S/PV.2431 Security Council

(interpretation from French): I should like to inform Council members that I have received letters from the representatives of Grenada, Honduras, Mexico and the Syrian Arab Republic, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. Present: The representatives of the following States: China, France, Guyana, Jordan, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Poland, Togo, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Zaire, Zimbabwe. Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/2431) 1. Adoption of the agenda, At the invitation of the President, Mr. Ortez Colindres (Honduras) took a place at the Council table. Mr. Taylor (Grenada), Mr. Muiloz Ledo (Mexico) and Mr. El-Fattal (Syrian Arab Republic) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. 2. Letter dated 5 May 1983 from the representative of Nicaragua on the Security Council addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/15746). The meeting was called to order at 11.25 a.m.

(interpretation from French): The Security Council will now begin consideration of the main item on its agenda. It is meeting today in response to the request from Nicaragua submitted in a letter dated 5 May. Members of the Council have before them the following documents containing texts of letters addressed to the President of the Security Council: S/15742, with a letter dated 2 May from the Deputy Minister for External Relations of Nicaragua; S/15745, with a letter dated 4 May from the representative of Honduras; and S/15749, with a letter dated 6 May from the representative of Costa Rica. Statement by the President

(interpretation from French): At the outset of our work, I should like on behalf of the Security Council to extend a warm welcome to the Minister for External Relations of Nicaragua, Mr. Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, who is with us today in this chamber. 2. On behalf of the Council, I should also like to extend profound gratitude to Mrs. Jeane Kirkpatrick, the representative of the United States, who presided over the Council during the month of April. Mrs. Kirkpatrick, a teacher for many years, conducted the work of the Council with great ability and great diplomatic skill. 6. The first speaker is the Minister for External Relations of Nicaragua, Mr. Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, on whom I now call. 3. Personally speaking, I hope I can reply on the cooperation of all members so that I may discharge the delicate mission entrusted to me. President Mobutu, when accrediting me to the United Nations, requested me to make a positive contribution-in the first place, as a national of Zaire, then as an African and finally as representative of a non-aligned State-to the building of an international order based on greater justice and greater peace, and where a better life can be had. 7. Mr. D’ESCOTO BROCKMANN (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish): Mr. President, allow me first of all to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month, Your vast experience as a distinguished statesman of your country and, in particular, your experience as representative of Zaire and as Minister for Foreign Affairs guarantee that you will conduct the work with wisdom and fulfil the responsibilities that you now assume. Adoption of the agenda 8. Once again we are obliged to come before this body in order to inform its members of the ever-increasing magnitude of the aggression against Nicaragua and of the grave and ever-increasing damage, suffering, death and destruction that that aggression is producing in my country. The agenda was adopted. Letter dated 5 May 1983 from the representative of Nicaragua on the Security Council addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/15746) 10. Today, at a time when my country is the victim of an invasion which began in late 1982 and involves thousands of soldiers, mainly former members of the genocidal Somozist National Guard, an invasion which has caused the death of more than 500 Nicaraguan compatriots in the first few months of this year, an invasion which, as long as it continues to be directed, financed and armed by the Reagan Administration, will continue to kill, spreading terror and anguish among our people and inflicting ever greater material damage on our impoverished and destroyed country. At a time such as this and in these circumstances we come to say that we want peace, that we need peace, that our people and our Government demand peace and the cessation of the unjustifiable and criminal aggression of which we are victims. 11. We have come here today, as in March 1982 and March 1983, to appeal for respect for the sacred principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign States. We are here to insist on the need and obligation to initiate a dialogue for the purpose of airing differences between countries and Governments and, if the possibilities of obtaining satisfaction by means of direct dialogue should appear to be exhausted, to resort to the Council; but in no case should States Members of the Organization, however large, rich or powerful, be allowed to resort to the use of force as a means of imposing their will. Every country, no matter how small, has the same right to be respected. 12. When we first brought our case to the Council, on 2 April 1982 [2347lh meeting], the Latin American members of the Council-Panama and Guyanaintroduced a draft resolution [S/1494I] reminding all States of their obligations under the Charter, Of the 15 member States of the Council, 12 voted in favour and two abstained. As you will recall, Sir, the United States vetoed the draft resolution. This action was, with full justification, deplored by the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries at the Ministerial Meeting of its Co-ordinating Bureau held at Havana from 31 Ma.y to 5 June 1982. 13. Only six weeks ago, when the threat materialized, we were compelled to appear once again before the Council [242&h meeting] to denounce the massive invasion of Nicaragua organized, financed, armed and directed by a great Power which arrogates to itself a right which belongs exclusively and solely to our people, that of 14. We repeat that in the first few months of this year this policy of aggression against Nicaragua has already caused the death of more than 500 Nicaraguan compatriots. Our Government has recently calculated the material damage, the delays in development projects and the lost income caused by the invasion at 58 1;4 million cordobas. Of that amount, material damage amounts to 113.4 million cordobas and includes the destruction of machinery and equipment, plants, schools and health centres, as welf as the destruction of 143 vehicles. There have been delays in projects and programmes amounting to 119.8 million cordobas. Production damage amounts to 244.2 million cordobas. Lost income is calculated at 104 million cordobas, constituting only a partial amount, The total is actually much larger because, obviously, the shifting of workers to defence tasks, the destruction of production resources and the costs of replacing equipment all imply new imports and the shrinking of exports. 15. To economic destruction we must add the military aggression we denounced in our previous appearance. We should point out that in April alone there were 12 naval acts of aggression, two of them carried out by United States frigates, the FF-1072 Bhkely and the FF-6 Jdius Furer. Last month there were also 17 armed incursions, including 13 attacks on horder posts, culminating in the massive invasion from Honduran territory of some 1,200 Somozist guardsmen on 30 April, that is, three days after President Reagan’s speech to the joint session of Congress. 16. These invading forces were driven back and fled to their sanctuary in Honduran territory, where they have regrouped and form part of more than 2,000 Somozist freedom fighters, as President Reagan has dubbed the criminals who are ready to launch another invasion. Furthermore there are at this very moment another 2,000 mercenaries ready and awaiting only the order to invade the area of Zelaya Norte, also from Honduran territory. 