S/PV.2694 Security Council

As this is the first meeting of the Security Council for the month of July, I should like at the very outset to pay tribute, on behalf of the Council, to Hia Excellency Mr. Blaise Rabetafika, Permanent Representative of Madagascar to the United Nations, President of the Security Council for the month of June, for the great diplomatic skill, unfailing courtesy and wisdom with which he conducted the Council's business last month. I am sure I speak for all members of the Council in expressing our deep appreciation to Ambassador Rabetafika for his service as President of the Council last month. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda was adopted. LETTER DATED 27 JUNE 1986 FROM THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF NICARAGUA TO THE UNITED NATIONS ADDRESSEB TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SFEURITY COUNCIL (s/181871

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of India and Nicaragua in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In accordance with 'the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those tepreaentatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in conformity with the relevant provislons of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. D*Escoto Brockmann (Nicaragua) took a nlace at the Council tablet Mr. Verma (India) took the place reserved for him at -u the side of the Council Chamber. The PRRSIDRNT: The Security Council will now begin ite co.bsideration of the item on the agenda. The Security Council ie meeting today in response to the request contained in the letter dated 27 June 1986 from the Permanent Repreeentetive of Nicaragua addresaed to the President of the Security Council, document s/18187. I should like to draw the attention of members of the Council to the following documents: S/18189, letter dated 27 June 1986 from the Permanent Representative of Nicaragua to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-Geueral; and S/18194, letter dated 30 June 1986 frun the Charge d’affairee a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. The first speaker is the Minister for Foreign Affair5 of Nicaragua, Mr. Miguel D%scoto Brockmann. I welcome Ris Excellency and invite him to make hi8 statement. Mr. D*ESCOTC BRCCRHkNN (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish): Mr. Preeident, firat of all, on behalf of my Government I thank you for convening the Security Council to consider the serious and ever-greater threats to international peace and security posed by the United States Governmental stepped-up policy of aggression against Nicaragua. I know that you will discharge your preoidential duties fairly and efficiently. Your personal talents and your experience augur well for the success of the Council*s deliberations this month. Our gratitude goes also ta Ambassador Rabetafika of Madagascar for his exemplary stewardship of the Council laet month. The people and Government of Nicaragua have always been aware that justice, freedom and sovereignty are achieved only through great sacrifice. We knew that after the liberation war we would inevitably be subjected to aggression on the part (Mr. D’Escoto Brockmann, Nicaragua) of those who historically have opposed the efforts of Latin American peoples freely to decide their own destiny - those who imposed on us the Monroe Doctrine, the doctrine of manifest destiny, the *big-stick” policy, gun-boat diplomacy and, more recently, by means of their policy of covert wars, State terrorism. In the name of freedom and demccracy, in the name of the sacred values of Christianity, of civilization, that great and powerful nation is forming mercenary gangs which it trains, finances and directs. In the name of God and democracy, they are murdering our women and our children , as is the case of the two little daughters of Carmen Ortega# whose brutal murder by Reagan’s brothers is amply documented in today’s edition of The Washington Post. Flouting the most basic norms of civilised life and coexistence, and in violation of international undertakings and international commitments, the United States mines our ports, decrees trade embargoes and tries to destroy countries which, though small, are unwilling to give up the principle of the legal and sovereign equality of all States. (Mr. D’Escoto Brcckmann, Nicaragcla) On several cccaofons we have come before this Council to denounce the present United States Administration’s policy agairlst Nicaragua. We have done so - and are doinq so again today - because we are a peace-loving country8 because we believe in the United Nations and in the importance of respecting commitments undertaken through signature of the Charters and because we have always wished to trust in the seriousness and impartiality of the Council. We have come yet again to denounce actions of the United States Administration against the sovereignty, independence, self-determination and territorial integrity of Nicaragua, actions against peace efforts in Central America, and which increase the possihllty of greater bloodshed in Nicaragua and throughout the region. On 25 June 1986, the United States House of Representatives appropriated $100 million - one third of Nicaragua*8 annual exports - so that the terrorist mercenaries can continue murdering our people. That vote, which amounts to a declaration of war, will have dangerous and unforeseeable consequencesi it is one further step towards sending United States troops to Nicaragua. In 1981 the United States established the contras, composed mainly of former membere of the Somozist guard8 the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) begsn to finance, train and direct them covertly. In 1983 and 1984 they attacked and mined our Ports, which led the United States Congrees to prohibit direct or indirect aid to the Contras by any United States Government agency. However, this changed nothing. In 1985 the President’s so-called humanitarian assistance to his mercenary forces was approved. In 1986 the Rouse of Representative5 approved s3nn -4,*ar- OLYY Ill.*~.Y,, for Lkrn.. CArnao . ..“I’- ,_Y---“. Today United States military personnel are openly training this mercenary army, supplying it with heavy weapons, transport and everything else it needs to carry out its policy of terrorism. (Mr. D’Escoto Brockmann, Nicaragua) The Central Inteiligence Agency, which mined our ports, is in charge of these military operations, and has the option of using the funds it receives directly from Congress. Thus, that 8100 million is but the tip of the iceberg. The journalist Julia Preston, writing from Camoapa, Nicaragua, reported the following in torlay’s Washington Post: (spoke in English) “TWO children were killed in their beds and six were injured when anti-Sandinista rebels hurled a hand grenade into their home cluring the crossfire of an attack on a co-operative here last week, witnesses said. *Carmen Ortbga, 44, mother of the victims, recalled that after the shooting died down at devn on Friday, the guerrillas demanded that she find matches for them amid the wreckage inside her house. They used the matches to burn the house to the ground, the mother said at a wake Saturday in this hill town 105 miles east of Managua. ‘Five family members died. In addition to the 12-year-old and five-year-old daughters killed in bed, the woman*8 husband, Angel Ortega, 65, was killed defending against the attack. A grown daughter was shot to death and another died in the grenade explosion, relatives said. The couple had 16 children. *This attack on the cattle c-operative known as the Panamerica was the most recent in a series of operations against primarily civilian or economic . targets by the counter-revolutionaries, or Contras, as the United Qtataa-haokarl rohnla IVP k-n hero”; - ----- --_..-- -_--_- --- .._ - .._ ..