S/PV.1702 Security Council

In accordance with decisions previously taken by the Security Council f 1696th-I 699th meetings] , and with its consent, I invite the representatives of Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritania, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire and Zambia to take the places reserved for them in the Council chamber. 6. We would wish to refer now to the OAS. We believe that the time has come to re-examine its structure in order to adjust it to the real needs of the region. Let it be stated clearly that the history of the OAS in respect of pacification is not as brilliant as some have tried to claim here. Enshrining the principle that might makes right or belatedly lamenting the painful events which, because of the incapacity of the OAS, have brought sorrow to Latin America are not really things to be proud of. How anyone speaks/about the party depends on how he enjoyed it. 2. Speaking now as the representative of PANAMA, I wish to exercise my right of reply, 3. We listened this morning to the statement of the representative of the United States of America [170lst meeting/. I shall refer, on behalf of my country, to some parts of the statement by that distinguished representative. 7. The recent conference at Bogota of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council of the OAS made it clear that many of the Latin American aspirations could be fulfilled in large measure by cqmplete compliance with the rules of the Charter of that organization. Nevertheless the whole world knows that when the final resolution was discussed the United States abstained because it was not able to accept even clauses which merely repeated provisions of the 4. The fact is that the countries of Latin America are showing general and justified concern because of the increasing habit of North American officials of making a public inventory of the results of their apparent generosity. 9. There is no logic in the affirmation that in order for the Canal to serve world trade efficiently, the United States must have the right to increase its capacity. This is not in accord with our legitimate aspirations to regain complete jurisdiction over our territory and to exercise our sovereign rights over our natural resources. The aim of ensuring that the Canal would “continue to be operated and defended by the United States for an extended but specified period of time” (ibid., para. 138/ is a very subtfe way of expressing the concept of perpetuity in figures. 10. A treaty cannot be new and modem if it does not satisfy our legitimate aspirations effectively to exercise sovereignty over our entire national territory, to exercise sovereignty over our natural resources, to do away with the existence of a government within another government, to put an end to the colonial enclave which gives rise to our dispute. 11. The representative of the United States explained that the considerable growth of Panama’s economy has resulted in part from the contributions received from abroad, among them the aid given by the United States. He specified that for 1972 the aid amounted to $227 million and he added that American loans and grants to Panama represent the highest per capita level of United States assistance any where in the world. That might be true, but we are bound to add that this represents only one side of the coin. It is fitting to mention that on the other side there are the vast benefits which the United States had been receiving since 1910-when the Panama Canal was opened-because of its use of our geographical position in regard to the Canal, and which represents possibly the largest per capita subldy which any country has ever given to the vast economy of the United States. Those benefits include, on the one hand, strategic and political benefits and, on the other, strictly economic benefits. s 12. As regards the strategic aspects: the Canal has had and continues to have an undeniable military value. During the Second World War it was used by approximately 5,300 warships and 8,500 ships carrying troops and military supplies. The Canal also facilitated military operations and logistic support for the United States Army in the Korean war. It is estimated that 22 per cent of the tonnage sent from the eastern seaboard of the United States went through the Panama Canal. Between 1964 and 1968 there was an increase of 640 per cent in the dry tonnage and 430 per cent in the transport of fuel and oil through the Canal in order to support military operations in South-East Asia. Therefore the Canal has had considerable strategic advantages for the United States, in improving the ability of its naval forces to manoeuvre and facilitating the sending of troops and supplies to the areas of conflict, with apprecia- 14. Other economic benefits can be mentioned which are perhaps of greater significance ,but which are difficult to quantify, such as the advantage which the Canal gives the United States in the expansion of its internal and international trade and in general in the improvement of its international economic relations. Nevertheless, the main economic advantages are derived from the fact that the United States is the main user of the Canal and from the rate schedule, which has remained unchanged since the opening of the Canal. 15. A recent study by the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA)i estimated at $5,400 million the money saved by those who used the Canal from 1960 to 1970 because they did not have to use the less economical alternative route, wh&h is 6 to 7 times as long. In the same study ECLA estimated at $2,600 million the profits the Canal Company would have obtained from its monopolistic position by applying a rate structure which discriminated according to economic density and other characteristics of the goods carried through the Canal. Between these two extremes-$2,600 million and $5,400 million-one can estimate the subsidies thus given to world fleets and trade. With regard to trade originating in or destined..for the United States, according to ECLA the net profit for the United States economy can be estimated at between $700 million and $1,700 million from 1960 to 1970. 16. Although that does not complete the list of economic efforts which the United States receives from the Canal and from the colonial control of the Canal Zone, it is worth mentioning, finally, that there is a situation which, while it gives only a small economic advantage to the United States, is revealing in regard to the existing relationships. Apart from the activities related directly to the maintenance and operation of the Canal and to the functioning of the citiIian and military government, the Canal Company carries out a series of purely trade activities connected with supplying and servicing the population residing in the Zone, as well as other auxiliary activities, all of which are exempt from any taxation on the part of the State of Panama. In this way the public budget of this small country had been subsidizing a large company controlled by the greatest Power in the world. 17. Panama is seeking not a change in wording, but a change in structure. So far, there have been no real bilateral 1 Study entitled “The economy of Panama and the Canal Zone”, prepared at the request of the Government of Panama and transmitted to the Security Council by the representative of Panama (see S/10900 of 9 March 1973). 18. In order for talks to be bilateral there must be a serious desire on both sides to deal with each other in equality and respect and with a concern to find solutions to the problems. But when what exists is a desire on the part of one party to impose conditions, make threats and exert pressure, on the basis of its vast military and economic power, then there is no mutual negotiation: what there is is the imposition of a single will in disguise.