17. The declaration that the United States is waging a war against Nicaragua cannot be taken as a figure Of speech, much less as provocative rhetoric. The war that the Reagan Administration is waging against Nicaragua is no less real for not having been officially declared, and it does not cease to be a Reagan Administration war because the combatants are not thus far regular troops of the United States Army. From the moment the United States Government organized armed aggression against our country, training, financing, arming and directing the “Somozist freedom fighters”, this could not be considered as anything but a war by the United States against our nation. 19, According to this information that command structure has as its “brain” a corps made up entirely of Americans, experts of the Central Intelligence Agency and representatives of the Southern Command of the United States Army based in the Panama Canal Zone. The responsibility of this general staff is to transmit orders to a second general staff made up principally of officers of the Honduran army which, in turn, passes on the orders to a third general staff composed of officers of the Somozist National Guard. “The Ministers specifically denounced the systematic attacks being carried out against Nicaragua from across its northern border by armed bands of former members of Somoza National Guard, They noted that these actions formed part of a deliberated Plan to harass and destabilize Nicaragua, as was publicly admitted by a foreign Power.” [~/156,?8, anne.~, paras. 36 and 37.1 23. TWO months later, the Seventh Conference of Heads of .State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, which met at New Delhi from 7 to 12 March, made an additional appeal for an end to all hostile acts against Nicaragua and urged the Governments of the United States and Honduras to adopt a constructive position for peace and dialogue. 20. According to the same United States media-most recently Time magazine’s issue of 4 April-the coordinator of the activities of these different general staffs is none other than John Negroponte, United States Ambassador to Honduras, sadly remembered for his role in the illegal, unjust and equally undeclared war of the United States against the peoples of Indo-China. 24. The American people are aware of the war that the Reagan Administration is waging against Nicaragua and reject it, The 2 May edition of Newsweek quotes Representative Clarence Long, Democrat of Maryland, as saying: “It got a thousand letters in a one-month period. Only seven were supportive of the President’s policies” on Central America. 21. The 2 May edition of the weekly U.S. News and World Report publishes the thoughts of several American legislators regarding what the Reagan Administration is doing against Nicaragua. According to that magazine, Representative Berkley Bedell, Democrat of Iowa, declared: “I returned from my recent trip to Nicaragua with three strong beliefs. First, what we are doing is morally wrong. These counter-revolutionaries are led by the security guard of Somoza. They were guilty of atrocities during the Somoza regime. Now they are sweeping through the countryside of Nicaragua, kidnapping and murdering innocent civilians. . . 25. A poll conducted by the prestigious The Harris survey, published on 5 May, revealed that “despite President Reagan’s unusual action in addressing a joint session of Congress . . , a sizable majority of Americans oppose the President’s policies in Central America”. The survey, conducted nationally between 29 April-that is, only two days after President Reagan’s speech-and 1 May, showed that 64 per cent Of the POpUlation opposes and only 31 per cent is in favour of the Administration’s Central American policy, Louis Harris, who conducted the study, said this rating must be considered a “solid rejection” of a policy viewed as militaristic and with few prospects of success. Fearing a total loss of’ credibility in the eyes of its own people, the Reagan Administration llas chosen to shield itself behind a supposed governmental practice of neither confirming nor denying the existence of covert actions against other States. None the less, in the face of persistent charges that the Reagan Administration is directing and financing the aggression against the legitimate Government of Nicaragua, they have had to make ever more explicit admissions of the undeniable “Secondly, what we’re doing is pragmatically wrong. We’re giving the Government of Nicaragua an excuse for some of its economic difficulties. . 1 “Finally, I think it is legally wrong. The President is violating the law of the land and is not abiding by the treaties to which the United States is a party.” 22. The Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries, held at Managua from 10 to 14 January 1983, one of the sessions with the greatest high-level participation in the history of our Movement, denounced the United States Policy towards Nicaragua in the following terms: reality, It is to this, obviously, that The New York Times 26. The confessions and statements by President Reagan in his 4 May news conference and his speech before Congress the week before would have sufficed to make us request this meeting of the Security Council, because, to us and to anyone with common sense, they constitute a genuine declaration of war by the Reagan Administration and a clear indication that they intend to continue violating the most basic norms of international law upon which relations between sovereign States must be based. 27. In any event, those statements only corroborate the suffering, destruction and death experienced by our invaded nation. 28. Let us reflect, colleagues of the Council, upon whether we are willing to accept President Reagan’s giving the United States the right to proclaim as illegitimate those Governments which he does not like and proceed to overthrow them. This-which The Washington Post calls the “Reagan Doctrine”-is what constitutes the greatest threat and the greatest danger to international peace and security. 29. I do not wish to go on at length asking representatives to analyse the absurd claim by the Reagan Administration that it is not really trying to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua. A short time ago we were visited by United States Congressmen, and in the course of talks with the head of State at which I was present a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence asked, “Why are you concerned at an invasion that involves some 7,500 armed men? Are you so weak, so fragile, that you think that is enough to overthrow you?” And, without our saying anything, he, on his own initiative said, “Why should you be concerned if the Honduran army were involved? Are you not able to defend yourselves? ” I think the cynicism of such statements requires no further commentary on my part, 30. I said that I did not want to take up too much time in an analysis of the absurd claim by the Reagan Administration that it is really not breaking any law, because it is really not attempting to overthrow the Nicaraguan Government. Allow me simply to call the Council’s attention to a statement made by Congressman Jim Leach, Republican from Iowa, which was published in the 2 May edition of U.S. News and World Report: “The Administration is now saying it’s not our programme to overthrow the Nicaraguan Government, although it may be the goal of the particular groups we are assisting. To accept that sophistry is to accept the notion of a tooth fairy.” 32. With respect to the consequences, I wish also to warn the international community about the undeniable fact that, to the extent that the Government of the United States continues to use some States of the region and to affect the neutrality of others in order to attack Nicaragua, the danger of regionalizing the war increases. 33, Instead of stubbornly pursuing a policy towards Central America which the majority of Latin American and European Governments have judged to be wrong and based on false premises, the Reagan Administration would do well to support the efforts undertaken by the countries of the Contadora Group, efforts which continue to be the principal Latin American initiative in search of peace in Central America. Nicaragua is working, and will continue to work, to strengthen this initiative. 