S/PV.1704 Security Council

According to the provisional rules of procedure, motions for suspension have priority. The representative of the United States had made a motion that the meeting should be suspended for one hour. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that it is so decided. 57. My Government and my people, as General Toxrijos made clear to the Council, have complete confidence that the Security Council possesses sufficient authority to settle the question of the Panama Canal Zone in accordance with the principles of international law and justice and pursuant to the terms of Chapter VI of the Charter, on the peaceful settlement of disputes. The meeting was suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at z4.5 p*m Mr. Tack (Panama) took the Chair. S8* The faith and the confidence of the entire Panamanian people in the capacity of the United Nations is shared by other peoples of the world, perhaps most fervently by the small nations, for which international peace and security constitute more than a mere aspiration: an absolute need. Justice in international relations is a sine qua non in order for progress in all fields to be ensured.

I have no speakers on my list. As no representative wishes to speak, I take it that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolutions which have been submitted. 66. I shall first put to the vote the draft resolution in document S/10931/Rev.l, sponsored by the delegations of Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia. 59. With the worthy Peruvian nation, Panama shares the responsibility of occupying the seats allocated in the Council to Latin America0 We wish to state clearly at this meeting that in the joint declaration signed by the Foreign Ministers of the two countries in Lima on 9 March this year we stated our desire to make a common effort to direct the spirit of Latin American unity towards a future of dignity and justice for our peoples. In that outstanding historical document we stated proudly the principles that we would use as guidelines in acting in the Security Council and agreed fully to co-operate in order to serve the interests of the region and the cause of peace for all peoples of the world. A vote was taken ivy show of hands. In favour: Australia, Austria, China, France, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia. Against: United States of America, Abstaeing: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 60. Members of the Council, I wish most cordially to express our trust in peoples of our regio the United Nations. I that universality, tha these historic delibera effective contribution would be the adop resolutions now before it. action would greatly contribu o the strengthening of international security as a prelude to a new era in which the claims of Panama, of Latin America and of the world would be satisfied. The result of the vote was 13 in favour, 1 against, and 1 abstention. The draft r&solution was not adopted, the negative vote being that of one of the permanent members.

I shall now call on those representatives who have asked to be allowed to explain their votes after the vote.