-- - (continued in Spanish) That qreat Power, the United States of America, which claims to be fighting against. terrorism, has its own terrorist army, which it pays to murder, destroy and (Ht. DVWcoto Brdckmann, Niceraqua) torrorixe. Thua we muaL; face the inescapable fact that the policy of State terroriam i8 being in8titutionaliaed adi that we can expact an imminent interventionist escalation in Central America an the part of the Unitad Statee. As rightly noted by Rapreaentative Thomm 8. Foley after the Rouse decision, (spoke in English) “This was the cooaa-tha-Rubicon vote.. (oontinued in Spanish) It signal0 the beginning of a new phaae, l xtrmoly dangerous in the unforeaaeable amaequenaea of this open, unceasing aomitment to a policy designed to bring Nicaragua down through the overthrow of the only frooly l nd democratically elected Governxent in the history of our country. If we conaidor slao the counter-revolutio8Va political and military impotence - born eaaentially of its Soamiot an6 mercenaryI that is corrupt and criminal, nature - we would net be uronq to think that the aaae logic that Uainatad in this daci8ion will have to prevail alao when Mr. Re&gan thinks It necorrrry to 8end in l hir iloy~~, in crccordance with the plan@ that have long been on the Pentagon drawing board. There are other fwrtora which only aonfitr the great danger o!! thir new phaee in United States policy towards Niaaragua. Theae relate to tha other aapact which has thus far characterimd this policy of force: tha ongoing boycott by that united States Mminiatratian of all diplorultic efforts to find a peaceful, just and honourable aolutioa to the Central Wariuan crisis. Just aa the united States hxs refuued to renum direct Qialogue with Nicaragua, it has conriatently used pressure eti biacitmaii with a view eo ehwarting the work carried out in racont years by the Cmtatlora Group. h -. (Ht. WEecot Brockmann, Nicaragua) Pa Sapteder 1984, the Contadora Group preeentd to the Central Aserfcan Covernnent the Contadota Act on Peace and Co-aperation in Central Amerboa. Once Nioaragua had anmmnced it@ willingruns to sign the Act, the United State8 l ng&ged in interme activity to achieve what it called tb ‘effective blaekat?le of Contaloro* . They were pleared with the result, aa is duly reflected in the secret Wationml security Council 81 xment rode public in Noveuber 1994 by the United States preen. (Hr. 3’Escoto Brockmmn, Nicaragua) In &3(ay this year, when Cuntadors wa8 once again at a decisive gha5e in it8 aediation undertaking and when agreement an the basis of the revised versicm of the Act of Septeellber 1985 wa8 imminent, a -ited State8 Department of Deferme doclmrent was released - a document whi& not only conetituted a tots1 rejection by the IRio4i State8 ministration of any type of agreement in the framework of the ConUiora procem, but also put forward sme calculation8 and estimates for a large-rcale military operation to deny the Niaaraguah people their right to 8elf-de%3xeination and to deotroy their revoluticn, at a coet of between $8.7 raillion and $9.1 miLlion annually as well ae the required commitment of 100,001) mm. That ia the auppxt wbid, the United States has given Cmta&ra - solely rhetorical suppc6t. These doauments MB. mimy oth5rs that h8Ve been made known to the United State8 public sbaw has interested the United St8te8 LO in the Signirrg Of 8 pmce agreement in C8ntrsl America. bSt TbursQy the fOUr Mini8&358 Of -reign Aff8ftS of the COUnttie that make up the Ccntadora Group arrived in New York to met with the Secretary-General and to present to him the Ccmta$oro Final tit. My Governsrent responded to that nw effort in a imsitive my, expressing its willingnese to sign a regional agreement in fhe spirit OP the Oanama Ntmsage of 7 June 1986. We said clearly in thfe regard that that Act of 7 &me constituted tie only instcuxent which could end should pramote the swift and effeative conclusion of the negotiating proceoe to adrieve peace in Cmtral America. We al80 expressed our readiness to i&e available to Cmtabora the InVentsKy of a list of 14 different type5 of military weaponry that we had previouely submitted for it5 consideration , as well a5 tie respective i*amized bill for theae weapons, in accordance with the Cantadora explanatory (Ht. D’ Eacoto Brockmann, Nicaragua) note that ie’, the note transmitting vhat Contadora called the *latest version’ Of the Act. We feel that, a8 ie stated by the Cartedora Governments and those of the Support Group in the Panama Mesaage, that it would be “erron%oua to balieve that the crisis oould be dealt with -rely by means of preparing a draft treaty. Progress must al80 be made in bringing about the necasseary conditiars for the signing of the Peace Act.. (S/18143, annex, para. 5) In that regard, we believe that it is urgent to promote dialogue between the Ihibd States and Nicaragua and to move fcxward with the creation of joint conmaissicns for the solution of bar%er problems, and to promo& dialogue and the harmcmisatiom of nolraggreosim pact.8 between the Central &n%rican Govetnments. Qurthermre, we agree vith the Panama Eleesage that “If grogrem is to be made in the Contadora process and the final goal Of peace is to be achieved, it is essential that three fundamental commitments should be accepted8 ‘(a) Use of a cmntcy’e territory as a base for committing acts of aggrefJCiiOn against another country or for providing military or logistical SUggott to irregular forces or subversive group should not be permitted) “(b) Wo country should become a metier of military or political alliancea that threaten peace and security in the region either directly or indirectly, thus drawing the region into the East-Weat conflictt fotcea or subversive groups that are operating, or that may operate, in the countries of the region, or use or threaten to use force a8 a meana of werthrowing any Government: in the area.* (S/18143, annex, para. 8) (Mr. D’Escoto Btockmdnn, Nicaragua) The lack of political will on the part of the thited States GoverNPent tq, support the ContMora process and ita permanent policy of blocking and boycotting these noble efforts beccme clear once again at this time, when that Government olaime tbit it cm ignore the action of that gtoup of countriee and tries to make that initiative a tool of daainatim and interference in the internal affairs of States. &tin ZMerica has said “no” to iuterveutiar; &tin America has said %o” to mlicies of force; Latin nmeriua has said “noa to the use of force end ayes” to Peace, to harnmny and to a political solution of the problem of the subregicn. On 27 Juho last, the International Court of Justice issued its judgement on the request put before it by my Cavernmnt in regard to the military and paramilitary activities carried out by the thited s-tee against Nicaragua. I do not wish to analyse in depth the meaning and conmzguences of that overriding and historic pronouncement by the highest internatioual legal organ. I would aprly draw the Councilgs attention to two apecifie aspots of the judgemtmt. The first relates ta the Court% rejection of the justification of collective self-defence maintained by the United States. The Court aaid clearly that it (eedre in Bkglish) *rejects the justification of collective self4efenoe maintained by the United States of Aaeoiaa in connection with the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua the subject of this case”. (continued in Spanish) The second aspact relates to the deeis iar by thr Cam t that (woke in English) “the United Stats8 of Amerlce, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the eontea forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and afding 16 15 @le. D~$easbo Btockmann, Nicaragua) military ‘and paramilitary activities in and again& Nlmragua, hao aoted against the Rbgublic of Nicaragua, in breads of itm obligatiar un&r auoWnary international law not to intervene in the affair@ of another State”* (continued in Span ieh) I think &at, it ie appropriate to point out those aspecta of the judgment by the highest international legal tribunal, since the represantatkas of the -ited Stabs theamlveo have, before this Counail, umotantly raised the argumnt of the wo ot the right of collective eelf-defence as a way of justifying Mted states actr Of aggreasicm (IgainSt Nicaragua. The wrld has alearly recxqnioed the illegality of thio interventiarist poliw, and todmy ehe highsst world, legal body haa aonfirmd this. The Dnitad States ha8 violated and oontinuee to viol8tb the mnt elamentary rules of international law. (Hr. U’Escoto Brcckmann, Nica *aqua) with this new step in ita terrorist policy the united statea Government is not only violating international law, it is not only acting directly counter to the Contadota peace initiative and obstructing its euccess: it is actually opening wide the door to an escalation of hostility that could lead to a generalised conflagration in the region. The people of Nicaragua and theiagovernment have no military alliances with any super-Power. We can rely on nothing but the guna our people bear and on the grief for our dead. However, that will not silence our voices nor prevent us from shouting: “They shall not pa~s!