S/PV.2718 Security Council

I thank the representative of Democratic Yemen for the kind words he addressed to me. The next epeaker is the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. RAJAIE-XZRORASSANI (Ielamic Republic of Iran): We are in the final day8 Of this month, sir, and your presidency of the Security Council is therefore coming to an end. I believe that you have guided the Councilwe affairs extremely efficiently and skilfully - indeed in a masterly way. Although, as I have said, it is the end of the month and the end of your term of office, I should like - since this 18 the first time I have spoken this month in the Council - to congratulate you on your presidency and on the successful record you will leave behind YOU. I wieh also to offer my sincere compliments an8 appreciation to your predeceseor, Ambassador BelOnOgOV of the Union of Soviet locialiet Republics, who guided the Council’s affairs extremely well, in a very commendable manner, last month. After the United Nations Charter had been drafted, 41 yeare ago, all those who signed it - both the pioneers who were actively involved ic the early, preparatory stagee of the Organization and also those who were anxiouely waiting for the genie (Hr. Al-Ashtal, ~emcratic Yemen) to come out of the bottle - were absolutely certain that the promises of happiness, tranouility and international peace and security for the Member States could be fulfilled only if law and order prevailed over the entire netmrk of international relationa. To it6 signatories, the United Nations Charter was the legal foundation for such an orderly pattern of adminiletering international relations. In the abaenca of a law enforcement agency for international law, it was also obvious that respect for and credibility in the Organisation depended upon the sincerity, goodwill and real moral commitment of the Member States, oc - to put it a better way - upon the degree of acccxmun3ation that Member States would show in rejecting parochial short-sightednese in favour of a functional and universally reepected international syetem. In that regard, the attitude of the perruanent member8 of the security Council towards the role of the Organization ie of great significance. Respect for the judgements of the International Court of Justice in particular and for international law in general ie of crucial importance. Regrettably, however, the Government of the United States is the best example of violators of international law as well as the deciaione of the International Court of Justice. The principles Of the United Nations Charter - such as non-aggression, non-intervention and the non-use of force - have been repeatedly violated by the united State8 Government. *aart and Covert opetrations against Nicaragua are just one caB8 alaong n\sny of the violation of international law by the United States Adminiatration. Agents of the Centcal Intelligence Agency (CIA) are all wer the place, and the United State8 is not embarrassed at all when agent6 of its illegal intervention8 in otirei ~G.iiitrie= are captured. The basic queetion here, therefore, ie not the filing of a complaint againet the United Statea Government in The Hague or in the Security COUnCil: the basic Wr. Rajais-Rhoraasani, Islamic Republic of Iran) ouostion is whothor, with that kind of attitude, there is really any future for intermtional law or for the Orgaaimtion. The 8ignatories of the United Nation8 Chapter joined the Organisation because of their l fncere an8 honert reapuct for international peace and and the camson Wpine88 of all natione, and elan because of their umler8tanding that the Organfootion would function effectively and with the co-operation of all Mefaber statee. They hoped that aggreoofon would, ae the Charter contmlated, be ouppresoed - not unethioally condoned - and that the principles of the Charter and other Ln8ttumentr of international law trwld km ilplemnted --at on a agle&ive ba8i8 hut irqmrtially and coqrehea8ively, and not for the protection of Certain mhort-eighted interests. (Hr. Rajaie-thoraasani, 18lawic . Republic of Iran) They expected honest anJ consistent functioning of the Security Council, in defence of the invaded victims against whom war has been waged, and not for the protection of aggressor criminal clients. The Charter was written in order to free the victimized nations that were fighting back from the burden of sacrificing their lives and property in order to regain their rights. Honesty, beauty and peace will ultimately overcome treachery, ugliness ad turmoil, and future generations who read the records of our so-called Security Council will discover facts which in our day are ignored, buried or even deliberately and cleverly concealed behind the masks of arrogance and self-deceit. We think that present united States policies and attitudes are registering a very unhealthy precedent, which further cripples the Organization. It is therefore impertant to stand firmly against present United State8 pCliCieS towards Nicaragua, not simply for the sake of Nicaragua but also, and mre importantly, for the sake of pr inoiples. We believe that some mmbere of this Council muat finally make the choice of rescuing the Organization from becoming a toy in the hands of 8cme irresponsible members. As for the United States officials, it is important to remember that the existence of this Organization depends upon the sincere effort6 of those who are struggling to control and stop present United States policies an8 practice6 and not upon the selfish and irnesponsible actions of the United states Government. This must convince the United States officials thet they are on the wrong side and that they have no option hut to review their policies and conduct themselves accordingly. As for their differences with tneir neighbours ---.