34. Our objective in bringing before the Council the case of the war which the Government of the United States is waging against Nicaragua-a State member of the Council-is, in the first place and in fulfilment of its primary responsibility, that it should adopt all necessary measures within the broad framework of its mandate to halt this aggression, which is cruel and unjustifiable from every point of view. 35. In his report on the work of the Organization’ presented to the General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session, the Secretary-General told us: “The Security Council, the primary organ of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security, all too often finds itself unable to take decisive action to resolve international conflicts and its resolutions are increasingly defied or ignored by those that feel themselves strong enough to do so.” And he added: “It seems to me that our most urgent goal is to reconstruct the Charter concept of collective action for peace and security so as to render the United Nations more capable of carrying out its primary function.” The Secretary-General also referred to the lack of an effective system of collective security and noted that without such a system the small and weak will have no defence or secure refuge. 36. As a member of the Council, Nicaragua has pondered very seriously the continuing relevance of the Secretary-General’s words. 43. We reiterate once again our willingness to hold an immediate, unconditional dialogue with the United States Government, at an appropriate level, in order to find genuine solutions to the critical situation caused by the United States aggression against our country. 44. We feel that we have been sufficiently clear as to our objectives in requesting a meeting of the Council. We have come in search of peace before those with the highest responsibility on Earth for safeguarding international peace and security. We have not come looking for condemnation; rather, we have come in search of peace. We have come in the hope that all the Members of the Organization, whatever their size or strength, will take account of the inescapable obligation to respect the basic principles of the Charter. 38. I think we must express our gratitude to the Secretary-General for his availability and his well-known interest in the search for mechanisms leading to peaceful solutions, for his offer of good offices, and for his sincere desire to co-operate in attaining the peace which our peoples rightfully demand. 39. The Council must recognize that any solution to the situation facing my country today must have as its logical and fundamental prerequisites: the unconditional withdrawal of the genocidal forces sent into our country by the United States; an end to the border attacks from Honduran territory which the United States directs and finances; the permanent withdrawal of United States warships from our territorial waters; a halt to the flights of spy-planes over our nation; and an end to the participation of the United States intelligence community in the financing, organizing and directing of overt or covert forces or plans against Nicaragua. 45. We have not come here to engage in recriminations or to seek compensation for damage. We do not know how one could bring back to life all our Nicaraguan brothers and sisters who have fallen victim to the murderous bullets of the Somozists, who are spreading terror in our homeland and who at this very moment are killing our heroic border guards, peasants, students, technicians and doctors-Nicaraguans and foreigners alike-as well as members of our glorious Sandinist People’s Army, the reservists and militiamen. 40. We should like from this forum to address the great Power that is attacking us today, as it has done so many times in our history, and that is trying to limit our right to self-determination. We believe that the United States should direct its great influence towards attaining peace, not towards making war against countries like Nicaragua, which are devoted solely and exclusively to eradicating injustice and transforming obsolete political, social and economic structures that have oppressed our people for centuries and denied them the right to seek a dignified life. In other words, the United States must put an end to its aggressive policies against Nicaragua, a country that seeks only to promote peace and that, for that very reason, is working to carry out the far-reaching changes required by justice, in the conviction that without justice, peace is an unattainable illusion. 46. We have come before the Council to respond to aggression and death with an invitation to frank and constructive dialogue. We abhor war; we cherish peace. What is the response of my Security Council colleagues?

The next speaker is the representative of Honduras, on whom I now call.

Sir, it is extremely gratifying that a statesman of your calibre has assumed the presidency of the Security Council. Your country, Zaire, maintains equidistant and objective positions, which, we hope and trust, will be reflected in your actions. In the past three months the meetings of the Council with regard to the matter of Nicaragua have been guided by brilliant diplomats-Mr. Thomson of the United Kingdom, Mrs. Kirkpatrick of the United States and now Mr. Umba di Lutete, and with all three Honduras has felt secure in the knowledge that the Council is acting with international probity. 41. We wish to appeal to the United States to direct its ability to influence towards negotiated, political solutions instead of always choosing military measures. 42. Lastly, we call on the United States to understand that it is making an historical error by trying to explain the political upheaval in several Central American countries in terms of East-West tensions. We suggest that the United States think about what the statesmen of the Americas and Europe have been impressing on it with increasing urgency: that the Central American crisis stems basically from the historical postponement of 49. The Government of Honduras, which feels that it has been referred to in the words of the Minister for External Relations of Nicaragua, the Reverend Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, wishes to take this opportunity to make the following statement. 51. In making this statement through me, the Government of Honduras wishes first to express its gratitude to the Council for having made it possible, in an act of international fairness, for us to ascertain the scope and details of the situation, This convening of the Council is extremely important not only for Honduras or Nicaragua but for Central America as a whole and the entire American continent. It will certainly also have implications for other countries of the world in the matter of international relations, especially if one takes into account the seriousness of the accusations and the mistaken approach on which they are based. 52. We do not believe that the members of this highest body of the United Nations could be so underestimated as to be considered nai’ve to the point that they will not look into all the information provided so as to distinguish, among all the rubbish, what is true and what is false and get down to the very crux of the problem of what is now taking place in Central America. 53. In 1979, after a long dictatorship, the people of Nicaragua, with the direct support of some fraternal countries of Latin America and with the moral support of most of the international community, in a long bloody struggle managed to overthrow General Anastasio Somoza Debayle. Peoples usually band together against injustice; that is why Governments and forces of different systems arrived at the minimum common denominator: to allow the people of Nicaragua to establish a new system of institutional life. 54, It was precisely on 17 July 1979 that the Sandinist National Liberation Front, assuming power in the Republic, made to the Organization of American States (OAS) a solemn pledge to carry out a plan to guarantee peace in Nicaragua on the basis of the resolution of the Seventeenth Consultative Meeting of 23 June 1979- which remains in force-which on that occasion appealed for hemispheric solidarity in order to uphold the right of the Nicaraguan people to self-determination, 55. At that time the competent organ for Nicaragua, considered as the useful forum and instrument for its political consolidation internally and internationally, was the OAS. Before that body they pledged themselves, among other things, first, to establish full respect for human rights in Nicaragua in accordance with the IJniversal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose, 56. That aforementioned pledge, which was transmitted to the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the States members of the OAS, has today become mere words-words-mere words. 