Despite the fact that the representative of Panama has expressed bjmself on the Panama Canal before this Council many times over the past week, he chose to deliver today his version of history and of the actual situation. I have no intention of subjecting the members of this Council to a statement of similar length. However, he continues to stress the Convention of 1903. ,In fact we have heard a great deal in recent days of how the Isthmian Canal Convention was “imposed” on the people of Panama. 61. Speaking now as PRESIDENT, I would remind members that the Council has before it the revised draft resolution, in document S/10931/Rev.l, and sponsored by the delegations of Guinia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia on the question of the Panama Canal, 62, If no member wishes to speak I shall take it that the Council is ready to decide on the draft resolutions that have been submitted, and I shall put to the vote first the draft resolution which I have just mentioned. 69. Let us put the facts of the situation on the Council record. After the Convention of 1903 was signed, it was sent to Panama for ratification. After ratification by the Panamanian Government, it was sent around the country for consideration by the various elected municipal councils. The ratification of the Convention was overwhelmingly 63. Mr, SCHAUFELE (United States of America): As consultations are still going on on this particular subject I think it would be wiser that the draft resolution be not put 70. Now in 70 years’ time the views of the Government and people of Panama have changed with respect to the arrangements of 1903. That is not surprising. The views of the Government and people of the United States of America also have changed with respect to the Convention of 1903. That is what our two Governments are negotiating about-to work out new arrangements to meet the just aspirations of Panama and the legitimate interests of the United States. 71. I believe it is useful to clarify for the record this historical aspect of our relationship. 72. We regret having had to cast a negative vote on this draft resolution, because there is so much in it with which we could agree, But our’negative vote should have come as no surprise to our host, the Republic of Panama, in view of the repeated exchanges of views that we have had about these meetings and about how they might end-and I am referring not only to discussions during these Security Council meetings but also to those that took place even before the Republic of Panama had pressed its campaign to have these meetings take place on its territory. 73. In those discussions the United States made clear its serious concern that a series of meetings designed to put pressure on one party to an on-going bilateral negotiation could make those negotiations more difficult and impair the utility of this major organ of the United Nations. Up to the moment of our departure for Panama we continued to receive assurances that everything would be done to maintain an atmosphere of moderation and restraint. I regret to say that, while this proved true of the situation outside this chamber-and for this I wish to express our appreciation to our host, the Panamian Government-it has not been true of some of the statements made here. Members of the Council should know that my delegation has made strenuous and repeated efforts in friendly conversations with the host Government to arrive at a mutually acceptable form for a resolution, but this very sincere effort has been rejected. I wish the members of the Council to know, however, that we were and are prepared to acknowledge the just aspirations of the Republic of Panama, for we do recognize those aspirations, along with the interests of the United States. 74. I have said that we r,egret having had to cast a negative vote on the draft resolution because there is so much in it with which we could agree, As I have made clear, we agree with the Republic of Panama on the need to replace the 1903 Convention by a totally new instrument reflecting a new spirit; we agree that such a new instrument should not run “in perpetuity” but should have a fixed term; and we agree on the progressive integration into the legal, economic, social and cultural life of Panama of even those areas used for the operation and defence of the Canal. Why, then, when there is so much in it with which we agree, did we not vote in favour of the draft resolution or, as we were urged to do, at least abstain? Essentially, for two reasons. 76. This draft resolution, in our view, is unbalanced and incomplete and is therefore subject to serious misinterpreta. tion. Moreover, the draft resolution is cast in the form of sweeping generalities when we know that the real difficul. ties lie in the application of those generalities. Although it is true that the United States and Panama have reached common understanding over a number of important general principles, differences over some principles and many matters of detail remain. Finally, this draft resolution addresses the points of interest to Panama but ignores those legitimate interests important to the United States. 77. The Panama Canal is not a work of nature or, as some have tried to put it, a “natural resource”. The Canal is a very complex enterprise, and the working-out of a new regime for it cannot be accomplished by the wave of a hand or the quick stroke of a pen. It requires thoughtful and meticulous negotiation to achieve a fair reconciliation of interests. We have been and are prepared for such a negotiation. But the draft resolution that was just voted upon over-simplifies the issue to the point where it could have rendered a disservice, 78. This brings me back to what I said at the beginning of my intervention. It has been clear from the first mention of the idea that holding Security Council meetings here to focus on this problem could complicate the process of negotiation. The United States is disappointed that others failed to appreciate this risk when lending their support to these meetings, Surely it should have been obvious that the new treaty, which we earnestly wish to negotiate with Panama, must be acceptable to our Congress and people, as well as to the Government and people of Panama. 79. Finally, I would respectfully suggest that we all assess with great care the nature and the outcome of these meetings so as to avoid any repetition of a course of action that could prove damaging to the role and the reputation of the Security Council, It would be most unfortunate if the Council were to be transformed into a small replica of the General Assembly, thereby impairing its capacity to deal effectively with specific issues affecting peace and security. 80. The United States delegation will not be leaving Panama in a spirit of rancour-far from it, Our friendship for Panama, for the people of Panama and for the people Of 85. Several days ago the representative of Algeria, speaking of the abuse of the veto, said: “We believe that it should be inadmissible for a great Power to exercise its right of veto in a matter in which it is involved and when by that abusive use of a privilege which has been recognized to it because of the very fact of its power it would thus remove itself from the normal application of the rules of law which should be imposed uniformly on all nations, without regard to their size, their means or their place in the international community. This use of the right of veto is even more reprehensible when a great Power has recourse to it in a conflict it has with a small country and where it already has the advantage given it by its material superiority and particularly the advantage of its military means.” [ibid., para, 8.5.I 81, Sir Colin CROWE (United Kingdom): As I said in my statement yesterday [1701st meeting], and as several other representatives have also said in their statements, my delegation regards this question as essentially a bilateral issue between the parties concerned. If it had been possible to arrive at a formulation which took account of the concerns of both parties, I believe that the adoption of a resolution by the Security Council at the end of its meetings in Panama might have been helpful in improving the atmosphere for further negotiations. It is a matter of profound regret that efforts to find such a formulation have been unsuccessful. In this sort of situation, for any resolution to be useful, it must be at least generally acceptable to both parties to which it is addressed. If, as in the present case, it is unacceptable to one of the two parties, a resolution does not serve any useful purpose. My delegation accordingly abstained. 86. Representing a small third-worid country of 4 million inhabitants, 1 can only express my concern at the outcome of the conflict between the Governments of the United States and Panama. The world has only just greeted the end of a long and painful strife which for 25 years pitted a third-world country, Viet-Nam, ,against one of the world’s giants, the United States of America. Still fresh in our minds is the desolation of the valiant people of Viet-Nam and of the American mothers and wives whose sons and husbands fell during that long war. 82. Mrs. Jeanne Martin CISSE (Guinea) (interpretation from Frenchj: When we co-sponsored the draft resolution in document S/10931 /Rev.l, which reaffirms fundamental principles dear to my country’s heart-principles of the recognition of national sovereignty, free exercise by each nation of sovereignty over its natural resources, equality among peoples, and mutual respect ‘among States-my delegation wished to indicate its solidarity with the people and Government of Panama, and once again to express to them our complete support for the sacred cause for which they are fighting, that is to say, the cause of dignityy, sovereignty and justice. As we have already emphasized in the course of our statement [I 700th meeting/ and in the many consultations that we have held, there was no other choice for us. Having ourselves known humiliation and injustice, having ourselves suffered discrimination, we understand only too well the cogency of the claims of the people and Government of Panama. That is why we have supported them unreservedly. 87. We hope that the Governments of Panama and the United States, whose readiness to continue the discussions we have noted, till be able to resume their negotiations and arrive at a peaceful settlement in conformity with the legitimate aspirations of the people of Panama to exercise sovereignty over its national territory. 88. Mr. DE GUIRINGAUD (France) (interpretation from French,J; The French delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution regarding the Panama Canal which was submitted by eight members of the Council because we felt that unlike other texts which had previously been circulated, that text did not go into the details of a settlement, but ’ referred only to general principles the validity of which could not be challenged by anyone. 89. As I said yesterday [I 701st meeting], it is the consistent position of my Government that the Security Council cannot dictate to parties the specific terms of a settlement which they are in the process of negotiating. On the other hand, the Council can, as I also said, indicate the general principles on the basis of which it believes such a settlement should be established, and I expressly mentioned respect for the principles of sovereignty and co-operation which should govern relations between States. 83. We also have faith in international justice, which is why it is our view that the Security Council, the organ of the United Nations responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security and having the ultimate duty to prevent confrontations, should use every means at its disposal to safeguard international peace and security, which are so dear to us. 90, That was precisely the purpose of the text which was submitted to us. The part taken by the French delegation in seeking a formula satisfactory to both sides, which might 84. My delegation cannot conceal its great disappointment at the attitude of the United States. We had really hoped that these meetings in Panama could have helped to restore 91. I can conclude only by expressing the hope that Panama and the United States, towards both of which we feel friendship and sympathy, will be able to overcome their differences and reach an agreement in the near future.

My delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution contained in document S/10931/Rev.l because we believe that the case put forward by Panama for more equitable control of the Canal is a fair and a just case. 93. The Panama Canal is, by all definitions, the natural resource of Panama. It is as much a natural resource of Panama as the copper mines and installations in Chile are the natural resources of Chile, The Canal is as much a natural resource of Panama as the oil wells and installations in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are the natural resources of those countries. 94. The sovereign right of every State to dispose of its wealth and nat,ural resources, which is a constituent of the right to self-determination, must be respected. Any violation of the right of peoples and nations to sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources is contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and hinders the development of international co-operation and the maintenance of peace. 95. For all those reasons, we voted in favour of the draft resolution, and we are disappointed that it has been vetoed.

I do not want to sound vindictive because a draft resolution co-sponsored by a majority of the Council’s members, including Yugoslavia, has been defeated. We know that resolutions have been vetoed before and, unfortunately, they will be vetoed again in the Council. But every time a draft resolution is vetoed, every timt:a veto defeats a draft resolution that represents a just cause, a resolution that would assist in finding a way out of a situation that threatens international peace and security, a resolution that would assist Members for whom help is long overdue, it is a retrograde and sad event in the Council’s life, and.it cannot but detract from our prestige and role in the eyes of the world. 97. But we should not despair. A draft resolution on Southern Rhodesia was vetoed in Addis Ababa last year. After that, the national liberation struggle of the people of Zimbabwe intensified even more, because they had been enabled to see that the veto was the work of one, but that they had overwhelming support and direct assistance from almost everybody else. 99. We are sure that the people of Panama will take this not as a defeat but as a challenge in their just struggle. And we hope that those who must do so will consider and till be more forthcoming and more flexible next time, since this question will surely come up again for our consider* tion in the not too distant future. 100. General DE LA FLOR VALLE (Peru) (interpretulion fram Spanish): As has been made evident during the last seven days of work of the Security Council, the question of the Panama Canal is a problem which deeply affects the sovereignty of a people of Latin America and all the countries of Latin America and which because of its painful characteristics constitutes an unjust and unequal relationship and is a cause of permanent conflict and therefore a potential threat to the peace and security of the continent. 101. We have in the course of the deliberations of the Council seen the absolute and total support given by the countries of Latin America and of the rest of the world for the just and noble cause of the people of Panama. The draft resolution sponsored by eight countries of the third world-Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia-was a really positive step to channel the solution of the conflict in the right direction. Unfortunately, it has been vetoed by the United States of America, frustrating that possibility. But that veto, instead of being a failure or defeat, is, I believe, something that adds dignity to the struggle of the people and Government of Panama- I am witness to the great flexibility which has been shown and to the will to co-operate of the Government of the Republic of Panama in order to reach an agreement that would enhance the prestige of the Council. That is not possible, however, when there is lacking recognition of the sovereignty and dignity which the people of Panama have for 70 years been fighting to recover. 102. As the representative of a developing COunbY of Latin America and the third world, and because of our ties with the people and Government of Panama, I once aeain reiterate our decisive and firm support for the noble and just cause for which this people and this Government are struggling.

I was not intending to speak in explanation of my vote, because the Soviet Union’s 109. We need, of course, to be clear about our understanding of the meaning of the term “coerce”. As is well known, there has been evidence of unacceptable pressure by at least one of the multinational corporations operating in Latin America and my delegation would certainly agree that actions of this kind are deserving of the highest censure. On the other hand, we would not interpret the draft resolution as preventing commercial enterprises from taking steps within the accepted legal framework regarding payment of compensation for expropriated properties or assets. International law, of course, permits nationalization of foreignowned assets. However, it also makes provision for compensation and for certain legal processes where a dispute arises over the terms of compensation. 104. A majority in the Security Council reflected the general feeling that I spoke about at the time of the consultative meeting of members of the Council, when an overwhelming majority in the world, if not the entire world-I recalled at the time the telegrams from the Prime Minister of India [1696th meeting], from President Tito of Yugoslavia [1699th meeting] and from the Pope [1697th meetingl -expressed support of the just cause which we are discussing. Thus it cannot be said that as a result of the discussion of this question and the voting on the draft resolution concerning it the reputation and role of the Security Council will be undermined or that they will be damaged. I therefore feel that I must make this point clear, 110. It is with this understanding that my delegation will cast its positive vote for the draft resolution in document S/10932/Rev.2.

As regards the draft resolution before us in document S/10932/Rev.2, I should like to make the following remarks. 112. Yesterday (I 701st meeting] I clearly indicated our doubts in regard to having the Council taking a stand on general principles without any relationship to specific situations and, in particular, in regard to questions which are more specially within the competence of another United Nations organ. We are not unaware of the importance of the problem presented to us. On the contrary, we believe that it would warrant a far more thorough study which we cannot conduct here, since we are not competent and have not the time. The Council, we believe, should therefore take note of the views expressed and refer consideration of this question to a qualified United Nations organ, which could be the General Assembly or the Economic and Social Council, or even the Working Group on the Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States. The summary of our work, which you will read out later, Mr. President, could provide an opportunity to formulate this conclusion. 105. In the course of both the discussion and the voting we all saw with our own eyes that the overwhelming majority of ministers and representatives of the Latin American countries, of the members of the Security Council and of representatives of those States which felt it incumbent upon them to participate in the discussion of the matter in the Council took a favourable stand with regard to the requests, appeals and claims of the Republic of Panama. It is precisely this which is the main positive result of the discussion of the question in the Council at its meetings away from Headquarters held in Latin America. It turned out that Panama was not alone, its position commanded the support which the justice of its cause warranted and evoked a wide international response not only in Latin America but throughout the world. Accordingly, the members of the Council who voted for the draft resolution in question cannot but express regret that because of the position taken by one permanent member of the Council that draft resolution failed of adoption. I stress that it was one permanent member of the Security Council, one great Power, and not “one or two”, as some like to say. 113. In these circumstances, and in the light of the remarks I have just made, my delegation will have to abstain on the draft resolution which is before us. Nevertheless, the remarks I have just made, which represent the position of France, will of course appear in the verbatim record of our meetings, which is the official source of information on statements made in the course of our proceedings.

