S/PV.2861 Security Council
I should like to inform the
Security Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Panama in
which he requests 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 that representative 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 invitation of the President, Mr. Ritter (Panama) took a,place at the
Council table.
The Security Council will
now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda.
The Council is meeting today in accordance with the request contained in a
letter (S/20606) dated 25 April 1989 from the Permanent Representative of Panama to
the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council.
I should like to draw the attention of members of the Council to document
S/20607, which contains the text of a letter dated 26 April 1989 from the Permanent
Representative'of Panama to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.
^-. m-. :.. -_ _ .". :- . . . : ,.'.
The first speaker is the Minister for External Relations of Panama,
Mr. Jorge Ritter. I welcome His Excellency and invite him to make his statement.
Mr. RITTER (Panama) (interpretation from Spanish): On behalf of the
Government of the Republic of Panama, presided over by Mr. Manuel Solis Palma, I
should like to thank yout Mr. President, and the other members of the Council for
having with appropriate promptness agreed to my 'tivernment's request for a meeting
of the Security Council to be convened on the basis of Articles 34 and 35 of the
United Rations Charter in'order to consider the grave situation brought about by
the chain of actions in violation'of international law committed by the Government
of the United States against my countryr which endanger international peace and
security.
It was at the'cost of a great deal of sacrifice, sweat and bloodshed that the
Panamanian people and their leaders civilian and military throughout our history
perfected national independence and structured a pluralist democratic system that
over the course of years gave my country the honourable stature of being an oasis
of peace and prosperity in the midst of a region upset by political instability and
violence.
Our people has invested great diplomatic effort and confidence in
international solidarity to overcome the age-old obstinacy of'a number of United
States Administrations and resolve through negotiation the causes of conflict in
United States-Panamanian relations because of the existence of the Panama Canal.
In our desire to forget the grim history of violations and unilateral
interpretations by the United States of America of bilateral Treaties relating to
the Canal, we Panamanians placed our confidence in the pre-eminence of an
international legal order and the rule of international commitments agreed in a
sovereign manner between States.
(The President)
On the basis of those assumptions and in keeping with the norms of
international ooexistence, we dedicated ourselves mmpletely to negotiating in good
faith a new treaty on the Panama Canal that would establish a relationship of
modern and balanced association between the United States and Panama in respect of
the Canal question.
The international community made an invaluable contribution to the achievement
of a negotiated solution acceptable to the two countries. Sixteen years ago, at
its historic meetings held in Panama City in March 1973, this Security Council
warmly welcomed the Panamanian cause, and while the United States vetoed the
resolution that gave broad support to our struggle for national liberation, the
entire world in turn vetoed the stubborn attitude of the United States.
That effort at negotiation between the two countries , which was enshrined in
the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977, seemed to mark the end of the era of the
clashes, humiliation and foreign intervention that had characterized relations
between Panama and the United States, which dated back to before my country's
attainment of independence.
The justified euphoria that swept over the Panamanian people following the
signing of the Canal Treaties in Washington soon began to disappear. The political
changes that took place inrthe power structure of the United States at the
beginning of the decade‘of- the 198Os, which resulted in a preponderance of sectors
traditionally opposed to the Canal Treaties, began a slow but steady process of
efforts by the United States to distort the letter and spirit of what had been
agreed between the two countries.
The strong opposition to the Tbrrijos-Carter Treaties in powerful official
sectors of the United States from the very outset prompted Panama to adopt a
watchful attitude concerning the legislation that country would have to enact to
implement the Treaties. That is why, when in the United States Congress
(Mr'. Ritter, Panama)
a number of draft laws were under study for implementation of the Canal Treaty of
1977, the Q>vernment of the Republic of Panama made categorical statements on their
content, mainly in connection with what.would later serve as a general basis for
Public Law No. 96-70, enacted on 27 September 1979.
Three months after the Treaty entered into force and after implementation Of
the law had begun, the President of Panama sent a forceful letter of protest to
then President Jimmy Carter , carefully pointing out each of the violations of the
agreement contained in that Law.