Mr. President, I must apologize to you for venturing to distract the Council’s attention. I deliberately postponed my statement with the idea of not disturbing the course of the debate that quite justifiably is being held on the main problem that has been before the Council. I make that statement by way of explanation of what otherwise might seem to be an ill-timed statement. 19. Why, in nine years, has there been no progress in the negotiations between Panama and the United States? Why does the United States seek to perpetuate its military display on the isthmus, build a new sea-level canal and maintain the Canal Zone, while at the same time claiming that it is doing away with the concept of perpetuity? What are the causes of conflict between the two countries? Quite simply, the existence of a foreign Government within our own territory, the oppressive presence of a foreign army on the isthmus, and the existence within the territory which is called the Canal Zone of a legislation different from that of the Republic of Panama. In the negotiations Panama has asked .for the elimination of those causes of conflict. At no time has the United States agreed definitively. Basically, what it wishes is to maintain the status quo, changing it only in name. 26. At this stage of these meetings, it seems inexcusable to me that I should be obliged to make the following statement, which is linked to the intervention of one of our sister-countries of this area before the Council. 27. With regard to the statement made on the 16th of this month by the representative of Bolivia [169&h meeting], the delegation of Chile feels it imperative to give the following clarifications. First of all, my Government has repeatedly stated its willingness to undertake a dialogue between our two countries in order to define and solve the problems of interest to both as neighbours and sisterrepublics. Second, we believe that the resumption of diplomatic relations would be a positive and constructive step towards achieving such goals and aims for the benefit of both our peoples. Third, we reiterate our adherence to the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the United Nations regarding the inviolability of treaties freely entered into and which serve as the basis for peaceful international coexistence. Fourth, we emphatically stress that the existing historical and juridical systems regulating relations between Bolivia and Chile in no way imply a challenge to any sovereign rights of Bolivia, as can be seen clearly from those international instruments that serve to regulate them in accordance with international law.lFifth, we believe that within the framework of the process of Andean integration, in which both of our countries participate, and, furthermore, as a result of the current progressive bilateral conversations between Bolivia and Chile which are dealing with problems of mutual interests, we will gradually create the necessary conditions so that, in strict observance of the norms of international law, both Bolivia and Chile will be able to expand their common ground and strengthen their ties of friendship and co-operation. 20, When General Torrijos, in his opening statement before the Council /1695th meeting/, referred to the fact that the problems of the developing countries of the third world were similar, he was expressing the Panamanian people’s deep feeling of solidarity with the rest of the people of Latin America, Aftica and Asia. 21. The Security Council must play a vital role in the solution of this problem, and not accept a false bilateral negotiation as genuine. While we certainly want the two countries to negotiate, the world must be alert and vigilant SO that those bilateral negotiations will really be that, and riot the imposition of the will of the stronger. 22. The rejection of the 1967 draft treaties was the result of the fact that they were even more offensive than the 1903 Convention. The term “perpetuity” was replaced by a date: up to the year 2067-that is to say, perpetuity in numbers; it legalized the existence of military bases and of the Southern Command, which so far, even with the shameful Convention of 1903, has no legal justification. It further intended, in exchange for all that, that they also be given the exclusive right to build in Panama a new, sea-level 28. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish).’ The Council has before it document S/10931/Rev.l, which contains the draft resolution sponsored by Guinea, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia. canal and a new canal zone on the basis of what is called an open option with no commitment whatever. 23. The situation between Panama and the United States is still potentially explosive and liable to endanger international peace. Nine years of negotiation have not brought US forward from the point of departure. True, a more flowery and deceitful language has been developed in order to maintain the status quo. So far what has been intended is to (The President read out the draft resolution] . 29. The Republic of Panama, with the co-sponsorship and support of Guinea, Kenya, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” 30. There can be no doubt that wherever the Charter of the United Nations is violated, there is a danger to the world peace and security which it is the basic objective of that Charter to achieve. The members of the Council and the observers are fully aware of the situation prevailing in the territory under Panamanian sovereignty which is called the Panama Canal Zone. There are foreign authorities and laws there, and a foreign flag is flying there, and all that is based upon a treaty whose signature did not have the consent of Panama, as was explained very clearly and in detail by the Minister for External Affairs of Costa Rica, Mr. Gonzalez Facie [169&h meeting]. 31. The Council has been shown very clearly that in practice there is a dismemberment of Panamanian soil, there is a break in its territorial unity because of the presence of United States authorities, who are applying juridical acts based on laws that are not Panamanian and are using a language that is not Panamanian. 32. There can be no doubt whatever that the existence of a foreign Government on a part of our soil, a Government that has usurped governmental functions and arbitrarily excluded our legislation from the Panama Canal Zone, breaks the national unity and, in practice, dismembers our territory. 33. I must stress to this world body that the Government of the United States has recognized that the existence of the Canal Zone and the way in which it is administered stands in the way of our territorial integrity, In fact, point 4 of the joint declaration of Presidents Robles and Johnson of 24 September 1965 reads as follows: “A primary objective of the new treaty will be to provide for an appropriate political, economic, and social integration of the area used in the canal operation with the rest of the Republic of Panama.“2 34. This colonial situation is obviously incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, and that has been 2 See The Department of State Bulletin, vol. LIII, No. 1371 (Washington, DC., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965), p. 625. 35. We are convinced that the draft resolution we have submitted will tend to achieve the objectives we have put before the Council. Mr. Boyd (Panama) took the Chair. 36. I have the honour to announce that the draft resolution in document S/10932/Rev.l, submitted by Panama, Peru and Yugoslavia, now has three additional co-sponsors: Guinea, Kenya and the Sudan. 37. I call on the representative of the United States, who wishes to exercise his right of reply.

