S/PV.2704 Security Council

I should like to inform membera of the Council that I have receivad a letter fear the repzeeentative of the Islamic l&public of Iran in vhidr he requests to be invited to participate in the disassiar of the item m the Council ‘8 agenda, In conformity vith the usual peact.iDQ, I gropaee, with the consairt of the Council, to invite that repmsentative to mrticipste in the discussion without the right to vote, in eocordance vith the relewnt provisions of me Charter and rule 37 of the CounailQ provisional rules of prouedure. There being no abjection, it is so decided. At the tnvitetiar of the President, Mr. Rajeie-Crhozaseani (Islamic Replbfic of Iran) took tkre place reeerved for him at the side of the Council Cbanbet. The PREslDE8Tg The Setcurity Council will nresume conai&rstion of the item on ita agenda. The first spaaker is the represemtstive of the Cango, on who$n I now call. Mr. GAWMA (cango) (interpretstim Cram French)a There are sum alarmingly persistent subjects with vhich the Geourity Cuunail Pa more oz lea* %lu~rly forced to deal became of ieS inability to samrclee av4r them - not to mention over the earties cmcerned - the necesssry authority th4t cwldr if sot impose a just and lasting solution to them, 4t least lsmmn their negative cowequencas. The Problem President oaniel Ortege expxmed to us laet m4sd4y is of this trpe. We considered me aspect of it in a deh4te bald eulier this amth, and that was not, unfortunately, the first occasim. As things are going, one need not be clairvoyant to pediot that this will not be the Lsst time, ardently as we might hops ta be mistaken in Uist prediction- If we have correctly under swod the rrotives inv&ed by Oha d414g4tian of Nicategua, it is 4 question of drswiug the logic41 ca~olusiens frao the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 27 June 1066 with tegud to the %ilitary end Pararpilitery Activities. in and against that aountry. Who would not feel challenged by ati a problem? Although pleased at the clear an8 cudsa expression of the prcblm made by the Court, rrhich, as indiu4ted in Article 1 of its Statute, is the pin&p41 judicisl my of the Unitad thtiane, it is for th4t teasOn particulatly tegretbble to note the selrotivity that tsints the basic principle of reaqnitian of the Court's jurisdictia, on the part of certein mates, some of them permment me*ers of the Security Counail ta thorn the very creation of the Court is due. why are we plemed that the Court vat eeieed of tht matter me passed judgement upon it? The opinion of the People's I&ptilic of the Cargo is beeti * its &oice in favour of the processes of peamful settlsmsnt of differenaae a-g States as the meana of preaerving and promting intematiaml peace and eecvtitY- It goeo without uying that that choice irpplies tieaqnition of the sovereign right5 of peoples and State8 freely to determine their system of Govetnnnmt or developospent . Becarose of the natural aiv6iwty in aituationa ana in the ecamaic0 fmcial and aullural experimceeo that make up today% world, including Central hmetica, with its varied history of periods of nuu&ing inaction and of creative rwolutianuy upsurges, it ie useful to reaffirm the validity of such ideas as independence, oovereiwty and self-Beterminati~- It wula therefore be only fatt to allaw the Managua Government to engage in the expa~imants and inescapable changes it has decided to make in Nicaraguan BQeiety without outoide interference or conettaint of any kind. ‘Lb that extent, the Judgment handed down by Qhe International Court of Justice, as well as the eaof-ibility of the regu6st introckxed by Nicaragua , constitutes recognitim of a genuine legitimaoy that A^, would be ill-aavised to question. Znd=dr aW t~ervatian or sdec!tioiQ aannot but severely damage the very structure of international law, thiah hae vigour and credibility amly to the extent that %ch Hmber of the Unf.ted Nations undertake6 to corppry with the decfsim of the ~ntunatiaml Court of Justice in any case to drich it is a party’, a@ etipllated in Article $4, paragraph 1, of the LInited Nations Charter. In keeping with that principle, the Security council is not paaeinq judgement on the Court9 Judgment. If there uere reason to do so* it would be more appropriate fur the Comail to aonaidet the attituaee and policies which, in the mw W before it, are impding the evolution of the Cantadore prooeee by hinaering the achievement of the goal9 of peace by peaceful meam. lnbeed, in the 1-g run no one would be able to participate in an htetnational ey6iter LCQP rrhich the primacy of law had been unseated in favour of the km3 of fotoe and wercian. Were euch a trend to gain etzength, the attracti* of the very notions of demoracy an& free&a woult3 be weakened and would lead to (Ht. Gayam, Congo) all kinds of attacks ar the fundamental norm for which the international coauuunitY has gradually managed to win acceptance by three - icrdividuals or States - who were using their differences as baseo for cooperation rather than for OppOdtiOn Ot aonflict. Three years ago, with the adoption of resolutiar 530 (1983) on the situatiun in Centtal America, the &curl@ Council reaffirmed as are of the ccmdftions for a eettle8Wmt of the ~oblems of the regia, the right of Nicaragua and of all the other countries of the area to Jive in peaoe and security. It would not have been Without interest had the Council undertaken a dispassiarab evaluatia, of the measures nee&d to achieve carformity with that decision. In order tro do that once again, and having heard expressed the broad international sentiment of practically unreserved support for the effort6 of the Cantadore Group and the Support Group, we are of the opinion that the Central Amerioan puestiar need not inevitably be a problem exclusively or principally involving Nicaragua and the United States. Thcae two comtriee, &haee hietory and geogrpahy pase no obstacle to the developnent of friendly and autually &antegeous relathms, as evidenced by bilateral agrevseate tit-$.?- in the past - such as the 1996 Treaty of Prier.dshiPr bmetce and Navla;sti@ - with a view to tkveloping conoord and trade betveer! ehem, should, withaaat say ~r3e~easafy c~dit~on6 , rearme talk6 designed to atMeW the n*TPblbatim Of riieir re~ttims, whiti would certainly rerme the main ob5teCle to i =.;;ca M the regirin. &aericar tit? Wicaro~ a re!atir8m .4ould, imo facto, 1-e that autcncmiy that ie f3o iniEa.ic.al 73 tne -T1C”tnS Of diplaeacy as oi7e Wu:.d like to see it practlced a6 an altecnatl~a tu th:cat::, cmfrantatione and the clef& of arm. (MC. Gayana, Congo) Despite the sensitivity of the situation, and the explosive, special nature of it8 elements, ny delegation remains oenxnitted to the logic of dialogue rathe< than to the logic of constraint . BY advocating %eesation *T wi5iBe sllpport for the irregular forces operating in the regime, the ‘Caraballc Me8sagea laid down a positive framework that, in the Opiniw of the Cargo, wouid be appropriate for attaining the peaand security 80 sorely needed by the people of Nicaragua and all those in the region. Carvinced that a policy of co-operation and good-neighbourliness is better than a policy of canfrantaticm and suspicion, and better able to prorpDte the a&ieverPent of the goals of free&m and denmcrac2y, we are certain thet the Security Comcil will find in the communiqd iesued by the mvement of Non-Aligned Countries urging a political, peaceful and negotiated settlement to the crisie in Central America, as well as in the appeal of the fnternatianal Court of Justice, elements that, at tbia atage, an serve to avoid the irreparable and to ensure In that region of the world the cter-all conditions 80 neceeeary for the guarantee of A ta progress and ita independence. Mr. DLMEVI (Ghana): My delegation has already paid a well-deserved tribute to you, Sir, for the excellent manner in tiich yo?; have been steering the co~cil’s work in this month of July. Even as the hour draws near to the end of your tenure of office, the Ghana delegation remains confident that you will continue to give useful guidanoe in the search for a solution to the problem before the Council. barely a fortnight ago, the Council considered what has become known in this Chamber as the Ulited States-Nicaragua dispute. Since Tuesday, 29 July, the Council ha, at the request of Nicaragua, been preoccupied with matters arising frcm the Judgment handed down on 27 June by the International Court of Justice in the caee of the Military and ParMilitary activities in and against Nicaragua. The Ghana delegation had the privilege of listening to His McellencY Comandante Daniel Ortega Saavedra, President of the Republic of Nicsragua, and the Permanent Representcltive of tbe Ulfted States as they presented the cases of their respective countries. The Ghana delegation, of course, ha8 no difficulty in applauding the panel of eminent judges for their clear and unambiguous decision regarding fundamental pcinciples of international law regulating the conduct of inter-State relations, significantly at a time when 5om Metier StatL5 prefer the u5e of force to a Peaceful settlement of disputes. By it5 decision the World Court has upheld the sovereign right of Nicaragua freely to &oose its own political, economic and social systems and, impliedly, ha8 rejected all form5 of outsids political and eccmomic pressure on that country in its efforts to establish a new society based On historical experience. But behind all thie, however, there is the crucial que5tion: mat should the Security Council do? Although the Ghana delegation has no specific proposals ti make at this stage, it seems to u5 that the solemn duty of the Council is to urge the two parties to resume a serious political dialogue. (Mr. Dumevi, Ghana) From the statement of the two spokesmen, it would seen that Nicaragua has once again repeated its willingness to enter into a serious political dialogue with the United States. In fact, President Daniel Ottega Saavedrac was quite clear on this: “‘LbdaY, as in the past, we repeat that we do nfi want confrontation, that we have ccme before the Security Council not to insult the Gwetnment of the United States but rather to 5eek peace and respect international lawt to seek a peaceful and honourable solution to our differences.