-L-- , they DUG L~)YIII-L tt-tit alI nations of the world are experimenting with what they think is right for t hemee lvea . Those who experiment, experiment on themselves while the results of (Mr. Rajsie-Khorassani, Islamic Republic of Iran) their experiments belong to tha entire human family. The United States must therefore give the Nicaraguan people a chance to choose a system of their own liking and to experiment for themselves and on themselves , as is the tight of every nation. Let them exercise their basic right to sovereignty ati aelf-detetmination. Let them try the solution which they have found for their own problems. They know ahout American demcctacy that is being inrposed upon come of their neighbours. They kmw also about the advantages and disadvantages of the Soiaoza t6gime and they have therefore made up their minds to exercise and experiment with a democracy of their own finding, and not necessarily with an metrican type of d-racy. Let them carry it out and enrich out collective experience with the results of their own efforts and sacrifices. We therefore urge the United State8 Government to resolve its differences with tha countries of the region peacefully and constructively. We urge the United States to teccgnize the tight of the people of Nicaragua to choose theft system of Government freely and without any outside coercion. Today the issue before the Council is a simple one, but the decision which the Council will make is of very great iwttance to the whole Organisation. My delegation has been following the consultations and negotiatione relating to the draft resolution which has been submitted and we know, very sadly, how the victimised nations ate pteseuted to make concession8 simply because their advereary ii an arrogant Bower and a permanent member of thie body. The entire body of the united Natione, whose fortieth annivetearry we recently celebrated and to whose rnternationai Year or Peace lip eervice is being paid in the General Assembly, along with its 158 legitimate members, is waiting to oee how the Security Council will treat the International Court of Justice. The international community should IRK. Rajaie-Rhotassani, Islamic Republic of Iran) condemn the illegal actions and itreeponoible practices and Ipolicies of a permanent member of this Council t0wam.W ita neighbour. The Council*6 decision will soon demonstrate whether its present members are going to destroy the United Nations or to revive, refresh and energixe the Organisation. Members of the Council, you have the choice. Please proceed. The WU%3fReNT (interpretation from Arabic) i I thank the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the kind words he addressed to me. Members of the Council now have before them a draft resolution submitted by the delegations of Congo, Ghana, Madagascar , Trinidad and Tobago and the United Aram Emirates (S/18428). It is my undetstanding that the Council is ready to proceed to vote on the draft resolution. Sir John TROMSON (United Kingdom): I wish to make a ptocedural point to which my delegation attaches much importance. We are resay to vote now on the draft resolution,but I must observe that the document was circulated in provisional form for the first time after this Council sat down this afternoon. There is nothing in our provisional rules of procedure which states exactly what the relationship should be between the circulation of documents an8 the voting upon them, but it has been the custom of this Council, as a matter of courtesy, to allow a decent period - which is usually taken to be approximately 24 hours - between the circulation of draft resolutions arxl the voting on them. I think that is a good practice. It is not to be taken as an invariable practice. There ~0~18, Of course, be many and urgent cases when we should have to vote more capidiy, but I should not like it to be thought that we were slipping away from the normal practice to another practice which I think could lead to inconvenience and in Borne cases to unnecessary conttove8y. (Mr. Rajaie-Khorassani, Islamic Republic of Iran) Au I sayI I am ready to vote thio aftermnm, becaure there hae been a lot of oon8ultstion and now that f read, for the first the, thio provioicnal text I do find that it ie congruent with document8 that I have men before. But