~ The North American Administration can allocate loo-, aoo- , 300,000 million dollara for its mercenary forces, but in the end those force8 will be BefeateB. They can sow death and destruction, they can destroy the cmntry, but along every step of the way they will have to confront patriotic Niaariaguans, who will eventually defeat them. The Becu~ity Council bears the respunsibility for the maintenance of international peace and swurity. Because of their serious aud unpredictable nature, the facts we have analysed fall directly under that responeibility. Nioaragua, faithful to its desire for peace0 has done everything poesible, has had recourse to every appropriate and valia international body in its search for peaceful solutions to these grave problems. we take thie opportunity to reiterete our irrevocable deoiaion to defend ourJelves4 we renew our appeal to the government of the UnJ.ted States to desist from its militarist designs and to resume direct dialogue with Nicaragua to find just solutions to our differencea. That is the only way to prevent a catasttaphe, and we believe the Security Council has a fundamental role to play in avoiding such an outcome. The PPESIDENT: X thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua Pot his kind words addreseed to the presidency. Mr. WALTEPS (United Statee of Anerica): Sir, I would like to take thio opportunity to welcome your presidency of the Security Council, in part baoause of the deep reepect we have for your personal integrity and for your talent6 a8 a diplomat, in part as a reflection of the admiration, respect and friendship which our two nations bear tovard one another. It is a pleasure ae well for the United State8 to pay tribute to your predecessor, Ambassador Rabetafika of Hadagaacarr who discharged the office of Pretident last sot&h with effioienoy and even-haudedneerr. Before addreesing the speoific reason8 for this present Security council meting, I feel it is iuperative to point out that thie is the eleventh time the Sandini6ta t6gime hao came to thie Council to lay out a by-now standard litany of wlainte. Nicaragua weks yet again to divert tha Council06 attention tram Nicrragua~s own bhaviour in the region. It is about tisa we ceaeed being deceived by Sandinieta prop8ganda~ it irr about time we recognised that it i6 Nicaragua’s aggression which ie the wurce of the conflict in Central Ametica~ The 27 June opinion of the International Court of Jurtice is long - taome 515 pages in total, including the Court’s opinion, the separate and diorenting opinionm and a 251-page direent by Judge Stephen Schwebel. Though Nicaragua asks the Council to reach conclusions based on those opinion& no member of the Security Counail can yet have aMly8ed or coneider for itself the detailed argument and munter-argument rctleamd by the Court. pot those who have not yet retceiwtd it, 1 IRay note that our oun firat reading has identified eerious gueations about certain concluaiom of law rtstad by the Court. The Court’8 conclusions, moreover, are in thie case uniquely dependent on tha evidence and the facte. The eepreeentative of Nicaragua has sought to fmrttay the CoUrt’e opinion as establiehing, ipso facto, the truthfulneea of Nicaragua’0 aomertionr in rerpect to the sttuatisn in Central America, its wn a&ions and the policies of my Government. As we have made clear from the beginning, we do not (Mr. Waltera, United States) klievo that the Court ir eguipped to deal with coqlex facts and intelligeuce information which are not available to it. The memhero of the Council should by now be familiar with the facts concerning Wicaraguan aggression. The United states ha6 provided abundant overwhelming evidence of Nicaragua’s mitadeeds. It is none the lees evident that the Saudiniatas rurin cousuumately skilled in obscuring their odious record of aubvereion, aggression and armed attack. Nicaragua has l tatsd in tha xmt solemn terms that: (spoke in Spanioh) .It has never oupplied arma or other material aueietauce to insurgents in El Salvador ot aanetioned the we of it8 territory for such purpose. It ha0 never permittad Salvadorian ineurgente to establish a headquarters or operation6 baue or commd-and-control facility in Nicaraguan terrftory and hau never permitted it8 territory to be used for training Salvadxian insurgente.a (continued in English1 The very beginning ha6 been ite continuing support of subversion in Latin AresPi~. This eupport has been active, deliberate , aubetantial and sustained. The rtatement I have just read is one of which NiceHague has made a number, not only at the International Court of Justice, but in innumerable other forums as uell. There can he uo pretenee that this categorical assertion is a slLp of the tongue or an ill-considered, ill-informed or unauthorized statement; and yet it was, and ie, entirely false. At a meeting of party activirts barely tuo months after coming to power, the Santlinista leaderehip comitted itself to support the revolutionary rtruggle beyond itr tmders. Later that year, as recounted by former eommandere sf the Salvadorian training guerrillas from other Central merican countries. The principal target of sandiniote aggression has been El Salvador. Nicaragua ha8 since 1979 provided massive support to the guerrillas seeking to overthrow that awntry’ Government. That support has, included training, coarnrand-and-control headcuartero, advice, weapons , anmunition and other vital supplies. Nicaragua hae aerved as a tear-area sanctuary for the guorrillae and headquarters for their political arm. The interaction of the Sandinista leadership with thet of the Flat4 and FDR hae been conrtant and intimate. Nicaragua has publicly identified itself with the goals and lwthods of the Salvadorian guerrillaa. The evidence of this activity im real, varied and massive. DocU8ehts captured in El Salvador establish the key Nicaraguan role in unifying, eupplying an8 sustaining the p&&N. That role was crucial in 1980-1981, as shown in the documents published by the United states in Yebruary of 1981. Dccumente captured from p8ILN Connrmder Nidia Dias in ApPil 1985 made clear that the nature of Nicaragua~a support for the rebel6 had remained substantial. Aerial photography released by the United States shows the Nicaraguan airfield from which a!any of thore euppliee were flown. (Hr. Walters, United Staten) Guetrilla wmdara captured or defecting from 1981 to the present day have, ane after the otbar, described in cwlling detail the dependenae of the Salvadorian guerrillas, on Nicaraguan-•upplied weapone and euppliem, on aafe haven in that country, on ccmiunications and coanaad services from Nicaragua, and on training condwted in or facilitated by Nicaragua. The deaths of two tap guerrilla leadera in Managua in 1983 - and the attendance of top Sandiniuta leaderm at their funerala - undersceced the fact that the FHLN leadarship has operated out of Managua with the full collaboration of tha Satiinistaa. Weapon6 oaptured frm or remaining in guerrilla hande have been traced through offiaial United Staten 8hippLng and production records from Viet NM through Nicaragua to the rebels. The elaborate nmuggling network developed by the 8udiniataa ir attested to by such irrefutable physical evidence as the large trailer trwk aramed with weapona and amunition captured by the Honduran authorities en route from Nicsragua to El Salvador in 1981. Thfa pattern continues. Several wnthr agao a Lada automobile on the same Nicaragua-Salvador route oroahed and waa found to contain weapons, ammunition, demolitions, cryptographic equipment and letters to the Salvadorian guerrilla leadership. Pinally, there are the confession8 of the sandinistaa themselves. They have on several oacasiona stated their cap%cify to halt the aid being given to the PKLN. At the International Court, one of ite ruling Cowandantee has sworn that hie Government *never* had a policy of sending arms to Salvadorian guerrillas - while presenting at the same time an affidavrt that it had not done precisely that *in a good long time”. And yet, Nicaragua would have ua , and the world, believe that none of this evidence exists. Nicaragua would like us, instead, to pitch all. this evidence Out of the window and take it8 fLat, unsupported word that ‘in truth (it) ie not engaged, and ha5 not heen engaged in, the provision of arma or other supplies” to (Hr. Walters, United States) the guerrillas in 131 Salvador. Nicaragua would have us disregard the tens of thousands of dead, the hundreds of millions of dollars in economic damage, the imenoe huaan misery it ha8 iuposad on El Salvador , and take its vord that it has not attacked El Salvador. Rut let us not stop our examination with El Salvador. Others as well have suffered from *revolutionary internationalimP. Iioaduraa has been the target of attempted subversion. Twice, in 1983 and 1984, the Sandiniatas sought to infiltrate groups into Honduras to initiate a guerrilla war against the Goveruaent of that country. A large number of these guerrillas were captured and attested to Nicaragua.6 role in their training, direction an8 fnfiltration across the border. fn 1985, members of the Nicar.aguan intelligence services were captured inside lionduras and confessed their involvement in conveying arms to subversive groups in Rondurae. As documented in detail by a Costa Rican legislative camaierion, the Ssndinistas - while conducting their campaign againot Semoaa, and later when they began to provide material support to the Salvadorian rebels - a100 established and maintained a clandestine arms supply netwerk in Costa Rica. Saadinista--supported terrorists conducted a aeries of attacks in Costa Rica between 1981 and 1985, and agents of Nicaragua have attempted or