INTERNATIONAL COUKT OF JUSTICE
PLEADINGSORALARGUMENTS.DOCUMENTS
CASE CONCERNING MlLITARY AND
PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES IN AND
AGAINST NICARAGUA
'
l (NICARAGUAv.UNITED STATESOF AMERICA)
1
VOLUME 1
COUR INTERNATIODELJUSTlCE
MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRETDOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DES ACTIVITÉSMILITAIRES
ETPARAMILITAIRESAU NICARAGUA
ET CONTRE CELUI-CI
(NICARAGUA cÉTATS-UNIS D'AMERJQUE)
VOLUME 1 ORALARGUMENTSON THE REQUEST
FORTHE INDICATION
OF PROVISIONALMEASURES
MlNUTES OF THEPUBLIC SlTTINGS
iieut~hePeacePalace.The Hurur?,on22und27 and10May 1984.
PresideElruspresiding
PLAIDOIRIESRELATIVESÀ LA DEMANDE
ENINDICATION
DEMESURES CONSERVATOIRES
PROCÈS-VERBAUX DES AUDIENCES PUBLIQUES
tenueauPidande!lPl~ix,IAHuyc,le25et 2avrierk10mui 1984,
sousEaprésidednee.Elias,Prbident FIRSTPUBLIC SITTING (25 IV 84,10 am.)
H.E. Mr. Carlos Argüello Gbmez, Ambassador, as Agent and Counscl;
Mr. lan Brownlie, Q.C., F.R.A., Chichelc Professor of Public International
Law in the University of Oxford; Fellow of AllSouls Collcge, Oxford,
Hon. Abram Chayes, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law
School; Fellow, Amcrican Academy of Arts and Sciences, as Lomsel and
Advt)catcs;
Mr. Augusto Zamora Rodriguez,
Mr. Paul S. Reichler,
MissJudith C. Appdbaum,
Mr. Paul W. Kahn, as Counsel.
For lhe Gr)irernmrnotfthe UnitedStates ofAmerica
Hon. Davis R. Robinson, Legal Adviser, United States Department of State,
as Agent unilColinscl;
Ms. Daniel W. McGovern, Principal Dcputy Legal Adviser, United States
Department of State, us /Deputy-dgen~and Counsel;
Mr. Michael G. Kcizak, Deputy Legal Adviscr, United States Department of
State, as Special Counsel;
Mr Robert E. Dalton, Assistant Legal Adviscr, United States Department
or State,
Mr. K. Scott Gudgeon, Assisiant Legal Adviser, Unitcd States Departmeni
of State,
Mr. Fred L. Morrison, J.D., Ph.D.' Member of the Bar of the United States
Supreme Court and oc the State of Minnesota ;Professor of Law, University of
Minncsata; formcrly Counselor on International Law, Ofice of the Legal
Adviscr, United States Department of State,
Mr. Patriçk M. Norton, Assistant Legal Adviser, United Statcs Department
of State,
Mr. Stefan A. Riesenfeld, Member of the Bar of Minnesota; Proressor of
Law, University of Çalifornia, School of Law, Berkeley, Çalifornia, and the
Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, California; S.J.D. (Harvard),
J.U.D. (Breslau), Dott. in Giur. (Milan), Dr. h.c. (Colugnc); and forrnerZy
Counselor on international Law, OfIice of the Legal Adviser, Unitcd States
Department of State,
Mr. David H. Small, Assistant Legal Adviscr, United States Department of
State, as Counsei; Mr. Steven E. Asher, Attorney-Adviser, Office ofthe Legal Adviser, United
States Department of State,
Mr. MzchaelJ. Danahcr, Attorney-Adviscr,Officcof thc Lcgal Adviser, United
Statcs Dcpartmcnt of Statc,
Mr. Dennis 1.Foreman, Attorney-Adviser, Ofice ofthe Legal Adviser,United
States Department of State,
Mrs. Elizabeth Keefer, Attorney-Adviser, Otficeof the Legal Adviser, United
States Department of State,
Mr. GeoffreyM. Levitt, Attorney-Adviser,Officeof the Legal Adviser,United
States Department or State,
Mr. Peler M. Olson, Attorney-Adviser, Ofice:of the Legal Adviser, United
States Department of State.
Mr. Jonathan B. Schwartz, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser,
United States Department of State,
Mr. George Taft, Attorney-Adviser, Officeof the Cegal Adviser, United States
Departm~nt of Statc,
Mr. Kenneth J. Vandevelde,Attorney-Adviser, Ollice of the Cegal Adviser,
United States Department of State. ur Arttlrney-Advisers. OPENING OF THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS
The PRESIDENT: The Court meets today to consider the request for the
indication of provisional measures, under Article 41 of the Statute of the Court
and Articles 73 and 74 of the Rules of Court. made bv the Government of the
Republic of Nicaragua, in the case concerning ~ilitur~ und PururnilifaryAcfivi-
tics in unduzrrinstNicaruzuubrought by the Republic of Nicaragua against the
United States of ~merica. -. . .
The case was brought before the Court by an Application' filedin the Registry
of the Court on 9 April 1984. In that Application, the Republic of Nicaragua
claims to found the jurisdiction of the Court on the declarations made by the
Republic of Nicaragua and by the United States of America accepting the
jurisdiction of the Court as provided for in Article 36,paragraph 2, of the Statute
of the Court. The Republic of Nicaragua then allegesa series of events over the
~eriod from March 1981 to the Dresent date in Nicaraeua. in the neiehbourine
ierritory of Honduras, and in the seas OITthe coasts if Nicaragua, which the
Government of Nicaragua sums up by claiming that the United States of Amenca
"is using militas. force against Nicaragua and intervening in Nicaragua's
interna1 arairs, in violation of Nicaragua's sovereignty,territorial integrity
and political independence, and of the most fundamental and universally-
accepted principles of international law".
On the basis of these allegations, set out more fully in the Application and in a
chronological account5f what are claimed to be United States of America's
covert activities in and against Nicaragua, annexed to the Application, the
Republic of Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the United
States has violated and is violating a number of Charter and treaty obligations
to Nicaragua; that it has violated and is violating the sovereignty ofNicaragua;
that it has used and is usine force and the threat of force aeainst Nicaranua:
lhat IIhiis ~ntericned 2nd ir iniervening in ihc inicrnal all'alrr<;l'~iiara~ua;ïhst
it has nir ring cand 13 inliinging ihç irscdiim of ihe Iiigh $cas: ihxr in hrcach of
obliaÿiions undcr iniernliii<~nlillaw. IIhlis killrd. s.ounded ;ind kiJnau~cd. and
is khg, wounding and kidnapping, citizens of Nicaragua; that it i's'under a
particular duty to cease and desist from such activities, and that it has an
obligation to pay to the Republic of Nicaragua reparations for damages caused.
On 9 Aoril 1984.the dav on which the Aool.c.tion itselfwas filed.the Re~ublic
of Nicaragua submitted the present request for the indication of provisional
measures3. 1 now ask the Registrar to read from that request the statement of
the measures which Nicaragua asks the Court to indicate.
The REGISTRAR :
"Nicaragua respectfully requests that the Court indicate the following
provisional measures to be in eKectwhile the Court is seised of th' IScase:
= PD.11-21,ssupro.
' Pp. 25-29,supra.36 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
- That the United States should immediatelv cease and desist from
providing, directly or indirectly, any suppor- including training, arms,
ammunition, supplies, assistance, finances, direction or any other form
of support -- to~anynation, group, organization, movement or indivi-
dual engaged or planning to engage in military or paramilitdry activities
in or against Nicaragua;
That the United States should immediately cease and desist from any
militarv or ~aramilitarv activitv bv ils own officiaisaaents or forces in
or against Nicaragua and frok any olher use or thrëat of force in ils
relations witli Nicaragua."
The PRESIDENT: The Government of the United States was informed
forthwith by telex of the filing of the Application and of the suhmission of a
request for provisional measures, and the suhmissions in the Application and
the ~recisemeasures resuested were set out in full inthe telex message. A co~y
of the Application and ihe request was sent to the United States of America by
express airmail on th<:same day.
By a letter dated 15April 1984, received inthe Registry of the Court the same
dav. the Amhassador of the United States of America in The Haeue informed
thécourt of the appointment by the United States of America of an Agent and
Deputy-Agent' gave certain explanations of the position of the United States
with regard to the proceedings instituted by Nicaragua, and requested the Court
"to strike Nicaragua's Application from the Court's list of pending mattcrs".
The letter continued :
"Alternativelv. the United States considers the çircumstances and the
e\tr;xord~li~r)<h.ir.icizof ihc nic;t.t.rzs rr.quc~tr.dhv hi:.ir.igua rtqur211
opporiunii) Ibr .vriii:li s~bn~issioiisb) ihc f'sriit\. anil. thcrr.if;inor;il
hc~rlngun Niiiiagua'~ requesi Iorihr. indiralion<ifpro\i\i,~nal nie;i>urr",
Following a meeting. held pursuant to Article 31 of the Rules of Court on
16April 1984,hetwean the President of the Court and the Agents of the Parties,
the Court decided in accordance with Article 74, paragraph 3, of the Rules of
Court, to hold the prssent public sitting to hear the observations of both Parties
on the request for thi: indication of provisional measures.
At the meeting bctween myself and the Agents of the two Parties held on
16 April 1984, 1 called upon both Parties, in cxercise of the power conferred
upon me by Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, to act in such a wdy
as will enahlc any order the Court may make on the present request for
provisional meastires to have its appropriate efiects, and that appeal was also
conveyed to the Agents of the Parties in writing by a letter from the Registrar
of the Court dated I<iApril 1984.
TheCourt does no1include upon the Benchajudge of Nicaraguan nationality :
however the Agent of Nicaragua by a letter dated 17 April 1984, informed the
Court that his Government intended to abstain from exercising ils right to
choose a judge ad ho,: pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the
Court, in respect of rhe proceedings relating to interim measures of protection,
while reserving its right to choose a judge ad Iiocin respect to other proceedings
in the present case.
By a letter dated 23 April 1984and filed in the Registry that day, the Agent
of the United States hrought to the notice of the Court information whiçh, in
the view of the Unitcd States, establishes that Nicaragua has not accepted the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36of ils Statute, as claimed
in the Application. Accordingly the United States has suhmitted that an imme- OPENING OF THE ORAL PROCEEDINCS 37
diate decision should he taken to preclude any further proceedings on the
Ap~-ication and the claims contained therein or on the request for ~rovisional
measures.
The Court has taken note of the request made by the United States of America,
in ils letters of 13and 23 April 1984,that the Court at once remove the present
case from the list, as also of the contents of a letter addressed to the Court by
Nicaragua on 24 April 1984, in reaction 10 the second of these. However, the
Court, after consideration, has decided ihat it has no sufficient basis for now
acceding to that request.
On receipt of a request for the indication of provisional measures the Court,
under Article 41 of ils Statute, has the power to indicate, if it considers that
circumstances so require, any provisional measures which ought to be taken to
oreserve the resoective riehts of either Partv. Furihermore. the Court. ,.~suant
to Article 74, paragraph 3, of its Rules, is to receive and take into account any
observationsthat may be presented toit before the closureof the oral proceedings.
The present hcaring has been convened to hear argument on a request for the
indication of provisional measures, and the Court wishes the Parties to address
themselves essentially to the question of such measures. Both will of course be
at liberty to address al1 matters connectcd with that subject, including the
question of competence to the extent requisite 10convey their views on whether
the Court possesses prima faciejurisdiction.
1 note the presence in Court of the Agent and other representatives of the
Repuhlic of Nicaragua and of the United States of America. The Agent of the
Republic of Nicaragua, which is the Applicant and the State requesting pro-
visional measures, will be heard first.
1therefore cal1upon Mr. Carlos Argüello Chez, Agent for Nicaragua. SMTEMENT BYMR. ARGÜELLOGOME%
AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTOF NICARAGUA
Mr. ARGÜELLo GOMEZ: Mr. President and Members of the Court. On
the night of 10 October 1983 the principal port of Nicaragua was attacked hy
%a and bv air. Five oil storaee tanks were destroved. containine several million
gallons ofgasoline and dieseïfuel that representéda'substantiaÏ amount of the
fuel reserves of Nicaragua. A hundred and twelve port dwellers, including
children and elder.. .eonle. were iniured. The whole Dort town of around 20.000
pcoplc h.id Io bc c\;icuatcJ. ahile thr tlamcs ragcd for sor'r;il Ja)s 1-ireiighter.
wiih rudimcntiiry cqiiipnicnt drencheil other tank01l'uclwith \vater for d:iys.
ICIavi~id- fortunliirlv nith succe-r an cx~losion that would have demc~liihcd
the port.
A few days after this savage act, that seriously endangered the lives of
thousands of peopli:, the President of the United States was asked, in a press
answered : "1 do believe in the right of a country, whitbelievesthat its inter-
ests are best served, to practice covert activity."
This astoundingstatement asserts, in the crudest form, the doctrine that might
makes r-eht. Nicara-ua is now before this h-ehest of tribunals. defcnd-ne the
opposite principle. l'iicaragua contends that not only morally, but also legally,
the opposite principle rules the world: the pr.~~iple propounded by religion and
by law that right m;ikes might.
In the course of our exposition the Court will be presented with irrefutahle
evidence that the Government of the United States is violating international law
in invading, among others, the right of Nicaraguan citizens to life, liberty and
securitv. and the rieht of sove-,ientv itself for Nucaraeua.
'l'heCourt has hecn prercntrd with public duiunicnts consisting. limong others,
uf rtatcnients OCPrcsident I<cagan and senior <illici:!lsof h!s ;idni;nistraiii>n
admittin- and acknowledei- -that the United States had snonsorcd so-called
"coicri .icti\~itiej";!$ainsi Niairligu~. United State, coi~&ressionalrepdr'-.
hate, and other >tat~:mcntrhg nicnibcrs of Congrci, de.crihinp the C'nitcdStates-
authorizine and aoorooriatine millions of dollars in funds for the United States-
sponsored covert activities against Nicaragua; these documents will bear witness
to the flagrant viol;itions of international law perpetrated by the United States
Government. In these documents. the President of the United States unblushinelv
recognizes that his Government is presently engaged in the use of force again$
Nicaragua.
These docurncnts dernonstrate that President Reagan personally authorized
the mining of Nicaraguan ports. This irresponsible and illegalact endangered the
lives and caused serious physical injuries to many people of diferent nationa-
lities. Under this authorization, several Nicaraguans were killed. Millions of
Nicaraguans are sulfering from lack of essential food and medicine because ships
cannot unload in Nicaraguan ports. Nicaragua's export of ils crops has been
dangerously curtailed. This has been the result of MI. Reagan's actions.
In these documents the Court will find proof of the urgency ofour request for
States for another law authorizing the expenditure of more millions of dollarsd STATWENT BY MR. ARG~~ELLO COI~LEZ 39
for killing Nicaraguans. This request kas already heen approved by the Senate.
Only approval by the House of Representatives is required bcfore these funds
are exoended. Tbis could come about at anv moment.
~mbn~ the exhibits presented are excerpis from the congressional records of
the debate in the United States Senate on the granting of the additional millions
Io the mercenaries fighting against ~icaraguarln the-record of that debate, the
Court will read of an amendment, presented by a Senator, to the law proposed
by the Reagan administration for the continued funding of its attacks against
Nicaragua. This amendment stated:
"that none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be available
directly or indirectly for planning, directing, executing or supporting acts of
terrorism in, over or offshore from the territory of Nicaragua".
The Court will be astounded to hear that the amendment was not accepted.
It was voted down by a majority of the Senators. 1 will quote what Senator
Dodd himself said to his colleagues about the amendment:
"Let us jus1imagine tomorrow how this is going to look if the vote cornes
out against this amendment. We are going to he saying, in effect, that ii is
perfectly al1 right for the United States to subsidize a group of counter-
revolutionaries, and if they blow up buses with innocent civilians aboard,
that is al1r-ght with us.Wecan mine harbours where international shiooine..
:ind iiiiii>cciit~~iili:ins.ire in\ul\e<l and tijno prublcrii It i\periectlv sll
right hi\c .isi:irpits %,*riousthiiigs diid peuplr ivhich hdic n.>niilitiir)
pLrpuse <r.li;it.;~icvrr.r. Prcridcnt, ma! 1;isk fdr order inthe Chainhcr'!"
And, certainly, Mr. President, Members of the Court, our request is for order,
for world order that can only be achieved through respect for international law.
The debates 1 have quoted look place just four days hefore the filing of our
request. The urgency of this case cannot be more clearly established.
In the face of al1this. what kas Nicaragua done? Here are some examnles. On
17 July 1983the presidents of the ~ontÿldora Group had a meeting in Eancim.
They presented a programme for bringing about an end to the serious tensions
in the area. Nicaragua accepted the initiative and responded two days later with
a six-ooint oeace dan that was oubliclv announced in front of hundreds of
thou.rnds oi ~ica~aguanson the tburih ~nnitersar). ol'the re\olution .I.hisplan
incluiled ininicdi:itr.e.xc;uiion oi a non-.iggrr.\\ion p:ict betu.cen '11caragu;iand
Il,?ndura\; ihc imnic~li~tcend of;irnis trsifi~to hclligcreni li~rcesin FI S;il\p,idor:
immediatc end 12 m11itarysuppciri and ure of any territor) t~ I.iuricli:iggre,riun
Iig.iiniiciginernnicnt in ihc ;ire;,Tlic UnitcJ Stsics reiponr: in Vi~.;iragu.<'.:
pcace initiative was Io send warships to the zone including two aircraft carriers
and their sumort crouos. A few davs Iater. ioint militarv manŒuvres of the
United ~tateiand fionduran armies were announced. MO& than 5,000 United
States troops were involvedand the manŒuvreslasted more than six months.
This incredible reaction was seriously questioned at the lime by the Contadora
Group in countries such as France, that made public statements to the effect
that these manŒuvreswere not conducive to peaceful results.
In October 1983 Nicaragua presented to Contadora a document entitled
"Juridical Basis for Guaranteeing the International Peace and Security of the
Central American States". Thisdocument, which we have submitted to the Court
as our Exhibit IX, included a proposed treaty guaranteeing mutual respect, peace
and security between the Rcpublic of Nicaragua and the United States. The
reaction of the United States Government was more attacks against Nicaragua.
Among many others in that month, 1 have described the brutal attempt to40 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
demolish the port of'corinto without consideration of the livesof thousands of
people living in that city. It has now come to light that this attack was carried
out directly by the C:IA.
On 21 February <ifthis ycar, Nicaragua announced ils decision to move up
the date of its elections from 1985to November of this var. A few davs later.
ihe lirsi ships wirc struck hg the iiiincslaid in Nic.ir.iguan poris with the per.;oiial
authoriuti~n of the i'rcsideni i)i ihc Ilnitcd States
It I\in the conicxr uf ihi\ sieaJ\ crcnl:iiion of ihc uqeof force thcil ihe Couri
is now faced with a request for interim measures of protection. It is a matter
clearly stated in the law. It has heen thus interpreted in a constant manner by
the Court.The questionsofjurisdiction need not be resolvedbefore an indication
ofintenm measures is given. Any other interpretation would in effectnullify the
power of the Court to protect the rights of Nicaragua that are the subject of
dispute in this proceeding during the pendency of this case. This is precisely
what the United States is attempting to do in its lctter of 13April 1984addressed
to the Registrar of the Court.
In effect,the letter addrcsscs what it refers to as "jurisdictional questions". In
short, this letter tries to make two points.
First, that the attempted withdrawal of the acceptÿnce of the jurisdiction of
the Court in malters relating to Central America made by the United States
Government on 6 .April of this year is supposcdly valid, and pre-empts the
Court's jurisdiction 10 consider Nicaragua's Application and ils request for
interim measures.
The United StatesGovernment's attempt to escape the scrutiny of international
law as embodied in this Court is totally invalid. In order to justify its unpre-
cedented step to ils own people and to the world community. the United States
compared ils illegal attempt to flee justice with what other countries have
supposedly done in the past. Specifically, the Department of State issued a
statement to the eAèctthat: "Similar action has been taken bv a numher of
countrics in ihc pasi. among ihcm Au.tralia. InJi;i 2nd the ~niicd Kingdom ''
'TheCourt know tt.1~cornparison is falsc. bui for thc hiitiiriial rcc<~rd Iii,ishIO
point out a few diffcrences.
In none of the examples given did the countries have advance notice that a
specific case was atiout 10 be brought against them. The United States stated
puhlicly it had this knowledge, and that this was the reason for its attempted
withdrawal of ils acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court. In the cases of
Australia and the United Kingdom, the other parties involved had not accepted
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. In the present instance, Nicaragua
accepted the jurisdiction of the Court without reservations more than 50 years
ago, and has always considered itself subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of
this Court. It has hçen a party before this high tribunal in the past.
The other country rnentioned, India, made its declaration while a case was
pending and only Io avoid a possible future re-filing of the same case.
Finallv,,none of ihe countrie~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ha~ declared to the world that their ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~
acceptance ofjurisdiction could only he withdrawn with a notice of six months.
In each case, the declaration of those countries expressly reserved the rirht of
-
withdrawal of the declaration immediately upon noiice.
The intention of the United States in adopting a six-month notice provision
was stated in the report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1946in
the following way:
"The provisions for six-rnonth notice of terrnination after the [original]
five-yearperioclhas the eiTectof a renunciation ofany intcntion to withdraw
Ourobligation in the face of a threatened legal proceeding." This is how the Deriodof notice was intemreted bv the United States lee-slature.
and ir ir hou, IIh;is bcen under\rood by other ii>untricr. including Nicaragua.
The sccond p<)intin thc lettcr of thr Ilniied Statcs 01'13 April io this Court
is that Nicaragua's ii1leratii)ns ~com~risebut one Facet of a com~le.~of intcr-
related politicaÏ, social, Lonomic and security matters that confront the Central
American region", and that the indication of the interim measures "could
irreparably prejudice the interests of a number of States and seriously interfere
with the negolialions being conducted pursuant to the Contadora process".
This second statement made by the United States Government is a paraphrase
of the argument used by the Government of Iran in the case concerning United
SraresBiplomoticund ConsulurStaf in Tehran. The lranian statement in that
case said :
"The Government of the lslamic Republic of lran considers that the
Court cannot and should not take coenizance of the case which the
Government of the United States of ~mezca has submitted to it, and in the
rnost signifiant fashion, a case confined to what is called thc question of
the 'hostages of the American Embassy in Tehran'.
For this question only represents a marginal and secondary aspect of an
overall problem, one such that it cannot be studied separately, and which
involves, inter aliu,more than 25 years of continual interference by the
United States in the interna1 alïairs of Iran, the sharneless exploitation of
our country and numerous crimes perpetrated against the lranian people,
contrary to and in conflict with al1international and humanitarian noms.
The Droblem involved in the conflict between lran and the United States
isthus not one of the interpretation and the application of the treaties upon
which the American A~~lication is based, but results from an overall
situation containing much more fundamental and more complex elements.
Consequently, the Court cannot examine the American Application divorced
from its proper context, namely the whole political dossier of the relations
between lran and the United States over the last 25 years." (I.C.J. Reports
1980, pp. 8-9.)
The adequate answer to this efiort of the United States to mix unrelated and
impertinent facts - this clear case of nons~quirur - is to quote the Court's
decision in the lran case preciselyon this point:
"Yet never has the view been put forward before that, because a legal
dispute submitted to the Court is only one aspect of a political dispute, the
Court should decline to resolve for the parties the legal questions at issue
between them. Nor can any basis for such a view of the Court's functions
or jurisdiction be Sound in the Charter or the Statute of the Court; if the
Court were, contrary to its settled jurisprudence, to adopt such a view, it
would impose a far-reaching and unwarranted restriction upon the role of
the Court in the peaceful solution of international disputes." (Ibid.,p. 20.)
This second point has also some mis-statements of facts that it is necessary
to address.
First, the United States is not part of Contadora. It is no1 itself a participant
in the Contadora process or even an observer. Nicaragua's legal claims against
the United States are not comprehended within the Contadora process. The
United States has no standing or other hasis to use Contadora as a pretext for
avoiding legal scrutiny of ils actions against Nicaragua. In fact, on 8 April 1984,
the United States was sharply criticized bythe Foreign Ministers of the Contadora42 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITITS
Group, who indicated in a joint communique that the recent United States
actions against Nicaragua were disruptive of the peace process (Exhibit VIII).
On this second point the United Statesalso states that the indication of interim
measures "could irreparably prejudice the interests of a number of States".
In thefirst lace il is necessarv to oint out that the measures Nicaraeua has
requested, to ihe eiiect that the United States observe its international obli'gations
and stop violating international law, cannot possibly cause prejudice to other
countries.
Another evident observation on this statement relates to the rieht of the
United States to spcak on brhaliof other couniries. Whai right docs ïhc United
Siates have tu aci ai guardian of these ciiunlncs heli~reihis Court'!
The other countries, whose names have no1 been mentioned, are not minors
to have guardiaiis acting for them. ln any case, Article 59 of the Statute of the
Court protects their rights because any decision of the Court will have no binding
force except betweeii the Parties and in respect of this partiçular case. Moreover,
under Articles 62 and 63, any interested parties that feel they may hc affected by
the Court's decision have the right to intervene.
Inorder to give the Court a clear understanding of the urgency of the present
situation, and the compelling need for an indication of the interim measures of
protection requested by my Government, we are presenting an affidavit of
Commandante Luis Carrion, Vice-Minister of the Interior, who is the principal
official responsible for al1 matters affecting the interna1 security of Nicaragua.
His responsibility includes monitoring and maintaining of records of attacks
against Nicaragua tiy military and paramilitary forces.
This is what Conimandante Carrion says of recent happenings in Nicaragua:
"The attack!: against my country have been escalating steadily since the
beginning of 1984, and reached their highest and most destructive level
dunng the moiith of April. More than 8,000 armed mercenaries have been
invading Nicaragua, from across both its northern and southern frontiers,
for the past several weeks.
Fighting is extremely heavy, and casualties are very high. Since April 1,
84 Nicaraguans have been killed, 122 wounded, 199 kidnapped." (Exhibit
1,p. 135,infra.)
1 draw the attention of the Court to a chart in that affidavit showing the
number of Nicaraguans killed, wounded and kidnapped during the first three
and one-half months of 1984.The aliïdavit continues:
"The most intense fighting has tdken place dunng the past ten days, and
is continuing as of this date. During this most recent period alone, more
than 34 Nicaraguans have been killed.. ..
Based on th%information collected, and the activities now taking place,
my Government estimates that, unless the present invasion is halted, heavy
fighting against the attackers in an effort to repel them will continue for
several month!.
My Govcrnrnent estimates that, if this is successfullyaccomplished, it will
be at a cos! of hundreds more Nicaraguans killed, many more wounded,
and physical damage to property and economic infrastructure totalling tens
of millions of iiollars." (Ibnl.,pp. 135-136,infra.)
The urgency of the situation is also reflected in events happening outside of
Nicaraeua.
At the beginninl: of these observations we hrought to the attention of the
Court the statements made by the President of the United States and his present44 MlLlTARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIE?
will lay before you evidence of the activities now taking place in and against
Nicaragua, establishing the complicity of the United States in those activities
and defining its purposes in conducting them. He will then consider the legal
issues, including the standards Io be applied in cases of requests for indication
of interim measures of orotection and the norms of international law and the
pr~~vi>~otoif>the Un~lcdS:iilcm>and Organ~,.i~io~i Ai~~cricanS~.ite>Charter>
rcndcring the United Si.itc, ;ondu:t unl.t\ilùl.
'Iic;ir;i~u~',ic-ond ,\Ji,.ic.ite and Cuunscl is Proicsror Idn I3r<>unlicO . C..
one of tKe world's leadine authorities on international law. Mr. ~rownce is ~ ~
Chichelc Proicssor of Iniernliiion.il Lau ai OxCord llc ilil1 rnlikr.%(meobser-
\.:ilions uii the ~urirdictionxl15,ue\In this cabe In XI Iji~as th;ttIS ,ippropriati at
this stage of théorozeedines.
1 wi& to thank yi~u,M; President and the Court, for your careful attention
to my presentation. Now 1 ask the Court to recognize Professor Chayes. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR CHAYES
COUNSEL FOR THE COVERNMEN OFTNICARAGUA
Professor CHAYES: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Court. May
itplease the Court.
It is a great honour and privilege Io appear before the Court in this case. If
the Court will permit me a personal word - it is 20 years since 1argued in this
Hall for the Government of the United States in the Certain Expenses case. 1
recall that occasion with great pleasure. At that lime Judge Schwebel was my
valued associate on the United States team. My only regret in this matter is that
the interval since mv las1aoo..rance here has heen too lone. 1 tr-st that it will
not be quite so long next time.
MI. President, in mypresentation thismorning 1willaddress the followingpoints.
First. 1 will mesent the facts won which Nicaragua's reauest for interim
measures of pritection are based. i will descrihe the Cxtremel; urgent situation
in Nicaragua today already referred Io by the Agent of Nicaragua, and resulting
from the military and paramilitdry actions carried out in and against Nicaragua
bv and under the direction of the United States. Th~~e facts fullv establish the
urgcn<y ui the situti~,n, ihc compli~iiy .xli,re,p.>nrihility the Uti~icilStïic.,.
;inil ihc purp,irc dnd objc.~.ii\ec~iihc I'n~tcJ Siifiic,in cirrbin,! (iui :ind direLiin$
ihcsc ;tcti\III~,\Ihlih :irein dr',iübilvc ;inil ultini:tir'l\.ovr'rthr.>ii.the Ci~~\crniiicni
-~~ ~-~~~~-~~ ~
Second, 1will discuss the law applicable Io the indication of interim measures
of ~rotection. demonstratiny that Nicaragua's request fully satisfies the criteria
for'interim measures oreviou~lvestablishedand consistentlv~aooliedbv the Court.
1 will also point oit that &e illegal conduct of the bniied ta te against
Nicaragua constitutes flagrant violations of the most fundamental principles of
general and customary international law and of the Charter of the United
Nations and of the Organization of American States. These violations are totally
unjustifiable and cannot be defended on any interpretation of international law.
Before heginning my presentation proper, if the Court please, 1would like to
descrihe in eeneral terms the exhibits we have filed in this case. Exhibits 1and
11are respe~?ivelythe affidavits of Commandante Luis Carrion, Vice-Minister of
the Interior of Nicaragua, and the Reverend Migucl d'Escoto Brockmann, the
Foreign Minister, as to matters within their dires responsibility relating to this
proceeding. The next four exhihits are documents and pdpers grouped not
according to subject-matter, but according to type.
Exhibit III contains relevant statutes of the United States authorizing and
a.. .oriatine - funds for the so-called "covert" activities of the United State~ ~
against Nicaragua.
Exhibit IV contains statements of President Reagan and senior members of
his Administration, acknowledging United States complicity in and responsihility
for the "covert" activities against Nicaragua.
Exhibit V consists of reports of Committees of Congress and statements of
responsible Congressmen on the Roor of Congress, acknowledging and describing
the United States role in the "covert" activities.
Chhlhit VI ~oniihi, i,i:c~)llcirii)~l rieir3pilper~lipp~ngrrel;iiin$?id ihc c\cntr
in ~J~.II,JIL.<t~id 8.c,~nipt~\cd 111ILirgepart <?i rcptnris of siattnieni. hy
scni,,r Ilnitcd St:itc, othii.ilr .~~kn.~\\Ie.igingdiiJdc.irihing the "~~)vcr.i:ti\iiir'\ Exhibit VI1 contains four newspaper accounts of statements by responsible
United States authorities, contradicting the officialUnited States position accusing
Nicaragua of providing military supplies to El Salvador.
Exhibit Vlll is the communiquéof the Foreign Ministers of the Contadora
Croup dated 8 April 1984.
Exhibit IX is a series of draîl treaties proposed by Nicaragua within the
framework of the Contadora process on 17Octoher 1983.
With these preliininary remarks let us turn now to the evidence.
A. The Ur~encyofrhe Currenr Siruarion
First,1 discuss the urgency of thc present situation. Nicaragua's request for
interim protection presents this Court with what is literally a matter of life and
death for hundredz.of Nicaraguan citizens.The object of this request is primarily
humanitanan. Niciiragua seeks this Court's aid in bringing an immediatc hall to
the present campaign of armed attacks and physical destruction, the legality of
which is the subject of this suit.
While the primary object of this rcquest is humanitarian, Nicaragua wishes
also to bring to the Court's attention the severe economic consequences that
Nicaragua is sufïeiing and will continue to sufïer if no relief is obtained from
this Court. Since Szptember 1983the campaign of military and paramilitary acti-
vities against Nic;iragua has purposefully targeted facilities vital to Nicara-
gua's economy. Tlius Nicaragua finds its ports mined just at the critical lime
for the shipping oi'its main exports. It finds its fuel facilities sabotagcd and its
power and transportalion systems under constant attack. Nicaragua is a small
country, without extensive financial reserves. The illegal attacks on its economic
infrastructure are causing an economic crisis that compounds and exacerbates
the . .sical harm that Nicararu-n citizens are sufferinr.
The exirenie urgxsy oi the situation isJemi>n~tr;itcdb) i rcvieu of the cieni,
oi'ihe I;irtfetv\\cc\., during whi~hthe :i%va~lisy land anJ si^ :ipslnst S~carag~a
havc cs~alated he\ond al1 prcvious levels. In Slarch 1984 the larges1ajssuli in
the historv of the three-vear camoa.enuof militarv and oaramilitarv attacks
agsinst SIC:I~J~U:I c<~mmcnced.More than 8.tl00 ;irmcd msrieiiarici ini;iJed
Nicar:iguJn terrii(>r) froni a.r<iss hoih ils northern :ind ouihern Iriiniicri This
in~aiton 1sJcxrihi:d in thc 3lliJavit of Cuinmsndcr Carrion. our Exbibii 1.Thc
lighring htis been e\iremely heavy and casu;iliiei arc running high Comm~ndcr
C,irri;iii rriimsir> th.i4 succe,,ful ctT,irt<> dcicnil Uicsragu.in ierrilsry aiid
nationals against this attack and to repel the mercenary forces will takc scveral
months and will cost "hundreds more Nicaraeuansukilled. manv more wounded
and physical damagc to propcrty and economic infrastructure totalling tens of
millions of dollars". The quotation is also from Commander Carrion's allidavit.
In the current fighting Nicaragua is suffering heavier casualties than ever
before. In the mortth of March 1984alone, that is las1month, 173 Nicaraguan
citizens were killed, 197 were wounded and 164 were kidnapped (Exhibit 1,
Ann. B,chart 1). In the first 19days of April an additional 84 Nicaraguans were
killed, 122wounded and 199kidnapped (ihid, Ann. B). Furthermore, the Court
must understand that these casualties are not occurring primarily in battles
between the Nicaraguan armed forces and the mercenaries that havc invaded ils
territory. Rather, these mercenary forces have chosen to target unarmed civilians, ARGUMliNT OP PROPESSORCHAYPS 47
concentr;iting on villaget. iigricultural flicilitie., hralth fliciliiicr and ,niportant
elemcnts oi ihe economie infrastruiiure of ihe Statc
1will mention only a few of the most.recent attacks, a complete lis1of which
can be Sound in Annex A of the alfidavit of Commander Carrion, to make this
point entirely clear.
To much of the world the most drastic of the military and paramilitdry actions
in recent weeksbas bccn the minine of al1of Nicaraeua's norts. Full resoonsibilitv
for the planning and implementa~n of this activiÏy ha; becn acknowledged b4
the United States. Scnator Barry Goldwater, Chainnan of the Senate Intelligence
Committee of the United States Senate, in a letter to William Casey, Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency, has written that "the CIA had, with written
approval of the President, engaged in such mining, and the approval came in
February". You can see that letter of Senator Goldwater in our Exhibit V al
tah 2. The results of this effort to cul off Nicaraeua from vital international
importi and Io prevent Sic:ih<gw~'joUn critical cxp~)rIsJe~ervemenlion here.
'1he mining heran in I;iie Fcbru;iry 1983 On I Marzh 1984the Duich dredgcr
. .
Ceooonie was severelv damaeed when it struck a mine in the Dort of ~orinio.
Sixdays later, on 7 March, the Panamanian ship Ias Caraibes carrying medicine,
food and industrial materials struck a mine at Corinto. On 20 March the Soviet
tanker Lugansk carrying urgently needed crude oil struck a mine ai Puerto
Sandino. On 28 March the Liberian ship Indercl~aser , ith British captain and
crew, carrying molasses struck a mine al Corinto, and two days Iater in the same
port a Japanese ship, the te rush i^aru carrying bicycles, automobile parts and
construction materials struck yet another minc.
The same speedboats supplicd by the United States and used to lay the mines
operating from the same United States-owned niother ship lyingjus1 heyond the
12-mile territorial limit recognized hy the United States, twice attacked with
machine guns and cannons the Panamanian ship Homin whilc il was in Puerto
Sandino loading sugar for export. These details are contained in a report of the
Central American Historical lnstitute of Georgetown University in Washington,
which has just been presented to the Court as Exhibit X. Sec also the Senate
discussion of these events in Exhibit V, tab 6 at page S3769.
While this unprecedented attack on peaceful international commerce has
focused the attention of the world on the United States efforts to undermine the
Government of Nicaragua, to Nicaraguans the mining of the ports in only a
small part of the recent escalation ofparamilitary and military attackson civilian
and economic targets within Nicaragua.
The following incidents are taken from the affidavit of Commander Carrion :
On 1 April 1984a force of approximately 350 men attackcd the Nicaraguan
villages of Waslala, Manccra and El Guabo. They destroyed the bridges of
Yaoska, El Jicaral and Kusuli, as well as homes, a school, and transportation
and communications equipment. In the course of these attacks 19 Nicaraguans
were killed and 13more were injured.
On 4 April 1984, three days later, the mining towns of Bonanza and Siuna in
North Zelaya were attacked. Simultaneously, the electrical generating station in
El Salto, which supplies power to the mining area and operations, was destroyed.
On 5 April, the following day, a productive faim unit in Las Brisas was des-
tr~,ed. In the course of this ooeration four Nicarae-ans were killed and eieht
more were wou;ded.
On 6 April 1984a civilian hcalih centre, as wellas a number of private homes,
were attacked and destroved in El Guadalune Vallev.
On 8 April 1984 mer&nary forces attacked and.destroyed "La Colonia", a48 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITLES
State tdrm near the town of San Rafael de Yali. Six Nicaraguan civilians died
during this attack.
On 17 April 1984a force of approximately 300 men attacked the Sumubila
settlement in North Zelaya. The attack totally destroyed a cacao seed-planting
project, a health centre and a grain storage warehouse. Four Nicaraguan civilians
were killcd, 15 wcrc wounded and 35 were kidnapped. The whereabouts and
condition of this I;istgroup remain unknown.
In addition to these attacks, there has been a sustained military campaign at
San Juan del Norte, in the south-eastern corner of Nicaragua near the border
with Costa Rica. The assault on San Juan del Norte started on 6 April 1984.On
13 April a 500-man force attacked the town and its port. The attack included
CO-ordination with, and support from, air and naval forces. A successful
Nicaraguan counter-oiTensiveended on 17April, jus1last week, with the retaking
of the town, but 17 Nicaraguans were killed and another 40 were injured. The
latter were taken prisoner by the merccnary forces and remain in captivity as of
this date (Afidavit of Commander Carrion, Exhibit 1.D.136. i.fr.).
Now I havu hccii \pcliking of rzzcni r.\cni,. but Io uridersiaiid fully ihcie laic\i
xiidcks un Sic,ir,ii;.ia thcy musi bc viciicd again.1 ihr. ha~.kgroundufthc thrcc-
,cJr c.iirip,iyn ui'ihc OriiieJ Si.~1,Jcirahiliie arid ovcrihrow [ticGdi~rnmcnt.
i'he oatternof attacks on Nicaraeuan tareets corresoonds exactlv to the course
of décisions in VVashington.TI& patte;n has b&n one of ;ver increasing
escalation, jus1 as the decisions in Washington have been to seek ever broader
purposes, includirig now the destruction-of the economic infrastructure in
Nicaragua. An extcnded account of the sequence of formal decisions is provided
to the Court in the Annex to the Application of Nicaragua. The following
account summarizes the pattern into which those decisions and actions fall.
On 20 January 1981, Ronald Reagan assumed the office of President of the
United States. Just six weeks later, on 9 March 1981, he made a formal
"presidential finding" authorizing the expenditure of S19,000,000 on "covert"
activities in and against Nicaragua(Exhibit VI, tab B,p. 143).Such a presidential
finding is required by law to authorize covert CIA activities. lsolated hit-and-
run atiacks against Nicaraguan civilians and militia, and paramilitary patrols by
small bands of armed paramilitary forces based in Honduras hegan shortly ah
this first finding.
A seriousescalation of these hit-and-run attacks followed asecond prcsidential
finding, issued by President Reagan on 2 Dccembcr 1981 (Exhibit VI, tab B,
p. 152).That finding authorized the expenditure of an additional $19,950,000in
order to establish a 1,500-man paramilitary force to operate out of Honduras.
The explicit purpose of this new authorization was to "build popular support in
Central America and Nicaragua for an opposition front that would be national-
istic. anti-Cuban and anti-Somoza" (Exhibit VI. tab B. o. 123). The accom-
paniing National Security Directive skned by the ~residénimadéclear that the
Central Intelligcncc Agency was to implement this plan through the
"formation and training of action teams to collect intelligence and engage
in paramilitaiy and political operations in Nicaragua and elsewhere; [the
CIA was to]work primarily through non-Americans to achievethe foregoing,
but in some circumstances CIA might (possibly using United States
personnel) talceunilateral paramilitary action" (ihid).
We have just talked about the second presidential finding in December of
1981.In accordanîe with this decision and authorization. the United States then
set about building a Honduras-based mercenary force to engage in actions in
and against Nicaragua. During the monihs of January, February and March of50 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
with a long history <ifinvolvement in CIA "covert" operations. Reference here
is to Exhibit VI, tabB at page 92.
Nicaragua's fuel facilities have beenthe subject of frequent attack since the
September 1983 finding. On 8 September, saboteurs destroyed oil storage and
pipeline facilitiesat Puerto Sandino; on 2 October oil storage facilities al the
town of BenjaminZeledon wereattacked; on 10October, in the most destructive
of these raids, the oil storage facilities al Corinto were destroyed, resulting in
the loss of 1.6 million gallons of fuel and forcing the evacuation of 20,000
residents of the city. This is an attack for which United Staofficiahave now
acknowledged not only their responsibility, but also the direct participation of
United States personnel - see Exhibit VI at tab A, page 21 and al tab B,page
98. On 14 October, the oil pipeline facilities al Puerto Sandino were again
attacked and damaeed. Finallv. in Februarv 1984 the camnaien of minine the
port, ut''I~c;iragu~-- n iiimpiign thal I ha\s ilrc~d) describec- iwr bcgun.
Ilnitcd Siiie\ rrs;>on\ihility for militar) anil paramiliiary a~ii\~ilicsagainsl
Nicaraeuii r.\tcnds noi onlvIO the financial. icchnicnl and loeisiic~lsupriori lbr
these thsands of nien, r~sponsibilityfor the choice of targ;s and direction of
activities, but also to direct action by the United States armed forces. For
example, the UniteJ States Ambassador to the United Nations, Ms Jeane
Kirkpatrick, openly acknowledged in the Security Council that the United States
engages in regular overilights of Nicaragua to obtain intelligenceinformation for
the mercenary am). attacking Nicaragua (United Nations, Srcririry Curincil,
ProvisionalRecrlrd,S/PV 2335.22 March 1982).Furthemore, since25July 1982
the United States anned forces have engaged in a continuous series of land and
naval deployments in the area surrounding Nicaragua. These manŒuvres have
been CO-ordinatedwith the attacks inside Nicaragua in order to provide a threat
of direct United Sbites military intervention that, in turn, servcs as a shield
behind which the armed paramilitdry forces can act more freely. 1 draw your
attention to Exhihit VI, tabB, page 114.
others have been wounded or kidnapped as a result of the attacks by mercenary
forces since the United States first bcgan recruiting, training, arming, supplying
and directing those forces in 1981.The pattern of recent escalations, as well as
death and destruction will continue. The basic object of the provisional relief
Nicaragua seeks heri: is to save those livesand to avert that destruction.
B. UnitedStates Admissionsoflls Complicityin und ResponsihilityforrheArmed
ArracksonNicaragua
To this point 1have concentrated primarily on the actual facts on the ground
Court's permission, 1propose to direct the Court's attention to the admissionshe
by the United States of its complicity in these actions, a complicity that, in
turn, as 1 will show later, establishes the responsibility of the United States al
Court's pardon for some necessary repetition of a few items that have already
been mentioned.
That the United States Government is funding, directing and activelycarrying
dispute. II is plainly siaicd in Unitcd Siaier Jomeriic laus. has been direstly and
publisly asknowled~ed by l'rcsidcni Kcagan himseli and senior mcmbcrs of his52 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
the Coneress is not <ifficiallvinformed of these activities. However. under United
~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Siatc, Ira, the I'rchd.-nt ih 1cg:illyrcquircil to report "coteri .i.iiviiies" IO the
Intclligcnie Çoniiiiiiic:s ,if tlic Ilriu.;cof Kcpre.ciitdii\c\ aiid tlic Stri~rc.Th~t 13
pursudnt i<>Title 5o <>l'theIlnitcd St3ie.iC'.)de.S:ilion $13 (Fxhibil III. tab 31.
'llic Iiitclligciicc(:onimiticcr arc in tdrn rcspon\ihle ior miinii<>ring th<>iexcii\ itie>
on hehali oi the eniirc C'dngrei.: 'lhc c<>ngrcsiion;il>i;itcriicntsI iiori bririp id
vour attention are exclusivëlv those of the Intellieence Committees and their
indi\idu;il nieniber,. iilidart pdrticuliirl! \tell \iiuiitr.itiknow 2nd c\,üluxte ihc
"i.i\crt" opcrati<,ns,>i the 1:niieJ Sihie G<~vrrnmcni,;inJ irho :ire respon,iblc
for reporting on them to their colleagues. The special significance of these
statements should b,: understood in that light.
Now let me turn to the statements. The Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the IJnited States House of Representatives - this is the Com-
mittee as a whole -- issued an official report on 13 May 1983 reviewing the
United States "covert" activities against Nicaragua: that is House Report No.
98-122 of the 98th (:ongress, 1st Session, Part 1(Exhihit V, tab 10). The Com-
mittee acknowledged that "encouragement and support has heen provided to
Nicaranuan exiles to foster insureencv within Nicaraeua" (o. 2).
- . . ..
I.ikcuisc. IIIth: Iloiirr.~t'Rcprcrr.iilati\c~Jch~ter .in ihc que\ii<>n<~I'c<~niinue,l
fuiiding. mcmhcr* ii1the Il<>u\eIntcllip:ncc Cornmittee h.ivcr:peJtcdI' :onfiriilcd
the United States role in su~~o..inn an- carrvine o.t -hese activities. One mem-
ber, for example, stated:
"WCare now supporting a large army inside Nicaragua. Wecan no longer
deny that we a:e fighting a mercenary war in Nicaragua to overthrow the
government of that country." (Remarks of Representative Lee Hamilton,
129Cong. Rec. H. 5725, 27 July 1983(Exhihit V, tab 9).)
It is well documerited, moreover, that United States employees and operatives
play a direct and critical role in actually carrying out the mercenaries' attacks
on Nicaragua. For example, one account, from November 1982, describes in
detail the role played by the United States Ambassador in Honduras - called
"The Boss" by the rnercenaries - in "overseeing an ambitious covert campaign
to arm, train and direct [the] Nicaraguan exiles", with the assistance of an
expanded CIA station in that country. According to this account, the United
States Amhassador is "the spearhead . . He was sent down there . . .to carry
out the operation without any qualms of conscience" (Exhibit VI, tab B,
pp. 162-170).
Thus, the memor;indum attached as Annex C to the Affidavit of Commander
Carrion takes on added significance.This is a memorandum from the mercenary
leaders - the Task Force Commanders of the FDN and MISURAS - to the
United States Embîssy in Honduras, dated 23 January 1984. In this signed
memorandum, the genuineness of which is attested to by Commander Carrion,
the mercenary comnianders state that they "deeply thank the Government of the
United States of Anierica for its great interest taken in the solution of the recent
problem, which we hope aiIl correctly culminate in the near future". In this
document, the mercenaries ask for additional United States help to "facilitate
an eventual unity that will help achieve the common objective", and they pledge
to "co-operate with you always - until the last consequences".
There can he no doubt that the United States is directly responsible for the
most recent incidents of attacks and sabotage against Nicaragua. As 1 have
stated, Administration and congressional sources have now confirmed what the
Nicaraguan Government alleged months ago - that the CIA directly supervised
the assaults on Nicaragua's oil storage facilities at Corinto and Puerto Sandino ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR CHAYU 53
las1 Septemher and Octoher, and the mining of Nicaragua's three principal
harhours this spring. This operation has heen descrihed in vivid detail by
Government sources familiar with the operations:
"CIA officersahoard a 'mother ship' of the coast of Nicaragua directly
suoervised commando raids from s~eedhoats that heavilv dama~ed
~{cara~uan port facilities las1fa. . .TÎICIA lcased the ship fast summer,
according to the sources, and American agents furnished the speedboats,
guns and ammunition and directed the raid by anti-government rebels in
the port city of Corinto las1October 10.TheCIA olficersstayed on the ship
in international waters beyond the 12-mile limit, while CIA-trained Latin
commandos piloted the speedboats into the harhour and shot up an oil
terminal, the sources said." (Exhibit VI, tah A, p. 21.)
Administration and congressional sources have also confirmed in great detail
that the mining of Nicaragua's harhours has been conducted under CIA super-
vision from the same CIA "mother ship" offNicaragua's Pacificcoast, again using
C1A-trained and paid mercenaries and CIA-provided speedboats and mines
(Exhihit VI, tah A, pp. 69,76).
The Cr>urludjuurnedfrom 11.32am. ru 11.56 u.m.
Just before the recess, 1had heen quoting from newspaper stories detailing the
operations of the CIA in the attacks on the harhour at Corintoand in the mining
of the port.
Once these detailed newspaper revelations appeared, the Chairmen of the
Intelligence Committees, hoth in the House and the Senate, puhlicly confirmed
that the CIA did in fact direct the mining programme and the operation had
heen personally approved hy President Rcagan. So we do no1 have to rely on
newspaper reports for that information. The Chairman of the Senate SelectCom-
mittee on Intelligence, Senator Barry Goldwater, noting on 10 April 1984 that
the CIA Director, William J. Casey, had briefed the Committee on the rnining
that very afternoon, stated: "1 learned to my deep regret that the Presi-
dent did approve this mining program, and that he approvcd it almost two
months ago" (Exhibit V, tah 4, p. S. 4198). Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
Vice-Chairman of the Committee, also descrihed "the mining of Nicaraguan
harbors with American minesfrom an American ship under American command"
(Exhihit V, tah 1). Likewise, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman,
Congressman Edward Boland, discussing the mine-laying programme on the
floor of the House of Representatives, first noted that the CIA had recently
informed his Committee that "they had continued mining harhors and had
mined them hefore that briefing, mining the Port of Corinto". Mr. Boland then
exclaimed :
"Where did the equipment come from, where did the mines come from?
Who got on the small boats and where did the small hoats come from?The
small hoats came from a mother ship that was lying in the international
waters manned by people paid by the CIA." (Exhihit V, tah 3, p. H. 2918.)
C. TheAdmirledPurposeundObjecriveofthe UnitedSruiesAcrions
Now, finally, let me spcnd a few moments on the purpose and objective of the
United States action.54 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTlVlTLES
Not only has the United States demonstrated ils direct complicity in the
campaign being wag:edagainst Nicaragua, but it has made clcar that almost
since the inception of this campaign, its purpose has been to destabilize and
ultimately overthroui the Government of Nicaragua. On 12 November 1981,
when then Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, JI., was asked at a congressional
hearing whether he could assure the Congress that the United States was not
then participating and would not "participate in or encourage in any way, directly
or indirectly, any elfort to overthrow or destabilize the current Government
of Nicaragua", Secretary Haig replied: "No, 1would not giveyou such an assur-
ance." (Testimony before Comrnitteeon ForeignAKairs,US House of Representa-
tivcs, 97th Congress, 1st Session, p. 21. Exhibit IV, tab9.)
In fact, as the "covert" programme has cscalatcd and evolved, the intention
of the United States has been revealed 10 be precisely what Mr. Haig's answer
intimated. As Houst: Intelligence Committee Chairman Boland concluded las1
July: "The purpose and the mission of the operation was to overthrow the
Government of Niairagua." (Exhibit V, tab 9, p. H. 5748.) Numerous other
memhers of the IntelligenceCommittee - who as 1noted earlier have heen Sully
briefed on the nature of the "covert" activities - have reached precisely the
same conclusion, and their statements appear at Exhibit V in tabs 8 and 9, pages
H. 5725, H. 5752 anil H. 5837.The full House IntelligenceCommittee itself also
concluded in ils 13 May 1983 report that "the activities and purposes of the
anti-Sandinista insurgents ultimately shape the program", and noted that the
United States-backed "insurgents" have the "openly acknowledged goal of
overthrowing the Saudinistas" (Exhibit V, tab 10).
In addition, the senior officialsof the Administraion have publicly acknow-
ledgedthat the objecrof their policyis io destabilize the Nicaraguan Government.
1have already noted Under-Secretary of Defense Ikle's speech on 12September
1983,stating that the United States "must prevent consolidation of a Sandinista
régimein Nicaragua" (Exhibit IV, tab 6).
Finally, President Reagan himself has stated that the purpose of his Govern-
ment's campaign against Nicaragua is not simply to interdict an alleged flow
of arms to El Salvador, or even to force Nicaragua to stop its purported sup-
port for Salvadoran insurgents, but to forcc thc Nicaraguan Government to
change in ways that would suit the United States.
On 28 March 198.4,Mr. Rcaran s-id directlv. in an interview with reoorters.
that his Ci<>vcrnmsni'prurp<>\ein ruppnrtmg thc nier:cnarics is 10rorcc ch:ingcs
in Nic.iraguan inicrr,cilpolicics. lie s;iid
"We have made il plain 10 Nicaragua - made it very plain - that this
will stop when ~heykeep their promise and restore a democratic rule. And
have elections. Now, they've finally been pressured, the pressure's led to
them saying they'll have an election." (Exhibit IV, tab 3.)
While the President later attempted to reassurc members of Congress that his
administration's objt:ct is not the outright overthrow of the Nicaraguan Govern-
ment, he apparently seesnothing wrong in using "covert activities" in an attempt
forcefully to intemerie in the domestic alfairs of a foreign State.
Before lcaving the evidence that we have been reviewing thus far, and
addressing the legal issues relevant to interim measures of protection, 1 should
say a word about the significance in this procceding of the newspaper accounts
contained in Exhibii VI. Of course, we do not contend that those newspaper
reports provide dispositive evidence of every fact statcd therein. We do believe.
however, that these accounts - for the most part reports of statements by senior
officials of the Uniied States Government acknowledging and descrihing the ARGUMENT OP PROFESSOR CHAYES 55
United States responsihility for the "covert" action - these accounts, when
taken together and in context with the corrohorating material from the other
Exhibits, should be taken as evidence, in a general way, of the activities that
have heen conducted, the categories under which they fall, and their scope
and scale. At least for the purposes of this proceeding, which is a request for
indication of provisional measures, they have that effect.
1 would point out that in the United StatesDiplumaticand ConsularStaff in
Tehrun case, the United States referred to matters of common knowledge reported
inthe press,and submitted ncwspaper clippingsfor the consideration of the Court.
II. THELAW
A. TheCriteriafor IndicutingInterimMeasuresof Protection
MI. President, Members of the Court, to this point we have heen dwelling on
the facts of this case: they are distrcssing facts, not very pleasant to spend this
much time on. 1 now wish to turn to the leeal issues relevant to Nicaragua's
request beginning with a discussion of the crzeria estahlished by the COU; for
indication of interim measures of protection. In the course of that discussion 1
will show how the facts already developed relate to those criteria.
Nicaraeua submits. Mr. President. that under the law of this Court anolicable
to provisional relief, the circumstances of this case plainly require the indication
of interim measures of protection as requested hy Nicaragua. They plainly
reauire that the United tat timsmediatelv.iusn.nd i&sunnortof..he mercenaries
tighting 1,)oicrihri,u ih; hicaraguan G.i\crnmeni; 2nd the) plsinl! rcquirc ihat
the Uriiicd St.iies inini:Ji.iielcr.;,,caII ilirc~ui: anil ihrr..it,i)iidric again.1
Nicaragua.
The Court has clearly articulated the standard for indication of interim
measures on previous occasions, most recently in the case concerning United
States Diplomatie and ConsularStaff in Tehran(UnitedStates v. Iran).There the
Court stated that the obiect of its Dower under Article 41 of the Statute is "to
preserve the respective r&hts of théparties pending the decision of the Court"
and that this "presupposes that irreparahle prejudice should not he caused to
riehts which are the subiect of disoute in iudicid ~roceedines"
MI. President, unles; the req;ested lnterim keasuresare indicated here,
Nicaragua's rights - the precise rights it seeks to vindicate in these proceedings
- will he prejudiced irreparably and will be incapable of restoration should
Nicaragua prevail in this case.
First and foremost is the fundamental right of Nicaraguan nationals to life,
liberty and security.
Since the most recent invasion of the mercenaries began in March 1984, at
least 257 Nicaraguans have been killed, 319 wounded and 363 kidnapped. All
this death, injury and human suffering in less than two montbs. And since
Nicaragua's request for interim measures, only 16days ago, at least 34Nicaraguan
nationals have heen killed in numerous mercenary raids.
Mr. President, some rights may be capable of restoration by a final judgment
of this Court on the merits, but a human life lost cannot be restored hy this or
any other court.
This Court has nreviouslv found that the mere threat of nhvsical.h,rm to
human beings requires the indication of interim measures of protection. In the
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France) case, it indicated that a great power -56 MILITARYANU PARAMILITARYACTI~TIES
France - should suspend a practicc that it felt to be critical to its national
security. The Court observcd that "the information" submitted to it "does not
exclude the possibility that damage to Austrdlia might be shown to be caused
by the deposit of rarlioactive fall-out". In fact, as Professor Sztucki has pointed
out, Australka'sown technical studies submitted to the Court showed that the
effects of this fall-out were "expccted 10 be of a rather insignificant magnitude"
(Sztucki, lnrerim Mi?usuresin ihe llugue Courr, Deventer, Netherlands (1983),
p. 126).
Again, in the Uniied SruresDiplornaricund ConsulurStaff in Tehrun case, the
Court indicated interim measures of protection in part because:
"Continuancc: of the situation the subject of the prcsent request exposes
the human bein[:sconcerned to privation, hardship, anguish and evendanger
to lire and health and thus to a serious possibility of irreparable harm."
(1.C.J. Reporis 1979,p. 20.)
The oresent case is similar to the UniredSroresDi~lomuiicund ConsrilarSruff
in Tehrun case, but the circumstances here require interim measures of protection ,,
even more urge~.ly. In the UniiedSlaresBiplomaricand ConsularSrafin Tehrun
case, as herc. the Applicant requested inlerim measures to avoid~irreparable
prejudice, above all, as it said (and this was the United States) "to the rights of
its nationals to lire, liberty, protection and security". 1 quote again from the
United States Agcnt in that case, the then Legal Adviser of the Department of
Stote. He said:
"If the hostages arc physically harmed, the Court's decision on the merits
cannot possibly heal them. Given the nature of the rights involved, an
ultimate award of monetary damages simply could not make good the
injuries currently being susiained as this case awaits the Court's judgment."
(I.C.J. Pleudi~~psU .niied Slures Diplon~uricund Cons~~IaS rioff in Tehron,
p. 30.)
Mr. Prcsident, the words of the United States Agent in the Uniied Siares
Dipl<~~~iaiu ind C<~n.vulu Srroff in Tehrutlcase were correct when spokcn. Thcy
apply with even greziterforce here ioday. Here we are not talking merely about
a potential danger to life and health. Here we are not talking merely about a
serious possibiliiy of irreparable harm. Here, to my great sadness, we are talking
about certain dcath for hundreds of human beings. Most of the dead will be
innocent civilians, as in the past, in Nicaragua. The rest: soldiers, guilty of
nothing more than fighting on their soi1 10 defend their homeland against
invasion by mercenaries supported and directed by a foreign power. Such people
are dying now and ihey will continue to die if the United States persists in its
illeral conduct.
The rights. other than human life, sought to be vindicated by Nicaragua in
this case will also be prejudicedirrepÿrably if the United States does not suspend
its sumort for the nier&naries. Thcse rinhts are eaua.lv .nca~abie of restoration
by finaijudgment or by award of monetdry compensation :théright of Nicaragua
to enjoy its sovereigiityas a State; the right of Nicaragua to be free from foreign
intervention in iis iiiternal affairs; the right of the Nicaraguan people to self-
determination. These sovereign rights are being invaded and diminished each
day that the usc of military force against Nicaragua continues. Once compro-
mised, these rights cannot be restored by monetary compensation.
Furthermore, Mr. President. if the United States were to achieve ils acknow-
ledged purpose and objective - if ilwere to succeed in bringing about the ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR CHAYES 57
overthrow of the Nicaraguan Government, or destabilizing it Io the point where
a full-scalecivil war ensues - the present Government could not be restored to
power by any kind of judicial orde;.
In the past, when lessfundamental sovereignrights were threatened and indeed
when the threat was no more than a mere possibility, the Court found it
appropriate Io indicate interimmeasures of protection. In the FisheriesJuri.~dicrion
case (United Kingdom v. Icelund), the Court indicated interim measures because
it found that Iceland's implementation of new regulations, purporting to extend
its territorial waters from 3 to 12 miles, would "prejudice the rights claimed by
the United Kingdom and affect the possibility of their full restoration in the
event of a judgment in its favour".
Mr. President, if possible prejudice to the right to fisb in international waters
within 12miles of Iceland's Coastwas sufficientto justify interim measures, then
it hardly needs argument that interim measures are required here.
Finally, the urgency of the situation could hardly be greater. At this very
moment, as we debate this matter in this Great Hall, more than 8.000 armed
mercenarv invaders. financed. armed. ea,io.e.,and directed bv the ~nited States ~~
are on the attack inside ~icaia~uan territory. Without the financialand military
support ~rovided by the United States this armv will be forced to terminate its
offensive-and withdiaw from Nicaraguan territory.
Senior oficials of the United States Government have reported that of the $24
million appropriated in December 1983, $22 millionhad been spent by the end
of March 1984, leaving only $2 million remaining. Thus, the United States
officiais reported, the funds could be exhausted by the end of this month
(Exhibit VI, tab 4, pp. 38 and 47). In short, if no additional financial or other
support is provided to the mercenaries, hundreds of Nicaraguan lives will be
spared and further irreparable prejudice to Nicaragua's rights as a sovereign
State will bc avoided.
But as we debate this matter here, the United States Congress in Washington
is debating the appropriation of an additional $21 million at the urging of the
President of the United States and his Administration - $21 million to permit
the mercenaries to keep their military offensive going. The Senate has already
approved this expenditure and only the concurrence of the House of Repre-
sentatives is required before the funds can be disbursed to the mercenaries. This
action may be forthcoming within days.
The Administration's funding request pressed so assiduously and now so close
to approval, is clear proof that, in the absence of an indication of interim
measures of protection by the Court, the United States will certainly continue
and intensify its unlawful course of conduct.
In sum, Nicaragua's request for interim measures of protection not only
satisfies the established criteria for the indication of such measures, but presents
the most compelling circumstances for the indication of interim measures that
have ever been put before this Court.
Inclosin-.mv observations on this branch of the case. m.v 1d.aw thc Court's
attention Io page 29, supra, of Nicaragua's request for interim measures filed on
9 April. There it is stated:
"The situation has already resulted in a dangerous level of tension, not
only between the United States and Nicaragua, but between Nicaragua and
Honduras and other Central American neighbors that could have serious
im~lications for international mace and securitv. It is clear that. in the
abience of an indication of provisional messires, the dispute will bc
aggravated and extended. The graves1consequences cannot he excluded."58 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
B. The UnitedStutesViolarionsofFundumenta1 Principlesof lnternufionulLaw
Finally, Mr. Prerident, and Memhers of the Court, 1 want IO discuss hriefly
the specificviolations of international law asserted in this case and the flagrant
nature of those violations.
On the basis of the facts adduced earlier in my presentation, it is clear that
the conduct of the United States over the past three years, and more hlatantly
in recent months, constitutes a massive and flagrant violation of the most
fundamental precepts of international law and of the United States duties to
Nicaragua under international law.
Paragraphs 14 ti, 24 of Nicaragua's Application in this case set Forth the
substance of these violations in elaborate detail. We have grouped them under
two main heads: first, breaches of obligations under the United Nations and
Organization of Arnerican States Charters and other treaties to which the two
States are parties (paras. 15-19) and, second, violations of duties arising under
general and customary international law (paras. 20-24).
At this stage of the case, the only question before the Court is the indication
of interim measures. For that purpose, there is no need to make a definitive
determination of tt:e issues, and therefore no need to dwell exhaustively on thc
factual or legal bast:sof Nicaragua's claim on the merits. Nevertheless, the Court
willwisb, of course, to satisfy itself as to the reality of the conduct of the United
States against which provisional measures are sought and that it constitutes, at
least prima facie, a hreach of fundamental legal obligations.
As to the facts, the truth is that the United States has not denied the general
tenor of its activitizs. Nor could it. In broad outlinc the îacts set forth before
you today hy Nicaragua are common knowledge in the Unitcd States. They are
accepted by al1 sides in the United States as the premise of the debate about
United States polic:yin Central America now going on in the Congress, the press
and the public.
What do these fiicts mean in law? They add up to a massive use of force hy
the United States, in the legal sense. They show the expenditure of more than
$70 million over a two and a half-year period to organize, equip and direct a
mercenary army that has grown steadily from 1,500 to 15,000nien. The force is
based at a number of camps in Honduras and is now conducting a major
co-ordinated invazion across the northern border between Nicaragua and
Honduras. In the south it has just been expelled from a town that it had
"caotured" a few davs earlier with erea-.ouhlic fanfare. In addition to ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
mas'siveland incursions, there have heen extensiveseaborne operations, including
the mining of harbours and attacks on port facilities. Likewise there have heen
numerous~violatioiis of Nicaraguan aiÏspace on reconnaissance and combat
missions. These activities amount to a "use of force" on any construction of the
words, whether as used in the Charter of the United Nations or that of the
Organization of Arnerican States Charter or in general international law.
Nor can the United States deny its international responsihility for this conduct.
On the contrary, as the material before you shows, the highest organs and
officials of the Government of the United States attest explicitly not only to
United States invcdvement, but to the organization and direction, by United
States officials, of the activities. To snmmarize only the most striking of these
avowals, an act oZ Congress explicitly appropriates funds for the support of
"military and para-military operations in Nicaragua". The President not only
acknowledees that covert activities are beine carried out aeainst Nicaragu". but
affirms the;ight of the United States to do ;o. unimpeach:ahle authority - the
Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on lntelligence - confirms that the ARGUMENT OF PRObTSOR CHAYF3 59
President personally approved the mining of the ports. It is also admitted that
thisoperation was carried on under CIA direction and control. Similarly, the
President's most recent finding authorizing attacks on economic targets in
Nicaragua was followed quickly by the bomhing of the Managua airport and
the attacks on the port facilities in Puerto Sandino and Corinto.
As to the extensive land operations it is impossible to assume that the United
States has provided $70 million of arms and support, one-third of it in the last
six months, without assuring itself of the eficacy of the application of these
resources. Indeed, the letter from the contra leaders to the United States Am-
bassador in Honduras, submitted by Commander Carrion as an annex to his
alfidavit, is vivid testimony that the overall direction of land activities rests with
Americans, whose approval is necessary even as to the details of the command
structure.
Thus, to the extent that the activities carried out against Nicaragua violate
international law, there can be no doubt that the United States bears re-
sponsibility.
It requires no citation of authority to show that the use of force by one State
aeainst another on the scale and with the intensitv dcmonstratcd bv the evidence
-
here i\ 3\,1<)13ti<<)~igeneral internliti<inlillas. Inrlecdttts gcncr;illycunsidercd
b) publi~~irt~ th;it Article? (4) of the Unitcd h'at~un,Chartcr IS in th15respect
an cmborliment of extrting generlil prinsiples <iiinternation;il Inti,.
In the Court's iull <Ire,, consi<lcr;itionuf the prohlem itfintervention in the
Corj~t C~I<I~IIcIiis/cII set forih the bed-rock pr~nziplcagainsi u,hich :il1nioilern
discussion of the suhject must take place:
"The Court can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the
manifestation of a no.icv of force. such as has. in the oa.t. .uven rise to the
most serious abuses and such as cannot, whatever be the present defects in
internationiil organization, find a place in international law." (1.C.J Reports
1949, p.35.)
But aside from the breach of the overarching norm against use of force, the
United States, on the admitted facts, is guilty of a nimber of more specific
international delicts or invasions of sovereignty.
Let me mention only the most egregious of thcse: incursions into the national
airspace and territorial waters of Nicaragua in violation of its sovereignty.
In the CorJi!Channel case the Court laid it down that: "Between independent
States, respect for territorial sovereignty isan essentialfoundation of international
relations". (Ibi<i.) But the United States representative to the United Nations
proclaimed in Security Council debate that "of course the Government of the
United States" was conducting overflights of Nicaraguan territory. Professor
Rosalyn Higgins in her work on The Legal Linlits ruthe Lise r>fForce, which 1
select[rom among many that could be cited, says that "even temporary incursions
without permission into another's airspace constitute a violation of its territorial
integrity" (p. 183). Ms Kirkpatrick sought to justify this intentional invasion of
sovereign airspace on the basis of the United Statcs need for "information" on
Nicaragua's own activities - that is, for spying. Again, in the Corfi Channel
case the Court refused to accept a similar justification for British violation of
Albania's territorial waters. It bardly seems crcdible that a senior member of the
United States Government would so casuallv seek to excuse a reoeated invasion
of thc roicreigiii! ni:, stii:ill.;~ndinth15 rcjpe-1. dcien;ele<r n.iti.>n Surcly. the
Utiited States u,<iulillicier pcrl!i!t r~cli inctirriiiitoit:oiiii ri:<tiiii:iirip.ice
Nor would any other country that had thc means to prevent them.
Similarly, we now have unequivocal knowledge of the direct responsibility of ARGUMENT OF PROFIWSOR CHAYES 61
And Article 20:
"The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even
temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken hy
another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever . . ."
Thc.e Article, dcscr\c suiiiciihat Sullcri<>nsidrration,hc-ïusc although ihr.)
exPres<the hïiic prut~lbli~on:tg:iin~ithc US' <>ili~rcin more cricndcd Ianguge.
the) lil,irefle~.tihr.pürti~ular hi,t,,r) and ehpcriencc oiihc Siatc.iihc Wcatern
hemisohere. That h'istorv. in so fa; as herc relevant. is dominated bv United
the Monroe Doctrine. and did so on a varietv of irounds. includine the cofection
of international debts and the assurance .of Gternal régimes iatisfactory to
the United States. Indeed, Nicaragua itself was suhject to occupation by United
States troops on several occasions, the latest between 1926and 1932. It is truly
distressing to see that again today the avowed ohject of the United States
intervention in Nicaraguan afïairs is to secure a government whose policies will
be satisfactoryIO the United States.
Much of the diplomatic and political activity of Latin American countries,
especially in this century, has heen directed at securing the abandonment by the
United States of this claimed right of intervention. The story unfolds in a series
of hemispheric diplomatic conferences in the 1920s,the 1930sand 1940s.As late
as the Sixth International Conference of American States at Havana in 1928,a
resolution declaring that no State has the right to intervene in the internal aiïiairs
of another was withdrawn because of the ohdurate opposition of the United
States.
Not until the Seventh Conference in Montevideo in 1933did the Unitcd States.
reflecting the new "good neighhour" policy of the Roosevelt administration.
accept such a limitation on its freedomof aktion. It was contained in the Con-
vention on Rights and Dulies of States adopted at that conference. Even this
concession had to he perfected hy a Protocol to the Convention adopted at
the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, at Buenos Aires
in 1936. The Protocol added the language "directly or indirectly". which we
see appearing in the Articles of the OAS Charter 1 cited, and "for whatever
reason" also appeanng in those Articles. The inadmissibility of "intervention"
hy any State "in the internal or external afïairs of another" was confimed at
the Eighth International Conference of American States at Lima in 1938.
This history accounts for the extended language of the prohibition against
intervention and the useof force in the OAS Charter. That language isparticularly
aot in this case. It removes anv shred of doubt that the activities attributahle to
the United States on the evidéncebefore the Court are a clear violation of the
Charter. Thus the language barring intervention whether "direct or indirect" was
actually drafted to read on a situation where a State makes use of a surrogate
- in this case a mercenary army - instead of ils own forces. The exclusion of
"any reason whatever", again is designed to override any justification that may
be adduced, except as stated for "self-defense in accordance with existingtreaties"
as orovided in Article 21. Indeed. as a matter of historv. the orohibitions of
~riicles 18and 20 were directed at the very type of condk~ now'being indulged
in by the United States.
As 1 have noted, and as the Court well knows, both the United Nations
Charter and the OAS Charter contain an exception for self-defence. Since the
United States has puhlicly claimed that its actions fall within that exception, this
concept must he accorded a brief examination. Here again, the more general language of the United Nations Charter is
elucidated bv soccific stinulations in the Oreanization of American States
documents. indied, the hiStory of Article 51 demonstrates that it was adopted
primarily to accommodate the possibility for collective self-defenceby regional
organizations, of which the most prominent at the time was the Pan American
Union, as the OAS was then called. (See the United Nations Conference on
International Organization, doc. 576, 111/4/9,25 May 1945.)
Article 51recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence
if an armed attack occurs against a memher of the United Nations". The critical
words arc "if an armed attack oaurs". They delimit the scopc of the exception.
There issuhstantial agreement among publicists that. in keeping with the breadth
of the prohibition in Article 2 (4), the concept of "armed attack" in Article 51
is to he narrowlv and strictlv constmed. Some actual incursion bv the armed
forces of, or un& the direction of, the attacking State into the te;ritory of the
State claiming the right is required. Interventions or assistance, short of that,
even if themsélvesunlawful, do not amount to armed attack giving rise to the
inherent righl of self-defcnce.
The structure of the Charter reinforces this construction. Under Article 2 (3)
and Chapter VI, disputes between States are to be settled by peaceful means.
The existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression
is to be determined under Article 39 by the Securiiy Council, no1 unilaterally
by the aggrieved State. These categories are clearly much broader than "armed
attack". In such cases, the aggrieved State is remitted to the collective decision
of the Security Council as to measures for its redress. Self-hclpis proscribed.
The OAS Charter provision on self-defence stipulates that it must be in
accordance with or in fulfilment of "existing treaties". Apart from the United
Nations Charter, this reference to existing treaties was to the recently concluded
Inter-American Tr<:aty of Reciprocal Assistance (the Rio Treaty). Here the
distinction between armed attack and other forms of aggression is spelled out
even more clearlv than in the United Nations Charter. Article 3 of the Rio
I'reaiy dçdls uiih ";in arnicd aii;ick hy iny Siaic ;igliinstan Americ~nSi;iie" In
surh a cÿx. earh oi the Ci>nlr;iciingP:~riicsundcrtakes to as>ii in niwiiiig ilic
att:ick in the excrcin. ofthc inhcrent rirht of indlvidu~lor collc~.ti\e%clf-delencc
recognized by Article 51 of the Charte; of the United Nations".
By contras, Article 6 of the Rio Treaty deals with "an aggression which is
not an armed attack". In such a case unilateral action or self-help is forbidden
even in the Tirsiinstance. The Organ of Consultation mus1 meet "to agree on
the measurcs whicli must be taken in case of aggression to assist the victim of
aggression". Action under Article 6 requires the approval of "two-thirds of the
Signatory States wliich have ratified the Treaty" (Art. 17).
The interlockine-laneu"-e and ~rocedures of the two Articles demonstratc ~~
again ihc e~treiiicl~~Iiniitcd range oi'ihe right oI'$r.If-dr.fcn:c.
An iIlusir3ii<>n <ol'hcre poiriis is prn\ided hy ihe case 01'thc C~bnn Xliisilc
Crisis. recoeni7cd ;isihe mo\t rcriciu, arnicd confrotiiaiion sinîc Wiirld \\4r II.
In thdt cri& the United States scrupulously observcd the procedures 1 have
outlined. It declined to characterire the emplacement of Soviet missiles inCuba
as an "armed attack" justifying a unilateral response under Article 51 of the
United Nations Cbarter and Article 3 of the Rio Treatv. ~~where in anv of the ~ ~
officia1United ~Gtes documents in the course of the cnsis is there any réference
to Article 51 or tlie inherent right of self-defence. On the contrary, President
Kennedy announccd that he wis calling for a meeting of the OAS Organ of
Consultation under Article 6 of the Rio Treaty, no1 Article 3. The Organ
convened pursuant to that Article, and the rcsolution of the OAS authorizing ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR CHAYES 63
the naval quarantine, was taken under the same Article. No orders were issued
to the United States fleet to intercept ships carryiug missiles to Cuba until after
the Organization of American States had acted. And the Proclamation of
President Kennedy imposing the quarantine recites the OAS resolution as a
source of authority for his action.
Attorney General Robert Kennedy later commented:
"It was the vote of the Organization of American States that gave a legal
hasis for the quarantine . . .It . . .changed our position from that of an
outlaw acting in violation of international law into a country acting in
accordance with twenty allieslegallyprotecting their position." (R. Kennedy,
Thirteen Days. p. 121.)
The United States has no such vote to rely on in this case. Neither can it rely
on the inherent right of self-defence.
United States officialshave stated that Nicaragua is now supplying or has in
the past supplied military material and medical supplies to rebel groups in El
Salvador. On this basis those officials have sought to justify the United States
activities descrihed heretoday as an exerciseof the right of collective self-defence.
The claim of self-defence - like other efforts of the United States to avoid
the indication of provisional measures - will not withstand even superficial
examination. Nevertheless, to clarify the situation on the record before the Court,
the Government of Nicaragua wishes to make severdl observations on this
matter. In the first place, permit me to draw the Court's attention to the sworn
affidavit of the Reverend Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, Foreign Minister of
Nicaragua, dated 21 April 1984and presented in evidence in this proceeding as
Exhihit II. In paragraph 2 of that affidavitthe Foreign Minister solemnly swears
hefore this Court :
"1 am aware of the allegations made hy the Government of the United
States that my Government is sendinn arms, ammunition, communications
eauioment aid medical sunolies to rëhels conductine civil war aeainst the
Cibkrnment of El alv va do k;ch allegations are falseand constitu; nothing
more than a pretext for the United States to continue its unlawful militan/
and oaramilitaw activities against Nicaragua intended to overthrow mi
GovGnment. lntruth, my Givernment isnot engaged, and has not been
engaged, in the provision of arms or other supplies to either of the factions
engaged in the civil war in El Salvador."
The affidavit e-es on to recount the efforts of the Government of Nicaraeua "
to prevent the use of its territory "as a conduit for arms or other military supplies
intended for other Governments or rebel group-", ~nd indeed nives an example
of an interceution of contrahand suoolies crossiue from Costa Rica throieh
Nicaragua. ~hat appears in paragraph3. - -
The Foreign Minister also testifies in detail to the efforts of Nicaragua to
secure international agreement on collective measures designed to stop such
traffic.These efforts includebilateral aonroaches to the Government of Honduras
..