Although in large measure the objections of the Republic of Panama formed part
of a legal framework, the practical consequences of violations of the Treaty in
Public Law m. 96-70 distorted much of those agreements. That was the beginning of
a harsh series of pressures that have characterized our bilateral relations in the
course of the 10 years since the signing of the Treaty.
The obstinate desire of the United States to give unacceptable unilateral
interpretations to the Canal Treaty has in recent years been accompanied by
pressures to redefine the decolonizing nature of the agreements with a view to
extending the United States military presence in Panama beyond the year 2000.
In this connection, the document entitled *A strategy for Latin America in the
1990s" is revealing. Better known as the Santa F& II document, it defines the
strategy of United States policy for the coming decade. Where it refers to Panama
it explicitly states the following:
"The expulsion of PJoriega and the holding of elections will not be enough
to establish a democratic re'gime in Panama. The United States will have to
focus its attention on a great variety of issues of the democratic re'gimet
reform of the Panamanian defence forces, support for an independent judicial
system and the restoration of the economy will be fundamental issues."
(Mr. Pitter, Panama)
It goes on to say:
"In addition to this, the United States and Panama, once the democratic
re'gime is in power, should begin seriously to plan adequate control over the
Canal, which will soon need general major and costly repairs: At the same
time talks should begin on the real defence of the Canal after the year 2UOO.
These talks should include retention by the United States of limited
installations in Panama, mainly Howard Air Force Base and the tidman Naval
Station, to provide adequate coverage of the Western Hemisphere."
(Mr. Hitter, Panama)
. . (Mr. Pitter, Panama)
These designs by the United States to maintain a military presence in Panama
beyond the date specified in the Treaty have been categorically rejected and
denounced world-wide by the Government of Paama as a clear expression of its
unassailable resolve to continue building on the process of national liberation
that began with the signing of the 1977 Treaties and as an unequivocal sign of
respect for the will expressed by the overwhelming majority.of our'people in a
national plebiscite ti put an end once and for all to the 'disgraceful colonial
enclave on our soil.
That is why, given the failure of policies of deceiti bribery and pressure#
the previous United States Administration unleashed the most pitiless and
inconceivable series of acts of economic, political and financial aggression and an
unprecedented escalation of threats of military force against my country, with the
declared purpose of overthrowing the constitutionally established C;overnment,
destroying pluralistic and participatory denccratic institutions, and, in a word,
setting up a puppet government which , controlled by the United States Department of
State, would satisfy United States claims and agree to renegotiating a continued
United States military presence in Panama.
From the adoption of United States Senate resolution 239 of 25 June 1987,
which attempted to dictate to my country's Government guidelines on the conduct of
its internal affairs, to the recent adoption of new coercive economic measures
against the people and the Government of Panama, two United States Administrations
have carried out all manner of illegal acts in violation of international law and
basic principles of relations among States as set out in the.Charter of the United
Nations and other instruments of international law.
Despite the explicit prohibition contained in article V of the Panama Canal
Treaty, the United States has abused the diplomatic privileges of its embassy in
Panama to plan, organize, finance and carry out acts of interference in matters
that fall within the exclusive competence of the Republic of Panama; its officials
participate actively in political demonstrations and seditious activities in open
violation of the'applicable diplomatic statutes.
According to statements by Dnited States Government officials reported in the
media of that country, the United States Senate Intelligence Committee last July
studied a terrifying covert plan , approved by the President of the United States,
which included the possibility of assassinating the Commander-in-Chief of the
Panamanian defence forces.
Those same' sources indicate that in February this year the President of the
United States of America approved an order adopted by the Senate Intelligence
Committee to provide 310 million to one of the Panamanian opposition candidates
with the twofold purpose of bolstering his campaign and pronoting destabilising
activities.
In the view of my Qvernment as expressed by the President of the Republic,
the provision of SlO million to the Panamanian opposition just a few.days before
the elections set for 7 May
"demonstrates the immoral and deceitful intentions of the United States
Government to resort to the shameful, illegal and anti-denocratic practice of
buying hearts and minds ti secure the election of candidates favourable to
United States interests, which run counter to the national liberation
that is being waged by those Panamanians who represent the dignity of
nation and the purest nationalist sentiments". (S/20607, annex#.p, 2)
(Mr. Pitter, Panama)
struggle
the
More recently, the Government of Panama captured and arrested
Mr. Frederick Musse, a United States citizen and employee of the State Department,
and captured sophisticated equipment intended for use in waging an electronic war
in Panama to plunge the country into violence and disarray after or upon the
conclusion of the elections on 7 May , according to statements made by the detainee.