I have listened with attentiveness and respect to the views the distinguished Foreign Minister of Panama has expressed. It does not surprise me that there are points that have been raised on which our two governments disagree. If we have differences-and we do-the most meaningful place where we can discuss them is in direct negotiations, face-to-face, as we both have a responsibility to do for the sake of our own good relations and for the sake of international understanding. So I invite the Foreign Minister, in a spirit of respect for his views, to continue negotiations, to meet us at the table. 39. I do wish to reply, however, to comments about American economic assistance. I am proud of our record, I think it is unparalleled in the history of the world. Since the Second World War, our nation has poured out more tllan $100,000’million in economic assistance to nations WltiCh needed that kind of aid. It is a record that few can match. We have done this not because we expect plaudits but because of our long tradition of assisting those in the position where they need urgent assistance. Regardless of what happens, I can assure the representatives at this table, my Government will continue to provide that kind of assistance unselfishly and for the benefit of all of mankind.

Since there are no more speakers on the list, and since tomorrow is the last day of meetings, I intend, if I hear no objection, to suspend the meeting until 8.30 p.m. so that members may have consultations on the draft declaration of consensus with which we wish to conclude the general debate, which ends today. The meeting was suspended at 5.10 and resumed at 9.15 p.m.

The proposal of the representative of Yugoslavia, with the addition made by the representative of India, is now before the Council. 42. Mr, MOJSOV (Yugoslavia): During the past two days, and especially this afternoon, the members of the Council have had extensive consultations with you, Mr. President, and among themselves concerning the two draft resolutions which you have just mentioned. We had earnestly hoped that by this evening we would have arrived at some concrete results about which we would have been able to inform the Council. The consultations are still going on, however, and I should like formally to propose, under rule 33 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Council, that the Council adjourn until tomorrow morning to allow us additional time for consultations.

With all due respect to the views which have been expressed, I should personally prefer to complete this work today so that tomorrow we might perhaps have more time for other questions. But if the majority of the members of the Council are in favour of adjourning the meeting, then that is the Council’s will.

AS no other member of the Council wishes to speak, and as I hear no objection, I take it that the proposal of the representative of Yugoslavia, with the addition made by the representative of India, has been adopted by the Council.

The Council is now seized of a motion by the representative of Yugoslavia calling for the adjournment of this meeting, in accordance with rule 33 of the provisional rules of procedure, to allow the consultations on the two draft resolutions before the Council to continue. The meeting rose at 9.20 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les sgences d&ositaires du mondc entier. Informer-vous auprbs de votre libraire ou adressex-vous a : Nations Unies, Section des ventes. New York ou Gengve. ICAK IIOJIY’IZITb HBAAHHR OP~AHHSAWiH OFhEflNHEHHhIX HAU2il-i HJAaHWR Op,-aHH3aWtH 06WAWHWHbIX HaquR MO,X”O KynW’rb B KHW)KHhlX Y&Pa- 3HHax H arewrcmax a0 rwex pathwax rmpa. Ham~lr’re cnpamu 06 KmaHHIIx a BauxeM xwwio~ rdara3me wnlx nmmme no anpecy: Opramsaqwfl 06’hewweHHbIX HaswB, Cewm no nponame mAamR, Hbw-Ffopx WH Xefieaa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las N&ones Unidas estin en venta en Iibrerias y casas distribuidoras en todas’partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirfjase a: Naciones Unidas, Section de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 1.00 ,(or equivalent in other currencies) 73.82091-April 1976--1,925