We shall proceed to vote on the draft resolution in document S/10932/Rev.2, sponsored by the delegations of Guinea, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia.

My delegation will abstain on the draft resolution in document S/10932/ Rev.2, primarily because we consider that this matter falls outside the competence of the Security Council, The proper forum for this subject, as the representative of France has just pointed out, is not here; it could be the General Assembly or the Economic and Social Council, where it is indeed an item on the agenda. The Security 107. I shall now call upon representatives wishing to speak h explanation of vote before the vote.

Although we have some doubts whether the Council is the most appropriate organ of the United Nations to take action on a

,My delegation would like to explain very briefly its position on the draft resolution in document S/10932/Rev.2, which is now before the Council. 117. In my statement on Monday last [1699th meeting], I referred to the difficulties faced by the developing countries concerning how to convert their natural resources into national wealth with the lack of indigenous means, especially in the form of domestic capital and technical know-how. Indonesia recognizes that to speed up the process of development, foreign assistance can be helpful; but in accepting foreign co-operation in our economic development we must remain master in our own house in accordance with the principle of the permanent sovereignty of the State over its own natural resources. Foreign assistance, whether on a governmental basis or in the form of private investment, must in no way become an instrument of coercion against the State which decides to implement that principle. 118. My delegation, therefore, agrees with the ideas incorporated in the two operative paragraphs in the draft resolution, and will vote in its favour.

My delegation has very carefully studied the draft resolution on permanent sovereignty over natural resources [S/10932/ Reu.21. Our decision to abstain is based on the following considerations. 120. We believe that sovereignty over natural resources is not an appropriate subject for Security Council action under the Charter, of the United Nations. The basic responsibility of the Council is the maintenance of international peace and security. Of course, we would not and do not condone the use of coercive measures by one State to secure advantages from another State in violation of International law. But we do not accept the premises of this draft resolution, namely, that any such coercive measures are being used or that any measures are being used in a manner likely to endanger peace and securitS; in Latin America. Economic matters of this sort, where there is no threat to international peace and security, are properly the subject of discussion in other United Nations organs: the Economic and Social Council, where the Committee on NaturaI Resources is currently dealing very actively with 122. Furthermore, the draft resolution does not adequately take into eccount provisions of the Charters of the United Nations and the Organization of American States and of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, which provide for collective measures involving coercion and which are vital to the maintenance of international peace and security. I am sure that my colleagues in the Security Council, after thoughtful study and thorough discussion, would not wish to be on record as supporting a resolution that might be interpreted as weakening the potential of those important international documents, 123. I cite those reservations to show that there are many objections to this draft resolution. The principal objection, however, in our view is that it deals with a subject that is not within the proper competence of the Security Council.

I now put to the vote the draft resolution in document S/10932/Rev.2. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Australia, Austria, China, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia. Against: None. Abstaining: France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. The draft resolution was adopted by 12 votes to none. with 3 abstentions.3

I shall now call on those representatives wishing to explain their votes after the vote.

Now that the vote has been taken on the draft resolution in document S/10932/Rev.2, my delegation would like to make the following observations. 127. The resolution, in the first preambular paragraph, refers to General Assembly resolution 3016 (XXVII) con- 3 See resolution 330 (1973). 133. Furthermore, I should like to mention that the position of my country was originally like that of the United Kingdom, France and Indonesia, because the Economic and Social Council is fully seized of the question of the activities of multinational corporations and, as the representative of India has mentioned, that body has set up a group of experts to study the activities of these corporations and to report back to that Council, We felt that what that Council is already doing should be enough. But because our Latin American friends informed us of cases of pressure that they know are emanating from certain multinational corporations-perhaps with the connivance of certain States-we thought that this was a matter of serious concern for international peace and security in this area. That is why we voted for the draft resolution, and we are confident that our vote has served a positive purpose because of the concern and fears of our friends in this part of the world.

My delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution contained in document S/10932/Rev.2. We consider, however, that the language as it has finally emerged is not sufficiently clear in identifying the type of “coercive measures” against which it is directed. Further, since the group of experts on the operation of multinational corporations, appointed under a recent resolution of the Economic and Social Council [1721 (LIII)], will be submitting its study in due course, we would have preferred language such as that used in paragraph 1 of that resolution, even with some slight revision.

