S/PV.2715 Security Council

The international community has learnt with deep regret of the sudden, untimely and tragic death of the President of the People’s Republic of Mozambique, His Excellency Mr. Samora noises Machel. President Machel was an eminent son of Africa, a statesman devoted to the cause of self-determination for all peoples and deeply committed to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. I am sure that I express the feelings of all members of the Council in conveying our deep condolences to the family of President Machel , the families of those who lost their live8 with him and the Government and people of Mozambique. 1 invite the members of the security Council to stand and observe a minute of eilence. The members of the Security Council observed a minute of silence. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda was adopted. LETPER DATED 17 CICTORER 1986 FROM TRE PERMANENT REPRESENPATXVE OF MCARAGUA TO THE UNITED NATIDNS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF TSR SECURITY COUNCIL (S/18415)

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Nicaragua requesting to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council’s agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite Nicaragua to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is SO decided. At the inVitatiO?I of the President, Mr. Miguel D*Rscoto BrOokmann (Nicaragua) took a place at the Council table. The PRRSIDRIVP (interpretation from Arabic): The Security Council will now begin ita consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security Council is meeting today in response to the request contained in the letter dated 17 October 1986 from the Permanent Representative of Nicaragua to the United Nation6 addrosmd to the President of the security Council, document S/16415. The first epeaker is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, His Excellency Father Riguel DeEsCOt Brockmann. I welcome him and invite him to make his statement. Mr. D’ESC%JTO Elm (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish) t Before beginning my statement, I wish to pay a heartfelt tribute to the meWrY Of Marshal Samora Moises Wachel, father of the homeland, national hero and President of the People’s Republic of Mozambique, who died in tragic circumstences~ NIB loss fill6 urn with peofound eegeet. Comrade Samora Rachel, in addition to being the leader of his bareland’s struggle for independence, distinguiehed himeelf a8 a tireless fighter for the freedom, self-determination, independence and unity of the Africar. continent. The caum of mn-alignment was enriched end strengthened by his etruggle. The people and Government of Nicaragua pay a sincere tribute to that notable f igbter . The mourning of Mozambique today is ae our own. It8 people’s Pain is ahared by all Nicaraguane, who are today fighting for the same causes. We ask Ambassador boa Santos and the blozambican kiiseion to the unite6 Nation& to accept our meet profound ~ndolences. 1 i&h to congratulate you, sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for thie month. your ~0udxy lpnd mine maintain exceltent relat ione. A non-aLigned country, the United Arab Emirates shares the tradition that entails the greatest respect for international law and order. You personally have distinguished yourself in defence of the principles of non-alignment and of the united Nations Charter. Your excellent diplomatic cmalities guarantee just, well-balanced and effective guidance of the arork of this iwrtant body, which is today considering a guestion of exceptional importance, we also express our appreciation to &Rbassador Alexander Selonogov of the Soviet Union for the excellent way in which he led the debates in the council during the aumth of September. The Security Council iS familiar with the efforts made by Nicaragua to normalise its relations with the United States. The Council is aware also that for more then five years the United States has beeD waging a war of aggression against Nicaragua. Nicaragua has sought to put an end to this war of aggression by all the peaceful means at its disposal: using bilateral initiatives, the gocd offices of third States anb the process of the Contadora snd Lima Groups, and by turning to the Security Council, which in 1983 adopted its historic resolution 530 (19831. Owing to the failure of all those initiatives to hslt the United States aggreeeion against our country, Nicaragua was forced to go to the fntersstional Court of Justice so that that lofty