Security Council resolution 330 (1973) [on peace and security in Latin America]
Symbol: S/RES/330(1973)
Date: 1973-03-21
Meeting record: S/PV.1704
Subjects: REGIONAL SECURITY|LATIN AMERICA
Notes: Concerns peace and security in Latin America.
In: Resolutions and decisions of the Security Council, 1973. - S/INF/29. - 1974. - p. 3-4. - (SCOR, 28th year).

Resolution 330 (1973)
of 21 March 1973

The Security Council,

Recalling General Assembly resolutions 1803 (XVII)
of 14 December 1962 and 3016 (XXVII) of 18 December 1972 concerning permanent sovereignty over
natural resources,

Reaffirming General Assembly resolution 2625
(XXV) of 24 October 1970, which states that no State
may use or encourage the use of economic, political or
any other type of measures to coerce another State in
order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind,

Further recalling General Assembly resolution 2993
(XXVII) of 15 December 1972 on implementation of
the Declaration on the Strengthening of International
Security, in particular paragraph 4 thereof,

Noting with deep concern the existence and use of
coercive measures which affect the free exercise of
permanent sovereignty over the natural resources of
Latin American countries,

Recognizing that the use or encouragement of the
use of coercive measures may create situations likely
to endanger peace and security in Latin America,

1. Urges States to adopt appropriate measures to
impede the activities of those enterprises which deliberately attempt to coerce Latin American countries;

2. Requests States, with a view to maintaining and
strengthening peace and security in Latin America, to
refrain from using or encouraging the use of any type
of coercive measures against States of the region.

Adopted at the 1704th meeting by 12 votes to none with
3 abstentions (France,
United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America)

Texto español (official Spanish version): mento provisional del Consejo de Seguridad, al Presidente del Comité Especial encargado de examinar la
situación con respecto a la aplicación de la Declaración
sobre la concesión de la independencia a los países y
pueblos coloniales y al Presidente del Comité Especial
del Apartheid, a solicitud de los mismos.

En su 1700a. sesión, celebrada el 19 de marzo de
1973, el Consejo decidió, a solicitud del representante
del Sudán”, dirigir una invitación, de conformidad con
el artículo 39 del reglamento provisional del Consejo
de Seguridad, a Su Excelencia el Embajador Talib El-Shibib, Observador Permanente de la Liga de los Estados Arabes ante las Naciones Unidas.

Resolución 330 (1973)
de 21 de marzo de 1973

El Consejo de Seguridad,

Recordando las resoluciones de la Asamblea General 1803 (XVII), de 14 de diciembre de 1962, y 3016
(XXVII), de 18 de diciembre de 1972, relativas a la
soberanía permanente sobre los recursos naturales,

Reafirmando la resolución 2625 (XXV) de la Asamblea General, de 24 de octubre de 1970, que proclama que ningún Estado puede aplicar o fomentar el
uso de medidas económicas, políticas o de cualquier
otra índole para coaccionar a otro Estado a fin de
lograr que subordine el ejercicio de sus derechos soberanos y obtener de él ventajas de cualquier orden,

Recordando asimismo la resolución 2993 (XXVII)
de la Asamblea General, de 15 de diciembre de 1972,
relativa a la aplicación de la Declaración sobre el fortalecimiento de la seguridad internacional, y, en particular,
su párrafo 4,

Observando con grave preocupación la existencia y
aplicación de medidas coercitivas que afectan el libre
ejercicio de la soberanía permanente sobre los recursos
naturales de países de América Latina,

Reconociendo que la aplicación o el fomento del
uso de medidas coercitivas pueden crear situaciones
susceptibles de hacer peligrar la paz y la seguridad en
América Latina,

1. Exhorta a los Estados a dictar medidas apropiadas para impedir la acción de aquellas empresas
que deliberadamente pretenden coaccionar a países de
América Latina;

2. Pide a los Estados que, para mantener y reforzar la paz y la seguridad en América Latina, se

9 Ibid., documento S/10933.

abstengan de aplicar o fomentar el uso de todo tipo
de medida coercitiva contra Estados de la región.

Aprobada en la 1704a. sesión por 12 votos contra ninguno y 3 abstenciones (Estados Unidos de América,
Francia y Reino Unido de
Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del
Norte).

Decisión

En la 1704a. sesión, celebrada el 21 de marzo de
1973, la representante de Guinea, con autorización de
los miembros del Consejo, formuló en su nombre la
siguiente declaración de consenso como expresión de
gratitud para con el país huésped:

“El 2 de febrero de 1973, el Consejo de Seguridad
aprobó la resolución 325 (1973), por la cual decidió
celebrar une serie de sesiones en la ciudad de Panamá del 15 al 21 de marzo de 1973, dedicadas al
examen de medidas para el mantenimiento y fortalecimiento de la paz y la seguridad internacionales en
América Latina, de conformidad con las disposi
ciones y los principios de la Carta.

“En cumplimiento de dicha resolución, el Consejo
de Seguridad celebró sus sesiones 1695a. a 1704a,
en la ciudad de Panamá. En el curso de estas sesiones, los miembros del Consejo de Seguridad han
escuchado con sumo interés las declaraciones del
General Omar Torrijos, Jefe del Gobierno de Panamá; de representantes de Estados Miembros de
las Naciones Unidas invitados a participar en las
deliberaciones del Consejo con arreglo a lo dispuesto
en el Artículo 31 de la Carta, y de varios voceros
de otros órganos de las Naciones Unidas o de organizaciones intergubernamentales a quienes se habían
dirigido invitaciones de conformidad con el artículo
39 del reglamento provisional del Consejo.

“Antes de concluir sus sesiones en la ciudad de
Panamá, los miembros del Consejo de Seguridad
desean expresar al Presidente de la República de
Panamá, y al Jefe y otros miembros del Gobierno
de Panamá, su profunda gratitud por la invitación
dirigida al Consejo de Seguridad, así como por la
generosa hospitalidad y la cortesía y cooperación
invariables de que les dieron pruebas en todo momento durante su estancia en Panamá. Desean asimismo asegurar al pueblo y al Gobierno de Panamá
y, en particular, a las autoridades y población de la
ciudad de Panamá, que las delegaciones de los miembros del Consejo que vinieron de Nueva York y
todos aquellos que los acompañaron se llevan consigo un recuerdo inolvidable de la cálida acogida
que les dispensaron.

“Además, los miembros del Consejo de Seguridad
expresan al Secretario General su sincero reconocimiento por la notable contribución realizada por él
y sus colaboradores para asegurar el funcionamiento
eficiente y sin tropiezos de los servicios requeridos
por Jas sesiones del Consejo.”

Texte français (official French version): guay, du Venezuela et du Zaïre à participer, sans droit
de vote, à la discussion de la question.

A la même séance, le Conseil a également décidé, à
la demande des représentants du Panama et du Pérou ”,
d’adresser, en vertu de l’article 39 du règlement inté-
rieur provisoire, une invitation à M. Héctor Gros
Espiell, secrétaire général de l’Organisme pour l’interdiction des armes nucléaires en Amérique latine, et à
la délégation l’accompagnant.

A sa 1697e séance, le 16 mars 1973, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter les représentants de l’Algérie et d’El
Salvador à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion
de la question.

A sa 1698° séance, le 16 mars 1973, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter les représentants du Honduras, du
Guatemala, de la Trinité-et-Tobago et de la Zambie à
participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la
question.

A sa 1699e séance, le 19 mars 1973, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter les représentants du Canada et de la
République Dominicaine à participer, sans droit de
vote, à la discussion de la question.

À la même séance, le Conseil a également décidé,
à la demande des représentants de la Guinée, du
Kenya et du Soudan $, d'adresser, en vertu de l’article 39 du règlement intérieur provisoire, une invitation à Son Excellence M. Mamadou Diarra, secré-
taire exécutif de l’Organisation de l’unité africaine.

A la même séance, le Conseil a également adressé,
en vertu de l’article 39 de son règlement intérieur provisoire et à leur demande, des invitations au Président
du Comité spécial chargé d’étudier la situation en ce
qui concerne l’application de la Déclaration sur l’octroi
de l'indépendance aux pays et aux peuples coloniaux
et au Président du Comité spécial de l’apartheid.

À sa 1700e séance, le 19 mars 1973, le Conseil a
décidé, à la demande du représentant du Soudan ®,
d'adresser une invitation, en vertu de l’article 39 du
règlement intérieur provisoire, à Son Excellence l’ambassadeur Talib El-Shibib, observateur permanent de
la Ligue des Etats arabes auprès de l’Organisation des
Nations Unies.

Résolution 330 (1973)
du 21 mars 1973

Le Conseil de sécurité,

Rappelant les résolutions 1803 (XVII) et 3016
(XXVII) de l’Assemblée générale, en date des 14 dé-
cembre 1962 et 18 décembre 1972, concernant la souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles,

Réaffirmant la résolution 2625 (XXV) de l’Assemblée générale, en date du 24 octobre 1970, qui proclame qu’aucun Etat ne peut appliquer ni encourager

7 Voir Documents officiels du Conseil de sécurité, vingthuitième année, Supplément de janvier, février et mars 1973,
document S/10892.

8 Ibid, document S/10930.

9 Ibid, document S/10933.

l'usage de mesures économiques, politiques ou de toute
autre nature pour contraindre un autre Etat à subordonner l’exercice de ses droits souverains pour obtenir
de lui des avantages de quelque ordre que ce soit,

Rappelant également la résolution 2993 (XXVII) de
l’Assemblée générale, en date du 15 décembre 1972,
sur la mise en œuvre de la Déclaration sur le renforcement de la sécurité internationale et, en particulier,
le paragraphe 4 de cette résolution,

Notant avec une profonde inquiétude l’existence et
l’application de mesures coercitives qui affectent le
libre exercice de la souveraineté permanente sur les
ressources naturelles de pays d’Amérique latine,

Reconnaissant que l’application ou l’encouragement
de l’emploi de mesures coercitives peut créer des situations susceptibles de mettre en danger la paix et la
sécurité en Amérique latine,

1. Demande instamment aux Etats d’arrêter des
mesures appropriées pour empêcher l’action des entreprises qui cherchent délibérément à exercer une contrainte sur des pays d’Amérique latine;

2. Demande aux Etats de s’abstenir, afin de maintenir et de renforcer la paix et la sécurité en Amérique
latine, d’appliquer des mesures coercitives de quelque
nature que ce soit contre des Etats de la région ou
d’encourager l’usage de telles mesures.

Adoptée à la 1704° séance par
12 voix contre zéro, avec 3 abstentions (Etats-Unis d’Amérique,
France et Royaume-Uni de
Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du
Nord).

Décision

À la 1704* séance, le 21 mars 1973, le représentant
de la Guinée, avec l’autorisation des membres du Conseil, a fait la déclaration suivante, au nom du Conseil,
en témoignage de gratitude au pays hôte :

“Le 2 février 1973, le Conseil de sécurité a adopté
la résolution 325 (1973), dans laquelle il a décidé de
tenir à Panama, du 15 au 21 mars 1973, une
réunion consacrée à l’examen des mesures propres à
maintenir et à renforcer la paix et la sécurité internationales en Amérique latine, conformément aux
dispositions et aux principes de la Charte.

“Conformément à cette résolution, le Conseil de
sécurité a tenu dans la ville de Panama une série de
réunions allant de la 1695* à la 1704° séance. Au
cours de ces réunions, les membres du Conseil ont
écouté avec un vif intérêt les déclarations du général
Omar Torrijos, chef du Gouvernement panaméen,
les interventions des représentants d’Etats Membres
de l'Organisation des Nations Unies invités à participer aux débats du Conseil conformément à l’Article 31 de la Charte, et les déclarations de plusieurs
porte-parole d’autres organes des Nations Unies ou
d'organisations intergouvernementales auxquels des
invitations avaient été adressées conformément à
l’article 39 du règlement intérieur provisoire.

Русский текст (official Russian version): ки принять участие без права голоса в обсуж-
дении данного вопроса.

На том же заседании Совет постановил, по
просьбе представителей Панамы и Перу”, на-
править в соответствии с правилом 39 времен-
ных правил процедуры Совета Безопасности при-
глашение г-ну Гектору Грос Эспиелу, Генераль-
ному секретарю Агентства по запрещению ялер-
ного оружия в Латинской Америке, ин сопровож-
дающей его делегании.

16 марта 1973 года Совет на своем 1697-м за-
седании постановил пригласить представителей
Алжира ин Сальвадора принять участие без пра-
ва голоса в обсуждении данного пункта.

16 марта 1973 года Совет на своем 1698-м за-
седании постановил пригласить представителей
Гондураса, Гватемалы, Тринидада ин Тобаго и
Замбии принять участие без права голоса в 0б-
суждении данного вопроса.

19 марта 1973 года Совет на своем 1699-м за-
седании постановил пригласить представителей
Канады и Доминиканской Республики принять
участие без права голоса в обсуждении данного
вопроса.

На том же заседании Совет постановил, по
просьбе представителей Гвинеи, Кении и Суда-
на 8, направить в соответствии с правилом 39
временных правил процедуры Совета Безопасно-
сти приглашение Его Превосходительству Мама-
ду Диарра, Исполнительному секретарю Орга-
низации африканского единства.

На том же заседании в соответствии с прави-
лом 39 временных правил процедуры Совета Бе-
зопасности и ло нх просьбе приглашения были
также направлены Председателю Специального
комитета по вопросу о ходе осуществления Дек-
ларации о предоставлении независимости коло-
ннальным странам ин народам и Председателю
Специального комитета по апартеиду.

19 марта 1973 года Совет на своем 1700-м за-
седании постановил, по просьбе представителя
Судана ®, направить в соответствии с правилом 39
временных правил процедуры Совета Безопасно-
сти приглашение Его Превосходительству послу
Талиб эль-Шебибу постоянному наблюдателю
иги арабских государств при Организации
Объединенных Наций.