The Soviet delegation, in explaining its vote on this draft resolution [S/10932/ Rev.21, wishes to state the following. 135. We see the basis of this resolution not as an economic but as a political one, The point is that neither the problem of natural resources nor the problem of investments of foreign capital in the economies of the developing countries should be exploited for the purposes of coercion, or, as the resolution says, for the purposes of “the use of any type of coercive measure ?’ This is the essence of the resolution in question, a political resolution. Accordingly, there is no basis for regarding this resolution as an economic one. The economic aspect of these problems-the problems of natural resources and the problems of the baleful consequences of the activities of international monopolies for the development of the economies of the developing countries-will be considered in detail by the Economic and Social Council; they fall within its competence. In the present instance, on the contrary, the question is one of coercion, of coercive measures, which in relations between States are always of a political character, always complicate relations between States and lead to threats to peace and to the danger of breaches of peace. This is the basic essence and the significance of the resolution. 129. However, as we support the principles which underlie this resolution in the context of the maintenance of international peace and security, thus making it a concern of the Security Council, and in a spirit of solidarity with the common objectives which unite all developing countries, we did not wish to move any amendments but voted for the resolution as it stands. But we could not co-sponsor it for the reasons which I have just indicated. 130. In voting for this draft resolution we have not in any manner detracted from the authority or jurisdiction of other apprpriate United Nations organs. For we believe that just as racial discrimination, which is normally under discussion in other United Nations bodies, can bring about a threat to international peace and security and thus has become the concern of the Security Council, as was so movingly pointed out by Ambassador Ogbu /1703rd meeting] this morning, so can economic questions be a concern of the Security Council if it affects international peace and security. In the context of Latin America, we share the view that it does. 136. It was for precisely this reason that the Soviet delegation voted in favour of this text, recognizing its political thrust, ita political basis. All political questions, all questions of peace and security, are questions which fall squarely within the competence of the Security Council. When we,vote for a text concerning the non-use of any kind of coercive measure, we are recalling the resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its twenty-seventh session, with the support of a significant majority of States Members of the United Nations (2936 /XXV.1)], concerning the nonuse of force in international relations. That is why, attaching political significance to the resolution just 131. Mr, ODERO-JOWI (Kenya): My delegation voted for the draft resolution in document S/10932/Rev.2 because we wanted to demonstrate our solidarity with our Latin American brothers. 132, We consulted very extensively with our friends from the Latin American region and we came to understand their very deep feeling and fears over the manner in which some economic pressure is being used, and has been used, to try to get certain concessions, and to obtain compliance with 137. This resolution is a political warning by the Security Council to those States and Governments which may think of taking action to defend or support their own or international monopolies in the event that those monopolies take coercive measures or measures of compulsion against countries defending their own sovereignty over their natural resources, countries taking measures to curb the greed of foreign monopolies and international corporations seeking to plunder the national wealth of the developing countries. That is the political theme of this document. The Council is acting correctly when it refers in the text to a number of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly. This opens the way to and facilitates consideration in the near future of another Assembly resolution. I am thinking of the resolution on the non-use of force in international relations and permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons [ibid,]. IJnder that resolution the Security Council is obliged to consider this most important international political question and, for its own part, to take the appropriate decision. 138. General DE LA FLOR VALLE (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish): I wish to thank, on behalf of the sponsors, the members of the Security Council who voted for the draft resolution introduced by Peru and other countries (S/10932/Rev.2], We also wish to thank the members of the Secudty Council who, in their explanations of vote, have so elequently supported that draft, intended to request that in Latin America all types of coercive measures should end, whether they are imposed by companies or by States, 139. The Council, in adopting this resolution, has met its responsibilities, and that is why the peoples of Latin America who have suffered, are suffering and may suffer the damage from coercive measures have renewed their hope in the United Nations. This resolution will have a vast significance on this continent and beyond any doubt will constitute an effective argument for our just struggle for national liberation and against foreign dependence. 140. In the case of the representatives of the countries which did not support the draft resolution, we would ask them to remember this session of the Security Council as an Unequivocal announcement that in Latin America a firm determination to reject any form of pressure has emerged. We therefore appeal to.them to reconsider their positions so that in the future they will put an end to all measu.res of coercion against Governments and peoples of Latin America, thus ensuring a genuine era of co-operation and peace on our continent.

I am not going to make a further explanation of the vote cast by the Chinese delegation, because during the general debate we have already made clear our position on the two draft resolutions. I should like only to make some comments on the progress of our meetings, 143. The people of Panama and the rest of Latin America are courageous, industrious and intelligent. Through these meetings in Panama, we have personally seen that the Latin American people’s struggles in defence of national independence, sovereignty and national resources and against super-Power aggression, interference, subversion, plunder and control are surging ahead vigorously. The facts show that it was necessary and useful for the Security Council meetings in Panama to concentrate on the discussions of a number of important questions currently facing Latin America and that they have played, and will continue to play, a positive role in the just struggle of the peoples of Panama and the rest of Latin America. Through these meetings, we have also seen a further strengthening of the unity and co-operation among the Asian, African and Latin American countries. The Chinese delegation rejoices at these positive achievements of the meetings. 144. The Chinese people and the people of Latin America are good friends. We have always trusted and supported each other in the struggles against imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism and against the power politics and hegemony practised by the super-Powers. We are convinced that so long as the peoples of Latin America further unite among themselves and further strengthen their unity with the people of the third world countries and all justiceupholding countries and peoples of the world and carry on unremitting struggles, they will certainly win continuous new victories in their own cause. 145. As the Security Council meetings in Panama are about to conclude, I should like to take this opportunity, in the name of the Chinese delegation, to express once again our sincere thanks to the Government and people of Panama for their warm and friendly hospitality and our thanks to the staff members of the United Nations Secretariat and the Panamanian Government who have provided efficient services for our meetings. 146. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish~: Having heard the explanations of vote of those delegations which wished to make them, I would suggest a brief suspension of the meeting, after which we shall conclude the work of this Council and hear a statement by the President. me meeting was suspended at 9.05 p. m and resumed at 9.50 p.m. ii&+. Boyd (Panama) took the Chair. Statement by the President