* (S/PV.2700, p. 17) Unfortunately, although the United States representative has expressed his Government’s intentions to find a peaceful solution, they have been hedged around with 50 many restrictimo that no one can be quite 8uKe of the serf.ousne5s of those intentions. The Security Council, In our view, should urge all the parties to the dispute to seize upon this opportunity to work together to find a fundamental solution to their difference5. The World Court itself has in its Judgment 8tKonglY urged a political dialogue as the only sensible means of solving the problem. Central America cmtinues to be an area of carflict and turmoil with seciou5 implicetians for international peace and security. The search for a peaceful solutiar through the Cartadora process deserve5 the full support of alit it should not be undermined by acts of sabotage and the destruction of infrastructure, calculated to cau8e harm to the ecmmy of Nicaragua with a view to Over throwing it5 Cover nnbmt. The efforts of the people of Nicaragua to establish a society tiich truly reflects the realities of the historical experience8 of Nicaragua must be supported. Any attempt to place difficulties in their way or to Overturn Nicaragua’s popular aspirations would cnly result in conflicts.

The next speaker is the representative of Honduras. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. RENDON BARNICA (Honduras) (interpretation from Spanish): Sir, may I begin by saying how happy my delegation is at seing you once again presiding over the debates of the Council this month. Your high personal qualities and great diplomatic skill guarantee the success of the task which has been entrusted to the Council. I should also like to congratulate you cn the recent elections which have taken place in your country, which is a further reaffitlPation of your people’s dedication to a pluralistic, democratic and representative system. My delegation deems it appropriate to take part in this debate because we believe that the question before the Council is closely related to the present situation in Central America. We beli'eve that the statements rpade by the delegatiar of Nicaragua on Tuesday, 29 July, do not reflect and do not give us the details of the real aspscts of the situation which prevails in the region, because once again they take a unilateral approacPI whi& distorts the political and security issue5 in Centtal America. Similarly, we consider it necessary to participate in the debate of the Council since the Gwernment of Nicaragua, on Monday, 20 July, submitted to the International Court of Justice en unproductive request for a ruling against the Government of fimduras. Given that initiative, it is no lrnger suprieing that the Government of Nicaragua is attempting to turn the highest judicial organ of the international comunity into a political forum and also wants to transform the Council into a free propaganda apparatus serving its own nefarious interests. Nor is it suprising that the Govetniaent of Nicaragua claimed to be the only country ready to sign the last version of the Peace Act, giving the impression of true devotion to the Ccnta&ra initiative while other partiee to this process lack the political will to support it. Never theless, the Contadora Peace initiative has encountered a number of problems, owing fundamentally to the intransigence of the (Hr. Wndon Bmtnica, IIa~duras) Sandinista Government which refuses to accept verifiable cumitoenta to hteml reaWilltian, demouatiastiar and disarmanmnt, or to give up its alliances with antf-deumxatic, extca-cartinental Powers. While four Central -erican a~untries have adieued democracy, seeking a brighter future fcx our people, !n peace and freedom, our efforts are being ~decmined by the polioies pursued by are of the Govetnnrents in the area uhf*, instead of playing a consttuctive role in the elimination of the obstacles to development, has caused serious internal division in its country, the political, ecaraa&c and eecurity effects of tshich are being felt in Xcnduras and other Central aer ican cmntr ies. !Hr. RenQn Batnica, Honduras) In fact, the internal canflicts Jlich remain unsolved in Nicaragua and the atme race undertaken by that country have considerably changed the security balance which existsd in Central America and JIich was a factor of peace. Even though it is already arced to the teeth, Nicaragua states that it will further increase its army from 200,000 to 300,000 men - a force unprecedented in the area, csusing neighbouring countries to feel seriously threatened. Nicaragua’s alighnmt with extracontinental titelitarian Powers constitutes an additional threat to the security of its neighbours end to their political systetm. Nicaragua is responsible for that part of the East-west carflict which ie 811 too apparant in the Wesent Central Rmerican situetiar. No one can ignore the unlawful actiane fomented by the Ssndinista Government against other Central American countries. In the specific case of Bmdurasr not alY does Nicaragua infiltrate subversive groups into Honduran territxxy in order to incite guerrilla warfare agaifmt the established denrxratic Government, but it is training those insurgents to deetabilize other democratic Governumts in the tegim. Nicaragua has aleo committed innumerable direct violations againat the swereignty and territorial integrity of i3ar&rae , the most blatant, perhape, being the recent incureion in March of this year, when approximtely 1,500 smdiniw soldiers penetrated 25 kilolpetree inside our national territory, a fact uhi& was acknowledged by President Daniel Ortiga Saavedra himself, v&en he said here that they had suffered casualties during the Sandiniata incursion. We recall that serious, unprovoked incident perpetrated by the Sandin ista PeOple’S Army with grming concern, as we have heard that in recsnt days concentration6 of Sandinista troops have formed in various parts of our cQIPmon border and are aquiting such proportiDne a8 to threaten tn bring about a deterioration in the normal relations of respect between the two countries. The SitUaticm ie further oomplicated by the fact that these concentrations of trmp are causing local Hmduran peasants to flee inland from this danger to their lives and proper ty . The pursuit of aggressive, threatening policies has been obviou5 also in Nicaragua’s support for all types of terrorist movements which, on our territory, have engaged in countless kidnappings, bombings, skyjackings, sabotage and other violent acts against our citizens, our entsrprises and the very Government of Honduras. These policies have brought about popular unrest in Nicaragua and the appearance of insurgent groups of Nicaraguans which are fighting the abuses of the Sandinista Government. But the internal cmflict in Nicaragua is not contained within its borders and leads to additional tension with neighbouring countries: the Sandinista Government has been carrying out a policy of disrupting border settlements and persecuting indigenous Nicaraguans of Miskito origin, thus creating a mass exodus of refugeea towards neighbouring countr ies. Is this not a clear-cut expression of a policy of persecution and repression by a totalitarian dgime? More and more Nicaraguan refugees are trying to escape the carditione in their country and the abridgement of their civil and political rights and their free&m. Their presence in Honduran territory new numbers more than 40,000 people. The internal conflict in Nicaragua has further led to the displacement of thousands of Honduran peasants who had been living in the border area. The Srrndinistas enter our territory and kidnap, mistreat and kill our citizens. They lay mines on Honduran territory through which civilians travel. They throw grena+.v. 2~4 ;r++=,+ u-Asrer ..a1 3--.. .-ALL --L:XI -_.. cz-- -.I .--- -. . ----1.. .--.-..--. ‘*AL”JCY 1*-a w. CLIIFLJ L&CC. L”rGar*y”a ;tr ihut, violating international law and breaching the legal order with which it is supposed t.0 cJ.qay. Yet it portrays itself as a victim of countries which have neither totalitarian nor expansimist goals, as do Nicaraguan leaders - as they themselves Wt. Rendcn Bar nica, Honduras) I should like here to refer to the four cmdi tions established by the 17 th consultative meeting of the Organisation of Aslerican States in its resoluticn of 23 June 1979, regarding the solution of the internal crisis in Nicaragua. Those conditions aret First, the immediate and definitive replacement of the somocista rdgfme. Secardly, the establishment of a demcratic gwernmnt in the territory Of Nicaragua whase covgmsiti~: shall inclub the main representative groups that opposed the regime of Somcza and that reflect the free will of the people of Nicaragua. Thirdly, the guarantee of respect for human rights for all Nicaraguans without any exoepticn. Fourth, Ure early holding of free electiam, leading to the establishment of a truly demcratic gwernment that will guarantee peace, freedom and justice- With the enoaptich of the firet amditiou, the others remain valid and have not been complied with despite the s~temauts of the delegation of Nicaragua made here two days ago to the effect that the policy of Nicaragua will continue to be me of respect for its international commitmentS~ Mr can we forget the coneeguenoes of the principle contained in article 3 (d) of the charter of the Organisation of American States, in accordauce with which: “The SolidariW of the Rmerican Statee and the high aims which are sought through it require the political organisation of