Резолюция 330 (1973)
от 21 марта 1973 года

Совет Безопасности,

ссылаясь на резолюции Генеральной Ассамб-
лен 1803 (ХУН) от 14 декабря 1962 года и 3016

* См. Официальные отчеты Совета Безопасности, двад-
цать восьмой год, Дополнение за январь, февраль и март
1978 года, (документ 5/10892).

% Там же, документ 5/10930.

® Там же, документ 5/10933.

(ХХУП) от 18 декабря 1972 года о неотъемле-
мом суверенитете над природными ресурсами,

вновь подтверждая резолюцию 2625 (ХХУ) Ге-
неральной Ассамблеи от 24 октября 1970 года,
в которой провозглашается, что ни одного госу-
дарство не может применять или поощрять при-
менение экономических, политических или любых
других мер для принуждения другого государ-
ства, с тем чтобы добиться от него ограничения
осуществления его суверенных прав и получить
от него преимущества любого рода,

ссылаясь далее на резолюцию 2993 (ХХУН)
Генеральной Ассамблеи от 15 декабря 1972 года
об осуществлении Декларации об укреплении
международного мпра н безопасности, в частно-
сти на пункт 4 этой резолюции,

с большой озабоченностью отмечая факт на-
личия и применения принудительных мер, кото-
рые ущемляют свободное осуществление неотъ-
емлемого суверенитета над природными ресурса-
ми латиноамериканских стран,

признавая, что применение или поощрение при-
менпения принудительных мер может создать си-
туации, способные поставить под угрозу мир и
безопасность в Латинской Америке,

|. настоятельно призывает государства — при-
нять соответствующие меры, с тем чтобы воспре-
пятствовать деятельности тех компаний, которые
умышленно стремятся оказывать  лавление на
страны Латинской Америки;

2. просит государства в целях поддержания и
укрепления мира и безопасности в Латинской
Америке воздерживаться от применения или по-
ощрения применения любого рода принудитель-
ных мер против государств этого региона.

Принята на 1704-м заседа-
нии 12 голосами при 8 воз-
державшихся (Соединенное
Королевство — Великобрита-
нии и Северной Ирландии,
Соединенные Штаты Амери-
ки, Франция), причем никто
не голосовал против.

Решение

21 марта 1973 года на 1704-м заседании Сове-
та представитель Гвинеи с согласия членов Со-
вета выступил с изложением согласованного мне-
ния, выразив от имени Совета признательность
принимающей стране:

«2 февраля 1973 года Совет — Безопасности
принял резолюцию 325 (1973), в которой он по-
становил провести в городе Панама с 15 по
21 марта 1973 года заседания, посвященные рас-
смотрению мер по поддержанию и укреплению
международного мира и безопасности в Латин-
ской Америке в соответствии с положениями и
принципами Устава.

В соответствии с этой резолюцией Совет Безо-
пасности провел свои 1695—1704-е заседания в

中文文本 (official Chinese version): Distr。

,GENERRL
-SVRESV 330- (1973)
21 Mareh 了 373

利 三 二 O 2 决 取 197

下 全 理 刘 全 一 刀 多 三 年 三
上 第 一 业 6 四 次 会 议 通 过

_ 风 合理 志 合
轴 所 大会 关于 对 自然 资 入 的 永 入 主 权
的 第 一 八 。 三 部 拓 议 (or 和 第 -3
| 到 孜 Cxxy)
-重申 大 合 第 = 六 二 和
声明 任何 国家 不 得 使 用 器 效 使 用 弘 济
治 总 侍 何其 亿 科 疮 的 析 物 者 疹 迪 轧 一
训 把 该 因 的 主权 行使 棋子 证 给 包 关 4 访 国
限 得 任何 种 孝 WH| 关

PAN-2103 735<06561
全 所 回信 攻 生生 证 和，

机 答 的 第 二 九 思 三 二 渎 议 (xi 纤 虽 | 是 半 ，

机
统 首 类 世 扣 浊 半 间 昌 措 和 的 3 训 肌
在 5 人 性 用 有 中 "向 到 守 本 甘 洲 故国 网 然 帝 白 的
永 太 主权 洲 自 由 行使 ，
体 认 到 使 用 咕 认 局 使 用 省 边 科 宰 能 谨
成 下 局 到 及 拉 本 美洲 和 于 友信 的 有 冰
可 就 合生 回头 取 逢 当 笑 客 以 有限 上 归 此 人 本
和 辆 劣 辽 拉 后 务 州 在 国 泡 行 动 |
2 要求 在 因为 3 维 桂 和 加 注 拉 本 关
让 | 昌平 卡 禾 全 不 要 对 该 地 区 国家 使 用 3 后
食用 任何 科 效 前 各 道 和 论 1， |


Draft resolution (S/10932/Rev.2):
UNITED NATIONS

vo. Distr.
S E C U R | T Y TION GENERAL
8/10932 2
COUNCIL gag
ENGLISH

y ORIGINAL: SPANISH

Guinea, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan and Yugoslavia: revised
draft resolution

The Security Council,

Recalling General Asserbly resolutions 1803 (XVII) and 3016 {IXVII)
concerning permanent sovereignty over natural resources,

Reaffirming General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV)}, which states that no
State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of
measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of
the exercise of its sovercign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind,

Further recalling General Assembly resolution 2993 (XXVII) on implementation
of the Declaration ou the Strengthening of International Security, in particular
paragraph L,

Noting with deep concern the existence and use of coercive measures which
affect the free exercise of permanent soveorelgnty over the natural resources of
Latin fmerican countries,

Recognizing that the use or encouragenent of the use of coerclve measures
may create situations likely to endanger peace and security in Letin America,

1. Urges States to adopt appropriate measures to impede the activities of
those enterprises which deliberately attempt to coerce Latin American countries;

2, Reguests States, with a view to maintaining and strengthening peace and
security in latin America, to roafrain from using or encouraging the use of any
type of coercive measure against States of the region.

wr ob

PAN-1T77

Meeting record:
UNITED NATIONS

SECURITY COUNCIL
OFFICIAL REC OR DSH

ware

ION

TWENTY-EIGHTH YEAR UN/SA COLLE

th
1 T 04 MEETING: 21 MARCH 1973

PANAMA CITY

CONTENTS
Page
Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1704) ..... cies 1
Adoption of the agenda ........ coi 1
Consideration of measures for the maintenance and strengthening of international
peace and security in Latin America in conformity with the provisions and
principles of the Charter ........ coeur 1
Statement by the President .........vovvvui ene 14
Statement of consensus expressing gratitude to the host country. .......... 19

S/PV.1704 and Corr. 1
NOTE

Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with
figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document.

Documents of the Security Council (symbol S/. . .) are normally published in quarterly
Supplements of the Official Records of the Security Council. The date of the document
indicates the supplement in which it appears or in which information about it is given.

The resolutions of the Security Council, numbered in accordance with a system
adopted in 1964, are published in yearly volumes of Resolutions and Decisions of the
Security Council. The new system, which has been applied retroactively to resolutions
adopted before 1 January 1965, became fully operative on that date.

SEVENTEEN HUNDRED AND FOURTH MEETING
Held in the Legislative Palace, Panama City, on Wednesday, 21 March 1973, at 4 p.m.

President: Mr. Aquilino E. BOYD (Panama).

Present: The representatives of the following States:
Australia, Austria, China, France, Guinea, India, Indonesia,
Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America and Yugoslavia.

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1704)
1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. Consideration of measures for the maintenance and
strengthening of international peace and security in
Latin America in conformity with the provisions and
principles of the Charter.

The meeting was called to order at 5.10 p.m.
Adoption of the agenda
The agenda was adopted.

Consideration of measures for the maintenance and
strengthening of international peace and security in Latin
America in conformity with the provisions and principles
of the Charter

1. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): In
accordance with decisions previously taken by the Security
Council [1696thth meetings] and with its consent, I
invite the representatives of Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia,
Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti,
Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritania, Mexico, Trinidad and
Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire and Zambia to take the
places reserved for them in the Council chamber.

2. As the representative of PANAMA, I wish to refer to
the draft resolution dealing with the Panama Canal Zone
that is sponsored by Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya,
Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia [S/10931/Rev.1].

3. In fulfilment of the mandate set forth in resolution
325 (1973), adopted on 26 January, I have the honour to
declare that at the present series of meetings of the Security
Council in Panama we have devoted ourselves to the
consideration of measures for the maintenance and
strengthening of international peace and security in Latin
. America in conformity with the provisions and principles of
the Charter. The supreme organ of the United Nations for
the maintenance of peace, with a unanimity that earned our

gratitude, took the extraordinary decision to meet on Latin
American soil for the first time in its history, infusing new
vitality into the functions of the Council intended to
extend the benefits of peace, security and justice to the
hopeful peoples of all the regions of the world. The Council
accomplished this with notable success in 1972 in Africa
and it does so now in this capital in the very heart of
America. It has also considered the possibility of holding a
series of meetings in the Asian region in the foreseeable
future.

4. On behalf of the Government and people of Panama,
which endeavour to express the best feelings of the Latin
American community, I wish once again to state that we
are very pleased to have received here the representatives of
the States members of the Council who have come to
Panama to write a new chapter in the history of the
maintenance of international peace and security among
nations in keeping with the evolution of today’s world. Our
renewed faith in the ideals of the United Nations now is
expressed also to the Secretary-General, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, and his efficient staff, the eminent representatives of
the sister Republics of Latin America who have spoken in
the Council in the past few days, the Chairman of the Latin
American Group in the United Nations, the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, the
Chairman of the Special Committee on the Situation with
regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples, the Chairman of the Special Committee on
Apartheid and the representatives and observers from other
regions and international organizations.

5. The process of the development of a Panamanian
nationality is one that went hand in hand with that in the
other Latin American nations undergoing the vicissitudes of
the discovery, the conquest, the colony and the struggles
for independence. We were the watch-tower from which the
south of Latin America was first seen. Unwillingly, we
served as the beach-head for the destruction of the empire
of the Incas.

6. In the history of the colony, Panama was the capital
first of the jurisdiction of Castilla del Oro and later of the
so-called Reino de Tierra Firme. It was in that circumscription that the first municipal council chosen by direct
suffrage was set up on American soil. Panama was also
selected as the seat of the high court of justice, whose
president exercised at the same time the function of
governor and captain general of the isthmus.

7. Liberating itself from Spanish domination in 1821
without any foreign assistance, Panama spontaneously
decided to join the Province of New Granada, the
Captaincy General of Venezuela and the Presidency of
Quito in establishing the Greater Colombia of Bolivar.
From that confederation Venezuela and Ecuador separated
a few years later, in exercise of their self-determination, and
Panama remained in it until 1903, when, in exercise of the
same right, it resumed the independence which it had
gained in 1821.

8. The history of Panama is linked to the destiny of Latin
America. We contributed our share of blood to the triumph
of the liberating armies which freed Spanish America. It is
no mere historical coincidence that on the eve of victory
Bolivar should, on 7 December 1824, 48 hours before the
battle of Ayacucho, have convoked from Lima the Congress
of Panama in order to sow in our land the permanent seeds
of the ideals of Latin American liberty. But the selection of
Panama as the ideal location to examine the problems of
peace and war was not all. Anticipating the malevolent
designs of the greedy imperialism of that era, he proclaimed
in those dramatic times that “if the world had to elect its
capital, the Panamanian Isthmus would be selected for such
an august destiny”. He was thus trying to encourage the
creation of a great confederation of peoples to defend
independence which, with the Isthmus of Panama as its
seat, would convene an assembly of plenipotentiaries “to
counsel us in major disputes to serve as a point of contact
in case of common peril, to interpret public treaties when
difficulties arise and to reconcile our differences”.

9. With its anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist definition,
the 1826 Congress of Panama offered the Latin American
nations a pact to uphold their independence from the
Spanish nation and from any other foreign domination, a
pact whose tenets still stand today.

10. Although history shows the common interest of the
peoples of North and South America in independence, it
also makes clear the difficulties of the participation of the
United States in that Congress. The interest shown then in
the liberation of Cuba and Puerto Rico by Mexico and
Greater Colombia was not shared by the United States
Government, which was inclined to maintain the existing
status quo. Neither did they share the same views regarding
slavery, since certain countries of Spanish America advocated the abolition and a cessation of the traffic of slaves
from Africa, and that those carrying out such a ghastly
traffic should be ¢pndemned as international pirates.

11. The disparity was accentuated on the supreme ques
tion of the decolonization of America, for, although
President Monroe, opposing the threat of intervention by
the Holy Alliance, in 1823 proclaimed the “hands-off”
policy, in that same message to the Congress the United
States President limited his pronouncement to the rejection
of any future colonization of American territories by
European countries, without affecting the existing colonies
at the time. On the other hand, Bolivar, with his 1824
Circular-Convocatoria, was setting the goal of what was to
be the doctrine of the Liberator, namely, to put an end for
the present and for all time to all types of European
colonization on the continent and to oppose any other
foreign domination, whatever its source or origin.

12. In the Protocols of 1826 lie the very seeds of the
tenets of Panamanian foreign policy. They are, basically,
self-determination of peoples, rejection of all forms and
manifestations of colonialism, respect for national umity
and territorial integrity, non-intervention and the peaceful
settlement of disputes. Panama wishes to live up to these
tenets, which guide our international relations, and to the
mystique which holds that our capital, so bound to the
ideals of the political and economic emancipation of Latin
America, is called upon to carry out, without diminishing
its national identity, the historical mission of serving as a
centre for harmonizing the efforts of the nations of the
region to achieve their common goals,

13. There are many points of convergence between the
postulates born at the Panama Congress of 1826 as the
corner-stone of American public law and the equally
important ones that lie at the basis of the great movement
of political and social emancipation of the Asian and
African nations, which, together with the nations of Latin
America and other regions, form the third world—a third
world which, in harmony with the purposes and principles
of the Charter of the United Nations, believes in the right
of peoples to freedom, self-determination and independence; in respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of all States; in the right to legal equality and active
participation in international affairs; in the right of all
sovereign nations freely to determine their domestic policy
and their economic, social and cultural development without any foreign interference; in the right of all peoples to
benefit from economic development and to enjoy the fruits
of the technological and scientific revolution; in the
prohibition of the threat and use of force and in the peaceful settlement of disputes.