At the conclusion of the series of meetings of the Security 153. Most representatives expressed the view that the persistence, in any region, of colonialism in any of its forms or manifestations was likely to increase tension; thus, the denial of freedom was to be regarded as a potential threat to world peace. According to their view, the continued existence of colonialism or neo-colonialism interfered seriously with economic development and progress. This situation was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. For those reasons, it was imperative and urgent that the decolonization process in Latin America and elsewhere in the world be accelerated. Some speakers, however, felt that questions of colonialism in Latin America did not necessarily at this stage require the attention of the Security Council. Nevertheless, the general feeling expressed was one of hope that we should soon see the day when colonialism was no longer an issue before the United Nations, once the principles contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) had been applied to the residual colonial situations in Latin America and elsewhere. 148. The Security Council has met between 15 and 21 March 1973 in Panama City in accordance with resolution 325 (1973). During that time it has held 10 meetings devoted to the consideration of measures for the maintenance and strengthening of international peace and security in Latin America in conformity with the provisions and principles of the Charter. 149. The following Member States of the United Nations were invited by the Council, at their request, to participate under the terms of Article 31 of the Charter in the Council’s discussion: 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. In addition, the Council decided to extend invitations under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to ‘the Chairmen of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the Special Committee on Apartheid, as well as to representatives of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab States. 1.54. Special emphasis was placed on the important contribution of the Latin American States to the strengthening of international peace and security through the conclusion of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America. Some delegations noted that for its broadest and most effective implementation this Treaty should enjoy the support of all States which were or might become parties to it or to its two Additional Protocols. In this connexion the view was also expressed that all States should make further efforts to achieve the aim of the effective prohibition of nuclear weapons in Latin America. 155. Many speakers stressed that the problems of economic dependence and domination of the States of Latin America were a grave long-term threat to international peace. Economic dependence had been created by the interpenetration and domination of the area’ by foreign economic interests. Economic no less than military aggression was a violation of the Charter constituting a threat to the peace and security of the area. The growing gap between the industrialized countries and the developing countries constituted one of the most serious threats to the peace of the world. Co-operation among States in their economic relations was significantly inadequate. The poorer nations were struggling to provide the higher standards of living demanded by their peoples within a system which gave the lion’s share of the gains from production to the wealthy nations. Moreover, all nations had a sovereign right to explore, develop and conserve their own natural resources, and any attempt to prevent, directly or indirectly, the full exercise of that right jeopardized the principle of self-determination and non-intervention. It was legitimate for the Latin American nations to desire to become masters of their own wealth and to emancipate themselves from the domination of international corporations. The developing countries were increasingly aware that political indepen- 150. The meetings were attended by the Foreign Ministers of Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guyana, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Venezueh, and the Under- Secretary for External Relations of Chile. 151. At the opening meeting [.2695f/z meeting/ the head of the Government of Panama, General Omar Torrijos, welcomed the members of the Council, all other representatives who had been accredited to the meetings and the Secretary-General and his staff. In his statement General Torrijos presented the views of Panama on the subject on the Council’s agenda, in particular the question of the Panama Canal, A statement was also made by the Secretary- General. 152. In the ensuing general discussion, in which 40 representatives and the Secretary-General took part, the majority of speakers concentrated on a number of issues which they regarded as being closely linked with the 156. Many speakers also strongly criticized the use of coercive measures of various types by some States against others. All States should abide by the principle of the non-use of force in international relations. The speakers further affirmed that all States had the right to develop without foreign interference, such as, for example, economic blockade, trade embargoes, coercive action in international credit organizations, diplomatic pressure, veiled aggression, and so on. There should be no attempt to bring pressure to bear on States, directly or indirectly. An end should be put to the application of coercive measures against the States of Latin America, for they were a violation of the basic principles of the Charter and aggravated the misery of the under-developed peoples. It was necessary to prevent the possibility of coercion by foreign economic and financial interests. One delegation also drew attention to General Assembly resolution 2936 (XXVII), on the non-use of force in international relations and the permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, and to the necessity for the Council to take as soon as possible appropriate measures in accordance with that resolution, In addition, a number of speakers drew the Council’s attention specifically to the dangerous situations in southern Africa and the Middle East, which threatened international peace and security and ought to be remedied. 157. Some delegations pointed out that all coastal States were entitled to determine reasonably the limits of their territorial seas and jurisdiction in accordance with their geographical conditions, taking into account the needs dictated by their security and by national economic interests, and had the right to dispose of their natural resources in their coastal seas, sea-bed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof. That was a sovereign right which all countries should respect. The super-Powers had no right to impose their will on others. 158. Six members of the Council-Guinea, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia-submitted a draft resolution on this subject [S/l 0932/Rev. 21, It urged States to adopt appropriate measures to impede the activities of those enterprises which deliberately attempted to coerce Latin American countries and to refrain from using or encouraging the use of any type of coercive measures against States in the region. That draft resolution (resolution 330 /1973)] was adopted by the Council. 160. One further point raised by some speakers was the inadmissibility of the presence of foreign military baseson the territory of States in Latin America. It was stated lhat those bases could be and indeed had been used for intervention in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries. Their existence, as also the export of amrs to areas of conflict, tended to increase tension in the area. Accordingly, foreign military bases should be removed. Thus a more propitious atmosphere would be created for efforts to find solutions to various problems of concern to the countries and peoples of Latin America. 161. With regard to the question of the Panama Canal, most speakers stressed that every State had an inalienable right to full jurisdiction over all its territory. Therefore, it was essential that all States should abstain from any action likely to impair the national unity and territorial integril~ of any other State. In that respect, it was pointed out that the denial to Panama of its inherent right to full sovereignty and jurisdiction over its entire territory, including the Panama Canal Zone, had been a constant source of tension and consequently was a threat to peace and security in Latin America. In order to remove that threat, it wars essential that Panama’s sovereignty over the Canal Zone should be fully established and that foreign military bsecs should be removed from that area. Almost all speakers held the view that Panama was undoubtedly entitled to use its primary natural resource, namely, its geographical position, to the fullest extent for the benefit of its own economic development. Besides, the present situation in the Ca.nal Zone was in complete violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Same delegations, while expressing their support for the as@- tions of the Panamanian people, stated that the question was essentially a matter for negotiation between the parties principally concerned and that they hoped negotiatims would be resumed and a settlement reached without foreim intervention. They also expressed the hope that the Council’s meetings in Panama would contribute to 0%~ fostering of a climate in which that process of negotiation would move forward. It was further pointed out that a?i solution of the Panama Canal question must be based ~a respect for law and the search for justice and take ingo account the basic principles enshrined in the Charter such as the principle of territorial integrity and the principle Of sovereign equality of all States. Moreover, it should safeguard the principle of freedom of international waterways. 162. On this question a draft resolution [S/l 0931/Re~ JP was submitted by eight members of the Council: G~hea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and 168. Why just the “super-Powers”? Firstly, who claims to be a super-Power? Pasting on alabel does not necessarily mean that the label is correct. That is the interpretation of one country. But supposing that this term is accepted as a formula having an international meaning, why should only the “super-Powers” be prohibited from imposing their will, from using force and coercion? Should great Powers, strong Powers, medium-size Powers which have strength be allowed to impose their will on those weaker than themselves? 163. One final theme I should like to mention that has been frequently alluded to is that of the value which attaches to the holding of meetings of the Security Council from time to time away from the Headquarters of the United Nations, in accordance with the provisions of Article 28, paragraph 3, of the Charter. The presence of the Council in any area, and in particular in the developing regions of the world which look to the United Nations for the protection of their security and the promotion of their development, tends to give the peoples in the area a greater assurance of the Organization’s interest in their problems. On the other hand such meetings put the members of the Council in direct contact with the relevant issues. A point which was repeatedly stressed is that the development of the practice of meeting away from New York is of importance in enhancing the effectiveness of the Council in discharging its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, Some members felt that it was too early to come to any firm conclusion. Others maintained that meetings away from Headquarters also meant that the Council could obtain a better grasp of the concerns and issues vital to a region before a crisis arose and thus were in line with the concept of preventive diplomacy. Thus the Council might be able to use its influence to defuse conflict situations and facilitate the adoption of measures on a bilateral or regional level to provide peaceful solutions to situations which might otherwise endanger international peace and security. Nearly all speakers shared the view that the current series of meetings in Panama was being held in recognition of the great contribution made over the years by the countries of Latin America to the formulation and fulfilment of the aims of the United Nations, The hope was expressed by some speakers that following upon its series of meetings in Africa and now in Latin America the Council would in the future be able to bring its dynamic presence to other regions as well, with a view to enhancing the Council’s capacity to assess the preoccupations and the aspirations of all peoples in the world. 169. In international relations no one, no Power, is permitted to impose its will by force and coercion on other States. That is why the Soviet Union took the initiative and introduced in the General Assembly at its twenty-seventh session a proposal that force should not be used in international relations at all, that no State should impose its will on another and that the use of nuclear weapons should be permanently prohibit.ed. f70. That is our position of principle. No one, no State, had the right to use force against another. We find it regrettable that those who juggle with the meaning of the term “super-Powers” voted against that proposal. That is the tragedy of the situation. I am not proposing that anything should be deleted-leave it in, because it is what one speaker said-but I should like the record to show what I have stated, namely, that no one, no State, may be permitted in our time to use force against other States. I particularly wish to emphasize this.