The equipnent's documentation lists as its destination Howard military base, a
United States installation along the Panama Canal. It consisted of FM radio
transmitters operating in the 88 to 108MHz band, television transmitters operating
on channels 7 to 13, equipment for tapping FM transmissions and equipment to
monitor and jam mobile telephone transmissions. This equipment can disrupt and jam
commercial, military, police, government and private communications and was
installed in various buildings in the capital city of the Republic of Panama.
This week the Covernment'of Panama, through its intelliqence services, broke
another link in this chain of actions against the security of the country when it
learned that the 470th brigade of the United States southern command, illegally
stationed in Panama at the Clayton, Corozal and Howard military bases, had hired
80 automobiles bfor subversion and destabilization activities.
Furthermore, Panama has had to contend with movement of armed units of the
United States army outside their defence sites ; violations of our airspace;,
infiltration by United States intelligence units into areas under Panama's
exclusive jurisdiction; attempts to provoke civilians in parts of Panama City;
overflights of our defence forces' military installations; acts endangering
civilian aviation in Panama, including commercial flights ; and the criminal policy
of allowing explosive devices to fall near Panamanian towns and of abandoning
explosive devices outside designated firing ranges , which have already caused the
death of several Panamanian citizens.
(Mr. Pitter, Panama)
These acts are carried out daily by the United States army which, as we have
already r epor ted, in open violation of the Canal Treaties have brought to the
Pepubiic of Panama commandos specializing in surprise attacks, an elite battalion
of the 82nd airborne division with groups of electronic-warfare experts and over
300 attack and troop-carrying helicopters, in addition to units specializing in
controlling and occupying urban centres. Moreover, soldiers and marines have
recently been sent to Panama , along with combat helicopters and an of fens ive
military team that has never before been part of the forces used by the United
States to defend the Panama Canal.
Troop and weapons movements have been continuous , as have military manoeuvres
displaying a force in constant readiness to attack.
(Mr. fitter, Panama)
In spite of the unfavourable conditions imposed upon my country by economic
aggression, political pressures and military threats, the C;overnment of Panama is
firmly fulfilling its constitutional obligation and political commitment to hold
honest elections on 7 May as the proper way to improve democracy, promote peaceful
coexistence and strengthen national independence.
On Sunday, 7 May, elections will in fact be held for the posts of President of
the Republic, two Vice-Presidents, the 67 members of the National Assembly and the
510 representatives of the corrigimientos. The various stages laid down in the
Electoral Law have been completed on time so as to ensure the citizenry a process
that respects the will of the people as expressed at the polls.
However, this election - which is recognized by both the parties that support
the Qvernment and by those that are in opposition fo it as the proper way
peacefully to resolve the acute confrontations Panamanian society has witnessed in
recent years - seen became a new area for intervention in our internal affairs, a
new subject in the constant disinformation campaign being waqed against Panama and
an arena for further -assaults on the sovereignty and dignity of the Panamanian
nation.
Thus, the United States Government and its local allies have unleashed a
tendentious international campaign aimed at discrediting the Panamanian electoral
process by making accusations of alleged fraud before the event and by prejudicing
international public opinion in advance with regard to the results of this exercise
of self-determination by the Panamanian people.
We even witnessed the unprecedented situation in which, even prior to the
voting, the United States Senate has proclaimed the opposition candidate as winner
of the elections in Panama, and some senators have, with impunity, asked that the
Administration take new and harsher measures against Panama , not excluding military
(Mr. Pitter, Panama)
actions, if the victory of “their” winner is not recognized. And, with
unprecedented brazenness , they are also asking that United States public opinion be
prepared to react favourably to further actions against Panama.
More recently - indeed, just yesterday - the President of the United-States
himself made a statement indicating that the elections in Panama were fraudulent.