conducted a nuaber of aeeasainations in that country. Farther afield, Nicaraguan support for the M-19 was revealed by tracing the aerial numbers of weapons captuced after the bloody attack on the Palace of Justice in Bogota in Colombia. While its preferred method is through secret support for subversion, since if caught it can hope to brazen its way out by lying, Nicaragua has not hesitated to apply direct, convention%1 military force. It bee conducted literally hundreds of croee-border military incursions into Aondurae, beginning three days after the 19 July 1979 takeover and culminating ir mrch of this year, when fmme 1,500 (Mr. Walters, United States) Sandinista soldiers penetrated 25 kilometres into Uondurae and remained there for a / period of several days. In familiar form, offkiala of the Nicaraguan Government - including its Permanent Representative - initially denied that Sandinista troops had crossed the border at all. Ambassador Aetorga went before the world’s cameras and stated that the so-called invasion was a total falsehood, an invention of the Reagan Administration. Only after undeniable evidence had surfaced did President Ortegga &knowledge the incursion and scme 150 casualties, proving which country had lied. The Sandinista military has attacked Costa Rica on many cccasions, including one occasion last year when it killed two members of the Costa Rican Civil Guard and compelled Costa Rica to take the case to the Organization of AareriCan States (OAS) . Nicaragua has been able flagrantly to violate its neighbours’ borders because it ha6 amassed the largest and most powerful military force in the history Of Central America. Those whc considered the Scmoza r+ime to present an image of unmatched military repression should take pause in realising that the Sandinista armed forces, like their searet police, are scme 10 times larger than Somosa’s st their height. And yet, Nicaragua has recently begun tc assert an intention to expand it8 forces to 200,000 or even 300,000 trained personnel. Not only ere the Sandinieta forces numerically the largest, but they heve arms, not just the rifles we heard about e little while ago, but arms unmatched any where else in the region, including 340 tank8 and ermured vehicles, dozen8 of combet helicoptere and 70 long-range howitzers. Theoe forces are made all the more effective by the presence nf e&unadg of Cuban and other fateiqn 8kdVieQrn operatin from the highest echelons of the ministries to the battalion - and even company level, including Cuban pilots flying combat miaeione. Thie massive militery buildup has had the most profound impact on Nicaraguan society. And thie impact has not been accidental: the militaKiZatiOn of (Mr. Walters, United States) Nicaraguan society has been a key goal from the beginning of Sandinieta rule and haa, a8 intended, contributed enormously to the ability of the rdgile to exercise comprehensive control over the emiety as a whole. Thus, even long before NicaPagUa asserted that there wae a threat from contrae or any other eourcer the sandinietae planned and executed an accelerating and major expansion of the Nicaraguan armed forces. The army, of course, is designated a8 the ‘Sandiniata popular Army” and great attention is paid to palitical indoctrination. These eteps parallel thOt3e imposed over the past seven yeare throughout the society as a whole. This is not the occaeion to rehearee the sad and predictable story of Sandinieta repression, or to discuss at length - and 80 easily could that be done - the betrayal of the high hopee of the Wicaraguan people. Sandinista claim to defend human rights have been shown to be a8 hollow as the claims of the Sandinistae to be living at peace with their neighbours. Nicaragua, a amall country, now has snore political prisoners than any other country in the hemiephere except Cuba and maintains a system of political tribunals outside the law which emure that no one escapes *revolutionary justicem. fn 1982, the Sandinistae ilPpoued a %emporarym State of Emergency: four years later, the Nicaraguan people are still deprived of the rights of free speech, assembly and movement, to name only a few of the %aeic human rights. proaUed in 1979 and stolen by the Sandinieta P6gime. It may be noticed that by closing down La Prensa Nicaragua haa now become the eingle country in mainland Latin America entirely precluding opposition acceee to the media. Nicaragua today has nothing to do with tile Nicaragua its people believed they were fighting for in 1979, nor with the Nicaragua that the Soudinietae promised both to the people of that country and to the inter-American comnunity. The appeals we have just beard to God, liberty and democracy are denied by the very action of that Government which now claims to @peak in addition for all of (Hr. Waltere, united States) The internal oituation in Nicaragua , tragic in itself, ir relevant to one other crucial element in the Centmal American picture. The represeive r&giw of the sandinirtam ir directly remponeible for the developraent and growth of the armed demcratio resitstance in Nioaragua. The Nicaraguan democratic resistance ie fighting to restore the original objectivea of the Nicaraguan revolution. Ite 20,000 participantm eeek to eotablieh a true democracy in which the people of Nicaragua are free to eelect their o%m letierm. They seek full reepwt for human tights and an economic system providing both for growth and for the equitable dirtribution of wealth. Ths leaderm of thim remimtance are the same men and women who fought ageinet Somza, and with the Sandinietar, seven years ago. Like thousands of other Wicaraguans who believed in the revolution and once vere allies of the sanbiniotam, they did not take lightly their deeimion to join the remirtance: they joined bweuae there was no other ohoioe left. The Sandinistam closed the avenues of meaningful political participation within Nicaragua and convinced them that change Could uome only through armed force. Theme, then, are the faetm. wicaragua has deliberately, ae a natter of State policy and without provwetion, conducted arumd attack, on its neighbours. In the caee of El Salvador that attack, conducteU through proxies, has lasted over five years at inmenee cost in live6 and econoraic demege, The Sandinirtee have sought to develop ineurgenciem in Uondurae, and have both covertly and openly attacked Uonduras and Co8ta Mae. They have sought, through a maooive military build-up, to intimidate their neiahtxwrr and their own Wople. They have created a represolve State, the very nature of which im aninouely unprecedented in Central Americat and, in 60 doing, they have given rise to a movement involving tens of thourands of men and women fighting to restore Nicaragua to the iderlr of the 1979 ReVolUtiOn. (Mr. Yaltots, United Steteo) 18 it rurptiming, in thece oirouutanaea , that the Unitad Statee ahould have Lorcow inVOlwd in the terponre to the nultitweted threat to puace preunted by samlinict Nicaragua? United Statea policy toward0 Nicaragua haa four broad objectiveat an end to Nicaraguan aggre88ion, whether through rupprt tot guerrilla geoupa in neighbouring countries or through conventional military attack, Wetanca of Nicaraguan n ilitaoy and eefzurity ties to Cuba and the Soviet bloc; reduction of Nicaragua’6 militery strength to level0 that would remtorm military equilihriun to the ragion; and tultilaent of the original promises of draaaratfc plureliem and reopeet for husan and civil rights. It is our csnviation that auhievemnt of thorn goala would emute the metoration of peace and a climate condw~ve to growth, demmatia political developant, ml mecurity in the region. ‘Phme goalm are entirely consistent with those of other countries of the tegiun and with multilateral diplomatio initiativea strongly endoroed by this body. While Nicaragua tocua8c on unitad Stat30 cupport - which it aonridera unjumtitieb - tot the democr4tia roeietance, It im ilportmt to rem11 that the United States bar pursued theme benign and aanatructive goslo through any au&w of peacetuil meana. Regrettably, thoaa approachor have Proved vary largely uneucceortul in uchieving ohanges in the Nicaraguan behaviour that 80 goncerne its neighbours and the United States. The united State2 initially ptovided rubstantial uconomic arsiatance to tM sandinieta-dominated regime. We were largnly inatrummtel in the action of the orgrni2stton of mierican statea (cbnsl eieiegitirizing the &vma r&+3 i& iii~iiig the groundwork tot inrtellation of the new junte. Later, when the Sandinistb role in the Selvadotien aontlict beam clear, we nought thmugh a cmbination of pz;vate diplomatic ContsCta and euepenrion st aeaiotance to convince Nicaragua to (Hr. Walters, United State@ belt ita 8ubv~rston. Later atill, ecolwsic maouceo and further diploutatic efforts were eglayed to try to offect ahrngoe in Sandiniota behaviour. Still, Nicaragua’8 pomtute was one of osrpleta and