57. But that is not enough for those who count up figures in computers: those promises were made four years ago. None the less, the fraternal people of Nicaragua, who are today suffering a totalitarian Government maintained by force and in a state of political and social decomposition, have been counting not only the years but the months, weeks, and days; they have been marking on the fingers of their hands, just as peasants in Central America count, the dates on which they hope to see those promises fulfilled and that much-promised national salvation become a reality. 58. To the Government of Nicaragua the OAS is no longer the proper continental body to deal with differences between fraternal nations; it prefers other forumsextracontinental forums, where there is not the same degree of solidarity-for the airing of its disputes. Is it out of some fear of the commitment it has made to the American continent that it takes this attitude? 59. Nicaragua is now avoiding regional discussions of solutions in Central America, discussions which it had been carrying on since 1821, when the five Central American countries achieved independence from the Spanish Crown. Today the Sandinist Government, instead of paying tribute to Ruben Dario and Francisco Moradn, is paying tribute to Marx and Lenin and-as it has a right to do-is choosing a new system of values in the conduct of its public affairs. And it is doing so behind the backs of its people, preventing them from expressing their will at the polls, as had been promised, so that they might choose the system of government under which they wish to live. Is this not because it knows that the people would never freely choose to turn their backs on democracy? 60. Once again Nicaragua-in the calm words of its Minister-has, from its own standpoint, levelled a series of accusations against my country which, in our opinion, reflect a deliberately two-fold approach--a very different approach-to reality in considering the responsibilities of our respective Governments. 67. Nicaragua has made accusations in which it has attempted to implicate our country by clamoring about the northern border; our armed forces have been accused, on the international wire services and in communiques of all types, of deploying troops on the border with Nicaragua and of conducting military mobilization in different border areas, as though our army were participating in aggression against Nicaragua. Honduras has been living up to the promise it made to the Council when Sir John Thomson was Council President. At that time, upon specific instructions, we gave categorical assurances that any movement of my country’s troops would not be across the border to commit aggression; rather, such a mobilization would be aimed solely and exclusively at protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Honduras-a categorical imperative established in the Constitution of our Republic. 62. On the contrary, the Sandinist Government finds it totally normal to have in its territory more than 6,000 foreign experts from Cuba, East Germany, Libya, the Soviet Union and other countries of the same bloc who, in the guise of doctors, teachers, agricultural and industrial experts whose “beneficent actions” are well known in countries such as Ethiopia and Angola, are engaged in other kinds of training and reinforcing. 63. Similarly, Nicaragua considers it an act of aggression or an intimidation of its interests that Honduras should welcome a head of State of a friendly nation, that is, President Reagan of the United States. On the other hand, Honduras, maintaining respect for international traditions, objectively avoids making such accusations when Nicaragua is visited by heads of State and highlevel officials such as the Prime Minister of Cuba, Fidel Castro. There we see a very different scale of values. 6X. Honduras wishes to point out to the Council that Nicaragua has not presented any clear evidence to prove the allegations-made on radio, television and in the Council-of participation of the Honduran army in the acts of aggression attributed to it. We would point out that we have responded to all those allegations specifically from time to time, and notification has been sent to the competent international bodies-the OAS and the United Nations, At the same time, it must be noted that our country has a voluminous list of violations of our own sovereignty and territorial integrity by Nicaragua. These problems could be resolved once and for all if the proposal made publicly by our country last November were accepted. That proposal called for international supervision and monitoring, not only of the border but also of strategic areas, such as ports, airports, military zones and training schools, making it possible to see exactly who is promoting this climate, who is logistically and materially sponsoring and supporting subversion in Central American territory. I would ask the representative of Nicaragua why his Government does not accept the international observation and supervision proposed repeatedly by Honduras in all the afore-mentioned areas. 64. In this meeting urgently requested by Nicaragua, my Government is accused of an alleged new stage of invasion on the part of Somozist troops from Honduras. This is a new fallacy which should come as no surprise to the members of the Council or to those who are aware of the reality in Nicaragua. At the present time in that fraternal country fighting is going on along the northern border with Honduras, on the southern border with Costa Rica, and in the central part of Nicaraguan territory, more than 150 kilometres from our border. Those who are fighting-we repeat-are Nicaraguans on Nicaraguan territory trying to obtain justice, through a national insurgency, against a Government, the Sandinist Government, that promised them free elections, a pluralist government, a mixed economy and freedom of religion and conscience, and who do not accept the type of government that is being supported behind the backs of the people. 65. That people of Nicaragua, among whom I have been many times and among whom I have family, have demonstrated their iron-clad resolve to take a new path in history. The members of the Council may be sure that they will never turn their backs on democracy if they are allowed freely to decide their own destiny-democracya system deeply rooted in the heart of American traditions that was defended by our forefathers such as Bolivar, Josh: Cecilio de1 Valle, and Father Hidalgo, to mention oniy three of our heroes on the American continent. 69. Let us, meanwhile, Iook at the other side of the coin. Not everything is sweetness and light in this world of upheaval. Nicaragua, with its dual policy, is presenting two positions which must be separated, disentangled, and examined, because the world is complex. It is not in an air-conditioned room such as this that the destiny of the world can be decided or that the lives being taken at this moment can be saved. While we find ourselves here, 70. We are going to present evidence of that quiet and modest policy, presented in the voice of a priest, a friend of mine, a man of deep academic learning and enormous speaking ability. But it is also possible, equally quietly, to see things from a different perspective. 71. At present Nicaragua has the following forces. I think it would be well to make a comparison. When Nicaragua was saying that some members of the United States Congress had gone to Nicaragua and asked: “Are you able to defend yourselves against Honduras?” I thought he was going to say, “Can you defend yourselves against the United States?“or against-let us say- Afghanistan, or another Power. But no-it was a question of their “defending themselves against Honduras”. Nicaragua has a Sandinist People’s Army of 25,000 welltrained regular troops, a people’s militia of 40,000 troops 40,000 people in active reserves, a Sandinist air force of 2,000 persons, a Sandinist navy of 2,000 persons, a Ministry of the Interior comprising 10,000 persons. These figures contrast with Honduran military power, which numbers only 17,000 men in its armed forces, including the police forces of the country. 