With contempt for our status as a sovereign State, the United States has
attempted to interfere in the powers the Electoral Law grants exclusively to the
Pan aman ian El ector ia 1 Tr ib un al, for which a number of United States en-tities have
attempted in various ways to establish a parallel electoral body and a purportedly
independent electoral information centre , whose true purpose would be the early
dissemination of biased information claiming a victory for the candidate who
favours Washington ‘s inter es ts .
In the face of the enormous strength and electoral will demonstrated by
patriotic and nationalist Panamanian groups, the United States plans to interfere
in the Panamanian electoral process have entered upon a phase of direct
participation - I repeat, a phase of direct participation - by the United States
with the objective of upsetting public order , swing chaos, promoting widespread
destabilization in the country over the elections and creating a pretext for
military intervention against Panama.
United States Government sources admit that there are plans for possible
direct armed action in Panama.
Ever since Panama refused in December 1985 to allow its territory to be used
as a base for aggression and ever since it announced its firm resolve not to allow
any military presence there after the year 2000, my country has not knwn one
single minute of truce in the economic war the United States has implacably- been
waging.
(Mr . Ri tter , Panama)
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the'economic measures against us, measures based
on the ridiculous assertion by the President of the United States - one that would
even be laughable were its results not so tragic -'to the effect that the _
Government of Panama constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the
security and economy of the United States ; notwithstanding the unusual deployment
of sophisticated weaponry outside the defence areas ; notwithstanding the harassment
and humiliation to which the Panamanian population is constantly subjected;
notwithstanding the politicisation of Canal issues by the United States Government;
notwithstanding the more than 700 violations of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties;
notwithstanding the terrifying relevations of plans that include kidnappings and
assassinations - notwithstanding all that, Panama has not had recourse to this
forum but has, rather, waited patiently for the international community to realize
the magnitude of such injustice and infamy.
However, to introduce instruments of destabilization now, in the midst of a
difficult electoral campaign, and, in addition, brazenly and openly to support one
of the presidential candidates, is behaviour that is not only unacceptable but that
is also extremely dangerous, for it jeopardizes not only the normal evolution of
the electoral process but international peace and security as well in an area that
is vital to world navigation and trade.
I am therefore now fulfilling my duty to inform and alert the Security Council
to the storm clouds that are threatening the peace to which the members of the
Organisation aspire.
Mr. PICKERING (United States of America): Mr. Pitter is here for a clear
purpose. That purpose has to do with elections in his own country. Our message to
him is clear: The elections cannot be won in Panama through a debate *;ith the
United States in the Security Council.
(Mr. Pitter, Panama)
As we have made
clear and will make clear, we have grave doubts over the
fairness and freedom
of the coming elections in Panama. Mr. Ritter and his friends
should be debating with their election opponents in Panama. Never theless, the
United States recognizes that the Security Council is a forum open to all
countries, and the United States will always uphold the right of free speech here.
The United States favours a free election in Panama and, indeed, in all '
countries.
Mr. Ritter comes before you, Mr. President, asking for a debate about Panama.
As I have said, the place where a free and open debate about Panama should be
taking place today is in Panama itself. The people of Panama clearly want to
debate the future of their own country , openly and free of fear. They want to
decide what that future should be through a fair election process.
An election is scheduled in Panama on 7 May. That election offers Panamanians
an opportunity to resolve their differences peacefully. Tragically, however, the
military dictatorship of General Noriega, which employs Mr. Ritter, will not permit
a free and fair election, nor will it permit open debate on the country's future.
(Mr. Pickering, United States)
In fact, the Noriega re'gime is shutting down television and radio stations and
doctoring voter rolls, so let us have no illusions about why we are here discussing
Panama today. We are discussing Panama before 'the Security Council because the
re'gime will not permit the free and open debate to take place axong its own people
in its own country. The solution to Panama's lack of democracy does not lie here
in the Security Council. The solution lies in Panama. The people of Panama should
decide the future of their country, they should be able to vote freely and they
should be able freely to debate the issues in their own elections. As the
countries of the Western hemisphere, indeed, the world, move towards democracy in
greater openness, Panama lags behind and is now moving clearly in the opposite
direction.