awtained intransigence. It ir perhape worth umlerrcoring that this *intransigence” is not quite what Nicaragua would like us to 8ee it as - the plucky refueal of a small but proud non-aligned Strlte to be bullied by a brutimh and overweening super-Power. Rather, it W&B an adarrnt continuation of entirely unprovoked and unwarranted policiee of otterpting to overthrow the Salvadorian Governsent, of a rapid military build-up well beyond anything justifiable in internal or regional terms, of an embrace of the Cuban9 and Soviet., alnd of internal political repression rsiring the moat profound Uoubtm about the ttandinimtaa’ readfneso to obeerve their cowitment8 of July 1979. It use long m fbat Nicaragua could be induced to tiify one crucial element of its behaviour - itr mnchant for attacking its neighbours - by demtmrttating that it could not hope to aobisve its goal of replacing their Govermente with on more like itc own. My Gwermmmnt provfcled eubotantial l rrirtanae to tha countrima euffering from Sandinieta rttentionr. NiC8r&gUa’e neigbbour~ have arked for asrietence against Nicaraguan aggreroion, and the united Statee has tesponcled. Thona countries have repeatedly snd publicly aado clear that they conoider thesselver to be the victims of aggresrion from Nicaragua, ancl that they deBire United Stater assistance in meeting both subverdve attacks and the conventional threat posed by the relatively iauaenee Ul -------a- -r-P a-..--- nruerryur‘, OLUSY LYICPW. The United Btates has provided over $2 billion in assistance to Central America since 1979) three quarters of that sum has been in the form of economic sssirtanee, and barely one fourth has been military assistance despite the enormous coeta ent.aited in meeting the covert attaeke and conventional ti:reete posed hy (Hr. Walters, United States) ‘: . Nicaragua. ~kegrettably, too great a proportion of thia assistame must be used, not for the davalopment or human needs of thooa countrrieo, but to repair the ecouaic damage oauaed by the policy of the Nicaraguan-sponsored DHLN of deliberately destroying the Salvadorian infrastructure. United States military and acomaic assistance haa contributad to limiting the scale and impact of the active warfare, especially in Rl Salvador, and to increasing Nioafagua’s neighbours’ security against the Sandinistas. Howaver, there was every evidence, a8 there is today, that the Sandinietso could and intended to aontinue their aggreseive policiee indefinitely. Faced with the failure of all peaceful means and the unacceptability of allowing Nicaraguan subveraion and aggression to continue unoheaked, the United States began to provide limited eupport for the democratic resistance forceo already in the field. Supporting the reeietenee is the wat effmztive mean0 of exerting preseure on the Sandinietas to edify those polices that present a threat to their neighbours ad to regional peace. The United Stetee hopes that tha combination of the failure in IioaraguaDo policy of aggreesion, the increaeing coats of maintaining itta overblown ailitary establishment, a collapsing economy, deepening popular dircontent an8 an increasingly effective daamorati~ resistance will finally lead the sandinietas to resliee that they have no alternative but to engage in serious negotiations aimed at achieving both regional peace ard internal reconciliation. Let me make olear that the United Stater policy doe8 not oeek the overthrow of the Nicaraguan Govetment) not do wa believe that full achievement of our principal policy objectives in Nicaragua could be incompatible with the Governnent of Nicaragua’5 own statad positions. Nicaragua haa acopeted the Contadora Document of Qbjectiveo as the baria for negotiation and for a camprehensive awl effective peace (Hr. Walters, United States) in the mgiOR. The United states, too, har made abundantly clear that SuLl and verifiable implementation of the Document of Obje&ivea rrrould meet all aur policy goals in aiearagua and the region. Pteoident Reagan esser”ially ccrntimed this position as recently as 24 June. tndeed, it ia virtually IPapoasible to imagine any other context in which peace could ccm to the region. we believe that continued united States support for the resistance is eesential to induce the Sandinista rdgime to enter intc meaningful negotiations. We regret that that is 80, but we have too often been faaed with Saudinista ptcmioeu which evaporate when the imediate tactical basis for their issuance has dieappeared. It is not enotqh for Nicaragua to aerert a readiness to sign an iucoaplate regional treaty4 it must actually achieve and implement one. The history of Contadors is replete with occasions oe which Nicaragua for tactical reason@ tack an apparently forthaaeing pooiticm only to reverse itself at a later memane. Indeed, ite 21 June response to the latest draft agreement underscores its oynical attitude twards Contadora. while claiming to respond favourably to the draft, Nicaragua in fact simply recycled old prctposals which hsd been rejected by the other partiee to the negotiations. Since the Central Aamrican dwmctacies had already rtoted major deficiencies in the new draft, the Sandinietae* responre can bet seen only a8 a coat-free gambit aimed at influencing the vote on assistance for the dmccratic teaistauce. Still, we remain hopeful that Wicaragua will ccme to realiee that thic wurse of action ie bankrupt and eelf-destructive, and that there are other, conotructive roles that it could be playing instead. ., (Mt. Walters, United States) The Unit@ States Rouse of Representative5 approval of the request for further assistance for the resistance should give the Sandinietaa gcod reason to negotiate set iouely. That vote made it clear that the United States is not going to weary of the fight against their aggreseion, is not going to let Niaarague conduct its aggressive and repressive policies unchallenged. Nicaragua, as we have Been@ plays fast and 1-w with the facts. This timet, perhaps, it succeeded in deluding even itself about just how well it had deceived the Congrees about ite true nature and policies. The United stat00 &eke peace , security, democracy and economic development throughout Central Ames ica. ‘we believe that our actions are in compliance with International law end the highest ideals of the United Nations Charter. We are helping friends defend thsmselvea against armed attack from Nicaragua, and thus striking a blow against aggression. Our eupport for the Wiceraguan resistance is designed only to encourage Nicaragua to participate seriouely an8 in good faith in the regional negotiations now under way. We remain prepared to resume a high-level bilateral dialogue with Nicaragua at the aams time a6 it opens talks with its opposition. The question now ie whether the Sandinietaa truly want peee. Are they willing to negotiate seriously with their ueighkmm and their own people? Are they willing to halt their efforts to overthrow or intimidate their neighbours? Are they willing to fulfil the premises they made in July 19791 The fact remains that thoss ahoice8, so crucial for peace in Central America, are for the Nicaraguano, not the United States, to make. we have not launched an unprovoked attack on El Salvador. We have not sustained for five years a war bleeding El Salvador'5 people and economy white. We have not sought to deatabilize or intimidate Nicaragua's unoffending neigh’wure. We have not inserted the (Hr. Waltere, United States) Baet-West dimenrion by inviting in thousende of Cuban and Soviet-bloc abirieers. ‘We have not conducted since 1979 an unprecedented and unneceeeary military build-up. We have not eatabliahed in NiaaCagUa an increasingly rigid and ideologically-controlled socieyy wholly at variance with the 1979 promisee. And, finally, it ie not our policies which have crrused tens of thoueands of Nicaraguane to fight to reetore the derPocratic values in the name of which the 1979 revolution was fought. The crucial choicee, then, are Nioaragua98. We will be watching closely to see what choice Nicaragua makee. Qhe PRlSSIDBNPt I thank the representative of the United State8 for hi8 kind was adateased to the pueaiaency. or. AOUILAR (Venesuela) (interpretation from Spanish) : We are very pleased, sir, to be among the fitet to cungratulate you on assunring the presidency of the Coun~Al for the month of July, and of oourse we pledge our full -ration. Raving had the opportunity to follow your work in this and other fortune of the Untted Nation, I am certain that you will conduct our proceedingo this month with great intelligence and Skill. Before turning to the rubject before u& I wish on behalf of all the member8 of my delegation and on my cm behalf to cay how much we admired thb work of your pte&cefH?or , the Petmenent Representative of Madageeoar , Ambaessdor %laiee Rabetaf ika. A diplouat with a great aeal of e%perience, and a gmd friend of long-standing, Ambaesador Rahetafika once again demnotrated hie wisdom, LL_.