Io ~st.iblirtij~~intborder pair.>l, (sec p.iragrapli 6 ol tlic allid3iiij ;ipropo,al
in ihc C<>niador;iCiroiip for :Iiiimprr.hcn>ii,c irc;i.) ri.u~r~n.c4<h Cenir.11
American State
"to adopt al1possible measures to prevent its tcrritory from heing used for
traffic in arms or other supplies to armed groups seeking to overthrow any
estahlished Government of the region, and to prevent any such amed
groups from operating or seeking sanctuary in its national territory". The text of that draft treaty is also provided as Exhibit IX.
These undertakings would be subject to international verification including
on-site inspection. To this day Nicaragua is prepared to sign such an agreement.
But the plain fai:t is that the Court need not resolve these controverted
auestions. Thev are simo.. irrelevant to this oroceedine-.certainlv at the oresent
stage of request for interim protective measures, and indeed on the merits of the
case. If the accusations of the United States are taken at face value, they fall far
short of the.armed attack necessary to justify resort to collective self-defence
under either the United Nations or the OAS Charter. None of the actions
charged by the United States,either singly or altogether, approaches the levelof
armed incursions h:i forces of or under the direction of Nicaragua across the
borders of El Salvador. That is what would be necessary for legitimate self-
defence.
And on the matter of supply, according to the testimony of MI. Ikle, the
United States Under-Secretary of Defense, the major supplier of the Salvadorian
rebels is the United States itself. Mr. lkle stated that the guerrillas have been
able to secure as niuch as half their total supply of weapons by capture or
purchase [rom Govi:rnment troops.
In any case, the United States has met none of the procedural requirements
stipulated in the United Nations and OAS Charters for the lawful exercise of
the right of collective self-defence. Article 3,paragraph 2, of the Rio Treaty
States that assistance by others shall he provided "on the requesl of the State
directly attacked". To date al least, no such fomal request by El Salvador
invoking Article 3 lias been made public. Article 3 also contemplates that any
self-defensivcaction shall be rcportcd promptly to the Organ of Consultation of
the inter-American system, so that it can "meet without delay for the purpose
of examining those measures and agreeing upon thc mrasures of a collectivc
character that should be taken".
Similar reporting requirements exist under the United Nations Charter. Article
51 provides that "PAeasurestaken by Members in the exercisc of this right of
self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council . . ."Neither
the United States nor El Salvador has ever made such a reDort to the Securitv
Ci>uncil.On the c<inir;iry.11v,ar Niidragua iiscliih3t iwrc 1n;okcd the ;is~isi;in~c
of ihc Sc:uriiy Couiicil. and in rach carc rciolutii~nsiitr ihe cesraiion of~iciiviiirr
such as those beinp conducted by the United States received an ovenvhelminr
majority vote in théSecurity ~ouncil. They were vetoed by the negative vote of
the United States, which stood alone in opposing the resolutions.
The reporting requirements 1 have been discussing are not mere procedural
technicalities. They are designed to constrict to the narrowest possible compass
the opportunity for iinilateraljudgment and action that isa necessaryconcomitant
of the right of self-defence.They are designed to ensure that the response of the
acting State, as wr:ll as the allcged activities of the attacking State, will be
submitted promptly to the review of the competent international organs and that
community responsibility and community judgment willbe substituted as quickly
as possible for the iinilateral self-judgment of the acting State.
It is exactly this kind of objective community review that the United States
kas tried almost desperately to avoid in this matter: by its refusal to report to
the competent United Nations and OAS organs, by its veto of the efforts of the
Sccurity Council to exercise ils responsibility for the political aspects of the
situation, and by irs crude attempts to withdraw from the jurisdiction of this
Court and thus prevent judicial consideration of the validity of ils conduct under
international law.
Finally, 1 would observe that the United States in its public statements has ARGUMENT OP PROPESSOR CHAYES 65
not claimed the right to act in its own defence. Obviously it has not been the
object of armed attack hy Nicaragua. Instead, it asserts a right of collective
defence in association with El Salvador, which is alleged to be the country
under attack.
But El Salvador itself has not reported or complained, either to the Security
Council or the Organ of Consultation of the OAS. Even more curious, El
Salvador, the purported victim, although it maintains full diplomatic relations
with Nicaragua, according to Foreign Minister d'Escoto's affidavit,
.
"has never, not once, lodged a protest with [the Government of Nicaragua]
accusing it of complicity in or responsibility for any traffic in arms or other
military supplies to rebel groups in that country" (p. 143,infra).
Thus, there is no possible claim of right or justification for United States
actions in and against Nicaragua.
The character of these actions as Ragrant violations of the most fundamental
and universally recognized principles of international law provide a further
predicate for the indication of interim measures of protection as requested by
Nicaragua.
And now, MI. President and Members of the Court, 1have come to the end
of my presentation and have only a few remarks to make in conclusion.
1 wish to reitcrate that the criteria for indication of interim measures of
protection are fully satisfied in this case. Nicaragua has clearly demonstrated
that in the absence of such measures, the rigbts at issue in this cas- above al1
the right of Nicaraguan nationals to life, and physical security - will be
irreparahly prejudiced. There can be no doubt that the situation is of the utmost
urgency. Furthermore, given the flagrant nature of the United States violations
of law without any possible justification, this case is an especiallycompelling one
for an indication of interim measures.
Nicaragua therefore suhmits that the Court should issue an order indicating
the following interim measures of protection as specifiedin our request.
First, that the United States should immediately cease and desist from pro-
viding directly or indircctly any support including training, arms, ammunition,
supplies, assistance, finances, direction or any other form of support Io any
nation, group, organiration, movement or individual engaged or planning to
engage in military or paramilitary activities in or against Nicaragua. 1wouldjust
note, MI. President and Members of the Court, that the last three lines or so of
the request track the language of the United States Statute authoriring support
to a nation, group, organiration, movement or individual engaged or planning
to engage in military or paramilitary activities in or against Nicaragua.
And then, that the United States should immediately cease and desist from
any military or paramilitary activity by its own officiais, agents or forces in or
against Nicaragua, and from any other use or threat of force in its relations with
Nicaragua.
Finally, the Court should indicate that the United States should take no action
that would have the effect of extending or aggravating the situation pending
further consideration of this case by the Court.
I wish to thank you personally, MI. President, and the Court as wcll, for your
patient attention to this lengthy and extended argument.
The Court rose ai1p.m. SECOND PUBLIC SITTING (25 IV 84,3 p.m.)
Present: [See sitting of 25 IV 84, 10a.m.1
ARCUMEX'I'OF PROFESSOR BROWLIE
COUNSELFOR TI18 COVERNMBNTOF NICARAGUA
Professor BROWNLIE: Mr. President, Memhers of the Court. May it please
the Court, it is mv privilegeto be present as counsel in this Great Hall of Justice
for the third timë Sincethe New ~ear. and it is an honour to aoocar on behalf
of the Republic of Nicaragua in suiport of its request for the indication of
provisional measures as a matter of urgency inconnection with the Application
Ïo the Court, dated 9 April 1984.
With your permission, Mr. President, 1 propose to deal with the question of
jurisdiction in so far ;is that issue may bc said to arise in proceedings in which a
State seeks interim protection and, in accordance with Article 74 of the Rules,
the Court has heen "convened forthwith for the purpose of proceeding 10 a
- -ision on the r~~.~jt as a matter -~ ur",ncv".
In the 1978 revision of the Rules, interim measures, along with preliminary
objections and someother matters' were giventhe rubric "incidental procecdings"
and Dr. Rosenne ha' ohserved that the chanee f-om the ruhric of "occasional
rules" "renects a more accurate perception of the peculiarities of the jurisdiction
of the Court in the niatters coming within the scope of this section". I refer to
Rosenne's book The Procedure (11the I~~iernotionalCourt, published last year
(p. 148).
The provisions hoth of the Statute and of the Rules of Court do not cal! for
the existence of a consensual basis of jurisdiction in the case of requests for
interim measures. Thus Article 41 of the Statute provides simply thal:
"The Court shall have the power to indicate, if it considers that circum-
stances so require, any provisional measures whiçh ought to be taken to
preserve the respective rights of either party."
Moreover, the caref~illydrafted provisions of Articles 73 to 76 of the Rules
contain no provision or condition as to the existenceofjurisdiction.
In this respect the widc terms of Article 75 of the Rules are of particular
interest. Paragraph I thereof provides:
"The Court mïy at any time decide to examine proprio moiu whether the
circumstances of the case require the indication of provisional measures
which ought to be taken or complied with hy any or al1of the parties."
These observations on the nature of jurisdiction to order interim measures of
protection provide a preface to a consideration of the true character of the
question of jurisdiction in this context, and of the relevant jurisdictional test. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 67
II.THE RELEVAX JI RISDICTIONT AELST
The nower of the Court to order interim measures is no1 directlv relaied to
any coisensual basis of jurisdiction and the only explicit criteria fo; exercise of
this power relate to what may be described as the substantive issues of urgency,
the orobabilitv of irreoarable oreiudice. and so forth. and these matiers have
alrcady been addressed by my Colieague;.
The prominence of the issue of urgency, the inherent nature of incidental
proceedings, and the wide powers of the Court under Rule 75 - al1these factors
indicate, Mr. Prcsident, that the real issue is the very nature of the power of the
Court to order interim measures, that is, thc modalities of that power.
Thus, the issue of jurisdiction arises in a special way and is, strictly speaking,
a question of the propriety of the exerciseof a discretionary power by the Court
and for the Court.
Mr. Prcsident, the Republic of Nicaragua submits that the jurisdictional test
is not to be applied within the framework of consensual jurisdiction but is one
to be applied in the light of the constitutional character of the power to grani
interim measures. Thc test, which reflects a simple conception of public law, is
as follows. The Court should exerciseils power to order interim measures exclu-
sivelyupon the criteria of urgency, saveonlyfrhere isa munfe.srluckofjurisdic-
... .ni.t..n~~.il.~.
In the view of the Republic of Nicaragua this is the only test which is
comoatiblc with the Statute and Rules of Court and hence with the pertinent,
posiiive international law.
Mr. President, the test 1havejust formulated is essentially the test adopted by
the Court in the Fïsl~erieJirrisdicrioncases (1.C.J Reporrs1972, pp. 15and 33,
respectively). Ii is of course true that in those cases and in others, the Court has
found that interim measures should be ordered only if the provisions invoked by
the applicant appcar: "prima hcie, to afford a possible basis on which the
jurisdiction of the Court might bc founded" (ICJ. Reporrs1972, pp. 16 and
34). Such a standard was applied by the Court in the case concerning United
BuresDiplomaricundConsularSraffin Tellrun(1.C.J. Reports1979, p. 13,para. 15).
The Republic of Nicaragua considers that, simply because such a standard
was regarded as suficient in certain cases, it does not follow ihat il is in al1cases
a necessary condition. In particular, the question of suiliciency of jurisdiction,
which is really that of judicial propriety in the present context of incidental
proceedings, is to bc relatcd to the special circumstances of cach casc.
Notwithstanding such legal considerations it is submitted that there is a prima
facie basis for jurisdiction in this casc, or more precisely, cirçumstances which
appear "prima facie, to afford a possible basis on which the jurisdiction of the
Court might be founded".
By way of what is logically speaking a concession, the Republic of Nicaragua
will demonstrate that this standard is satisfied in the present incidental pro-
ceedings.
Mr. President, 1have observed already that in the context of interim measures
the issue of iurisdiction arises in aecial wav and is, strictly speakina, a question
of the oroo;ietv of the exerciseof a discretionarv oower b; the Cou;. It~follows
that, in weighing up the factors pertinent Io a decision on propriety, matters of68 MlLlTARYAND PARAMlLlTARY ACTIVITIES
substance must be given prominence, and these are, quite naturally, dominated
by the problem of urgency. Thus in the particular case, provided there is no
manifest lack ofjurisdiction - this is the public law test - in deciding whether
it is proper to order interim measures, that is, in resolving the issue of propriety,
the Court should giv~:particular weight to the criteria of the likelihood of senous
harm or irreparable ~prejudice.
In other words. MT.President, the issue ofjurisdiction is closelyrelated to the
issuesof substance arid the concept of urgency which underlies interin1measures.
In this connection it is useful 10note the conclusions of Dr. Mendelson, in his
substantial study in the Brilish Yrur Book for the years 1972-1973al page 259.
After al1is said arid done, an order for interim measures is no1 anticipatory
but conservatory and consequently there is no need IO show a prima facie case
on the merits. In the fisheries Jurisdicrioncases the Court stated :
"the decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the
question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case
or any questions relating to the merits themselvesand leaves unaffected the
right of the Respondent to submit arguments against suchjurisdiction or in
respect ofsuch inerits" (ICJ Reports 1972, pp. 16and 34).
1 now come to th,: Unitcd States declaration of 1946. In her Application to
the Court Nicaragua invokes Article 36 of the Statute on the basis that bath the
Applicant and Respondent States have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of
the Court hy virtue of the so-called Optional Clause, which in fact consists of
the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 36.
It may be recalled that the United States declaration of acceptance of 1946
was subjectto the appropriate treaty-making procedures within the United States
Congress. In the Report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the
pertinent Senate Resolution, the declaration is described as:
"a unilateral Declaration having the force and elïect oï a treaty as between
the United Stales and each of the other States which accept the same
obligations".
The Kepsri ul'ihs Sen;itï Committcc gi,ingïppro\al lu ihs ad$iic dnJ son~ent
K<r,iluti<>n dsii coniains ths ~uiiouingemphdrii~ii) ckdr rl3rcnlcnt
"The resolution orovides tha~ ~he~d~c~ ~ ~ ~n should remain in force for
a period ~il'iivc,e.irs i~rihcre.iiicr uniil 6 nionthi, f,~llsi+,notide t,i ternii-
nsiion. Thr dccl:iriiiioninight,thcrclors. r:main in i;>rdein.icliniicly The pro-
iiriiin iiih inonthi' inoticcui terniinaiion aiter ihs 5-)car pcriod has the
clkii of 3 rcnuiiciiition ol'iin) Intenliun 10 withdriw Our ohligdtlon in the
f~ceofa ihrcateried legdlprowcding." (C~in~r~~~s~onrilRecu S cna.s.~\ugust
1946.pp. 107U6.10707and 10709 j
With your permission, Mr. President, 1 will read the tent of the United States
declaration of acceptance of 1946, which was still in force on the date of the
Application made by Nicaragua on 9 April 1984.
"UNITEDSTATES OP AMERICA
26 Vlll 46.
1. Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America, declare
on behalf of th[: United States of America, under Article 36, paragraph 2, ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 69
of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and in accordance with
the Resolution of 2 August 1946 of the Senate of the United States of
America (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), that the
United States of America recognizes as compulsory ipsofacto and without
special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same ohli-
gation, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in al1 legal
disputes hereafter arising concerning
(a) the interpretation of a treaty;
(b) any question of international law;
, , the existence of anv fact which. if estahlished. would constitute a hreach
of an international obligation;
(d) the nature or extent of the reparation to he made for the breach of an
international obligation;
Provided, that this declaration shall not apply to
(a) disputes the solution of which the parties shall entrust to other trihunals
hy virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded
in the future;or
(b) disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of the United States of America as determined by the
United States of America; or
(c) disputes arising under a multilateral treaty, unless (1) al1parties to the
treaty affected hy the decision are also parties to the case hefore the
Court, or (2) the United States of America specially agrees to jurisdic-
tion; and
Providedfurther, that this declaration shall remain in force for a period
of five years and thereafter until the expiration of six months after notice
may be given to terminate this declaration.
Done at Washington this fourteenth day of August 1946.
(Signed) Harry S. TRUMAN.''
(1C.J. Yearbuuk 1982-1983, p. 88.)
The Nicaraguan declaration of 1929appears in a translation in the Yearbook
of the Court as follows:
"On hch:ilioiihe Kcpuhlic .iI'hicsrsgu.~ I rr.cc>gni/ea.rs>nipul\.>r!.unxn-
iIiIi.~nall! ihc j~~irli~<lilhc I'crnian~.nICour1 oi Int~rn;iilon.ii Juiti"c
(1 ('J.Yt,.irhiu.IL~?-/Lh3. p.79.1
The eKect of this declaration, the validity of which has never heen challenged,
has been maintained as a consequence of the provisions of Article 36, paragraph
5, of the Statute of the Court.
VI. SUMMAR YF THE BASISOF THE COURT' SUR~SD~CT~ON IN THE SENT
P~ocëooi~cs
MI. President, it will he of assistance to the Court if Nicaragua's position on
the hasis of jurisdiction in the present proceedings is set forth in summary form
at the outset. The Court will appreciate that the expressions of view on theauestion of iurisdiction are made orovisionallv. exclusivelvwithin the context of
Îhese incidehtal proceedings, and ~xclusively ;"relation to the position adopted
by Nicaragua with reference to the test ofjurisdiction in the context of an order
for the indication of interim measures of protection.
Nicaragua's position on the basis of jurisdiction rests upon four propositions.
First, the principlei of thelaw of treaties apply generally to the modification
and termination of declarations of acceptance of jurisdiction under the
Ootional Clause.
Secondly, a declaration which lays down express conditions for termination
or modification canni>tbe terminated or modified except on those conditions or
on some other ground recognized in the law of treaties.
Thirdly, the conditions laid down in respect of termination or modification
must also be compatible with the Statute of the Court.
Fourthly, the United States letter of 6 April is an invalid attempt to modify
or Vary the existing United States Declaration which has been neither validly
varied nor terminate<land thus remains in force.
Fifthly, and altern;itively. the letter of 6 April kas the efïect of terminating the
original declaration but, of course, on its express terms that termination can
only take efïect six months after notice.
VII. THECONSEQUEI~ CFBSE~NG WITHIN THE SYSTEM OP THE OPTIONAC LLAUSE
IN TREATY LAW
Ths i)iteni iofihe iiitcrla>i.ki~I'Ji~.~l~rsiii~n,Iir~~i~comptiljor) ,ur~dioi,~n
hdb bce11<l~ur;~cter~,ch d, thc 1.11~I'rc~iclent\V~il<l,~cn hi<,.I;IwLex;tnl~~~~it~oii
of the Optional Clause ai follows:
"States subscribing to the Optional Clause 'declare that they recognize as
compulsory ipsu,fucroand without specialagreement, in relurionrouny orher
Siure accepiing rhesumeohligulion, the jurisdiction of the Court in al1legal
disputes', etc. Tnese declarations undoubtedly constitute 'international en-
gagements' binding on the State concerned in relation to any other State
also making a declaration under the Optional Clause. The question is
whether such an 'international engagement'isconstitutionally to be regarded
as founded unoii a unilateral leeislative act done vis-a-vi~ ~h~ -ourt. or as
~. ~ ~ u
loundrd upon ;ibil;itcral. conjensulil irinsactinn efictcd by ihe julnlng
togelher of the decl;~ration~ol'uny givrn pair oiStliics ihrough the 0ptioii:il
<:ldu\c. Niiria ~ti,our\ti~in .iure.i ;iiademi~. sinie the ~nil~terdl,ir hilatcral
character of the 'en'gagement'may have leial consequences and, notably,
with regard to tlie right to terminate the engagement.
The texi of the Optional Clause - 'declare that they recognize as
compulsory . . .in relurion Io any ulher Srare[French text: ù /'égur</de rouf
autre Eful] ciccepting the same obligation' - is no1 crystal clear on the
point whether the declaration is to be regarded as made vis-à-vis the Court
or vis-à-vis the other declarants. The maior< . of States which have made
their Jcclsrsti<>n,in French hx\e siihrtliutr'dtlic ivorJ\vrc-ii-,,,, rmr uitrri
trul ior ihe u.oraJ~ofthe Clausr..rrh~r'lp~cr11.1~ U~PII\ th:$[ihey c<~nce~\.sd
<IItheir dcclar~iinns .ISdirectcd ai thc oihcr Jrrlaranti rathcr than iitthe
Court. More conclusive is the fact that, under the original Statute, the
declarations were not notified to the Registrar of the Court but to the
Secretary-Cenerd1 of the League of Nations, who was in no sense an oficer
of the Court, since the Court was not an organ of the League. The Secretary- ARGUMRNTOF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 71
General in turn reeistered the declarations under Article 18of the Covenant
cxprcs4) a\ hcliinging ti)ihc ;iicg.iry <~ 'intcrn.itit,nal eng.ig:mcnt or .ici>
hy whi~.hn.iiiitns .ir their g.>\c'rnnicntsintend ti,c\tshli>h I~.p,rohlrgu~ii~tr\
betweenthemselvesand anotherState, rrationor guvernment'. The position is
similar under the new Statute, declarations being notified to the Secretary-
General and registered by him as 'international agreements' under Article
102 of the Charter. Admittedly, the Court is now an organ of the United
Nations. but there can be no doubt that the Secretarv-General receivesthe
declaratjons notas an officerof the Court but as a deiositary of instruments
relating Io an international agreement."
That was President Sir Humohre. .aldeck'sassessment of these matters
The iruth 1% ihdi ihc making cride~lariiiiins and c\pc~t~ll! the ir>uc\ ,ii
\;tr~~ti~>:nin,I lcr~111n.iliarcnl;ttIcr<g~lvcrnc'dh) ihc ].tu ,IVircdiic~.'1hl, !ta>
rcc.icni~cJ hv 111~.liiiit~tl Sidies Scnatc (:oniiniticc on I.'~rciciiKclation~ in the
report to which 1have already referred. There is a further of that report
which is worthy of quotation :
"Inasmuch as the declaration would involve important new obligations
for the United States, the Cornmittee was of the opinion that it should he
approved hy the treaty process, with two-thirds of the Senators present
concurring. The force and effectof the declaration is that of a treaty, binding
the United States with respect to those States which have or may in the
future deposit sirnilar declarations." (Op. cit, p. 10709.)
In the Anglo-Iranian Oil CL). case the Court accepted the essential legal char-
acter of the Iranian declaration as a treaty text (I.C.J. Reports 1952,para. 93 a1
p. 103), as President Waldock himself remarks in his study (at p. 253).
Mr. President, the consequence of the essential treaty charactcr of interlocking
declarations is of great importance in the present proceedings. The declarations
of Nicaragua and the United States effectively bring both States within the
systern of the Optional Clause.
Such declarations, whether or not they are subject to reservations and con-
ditions, form a prima facie hasis for "the jurisdiction ofthc Court in al1legaldis-
putes".
Thus paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute - the hasis of compulsory
jurisdiction - provides:
"The States oarties to the oresent Statute mav at anv time declare that
they recognize as compulsory ipsofacto and without special agreement, in
relation to anv other State accept.ng .he same ohlirati.n, the iurisdiction of
the Court in a11legal disputes concerning :
(a) the interpretation of a treaty ;
(b) any question of international law;
(c) the existence of any fact which, if estahlished, would constitute a breach
of an international obligation;
(d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an
international obligation."
The application of the principles of the law of treaties mus1take as its starting
point the existence of Iwo declarations, neither of which can be varied or ter-
minated except on the hasis of the principles goveming the modification and ter-
mination of treaties.
The declaration of Nicaragua was made unconditionally. The declaration of72 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
the United States makes no provision for variation but does contain an express
provision for termination on expiration of six months' notice of termination.
Mr. President. witli vour ~ekission. 1would recall two imoortant ~rovisions
of the Vienna ~onvtition Ln the ab of Treaties. First, the is ~rticie 26,
which appears under the heading PacraSun1Servanda and provides that "Every
treaty in force is binding upon the parties to il and must be performed by them
in good faith".
Secondly, there is Article 42, which is the first provision of Part V of the
Convention which di:als with the invalidity, termination and suspension of thc
oncration of treaties.
,Iriicld? cri~ihlishc;I:r.rt;iin pre.umpii<mIIIiai.,>uCM ihe \,.iIiJiof trcatie,
;inJ isc~ititled"Vlli6it) anJ cuntinusnx in force of trr.aiir.,". 211,prii\i,ions
areas follows:
"1. The validity of a treaty or the consent of a Stdte to he bound by a
treaty may be impeached only through the application of the present Con-
vention.
2. The termination of a treaty. ils denunciation or the withdrawal of a
Party, may take place only as a result of the application of the provisions
of the treaty or of the present Convention. The same rule applies to
suspension of the operation of a treaty."
Mr. President, 1 sliall now turn from the legal background of the question of
iurisdictioii to consider the significance of a dramatic episode which occurred a
iittle more tban two days prier 10 the presentation, 011.9April, of Nicaragua's
Application to the Court.
1refer of course to the Note sent by the Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz, to the
United Nations Secretary-General on 6 April.
The text is as follows:
"1 have the honor on behalf of the Government of the United States of
America to refer to the declaration of my Government of August 26. 1946,
concerning the acceptance by the United States of America of the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and to state that the
aforesaid declar;ition shall not apply to disputes with any Central American
State or arising out of or related to events in Central America, any of which
disoutes shall br settled in such manner as the oarties to them mav aeree.
~otwithstandin~ the terms of the aforesaid déclaration, this prokg shall
take effect immcdiately and shall remain in force for two years. so as to
foster the continuing~rerional dispute settlement Drocesswhich seeks a
negotiated solution 70 the intcrreiated political, économic and security
problems of Ceiitral America."
That is the end of the tex1of Mr. Shultz's letter.
That this document constituted a deliherate attempt to withdraw from a treaty
obligation in face of a threatened legal proceeding there can be no doubt.
The text of Mr. Shultz's statement speaks for itself but, in so far as it may not
speak for itself, it was supplemented a few days later by a Departmental
Statement dated 8 April.
This Departmental Statement has considerable significance for the evaluation ARGUMENT OP PROPESSOR RROWNLIE 73
of the episode as a whole and, with your permission, MI. President, 1would like
to read the text in full:
"The United States has nodfied the Secretary-Gencral of the United
Nations of a temporary and limited modification of the scope of the US
acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice in The Hague. The notification, effective April 6, provides that the
Court's com~ulsorv iurisdiction shall not aoolv to the United States with
respect to disputes &;th any Central ~mericii tat t erany disputes arising
out of or related to events in Central America, for a period of two years.
Similar action has heen taken hy a number of countties in the past,-among
them Australia, lndia and the United Kingdom. In addition, a large number
of countries have not accepted the compulsoryjurisdiction of the ICJ at al1
- France, Italy, the Federal Repuhlic of Germany, Spain, the Soviet Union
and other communist countries, to name only a few. Many other countries
have accepted ICJ jurisdiction, but with many more reservations than the
United States.The United Stateshas long heen active in its support for the
Court, and its readiness to make full usc of the Court in the Iran Hostages
case and the now-pending Gulf of Maine case clearly demonstrates this
longstanding commitment.
This step kas heen taken to preclude the Court's being misused to divert
attention from the real issues in the region and to disrupt the ongoing
regional peace process by protractcd litigation of claims and counterclaims.
WChelieve that, as evidenced by their appcal to the United Nations Security
Council, recent Nicaraguan behavior has shown a lack of serious interest in
addressing regional issues or the Contadora discussions. We do not wish to
see the Court abused as a forum for furthering a propaganda campaign.
The parties to the Contadora process can determine for themselves in what
respect they wish to suhmit regional issues to adjudication or other forms
of dispute resolution.
The regional peace process, while slow, kas achieved notable successes.
In agreeing to the 21 objectives last September, the parties set forth an
agreed framework for continuing and completing their efforts to achieve a
comprehensive regional peace dealing with the interrelated political, security,
social and economic prohlems of the region. This work has recently entered
a stage involving issues ofhoth technical and political dilficulty. While this
is the point at which the greatest attention and commitment to that work is
required, Nicaragua is regrettably considering action to divert attention
from its failurc to address those issues seriously by staging propaganda
spectaculars in other fora. By our action we served notice that we do not
intend to CO-operatewith this plan, or to permit the Court to be misused in
that manner."
This Departmental Statement has an Appendix entitled "Examples of
Modification of Acceptance of Compulsory Jurisdiction to Avoid Adjudication".
Three episodes are described as "examples of modifiçation" and each descrip-
tion is accompanied hy a reference to the study hy the late President Waldock
of theOptional Clause in the British YearBookofInternurionulLaiv (Vol. XXXII,
1955-1956, p. 244). This reference to the Waldock study is ironical indeed, for
that very article gives no support for the viewtkat the Shultz statement has the
eiïect contended for by the United States.
The Appendix evokes three items of State practice which are presented as
though they are parallel to and support the validity of the attempt in the Shultz
letter to modify the United States Declaration. If 1may rcad the Appendix:74 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTlVlTlES
"1. India (1956). To avoid an application hy Portugal concerning rights
of passage oveï lndian territory, lndia modified one reservation from 'dis-
putes with regard to questions which by international law fall exclusively
within the jurisdiction of India' 10 'matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of lndia as determincd by the Government of India'
(1.C.J. Yearbook1955-1956,at 186-187; I.C.J. Yearbook1953-1954,at 216
(formerreservation); Waldock, 'Declineof the Optional Clause', 32 BYBIL,
244, 268(1955..1956)).
2. United Kingdom(1955). In October 1955,the UK terminated a decla-
ration issued fivemonths previously and substituted a new one contain-
ing a new reservation excluding 'disputes in respect of which arbitral or
iudicial orocee~linesare takine. or have taken. olacc. with anv State which.
at the J:itc <>fthe i.iiiirnen~:iiicrit oitli: procr.r.diii&sI.i;isna it,r.li:~ccr.pl:J
the ionipiilsurj juridictidn .>i the Ci~uri' This uï> in rc\p,inse tiiihc
hrcdkduwn 01 in ;irbitr>tion with Saudi Arabu due 10 briber\.oi n~>tcniial
witnesses (1.CJ. Yearbook1955-1956,at 185 ; Waldock, supra,'at f68).
3. Ausrralia(1954). In 1954,to avoid a Japaneseapplication to the ICJ on
rights to pearl fisheries of the Australian Coast, Australia submitted a new
declaration excluding 'disputes arising out of or concerning jurisdiction or
rights claimed or exercised hy Australia . . .in respect of the continental
shelfof Australia; . . in respect of the natural resources of the sea-hed and
suhsoil of that continental shelf including the products of sedentary fisheries;
or in respect to Australian waters .. .being jurisdiction or nghts claimed
or exercised in respect of those waters . ..' (I.C.J. Yearbook1953-1954,at
210; Waldock, supra. 267-268)."
Mr. President, this material - in each of the three cases - involves a
withdrawal of a declaration in accordance with its terms and the making of a
new declaration. Tt:ey were cases of withdrawal and not of modification. Indeed,
President Waldock refers at page 269 of the article to which 1 have already
referred to the thr,:e States "mentioncd in the previous paragraph as having
terminated their declarations and reissued them with new reservations", and is
referring to India, the Unitcd Kingdom and Australia. The Departmental
Statement nonetheless relies on this material in its Appendix, and it must he
apparent that the result is less than satisfactory.
lx. THELEGAL S~<~NIFICAN OFCER.SHULTL'L SETTER TO THE UNITED NAT~ONS
SECRIXARY-GI:NI~RAL
With your permission, Mr. President, 1 shall now indicate the views of the
requesting State on the legal significance of the letter from Mr. Shultz to the
United Nations Se<:retary-Generalof 6 April 1984.At this stage these views are
to some extent provisional and they will be developed at a later stage of these
proceedings.
In Nicaragua's ~iew, the Shultz letter hears two possible interpretations. In
the first place it may be regarded as an invalid attempt to modify or Vary the
existing United States declaration, which has thus been neither varied nor ter-
minated and remains in force.
An alternative view is that the Shultz letter has the efect of terminating the
original declaration but on its express tcrms that tcrmination can only take eiTect
six months after notice.
Ineither case the Court has been propcrly seised of a legal dispute as a result
of the Application of Nicaragua. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 75
The first of these two constructions may now be examined further. On its face
the Shultz letter does not involve termination. It purports to add a "proviso".
This "proviso" is to take eflect immediately "notwithstanding the terms" of the
declaration. This interpretation of United States intentions is supported by the
opening paragraph of the Departmental Statement which refersto a "temporary
and limited modification of the scope of the US acceptance of the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice".
In the view of Nicaragua this purported modification is of no effect.
In the first place, the Shultz letter is contrary to the terms of the United States
declaration. which exoresslv reserved the rieht of termination but made no
attempt to ieserve a rhht of modification. It &ay be noted in passing that such
attempts, leavingaside the question of their legality,are extremelyrare. Moreover,
as 1have alreadv oointed out. the orovision for six months' notice in the orieinal
declaration wa; éxpressly intendid to rule out a possible withdrawal or the
obligation "in the Faceof a threatened legal proceeding". It would be strange
indeed, Mr. President, if a modification with immediate eîfect were possible,
whilst a termination with immediate eflect would becontrary to the terms of the
declaration.
Additional factors support this construction. The maxim expressio unius
e.rchrsio u~teriusis applicable. If a power of modification had been sought it
would have been expressly provided for. In any case the Shultz letter tends to
accept an e.r fucieincompatibility with the terms of the declaration when it
employs the phrase "notwithstanding the terms of the aforesaid declaration".
Mr. President, 1now turn to the alternative construction of the Shultz letter,
namely that it had the efîect of terminating the original declaration on the terms
expressed therein, and such termination can therefore only take eflect six months
after notice - that is, six months after 6 April. This result is indicated by the
~ - ~ ~~~~Cfa ci ors^
First, the letter terminates the operation of the United States declaration tout
courras aeainst certain identifiable States and that isnota matter of modification.
It is not-like the introduction of a condition in a new declaration. since in
relation to those identifiable States an existing acceptance of jurisdiction is no1
modified rarione ntureriue but is terrninated. And, Mr. President, in this content.
suspension has the same effect, or substantially the same effect,as termination.
Second. the real intention, indicated by the Departmental Statement of 8April,
was to withdraw the declaration of 1946and - but this is a matter of some
obscurity - substitute a new one with eflectfrom 6 April 1984consisting of the
original declaration together with the contents of the Shultz letter.
The evidence of this intention takes two forms:
First, the precedents invoked by the Departmental Statement al1 involved
withdrawal of a declaration followed by the making of new declarations. In
other words, there arc cases of termination but not of modification.
Second, a number of officiais quoted in the press, making more or less
contemporaneous comment upon the Shultz letter. wereto speak of a "withdrawal
of jurisdiction" (see Press Disclosure Bondle, p. 63), or the same people were to
emphasizc that the acceptance of jurisdiction had heen suspended (ibid,
pp. 65-66).
Moreover, as a matter of logical analysis, a unilateral withdrawal of an existing
jurisdiction rarione personue ispro rmlroa termination and, so to speak, there is
no severability allowed in such a case, more especially when the original decla-
ration does not make provision for modification.
Mr. President, 1would conclude my examination of the problems of construc-76 MILITARY AND PARAMII.ITARYACTIVITILS
tion of the Shultz Ictter hv referrine once aeain to the relevance in this case of
the principles of the law of treaties. A State may only terminale or Vary a
declaration in accordance with those principles. In this case it would followthat
the United States cckuldonly terminaie on 'ix months' notice in accordance with
the terms of its ouln declaration. In this context it may he recalled that the
precedents adduced hy the United States to support ils action are inapplicable
since in each of thoie instances the declaration was by its tcrms terminable with
effect from the date of notice.
The articlehy President Waldock in the British YeurBook at pages 263to 265,
contains certain passages in which he examines the issues with his customary
clarity.
If 1 may, Mr. President, 1 would read the whole passage because 1 think it
may be of assistancc to the Court. President Waldock says:
"The making of a declaration, is a unilateral act; it does not, however,
follow that the unmaking of a declaration is equally a unilateral act at the
free discretion of the State concerned. The declaration, once made, sets up
consensual relations with other States and the question necessarily arises
whether a State can have any right to terminate its declaration except in
accordance with an express term of the declaration. .This would normally
mean that a State having a declaration without any provision for its
termination would not be entitled to cancel it as against othcr States having
declarations for fixed periods except with their consent. Otherwise, termin-
ation of the declaration would not be justiriable except by reference to one
of the special rules concerning the termination of trcaties, such as the
doctrine of rebiis sic stuntihus;moreover, under the final paragraph of
Article 36 of the Statute it would be for the Court to decide any dispute as
to the validity of a purported cancellation of a declarati. . ."
And 1 continue the quotation from the Waldock article:
"A State which, having the right to make ils declaration only 'for acertain
time', chooses to make it without time-limit, is in a position analagous to
that of a State which has entered into a hilateral treaty of indefiniteduration.
If two States hoth have declarations without time-limit, their position vis-a-
vis each other seems clearly to be that of parties to a hilateral treaty of
indefinite duration and any right which either State may have to put an end
to theirmutual obligation to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court
under the Optional Clause can only derive from the general law concerning
the terminatioii of treaties. The agreement between the two States, which is
constituted by their parallel acceptances of the Optional Clause, contains
no refcrence Io a right arhitrarily to terminate their mutual obligation under
the clause simply by giving notice to the Sccretary-General. Nor can such a
right be implied in Article 36 of the Statute, paragraph 3 of which clearly
contemplates an indefinite commitment unless provision for a time-limit is
made when a ljtate makes its declaration."
If 1may continue to refcr to the text of the Waldock article.
"The same reasoning applies to the case of a State whose declaration is
either made for a specific period of years or is expressed to he terminahle
alter a specific period of noticeand which nevertheless purports, regardless
of the terms cbfthe declaration, to cancel it immediately by notice to the
Secretary-Gencral, The legitimacy of terminating any declaration othenvise
than in accordance with its terms must, on principle, hinge upon the rules ARGUMENT W PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 77
governing the termination of treaties. This is borne out hy the fact that
when France, the United Kingdom, and other Commonwealth States notified
the Secretary-General of the League in September 1939that they would 'not
regard their acceptances of the Optional Clause as covering disputes arising
out of events occurring during the present hostilities', theyformulated the
grounds on which they justified their action in a manner strongly to imply
that thev were invokine the doctrine of rebur sic stantibus. At the date in
question the declarations of these States were valid for fixed periods which
had not yet expired, and they clearly did not consider themselves to have
the rieht unilaterallv to terminate or varv their declarations excevt on
priniiplc, ;indl3g<iur t<i ihii~ gixcrning the icrmin.itiiin ,Ir i,ari.iri.)n of
trcatir..13wn ro, .Inuniher of ne~itr;~Sl idirr ma& rcar.r\:iii,?iiiircglrrd tti
ilie Iegdlcikci oi ihc :tctidn t~kcn by tlicrc Si.ii"s
And Waldock concludes:
"On principle, therefore, there is no right of unilateral termination of a
declaration under the Ovtional Clause unless the rieht has been ex~resslv
reserved in the declaratiin. On the same principle aïso there is net,-in thé
absence of an express tenn, any right of unilateral variation of a declaration
previously made and still in force."
And that is the end of the passages from the Waldock study.
So much, Mr. President, for the alternative construction of the Shultz letter,
and the view that the eiTectwas a termination of the original declaration on the
terms expressed therein.
As is well known, the United States declaration of 1946contains reservations,
two of which may be relevant if they are invoked by way of preliminary objection.
In the present proceedings it is not necessary for Nicaragua to establish the
non-applicahility of the United States reservations. The co-existence of two
declarations, both still in force, provides a prima ftcie hasis of jurisdiction.
It might be that this position would be too formal a view of the law, and in
need of qualification, if the United States reservations or any one of them were
such as to offer a palpable harrier to the existence of compulsory jurisdiction.
But this is not the case. The reservation relating to "matters which are
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of America as
determined hy the United States of America" creates notoriously difficult
problems of analysis. However, it is not necessary to resolve these problems at
the stage of this request for interim measures.
The decision of the Court in the Interhandelcase on interim measures (ICJ.
Reports 1957, p. 105)is of relevance inthis connection. Professor Herbert Briggs,
in his Hague lectures some years ago, observed:
"The major significance of the Court's Order of October 24, 1957,in the
lnterhandel case lies in the fact that the Court rejected a challenge to its
jurisdiction to indicate interim measures of protection which was based on
a reservation of matters of domestic jurisdiction unilaterally detennined.
The Court's Order did not join the United States 'Preliminary Objection' to
the merits or preserve it for future examination. In fact, the Court did not
even denominate it as a 'Preliminary Objection' but referred to it as a
'contention'."on 23 December 1906, the Application of Honduras relied in part upon the
Nicaraguan declaration(I.C.J. Pleariings.Arbitrul Award Malie by the ofng
Spuin on 23 December1906, Vol.1, pp. 8-9). Incidentally, it should be affirmed
that the Protocol of Signature of the Permanent Court was ratified by the rele-
vant organs of the Constitution of Nicaragua namely the Chamher of Deputies
and the Senate in 193(ibid.p. 129).
XII. SWBMISSI ONNJURISI>ICTIOINTIIFSEPROCEEDIN GNSINTIIRIMHASURES
\lr Prc~ideni.I irould conipleic my ohservati~insaith certain ,ubrnisjioiis
On thc qucstion ~~l'juridictiiln.ihc Kepublicof Sicaragua suhrniis. iirrtly. ihai
the IJniicd Siaies declardt~onor26 Aurust 1046.in lis orieinlil form. rcmïincd in
force at the time of the making of the Nicaraguan Applic~tion019 April 1984.
Secondly, that the jurisdictional factor should be relIOethe issues of
irreparable prejudice and urgency in proceedings concerning interim measures;
and thirdlv. that without oreiudice to th- fou,eoin,. the iurisdictional factor in
this case i; conducive to the éxerciseof the power to order interim measures.
Mr. President,1would like to thank you and the Members of the Court for
the courtesv and ~atiencewhich vou haie shown me. Mr. President. would vou
please giveihe fl&r to the Agentof Nicaragua, who wishesto makvery short
presentation, in conclusion. SrATEMENT BYMR. AHGÜELLO GOMEZ
AGIINT FORTITEGOVERN.Ul!NT OP NICARAGUA
Mr. AKGUELLO GOllEZ: llr. Prcsident. Mcnibtr, oftlic Couri On bchalf
of the Government of Uic~rÿgu,iI u,i\h 10 thank you I;>rihe r:rpidiiy uith uhich
the ur-.nt ~lea of Nicaraeua has been heard and these heaÏines have taken
place, and to concliide juscon behalf of my colleagues and myselrto thank you
for your courtesy and patience in hearing us out.
The PRESIDENT: 1have had a request from the Agent of the United States
not to speak tomorrow, but to be allowed to do so first thing on Friday.
My information is that the Nicaraguan Agent has no objection to that. If so,
we shall resume on Friday morning with the Agent of the United States making
a reply to Nicaragua. The Court is adjourned until Friday.
The Cour1rose al4 p.m. THIRD PUBLICSITTING (27 IV 84, 10am.)
Present: [See sitting of 25 IV 84, 10a.m.1
Ihr.PKI:SII>I~'YT:Thc Court ritr thir in<)rningttic<>ntinur~ . hc~rr. c,>ncr.rn-
mg .\ii/~iur~ ~11d i'drut~~~l~idr!~ JI~III~,S Iut~d~dg~it!z .',~dru<!ud .V~~.,u,,,<iv~o
1'!11ic.S'I<IIC<,.':tnier~t<,io lhc.~rilic ~~hwrv~ii~)< ~)ihr. P~rtic\ cm the rr.uur.bt
of Nicaragua for the indication of provisional measures under Article 41 oi'the
Statute. The representatives of Nicaragua having made their presentation Iwo
days ago, 1 now give the floor to the Agent of the United States of America,
Mr. Davis R. Robinson.
STATEMENTRYMR. ROBINSON
AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMEh'T OP THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA
MI. ROBINSON : Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, may it
please the Court: it is a distinct honour and rare privilege to appear before the
International Court of Justice as Agent on behalf of my country, the United
States of America, in connection with the Application of the Republic of
Nicaragua and its request for the indication of provisional measures. As the
Court is aware, the United States is of the conviction that this casc is unlike any
other interim measures request to come before the Court. The United States
refers to the fact that Nicaragua's Application manifestly falls outside the Court's
jurisdiction. No evidence - 1repeat - no evidencehas been adduced to support
Nicdragua's claim that it has ever accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of this
Court, a fundamental prequisite for invoking the Court in these circumstances.
Moreover, the terms of the acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction hy the United
States unambiguously exclude consideration of Nicaragua's Application at this
time. This isespeciallyso when Nicaragua's action comes in the midst of on-going
reeional neeotiations to which Nicaragua is hv its own agreement a Dartv. The
vGy purpose of these regional talks, which ha& been endorsed hy the competent ,
international organs of the United Nations and the Organiration of American
States, is to brinÏ peace and justice to aII the countries if Central America.
By appearing here today, the United States is not in any way prejudicing its
position that the Court fundamentally lacks jurisdiction in this case. Rather, the
United States appears because of its deep and long-standing commitment to the
International Court of Justice as an imoortant institution for resolvine diiïerences
of a juridical character between tat te;.his is the second time in t& history of
the Court that the United States has heen named as respondent in a provisional
measures ~roceedinp. and this is the second time the ~nited States hai a~oeared.
Everv othérresnon&nt in such circumstances has sirnnlv ieno. A the çali of the
CouPt and has 'failedto appear. By participating in this proceeding, the United
States reaffirms its confidence in this Court as an impartial and conscientious
iudicial institution
\\'ith ihr. C'uuri'spcrnii,jion. the r..rtr;xurdin;iryiiatiirr.ilic Applic.tti,>n:ind
rr.q.icstoi'Yic;ir;xgu;i;inJ iis ordl prcrcnidrion on \VcJnc,Ja) :<impr.l\thr. I.niir.l
51.i1:sto rn.ikc 4 ici, inrr.iJu-(tir! rcmark> hc.icirr.pr<iccr.rlintiithe h<~il)iii'<~ur82 MLL~TARYAND PARAM~L~TARYACTIVIT~ES
lefal drgumcni. Cii\,:n tlic c,sciitidll~ politicdl nsiure siiUicaragua'r tili~igs.inil
orxl prc~ent.illc~n l I> c1e:trth,it thls15 t~~l.i~u~t~undry~iiu,iiionior the L'<)urt
I.r,iiii th< rtatcnicni01' Y~c~r.icud'< r i aiid io~iitsclon M;.dnc,d;iy niirrning.
one might have assumed that sis weréa political forum and not a court of la;.
Indeed, one might have wondered whether Nicaragua thought it was before the
United Nations Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly,
rather than before the International Court of Justice. Regrettably, the approach
of Nicaragua to this proceeding, both inside and outside the courtroom, has
raised grave douhts about its objectives in instituting these proceedings.
On Wednesday niorning, Nicaragua gave a vivid account of violence and
destruction, premised on the apparent viewthat this Court, by way of provisional
measures, could briiig peace to Nicaragua and the Central American region. It
was clear that Nicaragua hoped to show, by selectivelyquoting from carefully
chosen documents - documents which were drawn primarily from the open
political systemof ttie United States of America - that Nicaragua is an innocent
victim of aggression. The United States has not come here to this judicial body
today to enter into a dehate about this fundamentally political topic. To do so
would he fundamentally incompatible with the purposes for which this institu-
tion was estahlishecl. But it is unthinkahle that the United States could allow
Nicaragua's distortion of the record hefore this honourahle judicial body to go
entirely unanswered.
The United States would like, therefore, to bring to the Court's attention just
one of the documents upon which Nicaragua has relied in protesting its innocence.
This is the Report of the United States House of Representatives Permanent
Select Committee ori Intelligence of 13May 1983(Nicaraguan Exhihit X, tab 1).
Pages 2 and 5 of this Report, in discussing Nicaraguan support for armed guer-
rillas seeking to overthrow the Government of El Salvador, state
"[Clontrary to the repeated denials of Nicaraguan officiais,that country
is thoroughly involved in supporting the Salvadoran insurgency . . .It is
not popuiar support that sustains ihe insurgents . . . [~jhis-insurgency
depends for it!; life-blood - arms, ammunition, financing, logistics and
command-and-rontrol facilities - upon Nicaragua and Cuba. This
Nicaraguan-Cuban contribution to the Salvadoran insurgency is longstand-
ing . . .It has provided - by land, sea and air -, the great hulk of the
military equipnient and support received by the insurgents."
What this quotaiion shows. from a document selected bv the Reoublic of
iiii3r3g.1.1 111arguiltg in il.,>un ,abc. 1, thdi ihc pr,ihlcii~,oi C'cntr.ilAni-rica
arc ni>[priihlcinr cil'isol.~tcdiiolcnce alTc~.tingSiitragu.~'s rciurit) .iloiir'.All
the Siatci <>ICcnir;1 ,\!iir.risli;i\c.in in1cr:rt in rcit,,rinc nesic 10 thc rcrlori.
and achievine this i!ia com~lex.delicate and urgent task fi&& sunoorted h; the
United ~tate; of Aroerica. A , - , ,.
The question is how hest to bring peace to the region as a whole. With al1due
respect, the United States does not believe that this judicial forum is the appro-
priate place to address this issue in light of the actions of the United Nations
and the Organizatiim of American States, and certainly not in the absence of
the other States whose vital interests are at stake.
As one commentator has written concerning the role of practitioners of
international law,
"Above all, they must avoid the temptation to deal with very difficult
political and moral issues as though they could be resolved hy rather simple STATEMENTBY MR. ROBINSON 83
and very general legal imperatives." (Professor Abram Chayes, 57 Proceed-
ingsof theArnericunSocietyojlnternationul Law 1963, pp. 11-12.)
Nicaragua's neighbours, whose rights and interests would be directly affected
by these proceedings agree that, under the circumstances, this is not the proper
forum for addressing the intertwincd problems of Central America. Later in our
presentation, we will be reading for the record portions of their recent communi-
cations brineine to the Court's attention their concerns about this oroceedine.
- -
'1'he.en:itioni h.i\e inJepciiJcntly i<immuniwtcd ihese mcr\;igcr tcithe Ilnitcd
St;iics. I.or the prcrenituill .uilice io qu<~rcirom ihc Note transmitted by ihr.
Keoublii oi'Iiundiir;i, to thc Secreiiir\-Gener;il of the Cnited Naii<>n,on 18tlnril
1984(United States Exhibit III S): .
"Once again the Government of Nicaragua is seeking to flout the Conta-
dora negotiation process by attempting to bring the Central American crisis,
essentially a political issue,under thejurisdiction of the International Court
of Justice. This is detrimental to the negotiations in progress and fails to
recognize the resolutions of the United Nations and the Organization of
American States or the full international endorsement that the Contadora
peace process kas so deservedly received."
It is against this background that the United States presents itself today before
this honourable Court. It is our contention that the Court does not have, and
could not properly exercisc, jurisdiction in the uprecedented circumstances of
this case. The Coun does not have jurisdiction because Nicaragua has never
acceoted the comoulsorv iurisdiction of this Court. Without this accentance.
Nicaragua's effori to inioke this forum can only be viewed as poiiticall;
motivated. The Court also does not have jurisdiction because the United States
has not given its consent to these proceedings. Finally, this Court, under the
international system of which it is but a part, is not institutionally designed
under the circumstances of this case to remedy the regional conflict that is
tragically engulfing Central America. In light of the Court's manifest lack of
jurisdiction, the United Statesbelieveswith al1due respect that there is no basis
for this Court to proeeed with Nicaragua's Application, the claims contained
therein, or the request for the indication of provisional measures.
With the permission ofthe Court, the presentation of the United States today
will consist of five sections. First, it will be my privilege to givc a short synopsis
of the standards to be applied by the Court in reviewing a request for the
indication of provisional measures. In this presentation, the United States will
establish three basic propositions. First, that the fundamental premise ofproceed-
ings before this Court, including those on provisional measures requests, is the
mutual consent of the States bcfore the Court. Second, that wherc an application
failsto reveal legalgrounds on which the applicant can claim a title ofjurisdiction,
as is the case here, the application should be excluded from the General List
and no further proceedings taken in connection with the Application or the
claims contained therein. And third, provisional measures cannot, in any event,
be indicated in the absence of a prima facie showing of jurisdiction by the
Applicant.
Drawing upon the foregoing, it will be the honour of the Agent of the United
States to turn to the jurisdictional facts which fundamentally flaw the whole case
of Nicaragua. In the absence of any new evidence to the contras., these facts
demonstrate a serious and knowing impropriety on the part of Nicaragua in the
institution of thesc proceedings. This conclusive defect was the subject of the
letter of the Agent of the United States to the Registrar of the Court of 23 April84 DllLlTARY AND PARADIILITARY ACTIVITIES
1984, to which the distinguished President of the Court made reference in his
opening remarks on Wednesday. In that letter, the United States advised the
Court of information that, in the absence of any new evidence to the contrary,
establishes conclusively that Nicaragua has never accepted the compulsory
jurisdiction of the Court. The United States indicated, as it will stress again
today, that Nicaragua's Application and request therefore have deliberately
violated the most fundamental prerequisite for jurisdiction by this Court - and
that is, the equality of treatment of sovereign States on the basis of reciprocity.
The United States will argue further that an application with this grave defect
as to title of jurisdiction is not a pennissible basis upon which to institute
proceedings in this Court. Indeed, it would be unthinkable for this Court to
permit a State which kas not itself accepted the jurisdiction of the Court
unilaterally Io confer on the Court the power to impose provisional measures by
the mere f;lingof an application coupled with a req"est for an indication of such
measures. The United States will therefore submit that in the absence of any
new, direct and colourable evidence of Nicaragua's acceptance of the compulsory
jurisdiction of the Court, Nicaragua's request for the indication of provisional
measures mus1be denied by the Court forthwith and a total and immediate bar
issued with regard to any further proceedings on the Application, the claims
contained therein, and the request.
The United States.emphasizesthis point at the outset because the circumstances
in this case are particularly egregious. In the letter of the United States to the
Registrar of 23 April, the United States put Nicaragua on notice of Ourintention
to raise the question of ils claim to any title ofjurisdiction. Nevertheless, neither
in its letter of the following day to the Registrar nor in ils oral presentation on
Wednesday did Nic:iragua give any specificindication of why Nicaragua believes
it is entitled to invoke this Court's compulsory jurisdiction. Nicaragua's letter of
24 Anr.l..to which the President of the Court referred on Wednesdav mornine. -
made i~nly IWO gcnyrdl ,talcnieni, fir,t. "Yi-drdgu:~ rdtificd in duc course the
Proioiol of Signlituic (if ihc Statute ,>ithr Permïncnt Court". and ser..ind."therc
are in ii~rieothcr tr,:.ities which ~ru\,idethis Court iurijdiciion". Ihe reDrcscnta-
tives of the United States listened with interest on Wednesday inhope of learning
what Nicaragua meant by these opaque references.
As to the second of the two alleged bases of iurisdiction - and the word
..allcged" is uscd advi\cdl). ,incc 3; allegarion <,rdinarily ui,uld hïre ai Ic~st
,onle subsi.incc undïrlying il .-Y1~3raguaidcntificdon \Pcdnesd;i) no "trc~tics"
ah ,II;>undat~onli)r iuri.;dicti.>nmer iti i\pplicat~on and requcst Siniilarl!. the
Application and reiuest are completely de;oid of any such reference. lideed,
Nicaragua's counsel on Wednesday afternoon at page 69, supra, cited Article
36 (5) of the Statute of the Court as the basis of compulso~yjurisdiction and
Article 36 (2) of th,: Statute, to which Article 36 (5) leads, does not even admit
of a treaty basis for jurisdiction.
At page 68, suprG.,Professor Brownlie stated:
"ln her Application to the Court Nicaragua invokes Article 36 of the
Statute on the basis that both the Applicant and Respondent States have
accepted the cc~mpulsoryjurisdiction of the Court by virtue of the so-called
Optional Clause, which in fact consists of the provisions of paragraph 2 of
Article 36."
On Wednesday, lJnited States representatives listened intently to learn of any
Nicaraguan evidence that it had, in fact, accepted the Court's compulsory
jurisdiction through adherence to the Protocol of Signature to the Statute of the
Permanent Court of International Justice. An examination by the United States STATEMENTBY MR. ROBINSON 85
of the records at the United Nations in New York, at the League of Nations
archives in Geneva and in the files of the Department of State in Washington
after the 9 April filing of Nicaragua's Application and request revealed evidence
directly to the contrary.
On this point, Professor Brownlie told the Court only the following:
"lncidentally, it should be affirmed that the Protocol of Signature of the
Permanent Court was ratified by the relevant organs of the Constitution of
Nicaragua namely the Chamher of Deputies and the Senate in 1935."
(P. 79,supra.)
Frankly, in light of the material submitted in connection with its Agent's letter
of 23 April 1984, the United States can only construe Professor Brownlie's
statement as an admission hv Nicaraeua that it never did deoosit an instrument
of ratification to them roto cfo~iGature. Without that deposit, Nicaragua's
declaration of 1929was fundamentally ineffectiveand unenforceable. The United
States letter of 23April appended documents that, in the absence of new evidence
to the contrary, estahlish that Nicaragua hy its own admission as of 13 May
1943,had in fact, not ratified the Protocol even as aatter of its own domestic
law. If the Protocol of Signature was indeed ratified "in due course" as the
Agent of Nicaragua has claimed in his letter of24 April, this must have occurred
between that date and 18 April 1946, when the League of Nations and Perma-
nent Court were dissolved. The United States has caused an examination of
Nicaragua's ownofficialpublication, La Gacera,to be made through this entire
period and has heen unahle to find any publication of notice in La Gacerawhich
was, under Nicaragua's own interna1 laws, a sine qua non to any Nicaraguan
ratificationheing effectiveas a matter of even its own domestic law.
The United States accordingly objects to the institution ofcontentious proceed-
ings hefore this body by a State which is unwilling to reveal any hasis for a claim
of entitlement to invoke the Court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the United States
regards it as totally unnecessary in these circumstances to adduce further res-
ponses to Nicaragua's request for provisional measures. Nevertheless, out of
respect for this Court, the United States in its presentation today will address
the additional grounds why this Court manifestly lacks even a prima facie basis
for jurisdiction over the Application, the claims contained therein and the request
for the indication of provisional measures.
With the Court's permission, the third part of Our presentation will be made
hv mv colleaeue. Michael Kozak. who is a Denutv Leeal Adviser in the DeDart-
ient'of ~tatiand Special ~ounsel for the ~nkei~tacs in this proceeding.'Mr.
Kozak will describe in more detail the origin and progress of the regional peace
Drocess now in oroeress which has heei dcnominated as the "Contadora"
priwci,. '1hc purpo.L. oi thi di..x,~tc~n will hc I<Iprinirlc the Courr sitth a
b;il;inied iinderit;tndindi [hi, rcgioniil ,irr.ingrn~~nii+,hirhh.15ken rn<l<~r.x,<l
hi, the I.'niteJ Ssii<>nrSeidrits Ctiuniil andhv tlic Orrdrii~iitioii oi ~\iiieri:.~ri
~iates as the ao~ro~riate means for resolvini the oresent conflict in Central
America. MI. #iOzai<'sremarks should also put to'rest Nicaragua's spurious
assertions that the United States has no interest in the Contadora process and
that the issues raised hy Nicaragua in its Application fall outside thaï Contadora
process. Certainly, a process that is designed toring peace to Central America,
and that has heen approved hy the competent regional organization to which
the United States - and Nicaragua - are parties, is a propcr subject of intense
interest and commitment on the part of the United States of America. This is al1
the more so when this process offersthe prospect, after many years of Nicaraguan86 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVII~ES
intransigence, of arriving at arrangementsand mechanisms to bring a halt to the
cycle of violence that is plaguing Central America.
The next two sec;ions of our presentation, with the Court's permission, will
be made by Daniel W. McGovern, the Deputy Agent of the United States in
this case and the Principal Deputy Legal Adviser of the Department of State.
Against the background of the on-going Contadora process, Mr. McGovern will
first speak to the 6 April 1984 action by the United States with respect to its
26 August 1946declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.
The purpose of thi! temporary and limited action was to place Nicaragua on
notice that the United States would not permit the Contadora process to be
suhverted by further Nicaraguan efforts to take the issues of Central America
out of the appropriate regional arrangements - the one forum that kas any
realistic. .sDect of hrine- - an end to the sufferine in Central America. The
I.nii:J Siate. ~riiiiion h April 15Iegslly erl'eciiic in enruring 1h.11the pre.cnt
eITorth) iiic.ir.ig~:t%>;ihuie the juilici.il proce,\ ;,inn<ii t:tke pl~e
Mr \lc<;.>\ern iiiIIihin prc,:ni ihrce additi,,nxl comnillini! rr,i.on> \ihs the
Court cannot propî:rly Nicaragua's request for the indrcation of inierim
measures.
First, because the suhject of the Application, the claims contained therein and
the request are curn:ntly committed to a regional arrangement approved by the
Security Council of the United Nations and strongly endorsed hy the competent
regional organization, the Organization of American States. Under the Charter
of the United Nations, Nicaragua is obligated to pursue good faith negotiations
in this process. The United States helieves, with due respect, that it would be
singularly inappropciate for this Court to substitute itself in the circumstances
of this case for the niechanisms provided for in the Charter for resolving disputes
involving armed coriflict.
Second, Nicaragua's Application and its request for provisional measures
inevitahly implicate the rights and interests of the other Central American States.
In their absence. iurisdiction here is lackine under the Court's iuris~rudence as
expre.bed in the .il< (;oIilXc,>r>i.i,I".» XH'.» ,C /Y43 ~ujgiii~~iit.
iri il fin F\'icar.igua'~.Applic~ii.>nan.1 requeri improperlv cdll up<>n
iliis Coiirtin tlic L.irci.iii,taii:es oi this c,i,c io ni.ike iudcmenti ti>inin.>>e
measures ootentiall-u imoairine uhe inherent rieh..of-%;tes to individual'and
c<~llc:ti\e\eli-rleVen<enJcr .&rii:le 51 <> trc I.'nitc.i Sdii<>ris<.'hürter.
U'ith the Court's pcrniissioii. uhen ihe I>c~ui\ ,\ceni .>ithe Lniie.1Si.ii:, h.15
finished, it will be rny privilege to make a fèwturtker remarks on this opening
United States preseiitation.
With your permission, the United States will now examine in detail our
contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction, in an unprecedented fashion. This
is so hecause. contriirv to the alleeations in its,~,nlication. Nicar"gua has never
accepted the ~ompuls&yjurisdicti& o his Court. This question has two aspects :
first, the extent to ,#hich jurisdiction is properlr examined in a proceeding on
provisional measures; secondly, an examinationof the facts relevant to juriidic-
:ion that are now available to the Court.
The United States will show that under this Court's jurisprudence at least a
prima facie showinj: of jurisdiction is a necessary precondition to an indication
of interim measures.
The United States will then demonstrate that given the absence of any new
evidence to the contrary Nicaragua's failure to accept the Court's compulsory
jurisdiction is beyond dispute. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction by any
standard. This is true whether the Court applies either the standard advanced
by Professor Browlilie on Wednesday, that is, that there must he a "manifest STATE~PIT RY MR. RORINSON 87
lack of iurisdiction"(o. 67.sit~ra)or the standard which the Court used in the
'i,h<,ri<,; ~irris<licrii>,i"rnd 'r,, which Profe.ror Hrounlic also rcicrred
Professor Broivnlicbdid<InM'edne\(I:~y:
"lt is of course true that in those cases and in others, the Court has found
that interim measures should be ordered only if the provisions invoked by
the applicant appcar 'prima facie to aliord a possible basis on which thé
jurisdiction of the Court might be founded'." (Ibid)
The demonstrable evidence of lack of evena colourable title to jurisdiction
distinguishes the present case from al1 other provisional measures proceedings
that have come beforc this Court. It compellingly argues, moreover, for the
immediate termination of al1proceedings with respectto Nicaragua's application,
theclaims therein, and the request for an indication of interim measures.
Before commencing this discussion, it is useful to recall the words of this
Court a few years ago in the Appeal Relaiing ro rlreJurisdicriof~of the ICA0
Council case between lndia and Pakistan. The Court there described as "An
essential point of legal principle" that a "party should not have to give an
account of itself on issues of merits before a tribunal which lacksjurisdiction in
the matter, or whose jurisdiction has not yet been established" (I.C.J. Reporis
1972,p. 56). Although that ruling was on the merits, the principle enunciated by
the Court is applicable here. Again, in the Court's own words, this time from
the PeaceTreuries case, "The consent of States, parties to a dispute, is the basis
of the Court'sjurisdiction in contentious cases"(I.C.J. Reporrs1950, p. 71). And
only a few weeksago, in the ContinentalSl~e(f(Tunisia/LibyonArabJarnahiriyu).
Applicarionby Iralyjor Permissionto Inrervene case, the Court emphasized: "The
basic principle that the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with and judge a dispute
depends on the consent of the parties thereto" (I.CJ Reporrs1984 p. 22).
The proceeding in the ltalian application case. moreover, was an "incidental
proceeding" similar in many respects under the new Rules of Court to the
incidental proceedings on provisional measures here. The United States would
refer the Court on this point to Professor Rosenne's recent book, TheProcedure
in the Inrernuri~~naC l ourrat page 148. Thus, contrary to the contention of
Nicaragua's counsel on Wednesday afternoon (p. 67, supra), al1 proceedings
before this Court arc consensual in nature.
This Court kas already indicated what it considcrs to be the appropriate
jurisdictional standard in a provisional measures proceeding. In its decision of
Tuesday, 24 April 1984,to which you referred, Mr. President, at the opening of
these hearings, the Court indicated that Nicaragua and the United States were
at liberty to address al1 matters connected with the request for provisional
measures including "the question of competence to the extent requisite to convey
their views on whether the Court possesses prima facie jurisdiction" (p. 37,
supra). The Court's determination that a prima facie showing of jurisdiction is a
prerequisite to the indication of interim measures is of course consistent with the
Court's holdings on this question in the UnitedSraresBiplomaiicand Consirlar
Staflin Tehran,NirclearTesrs and FisheriesJurisdicrioncases.
In light of the Court's specific pronouncement on 24 April and the well-
establishedjurisprudence of the Court on which it is based, it isdifficultto under-
stand how Nicaragua's counsel could contend, as he did Wednesday aftemoon,
that no proof of jurisdiction is prerequisite to the issuance of interim measures
(p. 66, supra). Nor is such a contention consistent with the Court's
Statute, or indeed with common sense. Article 41 of the Statute authorizes
the Court to indicate provisional measures "to preserve the respective rights of
either party". Unless a State is properly a "party" in the first place, Article 4188 MILLTARY AND PAFWMLLITARYACTIVITIES
does not authorize i:heCourt to indicate measures. As the reference to "party"
and "parties" in Article 41 shows, the Court has power to act only if a case is
properly hefore the Court, that is, provided that there exists at least prima facie
jurisdiction under Article 36 of the Statute. This is supported hy the change
introduced in 1978in the title of Section D of the Rules from "occasional rules"
to "incidental proc,:edings3'and hy the interpretation given hy the Court to
Article 73, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court. Thus, there is a definite linkage
hetween Article 41 and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court.
To the extent to vihich the jurisprudence of the Court suggests a jurisdictional
standard other than a prima facie demonstration, it generally suggests a higher
standard of prohability that jurisdiction will ultimately he found on the merits.
In the Aegean Seo ContinentalShelf case, for example, the Court found it
unnecessary to rule definitivelyon the jurisdictional threshold since it refused for
other reasons to indicateprovisional measures. Evenso severalJudges emphasized
the need for careful ~scrutinyofjurisdiction hefore imposing provisional measures.
Judge Nagendra Singh articulated the underlying considerations as follows:
"The essence of the matter is that if the Court is taking action aîiecting
the riehts of either o.rtv, even bv w.v of.freezine th-m. it should do so
.>III!..,itr.r rc~rlidnpciinr <II~ati.i.iciii~nin rc.g;irrd ir>.>\in c,>nipcicn.-c
\ihi<h L.<impris< t clcar tnd Jiiinct pii$\ibilii) or the Çoiiri procccdtiiy tu
render judgment in the case. The purpose of the entire exerciseof protecting
the rights of th!: Partiespendentelite is to be able to implement the Court's
judgment when it comes. The acid test of the Court's competence, therefore,
is that the judzment must be within clear prospect. This positive test of
satisfaction as to distinct oossihilit, an..ars necessarv if the Court is to
ü\,uiiIthc regrc.it.iblr.prr>rpcuf guniint: intcrini iiicdiurci and tlicii lii~ding
1;itr.rthdiII;~r.noi <\Crpru~cr.J 16,jurlgmcni in ihr. cdsc "
Judge Nagendra Singh also had the following observation which should he
emphasized in light of Professor Brownlie'sarguments to the contrary:
"Even thougli there isthe admitted factor of urgency attending the request
for interim measures, 1 feel that the Court kas nevertheless to spend the
time needed tc reach the noint of satisfaction as to its own orosnect. .
competence prior to exercise of powers under Article 41 of ils Statute."
(I.C.J. Reports1976, p. 17.)
Judge Lachs assi:rted that a provisional determination on jurisdiction was
necessary even when, as in the Aegean SeaContinentalShelf case the Court
refused to grant the measures for other reasons. He said:
"Not only w;isthe Court's jurisdiction contested by Turkey but the Court
was in my view under an obligation to consider the issue propriomotu and
make clear its provisional views thereon, notwithstanding the negative
answer it felt hound to givethe request for interim measures." (1,CJ Reports
1976, p. 19.)
Judge Morozov held that :
"The Court lias no right to consider. . .the question of interim measures
of protection, before it has satisfied itself that it kas jurisdiction."(I.C.J.
Reports1976, 11.21).
Judge Ruda also expressed the importance of an explicit finding as to
jurisdiction :90 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIBS
hy virtue of its mi:mbership in the League of Nations. It had also to ratify
another instrument - the Protocol of Signature of the Statute - and, in the
absence of new evidence to the contrary, it is clear on the record before the
Court that Nicaragua did not do so.
The Protocol of Signature of the Statute of the Permanent Court of Inter-
national Justice was opened for signature at Geneva on 16 December 1920. A
State had to ratify the Protocol of Signature in order to adopt the Statute of the
Court. Only after a State had in this way accepted the Statute of the Court could
it make an effective and binding declaration under Article 36, the "Optional
Clause", accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. The late Iudge
Manley O. Hudson succinctly summarized this relationship hetween the Statute
and the Optional Clause in his treatise on the Permanent Court of Inter-
national Justice :
"A State Carnot hecome a party to the Optional Clause unless it becomes
or has becomt: a party also to the Protocol of Signature." (M. Hudson,
PermanentC(ILIT if~International Justice1920-1943,p. 451 (1943).)
In order to becoine a oa.tv ,o the Protocol of Siena-ure. a State had hot~ to ~
5igii tIie Pr\otto:o.nd to dsposii uith the Sc~rcl.ir)-C;cncr.<l IIIthr. I.caguc
iiaticins11, inrtrumtnt oi r:itiii<.tti.R;~tific;itiou;,r ;izz,~iiiplishcdonl! h! ihii
dcoo~itoidn in,irurncnt of raiii:~~iii)n\ilth thr.Sisrstar\ -<iciicr~l.Unsn rcir.int
of'the instrument of ratification, the Secretary-General ;as to give fokal notLe
to other signatory Powers that the ratifying State had ratified the Protocol of
Signature and thereby had adopted the Statute of the Court. The third paragraph
of the Protocol of Signature explains these requirements. The United States
respectfully requests the Court to take cognizance of the fundamental nature of
this provision :
"The present Protocol . . . is subject to ratification. Each Power shall
send ils ratific;ition to the Secretam-General of the Learue of Nations: the
latter shall take the necessary ste6 to notify such ratifcation to the other
signatory Powers. The ratification shall he deposited in the Archives of the
Secretariat of i.heLeague of Nations."
Because of the critical nature of this paragraph, with your permission 1think
1shall repeat it. [Quotation repeated.]
The express reqiiirement in the Protocol of Signature of the deposit of an
instrument of ratilication to bring the Statute into effect with respect to the
ratifying State was. and is, standard international practice and was intended to
confirm a State's intention to he bound. See, for example, J. Mervyn Jones,
Full Powers and X!atfication: A Study in the Developmenr of Treaty-Making
Procedures,at pages Il I to 112 ; Chapter VI of Dehousse's Treatise, Lu ratifi-
cation des trairis; ;and Satow, A Guide to Diplomalic Practice,third edition, at
page 408.
Nicaragua signed the Protocol of Signature on 14 September 1929. On
24 September 1929,Nicaragua made the following declaration:
"On behalf of the Repuhlic of Nicaragua 1[T. 1;.Medina] recognize as
compulsory unconditionally the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of
International Justice."
Nicaragua, however, never ratified the Protocol of Signature, and under the
terms of the Protocol, never hecame a party to the Statute. As a result,
Nicaragua's declar;ition with regard to the Optional Clause of the Statute never
hecame effectiveor enforceable. STATEMENTBY MU. ROBINSON 91
The official records of the League of Nations confirm that Nicaragua's
signature of the Protocol and its 1929declaration did not hind Nicaragua to the
Protocol or to the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. Thus. the report of the
Permanent Court of International Justice for 1929.1930 lists Nicaragua among
the "States having signed [the Optional Clause] without condition as to ratifi-
cation but not ratified the Protocol of Signature of the Statute" (P.C.I.J.,
Series E, No. 6 (1929-1930), at pp. 145-146). The report notes that these States
are "not bound by the Clause" (ibid., p. 146). There is also a list of what is
called "States at present bound hy the [Optional] Clause", but this list does not
include Nicarae-a (,bid.... 1451.Nicaraeua islisted in the same wav in suhseauent
issues of the report of the ~crhanent Court of International Jultice. (~ee,'e.~.,
P.C.I.J. Series E, No. 7 (1930-1931), al pp. 159, 161, 457; PCIJ, Series E,
No. 14(1937.1938). at oo. 59-60. See also Texts Governina the Jurisdiction of the
Courr, series D, N;. 6 (i932), at p. 19.)
On 4 April 1935, the Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Relations wrote Io the
Secrctary-General of the League of Nations stating that the Protocol of Signature
which had been signed hv Nicaraeua on 14 Seotemher 1929. and other instru-
nienij. h;iJ bccii sJbniiiieJ io th; Coiigrssi of the Kcpiihlii of iY~i.tr.igu.ifor
ihcir ;on.tiiuiiiin.il r.iiiii..iiion. The .Vini~tcr.iddcJ thdi. xiicr [hi I;~rm.iliiyh.id
bccii i.>iiiol:icd .inil ilie <Ir>iiiiiic~iotiibiiihcJOilii lu/c;iir<,r!lie si.~ul,lhc
pleased to'transmit the respective i~strumeuts of ratif;Cation to the Secretariat of
the League of Nations. On 5 April 1935, the Legal Adviser of the Secretariat
replied that the Secretariat was at the disposal of the Nicaraguan Government
to facilitate such a deposit (United States Exhibit 1).
On 29 November 1939, Nicaragua addressed a telegram to the Secretary-
General of the League of Nations stating that Nicaragua would he ratifying the
Protocol of Signature in due course by depositing an instrument of ratification.
The original telegram, which is contained in United States Exhibit 1, uses the
Spanish term "oportunamente". As its text shows, the telegram was not meant
to constitute, and could not have constituted, an instrument of ratification to
the Protocol of Signature.
The telegram was received in the League of Nations in Geneva on 30November
1939.On the same date, the Acting Legal Adviser of the League of Nations, MI.
McKinnon Wood, wrote to the Nicaraguan Ministry for Foreign Afiairs. He
acknowledged receipt of the telegram and, in the following passage, noted that
ratification had yet to be completed. Mr. President, if the Members of the Court
will pardon my accent - which indeed is even worse in French than in Spanish
- 1will quote the original:
"En reoonse. ie m'em~ressede vous informer aue le service com~etent du
~c:rti:ir~.~hc IIC'IB:I1.J~~~OSI~I~~I I; vdtrs g~oi~~'sr!isn~cp~oitr 1~1'~~ti~l~icr
Ics liirm.ilitcl rr.lxti\c~su Jcp..ii Judii in\iruincnt Je r:iiilic:iti<~n."
The iclegr.im r'r,>mKv;ir.igu:i dnJ the rcsp<in,zir.im the Ac.ting Lcg:iIr\dvircr
1,)ihc Ltsgiie ,il''I.iiit~nni:!!.hoih hc i<iun.l 111Ili:L'iiitcd N:itit,lir Ilbr~r)..
Cicnc\;i. I.r.;.cudi F\aii,>n\,\rihii.c\. 1937-1916.1ile Uo. 3C 17hhJ 153.).Thii
file containsall the materials fromthc period' 1933 to 1946 rela'ting to the
signature and ratification by Nicaragua of the Protocol of Signature of the
Statute of the Permanent Court of lnternational Justice and the Optional Clause.
The League of Nations Archives contain no evidence that the League ever
received from Nicaragua the necessary instrument of ratification. The Report of
the Permanent Court reflects this hy continuing to list Nicaragua as one of the
States having signed but not ratified the Protocol (PCIJ. Series E, No. 16
(15 June 1939-31Decemher 1945), p. 50).92 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
The League Archives contain additional material that demonstrates that, in
the absence of new evidence to the contrary, Nicaragua did not ratify the
Protocol and therefore never hecame party to the Permanent Court Statute. On
4 August 1942,Ju~ge Hudson sent a letter to the Acting SecretaryGeneral of
the League enquiring about the status of Nicaragua's ratification. The Acting
Legal Adviser, MI. Emile Giraud, replied on 15 September 1942,as follows:
"\\'c 113,~nçt rczcived ihc rat~li~itionncc:,r;ir) to :oniplri~ ihc ,ign.iiure
iiiihc C.,urr Pr.>toc<i.lindi thcsamc iimc itibring iiito iorc~itic~ihlig.iiioii,
coiixriiinz Ariiclc 36. I$.idn F\u\.enibcr 29ih. 1939. ihc Sccrct.irv Gcncr~l
was inforked hy telegram that the Court ~rotocbi was ratifiéd hy the
President of the Republic of Nicaragua. We have however never received
the instrument of ratification itself, which should have been sent to us.
Nicaragua is tlierefore not bound either hy the protocol or hy the optional
clause."
On 16 September 1942, the Registrar sent a letter to Nicaragua's Foreign
Minister which statzd, in translation:
"By a telegram dated Novemher 29, 1939, you informed me that the
Protocol of Signature of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International
Justice (of 16 Decemher 1920) had heen ratified by the President of the
Republic of Nicaragua and that the instrument of ratification would be sent
to the Secretariat. 1 have never received the instrument of ratification, the
deposit of whb:h is necessary Io establish effectivelythe obligation. Perhaps
this instrumeiii was lost en route. 1 wanted to draw your attention to this
matter." (United States Exhihit 1.)
Thus, in 1942,tho Registrar explicitly informed Nicaragua that the instrument
of ratification still had no1 been deposited and reiterated that, under the tems
of the Protocol of Signature, it was necessary to deposit an instrument of
ratification in order to become party to the Protocol.
The League of Nations Archives in Geneva have no further record of any
communication with respect to Nicaragua's accession to the Protocol of Signa-
ture. League of Nations records continued to include Nicaragua in the list of
"signatures not yc:t Perfected by Ratification" (League of Nations, Oficiul
Journal,SpeciulSupplemenlNo. 193 (10 July 1944), at pp. 37, 42-43). Nor has
the United States t.een able to find, despite a diligent search, any record of de-
posit of an instrumi:nt of ratification, either in the records of the United Nations
in New York or in United States Government records. You will recall that there
was supposed to he notice sent to the other signatory powers.
