Pu II 269 - she questioned how the Soviet Union reconciled the 26. LETTER DATED 12 SEPTEMBER 1983 FROM THE principle of absolute Soviet sovereignty with the REPRESENTATIVE OF NICARAGUA ON THE SECU- doctrine of limited sovereignt propounded in a 1968 RITY COUNCIL ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF Pravda article, in which t B e Soviet Union had THE SECURITY COUNCIL claimed the ri t to invade any Soviet-bloc country that threatenePto deviate from loyalty to Moscow, as INITIAL PROCEEDINGS well as the right to intervene in the affairs of States By letter’ dated I2 September 1983, the represen- that were not a part of the Soviet bloc. tative of Nicaragua requested the President of the She stated that, ultimately, the question before the Security Council to convene an urgent meeting of the Council was whether a country not at war had the Council to consider what he termed as the situation right to shoot down planes that entered its airspace brought about by a new escalation of acts of aggres- wrthout authonzatron; her delegation did not believe sion against his country. that the protection of its soveret nty gave a State the At its 2477th meeting, on I3 September 1983, the right to shoot down any plane Bying anywhere over Council included the question in its agenda. The its territory in peacetime.” Council considered the item at the same meeting. The representative of Zimbabwe stated that his At that meeting, the representative of Nicaragua dele ation had abstained in the vote on the draft charged that his country was once again forced to reso P ution because it was not satisfied that all the alert the Council to the alarming escalation of the circumstances surrounding the incident had been aggression a ainst Nicaragua during the past few made known and fully explained, nor that irrelevant weeks reveaf ing that Untted States assistance to factors had not been brought to bear upon the Somozist and mercena groups was increasin . He Council’s consideration of the matter.” said that the latest attac7 s against his country c Pearly demonstrated that those groups were being supplied The representative of Japan, claiming that the with an increasing amount of sophisticated equip evidence his country had provided through the ment. He charged that the United States controlled United States delegation on 6 September proved all the counter-revolutionary activities against Nica- conclusively that the Soviet Union had shot down an ragua and had been able to establish co-ordination innocent civilian air liner, stated that the Soviet veto between the Nicaraguan Democratic Front (FDN) of the revised draft resolution was an abuse of the based in Honduras and the counter-revoluttonaty veto and that his country would not relent in its and mercenary forces operating along the southern efforts to uncover the facts and force the Soviet border. He accused the United States of attempting Union to accept its responsibility.” not only to destroy the Nicaraguan revolution and to The representative of the Republic of Korea stated overthrow its Government but also to terrorize the that the allegations he had made in his first statement Nicaraguan peo le. Referrin to the statements of before the Council had been irrefutably proven senior United i’tates offrcia fs, he stated that war during the ensuing debate and that the Soviet veto of continued to be the centre of the United States policy a revised draft resolution, which called for an toward Nicaragua. He concluded by reiterating Nica- impartial investigation could be interpreted only as ragua’s readiness for dialogue and understanding an admission of guilt. His Government reaflirmed with the United States.2 the demands they had made on that occasion on The President of the Council announced that there behalf of the future safety of all air travellers, were no further s akers and that the Council would whatever their nationality, in order to prevent the use remain seized op”the matter.2 of armed force against international civil aviation.18 N OTES ’ Sll5975, OR, 3&h yr., Suppl. for Jul@epl. 1983. OTES N 1 2477th mtg. t s/15947. OR, 3&h yr.. Suppl. fir July-Sept. 1983. z Y 15948, ibid. ’ s/ 15950, ibid. 27. THE SITUATION IN GRENADA 1 s/ 15949. ibid. ‘Sl15951, ibid. INITIAL PROCEEDINGS 4 For details, see chap. 111 of the present Supplement. Decision of 27 October 1983 (2491st meeting): ’ 2470th mtg. See also chapter III of the present Supplement. rejection of a three-Power draft resolution 1 2470th mtg. B a letter’ dated 25 October 1983, addressed to * United Nations, Treufy Series, vol. 15, No. 102. p. 295. the t:resident of the Council, the Deputy Minister for lo 247 I st mtg. External Relations of Nicaragua requested an urgent meetin of the Council to consider the invasion of It 2472nd mtg. Grena da by United States troops. IJ2473rd mtg. At its 2487th meeting on 25 October 1983, the ~2474th mtg. Council included the item in its agenda. Following Ia SII 5966, OR. 38th yr.. Suppl. /or July-Sepl. 1983. the adoption of the agenda, the