in principle I hcpe that we shall normally have a longer parlod between the circulation of a document and the voting on it. (Sir John Thonmn, unit&J Aingdcm) The PRESPDSNT (interptetation from Arabic): Unleso I hear any abjection, I ahall put the draft reeolutfon to the vote now. l’tmre baing mu objection, it ie so decided. I ahall firat call on thoee me&term of the Council who wish to make a statement &fore the voting. wt. RASEMELFU (Thailand): My delegation has already aonveyed before the General Assembly Thailand‘s deep condolences at the tragic death of President Sanuxa Moieea Machel of the People’s Republic of mzaarbique and members of his party, to the Government and people of Mozambique and to the bereaved families. I should like to reiterate same for the record of the Security Council. Furthermore, regarding the recent earthquake in El Salvador, q delegation viehee to repeat for the record of the Council Thailand’s sentiments of sympathy for the affected Central American Ciovernment and nation. At the Coui~cil meeting laet July cm thie matter, my delegation reaffirmed Thailand’s adherence to the provfstone of the Charter and the rules of international law in the oonduct of its relations with other States. MOrewet, it firmly believes in the peaceful settlement of disputes and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other Statee. With respect to the eituation in Central America, my delegation wishes to reiterate its conviction that the State5 of the region should refrain from any threat or use of force againet the sovereignty or territorial integrity of a neighbouring State. In this regard, the Cm%dore peace efforts ehould obtein the full support of all countrie8. It is nlpl, *he right of all states to choose their own political, economic and social sYStsm8, free from outeide tnterfeeence. Article 94, Paragraph 1, of the Chatter contains a solemn undertaking by every Stat68 Mem&er of the United Nation8 ta cxmply with the decision of the Intecnetimal Court of Juetice -in any case to which it ia a party.. Although the United State4 takes the position that the Court does not have 4nY competenoe or jurisdiction, it is 4 fact that in the determination of the Court the United States ~4s considered 4 party to the ~444 in question. HoWeVeK, Article 94, parclgraph 2, of the Charter states that8 $'If any party to 4 case fails to perform the oblig4tions incumbent upon it under 4 Judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the S4curity Council,. Nicaragua has relied on this paragraph in requesting the Council to convene this meting. Uowever, in convening it the Council does not ipso facto rficQgni2e that 4 party haa indeed failed to perform ‘the obligations incumbent upon it9 under the judgement cited in this in2tanCe. HOreWer, the Council is faced with a dilemma explicit in paragraph 2 of Article 94, which is that the Council may make recommendrntions or decide upon measure8 under this provision only if it considers that 4 party has failed to perform its obligations under a judgelwnt of the Court, 4 determination which is intrinsically leg41 in neture. Ohio may be cne of the reasons why this Article had not been invokea heretofore. The Council’e initial concern should be to eesist by practical means the process of achieving 4 peaceful settlement of the problem, bearing in mind its illlplicatione ar the peace and security of all the countries in Central hnerica. The judgearent of 27 June 1966 may constitute a central pillar, but is not necess4rilY the only one needed to support possible action by the Council. There are certain legal peinciples, particularly the principle of non-intervention, which are 9enerallY recognised and are valid, with or without any elaboration by the Court. Indeed, the Court recognised theee principles as customary international law. at this stage, my delegation believes it tcr be more conetructive for the (Mr. K45emer i, Thailand) . Council to attempt practical aeasucee to assist the Clontadora and the Lima Support Groups which have not given up their peace initiatives8 nor have the Central American States themselves given up their OWI efforts. Therefore, without having to rely on Article 94, the Council can still play a useful role at this juncture. [)R the other hand, over-reliance on Article 94, at this stage, will prove to be counter-productive. To enhance it8 effectiveness in maintaining internatiOnal peace and semrity, the Security Council should look for practical measure8 to bring about the desired results, espaaially in view of the fact that it had recently failed to adopt a draft reeolutiOn On a similar subjeot. Despite the understandable feeling8 of futility in some quarters, my delegation would prefer to 886 the Council work acre closely with the regional ~WberE, the Contadora Statee and their Support GLOup, in order to help re8tore peace and harmmy t:, the Central American region. In View of the foregoing, my delegation find8 thst the draft reeolution in dmumnt S/18428, baaed as it is on Article 94, pose8 an unresolved dileam for the COUnCil, which, in the opinion of my delegation, could have been asked to take mote appropriate action in pursuit of a peaceful settlemnt, in ordeo to bring an end to the Qngecous political confliut and military hostilitfes in Central mmerica. It is with Legret, therefore, that my delegation will abstain on the draft resolution. #to WALTERS (United States of America): The United Ststee will vote against the present draft resolution for essentially the saum teason that it voted ---.