thorn States on the basis of the effective exeraise of representetive demccracy.a This principle reflects the interdependenoe Aich enFate between decmcracy and peace and whose full applioaticn is becoming increasingly urgent in Central America. The effects of the progressive hardening of the Sandinista Government results in nev violations to human rigbt~, which are well known e6 the (Mr. Pen&n Barnica, Hcduras) international community, the mast recent Qles bei.ng the expulsion of Bishop Vega and Consignor Carballo, the drafting of seminary students, the closing down of the Catholic radio station, the freeaing of Church bank accosts, the confiscation of Church property, the occupation of protestant churches and the persecution of Jsws. Nicaraguan repressian has also led to the closing down of the newspaper La Prensa, whose President is Mrs. Violetta Chamrro, former member of the Jun+s of National Pscons truction. Mrs. Chamorro stated M Wednesday, 23 July, that ‘the Sandinieta Psrty has already established a great concentration csnp, whi& is Nicaragua.. Those who are not in that ccncentratia camp hsve fled in panic or have been expelled by the Sendinista Government in its intolerance, to be-me stateless. The Sandinista Government cannot deny its direct responsibility in the regional crisis. DeSpite the tensiin the region, Honduras had succeeded in maintaining internal and external peaoa. We have been able increasingly to consolidate our democratic system in a spirit of free&m, justice and hard’work. In our foreign policy we have been able to maintain our goal of preserving internal peace and protecting the Honduran people from the Boourge of war. We believe that peace is a sine qua nm for ecmanic, social and Political developPen*. and effective international ooqxzcation for dsvelopaent. Hsnce, we aspire to a democratic peace in Central America, guarantsed by laws - a stable and secure peaoe for all peoples in the region , a psaoa whi& vi11 not bc constantly breached by violence generated by the struggles which occur in certain countries or which stem from world tensions. (Mr. Rendon Barnica, Honduras) Thus, on Monday, 28 July, the Iianduran Minister for Foreign Affairs informed the mass media of the outMme of the meetings held on 25 and 26 of that month with the Winisters for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, El Salvador and Guatemala in the City of San Salvador, with a view to fostering the continuation of open and frank regional negotiations, which would of course include the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, in order to begin a new rappro&ment whidr might result in the adoption and implementation of cammitments ensuring democratic peace and security in the regiar. In the light of the recent initiative of the mvernment of Nicaragua before the International Court of Justice against my country, my Gwernment is canpelled to take another took at the diplomatic steps that it was ready to take and would have represented a meaningful initiative to render viable a political solution of the situation in Central America. Umiuras ie a wuntry devoted to peace and democracy. We have alwaye shouldered our national and international responsibilities to ensure harmonious ooexistence in the region. The Nicaraguan regime seems to realize that it, too, has certain responsibilities in the national and international order and that it WSt Comply with them to maintain peace , restore the righe of its own People and help it find self-determination. The mutual observance of obligations by States is an essential and unrenounceable rule.

I thank the representative of Xonducae for the kind words he addressed to the presidency. The next speaker is the representative of the xslamic S&plblic of Iran. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. BAJAIE-KRXWSANI (18lamic F&public of Iran): sir, your presidency of the Smxuity Council bring8 great pleasure and setisfaction to all your fr iend8. I am greatly enoying this pleasure. I congratulate you on this occasion and wish you success in the performance of the heavy but delicate task of presiding aver the present series of Counci1 meetings # convened to deliberate the perennitl problem of the international -unity , namely, United State8 foreign policY. your prec%CSSSCC, Ambassador Blaise Babetefika of Madagascar, had the sank? problem during his term of offioe. Be had to preside over meetings where Clhited State8 aggressive policies were deliberated and he, too, discharged his duties very ably and to the canplete satishction of us all. I therefore wish to express my delegatiar's appreciation for his ability and performance. A8 is known, the Security Council and, in a broader sense, the entire intirnatioaal Organizatim have only ane serious problem - imperialism. &nong the manifold and variegated aspect8 of imperialien, there is the serious and crucial case of American imperialism. In the policy of American imperialism there exists a particular administrative error, Ulet of the present Administration, which itself ia Unique in its perversim and Satanism , so much so that even United States senator8 must cry out, a8 they actually do, that they are ashamed of their national identity because of the ~licies policie8 being pursued by their Adminietration. It ie not nece8aary to quote the exact words of Senator Biden of Delaware. That United States Senator who mad8 such a strong and powerful criticism of his Government did not do 80 in his personal capacity: he made a point on behalf of millicm8 of American citiZefI8 vho had voted for him. This mean5 that the good -&ori~* ~pln ala0 are a8hamecZ of their Administration's policies. In other WOr d8, they are asharoed of the same policies that are openly and speciously vindica@d by the united state8 representation here. I was fortunate to be able persmally to attend the anniversary celebrations of the Sandinista Revolution on Sun&y, 20 July 1986. I saw for myself what the Reagan Administration also 8668 but deliberately denies and does everything to baroy. I also met a good number of Americans Etom all walks of life, and especially an unusual number of university professors and knowledgeable academic* who have come to admire that small but solid and powerful political entity which is standing upright on the ruins of the Somoza rdgime. Those objective , learned, United States scholars, too, are ashamed of the foreign policy of their present Adrainistration. On the Satuday of my trip I travelled to cities outside the capital. I saw open markets. I saw the country ‘8 economy. I saw the durches, those built long before the revolutiar and those built after the revolution; they were not only open but also quite crowded. I saw that the Sandin is ta Revolution is a genu ina Nicaraguan one, not a axununist revolution transplated to Nicaragua - contrary to uhat UniteB Stetes official6 claim. I realized that the present united States Administration was lying to the Fmerimn people. I could also sse why the greatest and most powerful empire of the world - the &net ican empire - is afraid of the Sandinieta Revolution: it is afraid of it because it conveys the message of struggle and freedom and teaches the leseon of resistance and liberation. That is what the United States Administration is afraid of, not the military force of a country whose entire population is less than one fifth the population of the stite of New Yoc k. Last night one of the television prograwnes was telling the American public that child abuse alone claims the lives of at least 2,000 American young children every year. This nuder, like the other crime statistics of American society, is oonstantly increasing. If the United States Mministreticn really cares for the American people, it should see to the dangers inside the UliteB States instead Of trying to divert Public attention from the internal filth and misery to other countries. It is Probably time for the political lea&r6 of the UniWd States to really see where they are and what they are doing instead of pitting their ncses into avery pot all over the world. They mu8t moner a later awaken to the fact that other nations just do not like them. They have all the technology, all the regal ia of modsrnism and mater ialismi yet the poet People of the third wr Id just do not like them. The People of the third world are scrupulous in selecting anly Certain upecte of American ailture. But they do not want to follcw the American mo&ls, and definitely never the American policies. Imperial, illegitimate interests are behind every definition of the American ministration. The humanitarian values of the good-hearted American People of the Past ae nae exploited in attadcing other nat.hm , whid are charged with the violation of human rights, Mereas the S(UPB American Government rermins loyal to the apartheid regime. American officials prea& the Peaceful settlement of disputes, and yet they launch a military attack on Libya. sanct.ionrr against South Africa, they claim, are not justified or constructive. And they vetD sancticms which the whole world adopts, whereas they impose sanctions against Nicaragua, which the whole Vc~lc tightly forbids. They impose a war of aggression on us , and when we defeat the aggressor enemy, they hypocritically plead for peaoeful negotiations. Nicaragua ia (Mr. Ra jaie-Khotassani, Islamic &public of Iran) always prepared for the peaceful resolution of whatever issues the Mited States wants, but United States officials believe that the military operations of the contra8 constitute the only solution. 