The records of t3e United States do, however, contain the following related
correspondence. We have filed those records with the Court as our Exhihit
No. II. In October 1942, Judge Hudson apparently wrote to the United States
Ambassador in Nkaragua, enquiring about the status of Nicaragua's signature
of the Protocol of Signature. We do not have the letter of enquiry: On 15 May
1943, the United States Amhassador to Nicaragua sent to the Department of
State a most interesting letter for transmission to Judge Hudson, then in residence
at the Harvard Law School. The letter stated:
"1 have discussed this matter with the Foreign Office, which was able to
find a copy of the telegram of November 29, 1939, stating that Nicaragua
had in fact adhered to the Protocol of Signature and that the appropriate
document of ratification would be transmitted in the near future. There is
enclosed a copy, without translation, of the legal decree, approved and STATEMENTBY MR. ROBINSON 93
signed by the President of Nicaragua on July 19, 1935. You will note that
the second article of the decree States that it is to become effective on the
date of its publication in La Gaceta. The Foreign Minister informs me that
the decree was never published in La Gaceta. He also declares that there is
no record of the instrument of ratification having been transmitted to
Geneva. It would thus appear tbat, while appropriate legislativeaction was
taken in Nicaragua to approve adherence to the Protocol, Nicaragua is not
legally bound thereby, in as much as it did not deposit its officialdocument
of ratification with the League of Nations. The Foreign Minister, however,
volunteered the information that he would take steos to have this document
drawn up and transmitted, and indicated that he would then have the
appropriate decree published in Ln Gaceta."
The United States, Mr. President, has reviewed al1 the issues of Ln Gaceta
published from May of 1943, when the Ambassador wrote to Judge Hudson,
through April of 1946, when the League of Nations and the Permanent Court
of International Justice were dissolved. No notice of nublication of the Decree
could be found. Thus, in the absence of new evidence (O the contrary, Nicaragua
did not even complete the necessary steps to make the Decree effective as a
matter of its domestic law. and most certainlv did not take the steDof denositine
an instrument of ratification necessary to ;atify the Protocol as a matter O?
international law.
In sum, the officialrecords of the League of Nations and the Permanent Court
of International Justice clearly and consistently show that Nicaragua never, on
the international plane, ratified the Protocol of Signature before the League of
Nations dissolved on 18 April 1946.Nicaragua therefore never became a party
to the Protocol of Sienature. and Nicaraeua's 1929 declaration under the
Optional Clause never-came into force. &cordingly, Nicaragua cannot be
deemed to have accepted the compulsory jur~s~iction of this Court under Article
36 (5) of this Court's Statute.
The foregoing information, except for the exchange of 1935,was conveyed to
the Court and the counsel for Nicaragua in the United Statcs letter of 23 April.
It is remarkable that, in four hours of oral argument, Agent and counsel for
Nicaraeua did not even allude to the 23 Anril letter. Mr. Brownlie did sav that
the vali'dityof Nicaragua's Declaration had'never been challenged (p. 69, Supra).
But that is not the point. The United States contends that the declaration plainly
never entered into force.
Counsel for Nicaragua also noted in passing that Nicaragua's legislature
apparently authorired ratification of the Protocol of Signature in 1935.But this,
too, isirrelevant. The exchange of correspondence of 1943showsthat Nicaragua's
Foreig- Minister s~ecificallvadvised the United States Ambassador that. eieht -
!r.;ir, .ifter ihc Congresr dacd, Nii~rqud'~ diirnc\ii~.Icgal rcquircnicnts pcrmit-
iinp raiiii&iriun riillhdd n<>ihccn c<>mplcicdAnd .*ihatc\cr ihc st.iius 01' II,
<Io~iieriiipr<,icdurcr. Ni..irsgud c.iulil rai~iy th< Pr&>ii>co il Sixn:iiurr'on ihr'
international plane only in aicordance with ;ts terms, which requ:red deposit of
the instrument of ratification. The League's records show beyond dispute that
the deposit was never made, and that Nicaragua was formally advised at least
twice - in 1939and 1942 - that it had not, accordingly, become party to the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.
In April 1946, when the League and the Permanent Court were dissolved,
Nicaragua was thus on notice that it did not have "in force" a declaration under
Article 36of the Statute of the Permanent Court, and that it could not, therefore,
be deemed to have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of this Court pursuant94 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
tu Article 36 (5) of this Court's Statute. Nicaragua could have remedied this
situation very easily. It only had tu make a declaration under Article 36 (2) of
this Court's Statute. It has been 38 years now, and, in the absence of new
evidence to the conirary, Nicaragua kas never done so.
What has Nicarasua done with reswct 10the Court in the last 38vears? Until
the present proceed~ngsit had never brought an application. This, Ge submit, is
why the status of hTicaragua'sacceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction
has never been thoroughly examined before.
Nicaragua was once named as a respondent before the Court in the King of
SpainArbitral A~uard case, mentioned hoth hy the Agent of Nicaragua and by
Professor Brownlie, on Wednesday. That case was brought pursuant tu a com-
promissory clause in the Washington Agreement of 1957.Tu be sure, Honduras
pleaded both the <:ompromissoryclause and Nicaragua's 1929 declaration as
bases for jurisdiction. lnterestingly- and neither Nicaragua's Agent nor Pro-
fesser Brownlie mcntioned this - Nicaragua herself characterized the invo-
cation of compulr,ory jurisdiction as inaccurate and cnplained its role as
party as derived sc~lelyfrom the compromis. In this regard, the United States
calls the Court's aitention to the Plearlings in that case, Volume 1, pages 8, 9,
59, 131and 132. The Court itself never reached the issue in light of the specificity
of the compromis:;ory clause of the Washington Agreement (ICJ Reports
1960, p. 203).
Nicaragua's couosel made one other argument on Wednesday, apparently
intended to demoiistrate that Nicaraeua's dcclaration is somehow effective.
although the logic of that argument ;as neither articulated nor self-evident:
Professor Brownlie noted that Nicaragua has been listed in the Court's Yeurbook
as a party tu the cc~mpulsoryjurisdiction and listed in certain other publications
derived therefrom. This is a curious argument. My Government and, we submit,
most other governinents, would be very much surpriscd tu learn that they can
be deemed tu have accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction merely hy heing
listed in the Court':;Yearhook or some other publication, especially when such a
listing is manifestly inconsistent with the official records concerning their accep-
tance.
Althoueh counsol for Nicaraeua read the declaration as it aooears in the
~earbookyhe omitted, however,ïo note that every volume of thi; Court's own
Yearbook since the 1955-1956Volume makes the following qualification tu the
- ~
declaration of Nicaragua :
"According to a telegram dated 29 Novcmher 1939. addressed to the
Learue of Nations. Nicaraeua had ratified the Protocol of Sienature of the
~tdt,te of the ~ern~unen tiitrrof lnternotionolJustice(16 ~Gemher 1920),
and the inslrurnent of ratification was to follow. It does not appear, however,
that the instrument of ratification was ever received hy the League of
Nations."
We have alread:! considered the hasis for this footnote and the inevitable
conclusion tu whicli it leads. Why the Registrar did not include this qualification
in the Yearbook from 1946to 1955.we do not know. The United States notes,
however, that in 1955 Nicaragua was clearly apprehensive that Honduras was
about tu file an application in the then highly contentious boundary dispute
between Honduras and Nicaragua. One can thus only wonder who instigated
the reappearance of the footnote in the Yearbook of this Court just at this time
in 1956; 1 repeat, one can thus only wonder who instigated the reappearance of
the footnote in the Yearhook of this Court jus1 at this lime in 1956.
ln any event, what is important tu note is that Nicaragua, through the Court's STATBMEW RY MR. ROBINSON 95
own Yearbook of the Iast three decades, has clearly been on notice that its
declaration was in question. Again, this doubt could have been easily dispelled
had Nicaragua so chosen. Instead. it can only appear that throughout the last
45 vears Nicaraaua has. in the absence of anv new evidence to the contrarv.
been lcit wiiti.I-bail, tiioblect 1,)an). ;.ppli;~tion u,hich niight bc liled :ig:iin,t
ilIn cilnn:ction ir,ith lhc Op1ion;iiCidil\r tiiille Stlit~tciiithe Perm;inïnr Couri
3f Intern:itio~i;ilJustice. On the haii, the :ledr and iuniliinitntal terrnr $ifthe
Protocol of Signature. Nicaragua could only have succeeded with such an
objection. Under these circumstances, it is unthinkahle Io permit Nicaragua to
invoke this Court's jurisdiction now against another country when the sinequa
non of international adiudication is eaua.itv o, treatment and reciorocitv.
llclbre iliis lundam~nt~l lurisdiriional arfumcnt i, concludt~: IIshould he
noted that thi, ea\e JiITersfund.imeniallg with rcspsii iùjuri,diiti.>nal objections
i'r,,meveri othcr preliminarv nicasurer proccedinr held bv thir Court. In al1thc
orior orokedines; there wis before thé Coun ai instrutnent of the aonl~cant~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ihat Prima faci; established jurisdiction, whether a declaration in eKect under
Article 36 (2) or a compromissory clause of a treatv. The respondent obiected
on the basis of reservatkns by itielf, or, under the principle of reciprociiy, on
the basis of reservations by the applicant. Here in this case, however, the
jurisdictional instrument of the applicant is lacking entirely. The United States
believes that the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction e limine. The United States
raises this lack of jurisdiction as a plea in bar of fundamental importance, such
as that held desirable to consider at the outset in the Noltehohm case (Second
Phase) (ICJ Reporrs1955 p. 12).
The United States submits that this fundamental threshold issuecan and must
be addressed immediately by the Court. Unless Nicaragua can plainly show the
Court that it deposited its instrument of ratification to the Protocol of Signature
with the League of Nations before April 1946, or that ildepositcd with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, prior to the filing of its Application
on 9 April 1984,a declaration pursuant to Article 36 (2) and (4) of this Court's
Statute, these proceedings mus1bc terminated immediately and the Application
and request removed from the Court's List.
Despite this conviction, the United States, out of deference to the Court, will
also now present several other compelling reasons why this Court lacksjurisdic-
lion or othenvise may not properly take cognizance of Nicaragua's Application
and request. These arguments depend upon a more thorough understanding of
the background Io that Application and request and to the situation in Central
America generally. For these purposes, 1 would respectfully invite the Court
to cal1 upon Our distinguished Special Counsel in this matter, my colleague,
Mr. Kozak. ARGUMENTOF MR. KOZAK
SPECIAL COUNSEL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Mr. KOZAK: MI. President, distinguished Members of the Court.
It is a great honour to be before you today.
Asthe Agent of the United States has demonstrated, the Republic of Nicaragua
has never acceded to the compulsory jurisdiction of this Court. Its Application
and request for provisional measures mus1 therefore be rejected. There are,
however, additional reasons why this case is manifestly outside the jurisdiction
of this Court, which the Deputy-Agent of the United States will be reviewing
later in this presentation. The United States does not intend to engage in a
debate concerning the facts alleged by Nicaragua, given the absence of jurisdic-
tion. Nevertheless, (certainbackground information may be useful to the Court
in considering the jiirisdictional arguments which follow.
As the Agent of the United States kas indicated, the Application filed by the
Renublic of Nicara:zua in this case seeks to convev to the Court the im~ression
thil the problciiis F~cin~C':i~ir:ilAiiltria toJa) ar; tssziit~.a hil;itC,ridi>puic
hctbiccnthc G~;<~i,ernnie oitthc ('niietlStïte, 2nd the Ci<~\crnmcnioi Ui;.ir.igu.i.
Lniortun.~icI\ far the ocuplc, uiC'cnt~il An>cr~:~it,he IS~IICis noi th,it iln~ole
The problems of cintra1 America do not respect frontiers and they arénot
confined to security matters. With few exceptions, the region as a whole has long
suffered from severe problems of social inequality, poverty and economic
dislocation, lack of respect for human rights, unrepresentative government and
political violence.Throughout the region, the economic and other stresses of the
1970sundermincd important progress made in the preceding Iwo decades. Those
challenges contrihuied to significant political change in a number of countries in
the region. They have undoubtedly contributed to armed insurgenciesthroughout
the region.
The search for a means of addressing the complex and interrelated problems
of Central America has heen arduous. But through the efforts of thc Ccntral
American States ttiemselves, other States in the region, the Organization of
American States, arid the United Nations, a region-wide negotiating process has
been initiated and reinforced. This regional process, known as the "Contadora
orocess". has been acceoted bv al1of the narties concerned. includin~Nicaraeud.
II h;i, m;iJc riihrt;inti.xl progrc\r iow~rds ilic :ichic~iemc~not:ii<>mprchcnsi\e
and rni;>r;cdhlc rcr.iluii<><> the multi-i.iccicd pr<>hlcms Cdnir.11,\mcrir:i.
Thc Ilnitcd Sidits ~<insiclcr,the nature and ,t:itu> oithc>crefii<>nllncy<>iid-
tions to be directly relevant to the issues confronting this Courtin the present
proceedings. The United States therefore hopes that a brief review of the origin
and progress of this process will be of value to the Court.
The five Central American countries - Costa Rica. El Salvador. Honduras.
Guatemala and Nicaragua - each faces problems unique to its own heritage:
Costa Rica is a well-established democracy with a high degree ofsocial, political
and economic development, and a long-standingcommitment to peace. For over
30 years it has had no standing army and has been a leader in the hemisphere
in promoting the peaccful resolution of disputes. El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras and Nicaragua has each suffered from interna1insurgencies, and each
was ruled by military leaders during most of the 1970s.
The beginning cf this decade brought profound change in each of these ARGUMENT OF MR. KOZAK 97
societies. It also marked a transformation of the character of the problems in
the region from largely internal difficultiesto region-wide strife.
In Honduras and El Salvador, hroadly based democratic Governments,
committed to proîound reform, assumed power. In Nicaragua, the repressiveness
and corruntion of a dvnastic réeimeled to a broad-based uorisine which. in
1979,was able - with significant support from other countries in the region -
to overthrow that régimethrough a combination of violence and diplomacy.
Power was assumcd by a broad coalition of opposition forccs, including parties
soanning the oolitical soectrum. business. labour. and anrarian erouos. and the
~andinistas. That coaliton caméto power on a ilatform of pluralism, electoral
democracy and respect for human rirhts. The commitment of the new "Junta of
Government of ~ational ~econstru~tion" to these policies was expressed in a
letter to the Organization of American States of 12 July 1979. This letter is
United States Exhibit III, tab A.
Other States have su..orted these r-als. For examnle. the United States itself
pr<~viJcdsuh~tanli~la\sihlance iciihz <i<l\,crnmr.nI01' El S~ivadlir. IlonJur2s
and Uic;iragu;ito hclp thcni inihcir c~Tortsto rebuild ihcir soziciicsin ;iccordancc
wilh thc plur;ilisilc.inJ ilcniucr~iicgo.ili the, had rci for thcnisclici Thc I:niicd
States prwided to Nicaragua 118million dollars in assistance in the first two
years following the revolution - more than any other single country.
The new Government of Nicaragua, however, departed from its early promise
of rebuilding its own Society on a pluralistic and democratic hasis. It turned
instead to an increasingly authoritarian internal policy. It initiated a massive
build-up of ils military forces unprecedented in the region. The previous régime
had. in normal times, acombined military and policeforce totalling approximately
9,000 men which increased to 14,000 during the height of civil strife. By 1983,
military and sccurity forces in Nicaragua numbered at Ieast 75,000persons, plus
approximately 3,000 Cuhan military personnel. 1refer Io the March 1984report
of Secretary Shultz to the Congress on United States eiTortsto achieve peace in
Central America, which is United States Exhibit III, tab V.
Nicaragua also became deeply involved in insurgencies in neighbouring coun-
tries, in furtherance of its "active promotion for 'revolution without frontiers'
throuehout Central America". This auotation is found in Nicara-ua's Exhibit V.
tab 10,at pages 5 to 6.
The results havc becn a tragedy for al1of Central America. As El Salvador's
Permanent Reprcscntative to the United Nations notcd Iast November:
"My country has been the victim, among other warlike and hostile acts,
of a continuing traffic in weapons, with Nicaragua as the las1 link in the
chain. From there orders are sent to armed groups of the extreme left
operating in El Salvador. These groups have thcir headquartcrs in Nicaragua
and logistic support is channelled through them."
This statement can be found in United States Exhibit IV, tab A.
Although Nicaragua's greatest efforts have gone towards supporting Salva-
doran guerrillas, il has also promoted guerrilla violence inother Central Ameri-
can countries. Costa Rica, Honduras and Guatemala have al1heen affected.
At the Sdme lime. Nicaragua's armed forces have conducted ooen armed
attacks across its borders. Honduras has repeatedly protested armed'incursions
into its territory and waters, which have resulted in a loss of Honduran livesand
destruction of property. Costa Rica has protested Nicaraguan military incursions,
shelling of its bordcr posts and seiaures of fishing vessels within Costa Rican
waters. Examples of these protests are included in United States Exhibit IV, tabs
B through D.98 MILITARY ANI) PARA.MILITARY ACTIVITIES
As Nicaraguan support of such activities increased, Nicaragua's neighbours
turned to the United States for security assistance. At the same time, the threat
posed by Nicaragua Io the other Central American countries has also resulted
in increased CO-oper:itionamong those countries in collective self-defencemeas-
ures.
Nicaragua itsclf h;is not becn immune from the violence sprcading throughout
the region. The failure to date of the Government of Nicaragua to fulfilthe early
promises of pluralisrn, democracy and justice has led to the growth of political
opposition in Nicaragua. That Covernment has been accused by its own former
collaborators of betraying the promises of the revolution, through ils attacks
aeainst the free exeri;iseof relieion. a free oress. civil and oolitical riehts. riehts
07 frcc association. ihe scciirit; anJ UCIFJ; of niinority ~,~pii~iii~on;;iiidGhcr
sïrious \i<ilati.in~<IIh'umsn righir. 1rcicr IO I'nited Staic. Fxhihit I\' i~b E.
In resoonse to these ooliciesTmanv Nicaraeuans. includine leaders of the 1979
rciuluti<;nand iurmi r high-r;inking ;iicrnbcr~ofihc SindiniGa guvcrnnicnt iiscll.
have rince 1980g<>nii:ni<>armcd oppgisiliun io :irhicvc ihc original giialr orthc
revolution. Nicaragua's counsel described in some detail the ;ecen<capture of
the town of San Juan del Norte by what he terrned "niercenary forces". In fact.
the forces involved in that action were reportedly under the leadership of Eden
Pastora - the famous Comandante Cero - who was the most prominent
militarv leader of the 1979 revolution and former Vice-Minister of Defence of
the prcscnt Govcrnnicni or iiicsr;igu~.
Si.ardgii;i has aiiiijeJ othcr nailons of in,iigating sntl ,upporiing the opp~)-
sition movemcnls tvithin itrou.n tcrritors. But iu\i ar il cannot he arrucd ihat
violence in El Salva<loror other neighhguring ;ountries is exclusivelyTheresult
of Nicaraguan and Cuban aggrcssion, Nicaragua's Government cannot pre-
tend that its armed opposition is solely a creature of outsidc forces. This was
recognized hy the Episcopal Conference of Bishops in Nicaragua which issued a
pastoral letter this Easter Sunday calling for an interna1 dialogue aimed at
national reconciliation. The Bishops proposed that al1 parties, including the
armed Nicaraguan cipposition, Lakepart. The response of the Government, by
the way, was to censor publication of the entire letter hy the independent press
and to distort its coiitents in the Government press.
The other four Central American nations, other States in the region, and the
United States becarne increasingly concerned by these trends in the region from
1981 on. Efforts were made by several States, including the United Statcs -
both bilaterally and in support of regional eiforts - to resolve the security
situation peacefully.
The problems, however, were too complex and interrelated to be dealt with
on a piece-meal basis. Cross-border attacks by regular militdry forces could not
be effectivelyaddresjed in isolation from the growing disproportionality in the
sizeof national mi1it:iryforces. The problem of external support for armed insur-
gents could not be iicalt with in the absence of attention to the social, politi-
cal and economic fai;tors in each society that give rise to those insurgencies.
In October 1982, <:onsistentwith this realization that a regional approach was
needed to address the reeiun's oroblems. the Government of Costa Rica hosted
;i conicrcncc in 11sz~pii;il. Snn Joj?. aiien<leJ by reprcscntJtivcs of Bclirc.
C~luinbid. El SaI\;iJur. Ilunduras. J:im:i~i;i2nd the UniiïJ Siales. P;tnam;i2nd
the Duniin~c;inRcpubli~dcsignated spccililobscr\crs. Thir ionicrcnic iurmulatsd
prupural, iur rlïalinf on a cumprchcnsi\~cba,ir wiih the prohlcms oi insiabiliiy
in the region. including ihc escalaiion of localconflirts cau5r.dhy extcrnal support
li>rinsurgencic, in 1t.eCcnir;il Anicrir.ancuunirics Ihc Uniicd S1;iicsiicned ihe
San ~osé~conference final act. In so doing, the United States committed-itself to ARGUMEST OF MR. KOZAK 99
support a solution involving such fundamental principles as an end to cross-
border support for insurgencies,thc reduction and eventual climination of foreign
military personnel in the region - including thosc of the United States -
proportionality of military force levelsand limitations on the introduction and
maintenance of weapon systems - al1 on an enforceable and mutually verifi-
able basis.
The Cour1adjourned/rom 11.30 o.ni.ro 11.45a.m.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, pnor to the break 1 was describing the
Conference that was held in San José,Costa Rica, in October of 1982, and
mentioned that the United States had signed the Final Act of that Conference.
In so doing, the United States committed itself to support a solution involving
such fundamental orincioles,~~ an end ~ ~cross-border suooort f.. insureencies:u
thc rcduition and cic!itu;il climin;iti,~noiloreign niilit;irypcrsonncl in the rcgidn.
in.d~din~:thosr.oc ilic Uniicd Stlitc,. pr<~poriionalityof niil!t;ir>(orcc le\'cliand
limitatiois on the introduction and maintenance of weapon systems: al1on an
enforceable and mutually verifiablebasis.
In addition to such security issues, the San José Conferenceparticipants
recoenized that an endurina structure of veace and vrogress in the region would
be dépendentupon the establishment oipluralistic.ana non-represske systems
in each of the countries. Thc Conference enunciated aseriesof principles designed
to address these equally complex and sensitive issues.A copy of the Final Act
of the San José Conferencecan bc found at United States Exhibit III, tab B.
The Foreign Ministcr of Costa Rica was requcsted by the Conference to
communicate the San Joséprinciples to the Government of Nicaragua and to
seck ils participation in a rcgional dialogue designed to deal with the problems
of the area. The Government of Nicaragua refused to receive him.
The search for peace continued. In January 1983,the four Latin States closest
to Central America - Mexico, Panama, Colombia and Venezuela met on
the Island of Contadora, in Panama, and undertook a diplomatic initiative of
exceptional importance and particular relevance here. Through skilful joint
efforts, this "Contadora Croup" succeeded in bringing together the five Central
American States. includine Nicaragua. Meeting 28 to 30 Mav 1983. the five
Central American and the four contadora ccuntries agreed on the need to
devclop a general agenda of political, security, economic, social and compliance
issues.
The broad acceotance of this reeional aonroach was aided in oart bv Unitcd
Nations Security ~ouncil resolution 530 hi 19 May 1983.~hai resol;tion ex-
pressly endorsed the Contadora process as the appropriate avenue for resolution
of the ~robiems of Central America. This resolution is United States Exhibit Ill,
tab D.'AISOimportant to the success of the Contadora Group in initiating this
process wasthe support for the conccpt of a regional solution expressed byother
nations, including the United States.
On 17 July 1983, the Contadora Group met again in Cancun, Mexico, and
issued a public declaration proposing to the countries of Ccntral America a com-
prchensive agenda addressing the security, economic, social, political and
compliançe issuesfacing the region. A copy of this Cancun Declaration is United
~t~ ~~ ~xhibi~ ~II. tab E.
. ~ ~
Nicaragua countcred with proposals of its own which, whilc unbalanced and
focusedalmost entirely on security issues, didrecognizethe need to address these
problems on a regional basis. The other four Central American States offered an100 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
eight-point plan coiering al1of the issues included in the Cancun Declaration,
emphasizing both security and the need for democratic development.
These three proposais were considered together by the four nations of the
Contadora Croup and the five Central American States. Their discussions
produccd one of the most significant steps forward in the search for peace.
Meeting again in Panama from 7 to 9 September 1983, the nine countries
involved prepared a 21-point "document of objectives", the text of which is
found in Exhibit III, tab F. Thisdocument constituted the first ugreed, comprehen-
sive listin" of the issuesand nrincioles which were Io form the basis of a reeional u
pelice.and esi.ihli\hiJ ihe frïmcuork for ncgntiation oidciliiled ire.ity Ianguagc
The docuincnt of ol)jeciivescall, ior the Jc~clopmcni of an agrccmcni dcaliny
with a wide range ofsocial, political, economic and secunty issuesand providing
~-~ e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~fication.Th- ~ ~-~~n~~~ ~ ~ ~on the need for an end to exterml
support for terronsm, subversion and destabilization; for national reconcili-
ation and reswct for political and civil rights; for reduction of foreign military
oresences and of leveG of armed forces: and. finallv. for renewed economic ci-
. , *.
operation. In the dccument of objectives, the parties list, inter aliu, the follow-
ing objectives:
"To create political conditions intended to ensure the international secur-
ity, integrity and sovereignty of the Statesof the region;
To stop the arms race in al1 its forms and begin negotiations for the
control and reduction of current stocks of weapons and on the number of
armed troops;
To prevent the installation on their territory of foreign military bases or
anv other tvne of foreizn militarv interference:
'Toconci;de agreem&ts to redbce the presence of foreignmilitary advisers
and other foreij:n elements involved in military and security activities, with
a view to their ëlimination:
'Io es1;tblljhinterna1iontrtil maihincry 10 prcvcnt ihc trallic in am\ from
ihc icrritury of an) countr! in ihe region IO the tcrriii)ry <~l'lini>iher:
To climin.iic :hc ir;rilicin lirmr. u,hethcr wiihin the region or froni o~tsidc
II.i~iienJcJ for persans, orgdni/liti<ini or groupr \:cking 10 Jestahili/e ihc
Cio\crnmcntr or Ccntral Amcrican counirieh
To prevent the use of their own territory by persons, organizations or
groups seekingto destabilize the Governments of Central American çountries
and to refuse to provide them with or permit them to receive military or
logistical support;
To refrain from inciting or supporting acts of terrorism, subversion or
sabotage in the countries of the area; . . ."
The document of objectives concludes:
"The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Central American countries,
with the parliciiration of the countries in the Contadora gr ou^, have beaun
neeotiations wiih the ai~ ~f nrcoarine for the conclusion of the agreements
~ ~ c ~ . . -
2nd the cstiiblishmcni ol'thc m:i;hinrry neccrslir) to iormsli~c and Jcielop
ihc ohjcciii~csca,ntaine.l in thi, ,lo~unicni. ;inJ Io brin< ;ibsui the oiablisti-
ment of appropriate verification and monitoring systems . .."
As the Contadora nenotiations have subsequentlv propressed..howe-er, Nica-
ragua has rcpcatcdl! atirniptcd IO sepirJic frim the regioniil nigotiaiing prdio.
i3suci of Loncern 11, Xiciirqua linJ io Jivcri tlicni to othcr iorii. Sii:irag.ili
hlis cotisistcntly aitempicJ tu portray thc problcm\ ul'ihc regidn as the product ARGUMENT OF MR. KOZAK 101
of United States antagonism towards Nicaragua and to exclude the concerns of
its own neighhours from consideration.
Foreign Minister Ortega of Panama, for example, stated in an interview in
October 1983,that
"Panama and the Contadora Group are concerned about Nicaragua's
inclusion of the Central American situation in United Nations debates, since
this could weaken the authority of the Venezuelan, Mexican, Colombian
and Panamanian eflort."
Similarly, the Permanent Rcpresçntative of Honduras stated, in the dcbatc of
the United Nations General Assembly of 8 November 1983:
"[Tlhrough this dehate Nicaragua is attempting to attain several ends
. . .[I]t wishes to escape from the future Contadora Group negotiations
because of their global and regional character . . .[Ilt wishes ta polarize
the Central American issuc through East-Westconfrontation . .[I]t wishes
to obtain support for its recent proposal . . The latter project is aimed
only at protecting Nicaragua, guaranteeing it impunity for ils acts of
intervention . . ."
1refer the Court to United States Exhibit III tab G at page 286, info.
On II November 1983, the General Assembly of the United Nations in its
resolution 38/10 manifested ils support for the regional negotiating process by
reiterating the terms of Security Council resolution 530. On 18 November the
General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted resolution
675 expressing its firmes1 support of the Contadora process. Both of the
resolutions took specific notice of the Document of Objective, and both firmly
expressed their support of the Contadora process. The General Assembly
resolution is United States Exhihit III. tab K. The Organization of American
States resolution is United States Exhibit III, tab H.
These clear indications by the principal United Nations organs and the
competent regional organizations thai Central American issues were to be
addressed exclusively in the Contadora negotiating process had appropriate
effects.
On 9 Decemher 1983pursuant to SecurityCouncil resolution 530,the Secretary-
General of the United Nations reported to the Council:
"[Tlhe pace of the eiTortsof the Contadora Group is accelerating, and
in that context diplornatic activity has been redouhled. Furthermore, there
is perceptible movement in the position in the Government of Nicaragua,
consistine mainlv in the submission of orooosals within the framework of
the efforts of thccontadora Group and in measures which, notwithstanding
their domestic nature, take co-nizance of certain requirements of the other
countries of the region."
The Secretarv-General's Note is United States Exhibit 111,tah L.
In Janudr) IJo-1. the ninc couniries pdrticipdtiiig in the Coniadora pri>L.err
agreed to a ,pccilir<prdprhmme criablisliing tliree ir~~rkinp.wmmi\riiiiir for the
purpose of preparing studies, legal drafts and recomrnendations concerning
security and political matters, and economic and social questions. The com-
missions were also asked to make proposais for verifying and supervising the
implementation of the measures agreed upon. That document is contained in
United States Exhibit III, tab M. They further agreed to a work schedule anti-
cipating the completion of the groups' iask and the transmission of their
work to a joint meeting of the Foreign Ministers by 30April - next Monday.102 MlLlTARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIIS
On 4 April, howevei, as the working group meetings were actually in progress,
Nicaragua again sought to raise complaints in the United Nations Security
Council, and on 9 April it Tiledits Application with this Court.
As the Agent of the United States indicated in his opening remarks, each of
the other Central American States has exvressed concern as to the ootential
cllciiol iheir F\icai~guaii niobej on thc ne#oti:iting proccsr. The tehi\ of their
stateincnts idn he i; und in Unit~~iSt;itcs t.xhibit III. [ab\ P thr.iugh '1.Sc\er.il
h:,\c hrguchi ilicir ,~>nL.crni,lire-111%)the aticiitiun thr. Couri. I he tdrei-n
Minister 07 Costa Rica hos stated:
"The Government of Costa Rica is of the opinion that whatever measure
which the Court might adopt in the 'case' presentedfor its consideration,
taking such muasures outside the context of the complete political and
military situation that prevails in the Central American region, could hecome
a distorting factor in the difficult equilibrium sought by the forum of
Contadora in a broader framework of solutions and could compromise, if
not taken with prudence and equity, al1possihilities ofsuccess for the 'forum
of Contadora'."
The Government of Honduras made the following observations:
"In more than a vear of delicate multilateral neeotiations. the Contadora
Ciriiup h.ir hsil thiiillsupport oi the Org.ini,atio~ oi Ameri~;inStiite~;ind
the Cnitcd S;it.cinr Gcncr;il Aijemhl) ;ind Sccurity C<,iinril. iiincll.I, the
international community in general, regardless of ideological, political, eco-
nomic. and lee"l s~,~ems.
~hat is why the Government of Honduras considers it necessary and in
the hest interests of the nations of the Central American region and of other
peace-loving nations for the Contadora Group to continue its efforts to
achieve a stable and lasting peace in the region, without being hampered by
some country sceking recourse to other means of peaceful solution.
In accordance with this viewpoint, which is shared hy the majority of
Central American countries and by the Contadora Group, the Government
of Honduras viishes to point out the dangers of discussing the Central
American crisi:$in various international forums simultaneously, as the
Government of Nicaragua has requested, when direct negotiations are
already in progress. This viewpoint has also been corroborated by the fact
that the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, and the
Organization of American States General Assemhly, have sent the Central
American issue back Io the Contadora Group, to which they give their
unconditional support."
The Government of El Salvador has observed :
".I he issues ~i~is~dy the Ci<~vcrnmcn ti Xiï~~iiguacannut hc dii.<>rceJ
I'roiiithe rcgior~l i,sues under negotiiition in ihc Conilidura prùccjs In the
vicu crfmv Govcrnnieni. the ci>rnril:iinthv hicafiicuii. if cùnriclcrcrlh\ the
Court, orvif the provisibnal meaiures wéreordeGd by the Court, would
damage prospects for successof multilateral negotiations within the Conta-
dora framework, especially if such measures were applied to only one party
to the dispute."
Finally, the Government of Guatemala has stated puhlicly that
"Any attempt to seek another forum or international body in order to
discuss security problems of a political, economic and social nature has a
negative impaci on the Contadora process." ARGUMENT OP MR. KOLAK 103
The United States has from the outset of the Contadora process shared the
concern that attempts to separate individual aspects from the comprehensive
regional process for address in other fora would impede the, prospects for
negotiating a comprehensive solution by the parties most directly concerned.
These concerns of the United States were heightened by an anticipated Nicaraguan
effort to seek to utilize this Court in the same manner as it has sought to use
other international fora, at a critical stage in the negotiating process.
After careful consideration, the United States concluded that it had no choice
but to place Nicaragua on notice that the United States would not join in snch
a diversionary exerciseand would continue to do al1it could to give the regional
negotiating process the time it needs to accomplish its work successfully. To this
end. the United States, on 6 April, submitted a notice to make express that the
United States acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction of the Court would not, for
a period of two years, include any possibility of adjudication that might interfere
with the Contadora negotiations. The effect of this notice will be discussed by
the Deputy-Agent of the United States.
The United States wishes to emphasize that this temporary and limited notice
was desiened solelvto orotect the viabilitv of an a~reed-uuon and active neeotia-
ting for r~olv;ng this regional cinflict in Themanner foreseen under the
United Nations and the Organization of American States Charters. Indeed, the
working commissions which are scheduled to produce proposals to the Foreign
Ministers by 30 April are to be meeting at this very time.
The United States action was not taken lightly. The United States has sought
to make clear that it does not reflect any change in the long-standing United
States o.licv.of sum. . for the Court as an effective instrument for resolving -
intcrn.iti~~i;iIIcg;lirp.ites. liidec'15the region.ili1cgoii~i:iigprd:c>\ pr%>p,rc<\c<,
thcre mdy \icll he unrcw~l\cJ irwcr oi d gc~iiuiii:Ikg~l.+ior:i<tc,r;in4\111.harc
c~u.ibleof rc,olution b, ;iJiu,l:aition. In the nic.iniinic. the Ilnitcil St~ie, helie\.c>
that the focus should be-on allowing the -tates most directlv concerned to
complete their quest for a realistic, mutually acceptable and workable solution
to the social, economic, political and security issues which confront the entire
region of Central ~merica.
Nicaragua's counsel referred several times to the fact that the United States is
not a direct participant in the Contadora process. This is as it sbould he. The
representative of Venezuelato the United Nations, in her support of the Conta-
dora process, referred to initiatives aimed at the institutional stahilization of the
area and co-operation among the Central American countries and stated:
"But al1of this must he done within a Latin American framework . . It
is in Latin American forums and with Latin American protagonists that we
should be able to consider the situation in Central America in its overall
complexity."
This statement is United States Exhibit III, tah C.
The United States kas fully supported the Contadora process. The President
of the United States has on numerous occasions puhlicly affirmed the strong
suooort of the United States for the Contadora orocess. and has sent his suecial
rcpr:\cntati\c ti,the rcgi.ini<>.is\ist in i.i..ilit;itingJi,cusri.)~iuitlic various pr.i:e
priipo>lili Ihc IJiiitcd St.iies .en1 a tcsm 01' \,eriliciiit>n ,pcii~lirt\ tu Cctiir~l
Anieri::~in tchrusr! -hlarcn ti> pri>idc cipcrtisc1.1iri:ndli. g<>v~.rnmciiti, 1111s
phase of the processand to underline our own strong commiÏment to its success.
Secretary Shultz's March 1984report to Congress States:
"a verifiable agreement to implement the 21 points would address our con-
cerns with Nicaraguan hehavior, would meet the interests of the other104 MlLlTARY AND PARAMIISTARY ACTIVITIES
Central American States, and would give Nicaragua a concrete framework
for peaceful political and economic CO-operationwith its neighbors".
1refer the Court to United States Exhibit III, tab Vat pages 331-332,infra.
This support for sicomprehensive regional solution to the Contadora process
is not limited to thi: United States or to the countries directly involved in the
Contadora process. Spanish Prime Minister Gonzalez, following a meeting with
Colombian Presiderit Betancur in October 1983, publicly stressed the support
that the Contadora Group receivedfrom Spain, Europe, the non-aligned countries
and the United States. "This shows us", he said, "that there is no need for an-
other alternative." His statement is included in United States Exhibit 111,tab 1.
Mr. President, thls is the background against which Nicaragua's Application
must be viewed in considerine the several additional reasons whv this Court
I.i:k, lurisJi:iion .ind ,hi>ulJ niit take .wgni/ance .iithe ,\pplicati<in. I:.>rih<,,e
rguniciiij. I uoiild rcspcitliill) iisk the Prcridcrlt to ~~11.1PJIIthe I>eput!.-r\gc~it
oithe I'nited Siate,. kir Daniel \\'.SI:<;~i\crn. Prinrinal Denut\ I.ec~lAJ\i.;er
.. -
of the Department of State. ARGUMENT OF MR. McGOVEHN
UBPU'I'Y-AGE FNRTTHE UNITRI>STATES01' AMERICA
Mr. McGOVERN: Mr. President. distinnuished "embcrs of the Court,
I shilrc the feelingc~pre\>eJ hy mv c~)llrdgue~.\Ir Kt>hin>~n:inil Mr K07;ik.
thai ii15 s tli~tinct honour and 3 r~rc pri\,ilcgc Io apprar hrforc thi.. (:ouri a\
the I>e~ut\~-,\ceniof m, c,>untrv.ihc Ilnitcd States of Amcric3
The'reson-&ide strife in central America and the Contadora process are
relevant in the present proceedings in several respects. First, the United States
kas expressly qualified ils consent to this Court's jurisdiction to allow the
Contadora process to proceed without diversion or disruption by Nicaragua.
There is, accordingly, no jurisdiction over the United States rarionepersonae in
this case.
Second. the other States of Central America have stated their view that
Nicïrigua'\ requeit for ilte inilii.~tlunui pr<>wiion.ilmc:t,urcs dircetl) implicatcr
ihelr right. 2nd untcrcsls,xncl th~t :in I~LII<:IIICoNfs.~it~n~c.i>i~re\%o.IIJ!nier-
l'ercivtih the C,ini:iJi>r.inc.gi>ti.iii,?iir~ï'licscc>thcrCc.11\n1er1<;11S1tdie>:Ir<,
indispensable parties in whisc absence this Court cannot properly proceed.
Third, Contadora itself is a properly instituted regional process seeking to
resolve complex and interrelated social, political and economic issues, as well as
security matters underlying the current turmoil in Central Amcrica. This Court
cannot take cognizancc of Nicaragua's Application or indicate the interim meas-
ures Nicaragua requests without detrimentally aifecting that process in unpredict-
able and irremediable ways.
Finally, Nicaragua's Application appears on its face to request a definitive
legal determination regarding an alleged illegal use of arrncd force in the midst
of on-going hostilities. In the circumstances of this case, where the United
Nations and the Organization of American States have a~oroved the Contadora
process, such ques~ons regarding the use of force durkg hostilities are more
properly committed to resolution by the political organs of thc United Nations
and the Organization of American States.
Let me turn first to the United States oualification of ils ~ccen~.~ce ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Court's compulsory jurisdiction.
On 6 April 1984,in accordance with Article 36 (4) of the Court's Statute the
United States sent the Secretarv-General of the United Nations a note with
respect to the United States 1946Declaration. The note rcad in pertinent part:
"[The] Declaration shall no1apply to disputes with any Central American
State or arising out of or related to events in Central America, any of which
disputes shall be settled in such manner as the parties to them may agree.
Notwithstanding the terms of the aforesaid Declaration, this proviso shall
take eRect immediately and shall remain in force for two years, so as to
foster the continued regional dispute sertlement process which seeks a
negotiated solution to the interrelated political, eçonomic and security
problems of Central America." ,'
Nicaragua's Application, filed on 9 April 1984falls squarely within the terms
of the 6 April 1984 note in two respects: it is a "dispute with [a] Cenval
American Statc" and "it aris[es] out of or [is] related to events in Central
America".106 MILITARY AND I'AMAMILITARY ACTIVITIB
The rationales fcr this action were clearlv stated in the 6 Aorii note and in a
~eptartment of State Statement of 8 A&. Nicaragua's counsel, Professor
Brownlie,read the full Statement of 8 April into the record on Wednesday (p. 73,
suera). The United States clearlv stated in these documents that it wished to
a;oid having the Contadora interrupted hy adjudication of the claims of
one participant in that process.
This Court has consistently held that jurisdictional determinations shall be
made ex nunc, that is, as of the date an application is filed. Thus, in the Righr
of Passage over Indian Terrirory case (I.C.J. Reports 1957, p. 146), the Court
held that the status of both the applicant's and the respondent's declarations
accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction should he examined as of the date
the application was filed. Since both Portugal and India had outstanding on that
date declarations accepting the Court's jurisdiction over Portugal's claimr the
Court determined it had jurisdiction. In the Pujzs, Csaky, Esterhazy case, both
the Parties and the Court agreed that the respondent, Yugoslavia, was not bound
hy the Permanent Court's compulsory jurisdiction hecause its acceptance of the
Optional Clause had expired a fewdays bcforc the application was filed(P.C.I.J.,
Series AIB, 1936, No. 68 (Merits) al p. 41 and P.C.I.J., Series A/B, 1936, No. 66
(Preliminary Objection) at pp. 5-6). To similar effect, see the Noitebohm case
(I.C.J. Reports 195.3,p. 122).
Sir Gerald Fitznaurice summarized this practice in his article "The Law and
Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951-54" (34 BYBIL, p. 18).
There he wrote that the date of filing
"is the date of effective seisure, in the sense that if the Tribunal has juris-
diction on that date. this cannot he affected by what happens thereafter,
or by subsequr:nt events or the subsequent acts of the Parties".
Similarly Professor Rosennc observes in his treatise The Law and Pracrice of
ihe Internaiional Court, Volume I, page 502. at note 3, that the date of the
introduction of the proceedings isthe " 'criticaldate' for determining al1questions
of jurisdiction and admissibility".
Since the United States acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction that was in
effect on 9 April 1984, the date Nicaragua filed ils Application, did not extend
to disputes with Nicaragua or arising out of events in Central America, the
Court clearly has no jurisdiction over that application or the claims therein.
Nicaragua has correctly noted that a proviso in the United States 1946
declaration placed the declaration in force for five years after deposit "and
thereafter until the expiration of six months after notice may be given to
terminate this declaration". Nicaragua kas argued that this proviso barred the
effect of the United States 6 April note for six months. This is not so for several
reasons. In the fir!:t nlace. the oroviso is addressed to the termination of the
United States declera~ion.1t is ;h&efore irrelevant to the United States 6 April
note which did not terminate or purport to terminate the 1946 declaration and
the effect of which was narrowly iimited in lime and geography.
Now by this th- United States does not mean to make a terminological
quihble. The 1946 declaration's six-month proviso mus1 be read by its terms.
In this the United States and Nicaragua are agreed. The learned counsel for
Nicaragua stated ciearly Nicaragua's view that because the United States action
of 6 April was not a termination, the six-month proviso was not applicable. 1
cal1the Court's attsntion to pages 74 and 75, supra.
Nicaragua's prifilary argument, therelore, appears to be that, hecause the
United States did rot reserve a right to modify or suspend operation of its 1946 ARGUMENT OF MR. MCGOVERN 107
declaration, it could not do so. As the United States shall demonstrate, this
argument is simply inconsistent with the practice of States and this Court.
The United States must note parenthetically that Nicaragua did argue in the
alternative that the United States 6 April note tenninated the United States 1946
declaration in its entirety and substitutcd a new declaration therefore. The United
States calls the Court's attention to pages 74 to 76, supra. The United States,
however. never intended such an action. and its 6 Avril note auite clearlv savs, ,
so. Nicaragua's only basis for concluding othewise appears to be certain pre-
cedents cited in the Department of State's statement of 8 -April. Those cases, to
be sure, involved terminations and substitutions of new declarations. The United
States cited them, however, only to demonstrate that a declaration may be
terminated and a new one substituted for it and that, u fortiori, a simple
qualification is permissible. We submit that Nicaragua's argument in the alterna-
tive imputes to the United States an intention it never had and an action it never
took. The argument, accordingly, merits no further consideration.
Nicaragua argues further that an attempt to "terminate or vary" a declaration
must be read in the light of the law of treaties, and that the law of treaties
requires here that the variance must he made in accordance with the terms of
the declaration, specificallythe six-month notice proviso (pp. 75-77, supra). This
argument, of course, directly contradicts Nicaragua's argument at page 74, supra,
admitting that the six-month notice proviso applies only to terminations and
that the 6 April communication was not a termination.
The law of trcatics argument is inapplicable in any event. The argument
appears to be based almost entirely on lengthy quotations from a 1954 article
by Sir Humphrey Waldock. II is no disservice to that eminent jurist and scholar
to note that there have been many developments and a great volume of additional
scholarship in the last three decades.
The only decision of this Court cited by Nicaragua in this regard is the Anglo-
Iranian Oil Co. case (p. 71,supra). Nicaragua contends - as did Sir Humphrey
Waldock - that the Court recognized declarations as a form of treaty text. This
is not an accurate reading of the case. To the contrary, the Court enplicitly held
that a declaration is not a treaty and should not be interpreted as such:
"[B]ut the text of the lranian Declaration is not a treaty text resulting
from negotiations hetween two or more States. It is the result of unilateral
drafting by the Government of Iran." (I.C.J. Reports1952, p. 105.)
Later decisions. State nractice and authoritative writines have. in anv evcnt.
Img >Incc\upcr.cJ:d iormcr l'rc~i~lcn\~i':iIdoA'j \IC~S ln th,, rcg.,rd.
II1% ~~ciull~crc 10 rcicr Iirst tn IIICdur^'> u.111igIL~hc R;el?i /',I,,.~#.tL,r
I!ii/id,7;.rritrni<.iic 'l'h: Court \%:a,.v~iI'r.~~iictJlicri mit4 Jcicrminaiion <,i
the date on 'hich the unilateral declarations of Iwo States - Portugal and
India in that case - estdblished a bilateral agreement bringing a dispute between
them within the jurisdiction of this Court. Referring to the day the Application
is filed, the Court held that : "It is on that very day that the consensual bond,
which is the basis of the Optional Clause, cornes into being between the States
concerned" (IC. J Reports1957, p. 146). The clear implication of the Court's
ruling is that before the date of filing, there is no "consensual bond" between
the "States concerned" and hence no obligation of the respondent to the applicdnt
to continue the terms of its declaration.
On the basis of the Right of Passageover Indian Territory case, the Anglo-
lranian Oil Co. case, and other authorities, Professor Rosenne has aptly concluded
in his treatise that:108 MILITARY AND PARI\MILITARY ACTIVITIU
"When a Stcitedeposits a declaration under Article 36 (2) of the Statute,
it makes a general olfer to al1other States doing likewise, to recognize as
defendant the jurisdiction of the Court in a future concrete case, and on the
terms specified. . . . The terms upon which that offer is made are not
constant, but consist in the area of coincidence with the terms of like
declarations made. or to be made. bv other States. . ..There is. as ,et. no
clemcnt oi diiict dgrcemeni hcti\.c:n an). <iithe State* making dcclar:ii~~,ni
Thdi ÿprccnicnt uill only (tirne ah\iui iihri2 Icgüldirputs ir r'onireti~cdhy
the filing of ari application. That step alone sets the process of compulsory
adjudication iri motion." (Vol. 1,pp. 413-414.)
The eminent Indiari scholar, R. Anand, concurs fully in his treatise, Compulsr>ry
Jurisdicrion ofrhe Inrernarional Courr of Jusrice, in which he states, at page 147,
that "The making of a declaration is a unilateral act, entirely in the discretion
of a State, which hecomes a bilateral agreement only when an application is filed
with the Court".
As these authorities clearly indicate, the United States was entitlcd. bcfore
Nicaragua filed its application, to qualify ils 1946 declaration in any respect,
including suspension of the operation of the six-month notice provision.
This right is also confirmed by State practice under the Optional Clause. which
is replete with examples of unilateral qualifications, including modifications and
terminations of ur.ilateral declÿrÿtions under Article 36 (2) so as to exclude
certain disputes. The United States shall not attempt to examine that practice
comorehensivelvhere. but two features mav be noted. First. States have freauentlv
with'drawnthei; consent to adjudication of disputes arising out of or related &
amed conflicts - and, indeed, sometimes even pas1 armed conflicts. Second,
States have freauentlv modified their declarations to avoid the oossible immincni
filing of a cas; agdhst thcm. As Nicaragua notes, at the oitbreak of World
War 11,Great Britain, the British Commonwealth countries, and France modified
their existing decl;irations expressly to exclude disputes arising out of events
occurring during the war, even though the duration of those declarations had
not expired. Nicarzigua seems to approve these modifications (pp. 76-77, sitprri).
Sir Humphrey Waldock certainly does so, on the ground that there was a
fundamental chanee of circumstances. If those States were entitled to determine
unil<rtcrall~ihat a changs of i.ircum>tünîer had <)iiurreJ and I<Ircvokc their
dcclar-tioni Zontrary to the time-liniiis swciried in ttiore declüraiioiis, sursls the
United States may act similarly here.
The World War II cases are no1unique, moreover. In 1973,El Salvador. citing
the need "to accord . . .with the prcsent circumstances", replaced her 1921
declaration with orle declining the Court's compulsory jurisdiction over disputes
"relating to or connected with facts or situations of hostilities, armed con-
flicts, individual or collective actions taken in self-defence, resistance to
aggression . . and other similar or related acts, measures or situations in
which El Salvador is, has been or may at some time be involved" (I.C.J.
Yearbook 198;'-1983,p. 65).
These and other unilateral modifications of declarations in light of changed
circumstanceshave not beenconsidered invalidsimplybecausethey have preceded
an imminent Application. On at lcast three other occasions in the hast 30 years,
other States confrcinted with imminent litigation ha1.eno1 merely qualified their
declarations but hive tenninated them altogether. These cases are discussed in
the Department of State Statement of 8 April, which counsel for Nicaragua has
already read into the record. These precedents also stand for the proposition ARGUMENTOF MR. MCGOVERN 109
that a State may terminate its declaration altogether. Aforriori,a limited suspen-
sion such as the United States made on 6 April is valid.
The United States note of 6 April is valid for another reason. Under the
principle of reciprocity, the United States could only be bound by its six-month
notice proviso in relation to Nicaragua if Nicaragua had a similar or greater
notice period in its declaration. As this Court ruled in theInterhandel case:
"[Rleciprocity . . enables the State which has made the wider acceptance
of the jurisdiction of the Court to rely upon the reservations to the accep-
tance laid down by the other Party." (I.C.J Reports1959, p. 23.)
Assuming for the purposes of the present argument that Nicaragua's declar-
ation is legallyelfective in any respect, it is widrarionemareriae, but narrower
rurionerempuris, than the United States declaration. As the State making the
wider temporal acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction, the United States was
therefore also entitled to rely on Nicaragua's purported declaration to modify
its own declaration with immediate eiïect.
To be sure, Nicaragua purported to accept the jurisdiction of the Permanent
Court of Intcrnational Justice, "unconditionally". This term was apparcntly a
specific referencc to the option in Article 36 of the Permanent Court of
International Justice'sStatute, permitting acceptance of that Court's compulsory
iurisdiction "unconditionallv or on condition of reciorocitv". Since subseauent
decisions of the petmaneni Cour1 and of this CO& habe indicated th& al1
declarations must be construed on a reciprocal basis, itis difficult to state what
continuing force such an "unconditional"acceptance would have. Inthe absence
of other reservations it would appear that such a declaration is unlimited raiinne
mareriae. But surely such an "unconditional" acceptance was not intended to
bind a Stateinperperuo.
State practice and the opinions of authorities confirm this. In 1933, for
example, Paraguay deposited a declaration similar to Nicaragua's, "uncon-
ditionally" accepting the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International
Justice. Fiveyears later, however, after Paraguay had withdrawn from the League
of Nations, it denounced its purportedly unconditional acceptance citing, inrer
rilirthe fact that its original acceptance had iiot been made for any fixed period
of time. Paraguay's declaration was removed from the Yearbook of the Court in
1960 and has not, thereafter, appeared in it. Shihata notes in his treatise,The
Poiverof the lnrernaiionolCour1 10 Defermin<,ils 01m Jurisdicrion (p. 167, note
l), that the Deputy-Registrar at the Court advised him that "the omission was
not inadvertent".
El Salvador similarly had accepted the Permanent Court of International
Justice's compulsory jurisdiction with only limited reservations in 1921.The
Salvadoran Minister of Foreign Apdirs, in announcing El Salvador's 1973modi-
fication of itsacceptance, noted that refusal to recognizesuch modifications would
leave States
pcrmincnily h.iund h! the origii1;ilJc.iar~tl.>n they h;iil :i.l~lrc,*cdii
defunri s<iurto1'~urticc.ilthiiugh the dc:l;ir;iti,>nh.iJ bcen prcsenicil \c\cril
decades earlier and even though current circumstances were completely
diflerent from those in which the declaration was made".
This communicalion appears in Professor Rosenne's Documentson rhe Inter~ta-
rionaiCourrof Jusrice, second edition, at page 368.
Based on this practice, writers have concluded that purportedly "uncon-
ditional" acceptances such as Nicaragua's in 1929, are, in fact, denounceahle.
Shihata, for example, does so at page 167; Rosenne at Volume 1,pages 417 and110 MII.ITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIFS
472; and Merrills in an article in the 1979 British Year Bookof Iniernaiionol
Law at page 93. None of these leading authorities suggest any limit, temporal or
otherwise, on the right to denounce these outdated acceptances.
Sir Humphrey Waldock obsewed in his 1954article in the Brirish YearBook
of Inrernaiionul kriu, at page 278 - the article on which Nicaragua almost
wholly rests its argument - that
"[RJeciprocity would seem to demand that in any given pair of States
each should have the same right as the other to terminate the juridical bond
existingbctwc:n thcm under the Optional Clause."
In thiscasc, Nicaragua's purported declaration was immediately terminable. The
United States, which had made a wider temporal acceptance of the Court's
compulsory jurisdiction was, therefore, entitled to introduce a temporal qualifi-
cation into ils decl;iration with immediate effcct, in accordance with the principle
of reciprocity.
In sum, the 6 April note was effective since, first, a State may qualify its
consent to the Court's jurisdiction at any time up to the filingof an application,
and, second, the principle of reciprocity requires that the United States notice
he suhject to immediate and unilateral qualification, as is Nicaragua's purported
declaration
At this point. the United States would like to turn to additional compelling
reasons why thc Court should deny the request for indication of provisional
measures.
First, Costa RL:a, El Salvador and Honduras have communicated directly
with the Court to express their concern as to the eflect this case may have on
the Contadora proccss. Guatemala has issued a public statemcnt to the same
effect. WChave already quoted extensively from thcse communications, which
were independentki given to the United States, copies of the full texts of which
we have submitted in our Exhihits.
These communir:ations from the other Central American States make it quite
clear that Nicaragua's claims are inextricably linked to the rights and interests
of those other States. It is also evident that the indication of the provisional
measures requested hy Nicaragua will directly impingc on the Contadora
negotiations with results neither foreseeable nor remediahle hy this Court. As
one example, it may be useful to recall here the communication of Honduras to
the Court :
"Once again the Government of Nicaragua is seeking to flout the Con-
tadora ncgotiation process hy attempting to bring the Central American
crisis. essentia-.v a oolitical issue. under the iurisdiction of the International
cour; olJusti~c. Thi. i*Jeiriment;il 1.thr. &goii:itions in progrcar inJ hilr
Io rccognilc Inc rciolullon\ or th', Ilniied iï~ti.ln and ihr, Org<inv<ill<~onf
me ricin States or the full international endorsement that the Contadora
peace process has so deservedly received."
Thesecommunicationsshould heenough to show that Nicaragua isconfronting
the Court with only a small segment of a much broader and interrelated conflict.
Nicaragua complains here of armed interference in ils afairs. The other States
comolain of Nicaraaua-s armed interference in their alfairs. All of the Central
i\mr.ric;in Slatcs 1iai.eiigrecd, in signing thc 21 Objcclli'e~.lhat thcir mutusl
rumplaint~\huulJ br.rewl\crl ci>mprehcn<i\,ely in the Coniddora proce,<(I:niir..l
States F.<hibit Ili. t;ib 1.1.Ttist proccss unis ;ttstopping hostiliiies in .IIIthe
affected countries through verifiahe security arrangements, and at the solution
of al1the complex and interrelated social, economic and political issues. For this ARGU.UENT OF MR. MCCOVERN 111
Court to grant Nicaragua in these proccedings the relief it seeksin the Contadora
process, in whole or in part, can only prejudice the ability of the other Central
American States to havc their grievances, too, satisfied. Indeed, as Honduras
rightly points out, Nicaragua's present Application appears deliberately designed
to accomplish precisely that result. The Court should resist this attempt to
achieve such an improper exercise of judicial discretion.
Moreover, the United States submits that the other Central American States
are indispensable p;irties in whose absence this case should no1go forward. Any
decision to indicate the interim measures requested, or a dccision on the merits,
would necessarily affect the rights of States not party to the proceedings. The
request would cul thcse States off from their right to seek and receive support
from the United States in meeting the armed attacks against them. This would
violate the indispensable party rule. Judge Nagendra Singh articulated that rule
in the PukisluniPri~onersof Warcase as follows:
"It is indeed an clementary and basic principleofjudicial propriety which
governs the exercise of the judicial function' particularly in inter-State
disputes, that nocourt of lawcan adjudicate on the rights and responsibilities
of a third State (u) wirhourgiving fhar Srureu heuring,and (b) without
obtaining ils clear consent." (ICJ Reporrs 1973,p. 332.)
This principle is reiiectcd in proviso (c) of the 1946 United States declaration
accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of this Court, commonly known as the
Vandenberg Amendment, which is a total bar to the claims in this case arising
under multilateral conventions.
It is wrong to say, as did Nicaragua's Agent on Wedncsday morning (p. 42,
supra), that Article 59 of the Court's Statute nould protect the rights of the
other Central American States, which would not be legally bound by a ruling of
this Court. That contention is, at best, unsound and beside the point. The eKect
that a ruline months or vears hence might have on the abstract leeal riehts of
the other tat t ienot thLpressing issue&W. It is, rather, the real a2 immediate
rirhts and interests of the other Central American States that will be aravely
iGpaired by the indication of the provisional measures requested in the present
proceeding.
Nor is it germane to the issueat hand to state, as did the Agent for Nicaragua
(ibid.), thatthese other States have the right to intervcnc hcrc. That argument
was specificallyrejected inthe MoneraryCold casc (ICJ Reporrs1954, p. 32).
The other States cannot be compelled to intervenc. Further, they have stated
unequivocally that they do not wish Io have their rights and interests determined
here but, rathcr, in the political process to whichl1the States of Central America
~ ~ ~ ~reed.
Finally - and the United States mentions this point only because Nicaragua
has raised it - the UniredSruresDiri/omaricund ConstilarSraRin Tehrancase
is wholly inapposite. There, the couri properly rejected Iran's aiicmpt to prevent
the indication of provisional measures. Iran raised the contention that the issue
was merely part of a broader dispute between the Parties, but it did not and
could not claim that an important legal right would be impaired. Here, there are
rights of States, including States not before the Court, which are incxtricably
linked to the casc and which would necessarily be advcrsclyaiTcctedby the
measures requested.
The foregoing considerations concerning the Contadora process and the rights
and interests of other States in that process arc relevant to the present proceed-
ings in another respect. Article 52 of the United Nations Charter requires that
Members of the United Nations participating in regional arrangements or112 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIBS
agenriei "rhall m;il<ee\,ery rll~irt to lichic\,e pscific iettlement of loc~ldisputes
through such regiondl arrangeinïnti . . hefore refïrring ihcm to thc Sccurity
Council" This prodiiion uai introdu;eil ai the San I'r~ncissoConkrencr litthe
request of the ~atin American States to ensure the efficacyof the Organization
of American States. or the "Pan-American Union" as it was then known. Article
52 of the United Nations Charter is mirrored in an even stronger form in Article
23 of the OAS Charter, which provides:
"All international disputes that may arise between the American States
shall be submitted to the peaceful procedures set forth in this Charter,
before heing ri:ferred to the Security Council of the United Nations."
Even if Contadora did not comprehend the dispute Nicaragua raises in this
Court, Nicaragua would remain bound to fuliil this commitment to regional
agencies and aÏrangcments. However, the Contadora process does comprehend
them. IIhas heen expressly endorsed by the OAS General Asscmbly, the United
Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council as an
appropriatc regional arrangement for resolving the complex region-widedisputes
that beset Central ..\merica.
The United Statcs would again invite the Court's attention to United States
Exhibit III. tabs D, H and K. Each lime that Nicaragua has attempted to circum-
vent the Contadora process by bringing its own grieiances to one~ofthe political
bodies of the 0rg:inization of American States or the United Nations. those
bodies have reaffinned the appropriateness of Contadora.
The United States submits that Nicaragua - and the other Ccntral American
States - are undrr a eood faith ohlieation to neeotiate within the Contadora
process. This folloiis froni the tcrmi oï~rttclc 52zthc United Sationb Chartcr
and Article 23 of tne Org~ni,ation of Amcricsi, Stlitcs Ch:irter. 2nd the spccific
endorsement of the Contadora process by the political organs of those organiza-
lions. It is wholly inappropriate for Nicaragua to attempt to substitute for that
process the judici;il processes of this Court. This is especially so when the
Contadora work schedule calls for studies, legal drafts, and recommendations
concerning security and political matters and related economic and social
questions to bc rekrred to the Foreign Ministers this coming Monday, 30 April.
Such on-going diplomatic dispute settlement efforts are, generally, a strong
argument against judicial intervention which, in the nature of things, would be
prcmaturc. ln the Mavrommalis Palesline C~>ncessh>n case, this Court's prede-
cessor recognized the "importance of the rule laying down that only disputes
which cannot be si:ttled by negotiation should bc brought to it" (Mavrofiinraris
Pulesii~leConce.rsii>ns(Greece v. United Kin&m), P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2,
p. 15). The importance of this principle for this case is affirmcd. morcover, by
the AegerrfrSea ConrinenralShelfcasc in the proceedings concerning provisional
measures. There, as you will recall' this Court declined Io indicate provisional
measures precisely because the parties to the proceedings had been called upon
hy the Security Council to pursue a peaceful settlemcnt of their differences
through negotiations; the Court refused to presume that they would disregard
their obligations under the Charter to do so (I.C.J. Reporrs 1976, p. 13).
There is a final: additional reason for the Court not to take cognizance of
Nicaragua's Application generally or to indicate interim measures in particular.
Nicaragua sceks to enjoin the United States from a wide range of actions, the
legitimacy of which might not be adjudicated for an indefinite period. A request
of this nature, rai::ing very fundamental questions, is absolutely unprecedented
in the history of this Court and its predecessor. It strains incidental proceedings
beyond any reasocable bounds. ARGUMENT OF MR. MCGOVERN 113
Nicaragua's counsel noted on Wednesday morning that questions of collective
self-defence may be involved here. He denied, first, that Nicaragua was engaged
in any action that might give rise to such a right, relying entirely on the sworn
statement of Nicaraeua- Foreien Minister d'Escoto Brockmann submitted in
ilicsc proiccdings. SuIlicc ii tiibd) with rc<pcci io thxi self-scr\iiip Joiumrnt,
ih~i 11,denial oi N~c,ir.lgii;incoiiipliriIII111sr.urii) pr<~hlcmli~iiithcr Ccntrdl
.Aiiicrii~nSt;iter1,dire~.t1\~onirailiiicdhs ihc tiubl~:st;itcnicriirol th~hcSi4icr.
which wehave quoted, and by every indepindeni attempt to examinethe situation
in that region.
The argument of Nicaragua's counsel also was premised on a fundamental
logical inconsistency. In essence, the argument is reducible to this: Nicaragua's
allegations of United States support for insurgents in Nicaragua present questions
concerning the lawful use of force. Allegations of Nicaraguan support for
insurgency and terrorism in the territories of other Central American States
somehow do not present questions concerning the lawful use of force. Simply to
state counsel's argument accurately is to refute it.
More fundamentally, the primary responsihility for the maintenance of inter-
national peace and security is assigned by the Charter of the United Nations to
the Security Council. Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the
peace and acts of aggression is within the competence of the Security Council
under Chapter VII. which also provides the power to cal1 for appropriate
provisional measures in Article 40. Chapter VI11provides for regional arrange-
ments for dealing with such mdtters relating to the maintenance of international
peace and security as are appropriate for regional action. That allocation of
responsibility cannot he circumvented, as Nicaragua has attempted to do here,
merely by purporting to isolate an issue of the lawfulness of the force in one
part of an on-going armed conflict throughout large parts of Central America
and unilaterally calling it a "legal dispute". All situations involving the threat or
use of force necessarilyinvolveArticle 2 (4) and Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter or other issues of law or legally significant fact. That does not mean
that this Court can, or should, take cognizance of the legal aspects of those
situations in the midst of hostilities, and while the political processes of the
United Nations and the OAS are still engaged.
As former President Jiménezde Aréchegaohserved in the Aegean Sea Conri-
nenral Shelfcase with regard to Article 41 of the Statute of this Court:
"The Court's specificpower under Article 41 of the Statute is directed to
the preservation of rights 'subjudice' and does not consist in a police power
over the maintenance of international peace nor in a general competence to
make recommendations relating to peaceful settlement of disputes."
(I C J Reports 1976, p. 16.)
The Security Council has endorsed the Contadora process as the proper avenue
for resolution of Nicaragua's complaints (United States Exhihit 111,tab D). Tt
has not regarded this as a legal dispute. Nor has it recommended that the parties
refer it, or even its arguably legal aspects, to the Court as the Security Council
mav do under Article 36 (3) of the Charter. The Charter's referral of oroblems
in&lving armed hostilities to the political processes of the United ~ati'ons is, in
the opinion of the United States, a wise one in the circumstances of a case such
as this and isjustified hy the advantages of those processes overjudicial processes
in such a case. Successfulresolution of armed conflict requires the participation
of al1 parties to the conflict. Frequently, as in this case, not al1 parties are
available in judicial proceedings, particularly those on provisional measures. The
negotiation and arrangement of cease-fires, separation of forces, supervisory114 MlLlTARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
machinery, finance and logistics, and other agreements are complex and delicate
tasks requiring political, military, administrative and other expertise. Careful
consideration must be given to the actual situation of the various elements of
the forces on al1sides. The requirements of venfication are especially important
in an armed conflict of a guerrilla nature.
The 21 Objectives of the Contadora process themselves illustrate these com-
plexities. The Objectives, to which the United States would again direct this
Court's attention. indicate the wav the Contadora uarticioants. includine
Nisaragu;i. havc ihcrnseli~csagreed i;ïddros ihzir mutuil \rc;rity c<>nsrrns.1;
the rigrecd Docurncnt of Objcitivc.,. ihose participÿnts ;irticulatcd clght inter-
related security concerns which we quoted to the Court previousÏy. These
concerns are currently being translated hy the Contadora working groups into
concrete arrangements. While this is an ambitious programme, the aKectedStates
in the region, including Nicaragua, have agreed that it is an essential one. It is
their urorramme. and it is one which the United States suooorts. It bears
re-emihaiizing that the States of the Contadora process ha;; given special
emphasis to having "appropriate verification and monitoring systems" in place
for implementation.
In sum. under thesc circumstances the United States suhmits that this Court
should not take pioceedings on Nicaragua's Application and most certainly
should not indicate provisional measures.
Mr. President, I have concluded my arguments. It has been a privilege to
appear before the Court. With your permission, 1 would respectfully ask the
President to cal1 upon the Agent of the United States for some concluding
remarks to this statement. STATEMENTBYMR. ROBINSON
AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OP THE UNITED STATESOP AMERICA
Mr. ROBINSON: Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court. It has,
indeed, been an honour for me and my colleagues to appear on behalf of the
United States of America in these proceedings. With the leave of the Court, the
United States will now make a few hrief concluding remarks.
The United States has oresented to the Court todav several reasons whv this
Coiiri Joe, nui h.ive jurisdicti<~noscr. and shoiild noi iÿke ;ogni/ance i~i.
iï~s3raplui~'i pplii;ilion anil rcqu:sl for ihe indicatiiin ui pro\ isional meüsure.:
Brieflyitated, ihose reasons areas follows.
First, Nicaragua has not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court
and the United States has not consented to the jurisdiction of the Court for
purposes of Nicarqua's Application and request. The Court, accordingly,
manifestly and prima facie lacksjurisdiction.
Second, the claims stated in Nicaragua's Application and request are inextri-
cahly related to the claims of the otherCentral American StatesagainstNicaragua.
Those other States are indispensable parties, and the case may not proceed in
their ahsencc.
Third, the claims of Nicaragua and the claims of the other Central American
Statesagainst Nicaragua are properly subject to resolution throughthe Contadora
process to which Nicaragua by its own affirmativeagreement is a Party. Because
of the actions of the United Nations and the Organization of American States,
this Court mdy not improperiy intemene in that negotiating process by adjudicat-
ing Nicaragua's claims in isolation from the claims of its neighhours against
Nicaragua.
And fourth, Nicaragua's Application requests a determination that an un-
justified use of force is occurring. Any such determination in the circumstances
of this case cornes within the...ooer ~urviewof the oolitical oreans of the United
Naii,)n\ anJ the regiiinal drrüiigciiisiiis asrociaieil ih:reii,ith.
C:ichof thej:conieniiJns i,ali~ne~ulliiicniio uarrdiii iheJeniaJI'Sirara:us'.
reauest for ~rovisional measures. Toeether. thev indicate that Nicaraeua's
Application and its request for provisional measures are indefensihle. -
My Government has dwelt today upon one of these arguments in particular.
The United States has shown that, in the absence of any new evidence to the
contrarv. Nicaraeua has never acce~ted the comoulsorv iurisdiction ofthis Court
and mainot invike that jurisdictiin against the'~nitéd*~tates.The fundamental
importance of this argument cannot be overemphasized. In the absence of even
a colourable title to iurisdiction by ~icara~ua; al1proceedings with respect to
Nicaragua's Application and its request for provisional measures must immedi-
ately cease.
If Nicaragua does have a hasis for compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(5)
of the Statute as Nicaragua professes, it is inexcusable, indeed shocking, that
Nicaragua has not presented any evidence in support of such jurisdiction. Article
38 of the Rules of Court specificallyrequired Nicaragua fully to support a claim
to jurisdiction in its Application. We understand that Nicaragua has been
preparing this case for many months. Nicaragua has, in any event, clearly had
ample opportunity to research thoroughly its hasis for jurisdiction, as ils hun-
dreds of pages of exhibits and its carefully prepared four-hour oral argument on
Wednesday surely demonstrate.116 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
ln contrast. the llnited States Government. in the less than three weeks since
, ~ ~~-~~~~
the~~~~licationwar filed, has ohtained from Public records in the United States
and in Europe extensive documentation that, in the absence of any new evidence
to the contrarv. dr:monstrates conclusivelv that Nicaragua. in iact. has never
accepted this court's compulsory jurisdiction. Al1of these records weie availahle
upon request to Nicaragua just as they were to the United States. If Nicaragua
had accepted the (:ourt's jurisdiction, moreover, we assume that its ownar-
chives would contain the anoronriate documentation. Surelv. Nicaraeua was not
unaware of the footnote th& has appeared each year in th% court's own Year-
book since the time of Nicaragua's boundary dis.ute ~ith Honduras.
Under these circumstances.~mv Government can draw onlv one conclusion.
Uic;ir:iguüci~tiicIO 11115CCIUIIin the full knowledgc thai ihcrc \\,A\no ~A\I< for
jurijdiction o\,cr its slaim\. Thus, irmxv iinly .ipp:.~r thdi. in the xh,cncc of any
ne\<cviJ~nce I<Ithi :<>ntrarv,I*;iüir;i~u:h>r ujed th15Court. in the m.i\i c)ni<.il
way, as a political !stageonwhich toparade its proPaganda.'
In conclusion, the United States submits that, if there is any hasis for juris-
diction here, Nicaragua must be directed to suhstantiate it forthwith. Nicara-
gua either must produce documentation showing that, on or hefore 18 April
1946, it deposited an instrument of ratification of its signature to the Proto-
col of Signature of the Permanent Court of International Justice or it must
produce document:ition demonstrating on or before 9 April 1984 the deposit
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of a declaration pursuant to
Article 36 (2) and (4) of the Statute of this Court. The Agent for Nicaragua
should be required to produce that evidence here and now. If he is unable to do
so, the United States suhmits that this Court, as a matter of law, has no
alternative but to strike Nicaragua's Application and request immediately from
the General List of the Court.
Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, at this time, the United
States respectfully requests the President of the Court to cal1upon the Agent of
Nicaragua either, (1) to produce evidence, for purposes of Article 36 (5) of the
Statute of this Court, of the deposit of its instrument of ratification to the Proto-
col of Signature to the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice,
or (2) to produce ievidenceof a declaration under Article 36 (2) of the Statute
of this Court pnor to the filingof the Application on 9 Aptil 1984. 1 request, MI.
President, that you make such a request to the Agent for Nicaragua at this time.
The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the process of the Court I take it that
vou allow the Aeerlts for the other Party to speak in their turn, not to be called
hpon and brought to the dock now.
Mr. ROBINSON: MI. President, 1am simply requesting you as the President
of the 1nternation:il Court of Justice to ask the Agent for Nicaragua at this
moment to produce the evidence that Nicaragua has accepted the compulsory
jurisdiction of this Court. If the Agent for Nicaragua is unahle to produce that
evidence at this moment. the Agent of the United States repeats the request in
its letter of 23 April 1984 that this Court immediately, without further ado,
preclude any furthi:r proçeedings in this matter.
The PRESIDENT: Well your request is a bit unprecedented in my view and
1have not the heni:fitof consulting with my colleagnes to ohey or . ..
MI. ROBINSOPJ: Mr. President, we ohviously defer to your judgment. In
our view indeed this is an astonishingly unprecedented situation.
The PRESIDENT: May I ask the Agent of Nicaragua to reply? REPLY OF MR. ARGÜELLO GOMEZ
AGENT FOR TIIB GOVERNMENi OF NICARAGUA
Mr. ARGÜELLO GOMEZ: Mr. President, Members of the Court, in the
first place 1 wish to make use of the words said hy the President of the Court
that this is an unusual way to proceed. If we are talking about producing
documents, or about producing evidence, it is not a matter for raising from a
chair the agent of a country and telling him to come forward and produce it.
The way in which this has heen handled, 1 think, is unusual and it is also
discourteous of the Agent of the United States who has evencalled our exposition
cynical in his last words.
What 1wish to request from the Court is that we have a right to reply in full
to everything that is heing expressed hy the United States at this moment and
this is something that can he arranged in any way which you, Mr. President.
and the Court would allow us. I do not wish impromptu to argue our case to
answer what the United States bas said, but 1 think it is obvious in a case like
this that a consultation is necessary and the usual foms are ohsewed.
When we ~resented our Aoolica..on the United States had three weeks to
siudy ii2nd )ci requcrted anoihcr da) tu dn>wcr <irto m4L.eclc.ir ils positiori
ioda). si) I ihink ihat uiih thc~ u.<>rdsI will Icsi,e iitii)<lu, Xlr. I'rc~idcntand
Menibers of the Co.iri. to outlinc thc pruccdurc tic sh~uld iollorv ;ilihij momcni
The PRESIDENT: May 1 know whether it is your wish to speak any time
today or tomorrow. My understanding before wecame in was that the Nicaraguan
side had already told my Registry that they might wish to speak afier hearing
the United States delegation. Is it still your wish to speak or not?
Mr. ARGÜELLO GOMEZ: Yes Mr. President. particularly from the las1
remarks from the Agent of the United States. 1 think it is imwrative that we
speak. WCfscl tliat Gr cisc was definiiel! closed, but in the u,ay which this uïs
handled. 1 ihink it 15impcratiie and even neccsiar? iur my couniry IO ansncr.
p~riirullirlv in ihr tonc in uhich ue have heen srldrc\\cd in !hi\ Court of Jurticc.
The PRESIDENT: Well, if it is your wish to reply to the points raised, the
Court's normal jurisprudence is to allow you to exercisethat right before taking
any decision and, secondly, the Court, as 1understand it, has not been used to
being ordered in matters of procedure as to how to handle cases before it, so we
shall give you the right to reply in due course.
The Court ruse al 13.15p.m. FOURTH PUBLIC SITTING (27 IV 84,4 p.m.1
Present: [See sitting of 25 IV 84, 10 am.]
ST.PTEMENTBYMR. ARCÜELLOCOMEZ
AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTOF NICARAGUA
Mr. ARGÜELLO GOMEZ: Mr. President, Members of the Court. 1 will
address brieflv several observations made in the mornina -ession by the United
States.
In the first place, the observation about Nicaragua's right to he here present.
Nicaragua made a general declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Permanent
Court of Justice in 1929.On 14 February 1935, Nicaragua's Senate ratified the
Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, also the Protocol of
Signature. The amcndments to said Statute and the Protocol of Signature are
the same. This was published inLu Guccru.the officialdiary, No. 130,of 12June
1935.The Chambei of Deputies' approval was puhlished in Lo Gucetu,No. 207.
of 18Septemher 1935.
90th arguments were presented by Honduras in the litigation with Nicaragua
in 1960 and can he seen on pages 128 and 129 of the first volume of the case
mentioned. The prcsidential approval necessarily preceded these ratifications in
accordance with Nicaraguan law. This approval is mentioned in the Chamber of
Deputies' approval, and dates from 4 December 1934.
As Agent of Nicaragua, and with my knowledge as former Minister of Justice
of my country, 1can avow that no further proceedings were necessary and that
itis a valid law in Iorce in Nicaragua.
The United States has presented a document in which the United States
Ambassador to Nicaragua in 1943states othenvise. The Ambassador was wrong
and his opinions are of no value as to Nicaraguan law.
The United States mentions that in Nicaragua's Counter-Memorial, in the
case in reference, ori page 132,Nicaragua denied its acceptance of the compulsory
jurisdiction of the Court. That is not true, and 1 will read the pertinent para-
graphs. This is Nicaragua's answerto the Honduran Memorial:
"Ajoutons que ce ne peut étre que par inadvertance que le Honduras
présentela premièredemande formuléedans ses conclusions comme entrant
dans la catéeorie dedifférendsvisés à l'article 36. chiffre c).du Statut de
la Cour inicrnationnle de Jusiicc. Le pr6,cnt difircnd ne poric cn aucune
facon sur lu r<:.~l~tc tout fait qui.$'ietait iiabli. consitiusr~lI;violation
d'un engagement international. II n'y a en l'espèceaucune contestation sur
la réalitéde l'exercicelitieieux: mais il v a désaccordsur l'existence d'une
obligation quelconque p&r le'~icara~;a de se préter ti l'exécutiond'une
prétenduesentence arbitrale contre laquelle il a formulé depuis des années
une sériede critiques graves et précises,se déclarant dèsle débutdis~osé à
se ranger sur ce point: l'opinion d'arbitres."