__LLI& -.---- --A a.a..Ararr cuuucJ,,L.LYI“czDP QIRA RLIIY..YYY. The Security Council ie meeting at ttie request of the Government of Nicaragua to consider recent disturbing events affecting relations between Nicaragua and the Government of the United State& That requeet certainly takes into account the (Me. Aguilse, VerlePuel~) eecont deci8ion of the United Stat88 Uouw of Rapeeeentative8 to 8uthoeixe $100 million of 8id foe tha ma-called conteae - that is, the irregular armed forces fighting again8t the Governsent of Micaragua. Beu8u8a it io a L8tin Ameiurn country, a neighbour of the countries of Central meica, enjoying close relation& with them, Venezuela haa follorH8 4th thm geeateet inteeert event8 in that 8ubrqion over the paot few ye8r8, an13 a8 a me&me of the 8o-mlled Contadoee Group ue have nade, anb continue to aate, sttenwua efforts to amtribute to pm-e and so-operation in Central Ameica. A8 is well known, four othmr Latin Anrican counteier have given their rupgort to that joint initiative by Col&ia, Mexico, Pan8ma and Veneruela. Thofm aounteier - Argentina, Braoil, Peru ad Uruguay - make up the 8o-called support Group. Noreovee, the international coaunity ha8 given a great deal of support, a8 is shomn by thm 8taWnk of my Goveemente around the world and hy reuolutione of tha Swueity Council, thm United Uation8 <knee81 As~lbly and the General lk8embly of tha Oeganio8tion of Amriaan statoo. It rbould be recalled that the Contadoea efforta have not ken confindl to general promuncemeWs or a8ee appeals to the aountriea of Central Awriaa to wttle their differenceo by peaceful wana In more than thrn year@ of uninterrupted work, with innumerable maetinge at various level8 in olow and continuing dialogue with the Contra1 Amrican eountrieo, the Contadoea Group hae drawn up a Oet of clommantta containing detailed, aonueete proposslc to bring peace to the area. That pha8e o2 it8 aativitiee culrineted in thm revbad Contadora Act on peaue and Co-operation in Central Marioa, which was peerent8d to the Cfbnte81 Awriean Foreign Mini8teeo dn 6 Juno thie year. There 161 no nead to quote from or consnt at length on that eevird Act, which will Soon ha cieoulated a8 an official document of the Security Council and the (MP. Aguilar, Venesuela) i. Goneral Assembly. Powever, in fulfilment of the mandate my delegation has been” given by the other countries of the Contadora Group and the countries of the Support Group, I wish to read out the Panama Meseage of 7 June 1966 from the Foreign Ministers, which euccinutly and cleafly lays out the general guideiiner, for that pnweaa and ita objectives. It reada as follows: “The Miniatera for Foreign Affairs of Argentina, Brazil, Coloxbia, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, which are faembets of the Coxtadota Group and the Support Group, who met at Panama on 6 and 7 June 1986, declares .I. Thnt they welcome the historic meeting of the five Central American Pteoidentr at Esguipulae, on 25 May 1986, at which they reaffirmed their tmpport for tha Contadota process aud therr intention to sign the Contadota &at on Peaoe ad Co=opetatiorr in Central Aarerica. In that connection, they reiterate the statement made by the five Central American Presidents et Eoguipulas t ‘Peace in Central America can be achieved only through an authentic demcratic prccees that ir pluralistic and participatory, whfoh entails the peanotion of occial justice and reswt for human rights, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Statee and the rights of overy netian to choose freely, and without outeide interference of any kind, its own euonumic, political and social pattern, it being understood that euch e choice is the ceault of the freely expteased will of the people8 concerned.’ (Mr. kmilar, VenemxAa) l 2. Iti eeawt weeks a aat of negotiation0 hae been held with a View to settling outstanding matters relating to the Peaa Aut. Taking account ot the gooitioma Mated by tbo five oountriea in the negotiation& the Ccmtadora Group prepared a new draft ket recleoting the parties* interert8 in a balanced manner. This revised vemion was tranmnittml, on the agreed date, to the Bliniotors for Poreign AffaSrs of the give Central Werican ~)~efies, who had brrn invited to Panam. . 93. SU in the aatse of earlier proporals, this proposal uaa nevet inhnded to kcaa an instrument to force t& marereign parties to take any action ftot in keepirg with their legitimate interesta. Hwevu, we believe that reconciliation of thoee Antwest through propooalo to pzoaote pe8cer security and dmocrmy is of the greatemt imprbnce not only for Central kerica but for the entire region, 94. That the Cmte(bra Group ha8 had, and continues to h&ve, two funbwntel gor- The Picat goal io to eo*perats actively in preparing a peaae treaty governing relatione betuaen the Cantsal Met&an Statee in a juot and brluwed manner, and the seaand goal io to identify ‘3s basic requirements for tie signing, implemenbtion and obtwrvanoe of the peaae treaty by the partie& It io aloar that the two goals are caaplementary: a treaty without aonditionr for itr implementation is an illuaiorr, and without a legal framework Rudy cmditions are iruuffiaient to be pettm&nently binding on the gartim* “6. That it could thetafore be l rtoneoue to believe that the cx iris aould be at ui* prapbp &y -5s cc ww----.~- - A-@. ----L-r ~--~u a*- P Y-L. CL-*,. f?mgC~oB ;;iiist Sip by made in bringing about the naaaseary conditiom i?oc the l iqninq ot the Peace hat. (Mr. Agu ilar , Venesuela) .6. That in &ho Caraballeda C(oamge, which WI endorsed by the five Central &erican wmtries, an endeavour was ma& to identify the conditions that dmuld be the lasting pr inoip!es GJI uhich e0 bane mce, deaaracy and security in Central Alrerica. 97. mn principle8 and nine forw of aoticm that must be fully realhed uere 88t forth in that b4888age. 96. If progre88 is to be ma& in the cartsdora proce88 and the final goal of goam i8 to be achieved, it ir essential that three fundamental cmitment8 ebould be aweptedt ta) U8e of a ~~mtry@s territory a8 a ba8e for corrittinq acts of aggreuian against another aountoy or foe providing military or logistical 8uggort to itregutr foras or 8dsVersive group ehould not be permitted) (b) Ho country should twcomc, a H5rb8r of military or politics1 alliaJNe8 that thr8aten p88a3 and s8CWity in the region either direatly QC indirectly, Uwr &awing the region into the E88t-ttwt confliott tc:c) Ho Pouer shoul4 give military 0L logistici support to the irtegular force8 or eubvsr8ive group8 %at are operating, or that ray operate, in Ule aomtrh8 of the rsgiar, or use 0T threatsn to we force as a m55n8 of averthrowing any Govermmnt in the atea. “9. Thet peacva 8hould be consolidsted in the region through the rule of gfutali8tio d81PIDCPaayr which call8 for the exercise of univQt8al ouftrage through fr18, regular eleotioe8 et~5rvis5d by independent national bodie8 and r rul tl-,pwty mymtm in euuh a & ae to permit the legal and organised teptesentatian of all beiiefs and political action in oociety. There mu& be majority gowanmznt, thus guaranteeing the freedaarrr and fundamental rights of slL Citfams and safeguarding those of polftia1 ainoritiee in the contest of the constitutional order. (Hr. hqu ilar , Veneauela) .lO. That thie peace endeavour should be acoo~~paniad by au effective ,; nti . : : aontribution fo the eoonomic and sooial dsvelopnent of Central America, which Latin hmarica deolacea itself willing to pcomte, while inviting the other taeahecs of the international ooumnity to join it in that en&avour. “11. That the eight oountciee mesbece of the Contadoca Group and it8 support Group reaffirm, for the bsnefit of all the countries of the reqiar and i oountciea with interests in ahd links with the region, their willingness to make available their good offices amnq all the parties involved in these camitmente. In that aonnection, they ace willing to consider, tagether with the pWties, way8 in whioh the necessary verification procedures should be carried out, do should bo responsible for carrying out thoee pcocadures and how fulfilment ofthacoasihemte undertaken ie to bequacan&ed. "12. That, taking account of all these iseues, they believe that the new dcaft ConimIora Aat, which is being formally submitted to the Central hmerican oountcies eaQy, both aan and must bring the negotiating pocese to a rapid and effeative conclusion. The coneequent entry into foroe of the Aot a8 sam as possible and it8 implementation on the ba8i8 of adequate safeguards ie the only my of achieving a just and effeative peace in Central Amecioa, in keeping with the aepiratione of the entire international caplnumity and all Latin AEOetiaans in garticular.’ (Wle143) That wae the Panama Message of 7 June 1986. TO ouppleuent theee brief commt8 on fhe Cantadora Peaaae ~COCSPP, I ler@! reoall tiat a few days ago, cm Thursday 26 June, to be more precise, the BOCeiqn Ministare of the counttiee of the Cartsdora Group submitted to the 60cretacy-General of the United Nations and to the Secretary-General of the (Mr. &iuilar , Veneauels) OrgMiMtiW of kuiaw States a BDaumnt, 000) to be distributed as en official doaumnt of the CeUIail and of the Gonual Asaeably. That doarmnt amtainu a dotailed aaOOwt of the recent action8 of the Cantodora ocoup amd the Supput Group and i8 int&n&d to k-p ohi6 Or~anizatian and the tegianal Grgmisstiem inforwd of tboe effects. At time tslks, the Foreign wintiterr of the Cartadaa Group plrde italeu thoteh~rroi~~Cartsdorakcton1P~a and Cwperatial imCentza1 luuiaa marks theamalwimofwak oneub8tantivo aaQmftmof Ule prablrt at l notbu stage, procadural aromg4taentfb will be nsobrrery in or&r to implamt this Aett thwe arrangments, of ccwao , are subfeat to apprwal of the llct itself W the Central kurican cmmtries. The WLnistus alro repeated tha unshakeable detemimation of tbeit Gapuniaents to lend their good offiaes to all the parties involved in thaae comiment8, 08 the P8wma bbeaage fstat4m. It i8, thuefore, obiow that the Cattedas Group dam mot feel that it ham finirhed itr bmine8s) it io oonfidrnt that the aomteie@ diteatly ecmcemd, whid% @muAd obviously have the final my, will respard pa#itively to Ulare l ffotW whidb Ue rimed ralely at helping ei~tut peoplea, within a trtin ketican fmmmak, to find a rolutian to the difficult problear they ue f&wing at pruent. ; i, (Hr. kguilar, Venezuela) The Con$sdora Group is not dead; reports of its premature death, often biased and tendentious, have beea proved unfounded by the facts time and time again. But it is true, as pointed out by the Winiotera for Fore@ Affair6 of the Contadora countries at their prose conference on Thursday, 26 June, following their meeting with the Semetsry-General, that the recent deoieion by the United Btatee House of Representative6 to authorize significant financial and military assistance to the so-called contraa does not promote the negotiating prouess am devised and carried out by the countries of the Contadora Group and the Support Group. As said at that time, the Group ha8 alwaye been opposed to resorting to war in order to seek peace) the essential spirit of Contfidora is non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States. That conform to the often reiterated pmition of those countries. In the Panama Uemage, which I read out earlier, and in previous public documents, the amber6 of the Contadora Group and the Support Group stressed that it was imperative that no Power whateoever: should give military or logimtiml support to irra9ular forces or subvereive groups uhioh oprate or uould operate in the oeuntries of the Icegion, or utm or threaten to uee force aa a mean8 of overthrowing s Government of the region. That io set out olearly in the Caraballeda neeuage for Peace, Security and Democracy in Latin America, of 12 January 1966, signed by the Poreign Hinietere of the countries of the Contadora Group and the Support Group. Central American Foreign Ministers endorsed its prinoiples and purposes in the Guetemala Declaration of 14 January 1966 and in the communiqu6 they issued at Punta de1 Eeta, Uruguay, on 26 February 1986. The countriee of the Contadora OrOUp and the Support Group could take no other position, because, as is well known, Latin America has alway heen vigorous in its defence of the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other Staten (Hr. Aguiler, Veneauela) which, thdnke in large part to ito efforts, io in full force today both’in inter-American relations arid in !nternatic:S relations in general. Article 18 of the charter of the Organisation of American states streeree that principle when it etatee that "No State or group of State6 has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affair@ of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but al& any other form of interference or attempted threat againrt the pereonality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural element8.” while the United Nation6 Charter doea not contain a prOViaiOn framed in thOSe or similar term, the General Assembly hae repatedly affirmed its validity, aft shown by the following Ae8embly resolutiona: reeolution 380 (V) of 17 November 1950, entitled ‘Peace through &edP; resolution 1236 (XIII of 14 December 1957, entitled *Peaceful and neighbourly relations among Steter*~ resolution 2131 (XX), containing the Declaration on the InaUmiesibility Of Intervention and fnterference in the Internal affaira of states and the Protection oE Their Independence and Sovereignty; reeolution 2629 (XXV), containing the Declaretion on Brinciplee of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and CO-OperatiOn among Statea in eccordence wtth the Charter Of the United NatiOnW end resolution 2734 UXV), containing the Declaration on the Gtrengthening of International Security. That principle wae recently reaffirmed by the Manila a--*---L,-- -- Ltr- -----P--q --a-~--r& -0 tr~m~mrC4~mI ~j~tuhm- A&,o~Q~ bv t&Q LISbLQLPCLVl WI. L‘lsz l OabOL”L “OLL-*O*UY,,C YC -..-mm ..----..-- c ----. m - General Assembly through it8 resolution 37/10 of 15 November 1992. We must add that the very recent decieion of the fnterngtionel Court of Justice in the case of Nicaragua v. the United States of Americn estsblishee that the principle of non-intervention forms part of customary international law. \ (Ha. Aguiler, Vanoruela) For all those rea8ono# the dolegation of Venesuela thinka it regrettable that the United Statoa Govornwmt ho decided to gmrrwere in con&W which 18 undoubtedly contrary to international law and whiah, far from prorating the cause of paaco in Cmtral America, am only conttibut8 to increa8ed tonsion in ths area, p088ibly leading a chain reaction of unforweeablo aonmquew~r. Clearly, thi8 i8 the POSitiOn mt only of the Covernmnt of Venorwla but of all our country'9 political parties, which, in one way or another, have c8nrurd thio actian by the Govemmant of the United States. It im truly rurpri8ing that a State uhiah aainteine BtplorPrtio relation8 with the Govetn8ent of Nicaragua 8hould ropoatdly and wnly prasote and encourage action by irregular forcer aiu8d at overthrouing that Govemmont by form or at imgwrirq certain conduct up0n it. We continue to h0pa that thir cOUr8e will not be pur8ued forever, and that the united state8 Government will aame to umlor8tand that ruch eotion lo not only contrary to internationel 18u, a8 he8 ken raid, but crleo prejudiciri to its relation8 with the countrier of Latin Awriar, which heve alway@ rightly rejwted categorically all foras of intervention in ths interm affair8 of St&e& Ristoty 8howbr mraoverr that United State0 intorvontion in various Bountrieo of the region generally reeuikc tn the ertablirhmant of autooratio r&imar which have beerr largely reeponeible for the political, eamcmia and 8ouiel bsokwstdness of the countries it ha8 then had to 8upport. That va8 certainly the r?a88 of #Icarague, ruled for more than 40 years by the Bsrona dictatcmhip. TM PWXWR?FW I thank the reprerantative of Venetuela for the kind worda he addressed to m. The next apesker is the repre8mt8tive of Xnclia. I invite him to toko B place at the Council table and to lake hie rtatement. Mr. VEiWh Undia) t It Lo ny ploa8ant duty firat of all to convoy to youI Sit, my dhq8tion'8 gremtbg8 8nd itc mmgr8tulath8 on your arrumpti& of the! high offioe uf tiaa pturidency of tho Swutity Council for the mmth of July. Oud two OhWit have olosa and cordial relationr, 814 are linked twether by tie8 Of uUltUr@ 811d tradition that gc baok into hirtory. Uo admire your diplomatic acumen and not8bl8 p8rmn81 quelitier, which ve had 8ev8ral oaca8ions to witne88 at first hmd during our coimon MdW8hip Of the Security Counuil le8t yrar. Jt i8 tborrfoio a pka8urm to ee8 you in th8 Chair. We a88ut8 you of our fulleet Wr8tiOfb 8nd help in the diwhargc of your OMrou8 r88pOn8ibilitie% (at. Verma, India) I ehould alxo like to pay a tribute to your ptedlauee8or, the Amhaseadot of Ndagaacat, who conducted the buoineee of the Council laot month with hi8 curtoaaty dignity and cowqetence. The item tolating to the situation in Central Axwica ha8 been on the agenda of the United Nations General Aeeembly for the pamt three years. Thie ie the eleventh time over this period that Nicaragua hae felt compelled to have recourse to the Security Council. That ie indicative of the gravity of the situation that obtains in Central America a8 well as of tba aenne of inseuutlty that tb Nicaraguan Government and moplo continue to experience, in opite of the Valiant effort8 of the Contadota Group to find a political solution to the ptoblene of Central America. In this context, we listened with great attention and concern to the 8taterMknt of the Foreign Minirter of Nicaragua, who explained with clarity the developPlente that have aompelled Nicaragua once again to mek redtere