1 have never seen a system so comitted to wrongdoing, to contradicting reasonableness and common sense as the ardministra tion of the United States. It sends hay to the American farmers in the drought-stricken states of the south, but it sends millions of dollars of the American budget to the cantras. I believe rB8SOn dictates that probably the hay should go to the Contras and the money to the -- American farmers. Why does the united States Administration advise the Palestinians to negotiate with the Zicmist aggressors but itself not negotiate with the genuine and legitimate Governlpent of Nicaragua? Why this double standard and hypocrisy and lying? The answer is simply that arrogance and corruption go together. Arrogant PWerS use freedom of speech for the promgatim of pornography, and the immorality of eccmomic sanctions for the prolongation of apartheid. The letter of human value8 is always used by global arroganm to violate and trample upon the essence of all human values. And that is exactly how the International Court of Justice is played with by the United States Administration. The United States wa,s axe a staunch advocate of multilateralian and the international Organization. In those days, American officials were daydreaming of a qlabal government with its heaauar ters in New York under the influence of the United States of herica. But when the reality of the history of the international Organizaticn proved to be slightly different from their expectations, the same international body is very bad and it does not deserve the budget the United Statis Administration had promised it. And therefore they do not meet their financial ~:omitments to the international bcdy. They veto the verdict of the security Councilr and they reject the decision of the Internstiara Court of Justice. They al80 @OEM 5Wctia8 against Nicaragua and a war of aggressi- CI#I o&er& This is the oonaequence of the corruption that is gwerning the vslus system of the her ican pal icy-maker 8. 6y all these &5ecvations, my delegation wishes not mly to declare the support of our Government for the revolutimery Govsrnment and people of Nicaragua against the aggressive and inhuman policies of the United States, but also to draw a broader casrclueion: that unless mited states officials seriously reconsider the whole ~&lnery and ct iter ia of their behaviour , they will never be able to have an hanoucable status in the world. The destructiar of facts and the confueim of eventa by the imperisliet media were able to sarve as a useful instrument in the hands of global arrogance for mlY a llmpiter? p~iod, and only while the satanic role -of the media was not emsed to tbevorld - but not now. American policy-makers must go back to larabi4in~~~~ harest policmnaking and the fait treatment of others before keing forced to do so by the oppressed people. The ORmIDENT: I thank the repteaentative of the Islamic tepublic of Iran for the kind words he addreeeed to me. The next speaker is the representative of El Salve&r. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement- Hr. NEZA (El Salvador) (interpretition from Spanishlr Mt. Preskkmt, I should like to thank you for giving We this opportunity to speak again during these meting8 of the security Council. In my earlier statement I said that the conclusions of the Court oh Nicaeagua ‘6 carduct vi5-A-vie El Salvador create oonfusiar if we are to make an objective analysis of the situation of my oountry. some speakers, in referring to the conclusions of the Court, attempt to demonstrate that Nicaragua bears no responsibility nor does it interfere in any way in the internal affairs of El &lvador. But it is my duty to insist - and I shall do so as many times as neoeseary - that we, and other Centtal American countries, QI the basis of specific facts and exBs@es, which I believe are not unknown to many Members of this Organization, are well qualified to attest, a8 the representative of Honduras has just dune, to the aggressive policy being pursued by the Uanagua regime in Central &net fca. Therefore, we repeat our rejection of the carclusions of the Court on the ground that the case consi&red by the Court does not refer to Nicaragua’6 relatiane with the rest of the uomtriea of Centfal America or to Nicaragua’s interference in the internal affairs of El salvador. As has been argued by some Bpeakere, those ccmclusions spring solely from an incanplete analysis and review of the eituation. We tsight well have loaged a complaint against Nicaraguan aggreesiar. We have refrained from doing so only out of our desire to maintain a policy of respect for the order which met prevail in the various forums and mechsuisms established for the pemoeful settlement of disputes, including the Cartadore process. We cmtinue to hope that Nicaragua might change iU attitude and try to reamcile its own interests and rights with thoee of the rest of the co~tries of Central America within the framework of respect for the principles of peaceful coexistence. Moreover, al though we have not asked any country to come to our defence v we have invoked the right to request whawver assistance we deem necessary to defend our identity, institutions, independence and swereignty in order to maintain autonomy in our decisions on the manner in which we should counter any kind of aggression or interference in Salvadorian internal affairs. f should like to point out in conclusion that there are many kinds of intervention and aggressian. Gne such form has been Nicaragua’s actions against El Salvador, which can be understood only when one is near the scene of the events, or taking part in them. mny countries adopt unrealistic, subjective positions and CI ibriar even though they are many miles removed from the scene; their biased views are based on their specific, well-known ideological and political interests. Mr. RAKOiWDfWBOA (Madagascar) (interpretation from French): The situation in Central America continues to be of deep concern to the international community. On the one hand, the risks of foreign meddling and intervention are growing at an alarming rate; on the other hand, the efforts of the Contadora Group and the support Group to seek a negotiated political solution seem paralysed. This brief picture of the situation emphasizes the importance of the Judgment handed down by tke International Court of Justice on 27 June fn the case of the Military and Pare-Military Activities in and against Nicaragua, in which the Court by a wide majority of ita, members decided that the United States of America has, against the Republic of Nicaragua, violated a certain number of &ligation8 imposed upon it by customary international law. we had the hanour and privilege of hearing the statement of Comandante Daniel Ortega Saavedra, President of the Republic of Nicaragua, here in GE Council. we listened with interest and attention to his deecription of the situation in the region. (Mr. Rakotondramboa, Madagclscac 1 My delegation has had frequent occasion to express Madagascar% position on the political situation in the region, but we wish to emphasise our commitment to the full exercise of sovereignty by all States in the region without foreign meddlinq or interference and on the basis of mutual respect for their inalienable right to freely choose their political, economic and social system. Those principles, moreaver, were reaffirmed by the Council when, tn resolUtiCm 562 (1985) of 10 Elay 1985, inter alla, it called upon all States to refrain from carrying out, supporting or promoting political, economic or military actions of x~y kind which might impede the peace objectives of the Contadora Group. Unfortunately, those pteventfve measures advocated by the Council were ignored. The acts of foreign interference in the affairs of States in the region increased in vatiOuS fOrCOB, obliging the Government of Nicaragua to go to the International Court of Justice. The Council haa already heard the observationo of numerous delegations on the Judgment handed down by the International Court of Justice on 27 June 1986. I should like to confirm in that regard the views already expressed by my delegation in a statement before the Council on 3 July of this year. My delegation, morewerr would like to emphasize two essential points% First, the Court haa clearly reaqnized that the United States of America has violated, by ite activities with regard to Nicaragua, its obligations Under customary international lawi Seomdly, the Court recalled -to both Parties their obligation tc seek a solution to their dieputee by peaceful means in accordance with international law.’ (s/18221, para. 15). In the light of these facts, the Comcil cm only amplify the conclusions of the Court, first, by denouncing as contrary to the principles of internatiaral lau, as well as to the goals of the United Nations Charter, any direct or indirect Waling Or interference in Nicaragua’s internal affair8 and any resort to force in violation of its sovereignty; seccndly , by breathing nev life into the efforts of the C=tadOPa Group and the Support Group in order to facilitate a peaceful oettlement of the problem3 in the region. This action by the Council, conscmant with the exercise of its responsibilities in matters of peaceful settlement of disputes, will cantribute to specifying the internaticmal amaeneus on the need to settle the ptcbleins of Central America, thereby favourtAg the ccnclusion 0E an egreoment a~ peace and co-wet atia, in the regim. At the same time, we will have demonstrated before international public opinion our firm determination to demand respect by all States for the obligaticms incuu&eRt upon them under the Charter in the conduct of their international relations. We vi11 aleo have satisfied Nicaragua’s legitimte request to make the United statea amply with the decision of the International Court of Ju8tioe. Finally, we will heve promted the establishment of a climate of Stability and confibnce in the region, a amditian for any dialogue among the parties concerned. Mr. Li Luye (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Raving listened attentively to the etetement rpade by His Bmellency President Daniel OrtWa ~avedra of Nicaragua and the statiments made by representatives of other colmtcies, the Chinese delegation