From this document it can be clearly established that Nicaragua, quite the
oooosite. did not denv its acceotance of the iurisdiction of the Court. All it
siaied was that ~rticlé 36, paragraph 2 (c), was not applicable to matters re-
ferring to interna1;iffairsin Nicaraguan territory. When the Statute of the Court hecame a law of Nicaragua, this fact was
notified to the Secretary of the League of Nations. It was the year 1939: the
start of the World War II. There are auite obvious redsons whv this ratification
iii;iiiot Iis\r. rcaslicd Gciir.\;i:iltlie ti~iiehiit. in on) r..ise.ihi, ha, no be;iring
on I\'i<aragua'rIiciçptanLe. Pr<iic,\r<irBr~i\inlir.iiill cnldrgr. uii this jiibjeii eiih
more professional authority than myself in just a few moments.
Before closing on this point, 1wish to place in adequate perspective this argu-
ment of the United States to attempt to escape the jurisdiction of this Court.
If we accept theoretically that the ratification did not reach Geneva and that
this fact were legallyimperative, what steps could Nicaragua take to perfect this
case? The Agent of the United States stated that we would have to go to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and deposit the ratification.
Let us suDuose that were done. Then the United States argument is reduced
.. "
10 ihr. c,>nrreir.i~L1 ihit Nic.ir.i@uiu.<IuIJhdw I<lrlarl 11s;a5c dgalll ln JUS1 d
feu ils)3. '1h.11i.:inju.iicr.; ihitir Icgal iiirmali.m. Thii irjust dncither diteinpi
to flee from the justice of international law.
1 will mention in passing that if Nicaragua saw, or had seen, any reason to
doubt the validity of its acceptance it could very easily have cited Article 31 of
the Pact of Bogota in whichNicaragua reaffirmed itsacceptance of thejurisdiction
of the Court. But none of this is necessarv. We indicate that there is more than
>utli~ientlegal ha\!>io r.rtshli;h the jurisJi~t10noi iliis C'oiirtfor the piirposc of
this hc'iring. that ~i,inilic~iii~niiiinir.rim measurr.. oi proieLii<>n.
hlr. Presideni. I iioi.1.i be in Jcreli~.iii>noimv dut, ii I NileJ icimike bomc
observations on the substance of the matter before the Court. In its three-hour
presentation this morning, the United States made no effort to deny any of the
facts recited in OurApplication or placed hefore you on Wednesday. As we said
at the time. the United States could not do that hecause the facts are matters of
common knowledge. Thus, for the purpose of these proceedings, it stands as
admitted that the United States has organized, equipped and erected a large
armv in continuous attack on ~icaramaacross its border with Honduras: that
the I,'niir.dSiires ir mining I\'icaragu:in p<~rts:in* airaiking iis bhipping. ihdt
the L'nitcd Statc, ii r~.pe;itcill)vii>ldringKirÿragu~n iir\p.iie; and ihit in the
course of these actions Nicaraguan men, women and children are being killed
by hundreds.
Mr. President, the United States has made no effort to justify these actions. It
has made no claim of self-defence,individual or collective.And, in addition, Mr.
President, none of the countries whose remarks the Agent of the United States
read before the Court, including El Salvador, made any claim of self-defence
either. Furthermore, the United States has not denied - nor could il - the
extreme urgency of the situation.The United Stateshas not denied - nor could
it - that without the provisional relief sought hy Nicaragua, the rights at issue
would be irreparahly prejudiced. Instead, Mr. President, we were treated to hours
of talk about the Contadora process.
Our claims in this case are only claims against the United States. They are
only claims of violations of international law. While Nicaragua is actively
participating in the Contadora process, and will continue to do so, our legal
claims against the United States cannot he resolved, or even addressed, through
that process. Nor can we resolve our legal claims against the United States in
any other forum, as the United States has itself demonstrated by twice casting a
strong negative vote and therehy vetoing resolutions of the Security Council
condemning the United States use of force in various forms in and against
Nicaragua.
In any event, there is ahsolutely nothing about this lawsuit or request for120 MILITARVAND PARAMILITARYACTIVlTlES
provisional measurcs that is inconsistent with or destructive of the Contadora
process, or prejudicial to the rights of other States. In our request for provisional
measures, we ask only that the Court indicate that the United States should
cease its illegal use of force, hoth direct and indirect, against Nicaragua. How
could such a motive prejudicethe legitimate rights of any other States, or disrupt
the Contadora prou:ss? Does any other Central American State have a legitimate
right to have the United States mine Nicaragua's ports? Does any Central
American Statc have a legitimate right to have the United States plan, finance
and direct an invasion of Nicaraeua bv 8.000 armed mercenaries? Does the
United States rcally contend that the contadora process, the road to peace, will
be blocked if this Court indicates no more than that it should sto~ mininr our-
ports and invading Ourcountry hy hoth direct and indirect means?
The United States has not produced any statement by any of the four
Contadora countries themselves - Mexico, Venezuela,Colombia and Panama
- suggesting that IVicaragua'slegal claims against the United States should not
be heard in this Court. On the contrarv. o,.8 Anril. .he.Foreien Min"sters of~ ~ ~ ~
these four countrie:; issued a joint communique condemning the United States
for its dangerous i:scalation of military activilies against Nicaragua (Exhibit
v....,.
On 13 April, the Foreign Minister of Mexico, the honourable Bernardo
Sepulveda, called IOr "the total elimination of al1 armed violence, direct or
indirect, against Nii:aragua" (Exhihit VI, tab 8, p. 35). Mr. Sepulveda called the
United States ancniot 10 evade the iurisdiction of the Court in this case both
"capricious" and "invalid" (pp. 35-3k).
The Court concliisivelyresolved this issue in the UniredSraies Diplornaticand
Consular Srulï in :Fehrancase, when it declared in its Order on ~rovisional
measures th;
"No provision ofthe Statute or Rules contemplates that the Court should
decline to take cognizance of one aspect of a dispute rncrely because that
dispute kas other aspects, however important."
Mr. President, Members of the Court, 1 have no wish to engage in political
dehate hefore you. Nicaragua, as 1said on Wednesday, has turned to this Court
for a judicial deterrnination of its legal rights. On the record before this Court,
the United States violations of international law stand admitted for the purpose
of these proceedings. It is tme, of course, that important political elements are
involved but, as the Court said in the CertainE.vpen.sescase:
"lt has been argued that the question put to the Court is intertwined with
political questions, and that for this reason the Court should refuse to give
an opinion. It is true that most interpretations of the Charter of the United
Nations will have political significance, great or small. In the nature of
things it could not be othenvise. The Court, however, cannot attrihute a
political charai:ter to a request which invites it to undertake an essentially
judicial task, namely the interpretation of a treaty provision."
The Court can do no less here. It will not, I am confident, be intimidated by
the United States. IJicaragua makes its plea here for justice under law. 1ask the
Court to heed this plea by granting the interim measurcs requested.
Mr. President, before closing 1wish to mention one other Pdct - a matter of
the interna1 allairs of Nicaragua but it was mentioned - presumably as a
justification forkilling people in Nicaragua.
Mr. Kozak, on the United States hench. said that the Bishops in Nicaragua
had issued a pastoial letter, and that this letter was not published in the news- STATEMENTBY MR. ARGliELLO GOMEZ 121
papers because it was censored. That is not true. In Ln Prensri,the opposition
newspaper, it was published on the front page on the tweniy-fourth of this
month. If it were pertinent 1 could, of course, bring it to the Court, bu1 as1
said it is a matter of the interna1 aiTairsof Nicaragua a1djust wish to set the
record straight.
With this closing statement, Mr. President, 1request you to recognize Professor
Brownlie. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 123
making it the sole citation - it is the only legal citation in that Departmental
Statement.
Those remarks are by way of preface. My purpose this afternoon is firstly to
reply to the remarks of Mr. McGovern this morninr and, secondlv. to refer to
the problem concerning the footnote to the ~icara&an ~eclaration as printed
in the I CJ Yerrrhook.
First of al1then, to refer to Mr. McGovern's criticismsof my presentation on
25 April. The Court will, no doubt, be ready to compare what 1 actually said
(pp. 66-79, supra), which appears very efficiently presented in the verbatim
records, with some of the things that Mr. McGovcrn said 1said. And it would
help the Court perhaps if 1just recall the two constructions which 1 placed on
the letter of 6 April by Mr. Shultz to the United Nations Secretary-General. 1
said that the first possible construction was that it was an invalid attempt to
modify or Varythe existing United States declaration and that therefore remains
in force. 1 then said that an alternative view would be that the letter of Mr.
Shult, ha, the ctlcct uf ierminating the original dcclxnition. hut on iis crpres;
ieniis. and so thxi termination can imly t~kc clTeil hi\ monthj xficr ihc g~ving~
of notice on 6 April.
Some of Mr. McGovern's rrasoning, quite frankly, I found rather difficult to
follow. It was not always clear whether he was rcferring to reservations of
the right to Varyor modify, on the one hand, or the actual practice of making
unilateral modifications on the other. and he made a statement which 1 found
ter) ,urpri.ing. lie s;id th.it Stotc praciicc uniler ihc Option~l Cliu,emas rcplete
u.iih unilairral qualilic<iiii~.nil~icrdlmud~iic;itioiisNoir,I TinJihat wrpriring.
I ihink \uch Siaie praclice as there is on the Question di unilxteral terminaiion
and modification tends to show that the matteris governed by the law of treaties.
There is no, so to speak, catcgorical right in thesc matters. There may he a right
in a particular case, but that is determined by the application of the principles
of the law of treaties. That appears both from what issaid in President Waldeck's
article and from what is said in the article by Merrills. As 1read the Merrills's
article it points out that only in three cases in recent practice have States reserved,
or attempted to reserve - there may be some questions of the legality of this
under the Statute - but only in three cases have States attempted to reserve a
general right to modify the terms of their declaration.
So if one adopts the McGovern thesis, which is that States have a sort of
inherent right to modify, to Varythe terms of their declaration, then perhaps the
terms of an instrument do not matter. Perhaps the instrument is not a legal
instrument in any case. If those terms can be modified at any lime, even outside
the terms of the instrument itself, the terms of that instrument itself become
somewhat, as it were, iioating. fluid, unimportant. And so my submission, once
again, is that the principles of the law of treaties apply. So far as an instrument,
a declaration, may be modifiable or terminable depends on legal principles
derived from the law of treaties.
Ir. ~IcCio~crn in\,oked the princ~plcof reciprocity and he rcfcrrcrl io ihe
uord "uncondiiion:illy" in thc Ki'iiiirapu;8nJccl:iraii<~n.,\nd hc iuggcitcd thai
such a declaration cdnnot be intended to bind ~er~etuallv. and he-said there
could be no limit on the right to denounce such acceptancés:And the argument
would then be that on the basis of reciprocity the other declarant, the United
States, could benefit from such a free right to denounce.
Now, we know there are some very interesting problems about the application
of the principle of reciprocity to matters of lime and 1am ccrtainly not admitting
that the principle does, in principle, apply to matters of time. 1 think that if a
declaration is made unconditionally and there is no reference to termination, the124 MlLlTARY AND PAMMILITARY ACTIVITIES
presumption is that it cannot be denounced except in accordance with the
principles of the lal~of treaties. And Article 56 of the Vienna Convention, with
which the Court will he familiar, lays down a fairly strong presumption that
treaties are not to I)etaken to be terminable, to be open to donunciation.
So much for my remarks on the presentation this morning by Mr. McGovern
in particular, 1turn now to the question of the footnote to Nicaragua's declaration
as it appears in the Yearbookof the Court and as it has appeared either by
reference or otherwise in the Yearbooksince 1946.
So. Nicaragua does not innore this footnote. It is difficult to ignore a footnote
whiih is proiincnt in a puhlii Jcicunicnt and ha; hecn prebeni ii 1h;iido;uiiieni
iiirsome 37 vcdr>. \\'ctI,)n,>tignorc ii.b~t \cc do ndi tigre? iiith 111soilier ride
on whai thc iegai .'~nscqueiiç~.r tif that ioiitn<>tcm.iy hc; anil11ib.oI'ciiur\e, ihc
Cduri's dut) 10 rcj,~l~ethosc dilfrrco~rr. Si>Irt mr rrad this li>.>tnote:itappcarr
ai pqc 79 <ilth< iurrcnt Kiirho~ik. Ni> .7, Cor 1982-1~x3: puhli<hed b) the
Court it>cli. ItI\ aii ollici.il publi~iiion ai the ÇoiirtAnd the Costiiote rc;iJs
"According to a telegram dated 29 Novemher 1939 addressed to the
League of Nations, Nicaragua ratified the protocol of signature of the
Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice 16Decemher 1920
and the instrument of ratification wasto follow. It does not appear, however,
that the instrument of ratification was ever received hy the League of
Nations."
And that is the text of the footnote.
Now, in accordance with general principles of lawand legal reasoning which
would apply both ivithin the jurisdiction of this Court and in most jurisdictions,
a footnote of tha~ kind appearing in a public document together with the
declaration itself, raises a certain presumption of regularity, hecause after al1the
footnote draws no legal consequences. It makes a statement, it records facts,
which il is true Nicaragua is not attempting to controvert.
It is, after alnet Nicaragua that has made an issue of the footnote. It is -
and it is their privilege - the United States which has made an issue of the
footnote, and that is entirely their right in these proceedings. What is the sig-
nificance of this fact? It is not just the footnote - the footnote is appended to
a statement. It is appended to a declaration which is recorded as the declaration
under the Optional Clause made by Nicaragua in 1929,and the declaration has
been printed in su<:cessiveYearbookssince 1946,either with a footnote or with
a reference to the footnote; for a number of years it appeared as a reference
back to the Yearbookof 1946which contained the footnote.
Now let us look at the matter from the point of view of the law of treaties.
MI. President, 1muy be taxing the patience of the Court, but 1 want to present
the matter as clearly as possible. In the law of treaties - and this is the law -
the question of forrn isnot regulated in a general way. It depends on the intention
of the parties, and ex post facto it may depend on the conduct of the parties,
which may indicatr a readiness on the part of the relevant States to waive a
formal defect.
Let us suppose that what has happened is - as il may bc - that in 1946,in
accordance with Article 36, paragraph 5, an instrument was inherited with a
formal defect. If you will forgive me, 1 am not assuming that the fonnal defect
is to he accepted a:; such, as having any significance as a formal defect, hecause
it may be that the significance of these declarations is vis-à-vis each other; if 1
could refer the Court to the passages from the article by Sir Humphrey Waldock,
which is not liked by the other side, those passages make it clear that the con- ARGUMENTOF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 125
sensual nature of the declaration is essentially as hetween declarants. It is not
between the declarant and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, or
previously the Secretariat of the League. And it may be perfectly possible to
argue that the formal defect is, so to speak, not a relevant formal defect, if you
take that view of mutuality as hetween declarations.
But for the sake of the argument, and in order to assist the Court in
approaching these problems, let us assume that it is a formal defect and that in
1946, under the operation of Article 36 of the Statute, a declaration with a
formal defect was inherited. Now, my submission is that that formal defect has
heen waived by the subsequent practice of the declarant States over this long
period since 1946 in face of this recurring footnote. It is not a mystery, the
footnote - it is there. You do not have to find it in the archives: it is in the
I.C.J. Yearbook.That is one approach to the question ofwhat is the significance,
if any, of the footnote. And of course - if 1may repeat myself - the footnote
itself draws no legal conclusions at all.
There is a second approach, quite apart from the categories of law of treaties,
which will approach it in another way, although the result will be much the
same. Beyond the law of treaties, within the general principles of international
law, waiver hy the conduct of States is quite well known. The classic example of
such waiver is to be round in the Templeof Preah Viheurcase, in the merits, in
LCJ Reports 1962, page 6. That was quite a dramatic case of waiver because
the situation before the Court involved the question of sovereigntyover territory,
and, if you recall, you had in 1908a set of transactions hetween Thailand and
France which resulted in the vroduction of a man which was the unilateral
product of one side of a joint hhundary commission:~he map was not therefore
binding, although it had a technical provenance which made il as a map, so to
speak,?espectable. It was not binding on the two States hecause it had 'ot been
produced hy the joint operations of the Boundary Commission. The Court
eventually held that Thailand, not having objected to the map for a period of
50years - it made its first reservation in 195- could be said to have adopted,
and that is a word that aooears nuite often in the J~de~-~~~~~~~.line on the mao.
Although on its face line o'nthe map was incompatible with the principlés
which were supposed to have been applied and, in particular, the principle of
the watershed,-ihe line on the map d'idnot coincide with the escaipmeni. But
this defect had heen ignored for so long that eventually Thailand was held bound
hy that defect.
But of course there are al1sorts of differences between thdt sort of situation
and the present: itis a difirent context. But the principle is al1that 1want to
indicate to the Court: the principle that by the conduct of the relevant parties a
formal defect may be ignored or cured. And the fact is that the validity of the
declaration as it has aoveared since 1946 in the Yearbookof the Court is
supported hy the presumption of regularity. Why is itthere? It is not just the
question of the footnote. The declaration is there - with a footnote.
There has been a general recognition of the validity - the correctness, the
regulanty - of the inclusion of that declaration in the Yearbookfor so long.
The summary conclusions are that the validity of that declaration is borne out.
There is a presumption of its validity arising from its inclusion in the ICJ,
Yearhr~ok for so lone without reservations bv declarant States. The first reser-
vation appears the $ay before these proceedings hegan on Wednesday - and
that took the form of a letter to the Court.
The official United States listing in its treaties in force is not accompanied by
any qualification. And if one turns, for example, to the two-volume study by Dr.
Rosenne, a well-known classic on the Court, then in the documentation at the126 MILITARYANI> PARAMII.ITARYACTIVITIFS
back of the volume by Rosenne you find included with a footnote the declaration
of Nicaragua.
1take this work as an example, although of course it is a leading example, of
the literature on the Court. Now, Dr. Rosenne is a meticulous scholar, and at
page 880, where Appendix X containing the declarations accepting the compul-
sory jurisdiction of the Court begins, he very carefully puts a proviso. He says
the tex1and other particulars have been taken from the League of Nations and
United Nations ï7eoiy Series except where otherwise indicated. Inclusion or
exclusion of any declaration in this Appendix is not to be considered an
expression of the author's views on any question connected with the status of
that declaration.
Nonetheless he includes it. He does not exclude it. In the same wav as the
I.C.J. Yeurbook includes the declaration. If the invalidity, as alleged by Cheother
side, of the declaration was so palpable, if it was so flawed as to be recognized
in limine, then wh:~does the decliration appear in cvery context in which you
might expect it to appear? - either in a public document in the ICJ Yeorbook,
or in the work of scholars and publicists like Dr. Rosenne.
MI. President, 1would conclude by referring hriefly to another matter.
The Agent of the United States made some remarks Io the eiiect that the
Nicaraguan declarzition had no1 been perfected under Nicaraguan domestic law,
and these remarks have been suficiently answered by the statemcnt of Nicaragua's
Agent this afternoon. 1am advised hy my colleague, Professor Chayes, that the
letter of 6 April from Secretary Shultz is vulnerable to the same charge. As we
have seen, the United States considers the declaration as having the force and
eiiect of a treaty, :and thus requiring approval by the constitutional process of
treaty ratification in the United States that is, a two-thirds vote of the Senate
and approval hy the President. How, then. can these obligations be varied by a
mere letter from the Secretary of State?
Mr. President, 1 thank you and the Court for their patience in hearing me
this afternoon. That concludes the presentation by way of reply on hehalf of
Nicaragua. STATEMENT BYMR. ROBINSON
AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOP AMllRlCA
Mr. ROBINSON: Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, the
Agent and Counsel for Nicaragua have made a number of points here this
afternoon.
The United States does not believe it necessary to respond to al1 of those
points. The United States does emphasize that it has admitted no factual alle-
galions of Nicaragua whatsoever, and that we stand by our interpretations
of the authorities that we relied upon this morning. The United States would
only ask that the Court review the facts and the authorities upon which the
United States relied this morning. For example. as to the Pleadings from the
King of Spain case, we relied on the two sentences preceding the one that was
quoted hy Nicaragua this afternoon.
More imoortantlv. the United Statestodav made a simole areument. althoueh
-
wr e.~~liireilin raiher grcd1dctail. Thai ariun~cni rrxs 3; foll&s. undçr Ariiile
36, prirdprdph 5.of ihc S~~~Uo If ihc Intcrnati.~nalCduri of Juriicc. a dcclaraii(in
for the Statute of the Permanent Court of International lostice had to be in
L~rcr.in 18,\pril 1946in order IO cuniinuc ihcrc;iiicr. Sccund. in ordcr to hd\c
a iIcillir;iiion in bric in 194;iStaie hliJ io dcporit sn insrrumeni of r;iiifi;ai~on
io thc Proiocol of Sirn:iture Thiril. Nir.;ir;ieuau;i, notiiicJ on scbcral occasion,
that it had not donëso, and as a result wis not hound. Fourth, therefore, the
Nicaragua declaration was not in force and Nicaragua is not a party to the
compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under Article 36(5)
of the Statute of the lnternational Court of Justice.
Nic3rligwdmade ,cvcrÿl points ihisaficrnuun bui nonc rcïuird ihi?fundamcnial
Uniicd Staics argument. Indeed, Nicaragua'\ Counicl rippîïrs crprcssly to ha\c
admiiicd ihii Sicararua Jid niit mlike ihc nccc.;sîrs dcn.rii of raiiticaiiun and.
hence, that its declaràtion was not in efïect in 1946..
Wewould suhmit with al1due respect, Mr. President, that our argument might
simply stop there.
The United States will. however. brieflv note the flaws in the aruuments that
Nicaragua mliile ihir aficrnoon in uiher rcspsi;.
t'irsi. Sicaragiia', inieriial r;iiilicaii~iiltruc. JiJ no1ci~nïiiiuieihc ne2cs-
sar\ inicrn;iiidnal aci. SeionJ. H'orld \\'al Iii <~fci~urrci.rrelc!,ani. hic~raeua
wai formally notified twice during the war that a deposit was necessary.
League records showed in 1944 that Nicaragua was not a party to the
Protocol. Yet, for whatever reason, Nicaragua took no step between the end of
the war and the termination of the kague in 1946Io, in efïect, bind itself to the
Statute of the Permanent Court of lnternational Justice. Furthermore, for what-
ever reason, for 38 years Nicaragua has not seen fit Io make a declaration under
Article 36 (2) of the Statute of this Court.
Listings in various documents of Nicaragua among States that made declar-
ations are irrelevant. They do not prove that the declaration is effectiveand they
cannot of course constitute a declaration in themselves.Article 36(2) and Article
36 (4) of the Statute of the lnternational Court of Justice provide specific pro-
cedures for a declaration.
Nicaragua's argument on estoppel is wholly unfounded. Nicaragua never
brought a case before. No State has ever had reason to examine ils acceptance.128 MlLlTARY AND PARAMILITARYACTlVlTlES
Contrary to Nicaragua's argument, the Yearbookof the International Court of
Justice of course is not official and, in any event, contains a specific disclaimer
in the Preface chat it does not bind the Court in anv official wav. What is
important is tbat the fact of the footnote was certainly no mystery to Nicaragua.
Obviously treaties rire not amended by Yearbooks and authors.
~icaraiua's various arnuments on the law of treaties are simply erroneous.
The trea6 here is the ~roïocol. It required by its terms the deposit of an instru-
ment of ratification. With your permission 1would like to quote from the Court's
decision in the Amburieloscaseof 1952:
"The ratification of a treaty which provides for ratification . . . is an
indispensable condition for bringing il into operation. It is no1 therefore a
mere formal act but an act of vital importance." (I.C.J. Reporls 1952,p. 43.)
Nicaragua's Agent alluded brieliy 10 two other possihilities. He cited the Pact
of Bogoti, but of course the United States is not a party to that Pact and the
United States, under the law of treaties, as a result cannot he bound therehy.
Further, the Pact of Bogoti is clearly a treaty under Article 36 (1) of the Statute
of the International Court of Justice and not a declaration under Article 36 (2)
of the Statute of the International Court of Justice that could give rise to mutual
obli-ations. The United States would like to note onlv one further point with
respect IO Nii~ragua's meniion of ihc Pasr of Bogoti.
Sicaragua hcçanie paris IO the 1'3~1<IIR' i>goli hut nut \rithiiut rchcr\,xti<m.
bccausc Nicaragua ,vasconccrncd thai Honduras would 3iicrnpt 10use the Court
to enforce the ;rior Arbitral Award of the King of Spain. ~icara~ua made the
following resewation, both upon signing and upon ratification of the Pact
of Bogota :
"The Nicaraguan delegation on givingits approval to the American treaty
on oacific settlcment. the Pact of Boz-ta. wishes to record ex~resslvthat no
proviiions coni;iined in the raiilIreift)ma? pr~.~u<Iic3cn) po)illon 3\sumcd
by the Covcrlirncnl of Ntcar~gua wllh rcspccl Io arbitral Jccisions ihc
\aIidiiy of,$ hichLIhascon~c.;tcJon thc hï,iiofthc princir>lesolinternational
law which cle;irly permit arbitral decisions to beattaiked when they are
judged to be nuIl and invalidated. Consequently, the signature of the
Nicaraguan dalegation to the treaty in question cannot be alleged as an
acceptance of any arbitral decisions that Nicaragua has contested and the
validity of whiçh isnot certain."
The United States would resoectfullv ask the Court to consider the followine:
if Nicaragua was !;Oconcerned aboui being compelled to submit the arbitral
awdrd dispute with Honduras to thc Court's jurisdiction, concerned to the cxtcnt
of making the same reservation twice, why was Nicaragua apparently not worried
about being compelled to submit that dispute to the Court by force of its 1929
declaration? The only answer, Mr. President and distinguished Members of the
Court. we submit. is that Nicaragua knew full well that the 1929declaration was
not in force; otherwise, ~icara~Üa logically would have acted to modify, termi-
nate or replace ils 1929declaration.
Mr. President and distinguished Memhers of the International Courtof Justice,
the United States simnlv wishes to reiterate the noint 1was. with al1due respect. .
trying to make at the'eid of this morning's pr<ceedings.
The United States respectfully requested that the President ask the Agent of
Nicaragua whether he could adduce evidence that Nicaragua has acceded to the
compulsory jurisdiction of this Court. Nicaragua's presentation this afternoon
kas provided furthar confirmation that Nicaragua is not able to do so. STATEMENTBY MR. ROBINSON 129
As we sueeested this momine. MI. President. in the comolete absence of anv
evidence thii the Applicant h& solemnly acceéted ils pari of the compulso~
jurisdiction bargain the United States respectfully submits that the Court is now
in a position to-consider this question wiihout further proceedings.
The United States therefore respectfully reiterdtes its requesl to the Court that
these proceedings on Nicaragua's Application and request for the indication of
interim measures be terminated for once and for all.
The PRESIDENT: Does Nicaragua wish to say anything more? Then 1will
hring the proceedings to an end. The Court will deliherate and decide what to
do next. The proceedings are adjourned. CLOSING OF THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. This brings us to the end of this series
of hearings.
1 would like to express my sincerest thanks to the Agents, counsel and
advocates of the Parties for the valuable assistance they have givento the Court
in the accomplishment of its task, as well as for the courtesy and co-operation
they have displayed throughout the proceedings. In accordance with the usual
practice. 1 would a!;k the Agents to remain at the disposal of the Court for
further information which itmight need and, subject IO this,1now declare closed
the oral hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures inthe
case concerning Mililary and Paramililary Acriviriesin and ogainsrNicaragua
(Nicaragua v. Unii<d Stores of America). The Court will now withdraw to
deliberate. The Ageiits of the Parties will be notified in due course of the date
when the Court will deliver ils Order.
There heing no other matters hefore it today, the Court will now rise.
The Court ruse al5.40p.m. FIFTH PUBLICSITTING (10 V 84, 12noon)
Present: [See sitting of 25 IV 84.1
READING OF THE ORDER
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sittine is-.nen
The Court meets today to deliver its decision on the request for the indication
of provisional measures made by the Republic of Nicaragua in the caseconcerning
MilitarvandParamililarvActivities inandaza"nsrNicarazua".icarazua " v. United
States Gf America).
The proceedings were begun on 9 April 1984 by the filing of an Application
by the Republic of Nicaragua instituting proceedings against the United States
of America. On the same day, the Republic of Nicaragua presented to the Court
a request under Article 41 of the Statute of the Court for the indication of
provisional measures, justified, in its suhmission, hy the facts set out in the
Application.
Following the usual practice, 1 shall not read the opening paragraphs of the
Order, which set out the procedural history of the case and the submissions of
the Parties. 1will accordingly start the reading of the Order at paragraph 10.
[The President reads from paragraphs 10 to the end.]
1 now cal1 upon the Registrar to read the operative clause of the Order in
French, the other official language of the Court.
[Le Greffier lit le dispositif en français.]
Judge Mosler and Sir Robert Jennings append a joint separate opinion Io the
Order of the Court; Judge Schwebel appends a dissenting opinion to the Order
of the Court.
In accordance with practice, the Order has been read today from a duplicated
copy of the text, a limited stock of whichwill be available to the public and the
press. The usual printed tex1of the Order will be available in a few weeks'time.
Since the Court has no other business before it today, 1 declare the present
sitting closed.
(Signed) T. O. ELLAS,
President.
(Signed) Santiago TORRES BERN~RUEZ,
Registrar. EXHIBITSSUBMITTEDBYNICARAGUA
AND THE UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA
IN CONNECTIONWITHTHEORALPROCEDURE
ON THEREQUEST FORTHEINDICATION
OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES
DOCUMENTS DÉPOSÉS PAR LENICARAGUA
ETLES ÉTATS-UNISD'AMÉRIQUE
AUX FINS DE LA PROCÉDUREORALE
RELATIVEÀ LADEMANDEEN INDICATION
DE MESURES CONSERVATOIRES A. EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BYNICARAGUA
Exhibit 1
1, Commander of the Revolution Luis Carrion, Certify and declare the fol-
lowing :
1. 1 am Vice-Minister of the Interior of the Repuhlic of Nicaragua.
My official duties include responsibility for al1matters affecting the interna1
security of Nicaragua.
2. My official responsihiiities include monitoring and maintaining records of
attacks against Nicaragua hy military and paramilitary forces hased outside of
Nicaragua. In the exercise of myofficialduties, 1 receive regular reports on these
attacks from local and regional officials and employees of the Ministry of the
Interior throughout the country. Pursuant to my standing instructions, these
local and regional officialsand employees regularly report the date, time, location
and nature of each attack against Nicaragua, the size of the attacking force, the
military equipment used, the number of people killed, wounded, kidnapped or
displaced from their homes, and the physicaldamage to property caused by the
attack. This information is analysed under my supervision, and communicated
10 civilian and military authorities of my Government. It is used hy the
Government in defence and economic planning.
3. The attacks against my country have been escalating steadily since the
heginning of 1984, and reached their highest and most destructive level during
the month of April. More than 8,000 armed mercenaries have heen invading
Nicaragua, from across hoth its northern and southern frontiers, for the past
several weeks.
Fighting is extremely heavy, and casualties are very high. Since April 1, 84
Nicaraguans have been killed, 122wounded, 199kidnapped.
The following chart shows the numher of Nicaraguans killed, wounded and
kidnapped during the first three and one-half months of 1984:
Months Killed Wounded Kidnapped
January 41 103 4
Fehruary 43 73 47
March 173 197 164
April 84 122 199
Total 341 495 214
4. The most intense fighting hastaken place during the past ten days, and is
continuing as of this date. During this most recent period aione, more than 34
Nicaraguans have been killed. The most significant attacks during this period
include the following:
(a) On April the 1st a mercenary force estimated to numher around 350 men
attacked the villages of Waslala, Mancera and El Guabo destroying the
bridges of Yaoska, El Jicaral and Kusuli. The mercenary forces also hurned several homes, a school, two trucks and damaged commuriication cables. In
these attacks 15)Nicaraguans were killed and 13injured.
(b) On the 4th of April while one mercenary force was attacking the mining
towns of Bonaiira and Siuna in North Zelaya, another armed group, using
explosives desti-oyed the electrical powerhouse in El Salto which supplied
energy to the entire population of that area, especially to the mining area.
(c) From the 6th cifApril onwards, mercenary groups originating from Costa
Rican territory initiated a numher of attacks against the San Juan del Norte
border post. Ori April 13th, about 500 mercenaries launched attacks against
the port there, engaging in fierce combat until the 17th of April when they
were forced to intern themselves in Costa Rica. Durinr the onslaueht the
prisoneÏs in Costa Rican territory.
(d) On April 17th. an estimated force of 300 mercenaries attacked the Sumubila
settlement in North Zelaya burning and totally destroying a cacao seed-
planting project, a health centre and a warehouse helonging to the lnstitute
of Agrarian Reform used to store basic grains. Four Nicaraguans were
killed, among them 3 women; 15 were injured and 35 kidnapped. The
whereabouts of the kidnapped is still unknown.
5. Based on the information collected. and the activities now takin-.f lace.mv
Cio\çrriniçiit e\timd:cr thdi, unIr.,, thr. prr.\cnt in\asion is h~lied. hcdi) fighiini
.igain,i thc alidcker;. iail rfiort to rr.pr.1thçm. uill continue ior ~r.i,er:ilmunihs
hl" Ci.i\r.rnmr.ntc%tim:<içi.;h:ii, ii this i, su:cesiri.ll) occ,>inpliiliuillhr
.il:< CJ~I oi hund C~S i~i~rcYii;iriigu:in~ killcd. m-inv rn<>r:u,~undeil. :inil
ph),icil k~iii3gctu Iiropçrty :ilidç<<>n.imiicniii<iructi.rc t<italliiigtens .>iniillii~ns
of dollars.
6. Attached to this afidavit as Exhihit A are three annexed references
accompanying the present document. Annex A, as the title itself indicates,
contains a chronology of the principal attacks directed by the mercenary forces,
from the 1st to the 17th of April of this yedr. During this period Nicaragua
suKereda total of 82 armed actions against it, principally directed against socio-
economic targets a:; well as services: Annex B contains 2 charts, one which
indicates the numbcr of Nicaraguans killed, injured and kidnapped during 1984
and, a graph illustriiting actions directed hy the enemy during the same period.
The last annex, C, contains photocopies of a memorandum.addressed to the
US Embassy in Honduras on January 24, 1984by the Commanders of the Task
Forces of the FDN and MISURA requesting the assistance of an "Operational
Advisor". This copy whose original document lies already in the hands of the
Government of Nicaragua, provides new evidence that the mercenary forces
which attack Nicaragua are at the service of the US Government.
April 19, 1984
(Signed) Luis CARRION C.,
Comandante de la Revolucion,
Vice-Ministro 1del Interior.
[Certficafion NISpanish no1reproduced] EXHIBITS SUBMITTBD BY NICARAGUA 137
AnnexA
Chronologyof the PrincipalAttacks Directed hy rheMercenaryForces
During the ~eriod extendine from the 1st to the 17th of ADril. the mercenary
and border posts, sabotage efforts against socio-economic targets as well as
services, and, carrying out massive kidnappings of peasants and indigenous
sectors of the country.
In this period, there have been a total of 82armed actions accounted for. The
following chronology highlights the costs in human and economic tcrms:
Date Description
4-1-84 Approximately 16 kilometres to the southeast of Colonia Serrano,
counter-revolutionary groups simultaneously attacked the settlement
there, resulting in the kidnapping of one woman, the assassination of2
and injuring of Il persons. In their retreat they mined the road causing
one mine to explode on a truck.
On April the 1st a mercenary force estimated to number around 350
men attacked the villages ofWaslala, Mancera and El Guabo destroying
the bridges of Yaoska, El Jicaral andKusuli. The mercenary forces also
burned several homes, a school, two trucks and damaged communi-
cation cables. In these attacks 19 Nicaraguans were killed and 13
injured.
A construction truck which was heading to La Tronquera from Puerto
Cabeza traversed a counter-revolutionary mine-field approximately
3kms south of the Likus bridge causing 5 deaths and 8 wounded.
4-4-84 On the 4th of April while one mercenary force wasattacking the mining
towns of Bondnzd and Siuna in North Zelaya, another armed group,
using explosives destroyed the electrical powerhouse in El Salto which
supplied energy to the entire population of that area, especially to the
mining area.
4-5-84 A mercenary group attacked Las Brisas, situated 17kms to the south-
Westof El Cua Valleydestroying a productive farm unit and burning a
pick-up truck. This action resulted in the deaths of 4 persons and the
wounding of 8.
4-6-84 In El Guadalupe Valley, 30kms to the southwest of San Carlos, a
counter-revolutionary group hurned severalhomes andthe health center
in that area.
4-7-84 A commando group destroyed 2 electrical towers situated on the Santa
Rosa farm, 5 kms east of Chinandega.
4-8-84 Around 150 mercenaries hurned down "La Colonia", a state farm
lying 15kms northwest of San Rafael de Yali; 6peasants were assassin-
ated.
4-10-84 A counter-revolutionary group assaulted ENABAS, a state-run supply
post for the basic foodstuffs in Kuriniwas 22 kms northeast of Nueva
Guinea, killing4 persons and kidnapping one woman. They also rohbed
500,000cordobas equal to 50,000 US dollars.
4-13-84 Mercenaries used explosives to sabotage electrical wiring poles in the
settlement of "La Fonseca", 18kms to the southeast of Nueva Guinea.
A mercenary commandogroup used C-4 explosivesto hlowup telephone
poles in Chagüite Grande, 6 kms northeast of Ocotal.138 .UILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
4-14-84 A counter-revolutionary group ambushed a truck in Yali, Jinotega,
killing4 Nicaraguans and injuring 2.
4-16-84 Around 30 counter-revolutionaries ambushed a truck belonging to the
Ministry of Construction 4 kms south of Mulukuku, situated 35kms
northeast of Rio Blanco. The result: 2 killed and 1 wounded.
About 70 mercenaries attacked the settlement area of Los Chiles,
Il kms northeast of Arucend killing 3 persons, wounding 2, among
them, a citizen of Dutch origin.
4-17-84 An estimated force of 300mercenariesattacked the Sumubila settlement
in North Zelaya burning and totally destroying a cacao seed-planting
project, a health center and a warebouse belonging to the lnstitute of
Agrarian Reform used for storing grain. 120urNicaraguans were as-
sassinated, including 3 women, 15were injured and 35 werekidnapped.
The whereabouts of this last group is as yet unknown.
Anne.rB
Chart 1
NLCARAGUANCITIZI!NSKlI.LEO,OUNDED AND KIDNAPPBD DYTHE MGRCENARY
FORCESOURING THE!MONTHS OPJANUAR YEBRUARY,MARCH ON UPTO APRIL 19~~.
Concept
Monrhs Deud Wounded Kidnapped
January 41 103 4
February 43 73 47
March 173 197 164
April 84 122 199
Total 341 495 214 EXHIBITSSUBMITTEDBY NICARAGUA
A~tnexB
Char2
NICARAGUANClTlZENS KILLED. WOUNDED AND KIDNAPPEDBY THEMERCENARY
FORCL3FROMAPRIL IST-I~T1984
Concept
GRAPHOFENEMYACTIONSUN1)ERTAKENDURIKG THEMONTHSOFIANUARY,
FEBRUARY,MARCH,ANI) APRIL 1984.
70 - January
........February
60 --------April
50
40 , ,...-- .-*. _----
.'.' ---.. ___-- _---
30, .-.-.-__, .,' . -
7.-
20
IO
Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
Annex C
(Translation)
[Spanishtextnorreproduced]
MËMORANDUM
January 23, 1984.
To: Emhassy of the United States of America, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, C.A.
From: Task Forc: Commanders of the FDN and MISURAS.
Channel: Coronel Raymond.
Suhject : Request for an Operational Advisor.
1. By means of this letter we request that considerations he made with regards
to the possibility of operationally incorporating Mr. Gustavo Villoldo in Our
project, who kas been a very important factor in the recently-occurred crisis,
and, whom we know and admire because of his successful background in the
anti-communist struggle.
His identificatior, with us, and his capahilities, will provide us with what could
be the decisive element in this venture given that his good relationship with the
leaders of the Anti-Sandinist Movement will facilitate an eventual unity that will
help achieve the common objective.
2. As an additional point we want to deeply thank the Government of the
United States of Ainerica for its grcat interest taken in the solution of the recent
problem, which wi: hope will correctly culminate in the near future. We are
willing to cooperate with you always - until the last consequences - hoping
that once the solution to the problem which is only partially affecting us is
finalized we can reiich a greater level of efficiencyin Ouractions. EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA
Exhibit II
AFFIDAVI OTFMIGUEL D'ESCOTR OROCKMANN
APRIL21s 1984.
1, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, certify and declare the following:
1. 1 am Foreign Minister of the Republic of Nicaragua. My official dulies
include overall responsibility for conducting and monitoring relations between
Nicaragua and other countries.
2. 1am aware of the allegations made by the Government of the United States
that my Government is sending arms, ammunition, communications equipment
and medical supplies to rebels conducting a civil war against the Government of
El Salvador. Such allerations are false. and constitute nothine more than a
pretext for the United States to continue ils unlawful military and paramilitary
activities against Nicaragua intended to overthrow my Government. In truth,
my Government is not engaged, and has not been engaged, in the provision of
anns or other supplies to either of the factions engaged in the civil war in El
Salvador.
3. Since my Government came to power on July 19, 1979, its policy and
practice kas been to prevent our national territory from being uscd as a conduit
for anns or other military supplies intended for other governments or rebel
groups. In fact, on numerous occasions the security forces of my Government
have intercepted clandestine arms shipments, apparently destined for El Salvador,
and confiscated them. In one soeciallv notable incident. our securitv forces
intercepted a private passenger bus - from the Costa Rican bus line
"TICABUS' - with a false bottom loaded with anns en route to El Salvador.
The arms was confiscated and the deliverv was ~revented
4. Very difficult objective conditions not~ithstandin~, my Government bas
and will continue to make the greatest efforts to prevent the use of our national
territory for arms smuggling. Nicaragua's frontieÏ with Honduras, to the north,
is 530 kilometres long. Most of it is characterized by rugged mountains, or
remote and dense jungles. Most of this border area is inaccessible by motorized
land transport and simply impossible topatrol. To the south, Nicaragua's border
with Costa Rica extends for 220 kilornetres. This area is also characterized bv
dense and remote jungles and is also virtually inaccessible by land transport. A;
a small underdeveloped country with extremely limited resources, and with no
modem or sophisticated detection equipment, it is not easy for us to seal offour
borders to al1unwanted and illegal traffic.
5. Another complicating factor has been thc presence of armed mercenary
bands along both Our northern and southern borders. These bands, numbering
more than 10,000men in the north and more thdn 2,000in the south - recruited,
armed, financed and directed by the United States - have made it almost
impossible for my Government to adequately patrol its borders to prevent illegal
arms trafficking. My Government kas been compelled to devote al1of its military
and security resources to defending our national territory from attack by these
mercenaries. Since 1981,more than 1,400of our people have been killed in this
fighting and more than 3,000 others have been wounded or kidnapped. We
simply do not have the luxury of being able to divert our security forces to the142 MILrrARY AND PARAMII.ITARYACTlVITlliS
interception of arnis trafic. Nicaragua thus has sought to complement its own
eKorts with region;ilco-operation.
6. For these reasons, my Government has actively sought verifiahle inter-
national agreements for halting al1 arms trafic in the region. Commencing in
May 1981,myGovernment proposed to the Government of Honduras that joint
measures be taken to eliminate the iiow of ar~s ac~oss Ourcommon border. I-~~
particular, my Go\.ernment proposed joint border patrols, composed of military
and security forcesof both countries, to police the border. On May 13.the Head
of State of Honduras acceptcd the proposal in principle and agreed with the
Nicaraguan Head of State to follow up with a meeting of Our two Ministers of
Defence, but this meeting never look place because Honduras unilaterally
withdrew from the negotiations. In April 1982,my Government again initiated
a dialogue with Honduras in an eflort 10terminate the flowof arms and attacks
by armed bands in the border area. Our proposal, consisting of seven specific
points, was rejected by Honduras in April 23, 1982. In May 1982, another
meeting of our respective Chiefs of Staff took place wherein Nicaragua sought
agreementon ajoint border pairol. Honduras refused. In August 1982,Nicaragua
proposed another meeting of Chiefs of StaK together with Foreign Ministers.
Honduras rejecied such a meeting and bilateral eKorts to reach a solution to the
arms problcm came to a halt.
7. Thereafier. Nicaragua sought, and continues to seek, a multilateral agree-
ment to eliminate arms trafic in the region. In September 1983,Nicaragua was
the first of the five Central American States to accept and ratify the 21 Point
Declaration of Otijectives promulgated by the Contadora Group (Colomhia,
Mexico, Panama and Venezuela). lncluded in these points were provisions to
eliminate arms trafic to rehel or mercenary groups seeking to overthrow
establishedGoverfiments in the region. The Contadora Group asked each of the
fiveCentral American countries (Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala
and El Salvador) to prepare and present draft treaty proposals addressing al1of
the 21 Points set forth in the Declaration of Objectives, including those relaring
10elimination of arms trafic.
8. In October 1983, Nicaragua prepared and presented to the Contadora
Group. to the other Central American States. and to the Government of the
~niied~tates, a package of four proposed treaty agreements, collectivelyentitled
"JURIDICAB LASIS TO GUARANTE PEACE AND INTERNATIONSA ELCURIT FOR THE
CI~NTRA ALMI~RICA SNTA~". These proposed treaties would reauire each Central
American State to adopt al1possibléméasuresto prevent its territory from being
used for the traflic in arms or other supplies to armed groups seeking to
overthrow any established government of the region, and would require each
State to prevent aiiy such armed groups from operating or seeking sanctuary in
its national territory. Under Nicaragua's proposals, the Contadora Group would
act as guarantor af these provisions, and would have the power Io conduct
on-site inspectionsin the territorv of anv State accusedof toleratine or suonortine
arms trafii or the presence of a;med rébelgroups. In the case of; violaiion th:
Contadora Group would he empowered to direct the oflending State to terminate
its improper conduct and to pay compensation to any other State or States
injured as a result of such conduct. Nicaragua announced its readiness to sign
and ratify these proposed treaties immediately, or to entertain counterproposals
from the other Central American States or from the United States. The United
States has refused 10respond in any way. Nor have the other Central American
States accepted Nicaragua'sproposal or responded with specificcounterproposals
of their own.
9. 1 submit that the foregoing demonstrates Nicaragua's commitment to EXHIBITS SUBMI~.D BK NICARAGUA 143
eliminating unlawful arms trafficking in Central America - a plague, it is
important to bear in mind, of which Nicaragua itself is the primary victim -
and refutes the Calseaccusations that the Govemment of the United States has
made against Nicaragua. It is interesting that only the Government of the United
States makes these allegations, and not the Government of El Salvador, which
is the supposed victim of the alleged arms trafficking. Full diplomatic relations
exist between Nicaragua and El Salvador. Yet, El Salvador has never - not
once - lodged a protest with my Government accusing it of complicity in or
responsibility for any traffic in arms or other military supplies to rebel groups in
that country.
(Signed) Miguel ~'Escoro BROCKMANN,
Foreign Minister,
Republic OCNicaragua.
[Certijication in Spanish notreproduced] MILITARYAND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
Exhibit III
1. INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YMR 1984, PUBLIC LAW 89-215,
DECEMBER 9, 1983
Public Law 98-215 [H.R. 29681;December 9, 1983
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984
(An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1984 for intelligence and
intelligence-relat~d activities of the United States Government, for the
IntelligenceConmunity Staff, for the Central Intelligence AgencyRetirement
and Disability System, and for other purposes.)
Be it enactedbj' the Senate and Houseof Reprerentativesof the UnitedStates
ofAmerica in Conpressassembled,That this Act may be cited as the "Intelligence
~uthorization AC: for Fiscal Year 1984"
AUTHORIZATION OP APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 101. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscalyear 1984
for the conduct cif the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
following elements ofthe United States Government:
(1) The Central Intelligençe Agency.
(2) The Department of Defense.
(3) The Defense IrrtelligenceAgency.
(4) The National !iecurityAgency.
(5) The Department of the Amy, the Department of the Navy, and the
Department of the Air Force.
(6) The Department of State.
(7) The Department of the Treasury.
(8) The Department of Energy.
(9) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(10) The Drug Enforcement Administration.
CLASSIFIED SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 102. The arnounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101,and
the authorized personnel ceilingsas of September 30, 1984,for the conduct of
the intelligence ancl intelligence-related activities of the elements listed in such
section, are those specifiedin the classifiedSchedule of Authorizations prepared
by the committee ,ofconference to accompany H.R. 2968 of the Ninety-eighth
Congress. That Schedule of Authorizations shall he made available to the MHIBITS SUBMITTEVBY NICARAGUA 145
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives and
to the President. The President shall provide for suitable distribution of the
Schedule,or of appropriate portions of the Schedulewithin the executivebranch.
CONGWSSIONAL NOTIFICATION OF EXPENI>ITURPSIN EXCESSOF PROGRAM
AUTRORI%ATIONS
Scc. 103. During fiscal year 1984,funds may not be made available for any
intellieenceor intelligence-relatedactivitv unlesssuch funds have been soecificallv
authoyized for suchactivity or, in thc &se of funds appropriated for ditTere&
activity, unless the Director of Central Intelligenceor the Secretary of Defensc
has notified the a~oro~riate cornmittees of ~~neress of the intent(O make such
.. .
funds available for such activity, except that, in no case may reprogrdming or
transfer authority be used hy the Director of Central Intelligenceor the Secretary
of Defense unlessfor higher priority intclligcnceor intelligence-related activities,
bascd on unforeseen requirements, than those for which funds were originally
authorized, and in no case where the intelligenceor intelligence-related activity
for which funds were requested has been denied by Congress.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DIISIGNAND CONSTRUCTIONOF AN
AI>I)ITIONAL BUILDING ATTtIB CENTRAL INTELLIGENCEAGENCY HEADQUARTERS
Sec. 104.Of the amounts auihorizcd to be appropriated under section 101
(1). there is authorized to be appropriated the sum of $75,500,000for the design
and construction of a new building at the Central lntelligence Agcncyhead-
quarters compound.
AUI'IIORITY FOR TRANSFER OF AUTHORIZED FUNUS 01' THII CENTRAL INTELLlGllNCli
AGENCY TO TH13STATIIOP VIRGINIA
Sec. 105. Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101
(I), the Central Intelligence Agencyis authorized to transfer an amount not to
exceed $3,000,000to the State of Virginia for the design and construction of
highway improvements associated with construction at the Central lntelligence
Agency headquarters compound.
AUTHORIZATIOS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR COUNTERTERRORISMACTIVITIES OF Ttlli
FEDERAL BUREAUOP INVFSTIGATION
Sect. 106. In addition to the amounts authorized to be appropriated under
section 101 (9), there is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1984the
sum of $13,800,000 for the conduçi of the activities of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to counter terrorism in the United States.
PERSONNEL CIIILING AUJUSTMENTS
Sec. 107. The Director of Central Intelligencemay authorize employment of
civilian personnel in excessof the numbers authorized for the fiscal year 1983
under sections 102and 202 of the IntelligenceAuthorization Act for fiscalyear
1983(Public Law 97-269) and in excessof the numbers authorized for the fiscal
year 1984under sections 102and 202 of this Act when he determines that such
action is necessary to the performance of important intelligencefunctions, except146 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITES
that such number may not, for any element of the Intelligence Community,
exceed 2 Dercentuni of the numher of civilian ~ersonnel authorized under such
sections for such element. The Director of central Intelligence shall promptly
notify the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives and the SelectCommittee on intelligence of the Senate whenever
he exercisesthe authority granted by this section.
LIMITATION ON COVERT ASSISTANCE FOR MlLlTARYOPERATIONS IN NICARAGUA
Sec. 108. During fiscal year 1984, not more than $24,000,000 of the funds
available to the Ceritral lntelligence Agency,the Department of Defense, or any
other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may
be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of
supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations inNicaragua
by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.
CONGRESSIONAL FlNDlNGS
Sec. 109. (a) The Congress finds that
(1) the Government of National Reconstruction of Nicaragua kas failed
to keep solemri promises, made to the Organiza<ion of American States in
Suly 1979, to establish full respect for human rights and political liberties,
hold early elections, preserve a private sector, permit political pluralism,
and pursue a fi3feignpolicy of nonaggression and nonintervention;
(2) by providing military support (including arms, training, and logistical,
command and control, and communications facilities) to groups seeking to
overthrow the Government of El Salvador and other Central American
eovernments. the Government of National Reconstruction of Nicaraeua has
;iolated article 18 of the Charter of the Organization of ~merican States
which declares that no state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,
for any reason whatsoever, in the interna1 or external affairs of any
other state;
(3) the Govcrnment of Nicaragua should be held accountable before the
Organization of American States for activities violative of promises made
to the Orgariization and for violations of the Charter of that Organi-
ration; and
(4) working through the Organization of American States is the proper
and most effective means of dealing with threats to the peace of Central
America, of psoviding for common action in the event of aggression, and
of providing the mechanisms for peaceful resolution of disputes among the
countries of Ct:ntral America.
(b) The President should seek a prompt reconvening of the Seventeenth
Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreien Affairs of the Oreanization of
~meriGn States for the purpose of reevaïuating the compli~nce by the
Government of Na;ional Reconstruction of Nicaragua -
(1) with the commitments made by the leaders of that Government in
Suly 1979to the Organization of American States; and
(2) with the Charter of the Organization of American States.
/cl The President should vieorouslv seek actions bv the Oreanization of
~m&ican States that would proGidefo;a full range of effectivemeasures by the
memher states to bring about compliance hy the Government of National EXHIBITS SUBMITCED RYNICARAGUA 147
Reconstruction of Nicaragua with those obligations, including verifiable agree-
ments to halt the transfer of military equipment and to cease furnishing of
military support facilitiesto groups seekingthe violent overthrow of governments
of countries in Central America.
(d) The President should use al1diplomatic means at his disposal to encourage
the Organization of American States to seek resolution of the conflictsin Central
America based on the provisions ofthe Final Act of the San José Conferenceof
Octoher 1982,especially principles(d), (e), and (grelating to nonintervention
in the interna1 affairs of other countries, denying support for terrorist and
subversiveelements inother States,and international supervisionoffullyverifiable
arrangements.
(P) The United States should support measures at the Organization of
American States, as well as efforts of the Cantadora Group, which seek to end
support for terrorist, subversive,or other activities aimedat the violent overthrow
of the governments of countries in Central America.
(f) Not later than March 15, 1984,the President shallreport to the Congress
on the results of his efforts pursuant to this Act to achieve peace in Central
America. Such report may include such rccommendations as the President may
consider appropriate for further United States actions to achieve this objective.
AUTHORIZATION OFAPPROI'RIATION
Sec. 201. There is authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence Com-
munity Stafï for fiscal year 1984the sum of $18,500,000.
AUTHORIZATION OF PERSONNEL END-STRENGTH
Sec. 202. (a) The Intelligence Community Staff is authorized two hundred
and fifteen full-time personnel as of September 30, 1984.Such personnel of the
Intelligence Community Staff may be permanent employees of the Intelligence
Community Stafi or personnel detailed from other elements of the United States
Government.
IbJ Durine fiscal vear 1984. oersonnel of the Intellieence Communitv Staff
shàlfbe selected so as to provkfe appropriate represenLtion from eleméntsof
the United States Government engaged in intelligence and intelligence-related
activities. - -
fcl Durine fiscal vear 1984.anv officeror emolovee of the United States or a
mem'berof the ~&ed orc whoe ssdetailed 'toihe Intelligence Community
Staff from another element of the United States Government shall be detailed
on a reimhursable basis. except that any such officer,employee or member may
be detailed on a nonreimbursable basis for a period ofless than one year for the
performance of temporary functions as required by the Director of Central
Intelligence.
INTELLlGENCli COMMUNITY STAFF ADMINISTERBD IN SAME MANNER ASCENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE AUENÇY
Sec. 203. During fiscal year 1984,activities and personnel of the Intelligence
Community Staff shall he subject to the provisions of the National Security Act
of 1947(50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and the Central Intclligencc Agency Act of 1949148 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
(50 U.S.C. 403a-403n) in the same manner as activities and personnel of the
Central lntelligence Agency.
TITLEIII - CENTRP.ILNTELLIGENA CEENCY RETIRE MI: A^ND DISABILIT SYSTEM
Sec. 301. There 1sauthorized to be appropriated for the Central lntelligence
Agency Retirement and Disability Fund for fiscal year 1984 the sum of
$86,300,000.
TITLEIV - AOMISISTRATP IROV~S~O RESLATE OO THECENTRA~ I.~TELLIGENCE
AGE:NC AYNDTHE INTELLIGENC COEMMUNIT STAIT
ELlGlBlLlTY FOAPPOINTMENT TO CERTAIN CENTRAI. INTELLIGENCE ACENCY
POSITIONS
Sec. 401. Section 5 of the Central lntelligence Agency Actof 1949(50 U.S.C.
403f) is amended by striking the las! "and" in subsection (d), hy striking the
period at the end of subsection (e) and substituting in lieu ;hand, and
by adding at the end thereof the followingnew subsection:
"(1) Detemine and fix the minimum and maximum limits of age within
which an original appointment may be made 10 an operational position
within the Agency, notwithstanding the provision of any other law, in
accordance with such criteria as the Director, in his discretion, may
prescribe."
ELlGlBlLlTPOR INCENTIVEAWARIIS
Sec. 402. (a) The Director of Central Intelligence may exercisethe authority
granted in section 4503 of title 5, United States Code, with respect to Federal
employeesand members of the Armed Forces detailed or assigned to the Central
lntelligence Agencyor to the IntelligenceCommunity Staff, in the same mdnner
as such authority may he exercised with respect to the personnel of the Central
lntelligence Agencyand the IntelligenceCommunity Staff.
(b) The authority granted by subsection (a) of this section may be exercised
with respect to Federal employeesor members of the Armed Forces detailed or
assigned to the Central lntelligence Agencyor to the lntelligence Community
Staff onor after a date fiveyears hefore the date of enactment of this section.
APPOINTMEI 4TOIRECTOR OFTHE INTELLICENCI: COMMUNITY STAFF
Sec. 403. The Nritional SecurityAct of 1947(50 U.S.C. 401 el seq.)is amended
by adding after section 102the followingnew section:
"APPOINTMENT OF OIRECTOR OF IhTELLIGENCE COMMUNITYSiAFP
"Sec. IO2a(1) If a commissionedofficerof the Armed Forccs isappointcd
as Director of the lntelligenceCommunity Staff, such commissioned officer,
while serving in such posit-on
"(A) shallcotbesubject to supervision,control, restriction, or prohibition
by the Department of Defense or any component thereof; and
(B) shall not exercise, hy reason of his status as a commissioned officer,
any supervision, control, powers, or functions (other than as authorized as EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 149
Director of the Intelligence Community Staff) with respect to any of the
military or civilian personnel thereof.
"(2) Except as provided in subsection (l), the appointment of a com-
missioned officer of the Armed Forces to the nosition of Director of the
Intelligence Community Staff, his acceptance of such appointment and his
service in such position shall in no way affect his status, position, rank, or
grade in the Armed Forces, or any emoloment, perquisite, right, privilege,
or henefit incident to or arising out of any such status, position, rank, or
grade. Any such commissioned officer, while serving in the position of
Director of the Intelligence Community Staff, shall continue to hold a rank
and erade not lower than that in which he was servine at the time of his
appohnent to such position and to receivethe militarypay and allowances
(including retired or retaine~ p~. .payable to a commissioned officerof his
grade and len~th of service for which the an~rooriate militar. .e~artment
:hall he reimb;sed from any funds availahlé'todefray the expenses of the
Intelligence Community Staff. In addition to any pay or allowance payahle
under the preceding sentence, such commissioned officer shall he paid hy
the IntellieenceCommunitv Staff.from funds availableto defrav the exDenses
of such staff, an annual compensation at a rate equal to the excess of the
rate of compensation payable for such position over the annual rate of his
military pay (including retired and retainer pay) and allowances.
"(3) Any commissioned officer to which subsection (1) applies, during
the period of his service as Director of the Intelligence Community Staff,
shall not he counted against the numbers and percentages of commissioned
officers of the rank and grade of such officer authorized for the Armed
Force of which he is a member, except that only one commissioned officer
of the Armed Forces occupying the position of Director of Central
Intelligence or Deputy Director of Central Intelligence as provided for in
section 102,or the position of Director of the lntelligenceCommunity Staff,
under this section, shall be exempt from such numhers and percentage at
any one time.".
BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEESOF THE DEFl3NSEINTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Sec. 501. (a) Title 10, United States Code, is amended hy inserting after
section 191the following new section:
"_192. Benefitsfor certain employees of the Defense Intelligence Agency
"(a) The Director of the Defense lntelligence Agency,on behalf of the
Secretary of Defense, may provide to military and civilian personnel ofthe
Department of Defense who are United States nationals, who are assigned
to Defense AttachéOfficesand Defense IntellieenccAeencv LiaisonOfficers
outside the United States, and who are de&nateduhy 'the Secretary of
Defensefor the purposes of this subsection, allowancesand henefitscompar-
able to those provided hy the Secretary of State to officersand employees
of the Foreign Service under paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), and
(13) of section 901 and under sections 903, 705, and 2308 of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980(22 U.S.C. 4025; 22 U.S.C. 4081 (2), (3), (4), (6), (7),
(a), and (13); 22 U.S.C. 4083; 5 U.S.C. 5924(4)).150 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
"(6) The authority of the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
on behalf of the Secretary of Defense,to make payments under subsection
(a) is effectivefor any fiscal year only to the entent that appropriated funds
are available for such purpose.
"(c) Memht:rs of the Armed Forces may not receivehenefits under hoth
subsection (a) and title 37,United States Code, for the same purpose. The
Secretary of Defenseshall prescribe such regulations asmdy be necessaryto
carry out this 5ubsection.
"(d) Regulations issued pursuant to subsection (a)shall be submitted to
the Committee on Armed Servicesand the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed
Servicesand the SelectCommittee on Intelligence ofthe Senate hefore such
regulations take effect.".
(b) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 8 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after Sec. 191the following new item:
"192. Benefitsfor certain employees ofthe Defense Intelligence Agency.".
RESTR.SCTIONOF CONOUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 601. The auihorization of appropriations by this Act shallnot he deemed
to constitute authority for the conduct of any intelligence activity whichis not
otherwise authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
INCRI!ASESIN GMPLOYEEBENEPITSAUTHORIZGD BY LAW
Sec. 602. Appropriations authorized by this Act for salary, pay, retirement,
and other benefits ForFederal employees may he increased hy such additional
or supplemental arnounts as may be necessary for increases in such henefits
authorized by law.
Approved Decemht:r9, 1983.
2. DEPARTMENT OP DEENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT,1984, PUBLIC LAW 98-212,
DECGMBRR 8, 1983
Public Law 98-212 [H.R. 41851; December 8,1983
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1984
An ,\CIinokirig:ipyirtlpristion\ ior thr. Dcpdrtmciii oi Dcknsc I;>rihc li\c.il ?car
cndin,! Scpicmbcr 30. 1384.:ind ior uihcr purpow
Be il enaciedby the Senateand House of Represenlalivesof ihe UnitedSrales
of America in Con;:ressassembled, That the following sums are appropriated,
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year EXHIBITS SUBMITTIiD MYNICARAGUA 151
ending September 30,1984, for military functions administered bythe Department
of Defense, and for other purposes, namel:
MILITARY PliRSONNB LRMY
For wav. allowances. individual clothinW. subsistence. interest on deoosits.
gratuit&s,.permanent change of station travel (including ;II expenses theriof foi
organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the ~rm~ on active duty (except
members of reserve components provided for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation
cadets; $15,048,533,000.
MILITARY PERSONNE LAVY
For pay, allowances, individual clothing. subsistence, interest on deposits,
gratuities, permanent change of station travel (including al1expenses thereof for
organizational movements), and expenses of tcmporary duty travel hetween
permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active duty (except
members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), midshipmen, and aviation
cadets; $11,171,278,000: Providrd,That notwiihstanding any other provision of
law, funds made availablc hy this Act shall be available for payment of the
Aviation Officer Continuation Bonus pursuant to agreements accepted from
ollicers of al1aviation specialties whereshortages exist.
MlLlTARY PERSONNE LARINE CORPS
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, interest on deposits,
gratuitics, permanent change of station travel (including al1expenses thereof for
organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
ixrmanent dutv stations. for members of the Marine Coms on active dutv
ichcepi niembcrs of the Kescrte provided for el$eu,hcrej: ~3.113.859.0~(;.
I'ri>ir<lTlhat notii,ithslanding an) othcr provisloriof Iau. IunJs m;iJe ;i\,ail>hle
bs ihis ,\ci .hall he iivailahle for wvme01'ihe Avi;ition Oftirer Coniinulition
B~US pursuant to agreements akepted from officers of al1aviation specialties
where shortages exist.
MILITARYPERSONNII AL,RFORCE
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, interest on deposits,
gratuities, permanent chanye of station travel (including al1expenses thereof for
organizational movementsj, and expenses of temporGy duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for mcmhers of the Air Force on active duty (exccpt
members of reserve components provided for elscwhere), cadets, and aviation
cadets; $12,577,203,000.
RPSERVE PERSONNB LRMY
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related
expenses for personnel of the Army Reserve on active duty under sections 265,152 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
3019, and 3033 of iitle 10, United States Code, or while serving on active duty
under section 672 (d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with
perfoming duty sptcified in section 678 (aJ of title 10,United States Code, or
while undergoing rcserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty
or other duty, and for memhers of the Reserve Officers'Training Corps, and
expensesauthorized by section 2131of title 10,United States Code, as authorized
hy law ;$1,361,150,000.
RESERVE PERSONNE NA,VY
For pay, allowances, clothing, suhsistence, gratuities, travel, and related
expenses for personnel of the Naval Reserve on active duty under section 265 of
title 10, United Stiites Code, or personnel while serving on active duty under
section 672 (d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with performing
duty specified in section 678 (a) of title 10, United States Code, or while
undergoing reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and
for members of the:Reserve Officers'Training Corps, and expenses authorized
hy section 2131 of title 10, United States Code, as authorized by Iaw;
$739,800,000.
RESERVE PERSONNE L ,RINE CORPS
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related
expenses for personnel of the Marine Corps Rescrvc on active duty under
section 265 of title 10,United States Code, or while serving on active duty under
section 672 (d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with performing
duty specified in section 678 (a) of title 10, United States Code, or while
undergoing reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and
for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and expenses autho-
rized by section 2131 of title 10, United States Code, as authorized hy law;
$176,200,000.
RESERVE PERSONNE AI, FORCE
For pay, allowdnces, clothing, suhsistence, gratuities, travel, and related
expenses for persoiinel of the Air Force Reserve on active duty under sections
265, 8019, and 8033 of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active
duty under section 672 (d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with
.~rformine.,utv .o.cified in se~ ~~n 678 fol of title 10. United States Code. or
wli!lcu~!d:rgo~ngr:jcr\: ira~n~ng.dr u111lepcrlbrnung ~Ir~llsdr eqi~~valc~dttut)
,>roihcr dut). .ind i;>rrnernhcroi ihr.Air Re.cric 0ili~r.r.' Training Ciirp., .incl
e\nenrc, :iuihori/e. h, %r.Ltion131,>iiiilc 1%Onited St:iiesC'<>de a,siiilii~ri/c<l
by law ; $380,000,000:
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONWE AR,MY
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related
expensesfor personnel of the Army National Guard while on duty under sections
265, 3033, or 3496 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, or
while serving on active duty under section 672 (d) of title 10 or section 502 (f)
of title 32, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in
section 678 (a) of i.itle 10, United States Code, or while undergoing training, or
while performing C.rillsor equivalent duty or other duty, and expenses autho- EXHIBITS SURMIITED BY NICARAGUA 153
rized by section 2131 of title 10, United States Code, as authorized by law;
$1,882,980,000.
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNB LI,FORCE
For pay, allowances, clothing, suhsistence, gratuities, travel, and related
expenses for personnel of the Air National Guard on duty under sections 265,
8033, or 8496 of title 10or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, or while
serving on active duty under section 672 (d) of title 10or secti(fJ5of title
32, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in sec-
tion 678 (a) of title 10. United States Code, or while undergoing training, or
while performing drills or equivalent duty or othcr duty. and expenses autho-
rized hy section 2131 of title 10, United States Code, as authorized by law;
$589,100,000.
For retired pay and retirement pay, as authorized by law, of military personnel
on the retired lists of the Army, Navy. Marinc Corps, and Air Force, including
the reserve components thereof, retainer pay for personnel of the Inactive Fleet
Reserve, and payments under section 4 of Public Law92-425 and chapter 73 of
title 10, United States Code; $16,592,600,000
T1~i.i:III
OPERATION AND MAINTIINANC AEM,V
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and
maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law, no1 10 exceed $8,490,000can
be used for emergencies and extraordinary exPenses. to hc exvendcd on the
aooroval or authoÏitv of the Secretarv of thé~rmv. and oavment'smav be made
Ghis certificate of necessity for confidential milita& pu;pises, ~17,0<4,846,000,
of which not less than S1,247,000,000shall be available only for the maintenance
of real property facilities
ARMY STOCK FUND
For the Army stock fund; $388,600,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTIINANC NEV,Y
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and
maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, as authorized by law, not to
exceed $2,700,000can he used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to
be exoended on the aooroval or authoritv of the Secrctarv of the Navv. and
payméntsmdy be mai; on his ccrtificate'of nccessity for ~onfidential kiiitary
purposes $21,943,818,000, of whichno1 lcss than $605,000,000 shallhe available154 MILITARYAND PARAMII.ITARY ACTIVITIFS
only for the maintenace of real property facilities: Provided, That of the total
amount of this appropriation made available for the alteration, overhaul, and
repair of naval vessels,not more than $3,100,000,000shall be available for the
performance of such work in Ndvy shipyards: Provided jurtheT r,at funds
herein provided sliall be available for payments in support of the LEASAT
program in accordance with the terms of the Aide Memoire, dated January
5, 1981.
NAVY STOCK FUND
For the Navy stock fund; $632,869,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
For expenses, nrit otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and
maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized by law, $1,524,600,000, of
which not less thdii $231,000,000 shallbe available only for the maintenance of
real property facilities.
MARINE CORPS STOCK FUND
For the Marine Corps stock fund; $20,780,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTENAN CIR,FORCE
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and
maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by law, including the lease and
associated mainteriance of replacement aircraft for the CT-39 aircraft to the
same extent and manner as authorized for servicecontracts by section 23(g),
title 10, United States Code, and not to exceed $4,770,000 can be used for
emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Sc:cretaryof the Air Force, and payments mdy be made on his
certificate of nece!;sityfor confidential military purposes, $17,573,895,000,of
which not less than $1,217,200,000 shallbe available only for the maintenance
of real property fa,:ilities.
AIR FORCE STOCK FUND
For the Air Force stock fund; $1,288,725,000.
OF'ERATLON AND MAINTENANC DE,ENSEAGENCIES
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and
maintenance of activities and agenciesof the Department of Defense (other than
the military departments), as authorized by law, $6,446,652,000,of which not to
exceed $8,571,000can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to
be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and
payments may be made on bis certificate of necessity for confidential military
purposes. Of the total amount of this appropriation, not less than $78,000,000
shall be available only for the maintenance of real property facilities.
DEFENSE STOCK FUND
For the Defense stock fund; $43,600,000. EXRIBITS SURMIITED BYNICARAGUA
DEFIINSEINDUSTRIAL Fm11
For the Defense industrial fund; $150,000,000.
OPERATIONAND MAINTENANC AEM,Y RESERVli
For expenses, no1 otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and
maintenance, including training. organization, and administration, of thc Army
Reserve; repair of facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles;
travel and transportation; care of the dead; recmiting; procurement of services,
supplies, and equipmen; and communications, $683,850,000,of which not less
than $39,000,000shall beavailable onlyformaintenance of real property facilities.
OPliRATlON AND MAINTENAN CEV,YRESERVE
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessaiy for the operation and
maintenance, including training, organization, and administration, of the Navy
Reserve; repair of facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles;
travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting, procurement of services,
supplies, and equipment; and communications, $634,500,000,of which not less
than $29,500,000 shall be available only for the maintenance of real property
facilities.
OPERATION AND MAIN'TIINAN MAERINECOI<PSRESI!RVIi
For expenses, no1 otherwise provided for; necessary for the operation and
maintenance, including training, organization, and administration, of the Marine
Corps Reserve; repair of facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor
vehicles; travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement
of services,supplies.and equipmen;and communications, $52,129,000,of which
not less than $2,200,000 shall be available only for the maintenance of real
property facilities.
OPERATIONANI) MAINTENAN CERFORCERESERVE
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and
maintenance, including training, organization, and administration of the Air
Force Reserve; repair of hcilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor
vehicles; travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement
of services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, $781,600,000, of
which not less than S19,000,000shall be available only for the maintenance of
real property facilities.
OPERATIONANI) MAINTENAN CRE,Y NATIONAL GUARD
For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the Army National
Guard. including medical and hospital treatment and related expenses in non-
Federal hospitals; maintenance, operation, and repairs to structures and facilities;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; personnel servicesin the National Guard
Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as authorized by law for Army
oersonnel on active dutv. for Armv National Guard division. reeimental. and
battalion commanders wkle inspectingunits in compliancewith ~,ytional&rd
Bureau; supplying and equipping thc Army National Guard as authorized by156 MILITARY AND PARAMlLlTARY ACTlVlTIES
law; and expenses of repair, modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies
and equipment (including aircraft), $1,170,190,000, of which not less than
$40,000,000shall bi:available only for the maintenance of real property facilities.
OPEPATION AND MAINTENANC AIR,NATIONAL GUARD
For operation and maintenance of the Air National Guard, including medical
and hosnital treatnient and related exDensesin non-Federal hos~itals: mainten-
ance, operation, repair, and other necessaryexpensesof facilitiesfor the training
and administration of the Air National Guard, including repair of facilities,
maintenance, oper:ition, and modification of aircraft; transpo&ation of things;
hire of passenger niotor vehicles; supplies,materials, and equipment, as author-
ized by lawfor the Air National Guard; and expensesincident to the maintenance
and use of supplies,materials, and equipment, including such as may be furnished
from stocks under the control of agenciesof the Department of Defense; travel
expenses (other tbin mileage) on the same basis as authorized by law for Air
National Guard personnel on active Federal duty, for Air National Guard
commanders while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard regu-
lations when specifically authorized by the Chief, National Guard Bureau,
$1,789,300,000,of which not lessthan $38,800,000shallbe available only for the
maintenance of real property facilities.
NATIONAL BOARD FOR THE PROMOTION OF RIF1.PRACTICE A,MY
For the nccessary cxpenses, in accordance with law, for construction, equip-
ment, and maintenance of rifle ranges; the instruction of citizens in
marksmanship; thi: promotion of rifle practice; and the travel of rifle teams,
military personnel, and individualsattending regional. national, and international
competitions; S89!',000,of which not to exceed $7,500 shall he available for
incidental expense: of the National Board; and from other funds provided in
this Act, not to e.rceed $680,000 worth of ammunition may he issued under
authority of title 10,United StatesCode, section4311: Pruvided,That competitors
at national match~s under title 10, United States Code, section 4312, may be
paid suhsistence and travel allowancesin excess of the amounts provided under
title 10, United States Code, section 4313.
CLAIMS, DEFENSE
For payment, nctt otherwise provided for, of claims authorized hy law to he
paid by the Department of Defense (exceptfor civil functions), including claims
for damages arising under training contracts with carriers, and repayment of
amounts determined by the Secretary concerned, or officersdesignated by him,
to have been erroneously collected from military and civilian personnel or the
Department of Defense, or from States, territories, or the District of Columbia,
or members of the National Guard units thereof; %160,400,000.
COURT OF MILITARV APPEALS DEFENSE
For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States Court of Military
Appeals; $3,372,000,and not to exceed $1,500can he used for officialrepresen-
tation purposes. EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 157
SUMMER OLYMI'ICS
For logistical support and personnel services (other than pay and nontravel
related allowances of members of the Armed Forces of the United States, except
for memhers of the Reserve components thereof called or ordered to active duty
to provide support for the XXIll Olympiad) provided hy any component of the
Department of Defenseto the 1984games of the XXlll Olympiad; $45,000,000:
Provided, That the Department of Defense may also provide support to the Los
Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee on a reimhursahle hasis, with such
reimbursements to be credited to the current applicable appropriation accounts
of the Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATIO D E,ENSE
For expenses, not othenvise provided for, for environmental rcstoration
nroerams. includine hazardous waste disnosal onerations and removal of unsafe
;>r;nsightly buildings and dehris of the'~e~arlkent of Defense, and including
programs and operations at sites fonnerly used hy the Department of Defense,
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMI!N ATM,Y
For construction, procurement, production, modification. and modernization
of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, ground handling equipment, spare
parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training deviçcs:
expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor,
without regard to section 4774, title 10,United States Code, for the foregoing
nurooses. and such lands and interests ther,in.,mav be acauired. and construction
broSecutédthereon prior to approval of title as requireby seilion 355, Revised
Statutes, as amended; and procurement and installation ofequipmcnt, appliances,
and machine tools in ouhlic and private ~lants: reserve olani and Coiernment
and contractor-owned'equipment iayawai; and other exbnses necessary forthe
foregoing purposes; $3,214,048,000, to remain availahle for obligation until
September 30, 1986
MISSILEPROCUREMEN AT,Y
(IncludingTransferof Funds)
For construction, procurement, production, modification, and modernization
of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, ground handling equipment, spare
parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor,
without regard to section 4774, title 10, United States Code, for the foregoing
ourooses. and such lands and interests therein. mav he acauired. and construction
.. , ,,
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title as required by section 355, Revised
Statutes, as amended;and procurement and installation ofequipment, appliances,
and machine tools in oubric and orivate olants: reserve nlani and Covcrnment
and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the158 MlLITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
foregoing purposer, as follows: For Other Missile Support, $9,200,000; for the
Patriot program, 3:885,000,000;for the Stinger program, $105,200,000,and in
addition, $32,600,000 to he derived by transfer from "Missile Procurement,
Army, 1983/1985"; for the Laser Hellfireprogram, $218,800,000; for the TOW
progrdm, $189,20(1,000;for the Pershing II program, $407,700,000; for the
MLRS orozram. 3:532.100.000:for modification of missiles. $123.300.000:for
spares andurepair parts, $271,'000,000;for support equipkent and facilities,
S109,200,000;in al]: $2,822,700,000,and in addition $32,600,000Io he derived
by transfer, to remain available until Septemher 30, 1986: Provided, That within
the total amount appropriated, the subdivisions within this account shall be
reduced by $28,000,000for revised economic assumptions.