The Panamanian people obviously want democracy. Indeed, for the last
20 months, in resisting the re'gime's rule by -force, the Panamanian people have
demonstrated a hunger for democracy , a hunger that can only be satisfied through a
freely elected government that clearly represents their aspirations.
Panama's crisis is not, as Mr. Ritter alleges, the result of a plot by the
United States Government to interfere in its internal affairs. The origin of the
crisis is in the policies of General Noriega. He has abrogated to himself complete
power over civic life and sponsored and countenanced widespread corruption,
including drug trafficking and gun-running. The proximate cause of Panama's
political and economic crisis stems from disaffection within Panama's own
military. In June 1987, the then Deputy Commander of the Panamanian defence forces
charged that General Noriega was involved in-drug trafficking, in stealing the 1984
elections, and in the 1985 murder of a prominent opposition leader. Those charges , sparked a revolt in June 1987, which was carried out by a broad spectrum of
(Mr. Pickering, United States)
Panamanian citizens concerned by the abuse of power perpetrated by General Noriega
and by a small coterie of his officers. The re'gime responded to this internal :
crisis by curtailing constitutional guarantees, by closing the independent press
and the opposition television and radio , and by forcing many of its citizens into
exile. Efforts to seek a mediated solution to the crisis failed because the
military regime was never interested in a settlement that satisfied the desires of
its citizens.
Throughout the continuing crisis in Panama, the military rdgime has called for
what it said was a Panamanian solution to that country's crisis through elections
to be held on 7 May. These elections ib offer an opportunity to resolve Panama's
economic .and political crisis, but only if they are free and fair, and thereby
permit the people's will to be freely expressed. Unfortunately, on 3 March the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States
stated its serious concerns about the extensive irregularities in the election
process in Panama - irregularities which undermine even minimal standards and
guarantees for the holding of,free elections. The Inter-American Commission said
,:. that the minimum standards for free and fair elections do not exist in Panama. The
military re'gime has continued to ignore this report. Evidence continues to mount
that the regime is continuing to seek to subvert any expression of popular will
through fraud, coercion and intimidation.
The international community should not now be asked to accord legitimacy to a
re'gime which is unwilling to face the judgement of its own people. That would be a
travesty. Nor should the miitary regime be allowed to oonceal.its own unpopularity
and illegitimacy by alleging a plot by the United States with the sole intention of
deflecting world attention away from Panama's basic problem: its lack of freedom
and its apparent intention to conduct fraudulent elections.
(Mr . Pickering, United States) . . Because Mr. Ritter's Government cannot face being judged by its own citizens,
it has been systematically subverting the electoral process. Illustrative of the
activities which the re'gime is taking to control the results of the 7 May elections
are the following steps:
First, manipulation of voter lists, including the printing of false lists, : changing data and voting registries, and last minute changes .in the assignment of
voters to polling locations; secondly, manipulation of cedulas - the individual
identity cards required for voting - including invalidating the voter registration
identity cards of opposition supporters and the issuing of duplicate voter cards to
re'gime supporters to permit multiple voting; thirdly, developing plans to.
disenfranchise large numbers of voters at polling booths; and fourthly, working out
deliberate arrangements to misprint ballots and to mix ballots from different
polling booths in order to invalidate the vote oount.
Among the other actions to influence the electoral process which the re'gime in
Panama has taken are the following: limiting observers of the elections only to
those accorded official status by the re'gime and denying entry into Panama during
the election period of other interested international observers and organisations;
by reserving on a priority basis and witholding from use all rooms at hotels, the
re'gime seeks to deprive visitors and observers of accommodations; placing
restrictions on the entry of foreign journalists; denying the use.of commercial
rental vehicles to anpne not authorized by the re'gime, in order to prevent travel
within Panama for the purpose of evaluating the electoral process.
The purpose of Mr. Ritter's charges about a United States.plot are both more :
. clearly understood and at the same time especially ironic, in light of the -. :- : :
extremes to which the Noriega re'gime has gone to try to demonstrate alleged popular
support. For instance, to make one of its recent rallies appear to be well .'
attended, the re'gime dressed its prison population in T-shirts inscribed with the
slogan of their candidate - "Duque for President" - and marched them under guard to
the event.