72. The conservatively derived figures for Nicaragua’s military growth I have cited force the conclusion that Nicaragua today has power superior to the combined power of the forces of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. And that is not all. With that power, Nicaragua has publicly stated that its objective is to have 200,000 people under arms-in other words, 10 per cent of the country’s total population. 73. If we break down the list of military equipment, so as not to speak only of the two American ships going through territorial waters, Nicaragua has four battalions of long-range heavy artillery of Soviet manufacture equipped with 152-mm guns and multiple 122-mm UM- 21 guns. Nicaragua also has two battalions of T55-type heavy tanks and one battalion of light-weight tanks, two battalions of anti-aircraft artillery with multiple guns, two battalions of UTR60 armoured vehicles for troop transport and 850 troop transport trucks of East German manufacture, and in addition it currently has four airstrips able to receive high-technology aircraft and is preparing to improve them, equipping them to be able to handle MiG-type aircraft, while Honduras, for its part, has nothing that can compare to this list. 74. Our armed forces comprise only one battalion of light-weight tanks and some outdated transport equipment, which renders impossible any parity of forces. All of Nicaragua’s armament is reinforced by specialized advisers, who also train the subversive movements operating in the region. This is another principle of duality: 75. As regards troop mobilization, since we are talking about peace, Nicaragua is the one that recently had such a mobilization. We would specifically point to the mobilization effected in Chinandega involving 3,000 troops, including tanks and artillery, to strengthen its contingents in that sector. Nicaragua has quartered troops in the areas bordering on my country-which requires vigilance on our part-made up of the following military forces: a great number of battalions in the areas bordering Choluteca, El Paraiso, the Mosquitia region and the department of Gracias a Dios. 76. So that the Council can have a clear idea of the accusations and can maintain an open mind and heart in regard to the problem, we should consider the entire context of the problem: what is the reason for this troop deployment? Is it designed to prevent an alleged incursion from Honduran territory by those “1500 Somozists”? 77. It is worth while drawing the Council’s attention to the fact that Honduras’ budget for its armed forces and defence is $47 millon, a figure which in the past three years has increased by barely five per cent. 78. On the other side of the coin, Nicaragua devotes about $130 million to its war effort. We have information that it receives a larger amount in terms of equipment and weapons from countries that share its Marxist ideas. No one can deny that a few days ago Brazil confiscated 100 tons of weapons and explosives that were being transported in four Libyan planes that landed in its territory and that Nicaragua itself acknowledged here in this Secretariat that they were intended for it, nor that Cuban boats are unloading large quantities of war material in the rivers at Rama and at Bluff on the Atlantic coast, nor that Costa Rica has announced the detention of a boat carrying weapons and dynamite. Recently Colombia, one of the countries of the Contadora Group, had to refuse to allow other planes carrying arms to Nicaragua to cross its territory. 79, All this clearly indicates who is intent on continuing a wanton arms race which constitutes a danger not only for my country but for the whole Central American region. Members of the Council will see whether or not it becomes a danger to the American continent. To this I should like to add that my delegation has just received information that four other DC-10 aircraft are leaving Libya in another attempt to flood our region with a huge quantity of war material. We know the routes; permission has been requested. 80. However, Nicaragua has systematically refused to discuss the Honduran proposal to achieve general dis- 83. Honduras feels compelled to insist that the problem of the communicating vessels in Central America can only be solved in a civilized way-and we are in agreement on this-through regional dialogue. In its view this must be guided by a genuine Central American peaceloving spirit at the level most suitable for beginning that dialogue. For us such a dialogue is a dialogue among the five foreign ministries of the Central American countries. That is where we can analyse, debate and solve all the problems, not by looking at the interests of just one country, but by seeing the problem as pertaining to the whole region and, of course, by considering all interests within a global context. In such a dialogue aspects may arise that need bilateral solutions. Let us be clear; let us discuss them; let them complement this serious and responsible understanding in Central America. We are not running away from bilateral dialogue. 81. The Government of Nicaragua-the Sandinist Government-is not just arming itself out of all proportion or just making aggressive statements; it has also carried out a clearly interventionist policy in neighbouring States by promoting the traffic in weapons. I have seen them; I have witnessed them; they exist. If members would like to see the masses of photographs we can circulate them, but we do not wish to involve the Secretary- General in more expense. We are trying to avoid superfluous expenditure. Interventionism is a risky business. As well as the traffic in weapons, terrorism and subversive movements exist in the region, and this is conducive not to peace, which is what we are appealing for now, but to the maintenance of a climate of tension and violence in Central America. In this respect Honduras must declare its readiness to exercise its sovereign and legitimate right to defend its democratic system of life, which derives from free elections and is supported by our authorities’ respect for public freedoms and for the free expression of our people, where there is free expression of thought and respect for freedom of religious beliefs and for free association. 84. In line with this thinking, our Foreign Minister, Mr. Edgardo Paz Barnica, made a dramatic appeal for peace to the OAS, calling on it to recommend to Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua that, with the help of other Latin American countries, their Foreign Ministers meet in order rapidly to seek such an agreement. 85. It should be noted that the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States has before it a draft resolution put forward by Honduras, in the sense already indicated, and Colombia, on its own behalf and on behalf of Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, countries that constitute what is called the Contadora Group, requested suspension of the discussion of the item in order to allow the Foreign Ministers of the Contadora Group countries to initiate their own moves with the five Central American countries in order to identify possibilities for resolving the serious crisis in the area. The delegation of Honduras then accepted the fraternal initiative of the Contadora Group and Nicaragua did so too, thus committing themselves before that regional body not to take steps in the United Nations so that the negotiations of those friendly Contadora countries could proceed. 