PROCUREMIiNT OF WEAPONS ANU TMCKEU COMBAT VEHICLE AS,MY
(IncludingTransferof Funds)
t,>r ciinriructit>n.proiurenicni. pr.>duiiic>n, il ni.>ilifizitii>t\icdpc>nsaiiil
ir;ickeJ :ornh;ii vel icles.cqi.ipnieni. includiiigordndnce. spûr: plrts üiidaccsysor-
icr ihcrcior: %ri-;iili/eJ cquinmcnt 2nd tr:iininr:dei.i;c\; crpsn,ioniiipuhlic 2nd
private plants, including-the land necessarylherefor,' wkhout rega;d to sec-
tion 4774, title 10. United States Code, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon
urior to avvroval of title as reauired hv section 355. Revised Statutes. as
amended; .and procurement and'installaiion of equipment, appliances, and
machine tools in public and private plants, reserve plant and Government and
contractor-owned equipment layawiy; and other expenses necessary for the
foreeoine ouroose!.: $4.594.103.000.and in addition. $65.200.000.to be derived
~ ~
for ohfigdtion until September 30, 19861 ~roiided, ~hat n~twithstandin~ any
otber provision of law, within three months after enactment of this Act the
Secretary of Deknse shall complete and submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and Armed Services of the House and Senate a study on the
feasibility and cos? effectivenessof estahlishing a second production source or
multiyear procurement of the AGT 1500engine for the M-l tank, together with
the Secretarv's determination. hased on the findines ou such studv. wh2 ,er -~a~
second production source or multiyear procurement contract is in the national
interest: Pruvidedjùrther, That current production of the AGT 1500engine shall
not be interrupted or reduced in the incerim
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITIO ARM,Y
For constructiori. orocurement. oroduction. and modification of ammunition.
..c,,orie, ihvrifor : ,pcci;ili,~d eqtiipnicni anJ irtiining deiicej; etp;inrioi;
<~i'puhlia;nd privale plJnI>.inrluding ammuniiiirn t'~ciliticauih<>ri/cdin militar)
;<>nstructiiinauth, ri/aii<>nArt, or .iuth.iri/cdhv ,ccti.~nb1673. iiilc Il).lInitc<l
States Code, and the land necessary therefor, without regard to section 4774,
title 10, United Slates Code, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and
interests therein, nlay be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
avuroval of title a!;reauired bv section 355. Revised Statutes. as amended: and EXHIBITS SUBMI~D BY NICARAGUA 159
cquipmcni I.iy.iaa! : .mil <~ihcrr.\pr'iiic*Ii:ccs\;iriiirilic f.ircg<,ingpurp<>\r.>:
SI.38u.lOU.ilrli, i uliiih ~l.?llIl.iliitlhsll hc s\1311ar.nly ior ~~OCL~CIIICII01
Jiiiiii hdnJgun dmmuniti<>n.Io rcni:tin ;i\;iil,iblc 1,)r~blig:iti,~iiuniil Scptcmhrr
30. 1986
OTHER PROCUREMEN ART, Y
For construction. .r.curement. nr,d.ction. and modification of vehicl~s. ~ ~,
including tactical, support (including no1 Io exceed fifteen vehicles required for
physical security ofpersonnel notwithstanding price limitations applicable to
passenger carrying vehicles but not to exceed $100.000 ver vehiclej: and non-
iracked combat Gehicles; the purchase of not toexckd two th&sand one
bundred and forty-one passengermotor vehiclesfor replacement only;communi-
cations and electronic equipment; other support equipment ; spare parts, ord-
nance. and accessories therefor: soecialized eauinment and training devices:
expansion of public and private'piants, includiing'the land necessari therefor:
without regard to section 4774, title 10, United States Code, for the foregoi-.
purposes, and such lands and interests therein. mav be acauircd. and construction
proSecuted thereon prior to approval of title as required by section 355, Revised
Statutes,as amended ;and procurement and installation ofequipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve olani and G&ernment
and contractor-ownedequipment iayaway; and other enpensesnecessaryfor the
foregoing purposes; $4,680,528,000,of which $24,400,000shall be available for
the M9 Amored Combat Earthmover under a multiyear contract, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 1986.
AIRCRAtT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
for ci>niiructiiin, priicurcnieni. prodiiction, ~iiodificliiii>n..inJ miiJcrni/ation
of aircritlt. cqiiipriiciitiii:luding <irJn.incc,spnrc p.~rt>,inil aL.:r.,s>rir.sthcrcT,>r.
specializedequipment ;expansion of public and private plants, includingthe land
necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, rnay he acquired,
and construction prosecuted thereon prior Io approval of title as required
hy section 355, Revised Statutes, as amended; and procurement and installa-
tion of equipment, appliances, and machine 1001sin ~ublic and orivate ~lants:
reserve dant and Gvernment and contractor-owied equipment la;away~
$10,174,608,000,to remain available for obligation until September 30, 1986.
WAPONS PROCUREMEN NTV,Y
(Including Trunsj'erofFitnd.~)
including the land necessary therefor, and such lands-and interesCstherein, may
be acquired, and constmction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title as
required by section 355, Revised Statutes, as amended; and procurement and
installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private
plants ;reserveplant and Government and contractor-ownedequipment layaway,
as follows: For missile programs, $2,962,600,000; for the MK-48 torpedo
program, $124,600,000;for the MK-46 torpedo program, $212,900,000;for the
MK-60captor mineprogram, $73,900,000;forthe MK-30 mobile target program,160 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
$17,600,000; for the MK-38 mini mobile target program, $2,000,000; for the
antisuhmarine rocket (ASROC) program, $17,300,000; for modification of
torpedoes, $111,800,000 ; for the ïorpedo support equipment program,
$72,100,000; for the MK-15 close-in weapons system program, $120,400,000;
for the MK-45 gun mount/MK-6 ammunition hoist, $16,100,000;for the MK-75
gun mount progrgim, $11,100,000; for the MK-19 machine gun program,
$900,000; for the 25mm gun mount, $700,000; for the 9mm handgun, $500,000;
for small arms and weapons, $2,500,000; for the modifications of guns and gun
mounts, $13,600,000;for the &unsand gun mounts support equipment program,
$9,300,000; in all: $3,725,332,000,and in addition, $77,800,000,to he derived
by transfer from "\Veapons Procurement, Navy, 1983/1985",to remain available
until Septemher 30: 1986: Pruvided,That within the total amount appropriated,
the subdivisions wi~hinthis account shall he reduced by $44,568,000,as follows:
$8,568,000 for spares and repair parts and $36,000,000 for revised economic
assumptions.
SHIPBUILDIPÏGAND CONVERSION,NAVY
(IncludingTransfero/Funds)
For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, or conversion of
vessels as authorized by law, including armor and armament thereof, plant
equipment, appliances, and machine tools and installation thereof in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway; procurenient of critical long leadtime components and designs for
vessels to he constructed or converted in the future; and expansion of public
and private plants, includingland necessarytherefor, and such lands and interests
therein, may be accluired,and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval
of title as required by section 355, Revised Statutes, as amended, as follows: for
the Trident subm;irine program, $1,704,900,000; for the T-AK cargo ship
conversion program, $900,000; for the SSN-688 nuclear attack suhmarine
program, $2,018,000,000; for the reactivation of the U.S.S. Missouri,
$57,700,000: Provided,That none of these funds shall he available for obligation
until the Secretary of the Navy reports to the Committees on Appropriations on
the decision whether to implement the phase II battleship modernization, and
any decision to proceed with phase II shall be accompanied by a plan for
implementation to include cost and schedule data; for the aircraft carrier service
life extension program, $95,900,000; for the CG-47 AEGIS cruiser program,
S3,285,000,000;for the DDG-51 guided missiledestroyer program, $79,000,000;
for the LSD-41 landing ship dock program, $405,500,000;for the FFG-7 guided
missilefrigate program, $116,400,000,and in addition, provided that the FFG-7
guided missileMgate shall be constructed with an upgradcd MK-92 fire control
system and an X.band phased array radar, the following amounts shall he
derived by transfer: from the FFG-7 guided missile frigate program of
"Shiobuildine and Conversion. Navv. 198011984".$26.500.000: from the FFG-7
guidéd misse frigate of "~hi~buildin~'and ~Anvcrsion, ~av~
1981/1985",$19,100,000;from SSN-688nuclear attack submarine, FFG-7 guided
missile frigate, T-AGOS ocean surveillance ship, and escalation programs of
"Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1982/1986", $66,000,000; and from the
Trident suhmarine, SSN-688 nuclear attack suhmarine, FFG-7 guided missile
frigate, CVN aircraft carrier, and escalation programs of "Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy, 1983/1987", $72,000,000; in all, $183,600,000to be derived
hy transfer; for th,: T-A0 fleet oiler ship program, $335,500,000; for the MCM EXHIBITS SUBMI~D BY NICARAGUA 161
mine countermeasures ship program, $301,000,000: Providedjurrher, That funds
appropriated or made available in this Act for the MCM mine countermeasures
ship program may be obligated or expended only under a firm fixed price
contract : Proviriedfurrhcr, That none of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act for the MCM mine countermeasures ship program may be obligated
or expended until such time as the Department of the Navy develops electromag-
netic interfercnce specifications for the MCM-I class of ships, and the Secretary
of the Navy certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that the elcctromag-
netic interference specifications developed will result in a design that will be free
of electromagnetic interfercnce in the context of the approved electromagnetic
interference and electromagnetic compatibility specifications; for the MSH
coastal mine hunter program, $65,000,000; for the T-AGS surveying ship
program, $17,000,000; forthe T-AKK fast logisticsship program, $230,000,000;
for the T-AH hospital ship program, $180,000,000,and in addition, $44,000,000
to bc derivcd by transfer from the T-AH hospital ship program of "Shipbuilding
and Conversion, Navy, 1983/1987"; for the T-AFS combat stores ship program,
$1l,000,000; for thc LDH-1 amphibious assault ship program, $1,365,700,000;
for the strategic sealift program, $31,000,000; for craft, outfitting, post delivery,
cost growth, and escalation on prior year programs, $1,056,400,000; in all:
$11,215,400,000, and in addition, $227,600,000 to be derived by transfer, to
remain available for obligation until September 30, 1988; Pri~vided furrher, That
additional obligations may be incurred after September 30, 1988,for engineering
services, tests,evaluations, and other such budgetcd work that must be performed
in the final stage of ship construction; and each Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy. appropriation that is currently available for such obligations may also
hereafter he so oblieated after the date of its exoiration: Prorideri fitrther. That
uiihin ihc loial amouni ~ippr<~priatertlh . c ruhdivis~onsuiihin this aiiouni shall
he reduced by S14(1.SUO.OU aOs .follows. S27.jO0.iii10fi~rct~n>ultants.\tuJicr. and
:inalvres. and SI13.000.000li~rrcviscd cc<>niimic .irsuiiir>tions 12r<,~.&lIcrirrlii,r.
~ha~ ~o~~ o~ t~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~n ~r~vided for the const;uction or conveision of
any naval vesscl to bc constructed in shipyards in the United States shall be
expended in foreign shipyards for the construction of major components of the
hull or suocrstructure of such vessel: Provided furrher: That none of the funds
herein pr&ided shall be used for the construct&n of any naval vessel in foreign
shipyards.
OTllliR PROCUREMEN NT ,Y
l'or procurement, production, and modernization of support equipment and
materials not otherwise provided for, Navy ordnance and ammunition (except
ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and ships authorized for conversion); the
purchase of no1 to exceed one vehiclerequired for physical security of personnel
notwith~tandin~ price limitations applicable to passenger carrying vchiclcs but
not to exceed $100,000per vehicleand the purchase of no110exceedsix hundred
and sixty-seven passcnger motor vehicles of which six hundred and twenty-five
shall be for replacement only; expansion of public and private plants, including
the land necessarvtherefor. and such lands and interests thercin. mav beacauired.
and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of ti~leas required b;
section 355. Keviscd Statutes, as amended; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve
olant and Government and contractor-owned eauioment lava. .. as follo,s: ,
For ship support equipment, $673,909,000; for communications and electronics
equipment, $1,555,233,000; for aviation support equipment, $699,405,000; for162 MILITARY AND PARAMILLTARYACTIYITIES
ordnance support equipment, $926,162,000,of which $698,000shall he availahle
only for procurement of 9mm handgun ammunition ;for civilengineering support
equipment, $196,622,000; for supply support equipment, $112,474,000; for
personnel/command support equipment, $275,601,000; in al]: $4,308,543,000,to
remain availahle uritil September 30, 1986: Provided, That within the total
amount appropriated, the subdivisions within this acçount shall be reduced by
$130,863,000 as foll~~ws:$16,863,000 for spares and repair parts; $20,000,000
undistrihuted reduction; $4,000,000 for consultants, studies, and analyses; and
$90,000,000for revi!.edeconomic assumptions.
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
For expenses neceijsaryfor the procurement, manufacture and modification of
missiles,armament, ~immunition.military equipment. sparc parts. and accessories
therefor; plant equipment, appliances, and machine toils, and installation thereof
in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment laya&ay; vehicles for the Marine Corps, including purchase
of not to exceed two hundred and four oasseneer motor vehiclesfor re~lacement
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
only; and expansion of public and ~rivateUplants, including landLnecessary
therefor, and such lands, and interests therein, may be acquired and construction
prosecuted thereon ririor to approval of title as required by section 355, Revised
Statutes, as amended; $1,741,306,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1986.
AIRCRARP ,ROCUREMEN AIR,FORCE
(IncludingTransferof Funds)
For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft and equipment,
including armor and armament, specialized ground handling equipment, and
training devices, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment;
exoansion of nuhlir: and orivate olants. Government-owned eaui~ment and
inStallation thekof in such ilants, kectio" of structures, and acqujsibon of land
without regard to se,:tion 9774 of title 10, United States Code, for the forego-ng -
DurDoses.and such Isindsand interests therein. .av b. acuuired. and construction
br&ecuted thereon prier to approval of title as requircd by section 355, Revised
Statutes, as amended; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned
equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes
including rents and transportation of things; $21,080,110,000, of which
$5,626,800,000 shall he available only for the purchase of the B-IB bomber
under a multiyear contract, of which $112,100,000shall be availahle for contri-
bution of the United States share of the cost of the acquisition hy the North
AtlanticTreaty Orgenization of an Airborne Early Warning and Control System
(AWACS) and, in addition, the Department of Defense may make a commitment
to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to assume the United States share of
contingent liahility in connection with the NATO E-3A Cooperative Programme;
and in addition, $310,200,000,which shall he derived by transfer from "Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force, 1983/1985", of which $288,200,000shall he from the
A-10 program, $14,000,000 shall he from the C-135 modification program, and
$8,000,000 shall be from the C-130H program to be available only for the
purchase of C-130H aircraft; and in addition, $12,900,000,which shall he derived
by transfer from "Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1982/1984",from the Civilian
Reserve Airlift Fleet modification program to he availahle only for the Civilian IiXlllBlTS SUBMImD BY NICARAGUA 163
Reserve Airlift Fleet modification program: Provided,That none of the funds in
this Act may be obligated under the four major fiscal year 1984 production
contracts for the B-IB bomber if the current dollar costs of such pro-
duction contracts would excecd the Air Force's original current dollar esti-
mates for the four major fiscal year 1984B-IB production contracts based on
the production portion of the $20,500,000,000 estimate for the B-IB bomber
baseline costs expressed in fiscalyear 1981constant dollars; to remain available
for obligation until September 30, 1986: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be obligated for procurement of the alternate
fighter engine until the Secretdry of Defense notifies the appropriations com-
mittees of both the House and the Senate of his approval of the decision made
by the source selectionauthority ;Providedfitrthpr, That nothing in this paragraph
shall prohibit award of separate long lead contracts for essential parts and
components necessary to meet the required delivery schedule for the altcrnate
fighter engine.
MILITARY PROCUREMEh AI, FORCE
(InclirdinyTrunsferof Funds)
17<ir<inrlructi<in.pr<i.xremcnt. and m<~diiicationtif misiilci. rpacecrait. rock-
eis. and rel.itcJ cquipincni. incl~di~ ~pxc ~.tris and :iccessoriesihcrcfor. ground
handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public and privateplants,
Government-owned eauioment and installation thereof in such olants. erection
of structures, and acquisition of land without regard to section 9774 of title 10,
United States Code, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests
therein. mav.be acauired and construction orosecuted thereon orior Io aooroval
of title as required'by section 355, ~evised Statutes, as amended; reser;; plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses
necessary for the foregoing purposes including rents and transportation of things;
$7,747,838,000,of which S81,600,000shall be available for the purchase of the
phase III Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS III) under a multi-
year contract: Provided, That after the Secretaly of the Air Force gives written
notification of a proposed multiycar contract for the Defense Satellite Com-
munications System to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House of Representatives, such contract may not then be awarded until forty-
five days after such notification; and of which $200,000,000for cooperative
NATO air base defcnsc shall not be ~va~ ~ble 10 suooort im..ementinr~an ~ -
agreement with any îoreign govcrnment until forty-fivedaysafter such agrccmcnt,
togcther with supporting data including total program cost estimates, has been
submitted to the Coneress: and in addition. $55.000.000. to be derived bv
transfer from "Missile Procurement, Air Force; 1983/1985",to remain availabje
for obligation until September 30, 1986.
OTHBR PROCUREMEN AIR,FORCE
For procurement and modification of equipment (including ground guidance
and electronic control eau. .ent. and eround electronic and communication
equipment). and \upplics. maicri;ils. and sparc parts ihercfor. no1 oiheru,isc
provided for. ihe purchase of nst IOcrccccl five vehicles rcquired for phbriwl
sccurity <II'ers<inneln<>tuith.isnding pr1r.cIimit.irionr applicable IO pa.bcngcr
ï.1rr)inl: vchiclci bu1 no1io excecd Slcitl.tiiJupcr \.chicleünil the pur:h.ise of not
to cxiccd one ihoiis;t~iJtri2 Iiii~iJrcd;ind si~ty-une p;l,scngcr niotur \chi~lcr or164 MILITARY AND PAXAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
which sevenhundred and thirteen shall he for replacement only;and expansion
of vublic and vriv;ite vlants, Governrnent-owned equi~ment and installation
theteof in such-plants,érection of structures, and acqÛisition of land without
regard to section 97'14of title 10,United StatesCode, for the foregoing purposes,
and such lands an6 interests therein, rnay he acquired, and construction pro-
secuted thereon, prior to approval of title as required by section 355, Revised
Statutes, as amendzd; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned
equipment layaway :$6,914,232,000,of which $1,000,000shall be available only
for orocurement of 9mm handauns and $446.000 shall be available onlv for
pro~urement of 9mm handgun àmmunition, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 1986.
NATIONAL CUARD AND RESERVEEQUIPMENT
For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat vehicles, and other
procurement for th: reserve components of the Armed Forces, not to exceed
$176,000,000, to ri:main available until Septemher 30, 1986, distributed as
follows: Army National Guard,notto exceed $100,000,000;Air National Guard,
not to exceed$25,000,000; Naval Reserve, not to exceed $51,000,000.
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMEN COASTCUARD
1Sr ;icqui,ition, c.>n,irur.ii.>n.dnJ inipru%r'. st ~ilicnii~r.providr.d ior;
S3ot~.iJiiii.(li1tiol.hc traniicrreJ io ihr'Co.iji Gu~rd. ..,\.yuisiii<)n.C<~n\iruciii>n,
anil Inipro\cnienis". io rciiiain ~\,~ihir ohlig.iii.)nuniil Scpt:nibcr 30. IJXO.
PROCUREMEN DTFENSE AGENCES
For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department of Defense (other
than the militarv ideoartments) necessarv for orocurement. oroduction. and
. .
moJilic.iii.>n <ifcqiiipriieni. siippliz>, m.itcri.il\. and .p.iihcrcfsr. rioi
oihcruiic pro\iJcJ ior; the pur~haar'i>Vndi tu excr'cdmen \ehiclcr req~ircd
I;>rphvbial SeCurit,oivcrsonnel not\iiilisidndinr "ricc Iiniitations dpp1ic;ibleIo
pasSeiger carrying veGcles but not to exceed-$i00,000 per vehicïe and the
purchase of not tci exceed seven hundred and twenty-two passenger motor
vehiclesof which three hundred and ninety-three shall be for replacement only;
exvansion of oubli<:and orivate olants. e.u.oment. and installation thereof in
,u..h plant\. r're<tii.noi struciurcs. :~ii<l;icqui,lti,in 01'lanJ ior the i<~rcgi>ing
purposer, 3nJ such land5and inicret tlicrcitrniiibr.acquircd. dnJ con.iruction
~rorc~ut~Jthcrcon priibrio appro\al ~> iilras rcauircd h, rr'ction355, Kr'\i\:.l
Statutes, as amended; reserce plant and ~overkment and contractor-owned
equipment layaway; $942,657,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1986.
RESI~ARCD HE,VELOPMEN TET, T,ND EVALUATION
RESEARCD HE, VELOPMEN TTS, ,ND EVALUATIO ANR,Y
For exvenses nect:ssarvfor basic and avolied scientificresearch, develooment, EXHIBITS SUBMIITED BY NICARAGUA 165
%15,000,000shall be available only for integration (including qualification) of
the Hellfire missile on the UH-60 helicopter, to remain availablc for obligation
until September 30, 1985.
RESEARCH, I>EVEI.OPMET NET,T,ND EVALUATIO NAVY
For exoenses necessarvfor basic and ..olicd scientificresearch. develooment.
test.;tnJc\~lilii:ti~ni.luding iiiainrcnancc. rch.ihilitaiion. le;ire.;inJ ctpcr;iiioil
triI;i.~iliiie\and cquipmcn.I .~thi>ri/edb? I;i: S7.559,XIX.Ol10o.r rihich no[
Ics, thlin S7?.j93,110hall hc ai~il;ib,iiiIl'othe hl.irhY? lire i<intr<>,l\,item
which includes the phase array radar imp;ovement program and of which no1
less tban $61,165,000 shall be available only for the Manne Corps Assault
Vehiclesprogram which includes the MPGS, LVT (X), and LAV subprojects,
to remdin available for obligation until September 30, 1985.
RESEARCD HE, VELOPMENT, TESTAND EVALUATIO ANI,NRCR
For exnenses necessarv for basic and,a.nlied scientif~ ~r~ ~ ~ ~. ~rvclonment.
tcit. and ei~aluaiion.including nwiniendncc. rch;ibilit;ition, lease. ;ind opcrliii<>n
oi F~cilitiesand cquiprncni. lis authiirr/ed hy Iaii.: S12.227.706.000.of which
S23.50U.Oi)Oshall no1bc made si,aillihle for ~~hlidaitn \i,ihle ultrliiiolei laser
technology prior 10 the suhmission of a reporÏby the ~e~arthent of Defense
Defensive Technologies Study Team recommending a plan for the expenditure
of laser technology funds, to remain available for obligation until September
30, 1985.
RESEARCD HE, VELOPMEN TTS, AND EVALUATIO DE,ENSI?AGENCIES
For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department of Defense (other
than the military departments), necessary for basic and applied scientificresearch,
development, test, and evaluation; advanced research kojects as may be desig-
nated and determincd by the Secretdryof Defense,pursuant tolaw; maintenance,
rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by
law; $2,703,620,000, of which S20,000,000 shall not he made available for
obligation on short wavelength laser technology prior to the submission of a
report hy the Department of Defense Defensive Technologies Study Team
recommending a plan for the expenditure of laser technology funds, to remain
available for obligation until Seotember 30. 198Provided. That such amounts
as may he detersned hy the ~icretar~ of ~efense to have been made available
in other appropriations available to the Department of Defense during the
current fiscalyear for programs related to advanced research may he transferred
to and mereed with this aoorooriation to be available for the same ourooses and
timc pcri<id.t'roir</rarrh<.rTh.ir buch .imountsoi this ;ippropri;ition a, ma?
hc detcrmined bv ihc Sccrctary of Dcfcnsc may bc transfc,rrcJ to cdrry oui the
purposes of advanced research to those appropriations for military functions
under the Department of Defense which are heing utilized for relatedprograms
to be merged with and to be available for the same lime period as the ap
propriation to which transferred.
DIRECTO OP TESTAND EVALUATIO DE,BNSE
For expenses. no1 otherwise provided for, of independent activities of the
Director of Defense Test and Evaluation in the direction and supervision of test166 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
and evaluation. incliidin- initial ooerational testine and evaluation: and oerform-
ance of joint testing,and evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection
therewith; $49,000,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30,
For payment in foreign currencies which the Treasury Department determines
to be excess to the normal reauirements of the United States for exoenses in
cJrr!ing out progr..iiic ol'the Dcp:irlment of Deicnsc 1, du~h~tri/c~hl ) 1.i~:
53.05(i.t100.10remain d\ailahlc I;>robligation until Septr.nihcr 3111985. Pr<.i.t,/t~d.
Thsi th)\ appr<,pri;i.iunshcillhc :ir,.iil.iblcin .,dJition to other .ippropri:itioiis to
such Depai<me"t, fin payments in the foregoing currencies
Sec. 701. The expenditure of any appropriation under this Act for any
consulting service through procurement contract, pursuant to section 3109 of
title 5, United States Code, shall be limited to those contracts where such
expenditures are a inatter of public record and available for public inspection,
except where otherviiseprovided under existing law, or under existing Executive
order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec.702. No parc.of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for
puhlicity or propagzinda purposes not authorired by the Congress.
Sec. 703. During the current fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretaries of the Amy, Navy, and Air Force, respectively, if they should deem
it advantageous to the national defense, and if in their opinions the existing
facilitiesof the Depzirtment of Defenseare inadequate, are authorized to procure
services in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, and to pay in connection
therewith travel expenses of individuals, including actual transportdtion and per
diem in lieu of subsistence while traveling from their homes or places of business
to officialduty staticins and retum as may be authorized by law :Provided, That
such contracts may be renewed annually.
Sec. 704. During the current fiscal year, provisions of law prohibiting the
payment of compensation to, or employment of, any person not a citizen of the
United States shall not apply to personnel of the Department of Defense.
Sect. 705. Appropriations contained in this Act and in subsequent appropri-
ation Acts for the Department of Defense sball be available for insurance of
official motor vehii;les in foreign countries, when required by laws of such
countries; payments in advance of expenses determined by the investigating
officer to be necesszirvand in accord with local custom for conductine investi-
g'iiioni in forcign coiintries inciilr.riiIo rli.,rtcrs rclatit,~the .~ciii.itie~ thc
Jcp:irtii~r.iitc,inccri cJ; reimhur~cmcnt to <;encra1 Scrvicci A<lni~~i~,traiiofnor
securit. .uard services for orotection of confidential files: and al1 necessari
c\pr.iisr.s;Itlie ,ofgs\r.rriniciii~I'tIiUiiittJ St~tei .iiAmcri;d or r.l\eivhcrc,
in ionncition iviih c<>mmunicitioninil iither \cri,icr.\ ;ind supplier as iii.~!hc
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.
Sec. 706. Any appropriation available hereafter to the Army, Navy, or Air EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 167
l.'oric may. undcr such rcgulilti<)nsah ihc S~crelaryinncerned niÿy prcscribe. be
ured Ibr ei;pcn\es iniiJent to the niainienance. pay. dnJ aIlo\ranccs of prisoners
of war, other persons in Army, Navy, or Ai; Force custody whosestatus is
detemined bv the Secrctarv concerned tu be similar tu orisoners of war. and '
persons detaiied in such cu&dy pursuant tu Presidential proclamation.
Sec. 707. Appropriations available to the Department of Defense for the
~ ~ ~
current fiscalyear and hereafter for maintenance orconstruction shall beavailable
for acquisition of land or interest therein as authorized by sections 2672, 2675
or 2828 of title 10, United States Code.
Sec. 708. Appropriations for the Department of Defense for the current fiscal
year shall be available (a) for transportation tu primary and secondary schools
of minor dependents of military and civilian personnel of the Department of
Defense as authorized for the Navy by section 7204of title IO, United States
Code: IbJ for exoenses in connection with administraiion of occu~ied areas:
(c) for'payment if rewards as authorized for the Navy by section 7209 (a) of
title10, United States Code, for information leading tu the discovery of missing
n.i\.aI propcrty or ihc rerovery thereoi: ((1, I'orpisment of<~ericicn~l~ udgiiienis
and interests tliercon dritng <iuioi'condcmnati<in pr.~cecJingr: (t,,i;>rIcabing
oi huildings ancl faiilitics i~iclu<llp.iyriient ~>freni;ils fur speiidl purporc ,pscc
at the seat of government, and in~theconduct of field cxercises and maneuven
or, in administering the provisions of the Act of July 9, 1942(56 Stat. 654); 43
U.S.C. 315q), rcntals may be paid in advance; (f) payments under contracts for
maintenance of tools and facilities for twelve months beginning at any time
during the fiscal year; (g) maintenance of defense access roads certified as
important to national defense in accordance with section 210 of title 23, United
States Code; (h) for the purchase of milk for enlisted personnel of the
Department of Defense heretofore made available pursuant tu section 202 of the
Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446a), and the cost of milk su purchased,
as determined by the Secretary of Defense, shall be included in the value of the
commuted ration; (i)transporting civilian clothing tu the home of record of
selective serviceinductees and recruits on enterine -he militani services: li) Da.-.
men15under leascs for rail or ~rsontil properl). iniludinp msintcnanie ihereoi
when cuntr:irieil for 3s a pdrt of ilie Icaseagrecriient. fur iuclvc monthr bcgtnning
at any time during the fiscalyear; (k) pay and allowances of not tu exceed nine
persons, including personnel detailed to International Military Headquarters and
Organizations, at rates provided for under section 625 (d) (1) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961,as amended; (1)the purchase of right-hand-drive vehicles
not to exceed 512,000 per vehicle; (m) for payment of unusual cost overruns
incident tu ship overhaul, maintenance, and repair for ships inducted into
industrial fund activities or contracted for in prior fiscal years: Provjded,That
the Secretary of Defense shall notify the Congress promptly prior tu obligation
ofany such payments; (n) for payments from annual appropriations tu industrial
fund activities and/or under contract for changes in scope of ship overhaul,
maintenance, and repair after expiration of such appropriations, for such work
either inducted into the industrial fund activity or contracted for in that fiscal
year; and (O) for payments for depot maintenance contracts for twelve months
beginning at any timc during the fiscal year.
Sec. 709. Appropriations for the Department of Defensefor the current fiscal
vear shall be available for: fa1 donations of not tu exceed $25 tu each orisoner
Lpon each reledse from co"'finementin military or contract prison and'to each
person discharged for fraudulent enlistment ;(hl authorized issues of articles tu
prisoners. applTcantsfor enlistment and persons in military custody; (c) subsist-
ence of selective serviceregistrants called for induction, applicants for enlistment,168 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACT~VIT~ES
prisoners, civilian employees as authorized by law, and supernumeraries when
necessitated by emergent military circumstances; (d) reimbursement for subsist-
ence of enlisted personnel while sick in hospitals; je) expenses of prisoners
confined in nonmili~aryfacilities; (f) military courts, boards, and commissions;
(g) utility services for buildings erected at private cost, as authorized by law,
and buildings on military reservations authorized by regulations to be used for
welfare and recreational purposes; (hJ exchange fees, and losses in the accounts
of disbursing officers or agents in accordance with law ; (1) expenses of Latin
American cooperation as authorized for the Ndvy hy section 7208 of title 10,
United States Codi:; (j) expenses of apprehension and delivery of deserters,
prisoners, and members absent without leave, including payment of rewards of
not to enceed $75 in any one case; (k) carrying out section 10 of the Act of
Septemher 23, 1950.as amended; and (1)providing, with or without reimburse-
ment, not to enceed $60,000,000 to procure secure communications systems,
equipment and related items throughout the United States Government.
Sec. 710. The S~:cretaryof Defense and each purchasing and contracting
agency of the Department of Defense shall assist American small and minority-
owned businesses to participate equitably in the furnishing of commodities and
services financed with funds appropriated under thic.Act by increasing, to an
optimum level, tbf: resources and numher of personnel jointly assigned to
promoting both small and minority business involvement in purchases financed
with funds appropriated herein, and by making availahle or causing to he made
available to such businesses, information, as far in advance as possible, with
respect to purchases proposed to be financed with funds appropriated herein,
and by making available or causing to be made available to such businesses,
information, as far in advance as possible, with respect to purchases proposed
to be financed with funds appropriated under this Act, and hy assisting small
and minority business concerns to participate equitably as suhcontractors on
contracts financed with funds appropriated herein, and by otherwise advocating
and providing small and minority business opportunities to participate in the
furnishing of comrnodities and services financed with funds appropriated by
this Act.
Sec. 711. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall remain
available for obligation heyond the current fiscal ycar unless expressly so
provided herein.
Src. 712. (a) During the current fiscal year, the President may exempt
appropriations, funds, and contract authorizations, available for military func-
tions under the Department of Defense, from the provisions of section 1512 of
title 31, United States Code, whenevcr he deems such action to be necessary in
t~e~int~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~efense.
(b) Upon deterniination by the President that such action is necessary, the
Secretarv of Defense is authorized to provide for the cost of an airborne alert as
an expected expense in accordance with the provisions of section 3732 of the
Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. II).
(c) Upon deterniination by the President that it is necessary to increase the
number of militarv ~ersonnel on active dutv subiect to existine laws bevond the
. .
numher for iihlch funils ;ire prs\iJr'd IIIiliis ict, tlic ~eirc~ir!. <IIl.jcicns~~i.:
aiithorircd tu prti\,.de Iiir the L..iri81; ,uch in.rc;i,cJ niilttar) pcrs<iiiiicl. J\ ln
c\nccic.l cxncnsr.in .iccord:iiicewiili llicproii\i,ins ~>i>cciiiin 3732 i~iihc Ke\iicd
, ~ ~ ~
,I, 'l'hcSccret;ir! of Dciciirc \h:ill immcJ13icIy.id\ i,c C:~>np,re.< )i, the e\:rits:
of ;in\.;i.itliurity pr4nir.din thi w;ii<)n,anil ,h~ll rcp,,ri nionthly oiitlicc,tiinatcJ
obligations incuried pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 169
Sec. 713. No appropriation contained in this Act shall be availahle in connec-
tion with the operation of commissary stores of the agencies of the Department
of Defense for the cost of purchase (including commercial transportation in the
United SLatesto the place of sale but excluding al1 transportation outside the
United States) and maintenance of operating equipment and supplies, and for
the actual or estimated cost of utilities as mav he furnished bv the Government
anil iii.hrinkagc. rpiiildgc. .inJ pilierage .)i mcrch.inJi,e unJ:r thc cirntr<~ldi
>ucl~c~~n~tii~s>;d iru)rch, c\..cpi ah .iuiIior~/:d under rcg~.I;it~i~r~>t~~ulg;~ i)d
tlncSccrciar!~, di thc ~~t~l~iiiJc~arin~cni~conccr!~cd!ut11the ifio~rovt~ li ilic
Secretary of Defense, whichrigulations shall provide for reimhursékent therefor
to the appropriations concerned and, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, shall provide for the adjustment of the sales prices in such commissary
stores to the extent necessarv to furnish suficient eross revenues from sales of
wzhout cos1to the commissary stores outside the continental ~niied States and
in Alaska: Provirledfurther That no appropriation contained in this Act shall
be available to pay any costs incurred hy any commissary store or other entity
actinr! on behalf of anv commissarv store in connection with obtainine the face
aoorooriation contained in this Act shall he available in connection with the
operaiion of commissary stores within the continental United States unless the
Secretary of Defense has certified that items normally procured from commissary
stores are no1otherwise available at a reasonable distance and a reasonable price
in satisfactorv aualitv and auantitv to the militarv and civilian emolo.ee,of the
Department of ~efeise. '
Sec. 714. No part of the appropriations in this Act shall he available for any
expense of operating aircraft under the jurisdiction of the armed forces for the
purpose of proficiency flying, as defined in Department of Defense Directive
1340.4, except in accordance with regulations prcscribed by the Secretary of
Defense. Such regulations (1) may not require such iiying except that required
to maintain proficiency in anticipation of a mcmber's assignment to combat
operations and (2) such flying may not he permitted in cases of memhers who
have becn assigned to a course of instruction of ninety days or more.
Sec. 715. No nart of anv aoo.. .iation contained in this Act shall be available
for expense of transportation, packing, crating, temporary storage, drayage, and
unpacking of household goods and personal cflects in any one shipment hdving
a net weiiht in excess of ihirteen thousand five hundred Dounds
Se<.716. \'c>rcl, unJcr the juri~Jic~ti~~ dni111: Dcp~rtiiicni .iiTranrp<)rt311<111.
ihc I>cpirrmcnt oiihc .\riny. rhc Dcpsrimcmi<>i'rhA c ir I:.ircc.<>rihc Dtp.irtm~,ni
.,i ihc Ua\) m.ts hc tr;in~lirrcil or i~ihcrui\c made .ii..iil.ihlcuiihirut reimhur>e-
ment to any suih agencies upon the request of the head of one agency and the
approval of the agency having jurisdiction ofthe vcsselsconcerned.
Sec. 717. Not more than 20 per centum of the appropriations in this Act
which are limited for obligation during the current fiscalyear shall he obligated
durineuthe las1 Iwo months of the fiscal vcar: Provided. That this section shall
ni>[appl) i,<~hligaiioii,i.>r.upp~>ri,>I.iciiic Jui! training iiici\ilian ciimpcincnis
or suniiiicrc.inip irainin$ uiihc I<c,cr\c Olficcrr' I'r:iinin$('i>rp,.dr ihc Naiii~n.il
l3ddrJ t'orihc Pronioii~~iioi Ritle Pr.icti<c.Ar111v.
Sec. 718. During the currcnt fiscal yea'rtheagcncies of the Department of
Defense may accept the use of real propcrty from foreign countries for theUnited States in accordance with mutual defense agreements or occupational
arrangements and rnay accept servicesfurnished hy foreign countries as reciprocal
international courti:siesoras servicescustomarily made availablewithout charge;
and such agencies rnay use the same for the support of the United States forces
in such areas without specificappropriation therefor.
In addition to the foregoing, agencies of the Department of Defense may
accept real properçy, services, and commodities frorn foreign countries for the
use of the United States in accordance with mutual defense agreements or
occupational arrangements and such agencies may use the same for the support
of the United State.5forces insuch areas, without specificappropriations therefor:
Pruvided,That the foregoing authority shall not be iivailable for the conversioii
of heating plants from coal to oil at defense facilities in Europe: Providedfurther,
That within thirty days after the end of each quarter the Secretary of Defense
shall render to Congress and Io the Office of Management and Budget a full
report of such property, supplies, and commodities roceivedduring such quarter.
Sec. 719. Durine the current fiscal vear. aooro~riations available to the
J>cp3rtni:nt oi 1):ien.c iiir rcxxrch anJ dc\cli>pnieni nid!. hc u~il for ihc
purptiscr oi sc<ti,-n2353 dititlc10. L'nircdSt.ttcrC'oJr..xtd for purposcs relütcd
?O Ïesearch and development for which expenditures are specifical&authorized
in other appropriarions of the Serviceconcerned.
Sec. 720. No appropriation contained in this Act shall be available for the
payment of more lhan 75 pcr centum of charges of educational institutions for
tuition or expenses of off-duty training of military personnel (except with regard
to such charges of educational institutions (a) for enlisted personnel in the pay
grade E-5 or higher with less than 14years' service,for which payment of 90 per
centum may be niade or (hl for military personnel in off-duty high school
completion programs, for which payment of 100per centum may he made), nor
for the payment of any part of tuition or expenses for such training for
commissioned per:;onnel who do not agree to remain on active duty for two
years after complerion of such training: Provided,That the foregoing limitation
shall not apply te the Program for Afloat College Education.
Sec. 721. No part of the funds appropriated herein shall he expended for the
support of any formally enrolled student in basic courses of the senior division,
Reserve Officers'Training Corps, who has not executed a certificate of loyalty
or loyalty oath in ruch form as shall be prescribed hy the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 721A. No part of any appropriation convdined in this Act, except for
small purchases iri amounts not exceeding $10,000 shall be available for the
procurement of any article of food, clothing, cotton, woven silk or woven silk
blends, spun silk :iarn for cartridge cloth, synthetic fabric or coated synthetic
fahric, or wool (whether in the form of fiher or yarn or contained in fabrics,
materials, or manufactured articles), or specialty metals including stainless steel
Ratware,or hand or measuring tools, not grown, reprocessed, reused,or produced
in the United Stati:s or its possessions, except to the extent that the Secretary of
the Department concerned shall determine that satisfactory quality and sufficient
quantity of any articles of food or clothing or any fom of cotton, woven silk
and woven silk blends, spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth, synthetic fabric or
coated synthetic fabric, wool, or specialty metals includingstainless steel flatware,
grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States or its possessions
cannot he procured as and when needed at United States market prices and
except procurements outside the United States in support of combat operations,
procurements by vessels in foreign waters, and emergency procurements or
procurements of perishable foods hy establishments located outside the United
States for the per!;onnel attached thereto: Provided,That nothing herein shall EXHIBITS SUBMITTEU BY PIICARAGUA 171
preclude the procurement of specialty metals or chemical warfare protective
clothing produced outside the United States or ils possessions when such
procurement is necessary to comply with agreements with foreign governments
requiring the United States to purchase supplies from foreign sources for the
purposes of offsetting sales made by the United States Government or United
States firms under aouroved uroerams servine defense requirements or where
such procurement is nécessaryln Grtherance or the standardization and interop-
erability of equipment requirements within NATO so long as such agreements
with foreign governments comply, where applicable, with the requirements of
section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act and with section 2457 of title 10,
United States Code: Provided furiher. That nothing herein shall preclude the
procurement of foods manufactured or proccssed in the United States or its
possessions: Provided furrher,That no funds herein appropriated shall he used
for the payment of a price diiierential on coniracts hereafter made for the
purpose of relieving economic dislocations other than certain contracts not
involving fuel made on a test basis by the Defense Logistics Agency with a
cumulative value not to exceed $4,000,000,000,as may be determined by the
Secretary of Defense pursuant to existing laws and regulations as not to be
inappropriate therefor by reason of national security considerations: Provided
furrher, That the Secretary specifically determines that there is a reasonable
expectation that oiiers will be obtained from a sufficient numher of eligihle
concerns so that awards of such contracts will he made at a reasonable price
and that no award shall be made for such contracts if the price diiierential
exceeds 2.2 per centum: Providedfurrher, That none of the funds appropnated
in this Act shall be used except that, so Saras practicable, al1contracts shall he
awarded on a formally advertised competitive bid hasis io the lowest respon-
sible bidder.
Src. 722. Kone of the iunA ~ppropri~tcd hv thir Act ma) he ohligaied unilcr
secrion 206 of title 37. United Sriite, Code. for in.ictiie diity 1r:iiningpa! 3if
member of the National Giiard or a member of a reserve comp&ent of a
uniformed service for more than four periods of equivalent training, instruction,
duty or appropriate dulies that are performed instead of that memher's regular
period of instruction or regular period appropriate duty.
Sec. 723. Aooronriations contained in this Act and in suhseauentaoorooriation
Acts for the '~epartment of Defense shall be available for the purChase of
household furnishings, and automobiles from military and civilian personnel on
duty outside the continental United States, for the Purpose of resale at cost to
incoming personnel, and for providing furnishings, without charge, in other than
public quarters occupied by military or civilian personnel of the Department of
Defense on duty outside the continental United States or in Alaska. upon a
determination. under regulations approved by the Secretary of Defense, that
such action is advantageous to the Government.
Sec. 724. During the current fiscal year, appropriations available to the
Department of Defense for pay of civilian employees shall be available for
uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by section 5901of title 5, United
States Code.
Sec. 725. Funds provided in this Act for legislative liaison activities of the
Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the
Air Force, and the Officeof the Secretary of Defense shall not exceed $9,500,000
for the current fiscal year: Provided. That this amount shall be available for
apportionment Io the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy,
the Department of the Air Force, and the Officeof the Secretary of Defense as
determined by the Secretary of Defense.172 MILITARYAND PAUMILITARY ACTIVITLES
Sec. 726. Of the funds made available by this Act for the services of the
Military Airlift Coinmand, $100,000,000 shall beavailable only for procurement
of commercial transportation service from carriers participating in the civil
reserve air Reetprogram; and the Secretary of Defense shall utilize the services
of such carriers which qualify as small businesses to the fullest extent found
practicable; Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall specify in such
procurement, performance characteristics for aircraft to be used based upon
modern aircraft operated by the civil reserve air Aeet.
Sec. 727. During the current fiscal year, appropriations availahle Io the
Department of Dcfense for operation may be used for civilian clothing, no1 to
exceed $40 in co:;t for enlisted personnel: (1) discharged for misconduct,
unsuitability, or otherwise than honorably; (2) sentenced by a civil court to
confinement in a civil orison or intcrned or discharaed as an alien enemv: or
(3) discharged prior to Completionof recruit training Ünderhonorable conditions
for dependency, hardship, minority, disability, or for the convenience of the
Sec. 728. No part of the funds appropriated herein or in subsequent appropri-
ation Acts for the Department of Defense shall bc availahle for paying the costs
of advertising by any defense contractor, except advertising for which payment
is made from orofits. and such advertisine-shall no1 be considered a oart of anv
deienre contrait c<i\i.The prohihitiun c,riiiaincd in illis scitiu31i;iIl 11appl)
uith rc,pc-i 1,)aJv:rii>ing i.>nd..itcd hy Jn) such i.,iitrri<tor. in iompli~nce niih
reculatiiins tihi~h ihall hc ~r<,mulc.itcdhi. the Scirct:ir) oi l)cicnrc. w~lelvior
(lj the recruitmeni by the contracior of përsonnel requiÏed for the
by the contractor iofobligations under a defense contract, (2) the procurement
of scarce items remquiredby the contractor for the performance of a defense
contract, or (3) the disposal of Swap or surplus materials acquired by the
contractor in the performance of a defensc contract.
Sec. 729. Upori determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is
necessary in the national interest, he may, with the approval of the Office of
Management and Budeet. transfer no1 Io exceed S1.200.000.000 of workine
cnpitai CundsOC iti:ilc~lirtnient of llcfense or funds nudc d\,iiilablc in thA:
ICIihc I>el>arimcnt:~iDciensc for miliiary iunciion. (rxiepi miliisry ciinbiructiiin)
hetween &ch aoorooriations or funds or anv subdivision thereof, to be merred
with and to be'&iiiiable for the same purPoses, and for the same lime perGd,
as theappropriation, or fund to which transferred: Provided,That such authority
to transfer mav no? be used unlessfor hieher orioritv items, based on unforeseen
ni11it;iryrcqui;cmçnts. thlin ihosc for u;hich origin~lly appropriaicd and in no
ilisc irhcrc ihc itcni fur which iunds arc rcquestcd has bcen dcn~cdby Congrc3s
Pr'ro~r<l~~<llrrrThh~trihr Sesrciliryt>iDcCcnsc\h;ill nutifi. ihc Congres, pr<~mptly
of al1transfers made oursuant to ihis authoritv
Sec.730. During the current fiscalyear, casLbalances in working capital funds
of the Departmeni of Defense established pursuant 10 section 2208 of title 10,
United States Cod-, may be maintained in~onlysuch amounts as are necessary
at anv lime for cash disbursements to be made from such funds: Provided. That
transiers may be made between such funds in such amounts as may be deterkined
by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the officeof Management and
~udget, excep<that transfers between-a stock fund account and ai industrial
fund account may not be made unless the Seçretary of Defense kas notified the
Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in amounts equal to the amounts
appropriated to working capital funds in this Act, no obligations may be made
against a working capital fund to procure war reserve material inventory, unless
the Secretary of Dcfense has notified the Congress prior to any such obligation. EXHIBITSSUBMITIED BY NICARAGUA 173
Sec. 731. Not more than $225,400,000 ofthe funds appropriated by this Act
shall be made available for payment to the Federal Employees Compensation
Fund, as established by 5 U.S.C. 8147.
Sec. 732. No part of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to
provide a loan, guarantee of a loan, or a grant to any applicant who has been
convicted by any court of general jurisdiction of any crime which involvcs the
use of or the assistance to others in the use of force, trespass, or the seizure of
property under control of an institution of higher education to prevent ollicials
or students at such an institution from engagin~ ~n t~eir dulies or pursuing
their studies.
Sec. 733. None of the funds available to the Department of Defense shall be
utilized for the conversion of heating plants from coal to oil at defense facilities
in Europe.
Sec. 734. None of the funds aoorooriated bv this Act shall be available for
any research involvinguninforme2 or nonvoluniary human beingsas experimen-
ta1subjects: Provided,That this limitation shall not apply to measures intended
to be beneficialto the recipient and consent is obtained from the reci~ient or a
legal representative acting On the recipient's behalf.
Sec. 735. Appropriations for the current fiscalyear and hereafter for operation
and maintenance of the active forces shall be available for medical and dental
care of oersonnel entitled thereto bv law or reeulat-on (includine chare- -of
private facilitiesfor care of military personnel, except electiveprivate treatment) ;
welfare and recreation; hire of passengcr motor vehicles; repair of facilities;
modification of personal properly; design of vessels; industnal mobilization;
installation of ea. .ment in oublic and orivate olants: militarv c,mmunication~ ~ ~
facilities on merchant vessels; acquisition of services,special clothing, supplies,
and equipment ;and expensesfor the Reserve Officers'Training Co-.s and other
units at educational insiitutions.
Sec. 736. No part of the funds in this Act shall be available to prepare or
present a request to the Committccs on Appropriations for reprogramming of
funds, unless for higher priority items,based on unforeseenmilitary requirements,
than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for
which reprograming is requested has been denied by the Congress.
Sec. 737. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to pay claims
for nonemereeu , inoatient hosoital care orovided under the Civilian Health and
Medical Program ofihe ~niformed serviLesfor servicesavailable at a ficility if
the uniformed serviceswithin a 40-mileradius of the patient's residence:Provided.
That the foregoing limitation shall not apply to-payments that supplement
primary coverage provided by othcr insurance plans or programs that pay for at
least 75 per centum of the covered services.
Sec. 738. None of the funds contained in this Act available for the Civilian
Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Servicesunder the provisions of
section 1079 (a) of title 10,United StatesCode, shall beavailable for (a) services
of pastoral counselors, or family and child counselors, or marital counselors
unless the patient has been referred to such counselor bv a medical doctor for
IrcJtrnent of a jpecificproblcm trith results uithiit trcalmsnl to bciommunisliicrl
bdck Io ihc phyrici~n who ma& rurh reierrxl. (h) sprial cduration. eîepi
whenprovided as secondary to the activepsychiatnc treatment on an institutional
inpatient basis; (c) therapy or counseling for sexual dysfunctions or sexual
inadequacies; (d) treatment ofobesity whenobesityisthe soleor major condition
treated; (e) surgery which improves physical appearance but which is not
expected to significantlyrestore functions including,but not limited to, mammary
augmentation, face liftsand sexgender changesexcept that breast reconstructive174 MILITARYAND PARAMLLITARY AcIIVITIBS
surgery following mastectomy and reconstructive surgery to correct serious
deformities caused by congenital anomalies, accidental injuries and neoplastic
surgery are not excluded; (f) reimbursement ofany ~hysicianor other authorized
individual provider of medical care in excess of thc eightieth percentile of the
customary charge!; made for similar services in the same locality where the
medical care was furnished, as determined for physicians in accordance with
section 1079 (h) <iftitlc 10, llnited States Code; or (g) any service or supply
which is not medically or psychologically necessaryto prevent, diagnose, or treat
a mental or physic;ilillness,injury, or bodily malfunciion as assessedor diagnosed
by a physician, d,:ntist, clinical psychologist, optometrist, podiatrist, certified
nurse-midwife, certified nurse practitioner, or certified clinical socialworker, as
appropriate, exccpt as authorized by section 1079 (a) (4) of title 10, United
States Code; Provided,That any changes in availability of funds for the Program
made in this Act from those in effectprior to ils enactment shall be effectivefor
care received folloxing enactment of this Act.
Sec. 739. Appropriations available to the Department of Defense for the
current fiscal year shall be available to provide an individual entitled to health
care under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, with one wig if the
individual kas aliipecia that resulted from treatment of malignant disease:
Provided, That the individual kas not previously received a wig from the
Government.
Sec. 740. Fundsappropriatcd in this Act shall beavailable for the appointment,
pay, and support of persons appointed as cadets and midshipmen in the two-
year Senior Reserve Oiiicers' Training Corps course in excess of the 20 percent
limitation on such persons imposed by section 2107 (a) of title 10,United States
Code, but not to exceed 60percent of total authorized scholarships.
Sec. 741. Nonc of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to pay
any member of the uniformed service for unused accrued leave pursuant to
section 501 of titlc 37, United States Code, for more than sixty days of such
leave, less the number of days for which payment was previously made under
section 501 after February 9, 1976.
Sec. 742. Nonç of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to support
more than 300 erilisted aides for officersin the United States Armed Forces.
Sec. 743. No appropriation contained in this Act may be used to pay for the
cost of public anàirs activities of the Department of Defense in excess of
$34,200,000.
Sec. 743A. Nonc of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for the
planning or execution of programs which utilizeamounts crcdited to Department
of Defense appropriations or funds pursuant to the provisions of section 37 (a)
of the Arms Export Control Act representing payment for the actual value of
defense articles spi:cifiedin section 21 (a) (1) of that Act: Provided, That such
amounts so credit<:dshall be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts
as provided in section 3302 (b) of title 31, United States Code.
Sec. 744. No appropriation contained in this Aci shall be available to fund
any costs of a Senior Reserve Officers'Training Corps unit - except to complete
training of personnel enrolled in Military Science 4 - which in ils junior year
class (Military Sciznce 3) kas for the four preceding academic years, and as of
September 30, 1983,enrolled lessthan (a) seventeenstudents where the institution
prescribes a four..year or a combination four- and two-year program; or
I. .twelvestudenta wherethe institution orescribesa two-vea. oro.-am: Provided.
I'hat. iiotuithsiinding the forcyoing Iimit;ition. fiinJr shall bc :i\,;iil:ible10
nisint;iin onc Scnigr Ke\r.rve0lli~r.r; 'lraining Corph unit in each Statc anJ AI
mch Statc-opcrated msriiiiiir. :i..idcni~. fni,r<l<,c/i,rllr<,'l'h;iiLnitr undcr thc EXHIBITS SUBMI~D BY NICARAGUA 175
ionbortium \)sicm ,hall be cons~rlcrcdas a singleunit ior purpiBresof evalu.itiun
of produciivit) undcr thi~proi,iii1n IJroiiJt~d/Urrher l'hatenrollment standard,
contairicdiriI>cpdrtriieiitof Ilcfciisc Directite 121j.Rfiir Senic~rKcjert,eOlficers'
Training Corps ;nits, as revisedduring fiscalyear 1981,may be used to determine
compliance with this provision, in lieu of the standards cited above.
Sec. 745. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act or available in any
working capital fund of the Department of Defense shallbe available to pay thc
expensesattributable Io lodging of any person on oflicialbusiness away from his
designated post of duty, or in the case of an individual described under
section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, bis home or regular place of duty,
when adequate Govcrnment quarters are available, but are not occupied by
such person.
(b) The limitation set forth in subsection (a) is not applicable to employees
whose duties require olficial travel in excessof fifty percent of thetotal number
of the basic administrative work weeksduring the current fiscalyear.
Sec. 746. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act shallbe available to
pay the retainer pay of any enlisted member of the Regular Navy, the Naval
Reserve, the Regular Marine Corps, or the Manne Corps Rescrve who is
transferred to the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve under
section 6330of title 10, United States Code, on or after December31, 1977,if the
provisions of section6330 (d) of title 10,arc utilizedin determiningsuchmember's
eligibility for retirement under section 6330 (b) of title 10: Provided, That
notwithstanding the foregoing, timecreditable as active servicefor a completed
minority enlistment, and an cnlistment terminated within three months before the
end of the term of enlistment under section6330 (d) of title 10,prior to December
31, 1977,may be utilizedin determiningeligibilityfor retirement: Pr,,viderfiurrher,
That notwithstanding the foregoing, time maybe credited as active servicein
determining a memher's eligibilityfor retirement under section 6330(h) of title
10 pursuant to the provisions of the first sentence of section 6330 (d) of title 10
for those members who had formally requested transfer to the Fleet Reserve or
the Reet Manne Corps Reserveon or before October 1, 1977.
(b) None of the funds appropriated hy this Act shall be available to pay that
portion of the retainer pay of any enlisted member of the Regular Navy, the
Naval Reserve, the Regular Marine Corps, or the Marine Corps Reserve under
section 6330 of title 10, United States Code, on or after December 31, 1977,
which is attributable under the second sentence of section 6330 (d) of title 10to
time which, after December 31, 1977,is not actually served by such mcmber.
Sec. 747. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for programs of the
Central Intelligence Agency shall remainavailable for obligation beyond the
current fiscal year, except for: (a) funds appropriated for the Reserve for
Contingencies, which shall remain available until September 30, 1985; and
(b) funds appropriated for Headquarters Construction, which shall remain
available until September 30, 1988.
Sec. 748. Nonc of the funds provided by this Act may be used to pay the
salaries of anv verson or Dersonswho authorize the transfer of unoblieated and
deobligated apbropriations into the Reserve for Contingencies of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
Sec. 749. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to support
more than 9.901 full-time and 2.603 oart-time militarv nersonnel assiened to or
used in the ~"~~ortof Morale, welfake,and ~ecreatiin'activities as discribed in
Department of Defense Instruction 7000.12and its enclosures, dated September
4, 1980.
Sec. 750. Al1obligations incurred in anticipation of the appropriations and176 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
authority provided in this Act are hereby ratified and confirmed if othenvise in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Sec. 751. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be used to perform
abortions except nhere the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus
were carried to terin.
Sec. 752. None of the funds appropriated hy this Act shall be used for the
provision, cire or treatment to dependents of members or former memhers of
the Armed Service,;or the Deoartment of Defense for thc clcctive correction of
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
minor dcrm.ituIugi:.il blciniihcs *ilil niarkb or mincir.insiuniic.il ;i!iotiiiiliei
SCI. 753. N<!nc<ifilic iuiirlj ;ippropri.iicd b) thih Act sh~ll hc ;i\,;ill:ihlc(sr
the purchase of iiisignia for resaie Ünless the sales price of such insignia is
adjusted to the extznt necessary to recover the cost of purchase of such insignia
and the estimated cost of al1 related expenses, inçluding but not limited to
management, storage, handling, transportation, loss, disposal of obsolete mate-
rial. and manaeemsnt fees oaid to the militarv exchanee svstems-~ ~,~ ~ ~ Proiaided , .hat~ ~
ambunts derivgd by the adjustment covered by the foregoing limitations may he
credited to the appropriations against which the charges have hecn made to
recover the cos1of~ourchaseand Felatedexoense.
Sec.751. Nons c.ithe f~ndsappropriated b) th!\ Actor hcrct~~forc~ppropri~ied
hy an). othcr Act sh;ill be obltgiitcd or c\pcnileil for the pa)mcnt ~ifaniicip~tory
pu,$c>sionionipcnvation cl.~ims 1,) ihe 1~edcr;ilKco~blicof Ccrnidn~ <>iherth~n
claims listed in the 1973 aereement (commonl; rcfcrred to as-the Global
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Agreement) betwc<:nthe unitid States and the ~eieral Kepublic of ~erman~.
Sec. 755. Durinj: the current fiscal year the Department of Defensemav enter
into contracts to Fecover indebtedniss to the United States oursuant io sec-
tion 3718 of title 31, United States Code, and any such contra; entered into by
the Department of Defense may provide that appropriate fees charged by the
contractor under the contract torecover indebtedness mav be ~avable from
amounts collected by the contractor to the extent and under the.conditions
provided under th<:contract.
Sec. 755A. Non: of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be availahle for
.. .
a contract for studies. analvses. or consultiné services entered into withont
contpetition on the basi'sof an uniolicited propo;al unless the head of the activity
responsible for the procurement determines:
(O) as a result of thorough technical evaluation. only one source is found
fully qualified Io perform the proposed work, or
(b) the purpose of the contract is to explore an unsolicited proposal
which offers :;ignificant scientific or technological promise, represents the
product of original thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one
source. or
/<, ivhcrr.ihe purpihc .iithe c<>nir:i< r to iahs xi\;ini:+ge ni uniqdr.anJ
siynilii:iiii indiistr~aliirïomplishmeni hv \pcciIiccon<crli.or IO insiirc ihat
a new producr or idea of aspecific concern is given financial support:
Provided, That thi:; limitation shall not apply to contracts in an amount of less
than 525.000.contiacts related to imorovements of eouioment that is in develoo-
ment or productioii, or contracts as io which a civilian o'llicialof the Department
of Defense, who has been confirmed hy the Senate, determines that the award
of such contract a!;in the interest of the national dcfense.
Sec. 756. None of the funds ao~ro~riated hv this Act shall be available tn
.. . ~ ~ ~~
provide medical care in the United States on an inpatient basis to foreign military
and diplornatic personnel or their dependents unless the Derartment of Defense
isreimbursed foi the costs of providing such carc: Provided, ~hat reimbursements EXHIBITS SUBMITTOD BK NICARAGUA 177
for medical care covered by this section shall be credited to the appropriations
against which charges have heen made for providing such care.
Sec. 757. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be obligated for
the second career training program authorized by Public Law 96-347.
Sec. 758. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this
Act shall be obligated or expended for salaries or expenses during the current
fiscalyear for the purposes of demilitarization of surplus nonautomatic firearms
less than .50 caliber.
Sec. 759. During the current fiscal year, not to exceed $125,000,000 of the
funds provided in this Act for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services may be used to conduct a test program in accordance with
the following guidelines: In carrying out the provisions of sections 1079 and
1086 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense, after consulting
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may contract with orgdniza-
tions that assume responsibility for the maintenance of the health of a defined
population, for the purpose of experiments and demonstration projects designed
to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of providing pre-paid
health benefits: Provided, That such projects must he designed in such a way as
to determine methods of reducing the cost of health benefits provided under
such sections without adversely affecting the quality of care. Except as provided
otherwise. the orovisions of such a contract mav deviate from the cost-sharinr
arrangements irescribed and the types of health-care authorized under sections
1079and 1086,when the Secretary of Dcfense determines that such a deviation
would serve the purpose of this section.
Sec. 760. None of the funds vrovided in this Act shall he available to initiate
( 1)3 mulii!.cir conirticiltilicrnp1.i). ici>noiiii: ~nlcr quiiniiiy prdcurcnicnt in
cxrcs, c~iS?il.OUI~.i~ i~diiny iini ycsr .>iiheconIrilci or thar in~lui;inurilui~dcrl
-~,niiiicini Ii.ibil~ivin i\cis. 01 S?u.UUU.U~IoO r (2) a conir.1.t Ir d\nnci
procur<ment leadhg to a multiyear contract that employs economic order
quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 in any one year, unless the
Committees on Appropriations and Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives have been notified at least thirty days in advance of the proposed
contract award: Pruvided, That no part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall he available to initiate multiyear procurement contracts for major
systems unless specifically provided herein. For purposes of this provision, a
major system is defined as a system or major assembly thereof whose eventual
total expenditure for research, development, test, and evaluation is more than
$200,000,000,or whose eventual total expenditure for procurement is more than
$1,000,000,000.
Sec. 761. None of the funds appropriated by this Act which are available for
payment of travel allowdnces for per diem in lieu of suhsistence to enlisted
versonnel shall be used to Dav such an allowance to anv enlisted member in an
amount that is more than ~h~amount of per diem in lieu of subsistence that the
enlisted member is otherwise entitled to receive minus the basic allowance for
suhsistence, or pro rata portion of such allowance, that the enlisted member is
entitled to receive during any day, or portion of a day, that the enlisted member
is also entitled to be paid a per diem in lieu of subsistence: Provided, That if an
enlisted member is in a travel status and is not entitled to receive a per diem in
lieu of subsistence hecause the member is fumished meals in a Govemment mess,
funds available to pay the basic allowance for subsistence to such a member
shall not be used to pay that allowance, or pro rata portion of that allowance,
for each day, or portion of a day, that such enlisted member is furnished meals
in a Government mess.178 MILITARY AND PARAM~LITARYACTIVITIIS
Sec. 762. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall beavailable to pay
the retired pay or retainer pay of a member of the Armed Forces for any month
who, on or after January 1, 1982, becomes entitled to retired or retainer pay, in
an amount that is greater than the amount otherwise determined to be payable
after such reductioiis as may be necessary to reflect adjusting the computation
of retired pay or retainer pay that includes credit for a part of a year of service
to permit credit for a part of a year of service only for such month or months
actually served : Prov;ded,That the foregoing limitation shall not apply to any
member who beforç January 1, 1982: (a) applied for retirement or transfer to
the Fleet Reserve <ir Fleet Marine Corps Reserve; (b) is being proccssed for
retirement under the provisions of chapter 61 of title 10 or who is on the
temporary disability retired list and thereafter retired under the provisions of
sections l2l0 (c) or (if) of title 10;or (c) is retired or in an inactive status and
would be eligible for retired pay under the provisions of chapier 67 of title 10,
but for the fact that the person is under 60 years of age.
Sec. 762A. None of the funds appropnated by this Act shall he available to
approve a request for waiver of the costs otherwise rcquired to be recovered
under the provisioris of section 21(e)(l)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act
unless the Committees on Appropriations have been notified in advance of the
proposed waiver.
Sec. 763. Funds available to the Department of Defense during the current
fiscal year shall be available to continue a program to provide child advocacy
and family counseling services 10deal with problems of child and spouse abuse.
Sec. 764. None iofthe funds appropriated hy this Act shall be available for
the transportation [ifequipment or material designated as Prcpositioned Material
Configured in Unit Sets (POMCUS) in Europe in Excess of four division sets:
Provided, That the foregoing limitation shall no1 apply with respect to any item
of equipment or materiel which is maintained in the inventories of the Active
and Reserve Fora:s at levels of al least 70 per centum of the established
requirements for stich an item of equipment or materiel for the Active Forces
and 50 per centurri of the esiablished requirement for the Reserve Forces for
such an item of equipment or materiel: Provi~iedfurrher, That no additional
commitments to the establishment of POMCUS sitesshall be made without prior
approval of Congn:ss.
Sec. 765. (a) None of the funds in this Act may be used to transfer any article
of military equipment or data related to the manufacture of such equipment to
a foreign country prior to the approval in writing of such transfer by the
Secretary of the military service involved.
. . No funds aoor..ri.ted bv this Act mav be used for the transfer of a
tsihiit:;~l Jatx pazk.igc from ;in) Ginrrnment-<>ancd and op-r.11r.JJcktir~ pliint
min~r'xiur~riglarge c;~libcri:inni?n5in ;iny f<>reiggo\srnment. n<>rhir Iirsi,iiiig
any such government in producing any defenseitem currently being manufactured
or developed in a United States Governmeut-owned. Government-operated
defense plant maniiPacturing large caliber cannons.
(c) None of the funds in this Act shall be used, in any way, directly or
indirectly, to seIl or otherwise provide the AN/SQR-19 Towed Array Sonar to
any foreign country, directly or indirectly, including any administrative and
military and civilian personnel costs in connection with the arrangement of the
sale of the ANISQR-19 Towed Array Sonar to any foreign country.
Sec. 766. None of the funds aoorooriated in this Act mav be made available
ihn)ugh ir2n.fer. r?prognimming. or othcr nic'ins for iny inrcllipcncc or >pcciiil
aciii.11)JitTsrenifr'irnihit pre\ iourlyjtirtilieil to ihc Congrcjs unlcr, thc I>irsri<br
of Cenirlil Iniellig<ncsor ihs Sscrii;iry of Ilefsn>c ha5 notificd the tlou.e and EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 179
Senate Appropriations Committees of the intent to make such funds available
for such activity.
Sec. 767. Of the funds appropriated by this Act for strategic programs, the
Secretary of Defense shall provide funds for the Advanced Technology Bomber
program at a level at least equal to the amount provided by the committee of
conference on this Act in order to maintain priority emphasis on this program.
Sec. 767A. None of the funds available to the Department of Defense during
the current fiscalyear shall be used by the Secretary of a military department to
purchase coal or coke from foreign nations for use at United States defense
facilities in Europe when coal from the United States is available.
Sec. 768. None of the funds available to the Department of Defense shall be
available for the procurement of manual typewriters which were manufactured
by facilities located within States which are Signatories to the Warsaw Pact.
Sec. 769.None of the funds appropriated hy this Act may be used to appoint
or compensate more than 37 individuals in the Department of Defense in
pUnited States Code).utive Schedule(as provided in sections 5312-5316of title 5,
Sec. 770. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be availablc to
convert a position in support of the Amy Reserve. Air Force Reserve, Amy
National Guard, and Air National Guard to a position to he held by a person
in an active Guard or Reserve status if that conversion,would reduce the total
number of positions occupied by, or programed to he occupied by, military
technicians of the component concerned,helow the numher of positions occupied
by military technicians in that component on Septemher 30, 1982: Provi<ied,
That none of the funds appropriated by this Act shall he availahle 10 support
more than 28,108 positions in support of the Army Reserve or Army National
Guard occuoied hv. or oroeramed to be occuoied bv. oersons in an active Guard
or Reserve ;talus frov.idezjurrher,That noie of 16;iunds appropriated by this
Act shall be available to support more than 25,714 positions occupied hy. or
ororramed to he occu~ied b~: oersons in an active ~cserve or Guakd sta~Üsin
Support of the Army ~eservé o; Amy National Guard after February 1, 1984:
Provide<l/r~rrher.hat none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used
to include military technicians in computinr civilian personnel ceilinps.includinr
statutory or administrat iivpese^ ceiings, on activities in suiport of the
Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Amy National Guard or Air National
Guard.
Sec. 771. Nonc of the funds provided in this Act may be used to impose
civilian personnel ceilings on Department of Defense industrially funded
activities:Providcd,That any increase in civilian personnel of such industrial
funds in excess of the number employed on September 30, 1982, shall not be
counted for the DurDosesof anv statutorv or administrativel. imo.sed civilian
personnel cei~ing'otkerwiscappl~cahledu& fiscal year 1984.
Sec. 772. Appropriations or funds available to the Department of Defense
during the current fiscal year may he transferred to appropriations provided in
this Act for resedrch, development, test, and evaluation0 the extent necessary
to meet increased pay costs authorized by or pursuant to law, to be merged with
and 10 be available for the same purposes, and the same time period, as the
appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 773. The proviso contained in section 790 of the Department of Defense
Appropriation Acl, 1983,as enacted in Public Law 97-377 is herehy repealed.
Sec. 774. During the current fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years, for the
purposes of the appropriation "Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense" the
foreign currency exchange rates used in preparing budget submissions shall he180 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTlVlTlES
the foreign currency exchange rates as adjusted or modified, as reflectcd in
applicable Commitiee reports on this Act.
Sec. 775. During fiscal year 1984, not more than $24,000,000 of the funds
available to theCeiitral Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any
other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may
he obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of
supporting, directly or indirectly, militas. or paramilitdry operations in Nicaragua
by any nation, groiip, organiration, movement, or individual.
Sec. 775A. So far as may be practicable, Indian labor shall be employed, and
purchases of the products of lndian industry may be made in open market in
the discretion of the Secretary of Defense: Provided, That the products must
meet pre-set contract specifications.
Sec. 776. None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used in any
way for the leasin3 to non-Federal agencies in the United States aircraft or
vehicles owned or c~peratedhy the Department of Defense when suitable aircraft
or vehicles are coinmercially available in the private sector: Provided. That
nothing in this section shall aiïect authorized and established procedures for the
sale of surplus aircraft or vehicles: Providedfurther,That nothing in this section
shall prohihit such leasing when specificallyauthorized in a subsequent Act of
Congress.
Sec. 777. None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used in any
way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation
or appropriation matters pending hefore the Congress.
Sec. 778. No funds available to the Department of Defense during the current
fiscal year may he >xsedto enter into any contract with a term of three years or
more, inclusive of ;iny option for contract extension or renewal, for any vessels,
aircraft or vehicles, through a lease, charter, or similar agreement, that imposes
an estimated termination liability (excluding the estimated value of the leased
item at the lime of termination) on the Government exceeding 50 percentum of
the original purchase value of the vessel, aircraft, or vehicle involved for which
the Congress has iiot specifically provided authority in an appropriation Act
for the obligation [if 10 per centum of such termination liability.
Sec. 779. None of the funds appropriated hy this Act may he obligated or
expended to formulate or to carry out any requirement that, in order to be
eligible to submit e bid or an oKer on a Department of Defense contract to be
let for the supply cifcommercial or commercial-type products, a small business
concern (as defined pursuant to section 3 of the Small Business Act) must
(1) demonstrate that its product is accepted in the commercial market (except
to the extent that may be required to evidencecompliançe with the Walsh-Healey
Public Contracts Act), or (2) satisfy any other prequalification Io submitting a
bid or an oRer for the supply of any such product.
Sec. 779A. Noni: of the funds appropriated in this Act may be obligated or
exoended in anv wav for the ouroose of the sale. lease. rental. or excessine of
aiy portion of rand currently {dentifiedas Fort D~RUSS;,Hon&lulu, Hawai;
Sec. 780. None iofthe funds made available hy this Act shall be available to
operate in excess of 247 commissaries in the contiguous United States.
Sec. 781. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be used to procure
aircraft ejectionse;tts manufactured in any foreign nation that does not permit
United States manufacturers to compete for ejection seat procurement require-
ments in that foreign nation.
Sec. 782. No more than $203,322,000 of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall he available for the payment of unemployment compensation henefits.
Sec. 783. None of the funds appropriated by this Act should be obligated for EXHIBITS SUBMITTEDBY NICARAGUA 181
the pay of any individual who is initially employed after the date of enactment
of this Act as a technician in the administration and training of the Armv
Reserve and the maintenance and rewairof suoo..es issued to th;~rmv -~~ , - ~ ~ - ~ ~
unless such individual is also a miiitary member of the Amy Resewe troop
program unit that he or she is employed to support. Those technicians employed
by the Army Resewe in areas oiheb than A&y Reserve troop program "nits
need only be members of the Selected Reserve.
Sec. 784. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Export-lmport
Bank of the United States may transfer to the Department of the Air Force,
specifically for the Air National Guard, if requested, without reimbursement,
five (5) DC-10 aircraft and associated spare parts in the possession of the Bank
as a result of a default of a borrower from the Bank.
Sec. 785. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated or
expended to adjust a hase period under section 1079 (hl (2) of title 10, United
States Code,more frequently than the Secretary of Defense considersappropriate.
Sec. 786. None of the funds appropriated hy this Act shall he available to pay
Variable Housing Allowance pursuant to section 403 (a) title 37, United States
Code, in amounts that exceed the amount of Variable Housing Allowance to
which the member would otherwise be entitled under section 403 (a), title 37,
United StatesCode, minus the differencehetween the amount of BasicAllowance
for Quarters such memher is receiving and the Basic Allowance for Quarters
payable to a memher of the same rank and grade on September 30, 1983.
Sec. 787. None of the funds available to the Deoartment of Defense shall be
u,cil io :i<lju,in! conir;i.i pria ior ;aniount, sci forth in ;in!sliiphuilding :l.iini.
requcsi for cqui1;iblr.;idjustnlcni. or JcmdnJ ilirpdymcnt or in~urrcJ duc 111ihc
preparation, suhmission, or adjudication of any such shipbuilding claim, request,
or demand under a contract entered into after the date of enactment of this~A~t. ~~ ~
.irIslngou1oI'c~c111o5ccurrlllg Indrc ili;iic1g11tcc1 ~nlonlh,prier 10 the >~hmih,~,,n
.il'such shiphuililing ~.l.iim.rcquc5r ilr dcm;inil. For ihc purp,>\cs of ihis Act.
ihc rec.uircment ior "suhnii,iion" ofa ,hiohi.il.lini! cl;iini. reoiicst. or dcniand is
met only when the certification required.in section 6 (cj (0 of'the Contracts
Disputes Act of 1978is provided and the shipbuilding claim, request, or demand
is fully documented and suhstantiated in accordance with regulations to he
promulgated by the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 788. Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the
Department of the Air Force, and.Defense Logistics Agency, may testa flat rate
per diem system for military and civilian travel allowances: Provided, That per
diem allowances paid under a flat rate per diem system shall he in an amount
determined by the Secretary of Defense to he sufficient to meet normal and
necessary expenses in the area in which travel is perfonned, but in no event will
the travel allowances exceed $75 for each day in travel status within the
continental United States: Providedfurrher, That the test approved under this
section shall expire on Septemher 30, 1985, or upon the effective data of
permanent legislation estahlishing a flat rate per diem system for military and
civilian personnel, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 789. None of the funds appropriated hy this Act shall he used for the
transfer of the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DODDS) to the
Department of Education, as prohibited hy section 1223 of the Department of
Defense Authorization Act, 1984.
Sec. 790. No part of the funds appropriated herein shall he available for
the purchase of more than 50 per centum of the fiscal year requirements for
aircraft power supply cahle assemhlies of each military facility from industries
estahlished pursuant to title 18, United States Code: Pruvided,That the restric-182 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITILS
tion contained herein shall not apply to small purchases in amounts not
exceeding.$10.000.
Sc<.731. 'lsiic 0,'the hndj .ipprupriatcd hy ihi, ,\ci ,hall hc u\rJ pursliasr.
<log<,Ir cil, ,Ir <~ihcriviclUnd ihc u>ctii'dtip, tir <.II,fur tlic purpoic of 1r:iining
Dcpürinic.iit of I>cfi~ii,ciiii~ciits or other pcrsi>nnclin >urgic.ilor iither m:di:dl
trcitnicni di' i\,,~unl* produccd by An!. type uf azdpoii. f'r~,v!~/~~~'h:,~~hs
~tdnd.trds i>ih~chii:iining u.iih rcspc;t io ihc irç:itniini oi ;in~rii:ilrrti;il.idlierc
io ttic I'cdcrülAni~i':ilMclCircI.;iu ;.nd io 1h.w prc\iilinp i- ihc zi\iliün nicJi~.~l
community.
Sec. 792. Beginning on April 1, 1984, or on the effective date of the next
adjustment in the General Schedule of compensation for Federal classified
employees, whichever occurs first, none of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be available tci oav Variable Housine Allowance to a memher Dursuant to ~ ~ ~~ ~~
section 403 (a), titlé f7, United States Eode, in an amount that éxceedsthe
ditïerence hetween 16800and the amount of Basic Allowance for Quarters such
member receives piirsuant to section 403, title 37, United States code, in the
case of members with dependents, or the ditïerence hetween $600and the amount
of Basic Allowance for Quarters such member receivespursuant to section 403,
title 37, United States Code, in the case of a member without dependents.
Sec. 793. The land and building located on the parcel described as lot four
(4), block four (4), Fairbanks Original Townsite, section IO townsite 1 soiith,
range I West,Fairbanks meridian, shall be transferred to the city of Fairbanks.
Sec. 794. (a) Exi:ept as othenvise provided in this section, none of the funds
appropriated by this or any other Act may be ohligated or expended for the
procurement of a wi:apon system unlessthe prime contractor or other contractors
for such system provides the United States with written guarantees -
(1) that the system and each component thereof were designed and
manufactured :;Oas to conform to the Government's performance require-
ments as specifically delineated (A) in the production contract, or (B) in
any other agreement relating to the production of such system entered into
by the United States and the contractor;
(2) that the system and each component thereof, at the time they are
provided to th- United States, are free from al1 defects (in materials and
workmanship) whiçh would cause the system to fail to conform to the
Government's i~erformancereauirements as soecificallvdelineated (Al in the
priidu;iion c<,~trÿ.'t.or (H, in iny otlicr axrcc.'iiiciirlcliliid IIICpr,iduci,on
of SUC~ >)sicnir.ntcrcd into h) ihc I niic,l Siitc\ 2nd ihc rontrü;ror: .inJ
(3) that, in ihe event of a~failureof the weapon system or a component
to meet the coiiditions specifiedin clauses (1) and (2) -
(A) the contractor will bear the cost of al1 work promptly to repair or
replace such parts as are necessary to achieve the required performance
requirements; or
(B) if the contractor fails to repair or replace such parts promptly, as
determined hy the Secretary of Defense, the contractor will pay the
costs incurred by the United States in procuring such parts from
another source.
