Let's have a look at this resolution

*Resolution 487 (1981)*

/Adopted by the Security Council at its 2288th meeting/
/on 19 June 1981/


/ The Security Council,/

/ Having considered/ the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/2280,

/Having noted/ the contents of the telegram dated 8 June 1981 from the Foreign Minister of Iraq (S/14509), Having heard the statements made to the Council on the subject at its 2280th through 2288th meetings,

/Taking note/ of the statement made by the Director-General of the International Atomic Emergency Agency (IAEA) to the Agency's Board of Governors on the subject on 9 June 1981 and his statement to the Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981,

/Further taking note/ of the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 12 June 1981 on the "military attack on the Iraq nuclear research centre and its implications for the Agency"
(S/14532),

/Fully aware/ of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date,

Well with 20 x 20 hindsight and with what was discovered by the IAEA inspectors in 1991 we all now know that that statement was not true.

/Noting furthermore/ that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty,

Not wishing to state the obvious why does any state have to adhere to the terms and conditions of a treaty to which it is not a signatory? Besides which Israel in many ways has complied with the NPT - it has not proliferated the spread of nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology - North Korea has, the USSR has, China has, Pakistan has.

/Deeply concerned/ about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States,

I liked this one especially the "which could at any time explode the situation in the area" bit. Take a look at the date Nickhere and Dianavan. What was going on at that time? A minor spat locally referred to as the Iran/Iraq War. So while hundreds of thousands were being killed in an all out war of epic proportions, the UN security Council fasten on a single Israeli air raid as the thing that might "explode the situation in the area" - forgive me but I find that rather bizarre, not to mention ludicrous.

/Considering/ that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations",

Since the date of its founding in 1948 Israel has attacked Iraq once. During the same period Iraq on the other hand has attacked Israel many many times - True? Is that the sort of thing the UN was referring to?

1. /Strongly condemns/ the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;

Plain statement that ignores Iraqi threats and hostile actions directed at Israel.

2. /Calls upon/ Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;

As far as I am aware Israel has complied with this request in spite of repeated attacks and threats from Iraq.

3. /Further considers/ that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty;

See comments raised in response to point 4 below.

4. /Fully recognizes/ the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;

IAEA inspections had they been working should have detected Iraq nuclear weapons programme, they didn't Saddam Hussein had the IAEA in Iraq completely hoodwinked

5. /Calls upon/ Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;

The UN have no right whatsoever to force nations to do things against their will

6. /Considers/ that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel;

Absolutely, exactly as Israel should be entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction and loss of life it has suffered both directly and indirectly at the hands of Iraq.

7. /Requests/ the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution.

Has he? Or like most UN Resolutions was this one just join all the others neatly stacked under the carpet.