82. The international community must understand, analyse and reaIize that there are different facets to every situation. Let us not be swayed by smooth talk, because we diplomats are skilled at that sort of thing. We put on a show; we are skilled in the art of persuasion. They have even changed their spokesmen because their words sound sweeter today, None the less, we continue to assert that the concerns and problems afflicting the Government of Nicaragua are basically internal problems. Those problems that are being fought over today arise from the growing opposition of the Nicaraguan people due to unfulfilled promises that have led to an armed struggle 86. The nkgotiations have progressed with admirable dedication to the cause of peace. They are continuing without any obstacle of any sort being set up by my 87. In their preliminary conclusions the Ministers of the Contadora Group identified the serious problems affecting the Central American region. Those Ministers are more aware than any of us of the situation because they have been travelling recently through the region and talking with leaders of the armed forces, with Presidents of the Republics and with everyone who is really well informed. They are getting their information first hand, not from the press or from campaigns of distortion. The Contadora Group has identified as Central American problems the following:, the arms race, arms control and reduction, the traffic in weapons, the presence of military advisers and other forms of military assistance from outside, actions aimed at destabilizing the internal order of States, verbal threats and aggression, military incidents and border tensions and, as a priority concern, the violation of human rights and individual and social guarantees, as well as serious problems of an economic and social nature that underlie the crisis that affects the region. 88. We cannot deny that in some places our peoplesour Indians-have a greater capacity for corruption and fewer prospects than they did when Christopher Columbus set foot on our shores, because instead of pulque they now drink rum, and some of them drink whiskey. 89. I have already explained the position of Honduras on the various topics under discussion, but in order that the Council may see things in their proper context, I should like to clarify some basic aspects. We wish to state once again, in line with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the OAS, that my country would be prepared, together with the other Central American countries, to conclude serious and responsible agreements guaranteeing that none of those countries will take any action to destabilize the internal order of other States. Honduras also declares its readiness to co-operate in finding a solution to the grave economic problems, which we cannot ignore, and the social problems that are also part of the crisis affecting our region, 90. It must be pointed out that in the sensitive area of human rights-for sometimes those of us who do not suffer forget about those people who are at this very moment suffering in this regard-Nicaragua has been increasing its repressive actions against its ethnic minorities, the Miskito, Sumo and Rama tribes, uprooting them from their regions and creating a mass exodus into Honduras, thus aggravating the food problem at a time when my country has a very high unemployment rate, and we continue to accept hordes of peoples seeking humanitarian refuge. 92. Following this analysis, which I consider to be of international importance, it is fitting to ask, with all due respect: What is Nicaragua really seeking by calling for this urgent meeting, in violation of the gentlemen’s agreement we reached in the OAS? My delegation can find no justification for this-nothing but words, words and more words-unless the purpose is to cast a smokescreen around the actions of its own Government aimed at destabilizing Central America. While we are here, I repeat, in this air-conditioned environment, vast quantities of weapons and explosives are being moved into the region. 93. In the face of the grave problem created in the region by those actions, my country believes that we must take urgent action and that such action must be aimed first of all at not undermining the effort being made by the Governments of the Contadora Group with the consent of the OAS Permanent Council. Why should we circumvent them, when a short while ago we were telling them at the presidential level that they could count upon our support in opening up a dialogue? And while they are flying in one direction, we are flying in another; some fly high and others fly low, In the face of this grave problem my delegation would, with all due respect, suggest to the Council that, following the guidelines of the charter of the regional organization, the OAS, and the Charter of this world Organization, the United Nations, the subject should, in the first instance, be further pursued in the OAS if the peace-making efforts of the Contadora Group should prove fruitless. At the present time this Group has the unanimous backing of the OAS Permanent Council. 94. Let us await the results, and, with the understanding that civilized dialogue is the best method for solving problems between nations, this Council should recommend that Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica should begin, at the foreign ministers level and with the presence and collaboration of other Latin American countries concerned about this situation, the keenly desired dialogue that will cover regional problems as a whole and lead to serious, responsible agreements that can provide a solution to the grave problems of Central America. 102. The United States does not invade small countries on its borders. We do not have 100,000 occupation troops in any country in the world-least of all on our borders, Our neighbours need have no such concerns. 96. Logically, we do not exclude the possibility that within that regional dialogue the bilateral dialogue suggested by Nicaragua may be opened and that we can proceed to discuss all the solutions to those aspects of Central America’s problems, without restrictions, but also without limiting ourselves to two countries. This is not a bilateral problem between Honduras and Nicaragua. The weapons that are intended to overthrow the Government of El Salvador are moving through my territory. I do not want continually to cite newspapers, but I am going to quote from The New York Times of yesterday, in which there was an indication that weapons have been moving through my country towards El Salvador by eight routes, and that at the same time they are being routed around it through the Strait of Jiquilisco or the Gulf of Fonseca. We believe that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and you know that in the United States there are both geese and ganders in this struggle. 103. However, since the representative of Nicaragua has relied so heavily on American media this morning in his presentation to the Council, I thought that the record ought to be set a bit straight and that I might have recourse as well to some American media concerning events in Central America-for example, the respect which the Government of Nicaragua shows regularly for the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of its neighbours. 104. The 9 May issue of Time magazine, for example, has a very interesting article-which I recommend to members of the Council-entitled “How the Salvadoran rebels order outside help for their revolution”. It begins as follows: “the building of a Nicaraguan arms link to El Salvador began almost as soon as the victorious revolutionaries took power in the Nicaraguan capital of Managua in July 1979.” It has maps with arrows which describe routes. They are not quite as good as our Government’s maps but they are not bad; they are good enough that members of the Council can get a general impression of the regular flow of arms from Nicaragua through Honduras into El Salvador, 97. In the life of nations it is not unusual for controversies to arise, but we also know that solutions to all of them can be found through good faith and the creation of conditions in which justice and respect for the obligations deriving from honourable pacts between serious and responsible countries, such as Honduras, are maintained. 105. The article describes various arms infiltratiOn routes, It says, for example, that one “hugged the Honduran Pacific coast between Nicaragua and El Salvador, then angled into the remote areas of El Salvador where Marxist rebels hold almost undisputed sway. U.S. analysts estimate that 15 to 20 such land routes exist across Honduras. ” One wonders about Honduras’ right to be free of infiltration by its neighbours. 98. I know that my statement was longer than 30 minutes, because, owing to the Council’s rules, I may not have another opportunity to speak today.