(b) A written guarantee provided pursuant to subsection (a) shall not apply
in the case of any weapon system or comDonent.hereof which kas been furnished
by the Government t6 a c6ntractor.
(c) The Secretary of Defense may waivethe requirements of subsection (a)
in the case of a weapon system if the Secretary - EXHIBITS SUBMITTEDBY NICARAGUA 183
(1) detcrmines that the waiver is necessary in the intcrest of the national
defense or would not be cost-effective; and
(2) notifies the Committees on Armcd Servicesand Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Rcpresentatives in writing of his intention to
waive such requirements with respect to such wcapon system and
includes in the notice an explanation of the reasons for the waiver.
(d) The requirements for wntten guarantees provided in subsection (a) hereof
shall apply only to contracts which are awarded aîter the date of enactment of
this Act and shall not cover combat damage.
Scc. 795. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall he ohligated under
the competitive rate program ofthe Department of Defensefor the transportation
of household goods to or from Alaska and 1-lawaii.
Sec. 796. No funds appropriated for thc Departments of Defense, Army,
Navy, or the Air Force shall be obligated by their respective Secretaries for
architectural and engineering services and construction design contracts for
Mililary Construction projects in the amount of $85,000 and over, unless
comoetition for such contracts is onen to al1firmsreeaudless of sizein accordance ~~
with'40 U.S.C. 5541,et seq
Sec.797. None of the funds made available by this Act shallbe usedto initiate
full-scale engineering development of any major defense acquisition program
until the Secretary of Defensehas provided 10 the Committees on Appropriations
of the House and Senate -
(a) a certification that the system or subsystem being developedwill be
procured in quantities that are no1suficient to warrant development of two
or more oroduction sources. or
(b) a plan for the development of two or more sources for the production
of the system or subsystem being developcd.
Sec. 798. IZundsappropriated by this Act shall be available for such studies
and analysis contracts wilh federally established non-profit corporations which
overate Federal Contract Research Centers iis the Secrctarv of Defense mav
déterminein accordance with procedures in effecton Junc 1,1983,notwithstanci-
ing any other provisions oflaw: Provided,That this section shall expireon April
30, 1984.
Sec. 799. It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Defenseshould
formulate and carry out a program under which contracts awarded by the
Department of Defense in fiscal year 1984 would, to the maximum extent
oracticable and consistent with existine law. be awarded to contractors who
igree to carry out such contracts in lab& surplus arcas (as defined and identified
by the Department of Labor).
Sec. 799A. The Administrator of General Services shall transfer to the State
of Washington for educational correctional facility use and in accordance with
provisions of lawrelating to the disposal of Federal property, that part of the
real property, including al1improvements and related personal property thereon,
which was administered hy the Department of Justice, locatcd in Pierce County,
Washington, known as the former McNeil Island Federal Penitentiary. Such
transfer shall not include that part of McNeil Island comprising the wi.dlife
refuge area.
Sec. 7998. Within the funds made available under title III of this Act, the
military departments may use funds as necessary. but not to exceed $2,300,000,
to çarry out the provisions of section 430 oflitle 37, United States Code.
Sec. 799C. Within funds available under title III of this Act, the Department184 MlLITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
of Defense shall provide free mailing privilegesto memhers of the Armed Forces
of the United Stateirassigned to duty as part of the multinational peacekeeping
force in Lehanon and to memhers of the Armed Forces of the United States
assigned to duty in Grenada in the same manner and to the same extent such
privileges would be accorded under section 3401 of title 39, United States Code,
to memhers of the .4rmed Forces of the United States serving on active duty in
an overseas area, a! designated by the President, when the Armed Forces of the
United States are erigaged in military operations involving armed conflict with a
hostile foreign forcf:.
Sec.799D. None of the funds appropriated or othenvise made available under
this Act may he ;ivailable for any country during any three-month period
beginning on or afier November 1, 1983, immediately following a certification
hy the President to the Congress that the government of such country is failing
to take adequate nieasures to prevent narcotic drugs or other controlled suh-
stances (as listed iri the schedules in section 202 of the Comprehensive Drug
Abuse and Preventii~nControl Act of 1971(21 U.S.C. 812)), whichare cultivated,
produced, or processed illicitly, in whole or in part, in such country, or
transported through such country from heing sold illegallywithin the jurisdiction
of such country to United States Government personnel or their dependents or
from entering the United States unlawfully.
Sec.799E. Within funds available under title III of this Act, but not to exceed
$100,000,and under such regulations as the Secretary of Defensemay prescrihe,
the Department of Defense may, in addition to allowances currently available,
make payments for travel and transportation expenses of the surviving spouse,
children, parents, and brothers and sisters of any memher of the Armed Forces
of the United States, who dies as the result of an injury or disease incurred in
line of dutv to attend the funeral of such member in anv case in which the
i~nerdloisuch nicii~ber isniore lli.i?Ou mile, ironi thc residcn;~oiihc suri iving
~~OUIC. ~.h~lrlrcn.arent.: or hroihera aiid ibtcr,, if wcli ipiiuhc.ihildrcn. parcni,
or brothers and sisters, as the case may be, are financially unable to pay their
own travel and trarisportation expenses to attend the funeral of such member.
Sec.799F. (a) Not later than lune 1, 1984,the Officeof Federal Procurement
Policy (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Office") shall review the
procurement practis:es, regulations, and reform proposals and programs of the
Deoartment of Defense relatine to the orocurement of soare. .rts for weaoon
systems and shall transmit to the Congress a report on the findings, conclusions,
and recommendatir>ns of the office relating to such matters. The report shall
include (1) an evalriation of the ade.uac, of the reform ~ro~osalsandgr.gra-s
Io pronioie prd:ii;cj ;ilid ihc Jciclopiiieni oCd~reçl~!cjnilicl; UIIIilch~c\c;onlr.il
<> ct~sts.:c<>n<imya .nrl etli<iency in thc pr<>iiircmcniiiru:h >pare pari, and
(2) such recommeridations for legislation with respect to the procuÏement of
such spart parts as the officeconsiders appropriate.
(h) (1) The Secretary of Defense shall furnish to the officesuch information
on the practices, regulations, and reform proposals and programs of the
Department of Defense relating to the procurement of spare parts for weapon
systems as the Officeconsiders necessary to carry out suhsection (a).
(2) The lnspector General of the Department of Defense shall furnish to the
Office such information on the ~ractices of the De~artment of Defense in
procuring spare parts for weapon systems as the lnipector General acquires
during his audits of such practices and the Office considers necessary to carry
out suhsection (a).
(c)The Inspecta: General of the Department of Defense shall havereasonable
opportunity to review and comment on the report required by suhsection (a) EXHIBITS SUBMI'ITED BY NICARAGUA 185
before the report is transmitted to the Congress. The comments of the lnspeclor
General shall be includedin such report.
Sec.7996. It is the senseof the Congress that competition, which is necessary
to enhance innovation, eiïectiveness, and efficiency,and which has served our
Nation so well in other spheres of political and economic endcavour, should be
expanded and increased in the provision of Ournational defense.
Sec. 799H. Notwithstanding any other provision ofthirAct, no funds appro-
priated by this Act shall be expended for the research, development, test,
evaluation or procurement for integration of a nuclear warhead into the Joint
Tactical Missile System(JTACMS).
RELATEA DGENCIES
INTELLIGENCECOMMUSITY STAFF
For necessaryexpenses of the IntelligenceCommunity Staff; $17,323,000.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCEAGENCY RlTIREMEhT AND DlSABlLITY SYSTEU FUND
For payment to the Central Intelligence AgencyRetirement and Disability
System Fund, to maintain proper funding level for continuing the operation of
the Central lntelligence AgencyRetirement and Disability System; $86,300,000.
This Act may be cited as the "Department of Defense Appropriation Act,
1984".
Approved December 8, 1983
3. TITLE22, USCODE ,ECTION2422 AND TITLE 50,US CODE SECTION 413
Public Law 98-213[S. 5891;December 8, 1983
INSULAR AFFAIRS
For LegisluriveIlisrorof Acr, seePamphletNo. 9A
An Act to authorize $15,500,000for capital improvement projects on Guam,
and for other purposes.
Be il enociedhy rheSenaleand House ofRepresenralive sfihe UnitedSiares
(f Ainericain Congressas.scmhledT,hat section 1(a) (1) of Public Law 95-348
(92 Stat. 487) as amended by Public Law 97-357(96 Stat. 1705)is amendcd by
deleting the word "and" where il las1 appears, and inserting after the words
"fiscal year 1983", the words "and ettèctiveOctober 1, 1983,$15,500,000".
Sec. 2. Funds authoriîd to be appropriated for the construction of a
hydroelectric îacility in Ponape pursuant to section 101 of Public Law 96-205
(94 Stat. 84), as amended, may be appropriated directly to the Secretary of the
Army for expenditure by the Chief of Engineers on such construction.186 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
Sec. 3. (u) Section 205 (O) of Public Law 96-205,as amendcd by Public Law
96-597, is further amended by changing "1983." to "1985.".
(h)Section 205 (c) of Public Law 96-205(94 Stat. 87) is amended to read as
follows: "As provided in scction 602 of Public Law 94-241 (90 Stat. 263, 270)
the term 'rcbate of any taxes' shall, effectiveJanuary 1, 1985,apply only to the
extent taxes have ;ictually been paid pursuant to section 601 of said Act, shall
not exceed the amount of tax actually paid for any tax year, and may only be
paid following the close of the tax year involved. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, eiïectiveJanuary 1, 1985,the Commonwealth of the Northern
Marina Islands shall maintain, as a matter of public record, the name and
address of each person receivingsuch a rebate, together with the amount of the
rcbate, and the yezr for which such rebate was made."
(c)The Secretary of the lnterior and the Governor of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands shall each submit a report to the Committee on
lntcrior and lnsular Ail'airsof the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate on any efforts to develop any
needed modification of the income tax rates required bysections 601 and 602 of
the Covenant Io Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
in Political Union With the United States of America approved by Public Law
94-241 (90 Stat. 2153,269-270) to enforce such sections. The initial report shall
be transmitted not later than January 1, 1984,with subsequent reports 10 be
transmitted evcry three months thereafter until January 1, 1985. The reports
shall set forth the i>reciseobiectivesof both the Commonwealth -overnment and
ihe administration: an).arcai ofdifirencc. the modiliriti<insundcr con,idcraiion.
and whiit progrcis has been ni;ide io rcsolvr.an) dimerence.and implcment the
provisions of sections 601 and 602.
8 2422. Intelligenceactivities
No funds appropriatcd under the authority of this chapter or any other Act
may be expended by or on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency for
operations inforei,gncountries, other than activities intended solelyfor obtaining
necessaryintclligencc.unlessand until thc Presidentfindsthat each suchoueration
is important 10-th,:national security of the United States. Each such operation
shall be considered a significant anticipated intelligence activityfor the purpose
of section 413 of l'itle 50.
(As amended Pub.L. 96-450,Title IV, $407 (a),Oct. 14, 1980,94 Stat. 1981.)
TITLE50,UNITED STATEC SODES , ECTIO4N13
SUDCHAPlBR III - ACCOUNTABILITY FOR INTELLIGENCE ACTlVlTlES
$41 3.Congressional oversight
(a) Reports to C~~ngressionuClornmirleesof currenlandproposed uciiviries
To the extent consistent with al1applicable authorities and dulies, including
those conferred by the Constitution upon the executiveand legislativebranches EXHIBITS SURMI~ED BY NICARAGUA 187
of the Government, and to the entent consistent with due regard for the protection
from unauthorized disclosure of classified information and information relatine
to intelligence sources and methods, the Director of Central Intelligence and th:
heads of al1 departments, agencies, and other entities of the United States
involved in intelligence activitiesshall -
(1) keep the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the "intelligence committees") fully
and currently informed of al1intelligence activities which are the responsi-
bili.v of. are eneaeed in bv. or are carried out for or on behalf of. anv , ,
department, agenci or entiiy of the United States, including any significant
anticipated intelligence activity, except that (A) the foregoing provision shall
not reauire a~..oval of the intellieence committees as acondition nrecedent
io ihc :niti.ii~iidl .in!. \u:h ~~I~CI~.I~iC n.elligence s~tivit). and (111II ihï
I'rc\idïnt dcierrii~nïb III>c\>cnti.tl1~1Iimii prier notice 1,)nieci ï\iriior~l~ni~r~
circuni.i:inccs ,,iTc:tiri\ ii;il iiiterc,t, ,~ithe IlnitcJ St.iic~,>-ch noiic: ,hall
be limited to the chaiGan and ranking minority memhers of the intelligence
committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives,
and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate;
(2) furnish any information or matcrial concerning intelligence activities
which is in the possession, custody, or control of any department, agency,
or entity of the United States and which is requested by either of the
intell.gence committees in order to carrv out ils authorized res~onsibilities:
and
(3) report in a timely fashion to the intelligence committees any illegal
intelligence activity or significant intelligence failure and any corrective
action that has been taken or is plauned to he taken in connection with
such illegal activity or failure.
(b) Failurefoinforn~:reasons
The I'rciiilcni >h:illi;iIIyi~iforititlic intelligcncc :<immiitr.:~in i iinicl! f:ishioii
of i~itclltgcii~c<~pcraitiin>in iiircign :oiiniri:j. oihcr than :i~ti\iticr intendcd
\iilr.lvii~robi:iining ne,.cs\nry iiitclligcilic, icir ivhi.h prior n.>ti::\ws nui gibcn
unJcr riih\cctt<~n ('1 oi ihi.; ,:<!ion and 5h.illpr,i\,iJc:i$t.itcment the rcs\.,n.
Ilir not gii,ing prier n,>iicc
(c) Establishmentofproceduresfi,r relaying informarion
The President and the intelligence committees shall each establish such
procedures as may he necessary to carry out the provisions of suhsections (a)
and (b) of this section.
(d) Protectionfrom unauthorized disclosure
the' House of Representatives and the Scnatc, in consultation with the
Director of Central Intelligence, shall each establish, hy rule or resolution of
such House. procedures to Drotect from unauthorized disclosure al1 classified
information and al1 information relating to intelligence sources and methods
furnished to the intelligence committees or to Members of the Congress under
' So inoriginal.Subscc. (d) enactedwith a lower case "1"188 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
this section. In accordance with such procedures, each of the intelligence
committees shall oiomntlv cal1to the attention of its reswctive House. or ta anv
appropriate committee or committeesof its respective House, any matter relating
to intelligenceactivities requiring the attention of such House or such committee
(e) Consrrucrionofaurhoriry coiiferred
Nothine-in this char~er~shall beconstrued as authoritv to withhold information
from the intelligenr:ecommittees on the grounds that providing the information
ta the intelligence committees would constitute the unauthonzed disclosure of
classificdinfirmation or information relating ta intelligencesourcesand methods.
(July 26, 1947, c. 343, Tiile V, $501, as added Oct. 14, 1980,Pub.L. 96-450,
Title IV,5 407 (hl (l), 94 Stat. 1981.) EXHIBITS SUBMITI'ED BY NICARAGUA
Exhibit IV
STATEMEN OPSUNITBIS ITATEP SRESIDEN RTONALD REAGAN AND SENIOR
1. STATEMENTRELEASEU BK US CI~RAI. INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, APRIL 16,1984,AS
REPRINTEU IN THE NEW YORK TIMES,APRIL 17, 1984
2.REMARKSOl; USAMRASSADORIO THE UNITED NATIONSJSANB J.KIRKPATRICK IN
LWCHEON ADDRESSTO TllB AMBRICAN SOCIETYOF INTERNATIONAL LAW ,PRIL12,
1984,AS REPRIN'rIiII THE NEW YORKTIMSS,APRIL 13,1984
By Stuart Taylor, Jr., Special to The New York Times
Washington, April 12 - Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the chier United States delegate
to the United Nations, said today that the Government could no1 practice
"unilateral compliance" with rules of international law that its adversaries
violated with imnunitv.
She also told a group of more than 300 specialists in international law that
"to portray Nicaragua as a victim in the current situation isa complete, Onvellian
inversion of what2 actually happening in Central America".
In a speech to a joint luncheon of the American Society of International
Law and the Section of International Law and Practice of the Amcrican Bar
Association, Mrs. Kirkpatrick said the United States and friendly Central
American nations had a right to act in "individual and collective self-defense"
against Nicaraguan aggression.
Later today, the Ameriçan Society of International Law overwhelmingly
adooted a resolution that it "denlores and stronalv favors rescission of" the
Reagan Administration's eîiort io turn aside ~o;ld Court consideration of
Nicaragua's charges that the United States has directedlitary attacks against
it in violation of Tnternationai iaw
IMPATIENTAND UNILATERAL
Covey T. Oliver, the society's outgoing president, said it was the first vote
condemning an action of the United States Government in the 78-year history
of the society. The group, one of the nation's leading organizations of inter-
national lawyers, is holding its annual meeting here this week.
The motion, adopted by a voice vote, was favored by al1but a handful of the
roughly 100members, many or most of them professors, who voted. Mr. Oliver, who was Assistant Secretdry of State for Latin American Affairs
from 1967Io 1969.said after the vote that the Administration "has persistently
acted in an impatient and unilateral way in international organirations". He said
that if the Admini:;tration's policy was to engage in conduct "modeled on that
of the Soviet Union, then down that path lies madness".
Another supporter of the resolution, Detlev F. Vagts, a Harvard Law School
professor, said the group was motivated by a feeling that the Administration's
action was "a breach of faith Io the cornmitment we made in 1946" in joining
the World Court.
NICARAGUA ACCUSBI>
Mrs. Kirkpatricl: said that "Nicaragua is engaged in a continuing, determined
armed attack against its neighbors" and "has initiated the violation of inter-
national law through the use of violence against ils neighbors".
She said the rulr:sagainst use of military force in the United Nations charter
were no1 "a suicide pact", and suggested that violations by the Soviet Union,
Nicaragua and other nations required a response in kind.
"Unilateral compliance with the charter's principles of nonintervention and
nonuse of force may make sense in some specific, isolated instances", she said,
"but are hardly a sound basis for either US policy or for international peace
and stability".
Mrs. Kirkpatrick said that "the legalistic approach to international affairs"
was inadequate to cope with the realities of Communist aggression and suhver-
sion, but stopped short of saying that the United States should disregard
international law.
She also said that she was "of two minds" about submitting to World Court
jurisdiction on tht: Nicaragua question. She said other nations, including the
Soviet Union, had long defied the court, and Nicaragua was seeking to use it
"for blatantly propagandistic purposes".
The United States has declared that il will not accept the jurisdiction of the
World Court. fonnallv known as the International Court of Justice. in cases
conicrning Cciitritl,\nicric fdr thc licrt tiio )ars hlrs Kirkpütri-k >.ii<l1u.i)-
thirili oi the u.<~rl~'liti<insha\e noi ionwntcd ttihî lurirdictioii of thc 2oi.ri
at all.
In response to a questioner who asked why the United States did not submit
ils evidence and "have faith in the impartiality of the World Court", she said
the court's 15judges were chosen in a process "as nonpolitical as the General
Assembly itselr".
She said the General Assembly, along with other United Nations bodies,
applied a "double standard", judging the United States more harshly than
Marxist régimesthat considered themselves "exempt from the normal prohibitions
of international law". EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 191
3. INTERVIEW OF PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN BY THE NEW YORK TIMES,MARCH 28,
1984 (TRANSCRIP OT,PICEOP THE PRESS SECRETARY TO THE PRESIUEN MT,RCH 29,
1984)
Q: Why don't - I'd like to ask the final question about Central America,
Mr. President. 1 wonder if 1 could ask you to explain or justify how the United
Statescan go about assisting people who are, as you cal1them, freedom fighters
who are seeking to overthrow a government that we have diplomatic relations
with? And answer, if you could, critics who are worried that this is increasing
our involvement in Central America.
THE PRESIDENTW : ell. the answer to that is. first of all. this oarticular
government of ~icaragua is a government that wis set up by force of arms. The
people have never chosen it. It's a revolutionary government. And thar govern-
ment. in violation of it. ule-pe to us at a time when it was a revolutionarv force
trying io bcionic;igovcrnnieni, n,,d pro~iiircdihai ii suuld nor aiil the gucrrill.i\
in El SdIv.idiir ii..ire :ittcmptingI<<i\,crthro\3 dulv elc~tedgoicrnmcnt aiid
,lr.nii>ir;iiiçgincrnnicni. Anil ihcv ha\c iiolaicJ ihit. l'hcc~crrill~\arc 111craIl\
beine directe2 from bases near anaeu Tehuv're bei& sunolied hv thit
government. And, the other factor with regard, and why 1have iekerred to them
on occasion as "freedom fighters" is because many of them are elements of the
same revolution that put the Sandinista government in force.
The revolution against the Somozadictatorship - and our government, under
the previous administration, sat baçk and never lifted a finger in behalf of
Somoza. And then when the fighting was over, did start to give financial aid to
the revolutionary government, to help it install itself. And had to cancel that
when it discovered what that government was doing. During the revolution
against Somoza, the revolutionaries appealed to the Organization of American
States, of which we'rea member also. And appealed to that organization to ask
Somoza to stepdown and end the hloodshed. And the Organization of American
States asked for a statement of what were the goals of the revolution. And they
were provided: democracy, a pluralistic government, free elections, free labor
unions, freedom of the press, human rights obsewed - those were the goals of
the revolution, submitted in writing to the Organization of American States.
After they got in, they followed the pattern that was followed by Castro
in Cuba.
Those other elements that were not Sandinista. other er".os who wanted -
and they thought al1 the same thing, democracy - to rid themselves of a
dictatorship.Those elements were denied participation in the government. Arrests
were made: There were some who were eiiled. ~here were soie, I'm afraid, were
executed. And, many of the people now fighting as so-called. "contras" are
elements of the revolution. And it is less an overthrow that they're fightingfor
as it is a demand that thev be allowed to uarticiuate in the government and that
the g,i\ernmriit kczpit\ proniire*J, i<,wli;iith;iJ iiiicriJc~Jior th<,pc<iplc.
,\nJ I ~r. no di;h<~iom) in <>Ur.uppilrting the g.i\crnment. ihe dem<i~r,tti~,
xovcrnmcni of LI Sslvdd.,r. dnd ihc r,inir.i5 hcr- .inJ \ic'\c, m:~IIiil:iin io
Nicaragua - made it very plain that this will stop when they keep their promise
and restore a democratic rule. And have elections. Now, they've finally been
pressured, the pressure's led to them saying they'll have an election. 1 think
they've scheduledit for next November. But, there isn't anything yet to indicate
that that election will be anything but the kind of rubber-stamp that we see in
any totalitarian government. How do you have - there aren't any rival192 MILITAUYAND PARAMILITAUYACTIVITIES
candidates, there aren't any rivalparties, and how would they campaign without
a free press?
4.sTnrBMENT ISSIIBUON BEHALF OP PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN O,kTlCE OF THE
PRE:;SSECRETAUYTO THE PRESIDEN MT,UCH 8, 1984
March 8, 1984
The Pre%iJenttocay rzyucstcd the (:c>ngrcr,I<provide S?I inillionIIadJiii<iii.iI
fiinJ,n,: for fi,~..llvi..ir 1354for :icti$itic, ,>fthc Cenir:il Intr.lligcnceAgen:). '1hc
~-~uesi will ~rovidc:funds necessarv to continue certain activzies of the central
Int~ll~genccApcnc! nhich the Proidcnt h;is dctcrniincd .ire iniporl;ii~i IO ihc
n4ii<>nslrcciirity iifIIiç UiiilcJ St~ier. The dppropri:itc ioiiii1iitttr.s oi Ille
CL)IIC~L.hSs\i,c heeii ihor,-.~hlyhricfed on ihe\c clss~itiedacii\ itie. 2ivilhe
fullThriefed on thir;request.
-
............................
Q: Mr. Presiderit, regarding the recent rebel attacks on a Nicaraguan oil
depot, is it proper for the CIA to he involved in planning such attacks and
supplying equipmeiit for air raids? And do the American people have a right to
be informed about any CIA role?
THE PUESIDENT 1:think covert actions have been a part of government and a
part of government's responsibilities for as long as there has heen a government.
I'm not going to comment on what, if any, connection such activities might have
had with what has been going on, or with some of the specific operations
down there.
Bu<i do believe in the right of a country when it believesthat its inierests are
best served to practice covert activity and then, while your people may have a
right to know, you can't let your people know without letting the wrong people
know, those that aïe in opposition to what you're doing. EXHIBITS SUBMI~ED BY NICARAGUA 193
1 am delighted to he here this evening and to have the opportunity to speak
IO you.
Central America is closer to Baltimore than is California - in terms of
eeoeranhic distance. that is. But the intellectual distance hetween here and
Ccnir;il Amcri~aiscnurniuus Jlost uifhc Amcric.in pc.~plc;ire noi ivcllinljrnicJ
;iboui CcntrsxlAn,crx:s, mcx!,y ~grctn~~~nforn~c ,and bornearc ui.tr~ghicl~scl;~~nl'ul
about the cultural and sociaiim~ortance of this reeion
You :(Ilhd\c .in <~hlig:ition t,ircmcJy this ,iiu.itit,n, >.i ih.it yiju .inJ )<>Ur
rcprc>eni:iiii,esin C<~n$rc,b cin cng.igc in <i)n,iruîiii.c suppi)rt- or con,trucrii.e
criticism - of the Administration's policy.
To begin wifh,you should knowthat the President'spolicyfor Central America
has not yet heen given a chance to work: the hlocking votes in Congress have
denied the President the means to succeed.
Indeed, rnembers of Congress have involved themselvesin the management of
US policy for Central America more than for any other region of the world.
- While Congress has quickly and easily approved some four and a kalf billion
dollars in Security Assistance for nations in the Mediterranean region, it
slashed nearly in half the much smaller allocation for nations in the Caribhean
region - so much closer to home.
- While Congress has been generally supportive of the deployment of some
1,200 US Marines Io Lebanon, it fought fiercelyto limit the number of US
trainers in El Salvador to 55.
- While Congress kas not objected to large military exerçises in the faraway
Indian Ocean reei-.. manv members have heavilv criticizedthe recent militarv
cxr.rcisc, In the ne;irb! C.iribban region.
Whil: Cungr:ss ht.5 iur ,t lung iinic iiipportcd I1.iJio Frec Furupc, the linc
r;~~l~D.rozraiiiih;it hr111chilte trulli,,the .eonl. tet'E;i\tcri~Eurunc, nicii~hcr>
iiiCongrz>r h:!\c dcl.i)rd l'orlu<>!.e.irl 13rr.sidcniKcdg.in'srcquc\i i;~rKsJiii
\I.irti, a nciv raJi,~ ,talion ihai \i.dulJ hring ihc iruth 1.1the pcc>plcin Cuba
As we consult with members of Congress on these issues, we are often told
that, you, their constituents, are pressing such positions on them. But as we
review the public opinion polls, we discover an extraordinary lack of informa-
tion. For enamplc, in a recent New York TimeslCBS poll, only 8 percent of the
respondents knew, hoth for El Salvador and Nicaragua, whether the US was
supporting the government or the insurgents.
You mus1 help us overcome not only a lack of information, but also a great
deal of misinformation. This information is no1 accidental: it is the result of a
\i.cll-<~rgini/:il.ind iicll or<h:.ir<iiiil ci1.1ri A ?.ihrii,ili:iion h.is heen tighil)
uown tocun~e.il the e\ienti.il fiicts I.ct in: reiicri uith !JL ~onic,?i'tlie~efiaion,
Fiction has it that US influence in Central and Latin America has prevented
democratic development, that the spread of Leninist régimesisthe tide of history,
a natural process of social reform that we should not oppose. The fact is that
the trend toward democratization kas continued: among the 32 independent
states of Latin Arnerica and the Carihhean, 17 are now democratic. Since 1978,
five countries have made a peaceful transition from military régimesto elected
democratic governments. It is the much criticized military régimesthat arc often
transformed into a democracy ; but there has never yet been a Marxist-Leninist
régimethat was succeeded hy democracy.194 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
Another bit of fic:tion : that the Sandinista régimein Nicaragua would have
developed into a pluralistic democracy, had it not been for the US intervention.
The fact is that the Sandinistas, only a few weeks after they came into power,
reneged on their promise for early elections, began to attack the democratic
trade unions, and invited Cuban military and security personnel in steadily
growing numbers. kt, during the first 18 months of the Sandinista régime,the
United States ~roviiled more than $120 million in direct aid and endorsed over
S?2iirnilli.in ln Inrcr-,\mïri<an Dc\cltipmcni Bank .!id - nicircih.111i1icprcvious
S,I~<I/~rCgimcin !Ii<arigua haJ rc<ci\cJ irom th< I.'niicJ Sidi<>in ?II )c:ir>!
Cle.irl). iiiids nor CS intcrflrcii:: ihar Jroie ihc S.inJinisi, iu link LIU wiih
Fidel Castro - unk:ss economic aid is regarded as "interference".
Another piece of fiction is the charge that the Reagan Administration is
"militarizing" the problems of Central America and is bringing the East-West
conflict to the region. Well, the East is already here. The Soviets are giving ten
times as much military assistance to Cuba and Nicaragua as we are providing
to al1 of Latin Amrrica. And Soviet military advisors in Cuba and Nicaragua
outnumber US military advisors in the Caribhean region twenty to one.
Since Coneress is so deenlv involved in our dav-Io-dav nolicv towards Central
-. >
America, ou;key otijectivis need to be clear to tic American people. Moreover,
Congress must shaie with the Administration an understanding of our basic
strategy.
On one thine ue can al1aereeu We do not want the United States to fail. We
must succeed.
But what is it we would liketo see happen, and what do we want to prevent?
We have wide aereement. 1believe. that the United States favors a continuation
and strengtheniig of thetrend toward open, genuine democracy. And we favor
social and economic: hetterment for the people in Central America, a region so
close to us. - ~
Equally importar~t is what we want to prevent. We want Io prevent the
expansion of totalitarian régimes - particularly Leninist ones, since they will
import Stalinist police systems, bring in Soviet arms, and even invited Soviet
military bases. Theri: are two more reasons why Leninist régimesare particularly
dangerous: once entrenched, they tend to become irrcversible, and they usually
seek to export their totalitarianism to other nations.
Given these objectives, what should he our strategy?
1
First, we want to help build the road toward democracy and economic
development. In the end, the people in eachcountry will have to make their own
choices. They can s\icceed only through their own dedicated efiort. But we can
help, through advicc and influence, by facilitating trade, and by giving aid. The
Caribhean Basin Initiative of the Reagan Administration (to which Congress
has now agreed) is i-ighton target. So are our efforts in El Salvador in bchalf of
elections and for improvements in the judicial system.
Also, we are using diplomacy to help the government of El Salvador win over
those who are williiig to abandon violence and compete in elections, provided
they can he assured of safe and fair participation. But we must not underestimate
our adversaries. The hard core among the insurgents will never settle for a fair
democratic process. We can no more negotiate an acceptable political solution EXHIBITS SUBMITTEU BY NICARAGUA 195
with these people than the social democrats in revolutionary Russia could have
talked Lenin into giving up totalitarian Bolshevism.
This leads us to the second requirement. As SecretaryShultz recently explained,
the guerrillas in El Salvador have used a "rule or ruin" strategy: thcy seek to
destroy economic assets faster than our aid can restore them. You cannot have
economic development in a nation, if guerrilla forces keep blowing up bridges,
power lines, school buildings, buses . . You have to defeat these "rule or ruin"
forces militarily. This is the purpose for our niilitary assistance.
Every so often the critics of the Administration proclaim - with accusatory
connotation - that we seek a "military solution" in El Salvador. If a "military
solution" means putting primary emphasis on military assistance and military
means, then it is more factual to accuse the Reagan Administration of seeking
an "economic solution", sincethree dollars out of four in the requested assistance
programs are for economic aid.
What we seck to do is to open the doors to democracy and close the doors to
violence. But we have to use military means against those who insist - till they
have imposed their rule - on using violence.
Let me make this clear to you:
- We do not seek a military defeat for our friends.
- We do not seck a military stalemate.
- We seek victory for the forces of democracy.
And that victory has two components:
One: defeating militarily those organized forces of violencethat refuse to
accept the democratic will of the people.
Two: estahlishing an adequate interna1 system for justice and personal
security.
At this point, let us recall our first agreed principle: We do not want the
United States to fail. Hence. we must allocate sufficient means ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~we ~ ~
succeed. As long as a group in Congress keeps crippling the President's military
assistance program, we will have a policy.alway~ shy o~ succ~ss.We will remain
locked inti a Protracted failure.
This the American people should not tolerate. If we are merely involved to
fail, then we should not be involved a1 all.
The resources needed to succeed are small compared to Our investment for
securitv in other reeions of the world. Once those in Coneress who are now
hlocki& adequate assistance give us the mcans to succeed,-the capability and
determination of the United States will hecome clear. This will make the Soviet
Union more cautious, which in turn will help our success. On the other hand, if
we signal that we are afraid of victory over the forces of violence, if we signal
that we have opted for protracted failure, we will only encourage the Soviets to
redouble their eîiort. We will he inviting ever-increasing difficulties.
III
The third requirement of US strategy for Central America is least well
understood. WC should seek to prevent the partition of Central America, a
division of this region into two spheres, one linked to the Soviet bloc and onelinked to the United States. Such a ~artition would inexorablv lead to a hostile
c~lnfr~rit~llori1'13r.'em11113q Lirie~. a~.onlhintol,<inIhdt ;<iulil1.14 liir ~Iciii.lcj
\\'cc.<nsr. h<ou :iich a c,?ofroi~tacionu0ri.s. ai uc lot>!. Ciiha. During ihr
24 vear, <iiihs Castro di:t.ii<>rrhir>ihilc ihc ii~nd~riloi II\ine detcrior.iicil and
human rights were widely violated, Cuha huilt up a large mili&ry establishment.
1t has the second largest army in Latin America (second only to Brazil), it has
some 200 MIG fighter aircraft, submarines, 6,000 to 8,000 Soviet advisors, and
several Soviet intellieence installations. In addition..C-~~~~ has~sent some 30 to
40 thousand troops ahroad to provide the mercenary forces to protect the Soviet
imperial outposts. As a result of the militarization of Cuba, our sealines to
NATO are now seriouslv threatened.
The Sandinista régimiin Nicaragua is determined to create a "second Cuha"
in Central America. Ever since they seized power, the Sandinistas embarked on
a major military b~iildup.Today, they have a much larger army than Somoza
ever had, and they have enpressed the intention to build the largest force in
Central America. Nicaragua is building new military airfields, and is importing
Soviet tanks, helicopters, armored vehicles, and other equipment.
This "second Cuba" in Nicaragua would be more dangerous than Castro's
Cuba since it shares hard to defend borders with Honduras and Costa Rica. The
Sandinistas have already started terrorist activities in both these countries. In
addition, Nicaragua provides essential support for the insurgency in El Salvador.
Even after the irisurgency in El Salvador has been brought under control,
Nicaragua - if it <:ontinuedon its present course - would he the bridgehead
and arsenal for insurgency for Central America. And once the Sandinistas have
acquired the military strength that tbey have long been planning for, they might
well usethat strength for direct attacks on their neighbors to help speed up the
"revolution without frontiers" that they promised us.
At that time, the only way to help protect the democracies might he for the
United States to place forward deployed forces in these countries, as in Korea
or West Germany. Clearly, we must prevent such a partition of Central America.
. . .In the Democrats response to President Reagan's April 27 address on
Central Amenca to a Joint Session of Congress, Senator Dodd said: "We will
oppose the establishment of Marxist Statesin Central America." Yet, a majority
in the House of Representatives has done exactly the opposite. It voted to oppose
US assistance to those who oppose the establishment of a Marxist state in
Nicaragua. That is to say, a blocking majority in the House, in eiïect, voted to
establish a sanctuary for the Sandinistas.
Congressional legislation to deny US support to the democratic resistance
forces in Nicaragua would turn Nicaragua into a sanctuary from which the
nations of Central America could be safely attacked, but in which US supported
forces could not operate. This would enahle the promoters of totalitarianism -
while being supplieii and replenished hy Cuha and the Soviet bloc - to attack
neighboring countries indefinitely, and always with impunity. Hence, it would
deprive the Marxist groups in El Salvador of any incentive to compromise.
Indeed, if such legislation were passed, the Sandinistas and Cuhans might well
find it safe to increase their assistance to the insurgents in El Salvador and to
step up the destahilization of Honduras and Costa Rica. This, after all, would
he fully consistent with their presently declared objectives; and the guaranteed
sanctuary would rerider such escalation almost risk-free.
The psychological impact from cutting off US assistance to the Nicaraguan
resistance forces fighting for democracy in their native land would he severe.
Such a cut off wouid signal throughout the region that the totalitarian Leninist
forces represent thc: winning side. The democratic forces would have cause to EXHIBITS SUBMITTEO BY NICAMGUA 197
despair. They would see that terrorist and insurgent attacks against them are
being generously supported by Cuba and the Soviet bloc, and that these attacks
could be conducted from safe havens that would be protected by the US
Congress, in etïect, from al1 counter-interference. Conversely, the totalitarian
Leninist force would know that as soon as they seize control of a country, they
will be secure: Cuba and the Soviet bloc will help them maintain an efficient
police machinery to repress the people; and should any group arise to fight for
freedom, the United States Congress would have denied it al1support.
~~~-~ ~ r~~~~~~~~
Our basic objectives for Central Amenca are clear :we want to strengthen
democracy: we want to prevent in this hemisphere the expansion of totalitarian
réeimes.e&eciallv those'linked to the Soviet union
'Iothii end. iir'ertcnd economic support anil pr,irniitc~cm~lcrdticdc\ci~ipnicilt.
Huigi\.cn L~rccs .ii i,ilcncethai \ilIniit acccpr iltedeniocr~tic\iIIIoi [hepeople.
we dso have to provide military assistance 1 enough to succeed. In addition,
we must prevent consolidation of a Sandinista régime inNicaragua that would
become an arsenal for insurgency, a safe haven for the export of violence. If we
cannot prevent that, we have to anticipate the partition of Central America.
Such a development would then force us to man a new military front-line of the
East-West conflict, right here on our continent.
To prevent such an outcome, the Administration and Congress must work
together with a strategy that can succeed.
7. REMARKS OP PRESIDENT RONALD EAGAN IN INTERVIEW WLTII REPORTERSMAY 5,
1983(TMNSCRIPT OFFICE OF THE PRESSSECRETARYTO THE PRESIDENT)
Q: MI. President, moving on to another topic, before this session began, you
asked whv vou should not he scoldine Memhers of the House committee that
\,iicd !cr;c;d.iy ta stop funJin< for o\:rt oper.itioni .ig.iin\i Niciragus. Il<>!ou
rc~lli,\CL.ans cr..inrcqLenicroi tli;iaction ! I>,iesth;ii iote stop \ou froiii doing
anything, orhinder anything your administration is doing?
THEPRESIDENT It:is in a committee. And there is the'Senate yet to go on this.
And 1would hope that, maybe, we could do better there.
It, also, had an element in it that looked at partisanship, since the vote was
on straight party lines. And 1do not helieve that that reflects the thinking of a
great many Democrats, because many of them spoke up right after my speech.
Q: Does this vote indicate that you failed in your objectives in that speech?
THE PRESIDENT N:O,as 1say, because 1know that there are still a great many
Democrats who have been quite outspoken, including some of the leadership in
the House of their party, in support of what 1 had proposed - of making this
a hipartisan approach, and even being critiçal of some of their members who
did seem to sound partisan.
The thing that needs telling about this whole situation in Nicaragua - 1198 M~LITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
thought 1 had covered this suhject but, maybe, 1 did iiot cover it enough the
other night. And t3at is that, right now, these forces that have risen up in
opposition to the Szindinistagovernment are - under what you might say is a
sort of a group - a controlling body that formed in the northern part of
Nicaragua. There are about seven leading members to this kind of committee.
Most of them were former anti-Somoza people. They are people who simply
want this government of Nicaragua to keep its promises.
If you remember, the Organization of American States asked Somoza to resign
at that time. And Somoza, hia reply to them was that if it would benefit his
country, Nicaragua, he would. And he did resign.
The Organization of A~nericanStates also gave four points to the Sandinistas
that thev. the Oreanization of American States. would suooor..them if their eoal
tids ihcsc i;iur thing,: Oi prom<>iing<Icni,>,rir). .il'ininir.ili.iir.clc~tions .if
c,,nrcrii ior hiim;in :ighis and theS;iiidinisi.isaccr.Jcd itli~rand \JIJ \c\, iliosc.
were their goals andthey would keep those four provisions or promises. And
they haven't. They rievermade an effort to keep them. They violated al1of them.
Now, this is what makes me say that there's a great hypocrisy there of the
Sandinista governm8:ntprotesting what is happening in its own country and from
people who were once a part of its own revolution at the same time that they
are supporting people in another country who are seeking to overthrow a duly
elected government of the people.
Q: Mr. Presidenl., you - in referring to these groups, you seem to suggest
that these groups are seeking a change in Nicaragua itself. And how does that
statement square with your saying that we're not violating the law in aiding
groups who seek thi: overthrow of the Nicaraguan governnient?
THE PRESIDENT W: ell, do they? Or are they asking thdt government - or that
revolution of which they themselves were a part - asking it to go back to its
revolutionary promises and keep faith with the revolution that the people of
Nicaragua supported.
Many of these people are businessmen whose businesses havebeen taken over.
They are farmers whose land was seized hy this government, fanners whose
crops were - they were forced to seIl them to the government at less than the
cos1of production. And they're protesting this violation of what had made them
support the revolution to hegin with.
But the whole piirpose of the Sandinista government seems to be not only
with El Salvador hut the export of revolution to their other neighbors, to
countries that are ;ilready democracies. Honduras has taken that step; Costa
Rica, the oldest deinocracy of all. And al1 of them are plagued by radicals in
their midst who are encouraged by the Sandinista government.
Q: MI. President, 1'4 like to go back to what the committee actually did
vesterdav in votine the cutoff. CTA Director Casev is reoorted to have said it
;~,>LIJ IC:~ io hT<iodh.iihior ihr. gur.rrill.iin ri^;th< &unir). I>,, )C>L .iprr.r.
ii~ththir !And hot. br.ri<>u\l(vIo "ou t~kc ah~i rhc c,>mniiitccdocs ' Hotr b.ick
rio~1.l 11h: iiihat <uioil~>ico\cri aiil acnt ihri>ughl
THEPRESIDENTW : ell, I'm sayingif - well, if that became the policy, 1think
it would set a very dangerous precedent. The executive branch of government
and the Congress h.is a shared responsibility, as 1 pointed out in my speech, for
foreign policy. And we have - we each have a place in formulating foreign
policy, but we eacti have a responsibility also. And 1 think that what 1 said
about this was that it was very irresponsible. And it was - it literally was
taking away the ability of the executive branch to carry out its constitutional
responsibilities. EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 199
Q: Do you helieve that it would lead to the bloodbath that the CIA Director
talked about?
THBPRESIUENTW : ell, 1 haven't heard his entire remark in connection with
that term or how he descrihed it or what he ineant with it. 1'11make it a noint
Io find out. 1 once used a hloodbath term as Governor of California, and one
individual reversed it in the press and had it saying the opposite of what 1 had
intended it to say and 1never did quite get the situation cieared up.
Q: Well, what - 1 don't understand. What's wrong with the committee's
position? What difference does it make if instead of giving covert aid to the
guerrillas in Nicaragua, you give overt aid to the countries of El Salvador and
Honduras to stop the flow of weapons through their countries, which is what
you say you want in the first place? What's wrong with that?
THEPRESIDENTE:xcept then the only help that you can give is through other
governmeuts. And 1don't think that - 1don't think that's an effectivething to
do, and how do you know that the other governments would want to themselves,
then, participate in helping the people that need the help? ln other words, we'd
be asking some other government to do what our own - what Our Congres-
sional - or OurCongress has said that we can't do.
Q: Many memhers of the administration say that our commitment must be,
in El Salvador, must be a sustained one and that it could take seven to ten years
to turn things around. 1think Ambassador Hinton suggested as much recently.
1sthat your view?
THEPRPSIDENT1: think that he, 1 may be wrong, but 1 think that when he
made that statement he was talking with regard to a more limited way that we
have been trying to perform there. 1know that guerrilla wars - that time is on
the side of the guerrillas, and they aren't something that is instantly resolved,
just as terrorism isn'tsomething that can he curbed just by normal police actions.
These are very difficult things. The hit-and-ruu tactics of guerrillas are similar to
terrorist activities. It's, 1 suppose, hased on an extension of the same principle
that you can't ever totally eliminate crime.
Q: But do you think if the, if this aid package were approved hy Congress,
that it would he sufficient to turn things around there this year? Your own
proposal calls for less aid next year, and it seems to suggest that this surge of
aid would do the trick.
THEPRESIDENTW : ell, the surge we'reasking for right now is a restoration of
what we asked for in the first place. And, as 1 say, it's hetter than two to one
economic aid. The vroblem with a country like El Salvadorand what its nrohlems
are right now that ;equires military aid in the sense of more training, si far only
having trained one-tenth of the army -more training that we could offer, more
military supplies and ammunition and so forth - we must do is, when you've
got a government that is trying to reverse the course, the history, of the country
and bring about democracy and human rights and things of that kind, and you
have guerrillas that are making it impossible to function, or for those programs
to function, what good does it do to have a land rcform program and give land
to the peasants if the peasants can't go out and work the land for fear of being
shot by the guerrillas? What good does it do to try and improve the economic
standards of a people if they're out of work simply because someone kas shut
off the power and the factory çan't operate or transportation has broken downsu that the supplie:; that are needed and the products from whatever they're
workiug on cannot hc transported, because of the bridges and su forth that are
blown up.
When a third of one area of the country - a third of the year, they were
totally without power, then you have tu Say, "If we're going to make this
economic improvenient work, we'vegui to stop that conflict". We have to stop
those people that are preventing the economy from moving with their firearms
and their murders and su forth.
And this is what. it seems, that sometimes the debdte in the Congress, they
seem to he ignoring.
Q: Mr. President, can 1 follow up on something you said earlier? Did 1
understand you tu say that if you were forced tu stop aid tu the Nicaraguan
guerrillas, that you would try tu funnel through other countries?
THEPRESIDENTN :o, 1 was ~dyingthat's what the Committee said, that the
Committee said we would have tu go overt, and, then, in going overt, you can
only give money tu another government. And, if you did that, then you would
have tu be depending on - well, mayhe those other governments in Central
America would givc that money to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua.
Now, if they want to tell us that we can give money and do the same things
we'vebeen doing -- money, giving, providing suhsistence and su forth tu these
people directly and making it overt instcad of covcrt - that's al1right with me.
1 iust don't want the restrictions out on it that t.ev m-.ht out on.
Q: You'd be willing tu accept thc idca of overt aid tu the anti-Saudinista
guerrillas in Nicaragua'!
THEPR~SIUENTY :es, but not if thcy do il as one individual or more than one,
as suggested on the Hill - thal they would do it and, then, we would have tu
enforce restrictions on the freedom fighters as tu what tactics they could use.
And 1have said that if wewere tu do that, then 1would expect that the only
fair thinu would bi: that the Nicaraeu-n eovurnment would itself im~ose the
carne re\iri~.iionsor1ihc frccdum lighters in El S<il\ddor.only I don'! ~"ilthetii
freedoin fighicrs hea:liurethsy'vc gui freedoni and thcy'rc fighting I;>r\~irncihing
elre I'hcy'relighliiig for a rcstrdint on lrccJ<~m.
Q: Can 1jus1 - All of a sudden now we'reaiding freedom fighters. 1 thought
we werejus1 interdicting supplies into -
THE PR ES IDE^:I iust used the words. 1cuess. "freedom fichters" hecause the
fact that we know that the thing that brought those people together is the desire,
as 1 said, for the same revolutionary principles that they once fought and have
been hetrayed in. As 1Say, they have-made it plain. rhéy want what they once
fought heside the Sandinistas tu gel. And they havebeen hetrayed. And 1thought
that the use of freedom fighters was because - 1found out that il seems as if
there is a kind of a hias in the ireaiment of guerrilla fighters. It depends on what
kind of a government they are opposing. And some are treated more kindly
than others.
Now, 1 think the unes in El Salvador who are fighting against an elected
government, they are guerrillas. But in reality, when we talk about Nicaragua
and everyone says, "the government in Nicaragua", well, it was a govemment
out of the barre1 of a gun. And, true, we favored it before 1go1 here. We did
not lift a hand for the cxisting government of Nicaragua, bccause we did no1
believe that it was treatinn its ~eoole fairlv.
And here was a ri:volut&n that iook that seeniedtu express al1the things
that we al1 believe in. Well now, they have not carried out those things. And EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 201
they are there by force. And what really - other than being in control of the
capital, you might say, and having a handle on al1 the levers - what makes
them anymore a legitimate government than the people of Nicaragua who are
asking for a chance to vote for the kind of government they want?
THEPRESS:Thank you, Mr. President.
8. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DOCUMENT ON POLlCY IN CENTRAL AhERICA AND
CUBAA , pnrL1982,AS REPRINTED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES. APRIL 7, 1983
Washington,April 6 - Folloivingis the rexr of a NarionrrlSecuriry Council
documenr,"US Policyin CentralAmerica andCuba Through F Y '84, Summary
Paper", on a meetingof ihe NarionalSecuriry PlanningCroupin April 1982:
1. INTEREST ASD OBII~CT~VES
We have an interest in creating and supporting democratic states in Central
America capable of conducting their political and economic apairs free from
outside interferences. Strategically, we have a virtual interest in not allowing the
proliferation of Cuba-model states which wouldprovide platforms for subversion,
compromise vital sea lanes and post a direct military threat at or near Our
horders. This would undercut us globally and create economic dislocation and a
resultant influx to the US of illegal immigrants. In the short mn we must work
to re-eliminate Cuban/Soviet influence in the region, and in the long run we
must huild politically stable governments able to withstand such influences.
II. THE C~RRENT SITUATION
The deterioration in Our position so evident 6 to 12 months ago has been
halted. Political developments in the region have heen positive. The elections in
Honduras, Costa Rica and El Salvador provided a strong contrast to an
increasinglytotalitarian Nicaragua and have stalled the public alïairs momentum
and the political program of the extreme left. In Guatemala the recent junior
officer coup kas given us new possibilities for working out an improved
relationship with that country. The minicoup in Panama has hrought to power
a new, more dynamic and more pro-US national guard commander. Regional
cooperation among democraticstates has improved, as isevident hy the formation
of the Central American Democratic Community.
Militarily, the situation has improved in El Salvador, where any prospect of a
near-term military victory hy the F.M.L.N. has been foreclosed and the
Salvadoran forceshave shown imoroved caoabilities. Ree-onal interdiction efforts
hx\c h~mpcrcd hui niit ,ii>ppcJ &ucrrilllircsupply :tt;~ri, '1he Gu:iicni.il:i cdup
nici!.i;iiisc suiiie :rusion in ihc G~~crii~iisinii1ii:irywp~hiliiicr hiiiiithe
I.>iirun. ii ihc (;<>icrnmcni ir.,hl< io .iJJrc,r prohlcm\ ,>ltici.ilii,~lcnii
mai prove more effectivein carrying out an actke counterinsurgency. In Nica-
ragua, the Sandinistas are under increased pressure as a result of Our covert
efforts and because of the poor state of their economy. For the first time the
Sandinistas have cause to doubt whether they çan export subversion with
impunity.202 MtI.ITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTlVlTlES
But serious protlems remain:
- Guerrilla striznnth in El Salvador and Guatemala remains at 4-5,000 in
each countrv.
- There'is a diingerous lack of political consensus in both El Salvador and
Guatemala, which could lead to political disintegration. Continued political,
social and institutiînal reforms must he pursued.
- We continue to have serious difficultieswith US public and Congressional
opinion, which jeopardiaes our ability to stay the course. International opinion,
particularly in Europe and Mexico, continues to work against our policies.
- Cuba and Nicaragua retain the ability to continue or even increase their
support for insurl;encies and terrorist groups, particularly in Honduras and
Costa Rica, where their activities are increasing. Panama could become a target.
- Mexico continues public and covert support for the extreme left with
propaganda, funds and political support.
-The P.L.O. and Libya continue their military and financial support for the
extreme left.
- The regional economic situation continues to deteriorate, causing social
and political dislo<:ationswhich impede Ourefforts to stabilize the situation.
Our current strategy consists of building a sustained and effectivecommitment
to the region hy:
- lmproving the military capabilities of the democratic states to counter
subversion hy the cxtreme left.
- Improving the economic situation through direct economic assistance and
the C.B.1.package.
- Assisting directly in the regional interdiction and intelligence collection
-..-.. .
- lncreasing the pressure on Nicaragua and Cuba to increase for them the
costs of interventionism.
- Building dernocratic political institutions capable of achieving domestic
political support.
- Pursuing reform programs to correct severesocialdislocations wbich foment
and aid insurgency.
- Stimulating regional cooperation among democratic states to provide a
hasis for collective security action through the O.A.S., Rio Treaty and the
C.A-D.Addressing the public affairs dimension of the Central American problem
hy a concerted public information effort.
- Co-opting cut-and-run negotiation strategies by demonstrating a reasonahle
but firm approach to negotiations and compromise on our terms.
Most, but not all, the elements necessary to implement this strategy are in place.
Where we stand hy the end of FY 1984will depend on a number of assump
tions. We have indicated six situations. Situation 1 outlined helow is deemed
to be the most probable set of assumptions and outcomes. Situations 2 through
6 are annexed to this paper.Situation 1(Likely Case)
Assumprions
(1) Resource availability at $1 billion of economic and military assistance a
year for the Caribbean Basin.
(2) Significant covert cfl'ortas approved in N.S.D.D. 17 and other existing
authorities.
(3) No US troops introduced and no significant increase in US trainers.
(4) lncremental increase inCuban and Nicaraguan effort. No major qualitative
changes in types of support.
(5) lncreasing efictiveness of the arms interdiction eKort but substantial arms
continue to gel through.
(6) Gradual upturn in world economy with resulting improvement in balance
of payments and domestic sconomies in the Basins.
Regional
- Cuban/Nicaraguan inlluence is slowly reduccd.
- The region strcngthens economically.
- Ree"onal milita~ ,an~ ~ ~elliee-ce coooeration amone the-democratic
countries improvcs.
- Democratic structures are strengthened in a number of countries
The C.A.D.C. develoos as a sirnificant multilateral actor.
-wi~e ~~ ~~-ional con'fidencein our favor.
El Salvador - Armed forces improve. putting guerrillas increasingly on the
defensive, but ruerriIlas continue to have significantcapability. lncreased friction
between guerAla groups and guerrilla supporters. A ~ational Assembly and
presidential elections in 1983. Slow but finite reduction in political and/or
indiscriminate violence. US public opinion problems continue in cyclical pattern
tri--ered bv six-month certification and by 1984US elections.
Nicaragua - Nicaragua's isolation increases.
Guatemala - Depending on stability of the rcgion, situation could improve
substantially (sec issues fordecision)
Honduras and Costa Rica - Low-level insurgency remains under control.
Senous economic problems create social tensions. . .
Policy/n~plicorion.v
A. Continue pursuit of strategy outlined in Section III above. Consistency
and sticking power are the keys.
B. Maintain funding levels at $1 billion per year for Basin (economic and
military). This will require a $250-300 million supplemental in F.Y. '83 and
active pursuit of theF.Y. '82supplementals.
C. Make major effort to obtain Congressional approval of F.Y. '82Caribbean
Basin and Security Assistance supplementals to help alleviate critical short-term
economic oroblerns in the reeion. to orevent militarv set-backs in El Salvador
between nAwand October and to assure continued cooperation [rom Honduras.
D. If Guatemala situation continues to improve we willneed some additional
resources beyond those levels for economic and security and intelligence
assistance.
E. Carry out al1N.S.D.D. 17 November 1981decisions.204 MILITARY ANI> PARAMILITARY aCTlVlTlES
F. Further upgrade US intelligence collectionand improve interna1intelligence
caoabilities in couiltries of the reeion.
'C. Substantiall! upgradc qual;ty of political and cc,?nornicunderstandmg of
ihc rcgion ihrough augmeniatiori of pcrionncl as\igned ti)thoie funciinni
1. Improrc put*licinformaiion elfort ubing thcm<.souilined in Slate Ikpÿrl-
ment pakr. ~lioc;iie necessary personnel resources.
1. Adopt more active diplomatic campaign to turn around Mexico and Social
Democrats in Europe. In the meantirne keep them isolated in Central American
issues and highlight positive support from Christian Democratic Parties and free
trade unions.
J HuilJ publii presrurc ag~iinstCub:i hy highlighting human and puliiiçal
righis issue use Ii~tcrnationalCuban conimunit) ICIwrry ihc nicsr.igc
K. Stcn un mili:ory training ciTiirisin remo- wiih rmphli.ir on muliilxierali-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~cr~ ~.~sible-and oroductive.
1. Inzrcasccz,,nuniic pro>urc rirCiibii.(C'ori~idcr~tion to bcgi\,cnIO q.i:intiini
tirhienine. of ccondniic cnibargo bv rtronpcr ristrictisnr on Cubaii ioiitciit froiii
M. Step up éforts Io CO-optnegotiators . . .
N. Continue to build C.A.D.C. capabilities.
O. lnstitute eflorts to increase factional strife among guerrilla groups.
P. Push for niajor amnesty program in El Salvador and Guatemala and
publicized inforniant programs in Costa Rica and Honduras. Make concerted
effort to exacerbat: factional strife in extreme left.
As noted in Section II1 above, the key elements of Our policy are in place.
However, the following additional issues should be addressed:
A. Rerource Levels (F.Y. '82): The Situation 1 scenario outlined above is
~ ~ ~~ ~
prcdicatcd on a rcsouri; iommilkcnt Icvclul'one billloriJull;irs pcr yedr ihrough
(and prohahly hc)ondJ f Y 'b4 Thc F.S '82 progrdm Io include <ccurityand
cconomiç :issistancc. CI3 I and sccuritv su~olcn~cnials and ihc usc of SOU
authority will total about one billion doilars: if the supplemental requesls are
not approved our programs will be seriouslyjeopardized.
Decision: To make a maximum elfort under White House direction to obtain
Congressional approval for these supplemental requests.
B. Resource Levels (F.Y. '83): Our F.Y. '83 budget request will fall about
$300million short of the one billion level (in 1982dollars).
No decision is needed now but early in F.Y. '83the funding shortfall problem
will have to be addressed.
C. Resource Leiel (personnel) :Vitalpolitical,military and economic reporting
from Central Amcrica kas been seriously constrained by a lack of personnel
resources.
Ilcciiion :Thai ihc globdl cciliiigon pcrionncl strciigth in the Statc Dcp~rtnicnt
hç in~rwscd h) 3i positi<ins(abwe 1:Y. '82wpplcincnt~l and l'.S. '83budget
Icvelrj to nro\idc addilional reyourcc, to thc puhlid inf,>rmiiiionetT<~ratnd to
augment political and economic reporting in the region. Similarly, that D.O.D.
resources in the area be reviewed for adequacy and augmented as necessary. EXHIBITS SUBMITTEU BY NICARAGUA 205
D. Resource Levels(Guatemala): Additional F.Y. '82and F.Y. '83 assistance
will be needed to demonstrate support for the new Government and to assist it
..
in dealing with its insurgency.
Decision: That up to $50,000 in IMET be reprogrammed to Guatemala in
F.Y. 1982. That F.M.S. cash sales to Guatemala be authorized immediately.
That up to $10 million in F.M.S. credits be reprogrammed to Guatemala in
F.Y. '83.
E. Resource Levels (Guatemala - Interdiction): Immediate steps are needed
to implement an arms interdiction program in Guatemala as provided by the
9 March 1981Presidential Finding on Central America.
Decision: that the Central Intelligence Agency'sauthority under the 9 March
1981 Presidential Finding be increased from $19.5 million to $22.0 million in
order that an expanded program in Guatemala be initiated this fiscalyear. These
funds should be obtained, ifpossible, fromthe C.I.A.'s Reserve for Contingencies.
F. Intelligence Efforts:Despite major improvements in collection, much more
needs to be donc.
Decision: That D.O.D. and C.I.A. be tasked with further improvements in
intelligence collection efforts in the region with an emphasis on the development
of intelligence capahilities in each of the democratic countries of the region.
G. Public and Congressional Information: Further improvements are needed.
Decision :That, under the auspices of the Whitc House, the public information
effort be augmented and targetted on improving communication with the Con-
gress and with opinion leaders.
H. N.S.D.D. 17: Not al1provisions of N.S.D.D. 17 have been implemented.
Decision: To reaffirm the continued validity of N.S.D.D. 17 and task full
implementation thereof.
9. TESTIMONYOF FORMER SECREiARY OF STATEALEXANDER M. HAIG. IR..BEFORETHE
COUMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS U SHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV 97E1S,CONGRES,
1STSESSION NOVEMBER 12, 1981
MR. STUDDSI: couldn't possibly support anything that sounds that multisylla-
hic and horrible, no.
Secretary HAIG:That is the first real compliment 1 have had from you.
MR. STUDDSL :et me ask vou this. havine failed with that one. As vou know.
rumors pcr,iri throughoui <:.enir~l/\incri:; 1Ii::ihr.riiilit.iin llun~urds ma!
mit permit the elect~<>nt>h;ii .<rerchr.itulr'<iili;icoiintr) i<irUincmhtr 2') 1%)
he hcld or ihxl thev riiisli!lut a4n,.t~<~tie rtwlt5 (nithc1.eeIe~.tl~~ns.
The United ~tatés,Gite properly in my judgment, supports those elections.
Are you willing, as Secretary of State, to say that in the event that the military
in Honduras should prevent the eleçtions or should fail to recognize their results,
the United States would seriously reexamine its increasingly close relationship
with the Honduran military?
Secretary HAIG:1am not prepared to make that statement today, Mr Studds. EXHIBITS SUBMI~.I> BY NICARAGUA 207
totalitarianism, and to espouse and further the basic values of the Amencan
people.
Now, the fact that you differ as an individual with how best to accomplish
that is, of course, your prerogative, but 1 can assure you that if motives are
being questioned you are on the wrong track.
Mn. S~uuus: Let me jus1 say motives are not being questioned, but if it is the
judgment of this administration that our policiesin El Salvador reflectthe values
of the American people, then 1must submit that 1have a very diffèrentpicture
of those values.
Secretary HAIG:You know as well as 1 that on two occasions in the very
recent past we have discussed this issuewith the Nicaraguan Government, and
in the wakc of those discussions, which inçluded the potcntial for complete
normalization, economic support, and a dialog of a constructive character, that
they have responded by flaunting the actions that 1outlined here in response to
an earlier question, and that is a fact. That is a fact,1aam shocked that you
haven't even made reference to those efforts, which you know about.
Mn. S~uous: My time is up.
Mn. FOUNTAIN M :r.Barnes.
Mn. Bnn~es: Mr. Secretary, 1want to follow up on Mr. Studds' questions. I
chair the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs, and 1have been meeting on
a regular basis with representatives of the Government of Nicaragua, and the
Cubans having been around to see us.
As you know, there has been a lot of speculation in the press that we are
about to engage in some military action. Most of us have been assuring them
that that was extraordinanly unlikely, and we have had briefings by your
subordinaies suegestine that that was extraordinarilv unlikelv. But based uDon
your responses &:s morning to questions from Mr. <ountain,'~r. ~agomarsino,
and Mr. Studds, if 1 were in Nicaragua 1would be building my bomh shelter
this afternoon.
Secretary 1-IAIG1: would hope you would be pluralizing your site.
Mn. BAKNIZS 1: would hope they would do that as well, Mr. Secretary.
Certainly, as you know, our suhcommittee and membcrs of this committee have
cxnressed our concern with resnect to some of the ooints vou have raised todav.
~~ecificall~,most of the membérsof this committcéjoined me in sending a cabie
to Nicaragua recently expressing our concern with respect to arrest and
sentencine-
Scçret;iry Ilni<;linicrrupiing]: 1c<iniplinicni!ou on ihat.
Mn. I1nnsi:t (~ontinuing]: Of ihc privJte seiiur Icadcrs Ilut nonethelcv )Our
response to questions this morning certainly fuels the speculation and concerns
throughout the Western Hemisphere about possible military action by the
United States.
Secretary HAIG:Mr. Barnes, as recently as yesterday - the day before, excuse
me - the President of the United Statesaddressed this issue.and he uneauivocallv
stated to the American people that there are no plans for the emp~~ymentif
American forces anywhere worldwide, and 1think that answer should stand here
today, and I wonder what you are trying to drive at.
Mn. BARNESW : ell, there are rumors just rampant throughout this town -
and you point out it is a town that is always full of rumors - that we are
seriously contemplating, if we have not already decided, to institute a military
hlockadc in the Central American region aimed at Nicaragiid. Would you be
prepared to state this morning'that we are not. that we have no1 planned to do
thai and we are no1going to do that?
Secretary HAIG:1am not prepared to say anything. 1think the President has208 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIBS
addressed the issue, and 1think you know that, and 1 think if you are trying to
create circumstancr:sto reassure those régimeswho have thus far been undeterred
in their drive towards establishing a totalitarian régimein this hemisphere, why,
1question whethçr or not we are on a sound course.
Mn. BARNESM : I. Secretarv. in vour ooenine statement vou make some verv
constructive point: with respect to the need to have the resources to carry out
our foreign oolicy, and 1certainly want to salute that. I am concerned, however,
that in siecific ibstances we are going in precisely the wrong direction. 1 am
informed by everyone who is close to the situation that Costa Rica, for example,
is going bankrupt and has a very short time hefore it goes over the brink.
My perception i:jthat it seems to be a matter of indifference to this adminis-
tr~ti~n~wh~~..~~.~iat is a bastion of democracv in this reeion. verv close to the
United States, sur~ivesat al1economically. The administration kas proposed no
ESF for Costa Ric:a,and has cut development assistance for that country by a
maenitude that is iexceededin ~ercentaeë t-ms onlv hv t.e c"ts for ~icaka&a. -
~h; is this happening?
Here is a country that stands for everything we believe in, that kas been
helpful to us in the international organizations time after time, that isin desperate
financial shape, and we ought to be responding not tomorrow, but yesterday.
What is going on? EXHIBITSUBMITTEO BY NICARAGUA
ExhibitV
1. STATEMEN BT US SENATOR DANIELPATRICK MOYNIIIAN V,ICE-CHAIRMAN,
SENATSEELECTCOMMITTE OE NNTEI.LIGENACPE,IL15, 1984
2. LETTERFROM US SENATOB RARRY GOLDWATEC R, AIRMAN S,ENATSELECT
COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENC E, US DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
WILLIAM J. CASEA,PRIL9, 198ASREPRINTE N THEWASHINGTONPOA ST, IL
11, 1984
3. DEBAT N THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATI9 VES, CONGRES2S0, SESSION,
APRIL12, 1984(129 CONGRESSIONRAECORDH. 2878-2940)
4. DEBAT N THE US SENATE9,8~~CONGRES2 S, SESSIOA,PRIL10, 1984(129
CONGRESSION RAELORDS. 4192-4205)
5. DEBAT N THE US SENATE 9,8~~CONGRES2S, SESSIONA,PRIL5, 1984(129
CONGRESSION RAECORDS.3848-3898)
6. DEBAT N THE US SENATE 9,8~~CONGRES2S0, SESSIOA,PRIL4, 1984(129
CONGRESSIONR ALCORDS. 3742-3796)
7. DEBAT N THE US HOUSE OFREPRESENTATI9 V8ES, CONGRESISS,TSESSION,
OCTOBE2 R0, 1983(129 CONGRESSIONALCORDH. 8389-8433)
8. DEBATEIN THEUS HOUSE OFREPRESENTATI9 V8ES,CONGRESI S,TSESSION,
JULY28, 1983(129 CONGRESSIONRECORD H. 5819-5882)
9. DEBAT N THE US HOUSE OFREPRESENTATI9 V8ES,CONGRESISS,TSESSION,
JULY27. 1983(129 CONGRESSION RECORD H. 5720-5762) MILITARAND PARAMILITARYACTlVlTlES
ExhibitVI
PRESDISCLOSUR or:SUNITESTATES-SPONSO"RCOVBRATCTIVITIES"AINST
NICARAGUA
1. "A FURONOVERTHE SECRETWAR",NEWSWEE2 K3, APRIL1984
2. L L E ~ ~OV~R~N~ICARAGUAT",IM, 3 APRII.1984
3."WAYSEYED TO FOSTERLATIAIMS",WASHINGTO POST,20 APRIL1984
4. "REAGANURGW TO GO TO APAERICAPEOPLEON NICARAGUIASSUE",AND
"KEYCIA ROLESI:ENINBARRIN OF NICARAGUAN ",EWYORKTIMES2,0 APRIL
1984
5."WHYCIA 'Pm THEHEATON'", NEWSOAY 1, APRIL1984
6."CIA Dlnec~lr OVERSAWATTACK IN OCTOBERON NICARAGUO AIL FACI-
LITY",WASHINGTONPOS1T8,APRIL1984
7. "OCT. 10 ASSACITNNICARAGUAN 1sSLAITO CIA", NEWYORKTIMES,
18ArniL 1984
9. "COVERTAIDSALVAG TRYUNDER WAY",WASIIINGTO POST,16APRIL1984
IO. "How CONGRI~WSSASINFORME OF MINING OFNICARAGUP AORTS",NEW
YORK TIMES1,6APRIL1984
II. "MOYNIHANTOQUITSENATP EANELPoçrIN DispurON CIA", NEWYORK
TI^, 15APRIL1984
12. "Housn UNIT!IAREPORTON MINESARRIVEDJAN.31", NEWYORKTIMES,
14APRIL1984
13. "MEXICAOFFICIACLONDEUN MSININOP NICARAGUA P'SRTS", EWYORK
TIMES1.4ArniL 1984
16. "CIA FUNDSRUN SHORT FORCOV~TOPERATIONSW ",ASHINGTO POST,
13APRIL1984
17. "US-BACKIIDA~TI-SANDINISTREBELSUSE HELICOPTER TO EVACUATE
WOUNDeD"W , ASHINGTOPOST,12APRIL1984
18."SHIPPINGCONCERNS STOPCALLS IN NICARAGUA" N,EW YORKTIMES
12APRLL 1984
19. "Housn COMMI~EECHOING SENATOEPPOSEMS INING",NEWYORKTIMES,
12APRIL1984
20. "MININGTO CONTINUER,EBELCHIEFSAYS",NEWYORKTIMES,12 APRIL
1984
21. "US SAYPOICMlNlNGHASCEASED"W , ASHINGTOPOST,12APRIL1984 EXHIBISUBMITIEU NICARAGUA 211
23. "AMBIGUITES GOALS", EWYORK TIMESI,I APRIL1984
24."SENATE8,4.12, ACTOOPPOSEMININGNICARAGU PORTS"N, EWYORK
TI- Il APRIL1984
25. "REBELSEPORTPUSHAGAINSNTICARAGUAW ",ASHINGTPNSI,10APRIL
1984
26. "CIA VIEWMINELAYINPGRTOF COVER'HOI.DINACTION"',
WASHINGTO PNST,10PRIL1984
27. "RIVBAGNNUBS ORLDCOURTOVER NICARAGUA W",A1STREEJOURNAL,
9 APRIL1984
28. "US Voius ROOF WORLO COURTON LATIPOI.ICY", EWYORKTI^,
9 APRIL1984
29. "LATIDEBATEREFOCUSED NE,WYORKTIMES9,APRIL1984
30. "AMERICANSNSHlPSAIDTOSUPERVINSICARAGU MAINING", EWYORK
Tm, 8 AAPL1984
31. "US SAITODRAWLATINTROOPSPLAN N", WYORKTIMES8, AAPL1984
32. "CIA HELPETOMINEPORTSINNICARAGUAW ",ASHINGTOPNST, APRIL
1984
33. "US ROLINMININGNICARAGUA HNARBORRSEPORTEO1LsLARGETRHAN
FIRSTHOUGHT"W , ALSTREETOURNAL 6,APRIL1984
34. "MINIINMAINPORTIMPERINLICARAGUAENONOMYW ",ASHINGTOPOST,
2APRIL1984
35. "NICARAGUREPORTMSOREREBELATIACK SNSHIPS",WASHINGTPONST,
1APRII.1984212 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
10. "HOUSVOTESTO ENDREBEL AIDINNICARAGUAW ",ALLSTREETOURNAL,
21OCTOBE1 R983
II. "CHALLENGERISETOCIA SUPPORTORLATINREBELS"W, ASHINGTON~OST,
20 OCTOBE1R983
12. "REAGADEFErDsUS RIGHTTOUSECO~RTACTIVITYW ", ASHINGTONPOST,
20 OCTOBE1R983
13. "US OFFICISAYCIA HELPEDNICARAGUA RNEBELSLANATTACKSN ",EW
YORKTIMES16OCTOBE1 R983
14. "NICARAGUAVACUAT2E5,000FROMPORTRAIDEDBY REBELS"N,EWYORK
TIMES,~.~CTOBE1983
15. “GIA 1s SATO RESUPPLRYEBELSN NICARAGU FROMSALVADO BRASE",
NEWYORKTIMES2, OCTOBE1 R983
16. CIA ORDERSSAIDTO GUIDENICARAGUA REBELSS'HIFT",WASHINGTON
POST2, 9 SEPTEMB1R83
17. "NEWREAGAN STRATEGYFORCOVERATCTIVITIISNICARAGU LIKELTO
CLEARSENATPEANEL"W, ALLSTREEJOURNAL2, SEPTEMBE1R83
18."HOUSEVOTESTO Cm OFTCOVERA TID", WASHINGTOPNST2. 9 JULY1983
21."US SEEKSINCREASIE COVERATCTIVITYNLATINA~RICA", NEWYORK
TIME2, JULY1983
22. "MANEUVERPASRTOFNEWLATIN PLAN",WASHINGTO PNST2, 2 JULY1983
23. "ISRAELAID.ro AIDLATAIMSOF US", NEWYORKTIMES 2,1JULY1983
24. "CIA PLANNI"GO BACKMORENICARAGU REBELS", ASHINGTON POST,
14JULY1983 EXHIBISUBMI~ED BY NICARAGUA 213
37."REBELSWANTUS TODECLARE SUPPORTOPENLY",WASHINGTO POST,
4 APRIL1983
38. "WASHINGTONR'SOLTROUBLESCONGRESSW", ASHINGTPNST,3 APRIL
1983
39. "USTIETOANTI-SANDINIASSEREPORTE DOBEEXTENSIVEN",WYORK
TIMES3,APRIL1983
40. "'WARONNICARAGU"A, 'NEWYORKTIMES2,8 MARC1983
41. “GIA CHISAlDTOCONFIRMRAIDS" ,HBEVENINSGUN,10JANUAR1983
42. "NICARAGUAH:ILLCONCERNONUS OBJECTIVPESRSISTSW, ASHINGTON
POST,I JANUARY983
43. "CIA QUIETDOGSSANUINISTAD SA,LLATm HERALD2,2 DECEMBER
1982
44. "CONGRESRSENEWSURESON ACTIONASGAINSNICARAGUA N",WYORK
TIMES2,2 DECEMB1982
45. "US BANKROLLINAGNDINISTFS'ES",THEMIAMIHERALD,19DECEMBER
1982
46. "FEAOF WARALONG THEBORDER"T ,IM, DECEMEE 1982
47. "A SECRT ARFORNICARAGUA N", WSWEEKN, OVEMBE1982
48."US BACKINRGAIDSAGAINSTNICARAGUANE,WYORK TIMES2, NOVEMBER
1982
50."CIA's NICARAGUROLE:A PROPOSAURA REALITY?N"EWYORKTIMES,
17MARCH 1982
51. "REAGANACKINCGOVERATCTIONSO,FFICIAASSSERN,EWYORK TIMES,
14MARCH 1982
52."SENATCEONUUCT SSOWNPROBE OF LATINUNREST"W, ASHINGTPNST,
13MARCH 1982
53. "US REPORTEDLYNDINMGILLIOTO FOSTEMODERAT ESNICARAGUA",
NEWYORK TIMESIl MARCH1982
55. "US APPROVCOVERPTLANINNICARAGUA W",ASHINGTONPO10M, ARCH
1982
56. "REAGAAUTHORIZP ESANTOCOUNTEC RUBANPRFSENCIENICARAGUA",
WASHINGTO PNST, 1FEBRUAR1982
57. "HAIGWON'TRULEOUTANTI-NICARAGUA ACTION", ASHINGTONOST,
13NOVEMBE 1981 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIFS
ExhibitVI1
PRESS Disc~osuOFSTATEME BYTHE US ADMINISTUTI ONDICATINGTHE
ABSENC EF NICARAGUAN ARMSHIPMEN TSSALVADOR ANBELS
[Natreproduced] EXHIBITS SUBMITCED BY NICARAGUA
Exhibit VI11
COMMUNIO UFÉTHE FOREIGN MINISTBR OSF THE CONTADOR GAROUP
1. CERTIFIED ENGLlSH TRANSLATION OF COMMUNIQU~
Communiquéof the Foreign Ministers of the Contadora Group Caracas,
Venezuela, April 8, 1984
"The Foreien Ministers of Colomhia. Mexico. Panama and Venezuelamet on
April 8, 1984,-10evaluate the critical situation in the region, and the most recent
events that have taken place in Central America as well as the progress of the
working commissions created within the framework of the Contadora process
dealine with oolitical matters. securitv and social and~e~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"~s-regaris the situation'in central America, the Ministers examined the
degree of fulfillment of the Document of Obiectives ratified in Septemher 1983
bv-the five Central American Governments which obiectives establish the com-
niiinicnts underidken in the nc&>tiliiionpro.'css 'The) touk note di'the nccei\it)
iliat thr. <i<i\crnment, oi ihc region conforni ilicir inicrnïii<,nsl c,~ndurIO ihr.
spirit of conciliation which derives from the norms of execution adopted in
January of this year. They warned that in the course of the past weeks the
regional situation had deteriorated seriously. Actions of irregular forces have
intensified aided by supplies and communications centers located in the terri-
tories of neighboring countries and oriented toward the destdhilization of the
Governments of the region. Sophisticated arms, new military tactics and danger-
ous methods of attack have been introduced.
"Operations such as the mining of the ports have heen carried out which drain
the economy, disrupt trade and militate against freedom of navigation. At the
sdme time they expressed their concern at the presence, each time more visible,
of foreign troops and advisers, the increase of the arms race, the proliferation of
military actions and maneuvers, al1of whichcontribute to the increase of tensions
and the deepening of distrust. That is why they consider it indispensable that the
countries of the region demonstrate with concrete actions the support which they
have exoressed for the Contadora Grouo underlinine once aeain that a conflict
ciigrcAicr priiporiliinï aiiuld Ii,i\,cscriour rcp:r<ursi<ins in .IIIthe c<>uniricsoi'
ihc rtgiim and uould ;iNccitlic ciitirc c<>ntinrni.
',\.Ilir3, ihc politic.iI siiu:itiiiiioncerned the miniiier. iooh naie JI the
electoral orocessei that are underwav. And thev afirmed their value in the sense
ihi~tthe) c.in c<>ntrihuic1,)inierntil rccori:ili.itiuli and ihr Ics.ening rcgionzil
irn\ion\ io the dqree thai propcr guiirliiiicc. arc gr.intcd hy an inJepcii~icni
elcciorxl orrm anJ the crl'eciivr.n.irticiwation oi al1ool~t~clrclurrii,hd>surr.J
As far as s&ial and economic matteriare concernéd,they referred to the for-
mal establishment and the beginning of the works of the action committee of
assistance to the Social and Economic Development in Central America
(CADESCA) which has opened a useful and opportune perspective to channel
international aid for the interna1 efforts of integralion of the Central America
countries, in cooperation and coordination with the economic organs already
estahlished by the governments themselves of central America.216 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
"Evaluating the progress made by the working commissions the Foreign
Ministers of the Contadora Group agreed that in certain aspects significant
progress had been made, but in others there persisted obstacles derived from
attitudes that on occasion werenot alwaysflexibleand eîïectivelyoriented toward
neeotiation.