14. The struggle against colonialism started in 1826 in
Panama and, after many ups and downs, took concrete
form in the great Latin American revolutions whose aim
was to meet the legitimate aspirations of the great masses of
the populations. There is an amazing similarity between
that aim and the goals laid down by the non-aligned
countries: in Bandung in 1955; in Belgrade in 1961; in
Cairo in 1964; in Lusaka in 1970; and in Georgetown in
1972, where support was proclaimed for the Panamanian
aspirations.

15. This parallelism is very enlightening. As San Martin
said to Bolivar in July of 1822: “we must combine the
interests that our peoples have entrusted to us if we are to
have a solid prosperity that will enable them to benefit
from their independence.” Many years have gone by and
still the leaders of Latin America bear on their shoulders
the responsibility of finding the solution, within the
mathematics of economic and social development, to this
great equation of liberation.

16. Within the continent we still hear the echo of the
Proclamation of Angostura against the scourges of oppression, want, ignorance and disease. The struggle against such
scourges, started by those who forged our independence, is
still going on. In successive stages the Latin American
countries are bearing the painful scars of their struggle
against the upheavals of manifest destiny and the policy of
the big stick in order to achieve the precarious balance
between non-intervention and good-neighbourliness.

17. Political oppression, although not fully extinct, has
given way to economic oppression, It is a new form of
oppression that squeezes the nape of our peoples, who no
longer wish to be yoked like oxen, but wish to be the
condor always flying towards the horizons of freedom.

18. To replace the diplomacy of the encomienda by dollar
diplomacy is not the way to end misery. It is no solution to
close the door to poverty if such an act entails as the only
alternative to social and economic development opening the
door to domination and dependence.

19, The encouragement of education and health measures
as indispensable means for our human groupings to achieve
their true liberation must still be the first priority of our
region, where illiteracy and malnutrition are endemic
symptoms of the physical and spiritual diseases suffered by
the great populations of our continent. Thus we cannot
fight to wipe out only the ignorance of the illiterate of how
to write; we also have to overcome their ignorance of
nutrition, which is the worst of the diseases that are
destroying our people.

20. The persistence of these ills in Latin America is
directly linked to the despoilation of the many peoples of
the region of the benefits that should accrue from the
exploitation of their natural resources and wealth. It also
proves that the cure does not lie in palliatives and
confirms our conviction that charity is not an adequate
substitute for justice, as stated in lapidary phrases by the
African leader Amilcar Cabral, who was quoted by General
Torrjjos in his statement at our opening meeting in Panama
[1695th meeting].

21. I think we must also express our recognition of the
immediate relationship between international peace and
security and the presence in most of the world of
conditions of under-development which cause unrest, confrontations and outbursts of violence. We must stress that
the solemn principle of the sovereign equality of the States
Members of the United Nations means little until countries
can enjoy self-determination and control over the natural
resources existing on their soil. It is only right that to
benefit to the full from those resources, nations should be
able to count on international co-operation; but it must be
co-operation that is not surrounded by conditions and
requirements that spell new ways of subjection and
dependence. It has been clearly proved that these nations
have, decade after decade, overpaid for their own development through the exorbitant amounts that they handed
over, as earnings and interest, to the foreign investors—sums
that in many cases are far greater than those given them as
investments and loans to their countries.

22. This situation is intolerable, Interdependence, speeded
up by technological progress, must be based on co-operation—co-operation understood as the adequate distribution
of financial and technological means which will ensure to
each country equitable participation in the exploitation of
and the benefits to be derived from the resources which
nature has given them.

23. Today, in Latin America, there are problems which,
although they appear to be physical in one or another

country, can nevertheless have repercussions that might be
dangerous for the peace and security of the entire continent, if not the world, Among these problems we must
stress those that touch on situations having a bearing on
economic domination and dependence; the blockage and
isolation of States because of their political, economic or
social systems; the application of coercive measures; the
persistence of cclonialism in the region; the denuclearization of Latin America; and the question of the Panama
Canal Zone.

24. With regard to these situations I think it propitious to
recall now the Declaration contained in resolution
2627 (XXV) which was adopted on the occasion of the
twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, particularly
as it applies to the duties of all States to co-operate in
different fields of international relations regardless of
differences in their political, economic and social systems in
order to maintain international peace and security and to
encourage stability and development of the world and
ensure international co-operation. Obviously with regard to
such a pronouncement it is imperative that the developed
countries and the countries of Latin America establish
economic co-operation for development that will not create
factors of dependence nor hinder structural changes within
countries themselves. Obviously such international cooperation can be regional, subregional or bilateral, but it
must be based on the principles of friendship and good
faith, encouraged in turn by international law and justice. It

"cannot be the ruthless action of the feudal lord who cuts

off legs or breaks arms and then offers co-operation by
handing over crutches. Nor can it be that of the neighbour
that steals our watch in order to be able to help us by
telling us the time. Nor that of the country that creates on
the territory of another State means of international
communication and then stands in the way of the sovereign
being allowed to circulate and move freely in his own
territory. Nor is it tolerable, within the framework of
co-operation, for one nation to open up its soil and allow
two oceans to be united and yet, against its national
interest, to be denied the right to consolidate its political
unity and its territorial integrity.

25. My country defends the right of all States to carry out
domestic changes and exercise permanent sovergignty over
their natural resources. Our whole-hearted adherence to this
right leads us to remember that, according to the international community itself, no State can apply or encourage,
directly or indirectly, any acts, norms or legislative
measures that might coerce the States of Latin America
when they are carrying out such changes or are sndeavouring to exercise their permanent sovereignty over their
natural resources, for this without doubt would be an
infringement of the Charter of the United Nations and a
violation of resolutions 2734 (XXV), 2625 (XXV),
2880 (XXVI) and 3016 (XX VII) of the General Assembly.

26. Thus too we believe that in order to solve specific
situations likely to threaten international peace and
security in Latin America, an effort should be made to
ensure that the present trend to international détente
created by the rapprochement between the great Powers of
East and West is reflected in our region too.
27. We must admit quite frankly that isolation has no

+ justification and is not in keeping with the changes of the
age, and therefore we advocate the inalienable right of any
State to select its own political, economic and social system
without interference from any other State and we would
urge the Council to recognize the need to eliminate any
policy tending to isolate or blockade any State of the
region because of its system of Government and to ensure
that the principles of non-intervention, economic nonaggression, self-determination of peoples, universalization
of relations and respect for ideological pluralism are all
implemented faithfully.

28. The Republic of Panama is deeply interested in the
denuclearization of Latin America as a means of ensuring
the protection and security of our population and our
territory as well as of the inter-oceanic Canal, We therefore
attach the greatest importance to the Treaty for the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, known as
the Treaty of Tlatelolco, and what was said in the Council
about it. We also endorse the appeal of the Latin American
nations and the General Assembly to States that are or may
become parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco or either of its
two Additional Protocols to do all in their power to adopt
what measures may be dependent upon them to ensure that
the Treaty has prompt and effective force.

29. Latin America has not forgotten its revolutionary
mission, and my country, together with the other countries
of the continent, addresses the Security Council and wishes
to state to it that as colonialism is not tolerable in other
regions of the world, so too it is intolerable in Latin
America, where there still exist colonial situations, semicolonial situations or neo-colonial situations that are a
constant source of conflict likely to endanger international
peace and security. The Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples must be
fully implemented in our part of the world too to speed up
the process of decolonization in Latin America.

30. I must now turn to the question of the Panama Canal
Zone, a question which is still pending between the
Republic of Panama and the United States, a subject which
has been submitted to us in the draft resolution we have
before us [S/10931/Rev.1] and whose cause lies in the
establishment on our soil of a foreign governmental enclave
dividing our country in two.

31. The situation of political and administrative dependence on a foreign Power in which part of Panamanian
territory finds itself flows from the concession granted by
the Republic of Panama as a sovereign over the territory to
the United States for the building of a canal to carry ships
across the isthmus linking the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific
Ocean, which was embodied in the Isthmian Canal Convention between Panama and the United States signed in
Washington on 18 November 1903.!

32. This instrument is an assault on the physical unity of
our country, since it has turned us into a transected

1 For the text, see Treaties and Other International Agreements of
the United States of America, 1776-1949, vol, 10. Department of
State publication 8642 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 663.

country and impairs our right to administer the entire
territory. It also causes political, economic, social and
cultural difficulties, added to which is the fact that many of
these limitations or restrictions were unilaterally established
by the United States. The Republic of Panama was deprived
of its main ports at the exits of the Canal and has been
unable to benefit from the many possibilities offered it by
its geographical position in the exploitation of international
trade,

53. The overwhelming powers that have unequally been
assumed by the United States on Panamanian soil both
within and without the so-called Canal Zone have created a
colonial type of situation which is a burden on the
Republic, which damages our integrity and to a large extent
is a physical and political mortgage which can no longer be
extended.

34. Panama stubbornly continues to struggle for its
independence. Virtually turned into a semi-protectorate of
the United States in 1903, we have constantly striven to
free ourselves from the foreign yoke.

35. Article 1 of the Canal concession set forth, as a
promise of fulfilment, that the United States would
“guarantee and maintain the independence of the Republic
of Panama”; but, furthermore, the then Secretary of War,
Elihu Root, the author of the Platt Amendment, which
referred to Cuba, supplied the first United States Minister
to Panama with a copy of the Cuban Constitution,
instructing him to impose upon us—as he in fact did—a
clause similar to that shameful clause that was inserted as
article 136 of the Constitution, which stated, without any
shame, that the Government of the United States could
intervene in any part of the Republic of Panama to
re-establish public order and constitutional order if it is
disturbed and if by a public treaty that nation should
assume or wish to assume the obligation to guarantee the
independence and sovereignty of this Republic.

36. This condition which the United States placed upon us
and which blocked out part of our freedom and turned us
into a semi-protectorate continued in existence until 1936,
when by agreement of the two countries it was eliminated.
Until that time the United States was exercising in Panama,
as in Cuba, a so-called guarantee of independence, right of
intervention, right of eminent domain and the indefinite
and indeterminate right to continue ensuring that Panama
would concede to the United States other lands and waters
beyond the Canal Zone.

37. Although these burdensome stipulations were abolished in 1936, in a certain manner they continued in force
until 1955 in the form of other limitations on our national
image, Among these we must mention jurisdiction over
health, which the United States intended tc hold in
perpetuity in Panama City and Colon, as well as the
insistence upon rents being paid by Panamanians for certain
lands located in their own territory in Panama City and
Colon, which appeared as belonging to the Panama Railroad
Company, a corporation belonging to the United States
Government. It also continued to enjoy a monopoly that
had existed since 1903, particularly with regard to rail and
road communication across Panamanian territory, between
the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean.

38. These concessions, which, like the others that I have
mentioned, had been agreed to in perpetuity, were abolished by an agreement between the United States and
Panama in 1955. In that same instrument the United States,
on the one hand, agreed very moderately to increase the
amount it paid to the Republic of Panama yearly for the
Canal concession and, on the other hand, obtained a 75 per
cent reduction in the import duties on alcoholic beverages
that might be sold in Panama for consumption by the Canal
Zone residents.

39. We are not going to juggle figures or statistics here on
what these transactions may have spelt and how much they

took from the Panamanian income, because the goal of my

Government is the strengthening of national independence
and not the achievement of dubious economic advantages.

40. Despite the spectacular progress achieved by mankind
in the last few decades thanks to the scientific and
technological revolution of our day, which has carried man
to the Moon, little has been done on the Isthmus of Panama
to end the anachronistic colonial situation to which I have
just referred.

41. Irepeat that, unfortunately, colonialism subsists both
within and outside the Canal Zone, all over the entire
Republic. I think that this was clearly established with facts
and figures at this morning's meeting [I703rd meeting],
and it is logical that we Panamanians should aspire to
remedy the situation, which is likely to endanger internatonal peace and security.

42. Proof of this colonial image can be found in the
powers that the United States still possesses in different
fields, among which we should mention the monopoly that
it contends it has the right to exercise over the construction, maintenance and functioning of any system of
communication through the Canal and across Panamanian
soil, between the Aflantic and the Pacific and that we
believe became extinct when in 1936 the two countries
declared that the Canal had been constructed and that
therefore the agreements between the two Governments on
the matter were circumscribed to the efficient functioning,
maintenance, repair and protection of the existing Canal.
Furthermore, the United States arbitrarily controls the
international ports adjacent to the Canal and also insists on
unjustified commercial jurisdiction when it continues the
operation of the Panama Railroad across the isthmus.

43. Furthermore, the United States has assumed undue
control over Panamanian air space, with all the consequent
risks for the aircraft flying over our territory. Similar
powers have been assumed by the United States with regard
to the allocation of radio frequencies, and it has arbitrarily
assigned frequencies for official and public services, whose
granting is normally the right of the sovereign of the
territory, since the radio frequency spectrum is a common
natural resource shared by all nations of the world, whose
simultaneous use is limited in each case. The Panamanian

_ Government could perfectly well satisfy the needs for
frequencies that the administration of the Canal requires
but it still must preserve the authority to grant any such
frequencies.