The international community should not become part of an effort by, the Noriega
re'gime to deflect attention from itself through br,inging what is in essence a ,,
problem with its unfair and fraudulent elections here to this body. Instead, the ,
Noriega rdgime should immediately restore the minimum conditions for free .
elections. These include freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and personal
freedoms. The re'gime should also permit full international and press monitoring of
the elections.'
Panamanians should, of course, have an opportunity to resolve Panama's
political and economic crisis, but a manipulated and stolen electoral process will
only compound Panama's troubles. The United States remains firmly committed to
supporting the efforts of the Panamanian people to restore genuine civilian
democracy. We also remain fully committed to the Panama Canal Treaties.
All friends of the people of Panama should affirm the right of that people to
realize their aspirations for a democratic government and to rejoin the community
of free nations.
(Mr. Pickering, United States)
. . (Mr. Pickering, United States)
Mr. Hitter charges that my Government aims ultimately to subvert the Panama
Canal Treaties. He knows that is false.. Just the opposite is true. We have
continued to support these important Treaties since their ratification in 1978.
The United States does not fear the judgement of the Panamanian people on the
legitimacy of the Noriega re'gime; it is General Noriega who fears it. That is why
the Nxiega re'gime has tried to hide the Panamanian electoral process from public
view. That is why it continues efforts to restrict and discourage international
monitoring. And that is why it tries to limit any observation of the electoral
process to a hand‘ful of rCgime-sanctioned observers. That is why it seeks to shift
world attention to a debate in New York* while the problem is clearly in Panama.
Former United States Presidents Carter and Ford have both announced their
intention to go to Panama under the auspices of the National Endowment for
Demxracy to observe the elections. On the one hand, that demonstrates our
seriousness and concern about the electoral process and, on the other, because both
'of these Presidents participated in their negotiation, it makes clear our sincere
commitment to pr.eserving the Panama Canal Treaties. The United States fully
supports this independent observer mission to Panama and will also be sending its
own observers to overview the election process as well.
On 27 AprilPresident Bush made the following statement about the situation in
Panama:
"The people of Panama clearly yearn for a free and fair election on 7 May
so that their country can again take its rightful place in this hemisphere's
cormnunity of democratic nations. Only the threat of violence and massive .
fraud by the Noriega rdgime will keep the Panamanian people from realizing
that aspiration for democracy.
"Free and fair elections on 7 May, and respect for their results, can
produce a legitimate Gouernment in Panama which will end that nation's
political and economic crisis and international isolation. That is clearly
what the people of Panama deserve and desire.
"The Noriega re'gime promised that free and fair elections would in fact
take place on 7 May, and that international observers would be permitted to
observe them. In.recent weeks, the Noriega rdgime has taken steps to commit
systematic fraud. Through violence and coercion, it threatens and intimidates
Panamanian citizens who believe in dermcracy. It is attempting to limit and
obstruct the presence of observers from around the world and the ability of
journalists to report freely on the election.
"Nevertheless, many observers intend to travel ti Panama to shine the
spotlight of world opinion on the Panamanian elections just as they did
previously in nations like the Philippines and El Salvador. We admire their
commitment to democracy and their courage, and will fully support their
efforts.
"The days of rule by dictatorship in Latin America are over. They must
end in Panama as well. There is still time for Panama to resolve its current
crisis through free and fair elections. The people and mvernment of the
United States will not recognise fraudulent election results engineered by
Noriega. The aspirations of the people of Panama for democracy must not be
denied."
The Minister for External
Relations of Panama wishes to speak, and I now call on him.
Mr. RITTER (Panama) (interpretation from Spanish): I deplore the fact
that the reply just made by the representative of the United States was written
before I spoke. Clearly it is not a reply to what I said but, rather, a repetition
(Mr. Pickering, United States)
of aat is contained in the mimeographed pages handed out daily by representatives
of the United States.
I deplore the fact also that this forum has been used for the repetition of
this disinformation. But, in a way, I am glad this has happened, for it completely
confirms what I said about the result anticipated for the elections in Panama by
the United States.
I did not come here to seek a discussion on the elections in Panama.