"in the Ilghl<li'sthî>ec<ln~lderdtl,inst.hc 1'~~reigMii iiiisteor the Cùiii;idorü
Croup e\hi>rtcil ttie Go~crnnienti of Cosia Rica. I:I Sali.d.rr. Ciuatemdla.
ond dura and Nicaragua to renew their oolitical disoosition and to intensif" the
prep~irationsf.>rthc fin~l phase .iithe i\.<>rkingconimi,rionr \vhi:h \houlJ , hc
cntru~lcd ullh thcii jurlJi.'ai pro>je,,.tudlcs ii11.recoinmendlitions al the joint
niectinc of Ministc:~ which \riItakc olace the 29th of ,\oril. u,ith th13nurnoe
and toUpreparefor that meeting they'will establish direci c~mmunicati8n Lith
their Central American counterparts."
1certify that thi:: is a correct English translation of the Communiquéof the
Foreign Ministers cd the Contadora Group, issued on April 8, 1984.
(Signed) Carlos ARcüeLLoGOMEZ,
Agent of the Republic of Nicaragua.
2. ORIGINAL SPANISH VERSION OP COMMUNIQU~
(As reportcd by the VenezuelanPress Agencyon 9 April 1984)
[Noi reproduced] EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA
Exhibit IX
MlNlSTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OFFICIAL PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OP THE
CONTADORA PROCESS (1 DECEMBER 1983,MANAGU AREE NICARAGUA)
GENERAL PRESENTATION
The history of the countries of the Central American Isthmus has been
characterized by foreign intervention, exploitation and injustice. In the face of
this reality, the peoples of the region have struggled uninterruptedly to liberate
themselves and to create a more worthy and humane life. This just cause has
provoked the reaction of those who have identified their own interests witb the
maintenance of the starus ouo. even to the extreme of acceoti.g a.. iust,fvin,.
iorcign inlïri,enti,>n:ind io~~iciiiiiI'rstricidd\idIrhci\ittri Iiisioric~ll!.iriicrnlil
pcoples. ;i.niïÿns of Jciorming the lihr.rt:iri:iii.irpirliti~iiihcir p,plc
'1<>d3> ca~nir<>nic !vlIl ihe iri.~innhtlithe Sandinist Pooul~r Kcv.iluriiin the
rcpre3sion againsi somc pcoplcs oi the tircd Ii.irincre~.eJ. ivhile iorcihn iiircr-
iciition rc:i:hcr ilormin$ proporiiorir. iiot ,iiiIio hlili iht pro::ss oichange in
i11corc;ihut alsiiIOprticni iIir'i~iiir,ilidlitoniihï 'i:in<linisiPo~ul~rRcv<>lution
Simultaneouslv. the reeressive forces attemot to oin the hlame in Nicaraeua fLr
the slrug&lcj irillio~c.i>untri:~.ir!.intIOliidc tliiir truc origins in ordcr io justiij
the ni~ltiplcaggrcssiunssuiicrcd hy Niairagua. u hi;h arc ory~i.i~cdand Jirc;ied
by the Government of the United~States.
Faced with the United States' policy of reestahlishing manu-milirari its domi-
nation and hegemony in Central America, Latin America has responded by
sponsoring and promoting petitions for dialogue to achieve a peaceful solution
based on respect for the right of Central American peoples to self-determination,
and to their political and economic independence, without intervention in their
interna1affairs.
Within this context, on April 14, 1983,the noble and transcendental efforts to
promote peace and non-intervention in Central America were initiated by the
countries of the Contadora Group, with the visit to the five Central American
capitals by the Foreign Ministers of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela.
This wds later followed up by four joint meetings of Foreign Ministers in
Panama; by the meeting of the Presidents of the Contadora Group countries in
Cancun, Mexico; and by various meetings of the Contadora Group at the
Ministerial and expert level. The first phase of this process of negotiation
culminated with the Fourth Joint Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Contadora
and Central America, held in Panama on the 7th. 8th and 9th of September.
As was recorded in its Information Bulletin, the Fourth Joint Meeting
resulted in
"The elaboration of a Document ofObjectivesthat collectsdiversecriteria,
identifiesareas of agreement and consecrates fundamental commitments for
the establishment Bf peace, democracy, security, stahility and cooperation
for economic and social development in the Central American region."218 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIIS
This Document of Objectives, as stated in the same Information Bulletin,
"Departs from a diagnosis of the regional crisis, and, based on that,
collects the proposals of the Govemments of the region on behalf ofconcrete
measures to promote détenteand put an end to the conflictive situations in
the area. foresceineuaction me~ha~ ~ms ~o a~hieve th~ ~ ends~ It constitutes.
thercl'a~rei.hc b~ri, <IVundcrst~iiding for ncgoiiation, thai muii he under-
t;ikcn ai the cdrlic~ipoirihlc ni.>mcntwiih the aim ~ii'prepdrinr the iiccurds
and adopting the necessary mechanisms to fonnalizc Eommitments aiid
assure adequaie control and verification systems."
Il1siiidisputahlc ihat thc ni~litariiiir.anii-Contadora and dnti-dialuguc proir.,,
spon.;orcd hy the Hcagan Ailmini.traiii>n has sd~anced muih more rapidly ttiaii
the Contadora nepoliaiion proccss Howcvcr, Iliithiul IO ils dediration 1,)pcacc
and with the pursise of keëping the agreements of the Document of objectives
in a renewed efiort to prevent the violence imposed on Central America from
establishing its own dynamic in irreversible rom, on October 17th, Nicaragua
officially presented the Contadora Group, through the Secretary of Foreign
Relations of Mexico, its proposal concerning the "LEGAL FOUNDATIONS
TO GUARANTEI: INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY OF THE
CENTRAL AMEICICAN STATES', requesting ils urgent transmittal to al1the
interested parties. In consideration of the real and objective fact that the United
States has been and is the principal factor in the development and aggravation
of the crisis in th<:region, this proposal for peace includes a Bilateral Draft
Treaty between the United States and Nicaragua that was officiallypresented to
the United States (iovernment with an accompanying Note dated October 18th.
Subsequently, or1the 26th of October, despite the fact that said proposal had
already been offici;illypresented via Contadora, the Government of Nicaragua
directly delivered the same to al1 the Central American Governments through
their accredited Ambassadors in Managua.
Analyzed as a whole, the Document of Objectives of Contadora may be
divided into four hndamental areas' as follows:
.1. The area tliat refers to basic orincinles of International Law. strict
aJhcrcncc IO whiili. hrtnr ihc bists oi ~niernaiional prdcc 2nd sccurity.
(2) The :ircn 1hi.i includcs niattcrs of miliixry dri,elopmrni or arms huildup.
(3) The arc4 relirrinc:-.o political riucstions of ;in inicrnal naturc or intcrnal
policies with international projection. '
(4) The area concerning economic and social questions.
The proposal entitled "Legal Foundations to Guarantee International Peace
and Security of the Central American States", that Nicaragua officiallypresented
to the Contadora Group on October 17th embraces and develops points that
accrue to basic principles of International Law respecting peace and security,
including verification and control mechanisms of the draft treaties and accord
contained in said proposal, which covers the first and most important area of
the Document of Obiectives.
In an adJiiiona1 clTuriIo fdcilitatcand harten ihc pursuii of wacc and aurity
in the Central Amzrican arca. and an understanding bctucen the counirie, thai
comprise il, Nicaragua has presented complementary proposals that embrace the
areas of the Document of Objectives of Contadora that had not been considered
in the initial proposal. These are included in a Draft Document of Commitment
Concerning Military Anàirs, a Draft Declaration and a Draft Accord to Promote
the Economic and Social Development of Central America. corresponding to the
second, third and fourth areas, respectively. EXHIBITS SUBMI~D BY NICARAGUA 219
These las1 three documents were presented and officially delivered by the
Nicaraguan delegation to the representatives of the Contadora and Central
Amencan countries during the last meeting of the Technical Group at the
Deputy-Ministerial level, hcld in the city of Panama on the 1st and 2nd of
Decemher.
Il mus1be pointed out that, during the joint meeting of the Foreign Ministers
of the Contadora Group and Central America, held in Washington on
November 14th of this year, il was agreed tofixa term ending on December 1st
for the presentation of concrcte and detailed proposals by the Central American
chancelleries. Nicaragua was the only country to comply with said accord and,
up to the present date, December IOth, Nicaragua alone has presented concrete
proposals, for which reason it is deemed necessary that the othcr parties, in a
constructive spirit, respond to thcse Nicaraguan proposals and present their
opinions or amcndments or. if the. .efer. Dresentcountern. .osals in order to
n.>tCurthcrJcla) the iieg,>ti~tionproce,>ahich ;:in :ir;it positiic concliision
iinly with ihc iiciirc 2nd cikctiic pdr1i:ip~ti~üIIpürticr.
In cu\r.rinp. ;inJ Jc\cloninr al1 21 rigiintrorthe I>,xumeni oi Obiccti\cs of
Contadora, Nicaragua aspiresto broaden the path of dialogue and undérstanding
that nrillpermit the effectivereestablishment of international peacc and security
in the region. Likewise, Nicaragua is confident that these will be positively
receivedand examincd with the attention they merit byal1Governments intcrested
in establishing the bases for a truc peace in the region, which is the highcst
aspiration of Nicaragua and of al1Central American pcoples.
DOCUMENT OF OBJECTIVES
tLAIIORATFI1 IS THE4TH JOINT MEETING OF FOKIIIGS hllNISI'EKS
OF CO'ITAI1ORA AS11 CIINTR,IL AMCRICA ON 9 SEI'TEMHEK 1983
AND APPROVED BI' TIIE IIEADS OF SIAIY OF clcwru,u. AMERICA
TEXT OF THE DOCUMENT OF OBJECTIVE3
WHEREAS :
The prevailing situation in Central America. characterized by a climnte of
tension that endangers security and peaceful coexistencein the region, and which
requires for ils solution observance of the principlcs of International Law that
regulatc the action of States, especially:
The frce determination of pcoplcs;
Non-intervention;
The sovereign equality of States;
The neaceful solution of controversies:
The abstinence from recurring to the t'hreator the use of force;
The respect for the territorial integrity of States;
Pluralism in its diverse manifestations:
The full operation of democratic institutions;
The promotion of socialjustice;
International cooperation for development ;
Respect for and promotion of human rights;
The proscription of terrorism and subversion.
The desire to reconstruct the Central American homcland through the progrcss-
ive intcgration of its economic, lcgal and social systems. EXHIBITSSUBMIiTED BY NICARAGUA 221
logistical support to persons, organizations or groups that attempt to destabilize
the Govemments of the Central American countries.
To abstain from promoting or supporting acts of terrorism, subversion or
sabotage in the countries of the area.
To set up mechanisms and to coordinate systems of direct communication for
the purpose of preventing or, if existent, resolving incidents between the States
of the region.
To continue the humanitarian aid to assist Central American refugees who
have been displaced from their country of origin, providing as well adequate
conditions for the voluntary repatriation ofhese refugees, in communication or
cooperation with the High Commission of the United Nations - ACNUR -
and other international oreanisms deemed oertinent.
'Io undert.tkc programr of croni>mis anil ,ociïI develapmcni for ihe purporr
of ashi~vinggrrater well bcing and an equiiablc di\irihuiion of u,calth.
To revitalize and normalize mechanisms of economic integration to achieve
sustained development based on solidarity and mutual benefits.
To promotc the securing of foreign monetary resources that will permit the
assurance of additional resources to finance the reactivation of intraregional
commerce. 10overcome the erave balance of oavments oroblems. to obtain funds
for working capital, Io support programs to enlarge and restructure their pro-
ductive systems and to promote medium and long range investment projects.
To promote a better and grrater access to international markets 10théend of
~\~ünhin~ the Ilon or siimi&rcc hciu.ccn the Ccnir~l r\rncrii.tn counirie, and
the reri the \i.irld, c~pcci~ll)u,iih the induitriitli/cd coiintrie,. hy mcdns oi
revision iii;omnierci;tl praciicej. elintinaiiun ai iürili'and noil-rariITbarrieri .inJ
the assurance of remunerative and jus1 prices for the export products of the
countries of the region.
To promote mechanisms of technical cooperation for planning, programming
and executing multisector investment and commercial promotion projects.
I'hc Min~stcrsof 1i)rcign Kclaiii~nsoi the Cenir~l Amcrisan couniries, with
the participation of the couniries of ihc Contadora Group. iniiiated negotiaiions
u,iih the iniention oi Iaving ihc gr<>unduorkfur the re;ichinr of arreemcnis and
the adootion of necess~rvmech~nisms to formalize and deieloo-the obiectives
containid in the present document, and to assure the establishknt of aiequate
verification and control systems. To these effects they will take into account the
initiatives presented at the meetings called hy the Contadora Group.
Panama, 9 September 1983.
LEGAL BASES TO GUARANTEE THE PEACE AND INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY OF THE STATES OF CENTRAL AMERICA
This four-point proposal was officiallypresented by Nicaragua on 17October
1983, and it covers only the points of the Document of Objectives that are
related to the International Peace and Security of States. It seeks to estahlish the
legal bases and their respective control mechanisms to guarantee that States will
no1 be attacked from other States in the Central American reeion or from the
outside, fully respecting their right to self-determination and to politicdl and
economic independence, thus creating suitable conditions that willmake possible222 MlLlTARY APIDPARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
the signing of other agreements concerning military developments, military
advisers and concerning political, socialand economic matters.
The following drafts of three treaties and one accord, which are the four
elements of the present proposal, are presented as an indivisible whole, for which
reason the omission of any one of them would mean that the security of the
States of the isthnius, which is the fundamental objective of this Nicaraguan
proposal, would not be duly guaranteed, thus making the reestablishment of
peace impossible.
The four projecti; of this proposal are:
(a) Draft treaty between the Republic of Nicaragua and the United States of
America ;
(b) Draft treaty bctween the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua;
(c) Draft accord concerning El Salvador;
(d) Draft treaty bi:tween the Central American Republics.
DRAFT TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA AND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In April 1982tha Government of the United States presented Nicaragua with
an ei. .-ooint , ~,osal in which were summed uo .he ~ ~ ~tions that must be
met, aiiording io thdi Go\ernni:nt. li~rihc n<irm~li,stioof reliitioni hctu,ecn
the UnitcJ Stsics and Nicdrilgu3 The Gi)\crnmcnt 01'hicaragiiu 4grr.r.d to
dis-u.r iheeighi p, in(\ prcrcntcd b? the Uniicd Siaicr irth., United Staics agrced
to disçuss those questions thai prcoccup~ed Nicdrügua Notu,ithstrnJing [hi,
di\position Io eng;igc in dialogue the Norih Amcrican Govcrnment refuscd 10
accept a continuation of the conversations, even interrupting the informal
eoistolarv exchan-t that had been maintained until 13 Auu ,t. date of the last
Nicaraguan communication, which remains unanswered.
Having abandoned the way of dialogue, the North American Administration
aualita1i;elv and auantitativelv increases its --eressions -eainst Nicar-.ua.
utilizing as its insttuments counter-revolutionary mercenaries organized, trained,
financed, armed and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and
redoubling its political pressures and economic aggrëssion6 the prejudice of
Nicaraeua.
Despite this situation, and guided by the will to achieve a normalization of
the relationsbetwren both States, the Government of Nicaragua has considered
necessarv and funclamenta1the elaboration of an instrument &at will oermit the
cessation of aggre:;sions, the normalization of relations between both countries
and the eventual Iiarmonious development of these within the strictest respect
for the fundamental principles of International Law.
For Nicaragua, the reestablishment of peace and mutual respect between the
United States and Nicaragua requires full guarantees of its interna1and external
security and recognition of the right of each people to freely choose its
own destiny.
The extremely grave consequences of the policy of the United States against
Nicaragua which bas led the North American Government to involve in this
policy countries of the area whose territories aretilized as operational bases
and sanctuaries for counter-revolutionary activities, obliges the presentation of
this draft Treaty viith the United States within the context of the measures that EXHIBITSSUBMITiED BY NICARAGUA 223
the countries of the Contadora Group have been developing, in awareness that,
should the acts of aggression against Nicaragua continue to increase and the
situation of the border zoiie with Honduras continue to deteriorate because of
this policy, there may occrir an open conflict of incalculable consequences, one
of which may be the direct involvement ofNorth American troops in the conflict.
The magnitude of this threat and the impossibility of achieving an effective
reestablishment of peace in Central America unless there exists a clear will on
the part of the North American Government to desist from promoting its
interventionist plans, makcs it inevitable that the Contadora Group also direct
its efforts in this obligatory direction.
The present draft Treaty between the United States and Nicaragua responds
to the firm will of the Nicaraguan Government to exhaust al1possible and licit
recourses to achieve a peaceful solution to the grave crisis existing in Central
America, within which the North American Administration plays a central and
undeniable role.
The present draft Treaty is an integral part of a general proposal that also
contains a draft multilateral Treaty with Central American countries, a bilateral
Treatv with Honduras an~ ~n~ACCORD concemine resnect f-. the rieht to self-
Jci:rniin;iti~iiciiihr Sdl\aJ<~rlinpc.>plc
Sic~ragus h.ipcs ihai propos;il. uhxh iiddrcrlcs it.;llt~JII ihc suhianti\.c prc-
occu~atiins susceotible io king d-scussed between sovereim States and which.
iriih rcspci IO '1~~rligu.i.h3i.c ken prci,ii>usl!c\prc,scd by thc IJniteJ Srdit,.
iiiIIbc July cvliluaicJ hy ilie Ki>rihnicric~n tio\r'rniiirnt. inaking pirsihlc the
initi;iiiunof.* norniali,~tioi~01rclliii.in\ hci\irvn ihc Ilnitcd St.itcs;ilid Yicdr~gu:~.
DRAFT TREATY 70 GUARANTEE MUTUAL RESPECT, PEACE AND SECURITY BETWEEN
THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA AND THE UNITED STATESOP AMERICA
The Governments of Nicaragua and of the United States of Amenca consider-
ing that, for the maintenance of peace and security between both nations and in
théCentral American area, it is necessary to reestablish confidenceand relations
of friendship and cooperation between both States, and that these lofty purposes
require, in the first place, putting an end to al1situations of belligerency and the
giving of al1guarantees for their interna1 and external security through respect
for the fundamental principles that govern the relations between States, primarily
the principles of abstention from recourse to the threat or the use of force, non-
intervention, self-determination of peoples, territorial integrity, mutual respect
and the sovereign equality of States, in conformity with the Charter of the
United Nations Organization, have agreed Io the following:
Chapter 1
Article One
The High Contracting Parties solemnly promise to not take recourse, in their
international relations. to the threat or to the use of force aeainst the territorial
integrity or the political independence of the other State or as means of solving
the controversies that may arise between both States.
Article Two
The High Contracting Parties condemn wars of aggression as a crime against
humanity.224 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
Arricle Three
The High Contracting parties promise to not give political, military, econornic
or any other kind of aid, direct or indirect, overt or covert, to individuals or
groups that advocate the overthrow or the destabilization of the other
Government, as well as to impede, employing al1 means within their capacity,
the utilization of iheir territory for the purpose of attacking or organizing
attacks, acts of sabotage or criminal or terrorist actions against the other State.
Article Four
Persons within tlie territory of each State rnay not devote themselves to any
typz of activity for the purpose of promoting, organizing, instigating, raising
funds for or carryirig out actions against the other State.
Article Five
The Cnited Siaies of Amcricd recogni,r.s the inalir.nahle righi of ihe Kcpuhlis
,if Nicaragua io 11:indcpcndencc and sclf-dcicrminitiion. in its condiiion '1s 8
so\ereirn Staiç. It rccurnizcs. as uell. ihdt ihe Rrpublii 01'Nicaragua docs not
constitüte a strategic reserve or area of influenceoiany foreign inasmuch
as these, or other similar concepts, are unlawful and incompatible with the
sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Nicaragua.
Arricle Sir
The Republic of Nicaragua declares that the exercise of its sovereign rights
constitutes no threzitwhatsoever to the security of the United States and that it
will not permit the territory of Nicaragua to be utilized to affect or to threaten
the security of the United States or to attack any other State, insuring as well,
the transit of merchant ships and commercial airplanes bearing the flag of the
United States in its territorial waters and air space, in conforrnity with
International Law and the internal laws of Nicaragua.
Chapter II
Arricle Seven
The High Contracting Parties solemnly promise not to intervene, directly or
indirectly, overtly or covertly, for whatever reason, in the internal or external
&airs of the other State.
Arricle Eight
The tligh Conir;icting Pariics pr<>scribei.n ihrir iniern:iti<inalrclatiiinr, armcd
inier\cntiun and :il1intcrfcrcnîc or unlauful thrut3 again\t thc pcrs<>nalityut'
the other S1;itcor ihc poI~t~c:iIc.'conomic:ind ~.uliur;ilelemenis ih:it ion\titut11
Article Nine
The High Contrscting Parties recognize, in like manner, the inalienable right
of the other State to choose its economic. social, cultural and govern.ental
systern without an), interference on the part of any other States. EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 225
Article Ten
The High Contracting Parties declare to he incompatible with the present
Treaty al1military maneuvers, hy land, air or sea, that are carried out or may
be cdrried out by the Armed Forces of the other State, on its own initiative or
in conjunction with the Armed Forces of one or more States, in proximity to the
territory of the other High Party or in jurisdictional areas of the other State.
Equally incompatible is the presence of ships or warplanes or espionage aircraft,
military units or any other type of military force in or over the territory of the
State or in itsjurisdictional waters.
Chapter III
Article Eleven
Neither of the High Contracting Parties shall apply, support or foment the
use of economic, political or any other type of measures, to coerce the other
State with the end of achieving the subordination of its exercise or its sovereign
rights or to ohtain from it advantages of whatever order.
Article Twelve
International commerce and other forms of economic cooperation hetween
the High Contracting Parties shall he conducted independently of any differences
in economic, social or governmental system. Discrimination based solely on such
differences is incompatible with the present Treaty. The discriminatory measures
that may have been adopted by either of the High Parties prior to the signing of
the present Treaty shall he revoked.
Article Thirteen
The High Contracting Parties recognize the right and the responsihility of
each Stateto freely choose its objectives and means of development, to mobilize
and fully utilize its resources and Io carry out economic and social reforms that
assure the full participation of its peoples in the process and in the henefits of
economic, social and cultural development.
Chapter IV
Article Fourieen
The High Contracting Parties solemnly promise to solve any situation or
controversy through peaceful means recognized by International Law, in such a
way as will not endanger international peace and security.
Article Fifteen
In the event of a controversy or situation hetween the two States that affects
or could affect international peace and security, the High Parties shall Lake
recourse in the first place to direct and friendly negotiations, including the
constitution of Mixed Commissions, to achieve its solution, and, if it he not
possible to reach an agreement, they shall take recourse to other means of
peaceful solution of controversies recognired in the Charter of the United Nations
as estahlished in the following articles.Arricle Sixreen
The Hieh Contractine Parties. in the event of controversv, shall abstain from
ÿdopiing an! mrii,i.re ih.11could :i@fra\iitc ihc siluaiion so ;is iu cnkingcr ihc
rnaiiiicnancc of iniernaiional pcxc and scçuriiy.
Article Sevenreerl
The High ConIracting Parties, designate the Republics of Colombia, Mexico,
Pansima and Veneziielaas Guarantor States of the present Treaty.
In the event that no agreement can be achieved through direct negotiation or
via the Mixed Commissions previously established, recourse shall be taken to
the good officesof ihe Guarantor States. Should this recourse not succeed, either
of the Parties may request that the Secunty Council of the United Nations
resolve that controversy or situation that affects or could aiiect international
peace and security.
Chapter V
Article Ninereen
Accusations madi: by either of the High Parties relative to the violation of the
present Treaty, shotild no agreement be reached through direct negotiations or
via Mixed Commis:;ions, may be suhmitted to the good offices of the Guaran-
tor States.
Article Tivenrj
When the validit!, of an accusation presented is proven, the State determined
to be responsible shall he obliged to compensate the injured State for al1 the
damages and losse:; that have been occasioned as well as the indemnities to
which the latter is entitled. The Guarantor States shall determine on the basis of
the damages and Iosses that have been caused, the amount and the form of
payment and the oiher measures that must be taken to prevent the repetition
of violations of the present Treaty. The reparations to which the present article
refers constitute an international obligation.
Arricle Tivenry-One
In the event that the good officesof the Guarantor States do not exceed or in
the event that no solution is presented within a prudential period of no more
than thirty days or within the period of time agreed by the High Parties, com-
mencing on the date the accusation was presented, or in the event that the
gravity of the situation so requires, either of the Parties may turn to the Security
Council of the Uniied Nations, even before the expiration of said term, so that
this forum may resolve the controversy or situation. EXHIBITS SUBMITIED BK NICARAGUA
Chapter VI
Article Twenty-Two
The present Treaty in no way affects the rights and obligations of the High
Contracting Parties, as established in the Charter of the United Nations.
Arricle Tiventy-Three
The present Treaty shall he in force for a term of fiveyears, renewable for an
equal period on the consent of the Parties, and it shall enter into effectwhen the
instruments of ratification have been exchanged. In case of denunckation, Che
Treaty shall continue in eiîect for one year after it has been communicated to
the other Party.
Article Twenly-Four
A copy of the present Treaty and of the instruments of ratification shall be
deposited with the Secretariat of the United Nations.
The Republics of Colombia, Mexico. Panama and Venezuela shall subscrihe
to the preSent Treaty as Guarantor States
In witness whereof, the plenipotentiary representatives of the Republic of
Nicaragua and of the United States of America sign the present Treaty in the
English and Spanish languages, hoth of equal validity, in the city of.....on the
.....of ......
DRAFT TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLICS OF HONDURAS AND
NICARAGUA
INTRODUCTION
In the month of Mav 1981.on the initiative of Nicaraeua. a meetine was held
at thc Uicaraguÿn bo;~cr pust of 13 Gu;ii:iulc. bci!iec~ the Chiel5 ii State of
Ilonduras and Sir:ir;igua. liitlie purpore of ex~niiningthe iIr.liç~te.;iiuation in
the border zone that had resulted from the increasing attacks by counter-
revolutionam bands aeainst Nicaraeuan territom. In this meetine it was aereed
to hold an :ady mee& hetween fhe highest &ilitary chiefs of-both ~tacs Co
the end of agreeing on the rnanner of carrying out joint patrolling of the border
zone. as a means of oreventine such incidents. Unfortunatelv Honduras refused
to carry out that co~mitmentr
Later, with the present Honduran Govemment in power, in the month of
April 1982, Nicaragua presented Honduras with a peace proposal of seven
points, the pnnciple of which was the signing of a non-agression agreement
hetween hoth States, with the objective of halting the rapid deterioration of
relations caused by the continual attacks on ils national territory and by the
increasing participation of the Anned Forces of Honduras in counter-revolu-228 MlLlTARY AND PARAMILITARYACTlVlTlES
tionary activities tt~at are promoted hy the Government of the United States
.... .h the Central Inte~ ~ ~nce Auencv2 That same month of Aori.. t.e Govern-
ment of Honduras rejected in al1 its parts the Nicaraguan peace proposal. In
Aueust and Septemher of las1 year, Nicaragua continued its initiative to arrive
at in understanding with the ond dur a ~nGernment and encountered the same
negative response.
Understanding the grave consequences that can derive from the utilization of
Honduran territory as a base of operations and refuge for the mercenary forces
that daily perpetrati: multiple crimes and attacks against Nicaragua, and in com-
pliarice with Resolution 530 of the Security Council of the United Nations,
whiçh, besides manifesting its grave preoccupation at the possihility of a military
confrontation between Honduras and Nicaragua, urges the concerncd States to
take the necessary measures to avoid such a conflict, the Government of
Nicaragua considers it an unpostponable necessity to fonnalize the draft of a
non-agaession Tre;it~ between Honduras and Nicaragua that owns the oath to
peaçe,-~ecurity and mutual confidence. This hilaterai~reaty with Honduras is
even more urgent when, as time passes, the participation of the Honduran Army
is accentuated and the North American military apparatus in that country is
~nr"aded. with the ou.no.e of launchine la-eer -nd more daneerous "~ilitarv
,>lren%ii.ra>gainit Yiraragua This situation is opening the u.ay i'n3 generali7ed
conilict thai is noi ilcsired by either of the t~,o~peopand that isrepudiated by
the Government of ~icaragua.
The increase of terrorist actions and the upgrading of the aggressive belligerent
machinery against Nicaragua gives irrefutahle and evident importance to the
present draft Treaty which Nicaragua proposes be signed with Honduras.
The proposed Tieaty draR, based on basic principles of International Law,
constitutes a new manifestation of the will to peace that guides Nicaraguan
policy in its relations with al1 the countries of the world, particularly with ils
neiehbon.
Non-intervention, proscription of the threat or the use of force and respect
for the right of frm:determination of peoples are, among others, the principles
upon which the peace and security of koples mus1be erected.
Nicaraeua houes that this draft Treatv of ueace. friendshin and coooeration
encounte;~ a favbrahle and constructive ;ecept'ionon the part of the Goiernment
of Honduras, whicli has claimed to he interested in an eiïective reestablishment
of mace and in the normalization of relations between Honduras and Nicaraeua:
fraiernal countries now set against each other artificially hecause of the policy
of the Government of the United States.
DRAFT TREATY OF PëACE, ~RIIiNIlSHlP AND CWPERATIO NETWEEN THE REPUBLICS
OF HONDURASAND NICARAGUA
The Governmenis of the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua, desirous of
invigorating the hi:itoric and fraternal bonds that unite both peoples and, for
that reason, insistent upon the strengthening of peace and security between both
States, within the framework of respect for the principles of abstention from
recourse to the threat or the use of force, non-intervention in the interna1alfairs
of States. free determination of oeooles. oeaceful solution of controversies.
territorialintegrity and sovcreign'eq;ality'of States, in confonnity with the
principles establishsd in the Charter of the United Nations Organization, have
agreed to the following: EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA
Chapter 1
Article One
The Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua solemnly promise to not take
recourse to the threat or the use of force as a means of solving the controversies
that may arise between both States.
Article Two
'he lligh Coniraiting P:irtic\ rcnounL.cthc uhr..~i'iorccigliinsi the oiercignty.
tcrrtt<~riilinicgrit) <irpoliti;dl inJepcnd<ncs oftllrotlier Stnie
Article Three
Likewise, the High Contracting Parties promise not to give political, military,
economic or any other kind of support to individuals or groups that advocate
the overthrow or the destabilization of the other Government, as well as to
impede, employing al1means within their capacity, the use of their territory for
the purpose of attacking or organizing attacks. acts of sabotage, kidnappings or
criminal acts in the territory of the other State.
Article Four
Each of the High Contracting Parties, with the purpose of complying with the
agreed terms of the present Treaty, shall disarm and remove to the interior of
the countrv far from the common boundarv anv individual or grouo takine
actions againsi the other State and that penetrates or isdiscovered in-itsréspective
territory, and shall prohibit al1trafic of arms and war material that might be
used against the other State
Article Five
Persons within the territory of each State may not devote themselves to any
kind of activity with the goal of promoting, organizing, instigating, raising funds
for or carrying out actions against the other State.
Article Six
In the event that third parties declare war or carry out belligerent actions
against either of the two High Contracting Parties, both Parties agree absolutely
not to enter into an offensive alliance nor to lend any sort of assistance or
support to the enemies of either of the two Repuhlics. The foregoing does not
impede the formalization of alliances for the defense of their respective territories
in case they are attacked or invaded
Ariicle Seven
Commercial and economic relations shall not he used in any way harmful to
the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence ofthe other Party.
Article Eight
The High Contracting Parties agree, moreover, to punish in conformity with
their respective interna1 laws and with international treaties in force, thoie230 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
individuals who illicitly seize possession of ships or airplanes of the other State
and who transport them to their respective territories, and to sign a treaty of
extradition covering the persons who commit this kind of crime. The hijacked
ships or airplanes ahall be placed at the disposition of the injured party within
the shortest possible time, without their being subject to retention or to any
judicial measures whatsoever.
Chapter II
Article Nine
In the event of controversy or of any situation hetween both States that may
affect international pcace and security, the High Parties shall take recourse in
the first place to direct and friendly negotiations, including the constitution of
Mixed Commissions' to achieve ils solution and, if it be no1possible to arrive al
an agreement, they shall take recourse to other rneans for the peaceful solution
of controversies recognized in Resolution 530 of the Security Council of the
United Nations, in accordance with the terms of the following articles:
Article Ten
The Iligh Conlr.icling ILrticr Jcsign~ic the Kepuh1i.s or Ciil<imhii, hlc\ico.
Yan.iiii.42nd Vcnc/~el:idi Gudr;intsr St;itcs of the prewni .l'rc;ity.
Article Eleven
ln case an agreenient cannot be reached through direct negotiations or through
the Mixed Commissions constituted to that effect, recourse shall be taken to the
good officesor the mediation of the Guarantor States, which shall he given al1
facilities to acquaint themselves with and to assist in the solution of the
controversy or situ;ition that has been submitted to them.
Article Twelve
If. throueh the eood offices or the mediation of the Guarantor States. an
agreement wnni>t te rc.i;hcd. e~ilicroithe Iligh I'ariic, nia) rcqucrt ihc Securiiy
Couiiiil oithc Un~icJSïtiuii, tu rc,ol\c thc contr<nerr) or sitii:ititin thsi d~lèit,.
or could affect, intwnational peace and security
Chapter III
Article Thirtecn
The High Contracting parties, in order to carry out what is agreed upon in
the present Treaty, promise to disarm and to remove to the interior of the
country far from the common houndary al1individuals and groups estahlished
in their territories, ~s well as to dismantle any kind of encampments or bases in
their territory that are being used or that may he used to organize or to carry
out attacks againsi. the territory and the population of the other State, or to
carry out any other action of a similar nature contemplated in the present Treaty. EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 231
Article Fourteen
In the event that one of the contracting States denounces the existence in the
territory of the other State of groups, encampments or hases, or attacks against
its territorv nroceedine from the other State. and if direct neeotiations with the
other tat th'avefailed-to achieve positive resllts, either of thfiarties may solicit
the good officesor the mediation of the States referred to in Article Ten of the
present Treaty.
Article Fifreen
Should the accusation presented be proven, the State responsible shall be
obliged to compensate the injured State for al1 damages and losses that have
heen occasioned as well as the indemnities to which the latter is entitled. The
Governments of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela shall determine on
the basis of the facts the amount and the form of payment and the other
measures that must be taken to prevent the repetition of violations of the present
Treaty. The reparations to which the present article refers constitute an inter-
national obligation.
Article Sixteen
Should the Guarantor States fail to resolve the controversy or situation witbin
a prudential period of no more than thirty days from the date of presentation
of the accusation, or if the gravity of the situation so requires, either of the
Parties may go to the Security Council of the United Nations, even hefore the
expiration of said period, so that this forum may familiarize itself with and
resolve the situation or controversy.
Article Seventeen
The present Treaty in no way affects the rights and obligations of the High
Contracting Parties, as estahlished in the Charter of the United Nations.
Article Eighreen
The present Treaty shall be in force for a period of five years, renewable on
the consent of the Parties, and shall enter into effect when the instruments of
ratification have heen exchanged. In case of denunciation, this Treaty shall
remain in effectuntil one year after it has been communicated to the other Party.
Article Nineteen
A copy of the present Treaty and its instruments of ratification shall he
deposited with the Secretariat of the United Nations.
The Governments of the Repuhlics of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and
Venezuela shall subscribe to the present treaty as Guarantor States.
In witness whereof the plenipotentiary representatives of the Republics of
Nicaragua and Honduras sign the present Treaty in the city of .....on the ......
of ...... MII.ITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIFS
DRAFT ACCORD CONCERNING EL SALVADOR
INTRODUCTION
The persisience of the Salvadoran conflict and its indefinite prolongation in
time is seriouslv aiïecting the peace and security of the entire Central American
region as well as iti economic and social deveiopment. To act responsibly with
respect to this rcality, it is a moral obligation and an unavoidable necessity to
contribute to, or at least not to obstruct the steps bcing taken inside El Salvador
to achieve a neeotiated political solution between the conflicting forces in that
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t wiii eiiaraniee stable and lastine oeace. to contribuTe to a oeaceful
solution through kit means established by lntérnational Law and, in p&ticular,
fully respecting the sovereign right of peoples to decide for themselves their own
desiin,. bithoil foreie- interference. coeccion or threats
The sust;iincd and e\er-inrrelising intcrvcntion of the G~ivcrnmcnt of ihe
Unitcd States in ilir inicrnal Sdliaiior~n siruggle 15 the principlil facior thai
hanincrs and rcnders dimcult ihc ;ichicvcment of 3 ncxo~iated ~0lltliiisoluii~~n.
sinci it has constitiited itself in fact as the principal sGpplierof arms directly to
the governmental f<,rcesas well as indirectly to the revolutionary forces.
As an argument that permits it to justify its policy of intervention in El
Salvador, the Gov~rnment of the United States has accused Nicaragua of a
supposed transfer ol arms to the revolutionary forces from Nicaraguan territory;
a pretext that has served it equally as a justificatii~n to attack the Sandinist
Popular Revolutioii and the people of Nicaragua politically. economically and
militarily in both ovcrt and covert form.
Conscious of this situation, and in a new eiïort Io contribute to a political
solution, the Government of Nicaragua made public on 19July 1983an appeal
to al1nations in which it asked:
"the absolute i:essation of al1supply of arms by any nation to the forces in
conflict in El Salvador, in order that this people may resolve its problems
without outside interference".
Having received no answer to this appeal, the Government of Nicaragua has
considered ii necessary to formalize this proposal in concrete and detailed terms.
in the form of an accord, to be subscribéd to by al1 nations that desire to
contributc to thc p~acefulsolution of the present amied conflict in the Republic
of El Salvador. In any event, Nicaragua is disposed to subscribe to said accord
immediately, even though it be with the United States only. in order that the
Government of that country cease justifying its intcrventionist policy in El
Salvador on the basis of supposed actions by Nicaragua.
The Governments of ........................
Considering that the grave crisis suiïered by the Republic of El Salvador, as a
conseauence of the armed conflict beine waeed there. is one of the orincioal
factor; aiïecting th,: peace and security orthe central ~merican region,'and tkat
it is the obligation of al1nations without impairment of the principles of non-
intervention and the self-determination of peoples, to contribute by al1possible
licit means to the cessation of bloodshed in the Republic of El Salvador and to EXHIBITS SURYITITD BY NICARAGUA 233
propitiate a peaceful solution that makes possible the cessation of hostilities
between the contendine forces and the reestablishment of oeace and concord in
El Salvador, and taking into account that the continuation'of the supplying and
traficking of arms, munitions and military equipment and of military and
economic assistance to the contendine forces rr..fiv . .edes their oossibilities
~l'achievinga pr.~ccfulnegoti;itcd sctt~ment thiit ciids the arnicd conlii~tsuffcrcd
by the Kcpublic oi El Sal\aJur. hiiveagreeJ tu ihc i<illo\i,ing:
Chapter 1
ArricleOne
The Hir- Contractinp. -arties oromise not to offer and. should such be the
ciisc.IO suspend militar) a5,istancc ~nd training and the supply and tralticking
of ÿrms. munitions and militiiry equipment thai nia! be niade directly to the
contending forces or indirectly through third States
Arricle Two
The High Contracting Parties promise to adopt in their respective territories
whatever measures mai be necessarv to imoede al1 suoolv ;n..tr,fickinr of
arms, muniti,>n\ dnd rniliidry equipment and military a<\istdncc IO anil training
ol'ihe contcnJing forcer in the Ilcpiihlic ,>i14 Sal\aJor.
Article Tkree
Likewise, the High Contracting Partics promise to exercise their good offices,
jointly or on their own initiative, with respect to third States who supply or
permit the trafic of arms, munitions and military equipment or who lend military
assistance and training to the contending forces in El Salvador. to the end of
suspending such supply and assistance and joining the efforts being made to
reestablish peace and concord in that nation.
Article Four
To the effect of guaranteeing the fulfillment of the disposition of the present
agreement by al1persons, natural or juridical, in their respective tcrritories, the
Hieu Contractine uarties shall adoot al1the measures necessarv to imoede the
supply and trafic of arms, munitions and military equipment to any of the
contending forces in El Salvador. With this aim, they shall reinforcethe vigilance
of borders, ports, airports, coastal zones or any other place that may he utilized
to this end.
Arricle Five
The Hieh Contractine Parties ~romise no1 to offer. and if. alreadv cxtended.
to suspend al1 I'ormrul'ceonorni;. linancial or technical as,istoniç destincd or
potentiall) destincd for the acquirition ufarmi. muniiions and military equipment
by the contending forces, as well as the training of troops or for oiheÏ military
purposes. Likewise, they shall make the necessary efforts so that third States
suspend economic, financial or technical assistance furnished for the same or
similar ends as those enunciated in the present article.234 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
Article Sir
The High Contracting Parties also promise Io promote and support in the inter-
national forums al1the initiatives to contribute to the restoration of peace in El
Salvador. pariiculaily ihtbseihai promote ihc ccr,ation 01'the supply ancl irÿllic
of ürni. niuniti,~n. and miliiary cquipmcnt and miliiary arji,t;incc and training
of the coniending force. of ihai nxii<>nand. ulien applii~blc. not io irnpc.dein
any forumthe adoption of resolutions or sanctions pÏaposed to that eReci
Article Seven
The High Contracting Parties designate the Republics of Colombia, Mexico,
Panama and Venezgela as Guarantor States of the present accord.
Chapter II
Article Eight
The denunciatioris made by any of the High Parties in relation Io violations
of the present accord, if not resolvedthrough direct negotiation. may be submitted
to the-good officesor the mediation of the Guarantor States.
Article Nine
For the purpose of facilitating the investigation of the acts denounced, the
accusing party will present al1 the supporting evidence and indications to the
Ministers of Foreign Relations of the Guarantor States. The accused State will
permit and facilitate the carrying out of al1 investigations in its territory that
may be necessary to determine the validity or inconsistency of the denunciation
or denunciations presented.
Article Ten
In the case that the good officesor the mediation of the States designated as
guarantors should no1 succeed, or in the case that a solution no1 be presented
within a prudential period of time no longer than thirty days or within the period
agreed by the High Parties, counting from the day the denunciation is presented,
or if the gravity of the situation so requires, any of the High Parties may turn
to the Security Council of the United Nations, even before the expiration of
said time period, so that this forum may familiarize itself with and resolve the
controversy or situation.
Article Eleven
'lhe prescnr accord ~h:illenter inio iorcc a, ioon a. the propcr rsiilksii,>n>
ha\c hc:ii tnsde 2nd ii rhall rcniain in iorie isr ihc .lurati.>n i>fihc prc\'ni
2rmr.J c<,niliciin 1:IS~I\.ad<ir. 11<.)IV <II'ihr rirc,ciii ac~ordili.ilbe dc~ositcd
with the Secretariat of the United s ai ion or~anization.
The Governments of the Republics of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Vene-
zuela subscribe to rhe present Accord in their condition of guarantors.
In witness whereof the plenipotentiary representatives of the Governments of
.....sign the preserit Accord in the city of .....on the ....of ...... EXHIBITSSURMI~D BY NICARAGUA 235
DRAÇT TREATY BETWEEN THE CENTRAL AMERICAN REPUBLICS
INTRODUCTION
The crisis that affects the Central American region, whose true causes are the
secular misery and oppression of ils people, kas been substantially aggravated
by foreign interventionism, which has been present in the region since its
independence and which has been and is one of the principal factorscontributing
to the existing situation of profound injustice and to the consequent state of
political and social unrest throughout the region.
The Sandinist Popular Revolution and its national project, ever since the
advent of the Reagan Administration, has become the abject of military, political
and economic aggressions by the Government of the United States, to the
prejudice of the Nicaraguan people.
Despite Nicaragua being the country that since 1981has daily suffered aggres-
sions launched from othcr countries in the region and "covert actions" in violation
of International Law that are financed and directed by the Central Intelligence
Agency (C.I.A.),the Government of the United States attempts to present Nicara-
-ua as the countrv that threatens the Deaceand securitv of other countries in the
region These aicus;iiiuns arc no mtirc th;in the prcrcit ut111~Jy the Go\,crnmcnt
of the Cniicd Siater 10silempi Io ~urtil'y11,'c<li.crt.Iciiiini" dgainst Si;ilrag~3
Wilh ihr inlcnii<iniiiclrarly crllihlirhind Niwr;icu;i'$unqu;iliiicd;idhcrcnceIO
the principles of ~nternational Law that mus1 govern relaiions between sover-
eign States, the Government of National Reconstruction has considered it neces-
sary to formalize the present draft General Treaty.
On orooosing the oresent draft Treatv. Nicaragua is confident that it will be
. .
received fisitivëly by governments that are sinceGly committed to guaranteeing
international peace and security and to promoting fraternal and harmonious
relations between the Central American countries
DRAFT GEEYERALTRIiATY CONCIRNING TIII?MAIN7ENANCE OF PEACE AND SECURITY
AND CONCERNING THE RELATIONS OF FRIENDSHIP AND COOPERATION BtTWEEN THE
RI?PUBLICSOF CENTRAL AMERICA
The Governments of the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras and Nicaragua, fully conscious that, for the development and well-
being of their peoples, the maintenance of peace and security is necessary, as
well as the fomenting of relations of friendship and cooperation between the
nations comorisine the reeion. and that the achievement of these loftv asoirations
requires of ihe central xmerican States absolute respect for the iundamentai
principles that govern the relations between States, such as the principles of non-
intervention, self-determination of peoples, of abstention from recourse to the
threat or the use of force. neaceful solution of controversi,s. .esnectfor territorial
integrity and the sovereign equality of States, principles thai are consecrated in
the Charter of the United Nations Organization, and
Recomizinr that the leritimate concern of the Central American States to
guaranGe thcyrrecurity hargcner~ied ;tniilitary dciclupmeni ihai. ai ihr prrrent
timc. iendi, ioward a ~lcierioraiion of ihc polii~<~lsiluaiion in the rcgiun and a
diversion of economic resources that should be invested in the development of
the countries of Central America. and that this situation makes ukent t-e
adoption of adequate measures to guarantee said security through respect for
the fundamental principles of International Law, as pointed out above,236 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
Therefore, thc Governments of Costa Rica, ElSalvador,Guatemala, Honduras
and Nicaragua, wilh the purpose of guaranteeing peace and security between
their States, have agreed ta the following:
Chapter 1
Article One
The High Contracting Parties solemnly promise tu refrain from taking recourse
in their international relations tu the threat or tu the use of force against the
territorial integrity or the political independence of any of the contracting States.
Arlicle Two
The High Contr:icting Parties shall not take recourse to the threat or ta the
use of force tu violate the existing international borders of other States nor as a
means of resolving international controversies, including territorial controver-
sies and problems relating tu the boundaries of the States. Likewise, they shall
abstain from carrying out any act of reprisal that implies or that may imply the
use of force.
Arlicle Tliree
The Hizh Cnntcictine Parties shall refrain in their resoective territories. from
organizing, fomenting or tolerating the organization of irregular Frccs or of
bands, whether arnied or not, including mercenary bands, to make incursions in
the territories of the other States.
Arlicle Four
The High Contracting Parties shall adopt the necessary measures ta impede
the utilization of thzir respectiveterritories tu organize, instigate, aid or participate
in acts that 1hreati:n the internal or external security of the other States or ta
permit organized zictivitieswithin their territory that are directed toward the
commission of said acts.
Chapter II
Article Five
The High Contracting Parties solemnly promise no1 tu intervene directly or
indirectly, whatever may be the motive, in the internat or external aKairs of any
of the other States.
Arlicle Six
The High Contmcting Parties proscribe, in their international relations, armed
intervention and al1interference or threats against the personality of the other
States or of the political. economic and cultural elements that compose them.
Arlicle Seven
Likewise,they sliatl refrain from organizing, supporting, fomenting, financing,
instigating or tolerating armed, subversive or terrorist activities directed toward EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 237
changing the régimeof another State or intervening in the interna1 struggles of
another State.
Article Eight
The High Contracting Parties recognize the inalienable right of States to
choose their economic, social, political and cultural systems without any inter-
ference on the part of any other State.
None of the High Contracting Parties shall apply, support or foment the use
of economic, political or any other kind of measures to coerce the other States
with the end of achieving the subordination of the exercise of their sovereign
rights or to obtain from them advantages of whatever order.
Article Ten
International commerce and other forms of economic cooperation hetween
the High Contracting Parties shall he conducted indcpendently of any differences
in political, economic and social systems. No State shall be the ohject of any
sort of discrimination based solely on such differences.
Article Eleven
Within the primordial responsibility of promoting the economic, social and
cultural development of their respective peoples, the High Contracting Parties
have the right and the responsibility of freelychoosing their objectivesand means
of development, of mobilizing and fully using their resources and of carrying out
economic and social reforms that assure the full participation of their peoples in
the process and in the benefits of development.
Chapter III
Article Twelve
Ratifying their condition as free, sovereign and independent States, the High
Contracting Parties declare that neither the Central American region nor any of
those States which comprise it constitute a strategic resewe of any extra-
regional State.
Article Tliirreen
The High Contracting Parties shall not authorize the installation in their
respective territories of foreign land, air or sea bases or foreign military schools;
nor shall they permit that their national hases or schools he utilized for the
training of military personnel who are not nationals of their own countries.
Article Fourteen
Likewise,without the previous agreement of al1High Contracting Parties, they
shall not participate in, authorizeor tolerate the ca;rying out ofmilitary exer-
cises hy foreign forces, be they land, sea, air or joint exercises, in their respective238 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIV~TIES
territories nor in the areas under their jurisdiction, nor any sort of military
exercises in which inilitary troops of foreign armed forces take part or in which
war material helon~ingto foreign armed forces is employed.
Article Frteen
In the event that third countries declare war or carry out belligerent actions
against any of the Iiigh Contracting Parties, none of the Central American States
shall join an offensive alliance nor lend assistance or support 10 the enemies of
any of the Central American republics. The foregoing does not impede the
formalization of alliances for the defense of their respective territories in the
event of any attack.
Arlicle Si.xree
The Hieh Contrectine Parties aeree to cancel maneuvers. exercisesand militarv
training exercises in which foreign armed forcesparticipate, within a term of no
more than thirty days, and they likewise agree to cancel foreign military bases,
installations andschools withina tcrm of II m;ore than ninetv davs. Both terms
shall commence on the date when the present Treaty enters into force.
Arlicle Seventeen
The High Contracting Parties agree to punish in conformity with their res-
pective interna1 laws and with international treaties in force, those individuals
who illicitly seize possession of ships or airplanes of the other States and who
transport them to their respective territories, and to sign a treaty of extradition
covering this class of crime. The hijacked ships or airplanes shall be placed at
the disposition of the injured party within theshortest possible time, without
their being subject to retention oro any judicial measures whatsoever.
Article Eighreen
The High Contracting Parties, in order to carry out what is agreed upon in
the present Treaty, promise to disarm and to remove to the interior of the
country far from the common boundary al1individuals and groups estahlished
in their territories, asl as to dismantle any kind of encampments or bases in
their territory that are heing used or that may be used to organize or to carry
out attacks against the territory and the population of the other State, or to
carry out any other action of a similar nature contemplated in the present Treaty.
Chapter IV
Arlicle Ninereen
The High Contracting Parties solemnly promise to solve any situation or
controversy hy the peaceful means recognized by International Law, in such a
way that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
In the event ofzcontroversy or situation that affects or that may affect peace
and security, the liigh Contracting Parties shall take recourse in thest place EXHIBITS SUBMIITED BY NICARAGUA 239
to direct and friendly negotiations including the constitution of Mixed Com-
missions, in order to achieve their solution and, if it be impossible to reach an
agreement, they shall take recourse to other means of peaceful solution of
controversies recognized in Resolution 530of the Security Council of the United
Nations, as established hy the following articles:
Article Twenfy-One
The High Contracting Parties, in the event of controversy, shall refrain from
adopting any measure that may aggravate the situation in a way that endangers
the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article Twenry-Tivo
The High Contracting Parties designate the Repuhlics of Colomhia, Mexico,
Panama and Venezuela as Guarantor States of the present Treaty.
Article Twenry-Three
In ihc c\,cni iti;an ;igrccmcni annoi be rsacheil ihrough direct ncgntiati<in,
or via the previou.ly-c\t~hlishcrl .MixcdCoiiiniissions, rc:oiirsc shall bc 1.ikr.nti~
the cood officr.~or to the medidiiim 01'the GuIirantiir Sixte.. io tih<,m jh;ill he
gi\cn all faciliticsin order th;it the) nia) ,i:qii;iint ihenirel\,cswith .inilconirihuic
in ihe uiluiic~niiithe c<inir<ncr\yor riiuatiiin th~t ha, hccn suhmiiicd IO ihcni
Article Twenly-Fout
If through the good officesor the mediation of the Guarantor States an agree-
ment cannot he reached. an. of .he Hieh Con-ractine Parties mav suhmit the
controversy or situation that affectsor may affectinternational Waceand security
to the Security Council of the United Nations.
Chapter V
Article Twenty-Five
The accusations made by any of the Contracting Party States with respect 10
the violation of the present Treaty shall be presented, with al1 the respective
evidence and proofs, to the Guarantor States, who may be requested IO initiate
the respective investigations in order to determine the justification or lack of
justification of the charges. The High Contracting Parties shall accept as binding
the resolution issued hy the Guarantor States.
In order to facilitate the investigation of the denounced acts. the accusinr
pariy shdl prcscni al1thc c\,idcnce ÿnd pri,i>f\ihai buppori ils arcusailon to ihé
Minisirrr <ii1;)rrign Relatiuns of ihc Guardntor Siaics The Staic ihai has heen
~icsusedshall permit and shall grani faiiliiics 10 carry out XIIinvcsiiaÿiions in ils
territory that may be necessari in order to determine the validity or the incon-
sistency of the accusation or accusations presented.
Article Twenty-Six
When the validity of the accusations presented is proven, the State responsible
shall be obligated to compensate the injured State for al1the damages and lossesthat have been occasioned as well as the indemnities to which the latter is
entitled. The Guarantor States shdll determine on the basis of the facts the
amount and form of Davment and the other measures that must be taken to
prevent the repetition'of<violations of the present Treaty. The reparations to
which the present article refers constitute an international obligation.
Article Twenty-Sev1.n
If the Guarantor States should no1resolve the controversy or situation within
a prudential perioà of no more than thirty ddys from the date of presentation
of the accusation, or should the gravity of the situation so require, any of the
Parties may turn t<>the Security Council of the United Nations even before the
term has expired, 50 that this forum may examine and resolve the controversy
or situation.
Article Twenty-Eighl
The present Treaty in no way affectsthe rightsand obligations of the High Con-
tracting Parties as established in the Charter of the United Nations Organization.
Article Tiventy-Nin,?
The present Treaty shall be in force for a term of fiveyears, renewable on the
consent of the Parties. and itshall enter into effect when the Fifth Instrument of
Raiilis<tt~onhas hc'n <lepo\itr.d I)cnunriaiion of the 'l'rcatvshall t;ikc cfici for
:he dcnouncing Stîtc one afterit has bccn i(>mmunii<iicJ.with thc Trcdty
xmaining in clk~.t >o long ar ihrçc oi th? Iligh I'iirticsremain si>Jispoicd
Article Tliirty
The Minister of Foreign Relations of the Republic of .....is entrusted with
sendingauthentic cr:rtifiedcopies of the instruments of ratification to the signatory
and Guarantor States.
A copy of the present Treaty and of the instruments of ratification shdll be
deposited with the Secretariat of the United Nations Organization.
The Govcrnmenrs of the Republics or Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Vene-
zuela shall subscribe to the present Treaty as Guarantor States.
In witness whereof the plenipotentiary representatives of the Republics of
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua sign the present
Treaty in the city of .....on the ......f ......
PROF'OSALCONCERNING MlLlTARY AFFAIRS
The Draft Document of Commitment concerning military afiairs, elaboratcd
in the form of an Act of Commitment. emhraces and develops points 7, 8 and 9
of the Document of Objectives, that is to sdy, those referring to the immediate EXHIBITS SUBMIITED BY NICARAGUA 241
proscription of foreign bases or military schools and any other form of foreign
military presence, including military maneuvers with foreignforces; the immediate
cessation of the acquisitioo of arms of any type or point of ongin for Central
American countries; the immediatewithdrawal of al1foreign advisers and military
personnel; the limitation of arms and number of regular army troops, and the
e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ r-~ ~~-~~~ ~ ~ontrol mechanisms for the verification of
adherence to such commitrnents.
This Draft Document of Commitment Concerning Military Aiïairs addresses
the substantive concerns rcgarding subject and gives them a-concrete response.
There can be no doubt that the existence of foreign military bases or schools,
a foreign military presencc, the continual exercise of military maneuvers with
foreien armed forces. the constant acauisition of weaDonrv and the Dresenceof
foreign military adviiers obstructs the development and f;iendly understanding
of the Central American pcoples. In this respect, the Governments of the region
would assume concrete cbrnmitments with respect to these matters that would
favor détenteand confidence and, above all, the reestablishment of international
peace and sccurity in Central America.
The Ministers of Foreign Relations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras,
Nicaragua and Costa Rica, meeting within the framework of the efforts of the
Contadora Group.
Considering
1. That it is necessary to strengthen peace, security and confidence between
the States of the Central American region.
2. That it is the ohlieation of States to euarantee and assure their oeoole ade-
qu;ite stiindards of livingin the cconomic.~ducation;~l.cultural and hcalih fields
;inJ thal their rr.\ourccsmu51bcdirccicdIo the 3chieiemrnt t~l'thrdgrcat objectives.
3. That the acauisition of arms and the increase of relrular troous befond the
objective needs for the defense of the sovereignty and territorial inGgrity of
their States has a negative repercussion on economic and social development by
divening resources and efforts which should be utilized in improving the living
standards of their people.
4. That the existence of foreign bases and foreign military forces and other
forms of foreign military presence is one of the factors that can aiïect peace,
security and balance in the region and disturb the understanding between the
States~o~ C-n~ ~ ~ ~~-~~~~~~~~~~
5. That the presence of foreign military advisers in the present tense climate
of the rerion is a factor that can obstruct undcrstandinr between the countries
of Centra America.
6. That it is the primordial obligation of States to guarantee peaceful coexist-
ence in the region based on respect for the basic principles ofinternational law
which must rieillate the relations bctween sovereien nations. as cstablished in
the Charter ofihe United Nations Organization.
Contract the Commitment Withinthe Frame~vorkof Contadora Io:
1. Irnmediately proscribe within their respectiveterritories the installation of
foreign military hases or schools and any other form of foreign military presence,242 MILITARYAXD PARAM~LITARYACTIVITIES
including al1types of military maneuvers with foreign armed forces, as well as
to dismantle existing foreign military bases or schools and to cancel scheduled
or existing military maneuvers with foreign armed forces.
2. To immediaiely discontinue the acquisition of arms of whatever type and
point of origin for any country of Central America.
3. To immediaiely begin the withdrawal of al1 foreign advisers and military
personnel in the rel;ion and to complete thcir withdrawül within thirty days of
having signed this agreement.
4. To reach accords concerning arms limitations and the number of standard
army troops taking into account the objective defense needs for sovereignty,
indeoendence and 1i:rritorialinte-.itv of each State.
5 To establish supervilon and conirol mech;inisrnsinorder to i,erifyadhcrencc
10 the commitnlerll! referred Io ln the precedlng points.
IiiFuriherance of S~rcl~ims. TheyAgree Io
1. The establishnient of a Special Commission composed of the representatives
of the Central American Governments and of the Contadora Group to initiate
negotiations on the commitments referred to in the preceding Chapter.
This Commissiori shall meet within a period of no more than fifteen days
commencing on th,: date of approval of the present commitment, in the city
of Panama.
2. The Special Commission should report the results of each round of negoti-
ations to its respective Govemments and the Governments of the Contadora
countrics.
The Ministers of Foreign Relations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras,
Nicaragua and Co:.ta Rica, sign the present Act of Commitment in the city of
Panama on the .....day of the month of December of 1983.
DRAFT DECLARATION
The Draft Declaration takes up and develops points 3, 4, 5, and 15 of the
Document of Objectives, that is to say, those referring to Political Aifairs of an
internal nature and intemal aifairs with international projection. The reasons on
which Nicaragua bases itself in delineating these points in a Declaration rather
than in an international instrument, are implicit in the very nature of the aiiairs
to which the indicared points refer. Unquestionably, the intemal political systems
can only be a commitment assumed before each people, and therefore cannot be
the ohject of an international instrument between countries. It is a universally
accepted principle that peoples have the inalienable right to choose Lheirown
laws as part of their right to freely choose their own political and social system.
On the other harid, internal questions with international projection, as in the
case of human rights and refugees, are already expressed in international
instruments such as International Pacts on Human Rights, the San Jose Pact
and the Convention concerning the Status of Refugees and its Protocol, for EXHIBITS SUBMITTBD BY NICARAGUA 243
which reason it is unnecessary to reflect in a new Treaty what already constitute
international obligations.
In anv case. it is the ohlieation of Governmcnts. in accordance with their own
inicrndl ordin.iri,.ci<>gu;ir.inice ihc i.111mdintcnJnce of the iund~meiiidl rightr
of nian, which LIIW ~ii.iiicr~~ic~~nsiiiuti~~n u:dler
As .uch. the I>r;iii De;I~rati,~nrcallirnis iliorc c.irnmiinicnis acauir-d hs edch
Government before its own people.
DRAFT DECLARATION
The Ministers of Foreign Relations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras,
Nicaragua and Costa Rica, meeting within the framework of the efforts of the
Contadora Croup.
I tirnil) dcicrrnined ILI;i,sure p-ace. \c;urit), de\clopincnr and the irclFdrc
10 whi~hthe Ccntral Aiilcrifin p:<~plcshxie full right.
2 Çon\iiiccd ihdi th? pr.iiicfui 2nd h~rrn.>nious;ochl\lcn~e <)ithe Srilles 01
the lsthmus reauires resvect for the different social~ ~~.nomic and oolitical
,y,ictiir. ihr righi in irce dctcrrnin.iiion :<ni1io iIie rsr<iluiii~i>ftheir i~itern:il
;ifiirs iin the hasi,of iheir own Jc\clopmcni ;in* p~riicul~riiic~
3. Ci~nsci~~sih;it the ahw~luic.ind urircriricicd i>h$er\,;ince~i ihc ririncirilcoi
non-intervention in the affairs of other States is vital for the maintenance of the
peace and security of the countries of the area.
4. Considering that the strengthening of democratic political institutions is
closely linked to the betterment and the advances that may be achieved in the
fields of economic development and social justice.
5. Recognizing the right of peoples, as the only depositories of national
sovereignty, to freely determine their own economic, social and governmental
svstems.
6. Acknowledging, likewise,that the perfecting ofdemocratic systems requires
adequate conditions of peace and security that do not disturh the normal
ReaffirmtheAssumedCommitmentswithTheirOwnPeoples
1. Respect and gnarantee in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations
the exercise of human, political, civic, economic, social, religious and cultural
riehts. takine into account that al1human riehts and fundamental freedoms are
iiidiiisihlc dnd inicrdcpendciit .and rhdt the siiie aiientiiin and urgent isnsider-
;ilion muri hc gi$cii io tlle opplicsii<>n,pri,nioiioti and pr<>iceii<> of econulliii.
social and cultural rights as civil and political rights.
2. Adont measures conducive to the establishment of. or. if existine. to -he
pcric;iing 3f rcprcr~,ni.iiii.e.ind pliiralisti; Jem<~irliiii r)iienilli:tgudrsnicc
ericciivc popular p:irtiCip,itlor111Jcci~i<)n-mriking ;ind thai arrurc ihc irce iiicesr
of the diverse currents-of opinion to honest Gd periodic electoral processes
founded on the full observance of the rights of citizens.
3. Develop a genuine democratic system that sustains the existence of jus1
economic and social structures which assure the people their inalienahle rights
to work, education. health and culture, making possible in this manner the effec-
tive exercise of ils other fundamental rights.
4. Promote actions of national reconciliation in those cases where profound
divisions have been produced within Society,permitting participation with full
guarantees, in political processes of a democratic nature.244 MILITARY A~W PARAMILITARYACTIVITIU
5. Continue humanitarian aid aimed at assisting Central Amencan refugees
who have been displaced from their countries of origin, and promoting, as well,
adequate condition'. for the voluntary repatriation of these refugeesin communi-
cation with, or with the cooperation of, the High Commission of the United
Nations - ACNLIR - and other international organisms that are judged
pertinent.
PROPOSAL CONCERNING ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS
INTRODUCTION
The economic and social questionscontained in points 16, 17, 18, 19and 20 of
the Document of Objectives are assembled in the form of a Draft Accord to Pro-
mote the Economic and Social Development of Central America. Points in this
draft aredevelo~edreferrin- to Central American inte-ation. internationaltrade.
eicrnal codpcration. Iood rccdrii) 2nd rnedicillrupplies. I.aIin Amcrican inle-
grall<inand ihe coiifornialion of a .peciai Central Anlericiln group th2\i,isel
ilh<>urtciurmulatinl: ihc Ccntr:il Amcrican CgimmonMrirkct ;ind th;ii uill ci~iirdi-
nate the necessary actions for the execution of the contents of said draft accord.
DRAFI' ACCORD 1.0 I'ROMOTE THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMEVT OF CENTRAL
AMERICA
The Foreign Rel;itions Ministers of the Republics of:
1. Conrious thai ihc proiound siructural problcms of the rcgion. aggravated
by thc iniernaiional esonomic cr~sis.arc thc fundamenial c~uw.of the polittc~l
and social tensions of the area.
2. Firmly convinced that the international peace and security of the States of
Central America, based on the unrestricted respect for the principles and noms
that govern the coexistence among nations, constitute vital conditions for the
achievement of economic and social develonment.
3. Reaffirming the right of each State to iake its own path in economic, social,
political and cultural matters without any interference, coercion or threat what-
soever on the part of any other State or States.
4. Convinced that Central American economic integration and cooperation
between States founded on the principles of equality' sovereignty, political inde-
pendence, solidarity, mutual and equitable benefits, non-discrimination and res-
pect for ideological pluralisrn, are indispensable instruments to assure the inte-
grated economic aiid social development in the region.
5. Convinced likewiseof the urgent need to reformulate, in integral form, the
bases and mechanisms of Central American Economic lntegration in order to
adapt them to the new economic and social conditions of the area.
6. Recognizing that external cooperation is an essential factor for the efforts
toward the stability and socio-economic development of Central America and
that in the intern~itional community actions are being promoted towards the
support of such en'orts. EXHIBITS SUBMI~TEOBY NICARAGUA 245
7. Considering that the economic vulnerahility of Central America requires
the adoption of concrete measures directed towards conjointly defending the
security and independence of the countries of the area, especially in the face of
situations that have heen provoked hy the application of economic measures of
a coercive nature.
AGREE TO:
A. INTERNAL MEASURES
Arlicle One
Carry out the necessary interna1 transformations to remove the obstacles that
impede the economic political, social and cultural development of their peoples
in whatever form each country may adopt in exercise of its sovereignty
B. CENTRAL AhERICAN INTEGRATION
Arricle Twn
Strenpthen and ~erfectthe Drocessof Central American Economic Inte~ration.
relorrnuiat~n~ils bim :~ndnkhanicms In order IOirinsform itin10an ~lfectivc
instrument oleaonomic and .;ocialde~elopmcnt.
Arricle Three
Reformulation of the basesand mechanismsof the Process ofCentral American
Economic lntegration shall be oriented principally toward:
(a) Achieving a greater degree of commercial, industrial and agricultural
cooperation among the fivecountries of the area.
(h) Reorienting industrial policy with the aim of taking maximum advantage
of the installed capacity for the production of capital inputs and basic consumer
products: linking the Industrial Sector to the Agricultural Sector. diminishing
dependence on imported raw materials and increasing the capability of competing
in Foreignmarkets.
(c) lncreasing the capahility of the countries Io act in a coordinated way in
taking advantage of the external market for agricultural products.
(d) Achieving in gradua1 form a balanced and more equitahle trade between
the fivecountries of the area.
(e) Placing in eiïect the new Central American Tariiïs and Customs Régime.
(fl Establishing a financial mechanism of reciprocal payments that sustains
the ~olicies of eauilibrated oroduction. commerce and develonment amone the u
couniries of ihc Central Amcriain irca with intcrniiionil finaniid support, and
thai neutralizcs thc nr.giti\,r.cflects ol intriircgion;il commercial Jcti~itr.
Ariicle Four
For the purposes indicated in the second and third articles, the parties commit
themselves to suhscrihing during the year of 1984 the substantive Conventions
or Accords to reformulate the economic instruments and policies of the Central
American Common Market. Likewise, they shall adopt in iransitory or comp-
lementary form, multilateral or hilateral accords aimed at revitalizingcommercial246 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIE
interchange within the framework and with the flexihility permitted by the
Treaties, Conventions and Resolutions presently in force.
C. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE
Article Five
Reaffirm their adherence to the principles, noms and dispositions contained
in the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration concerning the Estab-
lishment of a New International Economic Order, and in the Charter of Econo-
mic Rights of States, in particular:
(a) Mutual and rquitable henefits between States.
(b)Adhering in 1:oodfaith to international obligations.
(c) The right to engage in trade and other forms of international economic
cooperatiori irrespective of any difierences in political, economic and
social systemi.
(d)The prohibition against employing or fomenting the use of economic,
political and other types of measures to coerce another, or. other States,
with the purpose of achieving the subordination of the exercise of its
sovereign riglit.
Arricle Sir
Assist each other mutually in order to achieve a more favorable relation with
the rest of the world in international trade; to require adherence to thc principles
and noms of interivational trade: to oromote the siening of accords concerning
basic products; and, to demandthe'reduction of Griff-and non-tarifi barrie;
that impede the access of their products to the markets of the developcd nations.
Arricle Seven
Commit their support to prevent the application of restrictive commercial
measures, blockades, embargos and other economic sanctions against any of the
countries of the Ct:ntral American area as a means of political coercion; and
in case this should occur, to make common and adequate cause against such
measures.
D. FOREIGN DliBT
Arricle Eighr
Draw up formubis that permit meeting the prohlem of the foreign deht on the
hasis of a rational and realistic evaluation of the payment capacity of the five
countries and of the critical economic situation of the area, duly taking into
account the adequate influx of additional resources that will permit attention to
the needs for economic and social development.
B.EXTERNAL COOPLiKATION
Article Nine
Colleciiiely promoie the aiiraciion of technical and Rnanci;ilforeign rciources
ihat wlllwrmii. al<ingsidïiheir own cllori\. a rc\,crïal <ifihc scriour Jcirrioraiion EXHIBITS SUBMIITIID BY NICARAGUA 247
of recent years; promote economic development with financial stahility; increase
exports, and reactivate the program of regional economic integration.
The magnitude of external resourccs must permit the expansion and restructur-
ing of the productive system, an adequate Row of working capital, financing of
maladjustments in the balance of payments and the reactivation of intra-
regional trade.
Arricle Ten
Strengthen the financial institutions of the area; the Central American Bank
of Economic Integration and the Central American Monetary Council, and,
support them in their efforts Io obtain short-term and medium-term resources.
Article Eleven
Adopt the necessary measures aimcd at granting legal representation to the
Central Amencan MonetarY Council.
Article Twelve
Collectively demand that the international financial institutions allow the
Central American countries credit, while respecting their development strategies
reducing their degree of conditionality and taking into account the elforts they
are makine uo reacti~ate~t~ ~ ~ ~omies of the countries and to reformulate the
regional economic integration scheme.
Carry out in likemanner collectiveactions before the International Community
to increase the financial cooperation directed to the area and to channel k
througb regional organisms and institutions. in addition to cooperation that is
granted bilaterally to Central American countries.
F. FOOD SECURITYANI) MtlDlCAL SUPPLIES
Arricle Thirfeen
Elaborate a regional strategy with respect to other countries and speciali~ed
bodies such as the FAO, the PMA and the WHO, so that they will increase the
flow of food and medical supplies.
Article Fourleen
Support and stimulate the rapid establishinent and development of food
security systems in the region.
Article Ffleen
In the medium term. coordinate remonal eKorts in the fields of research.
production, collection and distribution if agricultural products with the aim of
creating mechanisms of intraregional cooperation within the plans for food
security that are developed by al1the countnes.248 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
G. LATIN AMBRICAN IN'EGRATION
Arricle Sixteen
Recognize that tlie process of Central American integration is a part of the
Latin American integration. In virtue of that, demand the sustained support of
Latin American countries and of the Organs and Organisms of Regional
lntegration within ;iframework of political heterogeneity and styles of interna1
development sovereignly adopted by each country.
Arricle Sevenreen
Subscribe to the constitutive act and offer the most decisive support to the
Action Committee in support of the Economic and Social Development of
Central America. urging al1mcmber States of SELA to join the same.
H. CONITITUTION OP A SPECIALCONTROL AMERICAN CROUP
Article Eighreen
Create a special, high level,working group, formed by a delegate of each Chief
of State, in order to agree upon the legal instruments that will activate the
reformulation of tlie Central American Common Market and coordinate the
neccssdry actions for the execution of the present accord.
Said delegates must he designated within a term of 30 days from the date of
subscription to this instrument.
1.PLAN OP ACTION
Article Nineteen
Carry out the annexed plan of action destined to materialize the commitments
of this accord, whii:h forms an integral part of the same.
I>RAtT PLAN OP IMMEUIAT tCTION TO PROMOTIi 7'HIi 1:CONOMIC AND SOCIAL
OGVELOI'MENT OF CENTRAL AMIiRIC.4
1. January 30, 1984: First Meeting of the Special Central American Croup.
Place :Managua.
2. January-February 1984: The Special Central American Group shall elabor-
ale a timetable of work for the entire year to accomplish what is agreed to in
Articles four and sin.
3. January 1984: The naming of a Technical Commission that within the term
of six months shall formulate a diagnosis of the Ccntral American industrial
sector and identifv concrete oossihilities for industrial comolementation.
4 Jdnudry 11)8i.Thc na;ing uf a Tc.hni~.il ~,>mmi\ri<>Athxi \i,ithiiitlic tcriii
uf r1niiioiiths \h;ill f<>rmul2r.Jiiignosi$,if t11eiigri:iiltiir;il psi>ithe 3rr.d EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA 249
and the possibilities of its complementation to the end of ohtaining alimentary
security of the region.
5. January-March 1984: The Special Central American Croup shall identify
joint actions that the Central American countries will hring hefore the Inter-
national Communitv.
6. January-~arc6 1984: Subscription to the central American Monetary
Convention that grants iuridical personality to the Central American Monetary
Council.
7. January-March 1984: Present joint applications to the World Bank to grant
resources to the BCIE.
8. January-March 1984: Request the Administration of BCIE to prepare, in
consultation with the member States, a draft reform of the Constitutive Con-
vention of that institution that will permit opening its stock capital to third
countries in accordance with the principle that this shall not alter the decision-
makinrr-.ower of the countries within the Bank's area.
. rlpril-Junc 19b4 C~ni.<,aiti<in<>ithcFxrr;ii>rilin;ir),\sscinhlg <>i<i,>!,crn,>ri
ot ihc RClt 10.iuJy rhc prc\iiiusl) indicüisd Drliii Reiiirn~
10 Juh-Scpienibcr lJb4 A mcctine .>iMiniilers al indusir) <>iiht ared. irr
their equ~valeks, to reformulate regional industrial policy onthe basis of'the
diagnosis elahorated by the Industrial Technical Commission.
II. July-Septemher 1984: A meeting of Ministers of Agriculture to define
pertinent measures and policies on the basis of the diagnosis of the Agricultural
Technical Commission. MlLlTARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
Exhibit X
THEMINING OP NICARAGUA P'SRTS
(Central Americaii Historical InstitutUpdate, Vol.3, No. 13, 5 April 1984)
Toward the end of 1983,the "covert war" against Nicaragua entered a new
phase, a war of attrition, as Nicaraguan rebels sought to sabotage major econo-
mic targets and isolate Nicaragua physically (seUpdate, Vol. 2, No. 23). Since
the end of Fcbruary, this strategy has been reinforced by a renewed military
offensive, focusedon sea and air attacks of Nicaragua's ports. The situation has
become particularly serious, because for the Tirs1time access channels to Nica-
ragua's ports have been heavily mined.
Armed speed-boats, called "Sea Riders" or "Piranhas" in Spanish, first
attacked Nicaragua's ports on October 1, 1983,damaging fuel tanks at Puerto
Corinto. Despite losses then, the attack pales in comparison to the current
campaign. In the I:ist six months, Nicaragua bas suffered 19 major assaults at
its ports.
PHASE ONE :ATTACKS AT PORTS
9/8/83 Puerto Sandino oil. .peline sabotaged, temporarily suspendin- the
unloading of oil.
9/9/83 Two planes attacked Puerto Corinto with rockets.
1012183 Two 380,000 gallon fuel tanks were blown up at Puerto Benjamin
Zeledon on the Atlantic Coast.
10/14/83 Puerto Sandino oil pipeline was sabotaged again.
10/21/83 Puerto Cabezas on the Atlantic Coast was attacked.
PHASE TWO: MlNlNG OF PORTS
2/24/84 Sea Ridm attacked fuel deposits in El Bluff (near Bluefields,on the
Atlantic Coast). They planted mines whichblew up two Nicaraguan
fishingvesselsthe following day.
3/1/84 The Dutch dredger Ceopunre was damaged when it struck a mine at
Corinto.
3/7/84
The Pariamanian ship Los Caraibes, carrying medicine, food and
industrial inputs, was severely damaged when it struck a mine at
Corinto.
3/20/84 The Soviet tanker Lugansk, carrying 250,000barrels of crude oil, was
damaged by a mine in Puerto Sandino.
3/27/84 In a naval battle in Corinto, the Nicaraguan Navy discovered three
Sea Riders; a war plane was flying over the area. Four Nicaraguans
were hurt and one Sea Rider damaged in the battle.
3/28/84 The Liberian ship Inderchaser, carrying molasses, ran into a mine
in Corinto.
The Panamanian ship Homin was attacked by Sea Riders when it
was loading 9,700 tons of sugar at Puerto Sandino.
A Nicaraguan shrimp boat was destroyed by a mine in Corinto. EXHIBITS SUBMIITEU BY NICARAGUA 251
3/29/84 The Nicaraguan fishing vesse1 San Alhino was destroyed by a mine
in Corinto.
The Nicaraguan Navy confrontcd fivc Sea Riders and one plane in
the heaviest naval attack to date.
3130184 The Nicaraguan shrimp boat Alma Suliana was damaged by a mine
in Corinto.
The Japanese ship TerushioMaru, carrying bicycles,spare parts for
cars, construction materials and loading Cotton, was damaged by a
mine in Corinto.
Three Sea Riders and three helicopters attackcd the Panamanian
ship Homin.
SOPHISTICATIIUMILITARYOFFENSIVE
The "Piranhas", or Sea Riders, can reach a speed of 75 milesper hour. They
can be armed with M-60 machine guns or 20 mm. cannons in the bow, and
grenade launchers in the stern. They have room for a three-person crew. Sea
Riders have the capacity to submerge partially, which givesthem greater stability
and makes it more difficult to detect them.