wishes to make the following &aerVatiOna Cm32rninq the issue currently M&K consideration by the Council. PirBt, the Chinese Government holds that non-interference is an important pc inciple in international law. By providing military and other aid to the anti-C~ernment armed forces in Nicaragua, the Wited St3tes has infringed on the sovereignty of that country and violated international law and the norms guiding international relations. The Chinese Governant opposes the acts of interference in the internal affairs of Nicaragua and hopes that the United States Government Will respect the ruling of the International Court of Justice. Secondly, the Chinese Government has emljatically pointed out on numerous oCCaSiOnS that the key ta the relaxation and elimination of tension in Central America lies in the removal of all outside interference. China maintains that the indepandence, swereignty and territorial integrity of Nicaragua and the other countries in the region should be respected and that the problems amanq the CoUrtties in the regicn should be settled by the people Of these countries themselves. The problem between the United States and Nicaragua should be solved through peaceful negotiations on an equal footing. Thirdly, the unremitting efforts by the Cantadore Group and the Support Group for ehe realization of peace in Central America have won extensive appreciatiar and eupport from the international community. The Chinese delegation hopes that the oxrntries amcerned will refrain from taking actions that may further aggravate the situation in Central America and will abandon all policies of interference 50 a8 to enable the Cartadora Group and the support group to achieve the desired results in their endeavour for the realization of peace and Stability in the region. Mr. A<uILAR (Venezuela) (interpretation from Spanish): In our statement made on 1 July last, we were pleased to be the first in congratulating you, Sir, on pUC WsUmptim of the presidency of this Council during this month, and today, the last day Of your term, we have an opportunity to thank you on the excellent manner in which you have presi&d over our work. On thf5 occasion I have a very sensitive task to perform, for I have been given the honour of speaking on behalf not only of Venezuela, but of the other metr&ers of the Cantadora Group - Colotiia, Mexico and PanarPa - and of the metiers of the Support Group - Argentina, Brazil, Peru and UKUgUay. However, we find caafort in the fact that the poeitlon of the Contadors and Support Group has been clearly set forth in numerous documents widely circulated a8 official document6 of the Assembly and the Security Council. Moreover~ the Puposeo and principles that are the basis for the Cartadora initiative are the same cries for which Latin America has fought ever since the days of its h35pendenc5 at the beginning of the last century. It is a well-knowr fact that Latin American oountries have always atteched great importance to the principles of self-determination, ncn-intervention, respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Statee , renunciation of the threat OK use of force in relations among States , and the peaceful settleiaent of all international disputes. All these principles are enshrined in the United Nations Charter and in the charm of the Organization of American States (OAS), and, in accordance with the decisim of the International Court of Justize of 27 June 1966, today they represent norms of customary international law. It is well to recall, however, that they are all deeply rooted in the conscience of our peoples; they are the outoome of a lang procese of struggle by our countries to have them incorporated in heKiWI international law and international law in general. This is not the time to engage in a detailed account of these efforts tiich began many years ago at the tigress of Panaia in 1826 and are continuing to this day. Suffioe it to say that Such principles are the basis of our cmcept of international Kelationo, 5s demonstrated by the uninterrupted flw of international documents and instruments in tiich these have been reiterated time and again. It io therefore not surprieinq that Latin American countries in general have sY~t-ati=llY comhaned any action that represents a violation of such principlre, regardlees of political ox ideological arotivatione a opportmistic considetationS- Ok. 15gu ilar , Venezuela) (Hr. Aguilar, Venezuela) The Contadota initiative is also inspired by other principles which are 80 dear to the Latin American countries and which are today enshrined in the charter of the Organisation of American States. some of these principles are the following: international law is the standard of conduct of States in their reciprocal relations# international order consists essentially of respect Pot the personality, sovereignty and independence of States , and the faithful fulfilment of obligations derived froin treaties and ciher sources of international law; good faith shall govern the relationa between States; the solidarity of the American States and the high aims which are sought through it require the political organization of those States on the basis of the effective exercise of representative democracy; and the proclamation by the American States of the fundamental rights of the individual, without distinction as to race, nationelity, creed or sex. Those principles are taken from article S, paragraphs (a), (b), (cl, (d) and Cj) of the charter of the Organization of American States. It is not necessary at this time to state again the objectives of the Contadora Group and what it has done GO far to achieve peace in Central America. Very complete information in that respect is contained in the statement made on 12 January 1986 in Cateballeda, Venezuela, on peace , security and democracy in Central America; in the communique issued in Punts de1 Este, Uruguay; and in the Panama message dated 7 June 1986. Those are only the most rwent documents, and they have been circulated as documents of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Nor is it necessary at this time to quote from or comment on the Contadora Act for Peace and Co-operation in Central America, dated 6 June 1986; ite text is also well known to all. It is, however, appropriate to recall that in the letter of 26 June 1986 addreseed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Colombia, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Mexico and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Panama and Venezuela, they reiterate -to the countries of the region and to those with ties and interests in the region the steadfast determination of our Governments to lend their go& offices to all patties involved in these commitments”. (S/18184, p. 10) There is no doubt that the eupport given the Contadora initiative by the General Assembly, the Security Council and many States from various regions of the world hae been a powerful form of encouragement for its actions to achieve peace. That support is extremely valuable, and we ace very pleased am3 encouraged by the references made by the International Court of Justice to the Contadora peace efforts in its Judgment of 27 June 1986. In paragraph 291 of that Judgment, the Court states that it could not but take cognizance of this effort, which it says Qerite full respect am3 consideration as a unique contribution to the solution of the difficult situation in the region’. putthee on in the paragraph, the Court states that .The work of the Contadora Group may facilitate the delicate and difficult negotiations, in accord with the le:.ter an9 spirit of the United Nations Charter, that are now required. and recalls to the parties to the case .the need to co-operate with the Contadora efforts in seeking a definitive and lasting peace in Central America, in accordance with the principle of customary international law that prescribes the peaceful settlement of international disputes.. (S/18221, para. 291) We do not vlsh to enter into a detailed analysis of the decision of the International Court of Justice, which clearly deserves careful study. We would only eay that we are also pleased that the Court has based its decision on the principles to which reference hae already been made - the principles of non-intervention, prohibition of the threat or the use of force, and respect for the sovereignty of states - which the Court describes aa existing obligations under customary international law. But, at this time, it is more important to emphasize - as preceding speakers have done - the appropriateness of dialogue between all the parties concerned and the readiness of the Contadota Group to continue to leave no stone unturned in its effort to achieve a peaceful, negotiated solution to the problems of the region. We therefore urge all rhe States involved to lend their support to the efforts being made within and outside the united Nations to lessen tensions and resolve the conflict. All States, large and small, must share this interest in the real and effective application of the international legal order, which clearly implies compliance with the applicable rules of the Charter and the other relevant legal instruments. In conclusion, I should like as representative of Venezuela to quote the following reference8 made to the present item by the President of my country, Wr. Jaime Lueinchi, in his statement to the country on 5 July last, the anniversary of our national independencer “The countries of the Contadora Group and the Support Group have engaged in tireless efforts to lessen tensions in the area, to keep open the channels of dialogue and to ensure that reason prevails over force and intransigence, We have not acted out of quixotic motivations, but in accordance with a cool-headed and well-thought-out analysis of the roots of the conflicts that beset the region and the factors affecting them, convinced that