forum could deuide if the United States had the right - as it claimed to have - to Organise, finance, am and direct the systematic slaughter of our people through the terrorist infrastructure of the Central Intelligence Agensy WA). Thus, on 9 April 1984, Nicaragua went to the fnternational Court of Justice to file legal proceedings against the United States for its illegal policy of force and intervention ageinet Nicaragua. On 10 Hay 1984 the Internationel Court handed down provisional measure6 of protection, pointing out the obligation of the united Statee t-J respect Nicaragua’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. The failure of the United State0 to conply is public and notorioua. (Mr. D’Escoto Brockmann, Nicaragua) Given the united States auestioning of the Court's jurisdiction in the case# the Court ruled on 26 November 1984 regarding its own jurisdiction and the admissibility of the suit, establishing its jurisdiction in the case filed by Nicaragua. Finally, on 27 June this year , the Court made public its ruling on the merits of the suit. The judgelaent Of the International Court of Justice on 27 June 1986 rejected the argument of the United states that it8 aggressive conduct was permissible according to the tight of colleotive self-defence established under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. That rejection, which the Court substantiatd in 8 PssterlY manner, exposed the true nature of the war of aggression waged by the United States Government against Nicaragua. The Court condemned the United states for its mining of Nicaragua’s porto in 1984, the armed attacks on Puerto sandino, Corinto, the Potoai naval base, the port oP San Juan de1 Sur and on patrol boats in Puerto saudino, San Juan de1 Norte and severer other armed actions, as well as cordemning the trade embargo impo8ed &gainEt Nicaragua - at1 of them act8 which, according to the International Court of Justice, were aimed at depriving the Treaty of Friendehip, Commerce and Navigatiou signed in Managua by the United State8 and Nicaragua on 21 January 1956, of it8 object and purpose. The Int8rnatioual Csurt of Justice also condemned the united States for prmoting and encouraging the mercenary forceci to commit act8 contrary to international humanitarian lsw - that is, for having promoted terroriet acts. As a result, the Reagan Administration ha8 become the first and only Goverment in hietory to receive the shameful honour of ix?ing condentned by the fnternational Court of Justice for promoting aud encouraging terrorism. (Mr. D’Escoto Btockmernn, Nicaragua) Lastly, the Court condemned the United States for violations of customary international law prohibiting it from intervening in the affairs of other States, as follower ‘TBE CGIJBT . . . Weeidea that the United States of America, by training, arming, eouipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has w ad againrt the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its Obligation uI%der CUfJtojnary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State’. (S/16221, p. 137) In conseoueneer the Court 'Decides that the United States of America is under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all eunh auts a6 may constitute breaches of the foregoing legal obligationP. (s/18221, P. 140) Quite apart from the fact that as s Hember of the United Nations, signatory of the Chszter and, moreover, a permanent member of the Seourity Council, the united States is obliged to respect, and ensure respect for, the principles and norm of the Charter, it ie worthwhile reaalling the traditional position of the United State6 regarding the International Court of Yuetice. Pt met be noted, moreover8 that that Poeition wan msintiined without change until the moment Nicaragua filed its charge8 against the United States. In 1959 the Uniteo State8 Attorney Genera4 smmatiaed his Governmentga stance with reepect to the legal settlement of disputes in the following manner: (Mr. D’Escoto Brockmann, Nicaragua) “For more than 50 years our statemen have advocated an impartial international court tc decide disputes between nations. In 1907, Secretary of State Elihu Root, in his instructions to our delegates at the Second Peace Conference at The Hague, said we should develop a permanent tribuual composed of judges who would devote all their time to the trial and decision of international came8 by legal methods. Yin 1925, President Coolidge, in his inaugural address, advocated the ‘establishment of a tribunal for the administration of evenhanded justice between nation and nation.’ As he put it, *The weight of our enormous influence must be cast upon the side of a reign not of force, but of law and trial, not by battle, but by reason.’ Avery President since the Firet World war has advocated the SUbmiS6iOn of international legal dispute6 to a judicial tribunalom The United Stateo was one of the firet countries to accept the conrpulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, aa indicated by its having filed its Declaration of Acceptance as early a8 26 August 1916, a poeition it maintained until the current Aaminietration got the United States invoived in a dirty and illegal wa00t against Nicaragua. Since the International Court of Justice wae established the United States has been the country that has turned to it most in search of international judgements regarding its disputes. When the united States went to the Court recently to air publicly a dispute with Iran, the Attorney general, who represented it, eta&¶2 ” . . . The United States come6 here so that this tribunal may demonstrate that international law may not he toeaed aside, that the international fabric of civility may not be rent with impunity,m (Mr. D’Bscoto Brcckmann, Nicaragua) Even though the situation of the hostagee in Teheran was resolved before the Court ruled on the suit filed by the united States against Iran, and although I do not attempt to draw parallele between the two situations, since there are none, it is intereating to examine the official position of the United States Uovernment towards the Court in that case* ae maintained by the laot two Administrationa, including that of President Reagan. Not for one moment was there the slightest cuestion about whether the parties to a diepute before the Court were obliged t0 abide by ita ordinances, rulings an8 judgemente. Thus, in the case to which we are referring, the United States maintained in its brief that: . . . . We had in mind that aa a Member of the United Nations, Iran has formally undertaken, pursuant to Article 94, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter, to comply with the decieion of this Court in any case to which Iran might be a party. Accordingly, it was the hope an8 expectation of the United States that the Government of Iran, in compliance with its formal commitmente and obligations, would obey any and all order6 and judgementa which might be entered by this Court in the course of the present litigation.a Thie general obligation of the Member State8 of the United Nations - unaualified and without exception - wa8 reaffirmed under the Reagan Administration, when the State Department iesued a public etatement on 20 May 1980 that: *Under the United Nation8 Charter, Iran ie bound to obey the Court-B judgement, and the united Statea urges it to do so, in order that Iran will then be free to pursue it8 international interest6 a8 a law-abiding mm&et of the international community, entitled to the respect and co-operation of all nations.. (Mr. D’EEcOtO Brockmann, Nicaragua) Events from 27 June to the present demonstrate that the united states Oovernuent remain8 determined to continue its war of aggression against Nicaragua. On the 5th of this month, a young Nicaraguan patriot doing his railitary service Shot dawn a United States aircraft near the Costa Rican horder. It was piloted by Americans and wan carrying a large shipPent of arms and military supplies for the contra mercensries. After the plane crashed, our soldiers captured the only surviving American and recovered i&portent docuxents demnstratiug once again the full responsibility of the united states in the mercenary var. These documents, aud the statements of the prisoner, Eugene Easenfne, have exposed an extensive infraetructure of United Statee Government air eupaort for the contra mercenaries. As a United States senator observed a few days ago: ‘In the C-123 downed in NIcaragUa, a smoking gun was found that clearly points to the White fIou8e.’ But amart from the degree of offioial United States Gevernment involwement in the particular case of the C-123 domed in Nicaragua on S Octotir, and in order uot to anticipate the decision of the judges in the trial now under way, the truth of the matter ie that the flight could only have been undeztaken in the context of a lsrge-scale C!Mpaign of support and encouragement pereoually dire&cd by President Ronald Reagan, who has cauonised the terroritatta who bring suffering, destruction end death to the Niaaraguan people. When Under-Seuretary of State Elliot Abram stated before a Congressional sub-conraittaa on 14 Octoixw, that the txm Americans who were killed as a result of the downing of the United States plane, as well as the prisoner weret ‘brave men helping Nicaragua in its etruggle for freedc& , the Reagan Administration waoofl (Hr. D%woto BrockrPann, Nicaragua) clearly violating the, ruling of the International Court of Justice, which orders it not only to imediately cease *training, arming, eguipping, financing and eupplying the contra-forces., but also orders the United Statea inae%iately to stop: ‘prmting, eupporting an% assisting military an% paramilitary activities in any other mannerm against Nicaragua. Thus, when Un%er-Secretary Abram denied on 14 October before the Cmgressional sub-committee that the united States Goverment wa8 directly or in%irWtly involved in the case-of the C-123, an% then proceeded to praise the courage and idealim of those mercenaries, au% when he further testified that “Americana are free to back any of the rides in Central Ameticam, there em be no doubt that he is promoting and supporting the comfeeion of terrorist a&e, for which the Unite% States ha6 already been con%eme% by the Court. But, as we all know, it is not only Under-Secretery Elliot Abram3 who is in contempt of the Court@6 decieion. President Reagan himself, when he stated publicly -1, too, am a contra,* was also encouraging and prmting the mtivities against Nicaragua that the Court’s taenteuoe 00Mmms am illegal an% counter to the mat basic international obligations of States. Wben President Rsagan was recently aeke% whether he was in favor of aotivities by American citizens like Eugene Ramnfue against Nicaragua, and he replied that %e live in a free country where aitivene heve a great many free-, ” he wae, ao President of the united State& shoving contempt for the International Court of Justice*8 ju%gment, foe there oan be no doubt that hle answer gives the green light, promotes and encxmes;Jee the coiemiseion of terrorist act8 against Nicaeagua. In the name of (MC. D’Mcoto Brackmann, Nicaragua) freedom, President Reagan defends tetrorisw and crime, and encourages American citieenr to deprive another peoplo of their liberty. Only a week ogo, on 14 October, Central Intelligence Ageucy’a terrorist aetcrnarieo attmked a hue carrying 70 civilian paemengere in the area of . La, Gatcada, in the muthern part of the Eastern deparfsent of aeloya, murdering three innocent civiliane, among them a woman , and vounding 15 and kidnapping 20 others. A week before, on 6 October, contra mercenaries hod attacked the El Diamante farm w-operative in Jinotega Department, where they burned down efx houses qletely and nim others partiallyy. During thoat attak, they destroyed a 8clmo1, o health clinic, and a market place, all of them totolly civilian installations built by the Nicaraguan Government to benefit the population. The liot of rimilar attocitieo perpetrated by CIA mercenaries since 27 June icr too long to detail here. NOM the leas, I have juat received tnformetion from Managua on the moat recent of the atrcoitica which hove taken place up to lost night. The most recent of thetm atrocities, perpetrated yesterday by the terroriota, financed, Bitouted and enaouraged by the Reagan Mminirtration is the fact that a bu8 carrying civilian paesengetp, was blown up by a mine placed by CIA l ercenatiee on roadr Wed by civilian paesengere. In that euplooion at least three wusen and one child were killed. Thie lx%pgened 1eoP tbon 24 houro ago. (Mr. D’Eauoto Erouk~nn, Niosragua) For our purpoeee? it suffice6 to point out that it ie to finance there kindo of activities that on 16 October the President of the United s-tea, m. Ronald Reagan, signed into law $100 million to continue murdering men, wanen, children, old an8 young Nicaraguanor $100 million for crime; $100 million for terroris&; $100 million to destroy echoole, hospitalo, nureerieo, peaeent co-operative88 $100 million to destroy the work8 conetructed through the heroic efforts of a pxwple and the solidarity of the oivilioed peoples and Governmentta of the world) $100 million for a-; 8100 million raqueatad by a Govegnment tbt Offend Cod and humanity; $100 lpillion aimed at deotroying peace and blocking a peaceful colution, at attacking the un;?orpinnings of tha United Nationo and the international juridical order. Almoat four monthr, have passed since the Xntemnstional court of Justice iesuti it@ Judgement in the ca8e filed by tUcatagua# four monthe in whicrh it hali