44. The constant frictions that result from this state of
affairs become even more acute when we suffer the
discriminations, both visible and disguised, that occur in the
administration of the Canal, predominantly in respect of
employment, wages, pensions, racial segregation and educa
tion, as I mentioned this morning. The most significant data
on discrimination in labour questions can be appreciated in
the level of salaries received by United States employees as
compared to the remuneration paid to non-United States
employees, who are almost totally Panamanian in nationality. This shows that about a quarter of the employees of
the Canal Zone in 1968 were paid, as I said in my statement
this moming, more than the other three quarters, simply
because of their nationality.

45. The Republic of Panama was deprived of its main
ports at both ends of the Canal and has been unable to
benefit from the multiple possibilities offered by its
geographical position for the exploitation of international
trade. The Canal was to serve Panama in the utilization of
the natural resources it possessed. Yet now it is administered by a foreign Power. United States officials are
exercising in that zone on Panamanian soil the functions of
government and imposing on it laws and regulations
decided upon by a foreign legislative organ.

46. Foreign judges hand down judgements on Panamanian
citizens, as well as nationals of other nations there, similar
to the consular jurisdictions that existed in a dark period of
history in Turkey, Egypt, Japan and centuries-old China. As
a culmination of all this, a foreign flag flies where only the
Panamanian flag should fly as a symbol and proof of the
sovereignty of the Republic of Panama. It is easy to
understand the profound repudiation by the national
conscience of Panama of such a situation, and the unshakable will to struggle by all means until we put a prompt and
just end to this situation.

47. Proof of this explosive situation were the bloody
events of 1959 and of 9 January 1964, which led to a
breaking off of diplomatic relations with the United States;
they gave rise to the accusation of aggression, in the
Security Council and in the Council of the Organization of
American States, and later prompted the Joint Declaration
signed before the latter Council on 3 April 1964.2 in which
both Governments agreed to designate Special Ambassadors
to achieve prompt elimination of the causes of conflict
between the two countries through the elaboration of a just
and equitable agreement that would be subject fo the
constitutional procedures of both contracting parties.

48. Among the causes of conflict that still exist and that
most damage Panamanian interests are the perpetuity of the
Canal concession, the unilateral interpretation by the
United States of the existing contractual stipulations and
their de facto imposition on Panama, the exercise of United
States jurisdiction over the Canal Zone, which has turned
that Zone into a colonialist enclave, the installation of
military bases for purposes other than protecting the Canal,
and the insufficient and unjust benefits derived by Panama
from the interoceanic waterway.

2 See The Department of State Bulletin, vol. l, No. 1296
(Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 636.
49. The United States has publicly admitted that sovereignty over the so-called Canal Zone lies with the Republic
of Panama, and thus it too agrees that that Zone is
Panamanian territory, under the jurisdiction of Panama.
Only a few days ago, on 27 February, the United States
Ambassador to Panama very frankly stated that what the
United States was negotiating was not whether Panama is
sovereign—because it recognizes in theory that we are
sovereign, but—and I quote him~—“whether and to what
extent the United States has to exercise all jurisdictional
rights granted it in 1903 in order to operate, maintain and
protect the Canal”. He added that: “Nowhere in the 1903
Convention is the word ‘cede’ used”, and he concluded by
saying that he felt that “what is under discussion, therefore,
is whether the United States still requires the use and
occupation of, and control over, the entire 10-mile wide
Panamanian territory, and not whether that strip is
Panamanian territory”. Thus he reaffirmed Panamanian
ownership over that territory.

50. However, the problem is not as simple as that if one
applies to the situation I have defined the principles of
international law governing relations of friendship and
co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter
of the United Nations, since the. solution could in no way
be based upon the degree of need of the United States to
exercise jurisdictional rights over Panamanian territory or
on the unilateral criterion of that country for determining
whether or not it still requires the use and occupation of,
and control over, all the land and waters of an area of
164,003 hectares which form the so-called Panama Canal
Zone, without giving due consideration to the overriding
interests of the country that possesses sovereignty over that
Panamanian territory.

51. On numerous occasions the United States has expressed its willingness to enter into a completely new treaty
on the present Panama Canal and to abrogate the Isthmian
Canal Convention of 1903, thus putting an end to the
régime of concession of the interoceanic Canal by setting a
deadline for termination. That would, in due course, allow
the Republic of Panama to recover the full exercise of its
jurisdiction over that part of its territory which today is
termed the Canal Zone; full responsibility for the functioning of the Canal—in other words, a Panamanian canal
administered by Panamanians; the physical, political, juridical, economic, social and cultural integration of that Zone
with the rest of the Republic; the neutralization of the
interoceanic Canal, and free and open passage through it of
all merchant vessels and warships of all nations of the
world. But no satisfactory understanding has been arrived
at to meet the aspirations of my country during lengthy
negotiations. This is due to_the fact that the United States
is proposing too long a duration before the new treaty
would put an end to the régime of perpetuity of the canal
concession, while Panama advocates a much closer deadline.

52. Furthermore, the United States insists on its desire to
modernize the present locks Canal or to construct a
sea-level canal; it also insists on establishing as a prior
condition for elaboration of a new treaty that the two
countries agree to come to a package agreement that would
include matters relating to the locks Canal, the expansion
of that Canal or the construction of a sea-level canal; and

the United States further proposes, as part of the pag).

deal, legalizing the military presence of the United State, 8e
Panama by means of a defence treaty which would ih
include an agreement on the status of armed forces. Yo

53. Panama is aware of the burdens that agreemenyg {
this nature might impose upon it, and wishes to preseryg 0
dignity as a sovereign and independent country. It ig Ay
this reason that we claim priority for a solution of the
problems relating to the existence of the present Cana)

the elimination of the causes of conflict deriving therefyg,

54. The perpetuity of the Canal concession has neg e

moral nor juridical justification. Not only has the tWentjegy
century put an end to the capitulations that have sop.
times been used in order to grant perpetual Cony 4¢
jurisdiction to foreign Powers with enclaves in the tery,
ries of other States, but the process of redressing situatig,s
imposed by force that violate States’ sovereignty throygh
the expedient of jurisdictional limitations has gained
ground. Among the reprehensible events leading up to tye
system of the perpetuity of the Canal concession we coyjd
mention the so-called naval base leases of Kiaochow and
Kwangchowan, obtained from China by foreign Powers jn
1898, a mere five years before the Isthmian Canal Conyeption was signed. All those instruments stipulated that, jn
order to avoid the possibility of conflict, the Imperial
Chinese Government would abstain from exercising rights
of sovereignty over its territory—a situation which po
longer exists in that great and powerful Asian nation
because of incompatibility with its potential and its culture.
But in Panama, because we are weak and small, we are still
subjected to jurisdictional limitations which are as unjust as
they are anachronistic. We are resorting to the means
offered us by the Charter in order to achieve our liberation
and our freedom from such situations.

55. There can be no doubt that the continuation of the
question of the Panama Canal Zone, because of the features
of the situation I have stressed, must lead to a progressive
deterjoriation of the relations between the two countries
and thus create factors and conditions which may lead to
new tensions and complicate the question, thus perhaps
disturbing the peace in the Latin American region with
inevitable international repercussions. That possibility is
obvious since the Panama Canal does fulfil a function as a
means of international communication which cannot be
replaced. That function must be ensured and maintained,
and it is of primary importance to the international
community that it be preserved and continued.

56. As the territorial, sovereign and riparian State of the
interoceanic Canal, the Republic of Panama is fully aware
of the obligations incumbent upon it to ensure the safe and
expeditious functioning of the Canal. It is precisely for this
reason that we consider that the colonial structure of the
Canal Zone must be eliminated and that the situation
referred to must be settled in accordance with the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the
resolutions of the General Assembly relating to the prificiples of international law concerning friendly relations and
co-operation among States, and particularly those pel tain.
ing to respect for the territorial integrity and political
independence of States, non-intervention, equality of rights

and self-determination of peoples, the sovereign equality
of States, the elimination of all forms of foreign domination,
the right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty
over their natural resources, and international co-operation
in the economic and social development of all nations.

57. My Government and my people, as General Torrijos
made clear to the Council, have complete confidence that
the Security Council possesses sufficient authority to settle
the question of the Panama Canal Zone in accordance with
the principles of international law and justice and pursuant
to the terms of Chapter VI of the Charter, on the peaceful
settlement of disputes.

58. The faith and the confidence of the entire Panamanian
people in the capacity of the United Nations is shared by
other peoples of the world, perhaps most fervently by the
small nations, for which international peace and security
constitute more than a mere aspiration: an absolute need.
Justice in international relations is a sine qua non in order
for progress in all fields to be ensured.

59. With the worthy Peruvian nation, Panama shares the
responsibility of occupying the seats allocated in the
Council to Eatin America. We wish to state clearly at this
meeting that in the joint declaration signed by the Foreign
Ministers of the two countries in Lima on 9 March this year
we stated our desire to make a common effort to direct the
spirit of Latin American unity towards a future of dignity
and justice for our peoples. In that outstanding historical
document we stated proudly the principles that we would
use as guidelines in acting in the Security Council and
agreed fully to co-operate in order to serve the interests of
the region and the cause of peace for all peoples of the
world,

60. Members of the Council, I wish most cordially to
express our trust in you—and [I speak on behalf of the
peoples of our region—and our trust in the universality of
the United Nations. I wish to{tell you that you represent
that universality, that our peoples are eagerly watching
these historic deliberations, and that an effective contribution would be the adoption by\this body of the two draft
resolutions now before it. There\can be no doubt that such
action would greatly contributeMto the strengthening of
international security as a prelude to a new era in which the
claims of Panama, of Latin America and of the world would
be satisfied.

61. Speaking now as PRESIDENT, I would remind members that the Council has before it the revised draft
resolution in document S/10931/Rev.1, and sponsored by
the delegations of Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia on the question of the
Panama Canal.

62. If no member wishes to speak I shall take it that the
Council is ready to decide on the draft resolutions that have
been submitted, and I shall put to the vote first the draft
resolution which I have just mentioned.

63. Mr, SCHAUFELE (United States of America): As
consultations are still going on on this particular subject I
think it would be wiser that the draft resolution be not put

to the vote at this time. Therefore, I move that we suspend
the meeting for an hour in order to allow consultations to
continue,

64. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): According to the provisional rules of procedure, motions for
suspension have priority. The representative of the United
States had made a motion that the meeting should be
suspended for one hour. If I hear no objection, I shall take

it that it is so decided.

The meeting was suspended at 6,15 p.m. and resumed at
7.45 p.m.

Mr. Tack (Panama) took the Chair.

65. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): 1
have no speakers on my list. As no representative wishes to
speak, I take it that the Council is ready to proceed to the
vote on the draft resolutions which have been submitted.

66. I shall first put to the vote the draft resolution in
document S/10931/Rev.1, sponsored by the delegations of
Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan
and Yugoslavia,

A vote was taken by show of hands.

In favour: Australia, Austria, China, France, Guinea,
India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia.

Against: United States of America,

Abstaining: United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.

The result of the vote was 13 in favour, 1 against, and
1 abstention.

The draft resolution was not adopted, the negative vote
being that of one of the permanent members.

67. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): 1
shall now call on those representatives who have asked to
be allowed to explain their votes after the vote.

68. Mr. SCALI (United States of America): Despite the
fact that the representative of Panama has expressed
hjmself on the Panama Canal before this Council many
times over the past week, he chose to deliver today his
version of history and of the actual situation. I have no
intention of subjecting the members of this Council to a
statement of similar length, However, he continues to stress
the Convention of 1903. In fact we have heard a great deal
in recent days of how the Isthmian Canal Convention was
“imposed” on the people of Panama.

69. Let us put the facts of the situation on the Council
record. After the Convention of 1903 was signed, it was
sent to Panama for ratification. After ratification by the
Panamanian Government, it was sent around the country
for consideration by the various elected municipal councils.

The ratification of the Convention was overwhelmingly
approved by those elected councils, with unanimous expressions of approval of the Convention. So much for the
“imposition” of the Convention.

70. Now in 70 years’ time the views of the Government
and people of Panama have changed with respect to the
arrangements of 1903. That is not surprising. The views of
the Government and people of the United States of
America also have changed with respect to the Convention
of 1903. That is what our two Governments are negotiating
about—to work out new arrangements to meet the just
aspirations of Panama and the legitimate interests of the
United States.

71. I believe it is useful to clarify for the record this
historical aspect of our relationship.

72. We regret having had to cast a negative vote on this
draft resolution, because there is so much in it with which
we could agree, But our negative vote should have come as
no surprise to our host, the Republic of Panama, in view of
the repeated exchanges of views that we have had about
these meetings and about how they might end—and I am
referring not only to discussions during these Security
Council meetings but also to those that took place even
before the Republic of Panama had pressed its campaign to
have these meetings take place on its territory.

73. In those discussions the United States made clear its
serious concern that a series of meetings designed to put
pressure on one party to an on-going bilateral negotiation
could make those negotiations more difficult and impair
the utility of this major organ of the United Nations. Up to
the moment of our departure for Panama we continued to
receive assurances that everything would be done to
maintain an atmosphere of moderation and restraint. I
regret to say that, while this proved true of the situation
outside this chamber—and for this I wish to express our
appreciation to our host, the Panamian Government—it has
not been true of some of the statements made here.
Members of the Council should know that my delegation
has made strenuous and repeated efforts in friendly conversations with the host Government to arrive at a mutually
acceptable form for a resolution, but this very sincere effort
has been rejected. I wish the members of the Council to
know, however, that we were and are prepared to acknowledge the just aspirations of the Republic of Panama, for we
do recognize those aspirations, along with the interests of
the United States.