We have taken note of the statement just made by the representative of the Soviet Union, which will appear in the verbatim record of this meeting. 172. I call on the representative of China in exercise of the right of reply. 173. Mr. I-IUANG Hua (China) (translation~fiom Chinese): In our present world, there are two super-Powers and not only one. This is an undeniable fact. Mr. M&k indicated that there were three super-Powers. I would ask him to point out who? Who has stationed so many troops and established so many military bases on foreign soil? China has not a single soldier and not a single military base on the soil of foreign countries. On this question there are innumerable facts showing that there are in fact two super-Powers, and not only one, in the present world. Sometimes we encounter one super-Power, and sometimes two. That is why we refer to “the one or two super- Powers” in our statements. This is in complete accord with the actual state of affairs. 164. I believe that in this manner I have covered the views expressed during the historic Panama meetings. 165. 1 call on the representative of the Soviet Union on a point of order. 166, Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translation from Russian): With all due respect for the representative of Panama I should like to make one observation. In his summary of the main points of the 176. We have the same great respect for the country in which we are today, the Republic of Panama, and for its concern over the problems which it has raised before the Council. For that reason we have not wanted to divert attention to other problems either during the course of the discussion or now. 177. The question raised by the preceding speaker has nothing whatever to do with the problems we are discussing here.

The next name on the list of speakers is that of the Foreign Minister of Panama, Mr. Juan Antonio Tack, who will address the Security Council on behalf of the National Government. Mr, Tack (Panama) took the Chair.