been olear that the United Btateo Government he0 not abided by the Court*8 Judge-t, th8t it continues to sot in dear end open violation of the JuUgmmnt - alleging, through ri~r offid&l@, that the Internationel Court of Juathe did not have jurisdiction in the caee, essigning iteelf power@ thet the United Wations Cb xter ha8 given no country. The United S-tea ir mtill trying to set itself up ao jtige, defamlant, witMOo, jury and pOliCeXUn in it6 6wn trials trying to obtain absolute iapunity in ite aggreeeion against the weak) trying, in the final anelyeie, to heve prmr over the life and death OF ewall nations and pecpleo, upholding beliefs -table only to Lrmee that leb humanity to the ho-au& of the &et mrld war. re fe therefore uorti while at thie point to aokr where dcee this leave the eoatmitment the United States frmly and legally entered into when it signed and ratified the united Nations Charter? Because on 26 Auguet 1946 the United States accept6d - on the baeie of Article 36, paragraph 2 of the Statute - the cwulmry (Mr. D'Eecoto Btcckmann, Nicaragua) juriediction of the International Court of Juetice; that is, it accopted the right of any other country accepting that jurisdiction, in identical or similar terns, to cue the United State8 end, at the l ne time , the obligation of the United Statea to obey and comply with the deciaionr of the Court reoulting from much a suit. No one an seriously believe that the united States was unaware of the waning irnd ecope of its acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, because tbat would be the same thing ae saying it was unaware of the contente of the United Nstione Charter and of the Courtgs Statute, which io part ar&l parcel of the Chattor - unless we are to believe that the United ltatee agr this international treaty in bad faith. Moreover, when the united Steteo the Court’6 jurifsdiction in the caee filed by NiCist8gUa, it does so on the basiu Article 36 of the Statute, paragraph 6 of which retie a6 folla*oc .In the event of a dispute ae to whether the Court hae juriediction, the matter ahall be eettled by the decimion of the CoWto. ‘TRet Artiale eatabliohes the right of every Stete to.cb%llenge the jurisdiction of tha mutt, but it also e8tablisheo that the decision on the matter is the CourtBe, and the Court*a alone. Bush a decision is thus not for the States to make. It ie therefore quite evident that the United States bee no grounds whstmver for failing to abide by the decision of the International Court of Justice, and that by so doing it ie adding a new and grave violation to ite countlees violatione of international law. Paragraph 3 of Article 2 of our Charter eetablieheo that 'All Uembere ehall mttle their international dieputee by @eaceful means in euch a manner that international peace end eecurity, and juotiar, are not endangered’. (MC. WEecot Brockmnn, Nicaragua) we all know that judicial auttlerent - recourse to the International Court of Juatioe - ia ona of thn fondumtal wana of peaceful solution of diaputea eatabJ.i&& in Chepter VI of tlu Wnited Nations Charter. If ttw souurity Council did not respond appropriately to this outlaw condwt by the united Statae, uo could eee the failure of the mean8 of peaceful aettlmnt of disputes an4 the impomitfon of force am a valid element of internation& relationa. It would ran a viutary for the law of the jungle over the goal0 of peace and jurtice puraued by our Organioetion. That is why it ia of the utroot importance for the Security Council , the United Nations, the entire international aomunity, to remind the United States of its obligation to abide by the court’e ruling, putting an end to it8 war of aggression against Nicaragua and retting in motion the negotiattng process the Court itself mugger&o in ite decision. Xn July, rhcn Nicaragua lart.caae before the Sacutity Council owing to the escalation of United steter aggtesaion, we did not invoke Article 94 of the Charter, in order to give the united States the benefit of the doubt with respaut to the ruling of the Court, in order to keep open the laet poraibility that it would decide to ceqlgly with and do justice to ito international obligation& today it is impoaeible to keep waiting for a change of heart, and it io on the baais op that reality that we ame to ask the Swutity Council to urge upon thu United States the inaacapable necessity of fulfilling the sentence of 27 June 1996. Article 94 Of the Charter State0 Cleatly and absolutely that %ech Hemher of tha Wnited Nations undertakes to aosply