74. 1 have said that we regret having had to cast a negative
vote on the draft resolution because there is so much in it
with which we could agree. As I have made clear, we agree
with the Republic of Panama on the need to replace the
1903 Convention by a totally new instrument reflecting a
new spirit; we agree that such a new instrument should not
run “in perpetuity” but should have a fixed term; and we
agree on the progressive integration into the legal, economic, social and cultural life of Panama of even those
areas used for the operation and defence of the Canal. Why,
then, when there is so much in it with which we agree, did
we not vote in favour of the draft resolution or, as we were
urged to do, at least abstain? Essentially, for two reasons.

75. First and foremost, as I have repeatedly pointed out
both in public and in private, it is because all these matters
are in process of bilateral negotiations. We do not consider
it helpful or appropriate for the Security Council to adopta
resolution dealing with matters of substance in a continuing
negotiation—and I may note that the Foreign Minister of
Panama has himself spoken of the negotiations as continuing and not as having been broken off. Indeed, as many
members know, we have only recently made certain new
approaches to the Government of Panama. We believe it
would be a disservice to the bilateral negotiations and an
improper use of the Council if those negotiations were
subjected to this kind of outside pressure. I am not, of
course, suggesting here that those who cast affirmative
votes on the draft resolution intended to exert any
improper influence, but this is how the resolution would
have been perceived in many quarters.

76. This draft resolution, in our view, is unbalanced and
incomplete and is therefore subject to serious misinterpretation. Moreover, the draft resolution is cast in the form of
sweeping generalities when we know that the real difficulties lie in the application of those generalities. Although it
is true that the United States and Panama have reached
common understanding over a number of important general
principles, differences over some principles and many
matters of detail remain. Finally, this draft resolution
addresses the points of interest to Panama but ignores those
legitimate interests important to the United States.

77. The Panama Canal is not a work of nature or, as some
have tried to put it, a “natural resource’. The Canalis a
very complex enterprise, and the working-out of a new
régime for it cannot be accomplished by the wave of a hand
or the quick stroke of a pen. It requires thoughtful and
meticulous negotiation to achieve a fair reconciliation of
interests. We have been and are prepared for such a
negotiation. But the draft resolution that was just voted
upon over-simplifies the issue to the point where it could
have rendered a disservice.

78. This brings me back to what I said at the beginning of
my intervention. It has been clear from the first mention of
the idea that holding Security Council meetings here to
focus on this problem could complicate the process of
negotiation. The United States is disappointed that others
failed to appreciate this risk when lending their support to
these meetings. Surely it should have been obvious that the
new treaty, which we earnestly wish to negotiate with
Panama, must be acceptable to our Congress and people, as
well as to the Government and people of Panama.

79. Finally, I would respectfully suggest that we all assess
with great care the nature and the outcome of these
meetings so as to avoid any repetition of a course of action
that could prove damaging to the role and the reputation of
the Security Council. It would be most unfortunate if the
Council were to be transformed into a small replica of the
General Assembly, thereby impairing its capacity to deal
effectively with specific issues affecting peace and security.

80. The United States delegation will not be leaving
Panama in a spirit of rancour—far from it. Our friendship
for Panama, for the people of Panama and for the people of

Latin America in general, is too deep for that. We continue
to be willing to adjust any differences peacefully, and in a
spirit of give-and-take, We are, specifically, prepared to
continue the negotiations, and to carry them forward with
good will and seriousness, at whatever time the Government
of Panama chooses, We believe that both Panama and the
United States are destined by geography and common
ideals to co-operate for their mutual advantage and to
protect the interests of world commerce transiting the
Canal. That will continue to be the policy of the United
States, and I am confident that in the end we shall reach an
accord which both Governments can firmly support and
which will strengthen the close bonds of friendship between
our peoples.

81. Sir Colin CROWE (United Kingdom): As I said in my
statement yesterday [1701st meeting], and as several other
representatives have also said in their statements, my
delegation regards this question as essentially a bilateral
issue between the parties concerned. If it had been possible
to arrive at a formulation which took account of the
concerns of both parties, I believe that the adoption of a
resolution by the Security Council at the end of its
meetings in Panama might have been helpful in improving
the atmosphere for further negotiations. It is a matter of
profound regret that efforts to find such a formulation have
been unsuccessful. In this sort of situation, for any
resolution to be useful, it must be at least generally
acceptable to both parties to which it is addressed. If, as in
the present case, it is unacceptable to one of the two
parties, a resolution does not serve any useful purpose. My
delegation accordingly abstained.

82. Mrs. Jeanne Martin CISSE (Guinea) (interpretation
from French): When we co-sponsored the draft resolution
in document S/10931/Rev.1, which reaffirms fundamental
principles dear to my country’s heart—~principles of the
recognition of national sovereignty, free exercise by each
nation of sovereignty over its natural resources, equality
among peoples, and mutual respect ‘among States—my
delegation wished to indicate its solidarity with the people
and Government of Panama, and once again to express to
them our complete support for the sacred cause for which
they are fighting, that is to say, the cause of dignity,
sovereignty and justice. As we have already emphasized in
the course of our statement [I 700th meeting] and in the
many consultations that we have held, there was no other
choice for us. Having ourselves known humiliation and
injustice, having ourselves suffered discrimination, we
understand only too well the cogency of the claims of the
people and Government of Panama. That is why we have
supported them unreservedly.

83. We also have faith in international justice, which is
why it is our view that the Security Council, the organ of
the United Nations responsible for the maintenance of
international peace and security and having the ultimate
duty to prevent confrontations, should use every means at
its disposal to safeguard international peace and security,
which are so dear to us.

84. My delegation cannot conceal its great disappointment
at the attitude of the United States. We had really hoped
that these meetings in Panama could have helped to restore

peace, sovereignty and the spirit of international co-operation, which in tum would have helped to restore the
confidence of a small country whose only crime is that it
wishes to exercise that freedom and dignity which are so
dear to us all.

85. Several days ago the representative of Algeria, speaking of the abuse of the veto, said:

“We believe that it should be inadmissible for a great
Power to exercise its right of veto in a matter in which it
is involved and when by that abusive use of a privilege
which has been recognized to it because of the very fact
of its power it would thus remove itself from the normal
application of the rules of law which should be imposed
uniformly on all nations, without regard to their size,
their means or their place in the international community. This use of the right of veto is even more
reprehensible when a great Power has recourse to it in a
conflict it has with a small country and where it already
has the advantage given it by its material superiority and
particularly the advantage of its military means.” [ibid.,
para, 85.]

86. Representing a small third-world country of 4 million
inhabitants, I can only express my concern at the outcome
of the conflict between the Governments of the United
States and Panama. The world has only just greeted the end
of a long and painful strife which for 25 years pitted a
third-world country, Viet-Narn, ‘against one of the world’s
giants, the United States of America. Still fresh in our
minds is the desolation of the valiant people of Viet-Nam
and of the American mothers and wives whose sons and
husbands fell during that long war.

87. We hope that the Governments of Panama and the
United States, whose readiness to continue the discussions
we have noted, will be able to resume their negotiations and
arrive at a peaceful settlement in conformity with the
legitimate aspirations of the people of Panama to exercise
sovereignty over its national territory.

88. Mr. DE GUIRINGAUD (France) (interpretation from
French): The French delegation voted in favour of the draft
resolution regarding the Panama Canal which was submitted
by eight members of the Council because we felt that
unlike other texts which had previously been circulated,
that text did not go into the details of a settlement, but -
referred only to general principles the validity of which
could not be challenged by anyone.

89. As 1 said yesterday [I170Ist meeting], it is the
consistent position of my Government that the Security
Council cannot dictate to parties the specific terms of a
settlement which they are in the process of negotiating. On
the other hand, the Council can, as I also said, indicate the
general principles on the basis of which it believes such a
settlement should be established, and I expressly mentioned
respect for the principles of sovereignty and co-operation
which should govern relations between States.

90. That was precisely the purpose of the text which was
submitted to us, The part taken by the French delegation in
seeking a formula satisfactory to both sides, which might
have avoided a hardening of their positions that would be
harmful to the continuation of negotiations, is well known
to all those who in the last days have been associated with
those efforts, and principally to the two delegations
directly concerned. It was certainly not because of us that
these efforts were unsuccessful. We profoundly regret that
they were unsuccessful and we regret it all the more since
the debates unfortunately presented an opportunity for
making too hasty or too dogmatic statements, which is
alien to our conception and contrary to the principles
which inspire the policy of France.

91. 1 can conclude only by expressing the hope that
Panama and the United States, towards both of which we
feel friendship and sympathy, will be able to overcome
their differences and reach an agreement in the near future.

92. Mr. ODERO-JOWI (Kenya): My delegation voted in
favour of the draft resolution contained in document
$/10931/Rev.1 because we believe that the case put
forward by Panama for more equitable control of the Canal
is a fair and a just case.

93. The Panama Canal is, by all definitions, the natural
resource of Panama. It is as much a natural resource of
Panama as the copper mines and installations in Chile are
the natural resources of Chile, The Canal is as much a
natural resource of Panama as the oil wells and installations
in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are the natural
resources of those countries.

94, The sovereign right of every State to dispose of its
wealth and natural resources, which is a constituent of the
right to self-determination, must be respected. Any violation of the right of peoples and nations to sovereignty over
their natural wealth and resources is contrary to the spirit
and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and
hinders the development of international co-operation and
the maintenance of peace.

95. For all those reasons, we voted in favour of the draft
resolution, and we are disappointed that it has been vetoed.

96. Mr. MOJSOV (Yugoslavia): I do not want to sound
vindictive because a draft resolution co-sponsored by a
majority of the Council’s members, including Yugoslavia,
has been defeated. We know that resolutions have been
vetoed before and, unfortunately, they will be vetoed again
in the Council. But every time a draft resolution is vetoed,
every time,a veto defeats a draft resolution that represents a
just cause, a resolution that would assist in finding a way
out of a situation that threatens international peace and
security, 4 resolution that would assist Members for whom
help is long overdue, it is a retrograde and sad event in the
Council’s life, and it cannot but detract from our prestige
and role in the eyes of the world.

97. But we should not despair. A draft resolution on
Southern Rhodesia was vetoed in Addis Ababa last year.
After that, the national liberation struggle of the people of
Zimbabwe intensified even more, because they had been
enabled to see that the veto was the work of one, but that
they had overwhelming support and direct assistance from
almost everybody else.

10

98. We know all the details about the positions members
of the Council took during the intensive consultations held
up to the very last minute before the draft resolution was
put to the vote, and I need not refer to them. However,
there is a lesson in today’s veto. It is a message to all the
small countries that the time of fairness and generosity has
not yet arrived and that they have to continue their
struggle, but no longer unaided and no longer fenced off
from the outside world, a world outside so-called special
zones, spheres or regions. And it is a lesson that one must
persist, helped by all those who feel more acutely the needs
of the modern world and who understand that the only
way in which we can have civilized and secure international
relations is by the application of the principles of the
Charter to all international disputes.

99, We are sure that the people of Panama will take this
not as a defeat but as a challenge in their just struggle, And
we hope that those who must do so will consider and will
be more forthcoming and more flexible next time, since
this question will surely come up again for our considera:
tion in the not too distant future.

100. General DE LA FLOR VALLE (Peru) (interpretation
from Spanish): As has been made evident during the last
seven days of work of the Security Council, the question of
the Panama Canal is a problem which deeply affects the
sovereignty of a people of Latin America and all the
countries of Latin America and which because of its
painful characteristics constitutes an unjust and unequal
relationship and is a cause of permanent conflict and
therefore a potential threat to the peace and security of the
continent.

101. We have in the course of the deliberations of the
Council seen the absolute and total support given by the
countries of Latin America and of the rest of the world for
the just and noble cause of the people of Panama. The draft
resolution sponsored by eight countries of the third
world—Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the
Sudan and Yugoslavia—was a really positive step to channel
the solution of the conflict in the right direction. Unfortu.
nately, it has been vetoed by the United States of America,
frustrating that possibility. But that veto, instead of being a
failure or defeat, is, I believe, something that adds dignity
to the struggle of the people and Government of Panama. I
am witness to the great flexibility which has been shown
and to the will to co-operate of the Government of the
Republic of Panama in order to reach an agreement that
would enhance the prestige of the Council. That is not
possible, however, when there is lacking recognition of the
sovereignty and dignity which the people of Panama have
for 70 years been fighting to recover.

102. As the representative of a developing country of
Latin America and the third world, and because of our lies
with the people and Government of Panama, I once again
reiterate our decisive and firm support for the noble and
just cause for which this people and this Government are

struggling.

103. Mr, MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics}
(translation from Russian): 1 was not intending to speak in
explanation of my vote, because the Soviet Union's

position on the discussion of Panama’s just cause is
perfectly obvious. However, Mr. Scali, the representative of
the United States, in his statement explaining his vote, said
that the discussion of questions such as those to which the
Security Council meetings away from Headquarters held
here in Panama have been devoted could prove damaging to
the role and reputation of the Council. I cannot agree with
that approach to the question at all. On the contrary, { am
fully convinced that the discussion of this question here
and the results of the voting, in which the members of the
Council by an overwhelming majority of 13 out of 15 voted
in favour of the draft resolution asserting the rights and
sovereignty of Panama, show that as a consequence the role
and reputation of the Council, far from being damaged,
have been enhanced, have grown, have increased in the eyes
of the world.

104. A majority in the Security Council reflected the
general feeling that I spoke about at the time of the
consultative meeting of members of the Council, when an
overwhelming majority in the world, if not the entire
world—I recalled at the time the telegrams from the Prime
Minister of India [696th meeting], from President Tito of
Yugoslavia [1699th meeting] and from the Pope [1697th
meeting] —expressed support of the just cause which we are
discussing, Thus it cannot be said that as a result of the
discussion of this question and the voting on the draft
resolution concerning it the reputation and role of the
Security Council will be undermined or that they will be
damaged. I therefore feel that I must make this point clear.