--L ..L. -Yarllar um3 previcrue &z&t reeoiution on the 8me subject in Juiy. Tkis draft resolution will not contribute to a peaceful and just setttewnt of the 8ituatiOn in C8ntral America within the fzarpgwtxk of international law and the Charter: Of the 'United Nationa. Mr. Kaeewri, Timiland) We have heard Statea here whfah do not accept themselves the coapulsory juriadictian of tha Intornatiooal Court of Justice denounce the United States for not accepting that whioh they themselves do not accept= What ia at stake here is mat emphatically not simply a legal question, despite Nicaragw@s &tenuous efforts to pretend otherwise. we cannot ardeatep the reality of the oituatdon in central Aneriaa by hiding behind a decision of the International murt of Justice, much less a decision that the Court had neither the jurbdiction nor coapetence to render. It does not suffice to clailp, aa 8oipe have done, that the aurt must have had jurisdiction, because Article 36, paragraph 6, Of it8 Statute says that the Court may decide disputes concerning that jurisdiction. But no Court, not even the Internatioml Court of Justice, haas the legal paver to aeaert jurisdiction where no bsaie exist0 for that juriadicticn. The language and negotiating history of the Charter of the united Natious and the Internatimal Court of Juetice, a8 well as the consirrtent interpretatiorr of those instrumfmts by the Court, this Council, anil We&r States, make ahuudantly clear that the Court’8 claim of jurisdiction and coqetence in the Nicaragua case ~88 without foundation in law or f8ct. The argument8 to this effect presented by the united States during the earlier phaSe8 of the case are all a watter of public record and mad not ha repeated here. St is enough to e&iy that approval by the Couneil of a rei3OlutiOh that Simply iq)oteG these fatal defect8 in Nicaragua'8 position before this Council will not serve the crude of peace in Central hu%fica. The draft re6ObtfOn which i8 before u8 do88 not focus on the real issues of the conflict. A8 I have stated in the pa&, the United State8 is prepared to Impport a resolution which rake8 a genuine contribution to peace in Central America. However, the prssent draft doeie uot do so. The dreft resolution take8 no note of Niuaragua'e wm re8pon8ibility for the current situation in that troubled region. Inetead, it seeks to predent, in the guise of support for the 27 June decieion of the International Court of Juetice, a one-sided picture of the situation in Central Am8rics. It attempts to portray a false image of this eituation a8 merely a conflict between Nicaragua and the United State& My Government, the people of Central ARBrica, and the Sandinistas themselv88 know that this ie not the case. The sandiniats Government ie reepon8ible for the crieie. It has waged a confiict with ii.8 owri w-16 Giise re;zlut?o:: it !zc *trayed; f+ haa waged a conflict with the Qmmment8 of its mighboUC8, all of whom it has Bought t0 subvert. (Hr. Walters, United States) In previous statements to this Council I have elaborated on the way the Sandinistas have betrayed the Nicaraguan revolution and how they have oppressed the Nicaraguan people. One key issue is worth emphasising, however. Two of the essential pointa of the Contadora Document of Objectives are national reconciliation and democratisation. The Sandinistas agreed in principla to both of theee goals when they signed the Document of Objectives in September 1983. Yet throughout the zore than three years since that time , they have bean intransigent in refusing any dialogue with their opmsitlon which could result in true national reconciliation and democratisation. In drematic contrast, the United Nicaraguan Opposition on 23 October reiterated its support for the 30 January proposal of the six opposition political Parties for a dialogue looking to the cessation of hostilities, a general amnesty, an ending to the state of emergency and the production of a new electoral law leading to general elections. A@ a token of its good faith, the forces of the United Nicaraguan Opposition observed the hietoric call by Pope John Paul II for a day of prayer and petace on 27 October in yet another attempt to develop a proper climate for national reconoiliation. What abOUt Nicaragua’8 IIeighboUrS? If Nicaragua really wants peace with its neighbours why has it amassed the largest army in the history of Central America and eouipped it with an arsenal of sophisticated Soviet weapons unprecedented in this region? The Sandinietas vould like us to believe that they are willing to sign the latest Contadora Draft Act but in fact they have insisted that arm nmuxtiaC~n+ within the mnCmtyt nf t%ntuPrrrm kp hraadl ou~l~m4velv M IA entolmriaa -4 -...