with the deaieion of the Pntetnaticmsl Court of Juetioe in any use0 to vhioh it ir a party.. article 2, paragraph 2 of the mme Charter establiehee, moreover, that “All Hamkiml), in ordot to enrure to all of them the rights anal benefit6 rerulting from mslBerahip, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations asaurwd by them In accordance with the present Charter’. (Mr. D”Eacoto Brockrsann, Nicaragua) It uannot ba said, tbereforo, that there ia any reamn or pretext that would POrEit a S&ate to avoid co8plying with a ruling of the fnternationpl Court of Jurtico. The United States ie therofore duty-bmnd e0 abid@ fully and i88adiatelY with the 27 JUW 1986 decision, and even more obliged to do so becauue it hae the priwilege of being one of tho permanent me&era of the security Council. For this Privilege was given it 8o that it vould eat in auuordance with the purposes and principle8 of the Charter - not 90 that it would conrider itself in a goeition to violate with iqunity the cauaitmnte it bad undertaken anb trample under foot the rights of mall natione and peopler, drawing on ite immse rilitary and economic porsar. Nicaragua appear8 before th Semriti Council today to aek the Council - in accordanae with Article 94 of the Cbarter - to urge the United statea to imlment the 8entenCe of the International Court of Justice, which it is obliged to do ao a . Meabw of the United Nationr and ata a 3tate tbat has scoepted the compulrory jurisdiction of the Court. (Hr. D’Eecoto Broduaann, NiceragUe) There are no ewred cows or inviolable Meaber of our organizationz the duty to reepect the principles and standards of the Cherter applies equally to all Menbra. The future of our Organization would be eeriouely threatened if the United States ie permitted to ignore ite obligatione under the Charter with iwnity, by violating the judgment of the International Court of Justice and COntinUing the war of aggression it ie waging againet Nicaragua. Nicaragua is not remeeting eanctione against the United state6, even though undoubtedly it wculd heave more than ample juatificetion for so doing. We are 8iqly aeking that the Security Council re@ind the united State6 that, in accordance with it8 obligation8 under the Charter, it must imediately collply with the 27 June 1986 judgement of the International Court of auf%titie. Should the Security Council find itself unable to do even thie, it would be not just lamentable, but tragic. The only poseible explanation for such InathiOn muld be that, as far as the Security Council io concerned, there ehould indeed be eacred ~0~4 and inviolable Member8 in the United Nation& ft would be d denial of the primiple of the legal eauality of State% Thie cannot be. We trust that it will not happen. Today we can etrengthen our Organisation, we can broaden the path of peace, juetice and ewurity in the world or , on the contrary, we can cpen the door to a world of unending *low-intensity conflictsa , genocide disguised a8 gecpolitical experiaente, a world in which the weak will die or will find thewelvee condemned to death and to the most desperate actione in order to escape enslaweaent at the hand6 of the pwerful. Then the world wuld have every right to ask: what became of the United Nation&a and of the goal0 that inepired it6 creation? (Hr. D@Eecoto Brockmann, Nicaraqua) It VaB an act of faith that brought to UB to the International Court Of JUetiCO, a’belief that even mall countries still have the possibility of attaining peace through the objective and equal application of justice. Our faith in that posribility was not dieappointed by the court. With that saae faith we appear today before the Security Council, trusting tbt, in fulfilment of ita eolenrn duty, it will remind tho united states that, as a Member State, it must cosply with ite obligations under the Charter and abide bY the judWnt of 27 &me 1986 of the International Court of Justice. If the Couacil dooo 00, our Organieation will be that much etrongef, and strengthening our Organination mean6 progros8 in the came of paace, loftieet arpiration of all humankind. The PRBSIISENT (interpretation from Arabic)8 I ehould like to thenk the Minister for lToreign Affaira of Nicaragua for his kind words addreaaed to me- There are no further speakers ineoribed on my list for thipr meeting. The next meting of the Security Coumil to continue the consideration of the item on the menda will be firred in comultation with rmembec~ of the Council. The aeeting ~086 at ll.SS 8.m~ (Mr. D’EBcoto Brookmann, Nicaragua)