Council invited the I’ 2474th mtg. following at their request, to participate, without a vote, in the discussion of the item: at the 2487th I‘ S/l 5966/Rev. 1, OR, 38fh yr.. Suppl. fir July-Sept. 1983. meeting, the representatives of Cuba, Democratic I7 2476th mtg. Yemen, Grenada, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mex- “For the vote, see 2476th mtg. ico and Venezuela: at the 2489th meeting, the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, An- States Administration in that case, such as the tigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, protection of the United States citizens on the island, Dominica, Ethiopia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the desiie to prevent greater chaos and to help to Jamaica, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, restore order, governmental institutions and democ- Mozambique, Nigeria, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, the racy, were merely pretexts. The real purpose was to Syrian Arab Republic and Viet Nam; and, at the subject the people to American control and to form a 249 1 st meeting, the representatives of Benin, Brazil, Government that met the strategic interests of the Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Czechoslo- United States. The United States could have used a vakla, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eg pt., the number of legal instruments, treaties and conven- German Democratic Republic, Guatemala, & umea- tions. Bissau, Hungary, India, Mongolia, Peru, Saint Vin- By intervening militarily in Grenada, the United cent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, States had violated the Treaty of Non-A ression and Singapore, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, the Conciliation of Rio de Janeiro of IO %t tober 1933 Umted Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia and Zam- and the Convention for the Maintenance, Preserva- bia.2 At the 2491st meeting, the Council also agreed tion and Restoration of Peace of 23 December 1936. to a request made by the representative of Jordan3 to Furthermore, the United States had violated several extend an invitation to Mr. Clovis Maksoud under provisions of the charter of OAS, namely articles 18, rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure of the 20 and 21 as well as Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Council. The Council considered the question at the Charter oi the United Nations. The United States 2487th, 2489th and 2491st meetings, from 25 to 27 Administration had violated not only international October 1983. law but also the American Constitution. The speaker The representative of Mexico opened the discus- concluded by reading out the communiquC issued by sion by statine that it would have been desirable to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, in hold the meetmg before the events in Grenada. The which it condemned the invasion and called for the Council was not in a position to act as early as would immediate withdrawal of the American troops.’ have been desirable, as it was facing fuits accomplis. A military force of the United States, supported by The representative of the United States suggested Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, that it would have been more appropriate to start the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Samt Lucia, debate in the Council the next day in order to allow had landed on Grenada and had begun hostilities the current Head of State, President of OECS, to be against its inhabitants for reasons which were unac- present while the Council considered the issue.4 ceptable. It was a clear violation of international law, The representative of Guyana declared that his a flagrant act of aggression against the territorial country was willing to participate in the mobilization integrit of Grenada and obvious interference in its of forces of the Caribbean community (CARICOM) interna r affairs. to defend the integrity of any CARICOM State He unreservedly condemned the military interven- against an external a essor and no less willing to tion, which was totally un’ustified. He said that the participate in any CA!rICOM peace-keeping force in events were unquestionab iy a violation of the basic certain circumstances and under agreed terms of principles of the Charter, in particular Article 2, reference. With re rd to Grenada, Guyana contin- paragraph 4, as well as article I8 of the charter of the ued to be oppose8 to participation in any military Organization of American States (OAS). No conven- invasion of the island since such action constituted tion, agreement or subregional understanding could interference in the internal affairs of that State. run counter to those rules. The Act of the Or niza- Guyana favoured instead the dispatch of a fact- tion of the Eastern Caribbean States (OK s ) pro- finding mission, composed of CARICOM nationals vided for collective defence measures only against and based upon certain clearly defined principles.