The National Government has honoured me by entrusting me with the privilege of addressing this final meeting of the Security Council’s series of meetings in Latin America, in Panama City, 180. When Latin America requested that meetings of this high organ should be held in Latin America, it showed great political maturity. We knew in advance that it would be extremely difficult thoroughly to examine all questions, at least those that relate to situations of conflict with certain countries that have a greater military, economic and political potential. What was most important, therefore, was most respectfully to draw your attention, the attention of the countries which you so worthily represent and also the attention of world public opinion to a number of problems of the region which create an underlying state of danger to the peace of the world. 181 I Latin America stood united in supporting our aspirations. We are proud that we belong to a continent that is learning to speak with its own voice, and does so in clear and unequivocal terms. We cannot forget such expressions of solidarity as those that have been included in the records of the Council and those that are now engraved in our national history. 182. When assessing some of the final results, we in no way feel a sense of frustration. We are following a preventive policy instead of one of appeasement, Knowing the causes of the existing conflicts, world public opinion will in due course insist upon solutions. For the man of the world today, in tlhs twentieth century, over and above all seeks to live in peace-peace that will come with full development and with the scrupulous observance of the 183. Distinguished representatives, for six days we have been honoured with your presence. Panama has shown enthusiasm at the fulfilment of the ideal of Bolivar-that this city should become the capital of the world, At least it did SO for six days. We believe that when you recall the moments we have spent together, you will help us to destroy the evil myth created by selfish interests, that here in Panama, our little republic, there is nothing but a canal, surrounded by jungle where, threatening the white pop&. tion that operates the Canal, live some semi-savage natives in a state of pre-Columbian civilization. You have seen the reality to be entirely different. The Panamanian people, our beloved Panamanian people, have earned the tribute of profound and specific respect from us. Our people have shown civic responsibility and have responded, too, to the exhortations of their Government and leader to preserve calm minds and serene behaviour. Our people showed that, even having reached the limits of our patience, we still do not commit acts of desperation. We have only gone one stage further in the lengthy struggle that we Panamanians have been waging since 1903, and that will culminate when we finally receive the full satisfaction of our legitimate aspirations: to perfect the process of our independence through the exercise of jurisdiction of the whole of Panamanian soil and the full exercise of sovereignty over our natural resources. 184. The head of Government of my country, General Omar Torrijos Herrera, very clearly defined the position and the outlines of our foreign policy in the opening statement he made to this Council. Very briefly, may I recall that definition. General Torrijos stated: “Panama understands full well the struggle of peoples that are suffering the humiliation of colonialism, of other peoples that, like us, are suffering restrictions and subjection, of the peoples that refuse to accept the rule of the strong over the weak as a way of life, of those countries that are ready to make whatever sacrifice is necessary in order not to be subjected to the more powerful, of those men that do not allow political power to be exercised by a foreign Government over the territory of their birth, of those generations that are struggle and will continue to struggle to root out from their country the presence of foreign troops placed there without the consent of the occupied nation, of those indigenous inhabitants that do not accept being looked at as inferior specimens or animals, of those who struggle to exploit their own resources for their own benefit and not to underwrite the economy of an overpowering country, of those countries that refuse to be exporters of cheap labour, of those masses of people that pay with their blood to do away with the want, injustice and inequality to which powerful forces, national or foreign, have subjected them because oligarchy knows of no nationality. In a word, colonialism is the prison cell of the free man.” [169Sth meeting, para. 6.1 I85. It is clear that this series of meetings in Panama was short and temporary, but the existence of the United Nations is permanent, as is the existence of this worthy Security Council. We trust that distance will not dilute the interest and the good will that we have witnessed. We would merely offer a timely reminder that any of the problems of the region that have been expounded here are potentially capable of shortening this apparent calm, which the political prophets of the countries interested in the status quo would like to proclaim everlasting. 192, The consensus I have just mentioned reads as follows: “On 26 January 1973, the Security Council adopted resolution 325 (1973) in which it decided to hold meetings in Panama City from 15 to 21 March 1973 devoted to the consideration of measures for the maintenance and strengthening of international peace and security in Latin America in conformity with the provisions and principles of the Charter. 186. I wish to pay a heartfelt tribute of friendship to the Secretary-General, Mr. Kurt Waldheim. I wish, most sincerely, to thank the secretariat staff for the immense and splendid work they have done. “In accordance with that resolution, the Security Council held its 1695th to 1704th meetings in Panama City. During the course of these meetings, the members of the Security Council have listened with great interest to addresses by His Excellency General Omar Torrijos, head of the Government of Panama, by representatives of Member States of the United Nations invited to participate in the Council’s discussions pursuant to Article 31 of the Charter, and by several spokesmen for other United Nations bodies and intergovernmental organizations to whom invitations were extended in accordance with rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure, 187. My people and my Government are profoundly proud of this great moral victory that we have obtained. We are living the hour of national dignity. We shall continue the struggle to achieve our national liberation with the support of the entire world. 188. We wish most warmly to thank the worthy Governments of Peru, Guinea, India, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Kenya, the Sudan, Austria, Australia, France, the Soviet Union and China, which with us raised the 13 hands for world dignity around this table. “Before concluding their meetings in Panama City, the members of the Security Council wish to convey to His Excellency the President of the Republic of Panama and to the head and other members of the Government of Panama their deep gratitude for the invitation issued to the Security Council and for the generous hospitality and unfailing courtesy and helpfulness extended to them at all times during their visit to Panama. They further wish to assure the Government and the people of Panama and in particular the authorities and population of Panama City, that the delegations of the members of the Council who came from New York and all those who accompanied them carry away with them an abiding memory of the warm welcome extended to them. 189. My Government wishes to announce that in due course we shall place the question of the Canal Zone on the agenda of the Security Council. In due course as well we shall place the question on the agenda of the General Assembly. The United States vetoed the draft resolution that supported the Panamanian cause but the whole world vetoed the United States. Statement of consensus expressing gratitude to the host country “In addition, the members of the Security Council express to the Secretary-General of the United Nations their sincere appreciation for the outstanding contribution made by him and his staff to ensure a smooth and efficient functioning of the services required for the meetings of the Council.” 190, Mrs, Jeanne Martin CISSE (Guinea) (interpretation from French): I think the time has come to make a statement on behalf of the members of the Council, who would like to express their gratitude to the country that was kind enough to welcome the Security Council to its territory for a series of meetings of the utmost importance. The members of the Council have consulted together as to the form their expression of gratitude should take and in accordance with. the practice followed last year when the Council met in Addis Ababa, they have agreed on a statement of consensus which will appear in the verbatim record of this meeting of the Council and will also be

1 declare closed the first series of meetings of the Security Council in Latin America. The meeting rose at 10.50 pa m HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLXCATIONS 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 Unios sont en vente dans les librairies et les ngences deposit&es du monde entior. Informez-vous aupres de votre libraire ou adressez-vous b : Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou Geneve. FCAK IlOJWURTb ZI3AAHIIR OlTAHU3A4UN OIS’bEANHEHHhKX HAIUfR COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicsciones de las Naciones Unidas estin en venta en librerfas y casaa distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirfjase a: Naciones Unidas, Section de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Lltho in Unlted Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 2.00 (or equivalent in other currencies) 73.82101-April 1976-1,921~