105, In the course of both the discussion and the voting
we all saw with our own eyes that the overwhelming
majority of ministers and representatives of the Latin
American countries, of the members of the Security
Council and of representatives of those States which felt it
incumbent upon them to participate in the discussion of
the matter in the Council took a favourable stand with
regard to the requests, appeals and claims of the Republic
of Panama. It is precisely this which is the main positive
result of the discussion of the question in the Council at its
meetings away from Headquarters held in Latin America. It
turned out that Panama was not alone, its position
commanded the support which the justice of its cause
warranted and evoked a wide international response not
only in Latin America but throughout the world. Accordingly, the members of the Council who voted for the draft
resolution in question cannot but express regret that
because of the position taken by one permanent member of
the Council that draft resolution failed of adoption. I stress
that it was one permanent member of the Security Council,
one great Power, and not “one or two”, as some like to say.

106. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): We
shall proceed to vote on the draft resolution in document
$/10932/Rev.2, sponsored by the delegations of Guinea,
Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia.

107. 1 shall now call upon representatives wishing to speak
in explanation of vote before the vote.

108. Sir Laurence McINTYRE (Australia): Although we
have some doubts whether the Council is the most
appropriate organ of the United Nations to take action on a

11

matter of this kind, my delegation will, nevertheless, vote in
favour of this draft resolution since we are in sympathy
with its main objectives.

109. We need, of course, to be clear about our understanding of the meaning of the term “coerce”. As is well known,
there has been evidence of unacceptable pressure by at least
one of the multinational corporations operating in Latin
America and my delegation would certainly agree that
actions of this kind are deserving of the highest censure. On
the other hand, we would not interpret the draft resolution
as preventing commercial enterprises from taking steps
within the accepted legal framework regarding payment of
compensation for expropriated properties or assets. International law, of course, permits nationalization of foreignowned assets, However, it also makes provision for
compensation and for certain legal processes where a
dispute arises over the terms of compensation.

110. It is with this understanding that my delegation will
cast its positive vote for the draft resolution in document
S/10932/Rev.2.

111. Mr. DE GUIRINGAUD (France) (interpretation from
French): As regards the draft resolution before us in
document $/10932/Rev.2, I should like to make the
following remarks.

112. Yesterday [1701st meeting] 1 clearly indicated our
doubts in regard to having the Council taking a stand on
general principles without any relationship to specific
situations and, in particular, in regard to questions which
are more specially within the competence of another
United Nations organ. We are not unaware of the importance of the problem presented to us. On the contrary, we
believe that it would warrant a far more thorough study
which we cannot conduct here, since we are not competent
and have not the time. The Council, we believe, should
therefore take note of the views expressed and refer
consideration of this question to a qualified United Nations
organ, which could be the General Assembly or the
Economic and Social Council, or even the Working Group
on the Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of
States. The summary of our work, which you will read out
later, Mr. President, could provide an opportunity to
formulate this conclusion.

113. In these circumstances, and in the light of the
remarks I have just made, my delegation will have to
abstain on the draft resolution which is before us. Nevertheless, the remarks I have just made, which represent the
position of France, will of course appear in the verbatim
record of cur meetings, which is the official source of
information on statements made in the course of our
proceedings.

114. Sir Colin CROWE (United Kingdom): My delegation
will abstain on the draft resolution in document S/10932/
Rev.2, primarily because we consider that this matter falls
outside the competence of the Security Council. The
proper forum for this subject, as the representative of
France has just pointed out, is not here; it could be the
General Assembly or the Economic and Social Council,
where it is indeed an item on the agenda. The Security
"Council should not seek to anticipate or duplicate that
. discussion.

115. In saying this I do not imply that we should have
supported the draft if it had been submitted in the
Economic and Social Council. In particular, the fourth
paragraph of the preamble and operative paragraph 1 are
quite unacceptable to us. The fourth paragraph of the
preamble purports to determine that illegitimate coercive
measures are actually being applied in Latin America, but
without specifying what kind of measures nor by whom
they are being taken, nor against what countries. Such a
formulation is much too imprecise and also prejudicial to
form a basis for a call upon States to take punitive measures
against anyone, especially a call couched in the sweeping
language used in operative paragraph 1.

116. Mr. ANWAR SANI (Indonesia): My delegation would
like to explain very briefly its position on the draft
resolution in document S/10932/Rev.2, which is now
before the Council.

117. In my statement on Monday last [1699th meeting], 1
referred to the difficulties faced by the developing countries concerning how to convert their natural resources into
national wealth with the lack of indigenous means, especially in the form of domestic capital and technical
know-how. Indonesia recognizes that to speed up the
process of development, foreign assistance can be helpful;
but in accepting foreign co-operation in our economic
development we must remain master in our own house in
accordance with the principle of the permanent sovereignty
of the State over its own natural resources. Foreign
assistance, whether on a governmental basis or in the form
of private investment, must in no way become an instrument of coercion against the State which decides to
implement that principle.

118. My delegation, therefore, agrees with the ideas
incorporated in the two operative paragraphs in the draft
resolution, and will vote in its favour.

119. Mr. SCALI (United States of America): My delegation has very carefully studied the draft resolution on
permanent sovereignty over natural resources [S/10932/
Rev.2]. Our decision to abstain is based on the following
considerations.

120. We believe that sovereignty over natural resources is
not an appropriate subject for Security Council action
under the Charter of the United Nations. The basic
responsibility of the Council is the maintenance of international peace and security. Of course, we would not and do
not condone the use of coercive measures by one State to
secure advantages from another State in violation of
international law. But we do not accept the premises of this
draft resolution, namely, that any such coercive measures
are being used or that any measures are being used in a
manner likely to endanger peace and security in Latin
America. Economic matters of this sort, where there is no
threat to international peace and security, are properly the
subject of discussion in other United Nations organs: the
Economic and Social Council, where the Committee on
Natural Resources is currently dealing very actively with

12

the subject; the General Assembly; and the Committee on
the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor.

121. The United States supports the concept of permanent sovereignty over natural resources as stated in General
Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII), which recognizes that
sovereignty over natural resources is to be exercised in
accordance with international law. That resolution expressly provides that foreign investment agreements should
be observed in good faith and that appropriate compensation should be paid in cases of nationalization “in accordance with the rules in force in the State taking such
measures in the exercise of its sovereignty and in accordance with international law”. We do not find these points
clearly reflected in the text before us,

122. Furthermore, the draft resolution does not adequately take into account provisions of the Charters of the
United Nations and the Organization of American States
and of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance,
which provide for collective measures involving coercion
and which are vital to the maintenance of international
peace and security. I am sure that my colleagues in the
Security Council, after thoughtful study and thorough
discussion, would not wish to be on record as supporting a
resolution that might be interpreted as weakening the
potential of those important international documents.

123. [I cite those reservations to show that there are many
objections to this draft resolution. The principal objection,
however, in our view is that it deals with a subject that is
not within the proper competence of the Security Council.

124. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanishj: 1
now put to the vote the draft resolution in document
S/10932/Rev.2.

A vote was taken by show of hands.

In favour: Australia, Austria, China, Guinea, India,
Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia.

Against: None.

Abstaining: France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America.

The draft resolution was adopted by 12 voles to none,
with 3 abstentions,

125. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish}: 1
shall now call on those representatives wishing to explain
their votes after the vote.

126. Mr. JANKOWITSCH (Austria): Now that the vote
has been taken on the draft resolution in document
S/10932/Rev.2, my delegation would like to make the
following observations.

127. The resolution, in the first preambular paragraph,
refers to General Assembly resolution 3016 (XXVII) con-

3 See resolution 330 (1973).

cerning permanent sovereignty over natural resources. I
should like to recall that Austria abstained on the adoption
of that resolution, as it contains provisions which, in our
. view, should be the subject of the forthcoming United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Furthermore,
my delegation believes that the term “coercive measures” as
employed in the present resolution requires further elaboration and clarification, especially in its relation to international law and the international legal order. The representative of Australia has very clearly formulated considerations
implying this result. Finally, my delegation feels that the
General Assembly and other United Nations bodies have
clearly spelled out the main considerations as reflected in
this resolution, We would have thought, therefore, that a
resolution of the Security Council on this matter was not
an imperative necessity. However, the Austrian delegation
finds itself in agreement with the basic considerations and
objectives of the resolution on which we have just voted
and therefore cast an affirmative vote.

128, Mr. SEN (India): My delegation voted in favour of
the draft resolution contained in document S/10932/Rev.2.
We consider, however, that the language as it has finally
emerged is not sufficiently clear in identifying the type of
“coercive measures” against which it is directed. Further,
since the group of experts on the operation of multinational corporations, appointed under a recent resolution of
the Economic and Social Council [1721 (LIII)], will be
submitting its study in due course, we would have preferred

language such as that used in paragraph 1 of that resolution,

even with some slight revision.

129. However, as we support the principles which underlie this resolution in the context of the maintenance of
international peace and security, thus making it a concern
of the Security Council, and in a spirit of solidarity with
the common objectives which unite all developing countries, we did not wish to move any amendments but voted
for the resolution as it stands. But we could not co-sponsor
it for the reasons which I have just indicated.

130. In voting for this draft resolution we have not in any
manner detracted from the authority or jurisdiction of
other apprpriate United Nations organs. For we believe that
just as racial discrimination, which is normally under
discussion in other United Nations bodies, can bring about
a threat to international peace and security and thus has
become the concern of the Security Council, as was so
movingly pointed out by Ambassador Ogbu [1703rd
meeting] this morning, so can economic questions be a
concern of the Security Council if it affects international
peace and security, In the context of Latin America, we
share the view that it does.

131. Mr. ODERO-JOWI (Kenya): My delegation voted for
the draft resolution in document S/10932/Rev.2 because
we wanted to demonstrate our solidarity with our Latin
American brothers.

132, We consulted very extensively with our friends from
the Latin American region and we came to understand their
very deep feeling and fears over the manner in which some
economic pressure is being used, and has been used, to try
to get certain concessions, and to obtain compliance with

policies of multinational corporations. We believe that these

. kinds of pressures are not in keeping with the spirit and

13

purposes of the Charter of the United Nations because they
tend to vitiate the exercise of permanent sovereignty by
these countries over their resources.

133. Furthermore, I should like to mention that the
position. of my country was originally like that of the
United Kingdom, France and Indonesia, because the Economic and Social Council is fully seized of the question of

.the activities of multinational corporations and, as the

representative of India has mentioned, that body has set up
a group of experts to study the activities of these
corporations and to report back to that Council. We felt
that what that Council is already doing should be enough.
But because our Latin American friends informed us of
cases of pressure that they know are emanating from
certain multinational corporations—perhaps with the connivance of certain States—we thought that this was a matter
of serious concern for international peace and security in
this area. That is why we voted for the draft resolution, and
we are confident that our vote has served a positive purpose
because of the concern and fears of our friends in this part
of the world.

134. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(translation from Russian): The Soviet delegation, in
explaining its vote on this draft resolution [S/10932/
Rev. 2], wishes to state the following.

135. We see the basis of this resolution not as an economic
but as a political one, The point is that neither the problem
of natural resources nor the problem of investments of
foreign capital in the economies of the developing countries
should be exploited for the purposes of coercion, or, as the
resolution says, for the purposes of “the use of any type of
coercive measure.” This is the essence of the resolution in
question, a political resolution. Accordingly, there is no
basis for regarding this resolution as an economic one. The
economic aspect of these problems—the problems of
natural resources and the problems of the baleful consequences of the activities of international monopolies for the
development of the economies of the developing countries—will be considered in detail by the Economic and
Social Council; they fall within its competence. In the
present instance, on the contrary, the question is one of
coercion, of coercive measures, which in relations between
States are always of a political character, always complicate
relations between States and lead to threats to peace and to
the danger of breaches of peace. This is the basic essence
and the significance of the resolution.

136. It was for precisely this reason that the Soviet
delegation voted in favour of this text, recognizing its
political thrust, its political basis. All political questions, all
questions of peace and security, are questions which fall
squarely within the competence of the Security Council.
When we vote for a text concerning the non-use of any kind
of coercive measure, we are recalling the resolution adopted
by the General Assembly at its twenty-seventh session, with
the support of a significant majority of States Members of
the United Nations [2936 (XXVII)], concerning the nonuse of force in international relations. That is why,
attaching political significance to the resolution just
adopted by the Council, we were very happy to vote in
favour of it. We also wish to express great satisfaction that
the majority of members of the Council supported this text
and voted in favour of it.

137. This resolution is a political warning by the Security
Council to those States and Governments which may think
of taking action to defend or support their own or
international monopolies in the event that those monopolies take coercive measures or measures of compulsion
against countries defending their own sovereignty over their
natural resources, countries taking measures to curb the
greed of foreign monopolies and international corporations
seeking to plunder the national wealth of the developing
countries. That is the political theme of this document. The
Council is acting correctly when it refers in the text to a
number of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly,
This opens the way to and facilitates consideration in the
near future of another Assembly resolution. I am thinking
of the resolution on the non-use of force in international
relations and permanknt prohibition of the use of nuclear
weapons [ibid.]. Under that resolution the Security Council is obliged to consider this most important international
political question and, for its own part, to take the
appropriate decision.

138. General DE LA FLOR VALLE (Peru) (interpreiation
Jrom Spanish): 1 wish to thank, on behalf of the sponsors,
the members of the Security Council who voted for the
draft resolution introduced by Peru and other countries
[5/10932/Rev.2]. We also wish to thank the members of
the Security Council who, in their explanations of vote,
have so elequently supported that draft, intended to
request that in Latin America all types of coercive measures
should end, whether they are imposed by companies or by
States.

139. The Council, in adopting this resolution, has met its
responsibilities, and that is why the peoples of Latin
America who have suffered, are suffering and may suffer
the damage from coercive measures have renewed their
hope in the United Nations. This resolution will have a vast
significance on this continent and beyond any doubt will
constitute an effective argument for our just struggle for
national liberation and against foreign dependence.