by thio Council. Security Council resolution 562 (1985), adopted in day 1985, inter alia, l tfimad the inalienable right of Nicaragua and th:, reek of the states of the area to decide on their own political end ewnomig system free fgOiP outride interference, subversion, direst or inditacrt coercion, or thteru of any kind; teeffitaob the CouncZ.l”e firm ruppott for th8 Contedora Gtoqp; called on State8 to refrain from carrying otit political, economic or military action8 of any kind against any State in the region whiah might ispade the peace objectives of the Contadota Group; and called on the Govetmener of the United 8tatex ad Nicaragua to resume the dialogue in Manzanillo. Mexico. Regrettably. thie temlution hae not had the deeired positive imact. The situation in Central America ha8 fiqured ptaminently amang the important issues engaging the attention of the l4ovement of Non-Aligned Countries. The Heads (Mr. Verma, India) of State or Government of non-aligned countries, meeting in New Delhi in March 1983, took note with great concern of the continuing tension in Central America. They ‘denounced the new and increasing threats and acts oE intimidation and the growing eeriouaneas and increased number of acts of aggression again& Nicaragua (which1 were considered part of a deliberate plan to harass and destabilise that country*. (S/15675, political Declaration, para. 136) More recently, the ministerial meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of @Ion-Aligned Countries held in New Delhi in April this year noted with deep concern that the present situation in Central America constituted one of the main focal points of tension at the international level , and called for an immediate end to all threats, attacks and hostile acts against the people and Government of Nfcaragua. The Co-ordinatkg Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement met in urgent session in New York yesterday and adopted a comunigut$ on developments relating to the situation in Central America. I should like to read into the record of the Council the text of the communigu6: *The Coordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries met in urgent session in New York on 30 June 1986 to consider the latest developments relating to the situation in Central America. -The Bureau heard a statement by the Permanent Representative of Nicaragua to the United Nations, Iier Excellency M8. NOra Astorga, in this _r+nrA. 4th aMt?ifir. rafarence en the req6jne V&a j+ t_& llnitoil Ptntpa UAISE~ s---, _ __. -c-- ---- - _-- -____. ------ - - ----- __---_ of Representetivee relating to the approval of funds to provide heavy weapons, training and other kinds of assistance to mercenary groups seeking to deatabilize and overthrow the legitimate Government of Nicaragua. (Mr. Verma, India) ‘The Bureau recalled that the Ministers of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, meeting in New Delhi in April 1986, had condemned the request as well as the discussion in the United States Congress relating to the approval of fund8 for the financing of mercenary forces, as an immoral and illegal act in violation of international law. Expressing its grave concern anI regret at the recent vote in the United States Rou8e of Representatives on Lnis question, the Bureau condemned any such funding a8 a violation of the sovereignty and political independence of Nicaragua, a non-aligned country, a8 well a8 of the principle8 and objective8 of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Charter of the Unitee Nations. *The Bureau expressed it8 grave concern at the deterioration in the situation in the subregion stemming from the grave new threat8 against Nicaragua, including in particular the provision of financial assistance to mercenary forces, and noted that such actions increased the danger of direct intervention arul military actions against that country and further imperilled regional and international peace and security. .The Bureau reiterated its call to all State8 concerned to redouble their effort8 to bring the Contadora Group’s Peace process to fulfilment. In thie context, it deplored the fact that the United State6 continued to prevent a negotiated political solution and to obstruct the peace initiatives. .The Bureau reiterated its firm solidarity with Nicaragua. It appealed to all membece of the Non-Aligned Movement, as well a8 to the international --..-, L. L- -)...a -rr,‘A-r4&.. ,.A -1, ~unm”~.&~,, b” yrrr ov*&uo..~, ‘P,- YIL “ah”.. “..-a- -s..-- mm-h r=r~PC-nrm PA wi~nvAal*a *y clxylice -- -.---- -~a-- in or&r to preserve it8 right to self-determination, national fndependenCer sovereignty and teer itor ial integrity. l (Mr. Verma, India) The Non-Aligned Movement has been following the developments in Central America with serious concern. The Movement has deplored the UBB of coercive ineasures against Nicaragua. We respect the right of Nicaragua, as indeed of all States, to mould a new future for itself free from all foreign interference or pressure. It is our conviction that the tensions and disputes in the Central American region can only be resolved peacefully and through negotiations among all concerned. We welcom and support the efforts of the Contadora Group and the recently constituted Lima support Group. This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Non-Aligned Movement. At their first meeting in Belgrade, in 1961, the Heads of State or Government of the Won-aligned Watione declared; .The present-day world is characterired by the existence of different Social 8ystems. The participating countriee do not consider that these differences constitute an insurmountable obstacle for the stabilization of peacer pro-rided attempts at domination and interference in the internal development of other people5 and nations are ruled out.. Theme words are univerlaal and abiding truths, not limited by time or space, and represent the very basic5 both of non-alignment and indeed of the united Nation5 Charter . (Mr. Verma, India) It is our profound conviction that peace in Central America cannot rest on the foundation8 of the policies of intervention, interference and intimidatiar, nor cm the threat of use of force, nor on coercive meamree of any kind &ateoever. For any Peace to be enduring, it must be based on acceptance of the principles of the political and aocio+~~~omic pluralism of States, on scrupulous observance of the Principles of non-interference and non-intervention, on a poeitive appreciation of the endemic problems of this troubled part of the world and on a constructive and co-operative approach to their resolution. ft is inculllbent upon the security Council to grasp this reality and to give the uPgent task of bringing Peace to this region a real chance. The PRESIDENTt I thank the repreeentative of India for his kind word6 addressed to the presidency. I call upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, who hm asked ta spaak in exercise of the right of reply. Mr. D’ESQ)%Sl B-ANN (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish)% Aotuelly, I am not going to be availfng myself of the right to tesgard to the words Spoken by the representative of’the unitid States. Bie statement - devoid of seriouaneee and of respect for thoee present here - doe6 not merit any tePlY l If Mr. Walter 8 really believe8 in the truth of the wild accueetiane he put forward he should have persuaded hie Gwernaemt to defend and prove ite charges against Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice insteed of cresting the mu3 and pitiful spectacle of running away from the Court. The Ambeasador should not have tried to do here what hio Govermnt lacked the courage to do in the Court. The menbere of the International Court of Justice, including Justice Schwebel, deci&d unanimously that the Court was the proper forum foe an in-depth examination and analysis of Nicaragua*8 copplaint against the united States and of the mited (Mr. D’ Escotcr Brockmann, Nfcar a-1 States Government defence. The Court haa already handed down its decision, Mt. Walters: it found against the illegal behaviour of the United States. In what is without any doubt the clearest and most categorical condemnation in the Court’s history, it ha8 found against the United States systematic violation of the principles that it, as a Metier of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council, has axraitted itself to respect, promote and defend. We are not abandoning the hope that the United States will find the moral strength necessary to amand its conduct and to join the nations that respect international law and their international commitment8 to the cause of peace. The PRES IDRRT: There are nu further speaker 8 inscribed on my. list for thio meeting. The next meeting of the Security Council to continue consideration of the item on the agenda will take place tomorrow, Wedr,esday, 2 July 1986, at 10 a.m. The meetinq rose at 6.15 p.m.