I have received a request from the representative of the United States of America to speak in exercise of the right of reply. Although it is late, I call on her. 106. The article continues:

I, too, should like to begin my remarks by congratulating YOU, Sir, on your accession to the presidency of the Council and to express our confidence in your sense of fairness and skill in conducting its affairs. “Other military shipments come in by air and sea, Sandinista smugglers have been known to move supplies directly across the 20-mile-wide Gulf of Fonseca. When the going is safe, the Nicaraguans make nighttime forays from the Pacific gulf port of Potosi aboard small fishing boats, equipped with false bottoms, or 50”foot frame canoes. That practice has now been curtailed because of the patrols of U.S. electronic surveillance ships in the axea and the greater vigilance of the Salvadoran and Honduran navies.” 101. It is an extraordinary experience to hear the representative of Nicaragua’s harsh dictatorship invoke the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs, the Charter of the United Nations and other international law, and accuse the United States of invasion. It is an extraor- 107. The article continues: “At night, the Jiquilisco region is also known as a favorite destination of arms-laden helicopters [for Nicaragua] and light fixed-wing aircraft.. , . An important alternative air route for the smugglers [from Nicaragua] is the former British colony of Belize into Guatemala. After that, the rebels and their supplies filter south into Salvadoran rebel strongholds.” Apparently, the Government of Nicaragua has a bit of a problem respecting the right of the Government of Guatemala also to be free of infiltration across its borders. 108. The article is very detailed. It sums up its point about the extent and details of the supply route between Nicaragua and El Salvador with a line which it also uses as its title-“Like a Sears, Roebuck Catalogue”. Rebels in El Salvador can order from Nicaragua whatever they need. One unit may say: “I need candles, boots, batteries, diarrhoea medicine, bullets and mortar rounds.” If they do not get what they want, they complain. The fact that they complain shows that they have a pipeline that they think they can depend on, 109. Of course, the consequence of this gross violation of the principle of non-intervention in the life of neighbouring States by the Government of Nicaragua is the destruction of peace in the region, and it is very specially tragic for the Government and society of El Salvador, where the economy has been deliberately targeted and deliberately destroyed. I pointed out not long ago in a discussion of this same issue that some 34 bridges and 145 electrical transmission towers were destroyed in El Salvador last year, that some 18,000 Salvadorians had been put out of work by that destruction. 110. Two weeks ago the President of the United States of America spoke to the Congress and pointed out the following in his statement: “Tonight in El Salvador, because of the ruthless guerrilla attacks, much of the fertile Iand cannot be cultivated; less than half the rolling stock of the railways remains operational; bridges, water facilities, telephone and electric systems have been destroyed and damaged. In one 22-month period there were 5,000 disruptions of electrical power, and one region was without electricity for one-third of a year.” Those are the consequences for one of Nicaragua’s neighbours of Nicaragua’s respect for the principle of nonintervention. 111. The representative of the Government of Nicaragua has referred repeatedly to the debate now under way in the United States among Americans about what American policy should be with regard to the area. He is quite 112. Such a debate is under way in the United States. It is not completed. And we will continue that debate; we will continue it in our own way. We will continue it not by the method of lies, but by the method of democracy. The method of democracy relies on discussion, We will make our decision at the end of our debate, and we will make that decision by democratic means. We very much wish that the Government of Nicaragua would join us in such a democratic decision process. We very much wish that there could be a debate in Nicaragua about the public policies of that Government. We very much wish that the people of Nicaragua-its journalists, its politicaf leaderswere free to make their arguments in public arenas, to discuss the questions before that people, to criticize their Government, to rise in legislative arenas and state their criticisms freely. We wish the people of Nicaragua had the opportunity to be polled by honest and objective publicopinion organizations. We wish the people of Nicaragua had the opportunity to settle their discussions and decisions and debates by voting. 113. We in the United States will live by the results of our democratic processes. We can wish nothing better for the people of Nicaragua than that they be given a comparable opportunity. 114. The relationship between the Government of Nicaragua and its people is, of course, at the heart of much of the discussion here. What is the nature of the problem of the representative of Nicaragua’s new dictatorship? What is the nature of what he calls an American invasion? Needless to say, there is no American invasion in Nicaragua. It is a fact that there is fighting in Nicaragua. It is a fact that there is very widespread unhappiness-misery, indeed-in Nicaragua. It is a fact that the Government of Nicaragua has a problem. The nature of that problem is, of course, not international. The nature of that problem is national. Nicaragua’s problem is with Nicaraguan% In Nicaragua today, Nicaraguans fight other Nicaraguans for the control of their country’s destiny. 115. I thought, since the representative of Nicaragua had brought to the Council’s attention so many items from the American press, I might impose on the Council a second item from The Washington Post of yesterday, which was referred to by the representative of Nicaragua. Pointing out the advantages of free discussion, by the way, you can find a lot of different kinds of evidence in our newspapers. The item that I should like to bring to the Council’s attention is a column by one Jack Ander-, son, who is a well-known liberal columnist in the United States, not a reliable supporter of the Administration “One of the new recruits was a defecting Sandinista army instructor, There were other ex-Sandinistas in the guerrilla troop. One was Dunia, a star graduate of the Sandinistas’ post-revolution literacy campaign.. . I Dunia did so well she was rewarded with a junket to Cuba. She is now the camp medic for the The Sparrow’s band. “While Congress debates the Reagan Administration’s clandestine operations in Nicaragua, the American public is beset by conflicting information about exactly what is going on there. ‘I . . . “The rebels and their noncombatant collaborators cited a variety of reasons for their disenchantment with the Sandinistas: enforced food rationing, expropriation of the farmers’ markets, enforced organization of peasant co-ops, the Sandinistas’ anti-religious policies and harassment of the Catholic Church. “To get some reliable, firsthand answers to [some] crucial questions, I sent my associate, Jon Lee Anderson, to the troubled region. He has just returned from a week-long foray into northern Nicaragua with anti- Sandinista guerrillas. They belong to the Nicaraguan Democratic Forces (FDN), the major group of., . insurgents. “The Sandinistas themselves indirectly aided the guerrillas’ recruitment of at least a dozen of the new arrivals. They said they had been under increasing pressure to join the militia. Forced to take sides, they chose the ‘Contras’. “He traveled with a well-armed, 50-member guerrilla band led by a commander whose nom de guerre is El Gorribn-The Sparrow. Their base camp was deep in the rugged mountains of Nicaragua’s Nueva Segovia province, near the Honduran border. “Still, it was not an easy choice for many. They expressed genuine anguish at being forced-one way or another-to fight against fellow Nicaraguan% “It quickly became obvious that the guerrillas had the support of the populace. They were fed and protected by local peasants at every step. Traveling on foot, and only at night, to avoid detection by government troops, the guerrillas spent the days hiding out in ‘safe houses’, often within shouting distance of government-held towns. If the peasants had wanted to betray them, it would have been a simple matter to tip off the Sandinista militia to their hiding places. “‘We don’t want to fight our Nicaraguan brothers,’ they said. The ones they’re after are the Sandinista leaders and their Cuban, East German, Bulgarian and other foreign advisers.” That is not the end of the column: there are two paragraphs left, for anyone who is interested. “The peasants also provided The Sparrow with UPto-the-minute intelligence on the whereabouts, movement and strength of the Sandinista forces. 