140. In the case of the representatives of the countries
which did not support the draft resolution, we would ask
them to remember this session of the Security Council as an
unequivocal announcement that in Latin America a firm
determination to reject any form of pressure has emerged.
We therefore appeal to them to reconsider their positions so
that in the future they will put an end to all measures of
coercion against Governments and peoples of Latin
America, thus ensuring a genuine era of co-operation and
peace on our continent.

141. Mr. HUANG Hua (China) (translation from Chinese):
I am not going to make a further explanation of the vote
cast by the Chinese delegation, because during the general
debate we have already made clear our position on the two
draft resolutions. I should like only to make some
comments on the progress of our meetings.

14

142, The Chinese delegation has voted in favour of the
two draft resolutions co-sponsored by Panama, Peru,
Guinea and other countries, because in our view this is what
the Security Council should do on related questions,
However, the United States delegation has vetoed the draft
resolution on the question of the Panama Canal /S/10931/
Rev.1], thus making it impossible for the Council to
perform its duties with regard to the Canal question. We
cannot but express deep regret at this.

143. The people of Panama and the rest of Latin America
are courageous, industrious and intelligent. Through these
meetings in Panama, we have personally seen that the Latin
American people’s struggles in defence of national independence, sovereignty and national resources and against
super-Power aggression, interference, subversion, plunder
and control are surging ahead vigorously. The facts show
that it was necessary and useful for the Security Council
meetings in Panama to concentrate on the discussions of a
number of important questions currently facing Latin
America and that they have played, and will continue to
play, a positive role in the just struggle of the peoples of
Panama and the rest of Latin America. Through these
meetings, we have also seen a further strengthening of the
unity and co-operation among the Asian, African and Latin
American countries. The Chinese delegation rejoices at
these positive achievements of the meetings.

144, The Chinese people and the people of Latin America
are good friends, We have always trusted and supported
each other in the struggles against imperialism, colonialism
and neo-colonialism and against the power politics and
hegemony practised by the super-Powers. We are convinced
that so long as the peoples of Latin America further unite
among themselves and further strengthen their unity with
the people of the third world countries and all justiceupholding countries and peoples of the world and carry on
unremitting struggles, they will certainly win continuous
new victories in their own cause.

145. As the Security Council meetings in Panama are
about to conclude, I should like to take this opportunity, in
the name of the Chinese delegation, to express once again
our sincere thanks to the Government and people of
Panama for their warm and friendly hospitality and our
thanks to the staff members of the United Nations
Secretariat and the Panamanian Government who have
provided efficient services for our meetings.

146. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish):
Having heard the explanations of vote of those delegations
which wished to make them, I would suggest a brief
suspension of the meeting, after which we shall conclude
the work of this Council and hear a statement by the
President.

The meeting was suspended at 9.05 p.m. and resumed at
9.50 p.m.

Mr. Boyd (Panama) took the Chair.
Statement by the President

147. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): At
the conclusion of the series of meetings of the Security

Council in Panama, I wish to make a statement with a view
to summing up the main points of the discussions which the
Council has held here. I consider that this brief summary is
appropriate and useful at this concluding stage of our
meetings in Panama City. I must stress, nevertheless, that
my statement has been formulated necessarily in rather
broad terms. Naturally, I cannot possibly attempt to
encompass in detail every point raised or every position
expressed around this table. The positions of all delegations
are contained in their statements appearing in the verbatim
records of our meetings, which of course constitute the
official records of our proceedings and are the only
complete and authentic source of information. 1 hope,
therefore, that no one will feel that by attempting to
summarize in capsule form the general tenor of what has
taken place during this historic series of meetings of the
Council in Latin America I have overlooked any of the
valuable contributions that have been made here.

148. The Security Council has met between 15 and
21 March 1973 in Panama City in accordance with resolutien 325 (1973). During that time it has held 10 meetings
devoted to the consideration of measures for the maintenance and strengthening of international peace and
security in Latin America in conformity with the provisions
and principles of the Charter.

149, The following Member States of the United Nations
were invited by the Council, at their request, to participate
under the terms of Article 31 of the Charter in the
Council’s discussion: Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, Canada,
Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti,
Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritania, Mexico, Trinidad and
Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire and Zambia. In addi
tion, the Council decided to extend invitations under
rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to “the
Chairmen of the Special Committee on the Situation with
regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples and the Special Committee on Apartheid, as well as
to representatives of the Agency for the Prohibition of
Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, the Organization of
African Unity and the League of Arab States.

150. The meetings were attended by the Foreign Ministers
of Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guyana, Jamaica,
Mexico, Panama, Peru and Venezueis, and the Under-Secretary for External Relations of Chile.

151. At the opening meeting [695th meeting] the head
of the Government of Panama, General Omar Torrijos,
welcomed the members of the Council, all other representatives who had been accredited to the meetings and the
Secretary-General and his staff. In his statement General
Torrijos presented the views of Panama on the subject on
the Council's agenda, in particular the question of the
Panama Canal. A statement was also made by the Secretary-General.

152. In the ensuing general discussion, in which 40
representatives and the Secretary-General took part, the
majority of speakers concentrated on a number of issues
which they regarded as being closely linked with the

15

problem of the maintenance and strengthening of international peace and security in Latin America, In my opinion,
the views expressed on these issues by most speakers may
be summarized as follows.

153. Most representatives expressed the view that the
persistence, in any region, of colonialism in any of its forms
or manifestations was likely to increase tension; thus, the
denial of freedom was to be regarded as a potential threat
to world peace. According to their view, the continued
existence of colonialism or neo-colonialism interfered
seriously with economic development and progress. This
situation was inconsistent with the Charter of the United
Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples. For those reasons, it was
imperative and urgent that the decolonization process in
Latin America and elsewhere in the world be accelerated. -
Some speakers, however, felt that questions of colonialism
in Latin America did not necessarily at this stage require
the attention of the Security Council. Nevertheless, the
general feeling expressed was one of hope that we should
soon see the day when colonialism was no longer an issue
before the United Nations, once the principles contained in
General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) had been applied
to the residual colonial situations in Latin America and
elsewhere.

154. Special emphasis was placed on the important contribution of the Latin American States to the strengthening of
international peace and security through the conclusion of
the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin
America. Some delegations noted that for its broadest and
most effective implementation this Treaty should enjoy the
support of all States which were or might become parties to
it or to its two Additional Protocols. In this connexion the
view was also expressed that all States should make further
efforts to achieve the aim of the effective prohibition of
nuclear weapons in Latin America.

155. Many speakers stressed that the problems of economic dependence and domination of the States of Latin
America were a grave long-term threat to international
peace. Economic dependence had been created by the
interpenetration and domination of the area’ by foreign
economic interests. Economic no less than military aggression was a violation of the Charter constituting a threat to
the peace and security of the area. The growing gap
between the industrialized countries and the developing
countries constituted one of the most serious threats to the
peace of the world. Co-operation among States in their
economic relations was significantly inadequate. The poorer
nations were struggling to provide the higher standards of
living demanded by their peoples within a system which
gave the lion’s share of the gains from production to the
wealthy nations. Moreover, all nations had a sovereign right
to explore, develop and conserve their own natural resources, and any attempt to prevent, directly or indirectly,
the full exercise of that right jeopardized the principle of
self-determination and non-intervention. It was legitimate
for the Latin American nations to desire to become masters
of their own wealth and to emancipate themselves from the
domination of international corporations. The developing
countries were increasingly aware that political indepen-
dence rested on economic independence. However, some
speakers felt that private foreign investment could help to
provide the necessary financial and technological tools for
the exploitation of natural resources. Some countries had in
the past owed a great deal of their development to overseas
investment, and they would continue to do so. According
to other speakers, the right of the developing countries to
exploit their own natural resources was accompanied by the
concomitant duty to provide prompt and adequate compensation in cases of nationalization, in accordance with
international law. Finally, the view was expressed that
although economic questions might have important political implications, some of them were more properly the
responsibility of the other principal organs of the United
Nations.

156. Many speakers also strongly criticized the use of
coercive measures of various types by some States against
others. All "States should abide by the principle of the
non-use of force in international relations. The speakers
further affirmed that afl States had the right to develop
without foreign interference, such as, for example, economic blockade, trade embargoes, coercive action in international credit organizations, diplomatic pressure, veiled
aggression, and so on. There should be no attempt to bring
pressure to bear on States, directly or indirectly. An end
should be put to the application of coercive measures
against the States of Latin America, for they were a
violation of the basic principles of the Charter and
aggravated the misery of the under-developed peoples. It
was necessary to prevent the possibility of coercion by
foreign economic and financial interests. One delegation
also drew attention to General Assembly resolution
2936 (XXVII), on the non-use of force in international
relations and the permanent prohibition of the use of
nuclear weapons, and to the necessity for the Council to
take as soon as possible appropriate measures in accordance
with that resolution. In addition, a number of speakers
drew the Council’s attention specifically to the dangerous
situations in southern Africa and the Middle East, which
threatened international peace and security and ought to be
remedied.

157. Some delegations pointed out that all coastal States
were entitled to determine reasonably the limits of their
territorial seas and jurisdiction in accordance with their
geographical conditions, taking into account the needs
dictated by their security and by national economic
interests, and had the right to dispose of their natural
resources in their coastal seas, sea-bed and ocean floor and
the subsoil thereof. That was a sovereign right which all
countries should respect. The super-Powers had no right to
impose their will on others.

158. Six members of the Council-Guinea, Kenya,
Panama, Peru, the Sudan and Yugoslavia—submitted a draft
resolution on this subject /S/10932/Rev.2]. It urged States
to adopt appropriate measures to impede the activities of
those enterprises which deliberately attempted to coerce
Latin American countries and to refrain from using or
encouraging the use of any type of coercive measures
against States in the region. That draft resolution [resolution 330 (1973)] was adopted by the Council.

16

159. Several representatives stressed that every Latin
American State had the inalienable right to choose its
political, economic and social system without interference
from any other State. Consequently there was an urgent
need to eliminate any policy aimed at isolating and
blockading any State of the region because of its political,
economic and social system; the present trend towards
international détente should be made effective in the
region, and the principles of non-intervention, economic
non-aggression, self-determination and universality of intee-State relations should be observed.

160. One further point raised by some speakers was the
inadmissibility of the presence of foreign military bases on
the territory of States in Latin America. It was stated that
those bases could be and indeed had been used for
intervention in the domestic affairs of Latin American
countries. Their existence, as also the export of arms to
areas of conflict, tended to increase tension in the area.
Accordingly, foreign military bases should be removed.
Thus a more propitious atmosphere would be created for
efforts to find solutions to various problems of concern to
the countries and peoples of Latin America.

161. With regard to the question of the Panama Canal,
most speakers stressed that every State had an inalienable
right to full jurisdiction over all its territory. Therefore, it
was essential that all States should abstain from any aclion
likely to impair the national unity and territorial integrity
of any other State. In that respect, it was pointed out that
the denial to Panama of its inherent right to full sovereignty
and jurisdiction over its entire territory, including the
Panama Canal Zone, had been a constant source of tension
and consequently was a threat to peace and security in
Latin America. In order to remove that threat, it was
essential that Panama’s sovereignty over the Canal Zone
should be fully established and that foreign military bases
should be removed from that area. Almost all speakers held
the view that Panama was undoubtedly entitled to use its
primary natural resource, namely, its geographical position,
to the fullest extent for the benefit of its own economic
development. Besides, the present situation in the Canal
Zone was in complete violation of the purposes and
principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Some
delegations, while expressing their support for the aspirations of the Panamanian people, stated that the question
was essentially a matter for negotiation between the parties
principally concerned and that they hoped negotiations
would be resumed and a settlement reached without foreign
intervention. They also expressed the hope that the
Council’s meetings in Panama would contribute to the
fostering of a climate in which that process of negotiation
would move forward. It was further pointed out that any
solution of the Panama Canal question must be based on
respect for law and the search for justice and take info
account the basic principles enshrined in the Charter such
as the principle of territorial integrity and the principle of
sovereign equality of all States. Moreover, it should
safeguard the principle of freedom of international waterways.

162. On this question a draft resolution /S/10931/Rev. 1}
was submitted by eight members of the Council: Guinea,
India, Indonesia, Kenya, Panama, Peru, the Sudan and
Yugoslavia. By this draft the Security Council, after taking
note that the Governments of Panama and the United
States of America had agreed to reach a just and fair
agreement, with a view to the prompt elimination of the
causes of conflict between them, would ask the two
Governments to continue negotiations in a high spirit of
friendship, mutual respect and co-operation and to conclude without delay a new treaty aimed at the prompt
elimination of the causes of conflict between them. By the
same draft resolution the Council would decide to keep the
question under consideration. This draft resolution was not
adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member
of the Council.

163. One final theme I should like to mention that has
been frequently alluded to is that of the value which
attaches to the holding of meetings of the Security Council
from time to time away from the Headquarters of the
United Nations, in accordance with the provisions of
Article 28, paragraph 3, of the Charter. The presence of the
Council in any area, and in particular in the developing
regions of the world which look to the United Nations for
the protection of their security and the promotion of their
development, tends to give the peoples in the area a greater
assurance of the Organization’s interest in their problems.
On the other hand such meetings put the members of the
Council in direct contact with the relevant issues. A point
which was repeatedly stressed is that the development of
the practice of meeting away from New York is of
importance in enhancing the effectiveness of the Council in
discharging its primary responsibility for the maintenance
of international peace and security. Some members felt that
it was too early to come to any firm conclusion. Others
maintained that meetings away from Headquarters also
meant that the Council could obtain a better grasp of the
concerns and issues vital to a region before a crisis arose and
thus were in line with the concept of preventive diplomacy.
Thus the Council might be able to use its influence to
defuse conflict situations and facilitate the adoption of
measures on a bilateral or regional level to provide peaceful
solutions to situations which might otherwise endanger
international peace and security. Nearly all speakers shared
the view that the current series of meetings in Panama was
being held in recognition of the great contribution made
over the years by the countries of Latin America to the
formulation and fulfilment of the aims of the United
Nations, The hope was expressed by some speakers that
following upon its series of meetings in Africa and now in
Latin America the Council would in the future be able to
bring its dynamic presence to other regions as well, with a
view to enhancing the Council's capacity to assess the
preoccupations and the aspirations of all peoples in the
world.