------ ----- -------- --~ -.. -_ ---- ~----- of arms. A lock at the Sandinista proposal reveals the extent of the duplicity. Their arms prcpoeel would have virtually no impact on their enormous army. For example: they have received dozen6 of 122 millimetre multiple rocket launchers, (Mr. Walters, United States) so they propose to limit only rockets larger then 122 milliaetreuz they have received large numbems of 120 millimetre mortars, so they propose to limit Only mortars larger than 120 aillimetresj they have received scores of.towed artillery Pieces of up to 152 millimetres, so they propose to limit only self-propelled artillery and artillery of more than 160 millimetres; they have received large ouantitiee of towed anki-aircraft guns , 80 they propose to limit only self-propelled anti-aircraft guns. SO it goes down this list of arms. Most of the weapons the Sandinietaa have said that they might be wiliing to discuss are items they do not have. They have made suite Clear that they would refuse to consider placing any limits on the size of their hug@ army. Mu Government strongly favours a negotiated political solution in Centre?. America. My Government has conaietently supported the members of the Contedora PrOceSs in the?r efforts to produce a regional settlement. My Govetnment would abide by an agreement that achieved a comprehensive, verifiable end simultaneous implementatton of the 1983 Contadora Daeument of Objectives. Regrettably, the Sandinieta regime hae just as consistently blocked the efforts Of the Contadora countries to find a formula for Peace. In this connection, it ie significant that the draft resolution before us today does not even CefeP to the COntadora Process, the only widely-accepted avenue for achieving peace through negotiations. Nicaragua would like to have us all believe that it has displayed flexibility P.--A- &la- ““L r,.rJ I...- WV ..----- --,~-r-..(n=n*rcd necjatiating process. ----= -- - The sandinistae seem to aesume that we have very ehort memories. They seem to believe that we have forgotten the many Occasions on which they have obstructed the peace process. Last year, for example, they called for a six-month delay in negotiations. Furthermore, at the (Wr. Walters, united States) 1986 April Contadora meeting , the Nicaraguan Foreign Minister’s refusal to %CCePt the approach advocated by the Contadora and Support Groups, as well as by the four Central American democracies was responsible for preventing any progress in the negot fat ions. Nicaragus would also like us to believe th%t it is willing to sign the latest Contadora draft agreement. However, the terms that is has set for doing so have been and are unacceptable to the Central American deskxracies. Nicaragua knows this and yet refuses to compromi8e. In July and again last week , I asked the Nicaraguan representative some very basic ouestions about Sandinists intentions towards their own people and towards their neighbours. Despite the freouent opportunities granted by this Council to them to mike their case here, Nicaragua’s representatives still refuse to answer. Let me try to provide these answers. The Sandinistir rdgime should sit down at the bargaining table with all members of the democratic opposition and negotiate a programs% in which the people of Nicaragua can choose in free and fair elections their leaders and the type of government they want. They should end their aggression against their neighbours and negotiate seriously to restore regional peace. This is the road to peace in the region. Mr. LI LUYe (ChSna) (interpretation from Chinese) t The Chinese delegstion remains deeply concerned &out the tension in the Central American region. It holds that the basis for the settlement of the Central American question is to be found in the elimination of interference by all outside forces and in respect for the State soverelgnty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries in Central America. Interference and infiltration of whatever form in respect of the Central American countries will only aggravate existing tensions (Hr. Walters, United Statea) and unrest and further csoqlicate the problem. China io of the view that problem between ttm Central American countries and problem8 bstwOWb Nicaragua and the United State8 should be mottled peacefully through conrultatiamo an an e-1 fOOtincJ and in colpliamo with the norm governing internatimal relation8 anti thm relevant principles in tha united #ation Charter , anl that the uw or threat of force 8umt not be resorted to. The judgment of the Internation Court of Jumtke in June thim year should be respsated by the oountriem comertwl. Prooreding fIOr thi8 pocition, the Chineme delegation will vote in favour of the draft rerolution. (Mr. Li Luye, China) The PRESIOE~,(interpretation from Atahic)t I put to the vote the draft resolution contained in document WlS43S. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Aumttalia, Bulgaria, China, Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, united Arab Emirates, Venezuela Againat: United stat55 of America Abmtainingt Prance, Thailad, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland The PREXDEIOT (interpretation froa Arabic): The result of the voting ia am follows: 11 vote6 in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions. The draft resolution ha5 not been adopted, owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of the security council. I shall now call on those representativea who have asked to be all& to make otatmentta after the voting. MP. BIERRING (Denmark) t When the Council met in July this year to Bircuae the dispute which was the subject of the judgement of the International Court of Justice of 27 June 1986 my delegation explained Denmark’8 position ragaraing the International Court of Justice. During that and previous Security Co~wil dehatea we alao M& clear our view8 concerning the overall rituation in central Amar ica. On this Occasion, therefore, euffice it to say that Denmark remains convinced of the important role of the Xnternational Court of Juetice in the peaceful aettlematnt of ai8putes and of the neceeeity for #emEm States to accept the court’6 vordicte. Denmark io one of the few countries in this body to hava accepted the COUbpUl8Ory jurisdiction of the Court with no understandings or reeetvatione of any kind. In our view, it would be appropriate if more Melnber States did likewiae. It is our firm belief in and aupport for the principlee of international reaolutiar tiich has just been voted upon. Indeed, thdse pcincipl.8 oetve the v*y Sam goals as the founding fathere dosigre3 for this body - the maintenance of intacnatimal peace and security and the developmnt of frimdly CeldtioM between mtions. Sir John TKWSON (Miitsd Kingdom)% It is y Governwnt’s established pmiticm that we suppoct krtePnatiana1 law md tie mthority of the Chmter- TQO alSO fully support the International Court of Justica , and I note that my omntry ie the arry cm of the five permanent meabers of the Comcil Jlich aooepts the ammlsay jur isdictian of the court. CWplianca by the par ties with Inter nation&L Court of Justiae deoioiono is a clear Charter ablipstiar, but it ie nothing leas than preiacarptuous tot the GOVefhment of Nicaragua, a rigime whi& neither externally nor ihtetxally lives up to ite obligatione, to call fot selective application of the Chartet in this case. That is not respect for the Charter, but taking a&antsge of it for natrcm political ends. While we do not challenge the draft resolution on legal gmunds, we are unable to support a &aft rasolutiar t&rich fails to take accost of the wider political factors and fails to adcnmledge that Nicaragua haa largely brought its tmublrr upon itself. My delegation thetefae abstained. Mt. de KR4OUlARIA (France) (interpretation from Prench)t bSy delegation has on mny occaeiohs expteaeed in the Council Prence@o pitioll on the situation prevailing in Central America. In particular, my uountry has amotently preclatied its desire for a pesmeful settlemmt of the carflicts in that atea based On dialogue and leading to reamciliation. it is for this reaam that we have given (Hr. Bierring, lmaark) ad continue to give our suppart to the effocto of the fouc u*ar oomtcier of the Cantadora Group. In that connection, we took particular note of the Declaration plrbliehed an 1 October by the artier corntries of that Group ad of ite 6uPpart Group. The Frehch Goverruent shares the anxiety of those countriea ovu the grGsi.ng termion in the region and the risk of it% possible extenion ad esaahtim. We wntinue to hope that, despite the obotsclae encxwntired, a coopcebanslive, satisfaatory solutim will finally be found in order to ensure pace and security in the region. In this cmntext, the French ilelegatiou would have liked the Counoil to be in a pwitiar to make a significant carteikwtiar to thoee efforts by maimuely a&pting a draft resolution. Iicwever , the text before it oontaino, as did that which uaa considered on 31 Yuly, queetiarable references to the judgemmt handed down an 27 June 1986 by the Inter national Court of Jwtia,, both QI matter@ of oubetmae md an the Court ‘0 role. It wan f6x that teaem that my delegatim wdS cmas again obliged to abaeah. Mr. GW3to (Ghana)t I& me make it aboalutely clear that I have Bought to speak, not in escplanetion of vota and not in exeraise of the right of re#y, butr rather, in emmoise of y ri*t a0 a me*er of the Counoil. The Counoil has just failed to t&e a daaieiau on 8 lendmark mse. This failure has been made possible by the use of the veto by.a pertmnmt aedwf of the COWbOil. That cotme of action is within the o<sgeteuce of the Council and legitimate, and we respect the decieiosl so made. Harever, we oannot help but regret mat the Comcil has been male to act in favour of the judgeRent of the Inteonationsl Court of Juatioa and thereby un&rpin the Charter, partiaularly when in this lS-me*er Council Chssber the vote indiated 11 melba@ in favouc Of the draft