116. I should like very briefly to reiterate to the Council that the United States Government has repeatedly, throughout the brief history of the Sandinist dictatorship, sought to establish constructive relations with that Government and during the period of its destabilization of the area sought to work with others in the area to achieve regional peace. “The anti-Sandinista guerrillas’ military prowess is not so clear-cut. My associate discovered this to his dismay when he accompanied The Sparrow’s band on a planned pre-dawn ambush of government troop carriers along a country road. 117. In August 1981, on a special mission to Managua, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Enders presented a five-point peace plan to the Sandinists to reduce regional tensions. Based on the termination of Nicaraguan support for guerrilla groups, the plan called for a United States pledge to enforce strictly laws governing exile activities in United States territory, reaffirmation of nonintervention and non-interference by all parties, limits on arms and military forces, resumption of United States economic assistance to Nicaragua, which had been very substantial, and a United States-Nicaraguan cultural exchange programme. The Sandinist Government made no substantive response. 66 . . . the guerrillas were themselves surprised by sniper fire.. . and were forced to pull out. The retreat was carried out skilfully, however, and two nights later the guerrillas avenged their defeat with an attack on the hilltop snipers’ nests, The FDN commandos treated the snipers to a half-hour barrage of rockets, grenades and machine-gun fire, before returning satisfied to their base camp. “Most of the FDN guerrillas were local peasants, not Somocista exiles. But there were also former National Guardsmen, and they tend to be in positions of command because of their military experience. 118. In April 1982, United States Ambassador Anthony Quainton delivered an eight-point peace proposal to the Sandinists that called for an end to Nicaraguan support for guerrillas in neighbouring countries. It called for lim: its on arms and foreign military advisers, a joint pledge “Still, the core of the The Sparrow’s group consisted of locally recruited peasants. In fact, on my associate’s last day with the rebel band, he witnessed 119. In October 1982 eight regional democracies, including the United States, set forth the essential conditions for peace in Central America-again including verifiable limits on arms and foreign military advisers, national reconciliation through the democratic process, a halt to support for insurgent groups, mutual respect for pledges of non-intervention and respect for basic human rights. Countries asked Costa Rica to discuss these conditions with Nicaragua. That too came to naught. 120. In addition, the Sandinists have rejected other proposals put forth by their neighbours. As recently as April 1983, they refused to meet with Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala in multilateral discussions supported by the Contadora Group-but the Council has already heard about that. 121. The Sandinists’ insistence on bilateral rather than mutilateral talks underlines their desire to resolve their external problems while avoiding the issue of their export of revoIution, war and misery to their neighbours. 122. The record speaks for itself. I should just like to close these remarks by reminding the members of the Council that, in his speech to a joint session of the United States Congress, President Reagan asserted: “To support our diplomatic goals in the region, I offer these assurances”, and I should like to offer these assurances ae;ain to the Council on behalf of the Government of the United States. “The United States will support any agreement among Central American countries for the withdrawal, under fully verifiable and reciprocal conditions, of all foreign military and security advisers and troops. “We want to help opposition groups join the political process in all countries and compete by ballots instead of bullets. “We will support any verifiable, reciprocal agreement among Central American countries on the renunciation of support for insurgencies on neigh: bours’ territory. “And, finally, we desire to help Central America end its costly arms race and will support any verifiable, reciprocal agreements on the non-importation of offensive weapons.” 123. Finally, I should like to say to members of the Council that every nation in the United Nations, espe-

The Minister for External Relations of Nicaragua has asked to speak in exercise of the right of reply, and I now call on him. 125. Mr. D’ESCOTO BROCKMANN (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish): I simply wish to recall something I have already said in my presentation. We have not come here to speak of the problems of other countries. As is its full right, Nicaragua has brought before the Council for consideration solely and exclusively the grave problem and the consequences of the aggression of which it is the victim. 126. With regard to the consequences, I wished also to alert the international community to the undeniable fact that, to the extent that the United States Government continues using some States of the region and impairing the neutrality of others to attack Nicaragua, the danger of regionalizing the war increases. 127. I wish to be quite frank and, hence, I cannot fail to say that, as a Central American, I share the shame which, I am sure, the sister people of Honduras feel at the sad words just spoken by the man who is supposed to represent them in this forum but who, in fact, only wished to represent the interests of those who attack us, the interests of those who increasingly commit the Government of Honduras to the Reagan Administration’s dirty war against Nicaragua. 128. The representative of Honduras did not wish to respond to our appeal for peace. Following guidelines of “higher-ups”, he opted to ignore the existence of something which even the Reagan Administration no longer dares to deny. 129. At no time in our statement did we attack Honduras. Nevertheless, we have now heard a long statement by the representative of Honduras in which all kinds of improprieties and lies were directed against Nicaragua and in which he dealt with matters within the sole and exclusive purview of Nicaragua. But since the representative of Honduras did not see fit to address the specific situation we have brought before the Council for consideration, that is, the aggression of the Reagan Administration against Nicaragua, we thought Mrs. Kirkpatrick might do so when she asked to speak. However, she 130. But as was stated in the very comprehensive report given in yesterday’s edition of The Washington Post under the title, “US-Backed Nicaraguan Rebel Army Swells to 7,000”” -which, in addition to the prominent place given.to it on page one, was allotted much space in the inside pages and also included a chart-this army, organized, trained and financed by the United States Government, which in December 1981 amounted to 500 men, now numbers some 7,000 men, also led and financed by the United States. 133. I consider it important that the Council, that all of us here, reflect and seriously consider the specific situation which Nicaragua has brought to you for your consideration, and that, pursuant to our responsibility to safeguard international peace and security, we take the necessary measures to achieve the immediate withdrawal of the invading troops from our territory and to put an end also to all acts of aggression against our territory from outside and to the financing, training, and directing of the mercenaries that the Government of the United States is using to attack our country. 13 1. The article explains how all of this was started by the Reagan Administration to stem an alleged arms traffic; how the representatives of the Central Intelligence Agency, who to some extent have had to report to the House Select Committee on Intelligence, have acknowledged that on no occasion have weapons been intercepted in this supposed weapons traffic; and how more and more they have had to accept that, in reality, the creation of a military force to detain a supposed arms traffic was nothing more than a pretext, because it is now clear that what is at issue is an attack against the Government of Nicaragua to impose once again on Nicaragua a Somozist brand of democracy. * Quoted in English by the speaker. The meeting rose at 1.35 p.m. NOTE