at left, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs Vasily S. Safronchuk, at right.