teeolution, 1 againet and 3 abrtaining. (Hr. de KemxJlac is, Frames) , This mommtouu decision hae lemon fa all, especially srrallmdmilitarily ineig,ifbmt corntries muds 88 mine. Ouu attacirmnt to the idea of the United constitute8 the underpinning of our ayn independenoe, covereiglty md nstianal idQlltity. Therefore, my development that undermines the exitatence and efficient functioning of the United Natione aleo undermines our cwn sowereiglty . This view of intacnatianal relationa md the mited mtiono is bared by amr 100 rmber States of the Organizatian, whi& reiterated theic concern anb the conw :n of the non-slimed oountcies an a group for cartral Ascrica in a ueclaratim adoptred recently at a sumit meeting in liarare. Hr. Gtmho, Ghana) The decirion taken today by the CounciP, which, 9 must repeat, is legal, is a Paradigm of What oould constitute regression unless we all act together and in good faith to contain the threat to international peace and security in Central Aawrica. In that regard, we renew our faith in the Contadora process in the hope that it will achieve a political aettleslgnt generally acceptable to all the parties concerned. history teaches us that many forerunners of the United X&ions came to grief because they failed to adhere to the principles and objectives that conditioned their existence and functiooing. Indeed, the founding fathers of our united Nationa profited fra the lessons of the earlier misfortunes of other international bodies and therefore founded this Organisation, in which the weak and the strong, the large and the mall, and the rich and the poor, would not only be regarded as politically equal but would also have their sovereignty guarerrteed through a ocrupulous adherence to the Charter. ‘?bdW that guarantee eludes the complainant aa, indeed, it eludes all of ~8~ through the decision we have collectively made today. The Ghana delegation remains hopeful, howver, that the cullective wisdom, initiative, creativity end gou3 faith of membwe of this Caunoil, aud indeed of the entire membership of the united fJatiOn& can still be employed to promote peace and stability in Central AD1Brica, to improve relatious between the tro parties to the present dispute, and to uphold the rules, prineiplee and objectivee of the United Hations. That is what wa col\sider to be our duty on the Security Council and what we will work aeoiduousU to attain. C&e PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic): The representative of Nicaragua has asked to make a statement and I naw call on her. wm tlicaragua) (interpretation tree Spanieh) I The Security Council wm unable to adopt a resolution today due to the veto by the United steterL Once again the United States, with ito negative vote today, has uorked againat the Charter of the United Wations. It has ratifid ita detwaination to he an outlaw among Statec and has put itself above the international ccmwnity. In vetoing the draft rertolution which wae eubnitted by the non-aligned nations in the Council and which wa8 supported by 11 meabere of the council, it has opted for the use of force in its international relatiom in order to ohmge political will. Being a large and powerful St&e, a super-Rouer, it coneiderr it has the right to oruah smaller nations. It considera it has the right to set itself up as the sale judge of international relations. With this veto, it violateo international laws with this veto it rejects the maceful 6ettlement of dieputes. 5?Oday we haard the representative of the United State8, 86 in previous occa6ion6, defend State terCroriem, war, death and ignoniny. This veto by the United States siaply reconfirm8 the illegality and irreeponmibility with which the United Btates governe its international relative. JUIt a8 it amma the right to dacide on mattere of life and death for peoples fighting for their independence, sovereignty and right to ~elfdeteraination, the United Stat68 has preventeil the Counail from adopting a declaration of principles. In this debate it has called into question the validity Of the Court’6 judgement and the respct that te Bue to ite findings. Nicaragua has the right and the duty to continua to we all the machinery of thie Organisation for the peaceful tgettlemwh of diaputee in order to reaffirm the vital need to enaure respect for intetnational law and to turn away from the law? of the jungle in international celatiam. tie fate of mall nations is at stake and cawt be passed wer in silence. After the veto, all that is left for 0~8 to do is to aak about the camaitments which were freely and validly entered into by the Udted States when it subscribed to and ratified the Charter of the United Natiuw. What has becom of international law and what has becom of the prospects for C#Ux and understanding between civilised countries? The PRESIDEWE (interpretation from Arabic): There are IK) further Wmkerrr insorihed cm ry lie. The Security council has thus concluded the present rrtage of its conoideration of the item on the agenda. The meting rose at 6.15 p.m. (*a. Amtotga Gadea, Nicaragua)