Elections are a matter of the internal policy of States. I would have demonstrated
a lack of respect for the Security Council if ,I had asked for a discussion of a
matter falling within Panama's internal policies.
What I have brought to the United Nations for discussion - and, unfortunately,
the representative of the United States has not replied to this - is the growing
threat of the use of military force in our country and the possibility that the
deployment of that force could lead to violent actions in our country.. .,
The representitive of the United States has not made any reference whatsoever
to the threat of the use of force. He has merely repeated the scenario which the
United States believes will be used for the conduct of the elections in Panama.
Thus, the concern brought to the Security Council by Panama remains pending and
without a reply.
I did not request the United States representative to present his picture of
the way the elections would be carried out. Indeed, his description was full of
contradictions. It was even an insult to President Carter, for whom we in Panama
maintain deep respect. The United States representative mentioned President Carter
as one of the persons who could be manipulated by the Government of Panama.
President Carter has been invited by the Government of Panama to witness‘ the
he has agreed to elections. His representatives were in Panama two days ago, and
(Mr. Hitter, Panama)
come to Panama to observe'our elections. -The repres.entative of the United States
says that everyone who is going to be present in Panama for our elections- can be . manipulated,. I think that that does not do justice to a former President of the
United States.
I would say once again that all this repetition. was unnecessary and aimed only
at diverting the Council's attention by engaging in a series of-improper.
accusations. The representative of the United States did not reply to the key
point, the thrust of the issue .brought to the Security Council by Panama. I tepea-t
that we are here not to discuss the elections in Panama but, rather, the k.ey-point
of conflict with the United States, which is endangering international peace and
security. There has been no reply on that point,
I would invite the representative of the United States,to say categorically
that there will be no recourse to the use of force in our country in connection
with the forthcoming elections. with the forthcoming elections.
The PRESIDER' The PRESIDENT (interpretation from.Russian)r The representative of the
United States wishes to speak, and f now call on him: United States wishes to speak, and f now call - -
(Mr. 'Ritter, Panama)
.
Mr. PICKERING (United States of America)% The representative of the
Noriega re’gime has made unfounded allegations against the United States which do
not deserve a further reply. They are unfounded.
The moral bankruptcy of the dictatorship for which Mr. Hitter speaks is the
only factual conclusion .to be drawn from today’s debate.’ He has soughtto use this
forum to wage a campaign which, -in spite of violence , coercion and the plans to 1
permit systematic fraud, the EJoriega re’gime fears they may lose in Panama.
The re’gime .prevents impartial international observers and journalists from
monitoring the elections. Indeed we welcome the attendance of all observers and
hope that this statement on his .part is a broad invitation:to ail to come.
The re’gime also threatens and detains opposition candidates. Over a year ago
it closed the opposition press, radio and television. It’ sharply curtailed freedom
of Assembly. It seized the pt ivate property of business organizations sympathetic
to the opposition.
The reasons for these desparate measures are also clear. Noriega knows that
if the people of Panama express their views freely his .supporters will not win the
election. Independent and responsible polls show that the opposition Democratic .
Alliance now leads Nor iega ‘s COLINA ticket by a margin of 62 per cent to
25 per cent.
The charges heard here must not nOw deter those brave Panamanians who stand
for freedom and democracy from attempting to exercise their rights. If Panama
wants the free elections that have hypocritically been alluded to, let the
Panamanian Government now allow opposition parties to function openly and freely,
allow for equal radio and television time for opposition par ties, and permit
international observers and foreign journalists to monitor the election process.
I challenge Mr. Pitter to permit the people of Panama to exercise their rights
to a free and fair election and to a democratic Panama.
The-- PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian)% The Minister for External
Relations of Panama wishes to speak. I call upon him.
Mr. RITTSR (Panama) (interpretation from Spanish): I shall not try the
patience of the members of the Security Council any further. I just want to say
again for the record that the key issue brought to the Security Council by Panama
this morning on the threat of the use of force has met with no response.
There are no further
speakers for this meeting.
The time of the next meeting of the Security Council t6 continue consideration
of the item on its agenda will be fixed in consultation with members of the Council.
The meeting rose at 12.25 p.m.
,