warlike options, which may sometimes be tempting in tne snort term, invariabiy encourage continued instability and the emergence of new and more acute confrontations in the future. The Contadora initiative is new in Latin America, but there are precedents in other parts of the world, where subregional co-operation organizations have been set up with a view to containing and minimizing conflicts in their respective geographical areas# to controlling the intervention of outside elements, and to facilitating equitable solutions and preventing the increase of tensions. The success or failure of such initiatives can be measured in terms both of space and of the. Venezuela’s objectives continue to be the same: to avoid war and promote peace in a democratic context. Thue, we shall continue this guest, convinced that only by means of multilateral action can we have a true influence on events in the area. we aspire to the achievement of solid guarantees for democracy and freedom in the region with the 8ame firm will with which we reject war and any form of warlike intervention.” The PRESIDENTt I thank the representative of Venezuela for his kind words addressed to the presidency. It is my underetanding that the Security Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that that is the cam. There being no objection, it is so decided. Before putting the draft resolution to the vote, I shall call on those members of the Council who wish to make statements before the voting. Sir John TH~NsQN (united Kingdom): Mr. President, it is a particular perecmal pleasure for me tp sit under your chairmanship. There is an espcial~Y warm relationship between the royal families in our two countries, and you and 1 share many friends and many roots. I believe that all my colleagues here vould agrea that you are the most elegant of us - and by that I mean not only perscmally, but also politically. Your professional diplorPatic skills are outstanding. It ie also my pleasure to thank , on behalf of my delegation, the Permanent &presentat.ive of Madagascar and his Deputy for the able and even-handed uaY in whi& they conducted the affair6 of the council last month. QI the melon of Nicaragua we have discussed the problems of Central America a great many times in the last four years. Indeed, we had a debate on this eubject cnly three weeks ago. Having lfotened to the present debate, I have found little in it that is different from its predecessors. We have had the familiar parade of speakers from the 811~58 canp voicing a variety of aanplaints, some of vhich have nothing to do with Central America and 801~ of which, 1 regret to have to csay, have nothing to do with the truth. Most of the speakers have referred to the me Botential new element in our seemingly endless &bates, nanrely, the Judsent of the international Court. But Z have to nay that it is depreaeing to find &at, in this lag Itit Of speakers stretching over three days of debate, f represent only the fourth country which accepts the canpulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. We ace not convinced by argument8 aminq from countries that ha*‘8 not matdred and have not even tried to match our record of respect for the International Court of Justioe. I am not surprised that some of those countries raf,me ,n *c-p? +4%e ryllp>fl_ozy il**a-lJ-L’-- -= Aa-.-- .-.. -3. ,“- *“Y*“CL”aI YL ylc -U&t ki=e~;d~L)e, LL uw3y au 60~ they vould speedily stand condemned. I want to pit aside the clouds of irrelevacies and insincerities that have hunq Over this debate and t0 deal with tne two real issues which s.holJld con?:Prn u:. (Sir John Thomson, United Rrxgdom) I vi11 take first the Judgment by the International Court of Juetice. I will not here go into the merits of the arguments which were put before the Court, though I must note that there was significant dissent within the Court to some of the ~cisiars which it took. But I do wish to reaffirm my GOvernlnent’s support for the International Court of Justice and for the rules of international law which it is the task of the Court to uphold. We have very strong views on these matters. m illustrate, I will quite a few sentqces from my statement in this Council on 4 April 1~84. I said% *I wish fo make it quite clear that the United Kingdom deplores the mining of Nicaraguan va tees. . . . Our pcei tion is well known and consis tent: as a maritime natiun, we are uxmaitted to freedom of navigation, including innocent pasaege through the territorial sea and access to foreign ports for peao5ful trade. We deplore any threats to navigatiar, whenever and wherever they occur. ” (s/pv.2s29, pp. 77, 78) I recognize that y~8 are the only permanent member of the security Council to accept the compulsory jut &diction of the Court. This ie a piw. Naturally, it vould in our view be riat that all Ma&era of the Organieaticm should accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. I hope that we can work towards that outcome. We would have liked the draft resolutiar before us to stress this point, though it would, of course, be opposed by some delegations. Never thelees, it remains my delegatian’e position that others should a&@ 6nd act on the same obligations as we have adopted and acted uPan- 1 turn now to the second issue before ua, namely, the familiar pr&lems of Central America. I must begin by saying that my delegation does not accept the formu ..A. i.,n in the letter from the representative of Nicaragua which figures on our (Sit John Thornsat, United Ringtlom) agenda. That letter’ lays primary stress not so nuch on the Judgment Of the International Court of Justice as on the dispute between the United States and Nicaragua. It is in oue view a misrepreeentition of the prdlem to define it Simply ae a dispute between those two countries. The prablea of Central America, in our view, hat3 many routs. We reaDgniz* that EQDB of these are grounded in social and eamomic conditime which have exieted in the area for many years. But we eleo believe that the situation hae been exploited by States outside Central America that have little respect for demmzacy and little desire to help restore genuine political stability in that troubled area. Within the area itself there have been faulte on all eidee. Although the Intematimal Court of Justice wae not concerned to go into the details of the entice Central Aaretiwn problem, it nevertheless reagnized that there had been croes-border inaureione fran Nicaragua against its neighbours as well as vioe-ver sa. All these difficultiee have been ampmnded by the inability of the appropriate regional organization, namely, the Orgenization of American statesr to find a solutiar. The fact that the Organization of &erian States has not been able to do more ha3 been due primarily to the reluctance of licaragua to accept its authority. But it ha&~ elfso been due to the very oorrplexity of the pzablem. That oomplexity makes it inappropriate to try to single out for separate consideraticn a emall part Of the total grablem, a2 the NiC(Praguan letter before ue attempts tro fb. The Problem ia Political, and it ie a pblitiral aal~~t!o~ ,pnt qr~lnt ho CW*-~- It must be dealt with as a whole. This ie the great merit of the noteble efforts Mich have been made by We Ccntadora Group and the Cantadore Support Group. We have ma& it clear that we do not consider the problems of the regicm can be resolved by armed force and we have consistently urged restraint on all sides. (Sir John Thornsan, United Kingdom) We ate oonviuced that *he best hops of bringing about a solution lies in the siOnatute of a oonprebensive agreement based oh the 21 Cantsdora abjectives and subject to adequate verification and carteol. On 20 January 1966 the melve SIates makers of the mropean Community issued a message in which they said, inter aliar “The melvs welunne the fact that the message of Carabelleda contaius concrete steps and measures designed to generate a climte of confidence and to further the negotiating process. Vhe delve note that the countries of the ContaQra Group and its support Group ate offering their goad offices to promte actions which *hey ameider of vi-1 importance for the achievement of pea-, seourity and demcnaoy in c-teal America. As at the Luxembourg Ministerial mating in Nmmaber 1985, the ltJelve reiterate their continued whole-hearted support for the Cartedose peace initiatives and they express they willingness, if called upon, to provide appropriate assistance to those involved in these efforts.’ TO be sure, the CanUdorca process is an a&itioue one% in seeking to remncile the netiaral-secur ILy interests of the five States of Central tier ica, each of tiich has a distinct set of needs and circumtances, it has a daunting task. Horearer, o;)e of i& major abjectives is to esLablieh an effective pluralist deumxaoy in countries which, Cotta Fdca apart, have had little experience of it. Ae the 8ecretary-0eneral has only recently pointed out, the recent electiars in Guatemala and Bcmduras, olrich we welcome and applaud , are positive developments in an otharwi8e glaxoy eituatim. (Sir John Thamsa, United Kingdan) we regret that at the very mMaent when some central American countries have been orking pleogceco toward8 thie goal, Nicaragua has been taking step6 in the opposite direction. We retrain convinced that to prevent further deterioration Of the situation in the region, all the Central American States, including Nicaragua, must demonstrate the neceeaary political will to reach agreement on the basis of the 21 Cantadore objectives. We noti Nicaragua’s declared willingnese to sign the Ccmta&ra Act. But Nicamgua’f3 action6 cwer Me past year and more have given a strong impression of aeleotivity in it8 approach to the commitments needed to make a reality of the Cmtatfora principles. I have in mind in particular a commitment to genuine dearrCraoy$ reSpect for its neighbours’ rights to security and non-interference; and to genuine and verifiable re&ctione in the level of it6 armament.60 Nicaragua% reoent aoquiaiticm of mre military hardware, notably several MI-8 and HI-17 cotit heliaoptete from the Soviet ulion, can anly increase the genuine conuatn of ite neighbour6 and other@. We are ale0 concerned about ether recent actions by the Nicaraguan Government. I refer to the recent tightening of the hplmntstiion Of the state of emergency in Nicaragua whi& ncy encroatieee reriouely upon individual libertiee and the expulsion of leading religious figuree. We should not be blind to the dietreeeing fact that the screw ia being tightened in Nicaragua. Freedom ie being euppreaeed. Political parties fray mly hoid meetings with permiaeian of the Government. Wt. but by no mean8 least I I must draw attention to the closure on 26 June Of WiUXagua’ri only independent nwepaper, La Prenea, whi& shone as a beamn of freedom even in the darkest days of the !3moza dictatorship. Was it not the a6a8SSblatial Of La PrerBa*s editor, Pedro Chanmrro, in 1978 that sparked the insurrection that ultinrately led to the overthrow of the dictator Somoza? It is a (Sir John Thomscn, United Kingdom) tragic ircmy that it should be the Sandinistas, the victors of that revolution, and not the dictator Somoaa, who finally clase the doors of E3 Prense. The failure of the debate and the draft resolution to address such conoideratians 8s these demcmetratee a lack of balance. Of course, a5 the one permanent member of the Seaurity Council that acaepte the caapuleory jurisdiction Of the International Court of Justice, we would have had no quarrel about a resolution taking note of the Court’s Judgment. At the 8ZUUe time, we are still an5idering the Internatiaral Court of Justice% Judgement, which relates to many cmplex legal issues of a general nature. We attach primary importance to upholding the rule of law in internaticmal relations. We believe that over the years the Internatiaral Court of Justice has played a valuable role in resolving international disputes and in clarifying the righte and obligatims of States under the law. We have invariably accepted the Judgments of the International Court of Jutice in cases ta which the United Kingdom was a party. It has not been easy fat my delegaticm to decide how we should vote on the draft resolution before us. As I have said, the Nicaraguan letter and this debate have raised two iesues - cme legal, are political. I have set out our pition a@~ ear41 of these iseues. They tend to pint to different cmclusicms as regards voting. Thig being eo, and because we cannot countenance anything that SuggWte that the Central American pf&lem is only a bilateral united States-Nicaraguan questian, my delegation will abstain* The PRESfl)fflT: I thank the representative of the United Kingdom for his kind words addressed to the presidency* I shall new make a statement in my capacity ae the representative of Thailand. The deiegation of Thailand deems it appropriate to reaffirm Thailand’s strict adherence to the pr~~iaiara of the Charter and the rules of international law in (The Pres iden t) its carduct of relations with other Sates. It firmly adheres to the &lligation of peaosful SettleWmt of disputes and the principle of na-interference in the internal affairs of other States, the obligation and the principle which should apply equally to all States. With respect to the countries of Central America, Thailand believes that the Stetes of the region should refrain fraa any threat or use of force against the sovereignty or territorial integrity of neighbouring States. In this regard, the Cantadora peace efforts should obtain the full support of all countries. It is al80 the tight of all States to choose their gYn political, economic and social systems, free from outside interference of any kind. Seeuti~ council resolutions 530 (1963) and 562 (1965) have reaffirmed this. With regard to the International Court of Justice, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Mattforre, it ia a fact that Thailand’s expecfmw with the Court has not been an entirely happy ane. However, even though Thailand once disagreed with the Court*8 Judgment in a case to which it was a party, Thailand decided, in carformity with its Charter obligations, to caaply with the decieion subject to a right of agpeal, should such a right be reoognized in the future. Wevertheless, Thailsnd respects the International Court of Justice and fatter6 the eXlX3Cteticm that the Court will amtinue to provide the beat hope aa a vehicle for peaceful change for the internatiaral commLmitY= In respect of the draft resolution before us, which &ale with general principles as well as the specific iaoue of the Judgment of 27 June 1966, QY delegaticm has no difficulty with the general principles contained therein, because tney are the principles consistently supported by ThailaM. However, with regard to the specific issue as reflected in operative paragraph 2 of the draft re8oluticm, which my delegatim feele is not entirely devoid of political contentr (The President) my delegation regrets that it has no instructions, owing to the fact that8 SubSegUent to the national electionS held in Thailand recently, no government hae yet been formed. My delegation will be obliged therefore to &stain on the vote on the draft resolutiar before the Council. 1 now resume my functiar as President of the Council. Accordingly, I shall nw put to the vote the draft resolutia contained in document s/18250, submitted by the Cargo, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad curd ‘libbago and the United Arab emirates. A vote was taken by show of handSo In favour: Austcalia, BuPgarLa, China, Congo, &mark, Ghana, Madagamxu, Trinidad and Tobago, Ihion of soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab mirates, Venezuela Against t chited Stat05 of America AbStaininqr Franca, Thailand, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The reault of the voting is as follaJer 11 votes in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions. The draft resolution has not been adopted* owing to the negative vote of a pXnlanent member of the Council. I Shall now call on tha3e meubere of the Council who wish to make statements follcwing tie voting. Mr. de KFMOULRRIA (France) (interpretation from French): In its statement in the debate WhiCtr took place at the beginning of this month on the situation in Central Merica, the French delegation recalled it8 commitment to a peaceful solution to the carflicts which are taking place in that region. France consid8rs that the essential goal in this regard must be to succeed in bringing about an overall settlement of all those disputes. It is because that qoal is the same as that of the Ccmtacbra Group that France firmly cartinuee to support the effort undertaken by that Group alunq with the as8istance given to it by the Support Group. My delegation, therefore, would have liked to vote in favour of a draft resolution which had the unanimous support of the Secur fty Council for that approach. But the text cm s&ii& the Council has just been called upon to vote Contains attain objecticmable elements relating in particular to the Judgment handed down on 27 JMe this year by the International Court of Ju8tioe, with respect both to the role of the Court and to substance , element8 which oould not receive unanimous agreement. That is why my delegation was led to abstain in the vote on that &aft. Mr. BREWER (Denm8r k) t Denmark has always been a firm supporter of the International Court of Justice and of its role in connection with the peaceful 8ettlament of legs1 disputes. Denmark is also to be found amarg the countries that accept the caupuleory jurisdiction of the Court. We have, accordingly, voted in favour of the draft resolution introduo8d by the nm-aligned member8 of the Council, even if we do have certein reeervations of an essentially legal character a8 r%gards operative paragraph 2. Indeed, to make an urgent call for full cwpliance with the Judqment of the Internatianal Court of Justice of 27 June at thi8 point in time might be said to be premature. (Mr. Bruckner , Ilunmar k) It is the duty of the Security Council to deal with a political crisis in all its aspects. The situation in Central America has been discussed in its entirety numerous times in the Council. As late as 3 July 1966, my delegation made its views clear on the most @ottant questions. The Court has dealt with a number of issues and I would, at this point, simply like to reiterate a few considerations. The fundamental reascns for the present problems of Central America are to be found in centuries-old socio-eca~omic structures. As has been stressed again and again by the countries of the region, far-reaching economic and social reforms as well ao the establishment of genuinely pluralistic deruxratic systems and the KeSpeCt for the human ri*ts of all citizens are important elements for a -prehensive settlement. The Canmdora Group has made laudable efforts aimed at the inclusion of these pinciples in a tegialal settlement. we continue to support the tireless efforts of the Cktedora Group with a view to bringing global and lasting peace to central America. we remain a3nvinced of the need for a truly regional solution to the problems of Central America. The full oo~petaticn of all prtiea that are engaged either directly or indirectly in the region IS needed for the peace efforts to succeed. Even if the Ccmtadora Group With the backing of the Supprt Group has not yet achieved the desired result, the Cartadora initiative remains the coly realistic alternative for durable peace to be establLshed in Central America. MT. WALmS (United States of America): Mt. President, I fear I have been remiss in canpariaon with the 0th~ members in acknowledging our satisfaction at your assumption of the presidency. I thought I had done 80 earlier, but per haps I had not, and if so I aT0 