164. 1 believe that in this manner I have covered the views
expressed during the historic Panama meetings.

165. 1 call on the representative of the Soviet Union on a
point of order.

166. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(translation from Russian): With all due respect for the
representative of Panama I should like to make one
observation. In his summary of the main points of the

17

discussions there was the following sentence: “The supet-Powers had no right to impose their will on others” [see
para. 157 above].

167. First of all, that wording was used by only one
delegation in the course of the discussion. Secondly, that is
its favourite term. If such a sentence appears, will not
Israel, for example, consider that the situation does not
apply to if, that Israel has not used force against the victims
of its aggression, against the Arab countries, that it has not
imposed its will on them?

168. Why just the “super-Powers”? Firstly, who claims to
be a super-Power? Pasting on a label does not necessarily
mean that the label is correct. That is the interpretation of
one country. But supposing that this term is accepted as a
formula having an international meaning, why should only
the “super-Powers” be prohibited from imposing their will,
from using force and coercion? Should great Powers,
strong Powers, medium-size Powers which have strength be
allowed to impose their will on those weaker than
themselves?

169. In international relations no one, no Power, is
permitted to impose its will by force and coercion on other
States. That is why the Soviet Union took the initiative and
introduced in the General Assembly at its twenty-seventh
session a proposal that force should not be used in
international relations at all, that no State should impose its
will on another and that the use of nuclear weapons should
be permanently prohibited.

170. That is our position of principle. No one, no State,
had the right to use force against another. We find it
regrettable that those who juggle with the meaning of the
term “super-Powers” voted against that proposal. That is
the tragedy of the situation. I am not proposing that
anything should be deleted—leave it in, because it is what
one speaker said—but I should like the record to show what
I have stated, namely, that no one, no State, may be
permitted in our time to use force against other States. I
particularly wish to emphasize this.

171. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): We
have taken note of the statement just made by the
representative of the Soviet Union, which will appear in the
verbatim record of this meeting.

172. call on the representative of China in exercise of the
right of reply.

173. Mr. HUANG Hua (China) (translation from Chinese):
In our present world, there are two super-Powers and not
only one. This is an undeniable fact. Mr. Malik indicated
that there were three super-Powers. I would ask him to
point out who? Who has stationed so many troops and
established so many military bases on foreign soil? China
has not a single soldier and not a single military base on the
soil of foreign countries. On this question there are
innumerable facts showing that there are in fact two
super-Powers, and not only one, in the present world.
Sometimes we encounter one super-Power, and sometimes
two. That is why we refer to “the one or two super
Powers” in our statements. This is in complete accord with
the actual state of affairs.
174. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): 1
call on the representative of the Soviet Union in exercise of
the right of reply.

175. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(translation from Russian): The Soviet delegation has the
greatest respect for the countries of Latin America and
their interest in having a serious and business-like discussion
in the Security Council of problems which are causing them
concern.

176. We have the same great respect for the country in
which we are today, the Republic of Panama, and for its
concern over the problems which it has raised before the
Council. For that reason we have not wanted to divert
attention to other problems either during the course of the
discussion or now.

177. The question raised by the preceding speaker has
nothing whatever to do with the problems we are discussing
here.

178. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): The
next name on the list of speakers is that of the Foreign
Minister of Panama, Mr. Juan Antonio Tack, who will
address the Security Council on behalf of the National
Government.

Mr. Tack (Panama) took the Chair.

179. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): The
National Government has honoured me by entrusting me
with the privilege of addressing this final meeting of the
Security Council’s series of meetings in Latin America, in
Panama City.

180. When Latin America requested that meetings of this
high organ should be held in Latin America, it showed great
political maturity. We knew in advance that it would be
extremely difficult thoroughly to examine all questions, at
least those that relate to situations of conflict with certain
countries that have a greater military, economic and
political potential. What was most important, therefore,
was most respectfully to draw your attention, the attention
of the countries which you so worthily represent and also
the attention of world public opinion to a number of
problems of the region which create an underlying state of
danger to the peace of the world.

181. latin America stood united in supporting our aspirations. We are proud that we belong to a continent that is
learning to speak with its own voice, and does so in clear
and unequivocal terms. We cannot forget such expressions
of solidarity as those that have been included in the records
of the Council and those that are now engraved in our
national history.

182. When assessing some of the final results, we in no
way feel a sense of frustration. We are following a
preventive policy instead of one of appeasement, Knowing
the causes of the existing conflicts, world public opinion
will in due course insist upon solutions. For the man of the
world today, in this twentieth century, over and above all
seeks to live in peace—peace that will come with full
development and with the scrupulous observance of the

18

principles of international law that must regulate relations
among nations. But until such goals are reached, it is
obvious that there is a growing repudiation on the part of
the world community of the use of force or economic
pressures, or coercion in other forms, exerted by the most
powerful nation to subject the weaker.

183. Distinguished representatives, for six days we have
been honoured with your presence. Panama has shown
enthusiasm at the fulfilment of the ideal of Bolivar~that
this city should become the capital of the world. At least it
did so for six days. We believe that when you recall the
moments we have spent together, you will help us to
destroy the evil myth created by selfish interests, that here
in Panama, our little republic, there is nothing but a canal,
surrounded by jungle where, threatening the white popula
tion that operates the Canal, live some semi-savage natives
in a state of pre-Columbian civilization. You have seen the
reality to be entirely different. The Panamanian people, our
beloved Panamanian people, have earned the tribute of
profound and specific respect from us. Qur people have
shown civic responsibility and have responded, too, to the
exhortations of their Government and leader to preserve
calm minds and serene behaviour. Our people showed that,
even having reached the limits of our patience, we still do
not commit acts of desperation. We have only gone one
stage further in the lengthy struggle that we Panamanians
have been waging since 1903, and that will culminate when
we finally receive the full satisfaction of our legitimate
aspirations: to perfect the process of our independence
through the exercise of jurisdiction of the whole of
Panamanian soil and the full exercise of sovereignty over
our natural resources.

184. The head of Government of my country, General
Omar Torrijos Herrera, very clearly defined the position
and the outlines of our foreign policy in the opening
statement he made to this Council. Very briefly, may I
recall that definition. General Torrijos stated:

“Panama understands full well the struggle of peoples
that are suffering the humiliation of colonialism, of other
peoples that, like us, are suffering restrictions and
subjection, of the peoples that refuse to accept the rule of
the strong over the weak as a way of life, of those
countries that are ready to make whatever sacrifice is
necessary in order not to be subjected to the more
powerful, of those men that do not allow political power
to be exercised by a foreign Government over the
territory of their birth, of those generations that are
struggle and will continue to struggle to root out from
their country the presence of foreign troops placed there
without the consent of the occupied nation, of those
indigenous inhabitants that do not accept being looked at
as inferior specimens or animals, of those who struggle to
exploit their own resources for their own benefit and not
to underwrite the economy of an overpowering country,
of those countries that refuse to be exporters of cheap
labour, of those masses of people that pay with their
blood to do away with the want, injustice and inequality
to which powerful forces, national or foreign, have
subjected them because oligarchy knows of no nation.
ality. In a word, colonialism is the prison cell of the free
man.” [1695th meeting, para. 6.]
General Torrijos went on to say:

“The awakening of Latin America must not be
hampered; it must be assisted in order to encourage
peace. A new awareness is gaining ground among Latin
Americans, and there can be peace only if this awareness
is allowed to follow its own channels. Anyone who stands
in its way is thus creating the hostility that leads to
upheavals. If we are not allowed to carry out peaceful
changes, we are then forcing our peoples to favour violent
changes.” [Ibid., para. 12.]

185. It is clear that this series of meetings in Panama was
short and temporary, but the existence of the United
Nations is permanent, as is the existence of this worthy
Security Council. We trust that distance will not dilute the
interest and the good will that we have witnessed, We
would merely offer a timely reminder that any of the
problems of the region that have been expounded here are
potentially capable of shortening this apparent calm, which
the political prophets of the countries interested in the
status quo would like to proclaim everlasting,

186. I wish to pay a heartfelt tribute of friendship to the
Secretary-General, Mr. Kurt Waldheim. I wish, most
sincerely, to thank the secretariat staff for the immense and
splendid work they have done.

187. My people and my Government are profoundly
proud of this great moral victory that we have obtained, We
are living the hour of national dignity. We shall continue
the struggle to achieve our national liberation with the
support of the entire world.

188, We wish most warmly to thank the worthy Governments of Peru, Guinea, India, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Kenya,
the Sudan, Austria, Australia, France, the Soviet Union and
China, which with us raised the 13 hands for world dignity
around this table.

189. My Government wishes to announce that in due
course we shall place the question of the Canal Zone on the
agenda of the Security Council. In due course as well we
shall place the question on the agenda of the General
Assembly. The United States vetoed the draft resolution
that supported the Panamanian cause but the whole world
vetoed the United States.

Statement of consensus expressing gratitude
to the host country

190, Mrs, Jeanne Martin CISSE (Guinea) (interpretation
from French): 1 think the time has come to make a
statement on behalf of the members of the Council, who
would like to express their gratitude to the country that
was kind enough to welcome the Security Council to its
territory for a series of meetings of the utmost importance.
The members of the Council have consulted together as to
the form their expression of gratitude should take and in
accordance with the practice followed last year when the
Council met in Addis Ababa, they have agreed on a
statement of consensus which will appear in the verbatim
record of this meeting of the Council and will also be

19

circulated separately as a document of the Council
[5110934].

191. Mr. President, I would add that, having consulted
with the other members of the Council, I can express to
you on behalf of us all our thanks and our gratitude for the
services you have rendered the Council as president of most
of the meetings which have been held in your beautiful
capital. We shall soon be leaving here but we shall all carry
away the best memory of the warm welcome you have
extended fo us.

192. The consensus I have just mentioned reads as
follows:

“On 26 January 1973, the Security Council adopted
resolution 325(1973) in which it decided to hold
meetings in Panama City from 15 to 21 March 1973
devoted to the consideration of measures for the maintenance and strengthening of international peace and security in Latin America in conformity with the provisions
and principles of the Charter.

“In accordance with that resolution, the Security
Council held its 1695th to 1704th meetings in Panama
City. During the course of these meetings, the members
of the Security Council have listened with great interest
to addresses by His Excellency General Omar Tortrijos,
head of the Government of Panama, by representatives of
Member States of the United Nations invited to participate in the Council's discussions pursuant to Article 31 of
the Charter, and by several spokesmen for other United
Nations bodies and intergovernmental organizations to
whom invitations were extended in accordance with rule
39 of the provisional rules of procedure.

“Before concluding their meetings in Panama City, the
members of the Security Council wish to convey to His
Excellency the President of the Republic of Panama and
to the head and other members of the Government of
Panama their deep gratitude for the invitation issued to
the Security Council and for the generous hospitality and
unfailing courtesy and helpfulness extended to them at all
times during their visit to Panama. They further wish to
assure the Government and the people of Panama and in
particular the authorities and population of Panama City,
that the delegations of the members of the Council who
came from New York and all those who accompanied
them carry away with them an abiding memory of the
warm welcome extended to them.

“In addition, the members of the Security Council
express to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
their sincere appreciation for the outstanding contribution made by him and his staff to ensure a smooth and
efficient functioning of the services required for the
meetings of the Council.”

193. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): 1
declare closed the first series of meetings of the Security
Council in Latin America.

The meeting rose at 10.50 p.m.
soil] a lysine J pan) 24S
Gar Jol A La pe Gee lad + JU Ai} pn wos ass OLR. SUP FREI 0 IEA FYCS I IN POS [5 v8)
. iin po dopa Pope) de FIRE IA IPR OE I
anf WX & Ei th
AEA 2 t BE EY BERS EEHR RY, WE $305 005 R BEF RE REE [Eel

HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS

United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors
throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales
Section, New York or Geneva.

COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES

Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences
dépositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous auprés de votre libraire ou adressez-vous
a : Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou Geneve.

KAK MTOJIYYHTH HBAAHHA OPTAHH 3AIUHH OB BLEAHHEHHBIX HAHA

Manaunusa OpraHnsanun OfbenudeHHbIXx Hanufi MOXKHO KYINHTL B KHIDKHBIX MATa-3HHAX HM APeHTCTBAX Bo BeeX pajfoHax mupa. HasonuTe cHpaBKkH 06 M3aHHAX B
BalleM KHHMXKHOM MATaswHe HOM MHINKTE No aapecy: Oprasusdanun O6beAHHEeHHbLIX
Haunt, Cexuns no npojaxe nagauut, Hero-¥opk nau Xenena,

COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS

Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estan en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partes del mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones
Unidas, Seccién de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra.

Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 2.00 (or equivalent in other currencies) 73-82101~April 1976-192}

Voting Summary
Yes: 012 | No: | Abstentions: 003 | Non-Voting: | Total voting membership:
Y AUSTRALIA
Y AUSTRIA
Y CHINA
A FRANCE
Y GUINEA
Y INDIA
Y INDONESIA
Y KENYA
Y PANAMA
Y PERU
Y SUDAN
Y USSR
A UNITED KINGDOM
A UNITED STATES
Y YUGOSLAVIA