8Otty. I also wish to reoognias the ability and skill with which your predecessor, Hf. Rabetafika, the representative of Madagascar, and .w. walteta, united states) his assistant, cceducted their period of presidency. S wish to make amend6 at this time. Better late than hever. The United States has been ampelled to vote against the present draft resoluticJn for the simple reasOn that that draft tesolutiar could not, and would not, contribute to the achievement of a peaceful and just settlement of the situation in Central America within the fremework of international law aud the Charter of the United Natiars. That questiar, and not the 27 June deciaicm of the International Court of Justiae, is the real issue before this COUnCil- That draft resolution in questim, presented in the guise of support for the Court’s 27 Jme becisian, ccmtains nothing to dispel Nicaragua’s WbOllY disingenuous and self-serving characterizatim of the situation in Central America. It is absolutely clear from President Orbga ‘8 statement Tuesday mom ing and from eubsequent Nicaragua statements that Nicaragua was not interested in an endorsement of the role of iuternational law and of the International Court Of JWtioa for ita own sake, but rather aa something that the Sendinista regime could wave about as a vindication of Nimragua’e actions and pasitiohs in respct of the =nflict in Central America. We must be mindful not only of what the draft reaolu tion says on its faa3 , but also of how it will be exploited to the det.riMht Of Peace and secuc ity in Central knerica. MY doubt in this regard has beeh dispelled by Nicaragua%i institution of proceedings in the Court this past Mmday against both Xohdurae and Costa Rica, two countries that have been the victim of Nicaragua’8 eggreeeian and that, in good faith, have joined in the Cmtadora process ainaed at a oam~ebehsive, vetif itile and eimulurneoua implementaticm of the 1983 21-point Document of Cbjectives. By this action Nicizl‘agua has mce again made plain for all to Bee that ita teal goal is to remowe yet another range of issues from the Ccmtadora fcamswork so that those issues can be determined in a manner favourable to Nicaragua - without imposing corresponding and reciprocal obligations on Nicaragua. There can be no doubt that Niatagua c~lpa to this Council with the self-same ends in mind. This Council could have considered a draft resolution that would have made a genuine COntributim to a peaoaful and just settlement in Central Frnerioa. This Council oould have considered a draft resolution that would have emfiasised and called for ths cealizatian of all the interrelated objectives of the Carte&ta process - objectives Co *ioh Nicaragua has solemnly agreed and now chOaeS to ignore. The present draft resolution, by way of contrast, makes no mention of Nicacagua ‘8 solemn under tak inge. It makes no mention of Nicacagua’s own responsibility for the situation in Central America, and, by focusing on the 27 Jme desisiom of the International Court of Justice, presents a false picture Of that SltGation as if it mce limited to diffecenaes between Nioacagua and the chited States. Can we really expect that such a draft resolution would help bring peaaa ta that tortured region? Is there anything in Nicaragua’s mst behaviour that should lead us to believe that Nicarag A would not exploit such a draft resolution as a blanket en&cant of i&a military and domestic policies and of its refusal to negotiate seriously on the core issuee fundamental to peace in Centcal Rarerice? The united States thinks not, and has cast its vote accordingly. (Mr. Walters, united States) In the view of ‘the united States, the Court has asserted jutisdictioh end conpetence over Nicaragua’s clskps without any proper basis. Moreover, the Court failed to give any meaningful significance to the multilateral treaty reservation Or the very errbstantial evfilence of Nicatagum misbehaviour. Many of the principles asserted by the Court to constitute customary internaticnal law have ho basis in authority c’: reascm. We do not accede to these baseless assertions. For us to have discussed in &eta1 here the factual and legal weaknesses of the CoWt ‘s 27 Juhe deciaian would mly have obscured the real matter at issue before this Council, and for that reamn we have &cseh to reserve such a discussion Pot anOthr place and time. S?Ot the moment we vould -rely ask whether those membere of the Council that have voted in favour of the present draft really believe it would have boletered the Coutt as a judicial institution. Would it have re&iuoed NiCBtagua’B internal repreaion or thwarted its eubvereion of neighbouring Slates - hich, I tight addlo Nicaragua has undertaken with the esgmt assistance of outside PaJere with a lcng historl~ of subversion and repression? Would it have cmtributed in my taby to bringing peaoe and justiaa to Central hmef ica? The answer lies, I am oonvinced, in the evident intentione of Sandinieti Nicaragua in Beeking a resolution, not for the ptrposee that members of the Council might applaud, but as a aovez for amtinued Sandinista ectione and behaviour ccntcary tc the pzfnciples enshrined in the Charter of the Unifed Naticme. In a UDfd, the United Statea haa voted against this draft resolution because it would have painted an inaccurate picture of the true situation in Central Araetica, because it rrould not have contributed to a comprehensive and peaceful 8ettlemWtt of the problem in the region, and because it would in fact have dam a dieeervice to the international law and instituticm that it purporw to uphold. The PRESIDDBJTa I thank the representative of the United States for the kind words he addressed to the ptesfdenW* X call upon the tepcesenUttive of Nicaragua, who has asked b be allwed to speak. *EL AslDRGA GADEA (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish)% We cam to the Security Council this time, as stated by the President of Nicaragua, to deal wfth a matter that concerns not only Nicaragua but also the entice international cuamunity , namely, the very survival of the international legal order and the law itself. We have heard the statement of the United States representative and observed his negative vote on the draft resolution, allegedly based on the fact that it would not foster the goal of peace in Central Amerioa. Peace in Central America has various alternatives, and the situation t4ere and the problems confronting the region are undoubtedly cosuplex. There are problems of the econcauy, unjust etructuree, and a central one - ‘hited States intervention in the Internal affair5 of Central l4meri-n c~mtriee and the eggressim against may country. Believing &at the International Court of Justice is the judicial bo4 to deal wit4 au* matters, we took the issue to the Court. The Court’s conclusions are clear and cabagoricalr the united States is in violation of international law by perlie trating aggressiar against my country. The Court has called upon the United States to cease all military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua’s SWereignty and tetritot ial integr iw. There is not a &a&m of doubt that if t4e United Stetes complied wit4 the Court’s Judgment peace in Central merice would be much closer and we ehould have put an end to the focal point that haa brought so tic4 grief to our people6 in Central America. (Mrs. Astorga Gadea, Nicaragu$ I should like also to thank thase countries tiiclr have spdten in this debate for their support of the international legal or&r and the principles of the Charter and for their solidarity with Nicaragua. HBe also wish tc acknowledge the support given to the draft resoluticn submitted by the non-aligned countries men&mm of the Council. AllaJ se also to express Ipy satisfacticm at the affirmtive vote of allPOst all the meuber.5 of the Sacurity Council. That was undoubtedly a vote for peace and respect of internatitnal law. On the other hand, in dramatic contrast to that, the United States veW signifies a lack of respect for the international legal order and the norms Of Peaceful coexistenca anmg States; it was a vote against the United Nations Charter; it was a vote against this Orgmizaticn% fundaamntal norms and prfnciples; it was a vote against the right of moplee ta selfileterminaticm and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; it was a vote against the InteKnaticbal Court of Justics; a vote against the graceful settlemmt of disputes; it was a voLe against internaticmal peace and security - a vote for War, in%rventicn and the use of force in fnternaticnal relatiane. In voting against the united Nations Charter, the fbritsd Btates merely exercised its right to vetc the draft resolution and demonstrated that the United Stites claims to have respect for internaticnal law are mere lipservice. The United States thus places it8elf abwe the law. Regrettably, this United States Policy does not affect only Nicaragua; it also tffects Central America and international peace. Hcw@Ver , my country shall not tire of continuing to try to achieve peaa for wbi& the peoples of Central America are clamouring and need so Mach; we will amtinue to defend our inalienable rights in seeking the course of understanding (Mrs. Aetorga Gadea, Nicaragua) and political solutions to the problems inCenUa1 America. we will cartinue to SWmt Ccmtadcra. We will mntinue to strive to achieve peace. The FRESJDEST: There are no further speakers for this meeting- &fore adjouring what ia likely to be the last meeting of the Security Council for this rponth, I should like, in my capacity as President of the ticurity Councilr to PeY a warm tribuba to all our mlleaguea around the table and to thank all Council membere for the very kind aD-operation they extended to the presidency ml: ing the entire lp0nt.h of July. The 6eiecurity Council has thus concluded the preset sage of its oonsideraticn of the itemar theagenda. The meeting rose at 6.40 p.m.