The United States has given Honduras ten of these speed-boats over the pas1
months. Nicaraguan military intelligence have asserted that boats attacking
Nicaragua's ports leave from a "mother-ship". which they claim is a US frigate
permanently stationed 40 or 50 miles from Nicaragua, opposite Corinto and
Puerto Sandino.
To date, three types of mines have been discovered in Nicaraguan waters:
contact mines, which explodc by dircct contact; sound mines, which explode
with the noise of a ship; and pressure mines, whichexplode becausc of the wavcs
produced by a ship's movement.
The Ministry of Defense issued an officialcommunique March 29, stating that
these are "highly sophisticated, industrially-manufactured mines, which come
from arsenals of the United States Amy", and "they are heing placed by C.I.A.
sixcialists. usine modern surface and undenvater naval technia~~s".
. - ~ ~.~
On Wirch 2. the Nii~riiguan Dcnioiraii< Iùrcc (FDS) and the Dcmocratic
Kc~olutionar~ Alliiinrc (ARDE) announced l'romCosia Kira ihat Nicarliauan
norts had been mined. and thevclaimed resnonsibilitv. Given the sonhistic~tion
Of the mines, howevc;, most analysts find iÎhard to be~ievethat the'seirregular
military organizations would have been able to make and place mines.
This offensive kas shown, as never before, the limitations of Nicaraguan
defense against such sophisticatcd techniques. The National Port Authority
(ENAP) told the lnstituto Historico Centroamericano that the accesschannel to
Corinto is being "clcancd out" with primitive methods such as dragging a deep
sea fishing net betweentwo fishing boats in order to "fish out" mines. Most of
the Pacific fishing fleet is currcntly involved in this task; three boats have been
destroyed tbus Par. Foreign commercial vesselsentering and leaving Nicaraguan
harbors are preceded by an escort of fighting boats, which testthe route. Twenty-
seven mines ~av~ b~e~ ~ ~c~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~at~.~ ~ ~
Because of this primitive means of defense, the Nicaraguan Government has
called on other govcrnments to provide "technical and military means" to allow
Nicaragua to défenditself from-these attacks.
THlI ECONOMICIMPACT
Figures from the Nicaraguan National Statistics and Census lnstitute (INEC)
indicate that in 1982,approximately 1,749,000short tons of difirent products252 MlLlTARY AND PARAMILITARYACTlVlTlES
entered and left Nicaraguan customs posts. (1 short ton=.907 metric tons.) This
does not include 675,000short tons of impons and exports that passed through
Puerto Sandino. Tliese two figures add up to 2,400,000 short tons, of which,
according to ENAP, 1,529,151passed through the sixmajor ports in the country:
Corinto, Sandino, :SanJuan del Sur on the Pacific, and El Bluff, Cabezas and
~~ ~ ~ -~~ ~-~. ....tlantic. Thus. 63 oe' cent of Nicaragua'- imoorts and exoorts
passed through its ports in 1982.
In 1983,this total increased significantly, due to difficultiescreated along the
northern and southern borders by count~rrevolutionary attacks. For example,
on March 7, the FI)N hlew up a tanker truck carrying 9,000gallons of propane,
as the truck was going through El Espino border crossing hetween Nicaragua
and Honduras. Thi: 1983 estimale by ENAP is that 80 per cent of al1 foreign
trade passed through Nicaraguan ports.
To date, Corinto and Puerto Sandino on the Pacificside, have been attacked
most often. In 1983,1,119,407metric tons of goods passed through the country's
main port of Corinto (1 metric ton= 1,000kgs). Puerto Sandino, equipped with
oil pipelines, receiied 629,612 metric tons of imports, primarily oil and its
derivatives. The toial of both figures (1,749,019metric tons) over total imports
and exports in al1of the country's ports (1,810,084 metric tons) shows that in
1983, 96 per cent of economic activity of Nicaraguan ports was at Corinto or
Puerto Sandino.
Nicaragua curfeiitly spends $200 million annually on oil imports. This rep-
resents 40 per cent of the foreign exchange eamed through export sales. Since
the 1980 San Jod agreements, which benefitted Central America and the
Caribbean, Nicaragua has received oil at a good price from Mexico and
Venezuela. At the end of 1982, Venezuelacut off oil to Nicaragua, blaming
Nicaragua's foreigii debt of $19 million. Mexico increased ils exports briefly,
then reduced them in August 1983 to their now stable daily supply of 7,500
barrels. In October 1983,Mexico was pressured hy the international Monetary
Fund to stop selling oil 10 Nicaragua until Nicaragua paid the bill. Nicaragua
and Mexico came to a new agreemcnt and oil shipments continue to arrive
from Mexico.
APRIL-MAY PRIME PORT MONTHS
Takineual1 ~h~~~~-to consideration. it ,s ao~ ~~ r r ~~ the obiective of the
systematic attacks on Nicaraguan ports is primarily economic, no1 military -
particularly now, when the coKeeand cotton hamests are ready for export. And,
May is the peak month of the year for port activity.
The "War of tht: Ports" has already produced greater shortages of imported
goods (spare parts and industrial machinery) and delays in the arriva1 of
donations, such as medicine and wheat. It also represents a constant threat to
the already-fragile energy systemin the impact on oil pipelines.
The current strategy of the counterrevolution is the most scrious threat thus
far in the two-yeai war, because of the economic consequences. The FDN has
pressured Lloyd'sof London, the largest insurance Company in the world, to
stop insuring any nierchant ship that is headed for Nicaraguan waters. ARDE
has announced that it has mined 50kms of Lake Nicaragua, which is transitted
primarily by small fishing vessels. Reducing the ports' capacity could further
isolate Nicaragua and cause great problems as Nicaragua moves towards
elections. In a strongly worded statement, Foreign Minister of France, Claude
Cheysson, condemned the mining of the ports: EXHIBITS SUBMITIED BY NICARAGUA 253
One feels cast down not only on the level of international relations but
also on the moral level; and one can only react with horror knowing that
the mining of the Nicaraguan ports means that women, children and the
dispossessed of Nicaragua are being deprived of the provisions and medi-
cations supplied by international humanitarian aid (several shipments, some
of which come from Europe, have been annulled or sent elsewhere). It is
also distressing, given that we are witnessing the watershed to a new stage
in the escalation of clandestine military operations supported from outside
against Nicaragua. B. EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BYTHE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
Exhibit1
DocuMlINTs FRCDMLEAGU E FNATIONF SII.FSREGISTRNYO.3C/17664/1589
APPIUAVIT OP STEPHENR.ROND. COUNSELOR FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS WlTH THE UNITED
Confederation of Switzerland
Canton and City of Geneva
Consular Service ofthe ] ss.
United States of America
Before me Kathleen M. Daly, Consul of the United States of America, duly
commissioned and qualified, personally appeared Stephen R. Bond who, being
duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:
1, Stephen R. Bond' Counselor for Legal Affairs with the United States
Mission to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva,
herehv afirm that1 have ~ersonallv examined and ohotocooied the cover and
.umpicic ionicnis of ihc ficeeniiile~f'.l.eagueof ~aiihni ~rcRi\IOi1946.3
Siaiuir.oiihe Ci>uri2nd Opiii~n~lClxu\e. Gcne\,a. 1920.signxiureanJ r~iific.iiion
b!, Yiçsrnru~". Kccisir~ Nuniber 3C 1766-11589. l'he ~wnicnis01'lhi. file
corresponcexa~tly ;O &ose documents listcd on the inside rear cover of the
archives file, a phc~tocopyof which is appended to this statement along with a
photocopy of each and every document containcd in the aforementioned file.
And further deponent saith not
(Signed)Stephen R. BOND.
Subscribed and sworn toefore me
this 25th day of April 1984.
(Signed) Kathleen M. DALY,
Consul of the United States of
America. EXIIIBITS SUBMITlFD BY THE UNITFD STATES
SIGNATURE AND RATIFICATION BY NICARAGUA
[Not reproduced]
LETI'ER FROM THE LECALCOUNSEL LEACUE OF NATION S,JUDCE MANLEY O.
HUDSON D,TEO GENEVA 1,OCTOB~R 1942
My Dear Hudson,
As we are now in possession of a further supply of the 1940edition of the
Court Statute and Rules asked for by your letter of August 4th, last, 1 am
fonvarding to you to-day another copy of this document.
Sincerelyyours,
LETTER FROMTHE ACTING LECAL ADVISER OF THE LFAGUEOP NATIONSTO THE
MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRSOF NICARAGUA, OATEU GENEVA 1,SEPTF.MBER1942
Monsieur le ministre,
Par un télégrammeen date du 29 novembre 1939, vous avez bien voulu me
faire savoir que le protocole de signature du Statut de la Cour permanente de
Justice internationale (du 16décembre1920)avait été ratifipar le présidentde
la République deNicaragua et que l'instrument de ratification serait envoyéau
Secrétariat.
Or, je n'aijamais reçucet instrument de ratification dont ledépôtest nécessaire
pour faire naître eiiectivementl'obligation. Peut-&trecet instrument s'est-ilperdu
en cours de route.
J'ai tenuà attirer votre attention sur cette question.
Veuillezagréer, Monsieurle ministre, lesassurancesde ma haute considération.
Pour le Secrétaire générap.i.,
Leconseillerjuridique p.i. du Secrétariat
(Signé) E. GIRAUD. LEITER FROMTHE ACTING LEGALADVISER OF THE LEAGUBOF NATIONS 70 JUDGI:
IIUDSON ,ATBV GENEVA 1,5SEmEMRliR 1942
Dear Manley Hudson,
Mr. Lester has asked me 10answer your letter of August 4th.
The position of Nicaragua in regard to the Statute of the Court is as follows:
Nicaragua signed without reservation the Court Protocol of Decemher 16th,
1920, on September 14th, 1929, and the optional clause of Article 36 on Sep-
temher 24th, 1929. The declaration accompanying the signature of the ahove-
mentioned clause was drafted as follows:
"On hehalf of the Republic of Nicaragua, 1 rccognise as compulsory
unconditionall:i the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International
Justice."
We have not reosived the ratification necessary 10 complete the signature of
the Court Protocol and at the same time to bring into force the obligations
concerning Article 36. But on November 29th. 1939,the Secretary-General was
informed by telegrtim that the Court Protocol was ratified hy the President of
the Republic of Nicaragua. We have however never received the instrument of
ratification itself, which should have been sent to us. Nicaragua is therefore not
bound either by thr: Protocol or by the optional clause.
Perhapsyou could take the necessarystepsto have the instrument of ratification
sent to us.
A copy of Treat). Series Vol.200and a copy of the Court Statutes and Rules,
hoth the 1936and 1941editions, have heen sent to you. Unfortunately wecannot
send you more than one copy of the last two documents, as Our stock is nearly
exhausted. Owing to the political events, the stock intended for us was never
received from La Haye.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) E.GIRAUD.
Lk'ITER FROM JUDGE HUDSON TO MR. LESTER OF TllELEAGUE OF NATIONS
SECRETAIIIAT.DATED 4~ucusr 1942
Dcar Sean,
Will you please give meexact information on ratification of Court Protocol
and Statute. of Dec. 16. 1920,bv,N~c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I have anote tliat a ratification' waydeposited by Nicaragua on Nov. 29,
1939,but you have not announced it and 1wonder. Please help me.
I olan to reoresent Court at meetin- of Suoervisorv ~ommiision this month.
~ill you pliase have sent to me
' Reg. No.3C/17664/1589 EXHIBITS SURMI~D BY THE UNITED STATB 257
(1) Treaty Series, vol. 200
(2) 5 copies of Court Statute and Rules, bath 1936and 1941editions
Many thanks and besi wishes,
(Signed) Manley O. HUIISON.
RATIFICATION OFTITESTATUTEAND PROTOCOLOF THE PERMANENTCOURT OF
IhTERNATIOiVAL JUSTICDEPOSITED BY NICARAGUA ON 29NOVBMBER 1939
LETTER FROM THE ACTING LEGAI. AIIVISOF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONSTO THE
MINISTER OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS OFNICARAGU AATED GENEVA 3,NOVEMRER 1939
Monsieur le ministre,
J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réceptiondu télégramme endate du 29 de ce mois,
par lequel vous avez bien voulu me faire savoir que le protocole de signature du
Statut de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale (Genève,le 16décembre
1920) a étératifié par le président de la République de Nicaragua et que
l'instrument de ratification sera envoyéau Secrétariat.
En réponse,je m'empresse de vous informer que le service compétent du
Secrétariatse tient a la disposition de votre gouvernement pour lui faciliter les
formalitésrelatives au dépbtdudit instrument de ratification.
Veuillezagréer,Monsieur le ministre, lesassurances de ma haute considération.
Pour le Secrétairegénéral,
Le conseillierjuridique.i.
du Secrétariat,
(Signé)H. MCKINNON WWD.258 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYAC~IVITIES
TELEGRAMFROM MANAGUATO SECRtTAR LEAGUE OF NATION S,TED 30NOVEMBER
1939
[For EnglishiranslalionseeII.Counrer-MernorialO/ rhe UniiedSiares,Ann. 141
19781hlanagua Nic CL 340 22 29 1710 via CIAL RS
No. 2959
Secretario Sociedad Naciones, Ginebra.
Estatuto y Protocole Corte Permanente Justicia Internacional La Haya ya
fueron ratificados. E:uviaraseleoportunamente instrument0 ratificacion Relaci-
ones.
[Stamp: Received 30 November 19391
LEiTER FROMTHE ACTING LEGAL ADVISEROP THE LEAGUBOF NATIONS TO THE
MINISTEROF FOI..EIGNAFFAIRSOFNICARAGU DA TEDGMEVA6, MAY 1935
Monsieur le minislre,
J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réceptiode la lettre du 4 avril 1935, no 45-35, par
laquelle vous avez bien voulu me communiquer, en vous référant à ma lettre
circulaire C.L.34.19:15.V,du 5 mars dernier, quelques renseignements relatifsà
la ratification àul'adhésiondu Gouvernement de la Républiquede Nicaragua
à certaines conventii>nsconclues sous les auspices de la SociCtédes Nations.
En réoonse.i'ai l'honneur d'attirer votre attention sur le fait aue le Gou-
i,crnmc~idu ~;c~ra<ua anoiiiir:au Srcrétariai.par une letlrc daiée'i 4lan.igua
du 15 février1932. in52/32, son a<lhC\ionf<~rmclli la contention portant loi
uniforme sur les chèqueset protocoleà la convention relatiàecertains conflits
de lois en matière de chèaueset nrotocole. ainsi au'à la convention relative au
droit de timbre en niatièréde chiques et protocolé,signàsGenèvele 19mars
1931.Cette notification étaitconçue dans les termes suivants:
«De conformidad con los arts. V, 13y 4 de dichas Convenciones ycomo
complemento de mi nota No. 183,del 9 de noviembre de 1931,en conexion
con las de esa Secretaria, Nos. C.L.80.1931.11.Bdel 10de mayo de 1931,y
Io D/32941/26480, del 23 de diciembre del propio afio, tengo el honor de
trasmitirle la adhesion formal del Gobierno de Nicaragua las mencionadas
convenciones; y en ta1virtud, se servira Ud. tomar nota de esta notificacion
y depositarla en los archives de la Secretaria. »
Ladite lettre ayant étéreque au Secrétariatle 16mars 1932, c'àscette date
que l'adhésionfut enregistrée.Elle fut ensuite poràéla connaissance de tous
les Etats intéresséspar lettre circulaire na C.L.52.1932.V datàeGenève du
7 avril 1932. Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est donc d'ores et déjàconsidéré
comme partie contr:lctantcàces trois conventions. MHIBITS SUB.MITTEDBK THE UNITED STATES 259
Je constate d'autre part que le Governement du Nicaragua n'a pas encore
notifiéle Secrétariatde son adhésion à la convention portant loi uniforme sur
les lettres de change et billetà ordre et protocole,à la convention relativeà
certains conflits de lois sur les lettres de change et bàordre et protocole, et
à la convention relative au droit de timbre en matière de lettres de change et
billetsà ordre et protocole, adoptéségalementpar la conférence internationale
pour l'unification du droit en matière de lettres de change, billets ordre et
chèques, à Genève, le 7 juin 1930. Dans ces conditions, il me semble possible
qu'une confusionait pu seproduireentre deux sériesd'instruments internationaux
qui portent sur des matières aussi connexes.
Le Secrétariat a oris bonne note que les instruments d'adhésion de la
Kepublique de Siiaragua iICcI<>nvcniionsur 13Iraile des femnier ci des enfan~r.
du 30 rcptembrc 19?1, rii la con\enlion rclativc i13rcprcss~ondc I;traitc dcs
fcmmcs maicure>.du II i~ciobre 1933. lui seront ÿdressCrprdchrincmeni, ain,i
que les ins~uments de ratification sur la convention pour faciliter la circulation
internationale des filmsayant un caratère éducatif,signéeàGenèvele II octobre
1933,sur le protocole de signature du Statut de la Cour permanente de Justice
internationale, du 16 décembre1920,et sur le protocole concernant la revision
de ce Statut et le protocole concernant l'adhésiondes Etats-Unis d'Amériqueau
protocole de signature du Statutde la Cour permanente de Justice internationale,
signésà Genève le 14septembre 1929.
Le Secrétrariat se tient donc a l'entièredisposition de votre gouvernement
pour lui faciliter les formalitésrelatiàeces dépôts.
Quant a l'arrangement international en vue d'assurer une protection efficace
contre la traite des blanches, signà Paris, le 18mars 1904,et à la convention
internationale relative à la répressionde la traite des blanches, siànParis, le
4 mai 1910, c'estauprès du Gouvernement français, en vertu des articles 7 et 8
respectivement de ces deux accords, que les instruments d'adhésion doivent
êtredéposés.
Ces deux articles spécifient,eneffet, que:
(article - arrangement de 1904)
«les Etats non signataires sont admisà adhérerau présentarrangement. A
cet elïet, ils notifieront leur intention, par la voie diplomatique, au Gou-
vernement français, qui en donnera connaissance à tous les Etats contrac-
tants));
(article -convention de 1910)
«les Etats non signataires sont admis à adhérera la présenteconvention.
A cet eiïct. ils notifieront leur intention nar un acte aui sera déoosédans
les archives du Gouvernement de la République française. Celui-ci en en-
verra par la voie diplomatique copie certifiéeconforme a chacun des
Etats contractants et 6s avisera en mèmetemus de la date du dénôt.II sera
donné aussi, dans ledit acte de notificütion,'communication des lois ren-
dues dans I'Etat adhérent relativement à l'objet de la présente conven-
tion.
Six mois après la date du dépôt de l'acte de notification, la convention
entrera en vigueur dans l'ensemble du territoire de I'Etat adhérent, qui
deviendra ainsi Etat contractant.
L'adhésion à Ioconvention entraînera de plein droit, et sans notification
spéciale,adhésionconcomitante et entière à l'arrangement du 18mai 1904,
qui entrera en vigueur, a la mémedale que la convention elle-même,dans
l'ensemblede territoire de 1'Etatadhérent.260 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
II n'est toutefois pas dérogé,par la disposition précédente,a l'article 7 de
l'arrangement précitédu 18mai 1904qui demeure applicable au cas ou un
Etat préférerait faireacte d'adhésionseulementt arrangement.))
Veuillezagréer,Monsieur leministre,s assurances de ma haute considération.
Pour le Secrétaire général,
le conseillerjuridique. du Secrétariat,
(Signé)H. MCKINNO N OOD.
LETIER FROMTHE MlNlSTER OF FOREIGNAFFAlRS OF NICARAGUA TO THE SECRETARY-
CENERALOF THE LEAGEOF NATIONS, DATED MANAGUA, 4APRlL 1935
[Spanishtex1no1rej~roducedF.or EnglishtranslationsII,Counrer-Mernorialof
the United States,Ann. Il EXHIBITS SUBMITIEDBY THE UNITED STATES
Exhibit II
DOCUMEN TSOM UNITED STATEA SRCHIVES
APOSTILLE
(Conveniionde Lu tluye du5 ociuhre1961)
1. Country: United States of America
This public document
2. has been signedby Milton O. Gustafson
3. acting in the capacity of Chief, Legislativeand Diplomatic Branch
4. bears the seal/stamp of The National Archives
Certified
5. at Washineton. D.C.
6. the twentieth of A& 1984
7. by Authentication Officer,United States Department of State
8. No. 8414612
9. ~eal/~iam~: 10. Signature:
(Signed)Annie R. MADDUX
CERTIFICATION
GENEML SERVICESAD>IINISTRATION
National Archives and Records Service
8404612
. . ro whomrhesepresenrsshullcome,Greerin~:
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Administrator of General
Services,1certify on his behalf, under the seal of the National Archives of the
United States, that the attached reproduction(s) is a true and correct copy of
documents in his custody.
(Signed) Milton O. GU~TAFSON,
Chief, Legislativeand Diplomatic Branch.
April 20, 1984.
The National Archives,
Washington, D.C. 20408.262 MILITAR YND PARAMtLlTARYACTlVlTlES
1.FlTER FROM Ttfll UPIII'EU STAAMBASSADORTO NICARAGUA TO THE SECRETARYOF
STATI:I>nTlili>irsn~un. 13rlnY1943.i:s<'i.osi<; A I.I:ITIFRO\I IIIIALIUA\SAUIIR
TI>iui)<;i:rv.st.iiu iiut)wis. i>nrri) 13rinv 1AS!) AS ussiüski) cu~voi 1111:
No. 1035
Suh-iect: Letter For Transmission; Nicaraguan Adhercncc to International Court
of Justice.
1 have the honor to enclose, for transmission to the addressee in the
Department's discetion, a letter addressed 10 the Honorable Manley O.
HUDSON. Judre of the World Court. in care of the Law School of Harvard
IJniversity. Canihri.Jgï. >l<is~achuscits.Judgc Iludson rcque5tcd iniorniation
concerning the adhercncc of Nicargua 1x3the Proiwol ofSignïiure and Siaiuic
ol'iltcPcrniÿncnt Cc.uriailntcrnati~iri~l JurticIlis bclieirxlrhiiiihc J>cp~rrrncni
might be interestcd in having the text of thc rcply which has been prepared by
this Embassy after <:onsultationwith the Nicaraguan Foreign Office,in its files.
Respectfully yours,
(Signe</)James B. STEWART.
Air Mail Enclosure 1to despatch No. 1035,dated May 13, 1943,from American
Embassy, Managua, Nicaragua, on suhject of: Letter for Transmission ;
Nicaraguan Adherence to International Court of Justice.
Managua, D.N., Nicaragua, May 15, 1943 [sic?].
Sir:
The Honorahle Pierre de L. Beal, American Ambassador to Bolivia, has
forwarded to me your letter of October 14, 1942, stating that you have becn
informed from Gencva that on November 29, 1939,the Secretary General of the
League of Nations was informed by telegram that the Protoçol of Signature
of December 16, 1920, relating to the Statute of the Permanent Court of
International Justice. kas been ratified hy the President of the Republic of
Nicaragua. You state that the collection of Nicaraguan law in the Harvard Law
Lihrary apparently does no1contain a copy of this decree and ask to be furnished
with such a copy.
1have discussed this matter with the Foreign Office,which was able Io find a
copy of the telegrain of November 29, 1939,stating that Nicaragua had in fact
adhered IO the Protocol of Signature and that the appropriate document of rati-
fication would be transmitted in the near future. There is enclosed a copy,
'Spanishtexi ofdccrcc flotrcproduced. For an Englishtranslationsn II, Counter-
Memonal ofthe UniicdStates,Ann. 13.[Noieby rheRegis1ry.l EXHIBITS SUBMIITED BK THE UNITED STATES 263
without translation, of the legaldecree, approved and signed by the President of
Nicaragua on July 12, 1935.You will note that the second article of the decree
states that it is to become efective on the date of its publication in La Cacera.
The Foreign Minister informs me that the decree was never published in LA
Cacera.He also declared that there is no record of the instrument of ratification
having been transmitted to Geneva. It would thus appear that, whileappropriate
legislativeaction was taken in Nicaragua to approve adherence to the Protocol,
Nicaragua is not legally bound thereby, in as much as it did not deposit its
official document of ratification with the League of Nations. The Foreign
Minister, however, volunteered the information that he would take steps to have
this document drawn up and transmitted, and indicated that he would then have
the appropriate decree published inLa Cacela.
Assuring you that it has been a pleasure to be of assistance to you in this
matter, 1am
Very truly yours,
(S~gned)James B. STEWART,
American Ambassador.
Enclosure:
Copy decree. MII.ITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTlVlTlES
ExhibitIII
PART1.DOCUMEN TSLATING TO THESITUATIO INCE~TRAA LMERICA
TAB A: ORGANIZATICIN OF AMERICAN STATES DOCUMEWI 0~~12.3-33/79,OF 16IULY
1979. SbTïlNc FORTITA COMMUNICATION OF THE IUNTA OF THE GOIiZRNMENT OP
NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION STATINC THE AlMS AND OBJECTIVES OFTHE JUWIA
Because of the great significance of the mattcr dealt with, and hecause the
issue was recentl~considered by the XVll Meeting of Consultation of Ministers
of Foreign Alfairs ivithin whosejurisdiction it still falls, the Secretary General
of the Oreanization of American States becs to forward to the Representative
with his compliments the message he ha: received from the "lÜnta of the
Government of National Reconstruction" of Nicaragua, the text of which isself-
explanatory.
July16, 1979.
COMMUNICATION OF THE JWA OFTHE GOVERNMENTOF VATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION
RCA JUL 132047
248381OAS UR
214
San José,Costa Rica
Secretary General of the OAS,
Dr. Alejandro Orfola
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Secretary Gpneral:
We are pleased 10 make available to you, and to the Ministers of Foreign
Alfairs of the Member States of the Organization, the document containing our
"Plan to Secure Pi:ace" in our heroic, long-sufiering country at the moment
when the people of Nicaragua has consolidated its political and military victory
over the dictatorship.
We have developed this plan on the basis of the Resolution of the XVll
Meetine of Consultation on June 23. 1979. a Resolution that was historic in
every sense of the word: it demands the immediate replacement of the genocidal
Somoza dictatorship, which is now nearing its end, and hacks the installation of
a broadly-representative democratic government in our country, such as the
one we have formed. While saying that "the solution of the serious prohlcm is
exclusivelywithin the jurisdiction of the people of Nicaragua", it appeals to hemi-
spheric solidarityto preserve our people'sright to self-determination.
We are presenting to the Community of Nations of the hemisphere in
connection with oiir "Plan to Sccure Peace" the goals that have inspired Our EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BK THE WITED STATES 265
government ever since itwas formed. They have heen set forth in Ourdocuments
and political declarations, and we wish to ratify some of them here:
1. Our firm intention to estahlish full observance of human rights in our
country in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of the
Riehts of Man. and the Charter on Human Riehts of the OAS. Our observance
<iilhum;iiirights hds .ilrcaJ) bccn nidde plciinhi the v;iy the Sandini\tii N3ii<>n31
I.ihcrütiun troni h;ts trr.;its<lhundreils oi prironcrs di \i,:iOiir gs\,ernnieni ihus
inwicr thc Inter-Anieri~~nConimisiion <>nIluman Kirhir (CI1>11 I tu \,i,iour
c~ ~ ~~~,s~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~are~~ns~all~d in our national terr'itorv:
II. Our wish that Ourinstallation in Nicaragua come about through a peaceful
and orderly transition. The Government of National Reconstruction would take
it as a gesiure of solidarity if the Foreign Ministers of the hemisphere were to
visit our country, and WC hereby exiend them a fraternal invitation to do so.
III. Our decision to enforce civil justice in Our country and to try those
incriminated of crimes against Ourpeople according to the regular laws. By their
heroic struggle, the people have won themselves the right to let justice prevail
for the first time in half a century, and will do so within the framework of the
law, without a spirit of vengeance and without indiscriminate reprisals.
IV. Those collaborators with the régimethat may wish to leave the country
and that are not responsible for the genocide we have suiiered or for other
serious crimes that demand trial hy the civil courts, may do so with al1 the
necessaryguarantees, which the Government of National Reconstruction author-
izes as of now. The departure of these persons may he supervised by the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights and by the International Red Cross.
V. The ~lan to cal1 the first free elections Our country has known in this
ccniury, so ihat Niï~rïgwns çan clcci their rcprcrentaiive iu ihs ciiy co~ncils
and tu a ionsiiiucni .issemblv. and I;iterelsci ihe countr)'i highcst ~uthoritics.
Mr. Secretary General, it is now up to the governments of the hemisphere to
speak, so that the solidarity with the struggle our people has carried forward to
make democracy and justice possible in Nicaragua can become fully eiïective.
We ask that you transmit the text of this letter to the Foreign Ministers of
the OAS,
Yours most respectfully,
Junta of the Government of National Reconstruction :Violeta de Chamorro -
Sergio Ramirez Mercado - Alfonso Rohelo Callejas - Daniel Ortega
Saavedia - Moises Hassan Morales.
Plan of the Government of National Reconstruction to secure peace
We began on the basis thai while it is true that the solution of the serious
problem is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the people of Nicaragua, that
hemispheric solidarity that is vital if this plan is to he carried out will come
about in fulfillment of the Resolution of the XVlI Meeting of Consultation of
Ministers of Foreign Afîairs of the OAS adopted on June 23, 1979.
The following steps will ensure the immediate and definitive replacement of
the Somoza Régime, which has already been defeated hy the heroic fighting
people of Nicaragua and their vanguard, the Sandinista National Liberation
Front. Rejection of this plan for a political solution would leave the military
annihilation of the Somoza régimeas the only way out. This could go on for a266 MILT~ARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
few more weeks, aiid would cause unnecessarily many more deaths and much
more destruction
The states of the plan
1. Somoza submits his resignation to his Congress. His Congress accepts it
and turns power over to the Government of National Reconstruction in
recognition of the backing it has received from al1sectors of Nicaraguan society.
II. Installation of the Government of National Reconstruction. This govern-
ment is formed of representatives of al1sectors of Nicaraguan politics, and has
received the officialsupport of al1of them.
III. Immediately following the Government of National Reconstruction's
installation inside Elicaragua, the Member States of the OAS, particularly those
that sponsored or voted in favor of the Resolution. will proceed officially to
recognize it as the legitimate government of Nicaragua.
IV. The Government of National Reconsrmction willimmediarelyproceed 10:
1. Abolish the Somoza Constitution.
2. Decree the Fiindamental Statute hy which the Government of National
Reconstruction will he provisionally governed.
3. Dissolve the Plational Congress.
4. Order the National Guard to cease hostilities and to return immediatelv to
their barracks, witli guarantees that their lives and other rights he respcGed.
Those officers,non.commissioned officcrsand ranks of the National Guard that
wish to do sa may loin the new national army, or they may return to civiliÿn
life. The Sandinista army will enforce the ceasefire to facilitate compliance with
these decisions, standing in place in the positions gained up to the moment the
decree is issued.
5. Maintain order using those sectors of the National Guard that have obser-
ved the ceasefire and that are appointed to these dulies by the Government of
National Reconstr?iction. They will work alongside soldiers of the Sandin-
ista army.
6. Decree the organic law that will govern the institutions of the State.
7. lmplement the:program of the Government of National Reconstruction.
8. Guarantee tht: departure from the country of al1 those soldiers, Somoza
officiaiswho wish 1.0leave and who are no1 involved in serious crimes against
the peoplc.
Appendix 1 - Resolution of the XVll Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of
Foreign Affairs of the OAS.
Appendix II - Law of Guarantees.
Appendix III - Organic Law.
Appendix IV - Program of the Government of National Reconstruction.
We ask you pleaie ta acknowledge receipt of this message.
Press Ofice - Junta of the Government of National Reconstruction. EXHlBlTS SUBMITIED BY THE UNITED STATES 267
TAB B: BULLITIN REPRINT OF DEPARTMENT 01' STATIi STATE.MENON DECLARATION
ON DBMUCRACY IN CEhTRAL AMERICA ICLUDING TBXT OF SAN JOSÉ DECLARATION
(FINAL ACT OF THE ME~TINC OF FOREIGN MlNlSTERS OF COUhTRlES IhTERCSTED IN
THE PROMO'IIONOP OE.\IDCRACY IN CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN)
DECLARATION ON DEMOCRACYIN CENTRAL AMERICA
Octoher 1982
United States Department of State, Bureau of PublicAlTzairs, ashington, D.C.
Following are tents of the Department statement and suminary of October 5,
1982 and the Final Act of the Meeting of Foreign Ministers of Countries
lnterested in the Promotion of Democracy in Central America and the
Caribbean of Octoher 4, 1982.
Yesterday in San José, Costa Rica, there was a meeting of foreign ministers
of countries interested in promoting democracy in Central America and the
Caribbeun. The rnecting was attended by the Prime Minister of Belize, who
concurrently holds the foreignminister portfolio, and five other foreign minis-
ters- Colombia. El Salvador. Honduras. Jamaica. and Costa Rica. Assistant
Secretary for lnter-~merican ~ffairs hoka Oka]Énders attended as a special
representative of the Secretary of State, and Panamaand the Dominican Repuhlic
disignalcd special observers.
The final act of the meeting emphasized the importance of representative
democracy and pluralism to the peoples ofthc region and as an essential element
in hringing about peace in Central America. It also set forth certain other
conditions and actions to achieve peace inhe rcgion:
National reconciliation in a democratic framework;
Respect for the principle of nonintervention:
An end ta arms trafficking and foreign support for terrorism and violence;
Limitation of armaments;
Control of frontiers under reciprocal and verifiableconditions including inter-
national supervision;
Withdrawal under effective conditions of reciprociiy of foreign troops and
military and security advisers; and
A halt to the importation of heavy offensiveweapons.
The conference also established a forum for peace and democracy that would
analyze within the framework of the declaration the different peace proposais
and initiatives that emerged and transmit the results to other interested States.
The conference also resolved ta create an office to provide tcchnical electoral
assistance tothose countries desiring to hold free and honest elections.
The Government of the United States believes that this initiative of these
regional democracies marks an important step forward in the promotion of
representative democracy and the resolution of regional tensions within a peaceful
framework. We hope other governments in the region will seriously address the
' Read to ncwscorrcspondentsby actinDepartmentspokerrnanAlan Romberg.268 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
concepts set forth iii the final act of the conference. They provide a blueprint for
peace in the region.
FINAL ACT OF THE MEETING OF FOREIGN MINISTBRSOF COUNTRIES INTERESTED IN THE
PROMOTION CiFDEMOCMCY IN CI.:NTRA A. ERICAAND THE CARIBBEAN
The representatibes of the Governments of the Republics of Belize,Colombia,
El Salvador, the United States of Amcrica, Honduras, Jamaica, and Costa Rica,
and the observer reoresentative of the Government of the Dominican Reouhlic.
convinced that di&t dialogue among democratic countries is the appripriaté
way to review the situation in their states and, therefore, to search for solutions
to common problenis, met inSan José,on October 4, 1982,represented as follows:
BELIZE
His ExcellencyGeorge Price, Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs
COLOMBIA
His ExcellencyRodrigo Lloreda Caicedo, Minister of Foreign Al%dirs.
His Excellency (:arlos Borda Mendoza, Ambassador of Colombia in Costa
Rica.
Ambassador Julio Londono, General Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
Ambassador Luis Carlos Villegas, Under Secretary for Economic Afiirs
Mr. Julio Riano Velandia, Deputy Chief of Protocol
EL SALVAWR
His Excellency Fidel Chavez Mena, Minister of Foreign AîIairs.
His Excellency Carlos Matamoros Guirola, Ambassador of El Salvador in
Costa Rica.
1-11shccllcncyCl,iar C,lstro Araujo. I>ireitor Gcncraoi F'orrignPolicy.
Mr. Alvaro \Icn~:nJc/ Leal, Dire~iorC;encr;ilof Culture and Ci~mmunirations.
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
His Exccllency 'Thomas O. Enders, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-
American Affairs.
His ExcellencyFrancis McNeil, Ambassador of the United States in Costa Rica.
Advisers:
Mr. Arthur Giese, Deputy Director, Central American Affairs.
Mr. Ronald Godard, First Secretary, Embassy of the United States in
Costa Rica.
Mr. Scott Gudgi:on, Legal Adviser, Department of State.
Mr. Donald Barnes.
HONDURAS
His ExcellencyEdgardo Paz Barnica, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
His ExcellencyRicardo Arturo Pineda Milla, Ambassador on Special Mission.
His Excellency Jorge Roman Hernandez Alcerro, Ambassador on Special
Mission.
Thc Panamaniar.observerat this meeting dno1signthefinalact270 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVLTIES
trends, serious financial problems, and political, economic, and social conflicts
which are exploited by totalitarianism for the purpose of destabilizing the
democratic way of life and government;
10. They noted the objective enunciated this year by the Chiefs of State and
Government on thi: occasion of the inauguration of the President of Honduras,
Dr. Roberto Suazo Cordova, on January 27; of the President of Costa Rica,
Mr. Luis Alherto hlonge, on May 8; of the President of Colombia, Dr. Belisario
Betancur, on Augu:;t7; of the President of the Dominican Republic, Dr. Salvador
Jorge Blanco, on August 16; and in the Joint Communiqués of the Presidents
of Costa Rica and El Salvador, of June 10,and of the Presidents of Costa Rica
and Panama, on Sr:ptember 26, of this same year, and that such objectives point
to the adoption of measures for the achievement of peace, democracy, security,
development, freedom, and social justice.
THEY THEREFORli Dt,CLAKË
1. Their faith in and sumort for the ~rinci~lesof reuresentative. uluralistic.
and participatory democraCy which, when p;operly un'derstood, constitutes a
way of life, of thinking, and of acting which can accommodate within its scope
diiïerent social and economic systems and structures having a common denomi-
nator. which is resuect for life. for the securit, -~ ~~~-~~~-~i~-al. for freedom of
thought, and for f;zedom of the press, as well as the right to wo;k and to receive
proper remuneration, the right to fair living conditions, to the free exercise of
suffraee. and of other human civil.uolitical, economic. social. and cultural riehts.
II. Their concern about the sé;ious deterioration of the conditions or the
present international economic order and international financial systcm, which
givesrise to a procc:ssof destahilization, anguish, and fear, affecting, inparticular,
those countries thit have a democratic svstern of eovernment. In this reeard. -
the? ~ppcal 10 ihe ind~strialiled Jeni<>zr;iiicountries Io step up thcir coopcratiun
with ihc demozrati: iountries 01'the arcd by implemeniing bold and cli'c~iive
initiatives 10 strengthen the recovery and economic andsocial development
efforts of the varioils interested countries in the area. As part ofthis cooperation,
the initiative of the President of the United States of America with regard to the
Caribbean Basin is especially urgent and should he encouraged and fully
implemented as soiln as possible. Likewise,those present recognize the economic
cooperation and assistance efforts undertakcn by the Governments of the Nassau
Croup: Canada, C:olombia,Mexico, the United States, and Venezuela.
They support currcnt efforts towards subregional economicintegration, includ-
inu the Central Anierica~ Com~ ~ Mar~et and the Carib~ ~ ~ ~mmu~ ~v and
point out the urgcncy of updating and improving those integration processes
which are now in trouble in order to place them in an aupropriate.~oli~ical,
economic, juridical, and institutional framework.
III. Their conviction that, in order to promote regional peace and stahility, it
is necessary to support domestic political undersiandings that will lead to the
establishment ofd~:mocratic, pluralistic, and participatory systems; to the estab-
lishment of mech:inisms for a continuine multilateral dialoeue: to absolute
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
respect for delirnited and demarcated bordeFs,in accordance witKex/sting treaties,
comuliance with whichisthe ~ro~erway to prevent border disputes and incidents, 1
obseiving, whenever applicable,-traditional lines of jurisdiciion; to respect for 1
the independence and territorial integrity of siates; to the rejection of thrcats or
the use of force ro settle conflicts; to a halt to the arms race; and 10 the 1
elimination, on th,: basis of full and efïective reciprocity, of the external factors
which hamper the consolidation of a stable and lasting peace.
i I!XHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES 271
In order to attain these objectives, it is essential that every country within and
without the region take the following actions:
(a) Create and maintain truly democratic government institutions, based on
the will of the DÇOD~~ as ex~ressed in free and reaular elections. and founded on
the principlc that gojcrnnir.nt ii rcspunsiblc to tic people govcriieJ.
(h, Kcrpect hum:iii rights, rrpeciallv the right 1,)IifeanJ 1,pcr\.>n;ilinicgrit).
and the fundamcnt;il frecdonis, siich ;is freedoni ofs~ccch. frccdoni (iaswnibl\.
and religious freedom, as well as the right to organize political parties, labor
unions, and other groups and associations;
(c) Promote national reconciliation where there have been deep divisions in
society through the hroadening of opportunities for participation within the
framework of democratic processes and institutions;
(d) Respect the principle of non-intervention in the intemal affairs of states,
and the right of peoples to self-determination;
(e) Prevent the use of their territories for the support, supply, training, or
command of terrorist or subversive elements in other states, end al1 trafic in
arms and supplies, and refrain from providing any direct or indirect assistance
to terrorist, subversive, or other activities aimed at the violent overthrow of the
governments of other states;
(f) Limit arms and the size of military and security forces to the levels that
are strictly necessary for the maintenance of public order and national defense;
(g)Provide for international surveillance and supervision of al1ports of entry,
borders, and other strategic areas under reciprocal and fully verifiable arrange-
ments;
(hl On the basis of full and effectivereciorocitv. withdraw al1foreien militarv
and ;cct.rity adtisers and forces froni ihc ~entril ,\mrricdn arca. and ban th;
importation of hravy u,capons of m.inifes1offcnrive capahility thruugh guaran.
teed means of verilication.
The preceding actions represent the essential framework that must be estab-
lished in each State in order to nromote rezioual oeace and stahilitv.
The signing countries cal1on al1the peoples and governments of ihe region to
embrace and implement these principles and conditions as the basis for the
improvement of democracy andihe building of a lasting peace.
They note with satisfaction the efforts being made in that direction, and deem
tbat the achievement of these objectives may be reached more fully through the
reestablishment of the rule of law and the organization of election processes that
will guarantee full participation of the people, without any discrimination
whatsoever.
THEY RESOLVB
IV. To create a democratic organization to provide development assistance
and advisorv services for elections, the Duruose of which oraanization will be to
maintain the electoral svstem and to'de;eloo. stren-thei. and stimula~c~ ~ ~ ~
uiili/diion in ihc inter-Amcri~~nxrea. pr<~viJingsJvicc to couniries thsi rcquert
it ahoui ils prariiec and implcmcntation lhc organvation nill opcraie cithcr
autonomously, sponsored by the countries represënted in the meeting and by
other interested countries, or as a section or hranch of the Inter-American
Institute of Human Rights, since suffrage is an essential part of the theory and
practice of human rights.
To request the Minister of Foreign AKairs and Worship of Costa Rica, Mr.
Fernando Volio Fernandez, to prepare an appropriate document, containing thecomments of the p;irticipants in this meeting and of the representatives of other
democratic countrics and to circulate it amonr-them and implement it as soon
as possible.
V. Lastly, they agree to participate in a Forum for Peace and Democracy, the
purpose of which e/ill be to contribute to the implementation of the actions and
the attainment of the objectives contained in this document, and, within the
framework of this declaration, to study the regional crisis and analyze the various
peace proposais or initiatives aimed at solving it. The Forum may be broadened
by the inclusion of the collaboration of other democratic States.
The Forum may entrust spcific tasks to representatives of given participating
countries, who will report on the results; and will transmit the final act of this
meeting, so that comments and opinions deemed advisable, may be presented to
the Forum.
The representatives requested the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of
Costa Rica, on behalf of the participating governments, to transmit this declar-
ation to the governments of the region and other interested governments, and to
obtain their views on the principles and conditions for peace that it contains.
They agreed to convene a new meeting as soon as possible, in order to evaluate
the development of the objectives of the declaration.
VI. The Plenary Session in this meeting of Foreign Ministers noted with
pleasure the presence of Panama and the Dominican Republic as ohservers.
The representatives expressed their appreciation to the Government of the
Republic of Costa Rica for the courtesies il extended to them, which made
possible the succes!;fulcompletion of their deliberations.
Signed at San lc,sé,Republic of Costa Rica, on October 4, 1982.
For Belize
For El Salvador
For Honduras
For Costa Rica
For Colombia
For the United States of America
For Jamaica
True copy of th(: original.
(Signcd) Alvar Antillon S.,
Director General of the Ministry of Foreign
Anàirs and Worship of Costa Rica
For the Dominican Republic.
In this final act, the democratic states of region. forthe first time, set forth
the conditions they regard as essential 10 achieve peace in Central America.
These conditions include:
An end 10 foreign support for terrorist and subversive elements operating
toward the violent overthrow of other countries;
An end 10arms trafficking;
A ban on the importation of heavy wcapons and limitations on al1armaments
and forces to those required for defense; EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES
273
Withdrawal of al1foreign military and security advisers and troops under fully
veriikahleand recinrocal conditio~.:
Respect for the principle of nonintervention and peaceful solution of disputes;
Respect for human riphts. includinr fundamental freedoms such as freedom
ofspeech, assemhly, and-religion and &e right to organize political parties, labor
unions, and other organizations; and
Establishment of democratic, representative, and participatory institutions
through free and regular elections in an atmosphere of political reconciliation
within each state.
The final act called on each state of the region to implement these conditions,
which will be presented to other interested countries as indispensable to the
establishment of a lasting peace. The final act also estahlished a Forum for Peace
and Democracy to analyze proposais for ending the conflict in Central America
against the overall framework of these essential conditions and authorized the
Costa Rican Foreign Minister to transmit the results of the conference to other
states of the renion.
The participging statesnoted that legitimatelyelected democratic governments
have a responsibility to defend and dcvelop democratic values. One important
step toward the promotion of democracy inihe region is the participants'~resolve
to create a body for democratic electoral assistance, available on request to
advise countries wishing to hold democratic elections.
TAU C: UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCII., PROVISIONAL VERBATIM RECORD OF
MEETING OF 28 MARCH 1983,INCLUUIN ~B;XT01:PRESBNTATLONBY MRS .ORONI:~.
111RODRIGUER Z,EPRESEN'TKr lVBVENEZUELA (DOC.~/~~.2425)
PROVISIONALVERBATIMRECORD OC'THE TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDREII AND
TWENTY-PlfiT M1ETING
Held at Headquarters, New York, on Monday, 28 March 1983,at 3.30p.m.
Presirlenr:Sir John Thomson
(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Tite President:The next speaker is the representative of Venezuela. 1 invite
her to take a place at the Council table and to makc her statement.
Mrs Coronelde Rodriguer (Venezuela) (interpretation from Spanish): Sir, 1
should like to express, on behalf of my delegation, our congratulations to you
on your assumption of the presidcncy of the Security Council. We wish you
evcry success.Through you, Sir, 1should also like to convey to the Ambassador
of the Soviet Union our most cordial congrat~ilationson the excellent work he
accomolished as President o~ th~-~~~ncil la~t mo~th.
~enézuelawished to participate in this meeting of the Security Council that
was requested by the Permanent Representaiive of Nicaragua, hecause we con-
sider that todav it is increasinelv ureéntfor us to seek formulas of understa-dine
to put an end io the grave pr%lemi facing the peoples of Central America.
We have listened with interest to the siatements hy the representatives of
Nicaragua and Honduras. Many countries have expressed their-views and their274 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACI'IVITIES
hopes that peace niay take root in that region of our world where for almost
five vears now a constant battle has heen waeedu
MI Luis tlcrrer;~Campin*, ihr Pre3idcnt of niy couniry. in thc sialemeni he
mddc IIhlic;ir;iguaon 19July 1982.on the oc<arion uf ihc third ;inni\,crs;iryof
thc Sandinirt Rcvolution. which he attendcd as ihc onlv Hrad of Si;ite inviterl
to that event, stated that there had been no peace initiative or mcasure in which
Venezuela would not have participated.
Venezuelahas heen accompanied and is accompanied today by rnany countries
that are genuinely interested in the quest for stable and lasting pcace. Sufficeit
to mention the initiative taken hy the Presidents of Mexico and Venezuela,taken
up at the recent meeting on Contadora Island hy the Foreign Ministers of
Panama, Colomhia, Mexico and Venezuela and which the Dominican Republic
expressed its wish to join during the recent visit io Caracas by its Foreign
Minister Vega Imhcrt.
These eflorts ari: hampered by the participation of other interests that are
more concerned with their own hegemonic positions than with the establishment
of effective and geriuine peace.
The Central Amorican countries are not arms producers. Their economies are
weakened, not only by the world economic crisis, but also by a long war of
considerahle proportions, repeated natural disasters, such as earthquakes and
floods, and hecause of the terrible scourge of terrorism and sabotage . . .
We have alwavs affirmed that Latin American nroblems mus1 be resolved hv
iiur .iwn Fdmily <iipcoplrr. witlii>iitforcign inicrfcrcncc II dors not in any ud)
help the glohal ~oliitii~n<>I'ihcri,i\ ~~xisieiiiin Central Anicr~cdth21the conilici
be internationalized. We do not want - indeed, we reject - the positions of
those who, from oiher continents, request for our countries what they forcefully
reject for their own countries. Venezuelahas never sought any type of help from
outside our contini:nt which cannot solve the political and military prohlems of
an area vital 10 it, as is Central America.
Consistent in our rejection of war, terrorism and violence and in support of
free popular expression and genuinedemocracy, which isnot imposed hyweapons
but rather is hroiight about by the genuine desire of the citizens expressed
through the vote, we have supported al1 initiatives aimed at the institutional
stabilization of th,: area and at the search for sincere agreements among the
countries concerned, airned at reducing weaponry, eradicating terrorism and
strengthening the climate of peace.
But al1of this niust be done within a Latin American framework. All of the
initiatives. even though they have not heen fully successful, have had positive
DrosDectsfor the reduction of tension. There have been initiatives of a bilateral
and multilittcral nllure ToJa). tsgcthcr wiih oiher iricnJ1) counirie>, \ie :ire
proniuting the higt:lc\cl niccting ior pcace and Jir~rmamcnt in Central ,\merir.a,
with the presence iofCentral American countries, in addition to the Dresenceof
five couniries acting as witnesses in good faith. One of those witnesses of good
faith will be Venezuela.Thar meeting should take place as soon as possible. Such
an initiative is in no way an obstacle to any other procedure that the States
concerned may wish to promote within the regional framework. But we insist
that this is not tha place, by promoting the internationalization of the coniiict
and increased interference by the major Powers in matters involving our peoples
Io defend the causc of Latin America: It is in Latin American forums and with
Latin Americans as protagonists that we should be able to consider the situation
in Central Americii in ils overall complexity. 1:XHIBITSUBMllTED BY THE LNITEO STATFi5 275
TAB O: RE~OLUTION 530 oe THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL ,CLUDING
ANNEX (DOC. S/RES/~~~ (1983))
Resolution 530 (1983)
Adopte</by rhcSecuriry Councio lr irs2437rhmeering,on 19 May 1983
TheSecuriryCouncil,
Havingheord the statement of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Nica-
ragua,
Iloving ulsr,hcord the statements of various States Members of the United
Nations in the course of the debate,
Deeply conccrncd, on the one hand, at the situation prevailing on and inside
the northern border of Nicaraeua and. on the other hand. al the consenuent
danger of a military confront&on between Honduras and Nicaragua, ihich
could further aggravate the existing crisis situation in Central America,
Recolling al1 the relevant principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
particularly the obligation of States to settle their disputes exclusivelyby peaceful
means, not to resort to the threat or use of force and to respect the self-
determination of peoples and the sovereign independence of al1States,
Noring the widespread desire expressed by the States concerned to achieve
solutions to the differences betweenthem,
Commer~ding the appeal of the Contadora group of countries, Colombia,
Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, inils 12May 1983communique (S/15762) tbat
the deliberaiions of the Council should strengthen the principles of self-
determination and non-interference in the affairs of other States, the obligation
not to allow thc tcrritory of a State to be used for committing acts of agression
against other States, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the prohibition of
the threat or use of force to resolveconflict,
Considering the broad support expressed for the efforts of the Contadora
Group to achievesolutions to the problems that affectCentral Americancountries
and to secure a stable and lasting peace in the region,
1.Reuflrms the right of Nicaragua and of al1the other countries of the area
to live in pcace and security, free from outside interference;
2. Commenrls the efforts of the Contadora Group and urges the pursuit of
those efforts:
3. Appeuls urgently to the interested States to co-operate fully with the
Contadora Group, through a frank and constructive dialogue, so as to resolve
their differences;
4. Urges the Contadora Group to spare no effort to find solutions to the
problem of the region and to keep the Security Council informed of the results
of these efforts;
5. Reqlresrs the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council informed of
the development of the situation and of the implementation of the present
resolution. MlLlTARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
Annex
InformationBulletin
The Ministers fcr Foreign Affairs of the Contadora Group, at their meeting
held ai Panama Ci1.yon II and 12May 1983,considered the following suhjects:
(a) The request oi'the Government of Costa Rica for the establishment of an
observer comniission;
(6) The course of the debate in the United Nations Security Council convened
at the request of Nicaragua;
(c) The programnie of work of the next meeting of the Ministers for Foreign
Affairs of the Contadora Group with the five Ministers for Foreign Affairs
of the Central American countries, to be held at Panama beginning on
28 May 1983.
The Government of Costa Rica has made a request to the Organization of
American States for the establishment of a "peace force, capable of effectively
monitoring the area of Costa Rica hordering on Nicaragua". As grounds for its
reauest. it minted out that Costa Rica has no armv and has di~cultv in
pairolli'nga'long and irregular frontier.The authorities of Costa Rica advanced
similar consideratiims to the Governments of Colombia. Mexico, Panama and
Venezuela through special envoys, indicating their desire that an observer
commission should be estahlished for that purpose.
The Ministers for Foreign Affairs ofthe Contadora Group, acting in accordance
with the principle:; which guide their conduct, recalled that the original and
essential purpose of the formation of the Group was to fulfil a diplomatic role
designed Io seek the settlement of conflicts through political means, relying on
the co-operation of the parties involved.
From this perspective, the Contadora Group believes that its work should
focus on the conceiitration of political effortsto promote dialogue, understanding
and, in general, the development of political machinery which, with the co-
operation of the States concerned, can ensure the full attainment of their
objectives.
In thecircumstaiices of the case,the proposal to set up an observer commission
is closely related t<~the efforts to create conditions of peace in the region. The
successof this projosal requires the co-operation of hoth countries.
In view of the îoregoing, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Contadora
Group have decidedto send an observercommission,consisting of two representa-
tives from each of their countries, which will have the task of carrying out a
study insituin ordzr to estahlish the facts, evaluate the circumstances and suhmit
appropriate recommendations.
For the performance of these functions, the members of the commission may
be accomvanied hr such advisers as, in the view of each country. are necessarv.
:<nJihcy may. II'tiicLidccm ~tcippropritc. c,>n,ult internatic,nalcrpcri>
'l'heMini,tcr\ i.ir h>reignAihirs of Colonibu. \Icxic<>.I'anami and Vciicrucl;i
noie wiili Jc:p cd.icerii ihc iI:iclopmeni oi the Cc11tr;xl,\nicri.;in conilic.>\Cr
the oast few davs and the reveated violation of essential orincides of the inter-
national legalaider.
These circumstances have given rise to various initiatives aimed at seeking the
intervention of multilateral organizations. The initiatives include the recent
requests made by Central American countries to the United Nations Security
Council and the Psrmanent Council of the Organization of American States.
It would he higlily desirable that in the deliherations taking place in the said EXHIBITSSUBMIITBII BY THE UNITED =ATES 277
forums, and especially those currently under way in the Security Council, there
should be a strengthening-.f vrinci~leswhich should guid- the activities of States
in the internatio'al arena.
These principles include: self-determination and non-interference in the affairs
of other States, respect for the territorial integrity of other States, the obligation
no1to allow the territory of a State to he used for committing acts of aggression
against other States, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the prohibition of
the threat or usc of force to resolvc conflicts.
The countries of the Contadora Group once again cal1 upon the Central
American countries to hclo attain the eoal of oeace and. to that end. to aonlv
their political will to the sCarchfor ways leading to dialogue and undéritandFng
to settle their current diffcrences.This constmctive and open attitude will largel-.
determine the success of the peace initiatives.
With a view to achieving these objectives, a fomal invitation has been sent to
the five Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Central America to hold a working
meeting at Panama on 28, 29 and 30 May 1983.The meeting will operate within
the framework aereed uDon durine the most recent meetine held in Anrul ~- ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~
regarding the procedure ior consult~tions and negotiations. A time-frame con-
cernina the organization of items, their discussion in working gr--ps an.. lastly, . .
their considersion in plenary meeting has been worked out.
The Ministers for Foreign AiTairsof Colombia, Mexico and Venezuelaexpress
appreciation for the hospitality and generous facilities provided for their work,
which once again enabled them to fulfil the purpose for which the Contadora
Group had been convened on this occasion.
Panama City, 12 May 1983.
General Assembly; Security Council (Docs. A139171 ;S/16262)
LeIler Dored Y January 1984from the Chargéd'Afaires a.i <g rhe Permanent
Mirsion of Pat~uma 10 (he UnitedNulionsAddre.s.seId o theSecrerury-Generol
1 have the honour to transmit the text of the communiqué (Anncx 1) issued
at the conclusion of the fifth joint meeting between the Ministers for Foreign
Affairs of the Contadora Group and the Foreign Ministers of Central American
countries, held at Panama City on 7 and 8 January 1984.
Also enclosed is the appendix to the communique entitled "Measures to he
taken to fulfil the commitments entered into in the Document of Objectives",
which was approved at the aforementioned meeting.
In addition, 1have the honour to transmit the text of a statement (Annex II)
made by His Excellency Mr. Ricardo de la Espnella, President of the Republic
of Panama, on the occasion of the adoption of the "Measures to be taken to
fulfil the commitments entered into in the Document of Objectives".
1 would request you to arrange for the distribution of the communiqué, the
appendix thereto and the statement of His Excellency the President of the
Republic of Panama as a document of the General Assembly, under the itemsen-titled "Development and strengthening of good-neighbourliness between States",
"Review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of Inter-
national Security", "Development and international economic CO-operation",
"Peaceful settlemerit of disputes between States" and "The situation in Cen-
tral America, threats to international peace and security and peace initiatives",
and of the Security Council.
(Signedj Carlos ALBAN-HOLQUIN,
Ambassador,
Permanent Representative of Colombia.
(Signedj Miguel MARIN-BOSCH,
Ambassador,
Deputy F'ermanentRepresentative of Mexico, Chargéd'affaires a.i
(Signedj Leonardo KAM,
Ambassador,
Deputy Permanent Representative of Panama, Chargé d'affairesa.i.
(Signed) Alberto MARTINI-URDANETA,
Ambassador,
Permanent Representative of Venezuela.
Annex
ConcrinDeclarurionon Peucein CentrulAmerica
In view of the v~orseningof the conflicts in Central America, the Heads of
State of Colombia, Belisano Betancur; of Mexico. Miguel de la Madrid; of
Panama, Ricardo de la Espriella; and of Venezuela, Luis Herrera Campins,
decided to meet at Cancun, Mexico, today, 17July 1983.
We considered the critical situation in Central America and agreed that we
were al1 deeply concerned at the speed with which it was deteriorating, as
evidenced hy an e:jcdlation of violence, the progressive mounting of tensions,
frontier incidents and the threat of a flare-up ofhostilities that might spread.
Al1this, combined with the arms race and outside interference, creates a tragic
setting aflèctingthe political stahility of the region and ruling out any progress
and consolidation of institutions responsive to the democratic yearning for
freedom, social justice and economic development. The conflicts in Central
America Dresent the international communitv with the dilemma of either reso-
lutely subporting enJ strengtheniiig the path of political understanding by of-
fcring ci>nsiructivcsolutionr or passi\,ely Iicicpting the accentuation of faitor,
which could lead ti, extremely dangerous armed confrontations.
The use of forci: is an approach that does no1 dissolve but aggravates, the
underlying tension:;. Peace in Central America can become a reality only in so
far as respect is sliown for the basic principles of coexistence among nations:
non-intervention: :=If-determination: soverei-. eaualit. of States: CO-o~eration
l'ticconomii :and i,x~alJe~~lopiiient :pesccliil settliinent si disputes. and fret
anJ suthcntis exprvsrion <il'the populdriil1The ircaticin <ii.xiiiditiitiiid~ci\,c
to peace in the region dependsmainly on the attitude and the genuine readiness
for dialogue of the countries of Central America, which must shoulder the
primary responsibility and make the major effort in the search for agreements
ensuring coexistence. EXHIBITS SUBHITTED BY THB UNITED STATES 279
Accurdingly. ilis er,cniial thst lhe political will io qrrk underitanding, u,hich
ha\ been Jispla)ed sincc the ber? bcginning df thc Contadorii GrouD'sactiriiics
should continue to be clearly eipresied in continued eiïorts for peace, so that it
may be translatcd into concrete actions and commitments.
It is also neccssary that other States with interests in and ties to the region
sbould use thcir political influence in heluinr! to strenethen the channels of
undcrsidnding and shou~d unrescr\cdl) CCI.~<II ihcm>r.ive5 16) the ,iipiom~tic
appr~r.ichio pc:ice. '1he eirorts of the Cont;idora Gruup h;iic sù kir Icd to the
iniii;iiion ofa dialuguc ini.ohing a11ihc Govcrnmcni\ <ifCcniral r\merica. thc
establishment of maihinerv for cinsultation and the drawine un. b. ..anim,us ~ ~
agreemcni. ofan agenda coiering the s~lieniaspcclj of the problenis of thc rcgion.
Thcsc :~chicvemcnrs.iilthouyh still in;iJcquaie, have btcn rniouraged bs -.e
sumort of manv countries. ofa number of oreanizations and of the most varied
oeinion groupsat ihc intcrnatiiinal Irrel AI1<ireagrecd thdi ihr aciii,ities ul'ihe
C,>ntdJ<iraGroup havr helped IO miiigitc the danger.: and rcducc the riskr of ii
widespread confrontation and have made il ~ossible to identifv ~roblems and
. .
causes of what is now a landscape of coniiict and fear.
This generous support by the international community impels us to persist in
our endeavours and to make every effort in a cause, the noble purposes of which
outweieh anv oossible lack of understdndinc.
lnsp;cd by Our countries' broad spirit ofsolidarity with the fraternal peoples
of Central America, we consider it necessary to expedite the process that may
transform the will for peace into proposais which, if properlj developed, can
effectivelycontribute to the settlement of conflicts.
To that end, we have agreed on the gencral lines of a programme to be
proposed to the countries of Central America which requires, in addition to
strict compliance with the essential principles governing international relations,
the conclusion of agreements and political commitments that will lead, region-
wide, to effectivecontrol of the arms race; the climination of foreign advisers;
the creation of demilitarized zones; the prohibition of the use of the territory of
some States for the development of political or military destahilization actions
in other States; the eradication of transit of and traffic in arms; and the
prohibition of other forms of aggression or interference in the internal aKairs of
anv countrv in the area.
In order io implrmcnt th15gcneral programme. IIwillhe neceb,ary IOcuncl~dc
agrecnicnts cmbodying~po-~iiciil conimitmenis dcsipned IO cnsurr pcace in the
region. These agreements could include:
Commitment to put an end to al1prevailing situations of belligerency;
Commitment to freeze offensiveweapons al their current level:
Commitment 10begin negotiations on agreements for the control and reduction
of current stocks of weapons, with the establishment of appropriate supervisory
machinery ;
Commitmcnt to prohibit the existence in national territory of military instal-
lations bclonging to other countries;
Commitment to give prior notice of troop movements near frontiers, when the
contingents exceed the limits set in the agreement;
Commitment to organize, as appropriate, joint boundary frontier or inter-
national supervision of frontiers by groups of observers cbosen by common
agreement by the parties concerned;
Commitment to establish mixed securitycommissions, witha viewto preveniing
and, where appropriate, resolving frontier incidents;
Commitmcnt to establish internal control machinery to prevent the transit280 MlLlTARYANI) PARAMI1,ITARYACTlVlTlES
of weapons from tlie territory of any country in the region to the territory of
another ;
Commitment to promote a climate of détenteand confidence in the area hy
avoiding statement3 and other actions that jeopardize the essential climate of
political confidence required;
Commitment to CO-ordinate systems of direct communiçation between
Governments with a view to preventing armed conflicts and generating an
atmosphere of mut?ial political confidence.
Similarly, we consider that, simultaneously with the implementation of this
-eneral Droeramme. the task of resolvine soecific differences hetween countries
should be tackled initially by the signing if mernoranda of understanding and
the establishment of mixed commissions that willenahle the parties to undertake
joint action and guarantee the ellective control of their territories, especially in
frontier areas.
These measures, aimed at eliminating the factors which disturb the peace of
the region, should he accompanied hy a major interna1 effort to strengthen
democratic institutions and guaranice respect for human rights.
To this end, it is necessary to improve methods of consulting the people,
ensure that the various currents of opinion have free access to the electoral
process and promixe the full participation of citizens in the political life of
their country.
The strengtheniiig of democratic political institutions is closely linked to
evolution and progress in the field of economic development and social justice.
In fact, these are two aspects of a single process whose ultimate goal is the
implementation of the fundamental values of mankind.
The economic backwardness which lies at the root of instability in the region
and is the immediate cause of many of its conflicts should be approached from
this standpoint.
Some of the steps most urgently needed to offset the ellects of the world
economic crisis arc: the strengthening of integration machinery, an increase in
intra-zonal trade and the exploitation of opportunities for industrial comple-
mentarity. Howevi:r, such efforts by the countries concerned mus1 be sup-
plemented by the support of the intcrnational community, especially the
industrialized countries. throueh develooment credits. CO-ooerationoroerammes
and access of Central ~merick producis to their ma;kets.The ~o;erLments of
the countries of the Contadora Group reiterate their decision to continue the
pronrammes of CO-ooerationthat benefit the subreeion and offer their assistance
in channe~~ing international support towards these goals of economic reactivation.
On the basis of these general outlines we have requested our Ministers for
Foreign Affairsto prepare specificproposais that willbe submitted to the Central
American countrie:?for their consideration at the next joint meeting of Ministers
for Foreign AFTairs.
We appeal to al1 members of the international community, especially those
which have expresied sympathy with the efirts of the Contadora Group, and
to the Secretary-(jeneral of the United Nations and the Chairman of the
Permanent Council of the Organization of American States, to contribute, with
their experience arid diplomatic capahility, to the sçarch for peaceful solutions
to the problems of Central America. For al1these reasons we have contacted the
leaders of the countries of theAmericas with a view to ohtaining their solidanty,
which is necessary.
We, the Heads of State of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela,reafirm
the aims that unitî: our Governments in the task of seeking to contribute to the EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES 281
establishment of the just and lasting peace desired by the peoples of Central
America.
Done al Cancun, Mexico, on 17July 1983.
(Signed)
Belisario B~ANCUR, Miguel DE LA MADR~D H.,
President of the Republic President of the United
of Colombia. Mexican States.
Ricardo DE LA ESPRIIILLA, Luis Herrera CAMP~NS,
President of the Republic President of the Republic
of Panama. of Venezuela.
TAB F: UNITED NATIONS SliCURlTY COUNCII. UOCU.UENT ON THE SITUATION IN
CENTRAL AMERICA S,TTINC I'ORTH AS AN ANNEX THE CONTADORA OBJECTIVES (DOC.
s/16041**)
THE SITUATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA*
Noie hy ilte Secreiory-Ceneral
1. Since the Securitv Council adouted resolution 530(1983). on 19Mav 1983.
1have endca\,i,urcd 16 keep in contict ivith ihe Gu\.rrn'mentsoi Cos13n~ca. lil
Salvador. Guatenirllil.Ilonduras and Nicardgua. a\ u,ellas wiih the Go\ernmcni\
of <:olonibia, Mcxicu. I3an;im;iand Vcnciuela. uhich coniprire the Cunt;iJr>ra
Grouu. in order to keeo informed of the efforts made io find a neeotiated
politicil solution to the'problems in the Central American region an; of the
developments in the area. On Iwo occasions, on 28 June and 13 July 1983, 1
reported orally on the situation to the memhers of the Council.
2. Within the framework of the Declaration adooted at Isla de~C~ ~a~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Y Janunry 1983'. therc uar an initial phase i~l'ollicialcontacts and \.isit\ hy the
\linistcrr i<irI~iireign,\ITairsni the Cont:idorii Group i,ithe c.iuniriei directl)
c,)ncerne<l.on 12 and 13 Aoril-'. As d reaultiiithe consultaiions hcld. II \tas
agreed toinitiate a new of joint meetings of the Ministers for Foreign
Affairs of the Group with the Ministers for Foreign Affairs ofthe five Central
American couniries. The iirst three meetings were held in Panama City on 20
and 21 Apri12,from 28 to 30 May and from 28 to 30 July 19834,respectivcly.
3. On 17 July 1.983,the Presidents of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and
Venezuela met in Cancun, Mexico. The Declaration issued on that occasion
* Second rcissufor tcchnicarcasans.
' A/38/68.
S/15727.
' S/iS809.
S/15900.282 .MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
proposed guidelinei.for the negotiating process as well as specificcommitments
the implementation of which would ensure Face in the region'.
4. On the basis of the Cancun Declaration, the Ministers for Foreign AKairs
of the Contadora (iroup and of the fiveCentral American countrics met again
in Panama City, [rom 7 to 9 September 1983, and adopted a Document of
Objectives2. On 6 October, 1 received a visit from the Minister for Foreign
AKairsof Mexico and the Permanent Representatives of Colombia, Panama and
Venezuela to the United Nations, who handed me the Document, which, 1was
informed, had been approved by the Heads of State of Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua'. At the request of the Contadora Group,
the Document intr:insmitted to the Securitv Council ~ ~ ~~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~not~.~
5. On that occasion, the Minister for ~orei~nAnàirs of Mexico pointed out
that the Document of Objectives is a sinale consensus text, which sets out the
oositions and the concems of the Govërnments directlv concerned and the
~ropos;tls ut ihc Contador~ Ciroup, and uhich coniains tic principlc, on which
thc eventu~l si~lution the Csniral Anicrican problcnts will hÿvc ii>bc haicJ
The Document also contains a definition of the soecific areas of neeotiation and
the lems of referi:nce for the formulation of ihe legal instruments and the
machinery which would be essentialin order to ensure harmonious coexistence
in the region. 1 expressed to the Minister for Foreign Afiirs of Mexico my
fervent hooe that the Grouo's activities would soon achieve substantive and
concrete résults. 1 also emihasized on that occasion that any attempt al a
solution should take into account the profound economic and social imbalances
with which the Cerdral American peoples have always struggled.
6. In transmittirig the Document of Objectives to the Security Council, 1
consider it my duty to express my profound concern at the grave and prolonged
tension whichpersi:itsin the area. In viewof the nature and possible ramifications
of the convulsive situation currentlv orevailine in -he C~~~-al Amencan reeion. w ,
the unavoidable conclusion is that ;t ihreatens international peace and security.
7. In communic;itions addressed to the President of the Council and to the
Secretarv-General. there have been freauent accusations and counteraccusations
of foreign interfer~iicein the region and'complaints of numerous border incidents
as well as incursi<ins by sea and by air, causing deplor-ble l~ss of lire and
material damage4. In the view of some Governments, the military and naval
manŒuvres now in progress add to tensions in the region. It has also been
pointcd out that thc presence of military advisers and training centres, the trafic
in arms and the ahvities of armed groups. and the unprecedented huild-up of
arms and of militarv and oaramilitarv forces conslitute further factors of tension.
On 13September, the sec;rity counh~ met at the urgent request of a Government
of the region, which complained of what it described as a further escalation of
acts of aggression againsi its country '.Although the Secretary-General has no
way of reliably verifying each and every one of the components of this situation
'S115877.
' S115982.
Thctcxts of thc :ommunicationsfromthe Governments of Nicaragua and Honduras
on thissubicctwcrc <:irculatcto the SecuritvCouncil as documentsSI16006and SI16021 EXHIBITS SUBMrITE DY THE UNITED STATCS 283
and is therefore unahle to make definite judgements, there is no doubt that an
alarming picture is emerging in the area.
8. The five Governments of Central America have assured me on a numher
of occasions of their firm commitment to contribute in good faith to the search
for peaceful solutions. In that connection, they have also reiterated their
determination to CO-opcratewith the Governments of the Contadora Group in
their etiorts for peace. The Governments of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and
Venezuela are motivated bv an earnest desire to find solutions adanted to the
realities of the region, without any intrusion derived from the ~ast-wist conflict.
That is why they have the manifest support of the international community as
a whole.
9. In accordance with the terms of resolution 530 (1983). 1shdll continue to
keep the Council informed as and when necessari.
(On September 9, 1983,the Central American Governments, under the auspices
of the Contadora Group, adopted the following Document of Objectives.)
Bocume~lrof Objecrives
Considering:
The situation prevailing in Central America, which is characterized hy an
atmosphere of tension that threatens security and peaceful coexistence in the
region, and which requires, for its solution. observance of the principles of
international law governing the actions of States, especially:
The self-determination of peoples;
Non-intervention ;
The sovereign equality of States;
The peaceful settlement of disputes;
Refraining from the threat or use of force;
Res~ect for the territorial inteeritv of States:
",
~lu;alism in ils various manifestations;
Full support for democratic institutions;
The promotion of social justice;
International CO-operation for development ;
Respect for and promotion of human rights:
The prohibition of terrorism and subversion;
The desire to reconstruct the Central American homeland throueh ~ " ress"ve
1niegr:iiionof 11sr.<ononili. legtl ;rnJ soci:il itistitiitiiiii~,
Thc nccd for cconiimir.cg>-operatiimsm.ini! the Staics oi Cenir:il ,Imerica ro
as to make a fundamental coniribution to thëdevelonment of their oeool.s a.d
the strengthening of their independence;
The undertaking to estahlish, promote or revitalize representative, democratic
svstems in al1the countries of the rerion:
.The unjust economic, social and politicd structures which exacerbate the con-
flicts in Central America;
The urgent need to ut an end to the tensions and lav the foundations for
understanding and solidarity among the countries of the are=;
The arms race and the growing arms traffic in Central America, which aggra-
vate political relations in the region and divert economic resources that could
be used for development ;284 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACI'IVITIS
The presence offoreign advisersand other forms of foreign military interference
in the zone ;
The risks that th: territory of Central American States may he used for the
purpose of conducting military operations and pursuing policiesof destahilization
against others ;
The need for coricerted political efforts in order to encourage dialogue and
understanding in Central America, avert the danger of a general spreading of
the conflicts, and set in motion the machinery needed to ensure the peaceful
coexistence and secrirityof their peoples;
Declurerheirintentionrfachieving rhefollowing ubjeclives:
To promote dCtf:nteand put an end to situations of conflict in the area,
refraining from tsking any action that might jeopardize political confidence or
Drevent the achievement of wacc. securitv and stabilitv in the reeion:
To ensure strict cornplian& with the af~rementioned~rin~i~lesOfinternational
law, whose violators will be held accountable;
To respect and erisure the exerciseof human, political, civil, economic, social,
religious and cultural rights;
To adopt measures conducive to the establishment and, where appropriate,
improvement of dsmocratic, representative and pluralistic systems that will
guarantee effective popular participation in the decision-making process and
ensure that the various currents of opinion have free access to fair and regular
elections based on the full observance of citizens'rights;
To promote naticinal reconciliation efforts wherever deep divisions have taken
place within Society,with a view to fostering participation in democratic political
processes in accordance with the law;
To create political conditions intended to ensure the international security,
integrity and sovert:igntyof the States of the region;
To stop the am!; race in al1ils forms and begin negotiations for the control
and reduction of current stocks of wcapons and on the numher of armed troops;
To prcvcnt the iiistallation on their territory of foreign military bases or any
other type of f0reii.n military interference;
To conclude agrtements to reduce the presence of foreign military advisers
and othcr foreign elements involvedin military and security activities, witha view
to their elimination ;
To establish inteinal control machinery to prevent the traffic in arms from the
territory of any country in the region to the territory of another;
To eliminate the traffic in arms. whether within the reeion or from outside
il, intended for persons, organizations or groups secking to destabilize the
Governments of Central American countries;
To prevent the use of their own territory by persons, organizations or groups
seeking to destabilize the Governments of Central American countries and to
refuse to provide them with or permit them to receive military or logistical
support ;
To refrain from inciting or supporting acts of terrorism, subversion or sabotage
in the countries in the area:
To establish and CO-ordinatedirect communication systems with a view to
preventing or, whei-eappropriate, settling incidents hctween States of the region;
To continue humanitarian aid aimed at helping Central American refugees
who have been displaced from their countries of origin, and to create suitable
conditions for the voluntary repatriation of such refugees, in consultation with
or with the CO-operationof the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) and otlier international agencies deemed appropriate; EXHIBITSSUBMITTEDBY TIIII UNITED STATES 285
To undertake economic and social develo~ment nroerammes with the aim of
promoting well being and an equitable distr(bution'of wealth;
To revitalize and restorz economic integraiion machinery in order to attain
sustaineddevclonment on the basis of solidarity and mutual advantag-:
To negoiilitc the pr,wiri.>n,>iextcrndl monrwr) resourcei uhiçh will proiide
3dditional mcdns ,>ilinanLing ihe res~iiipiion of inir;i-region:il irdde. iiieei tlie
,cricius bal;incc.ol.p;i,nicn:r prohlciii,, atir;ict iunds Corw,irkingcdpital. \upp<irt
programmes to exténhand restructure production systemsand promote medium-
and long-term investment projects:
To negotiate better and broader access to international markets in order 10
increase the volume of trade between the countries of Central America and the
re,i of the world. pariicularly ihe ~ndusiri~luedcouniries. by means oi'a rrvision
of ir;ide pracilLej. ihe climjnatii>nol'i3riH'andi>iherhrrirrr, and ihc achicir.mrni
01'"rice siahiliiv at a profitable and Fdirle\.el for ihe producis ekportby the
countrics of the region;
To establish technical CO-operationmachinery for the planning, programming
and implementation of multi-sectoral investment and trade promotion projects.
The Ministers for Foreign AfFairs of the Central American countries, with
the participation of the countries in the Contadora Group, have begun negotia-
tions with the aim of prepanng for the conclusion of the agreements and the
establishment of the machinerv necessarv Io formalize and deveio~the obiectives
coniaincd in this docutiicni. and Io hring aboui ihc rrtablirhmcnl of appropriale
verific~iion and nionituring sysiemb To ihai end. accouni u,ill k taken of the
initiatives put forward at the meetings convened by the Contadora Group
TAB G: UNITED NUIONS GENERAL ASSBMRI,Y,PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF SBSSION 01'
8 NOVEMB~~R 1983,INCLUDING REMARKS BY MR. FIIIRRERACACERE SEPRESENTATIVE
OF HONDURAS (DOC.~/38/~~.48)
PROVISIONAL VERBATIM RBCORI>OF Tl18 FORTY-EIGHTH P,EETING
Held at Headquarters, New York, on Tuesday, 8 November 1983,at 3 p.m.
Presidenr: Mr. Shah Nawaz (Vice-President) (Pakistan)
larer: Mr Martini Urdaneta (Vice-President) (Venezuela)
-The situation in Central America: threats to international peace and security
and pcace initiatives [142(conrinued).
.Il,Ilr,rrr,r<rGicer(Ilondurxs) (interpretation ii,>mSpanibh)' On 4 0;Iohcr
ni! delegaii<)nspuke dt ihe meeting of the Gencral Commiites on ihe proposal
1~3include ihls iiem on ilic Cencrsl A,rcmbl)', agenda. \Vc ihere adi,dnccd somc
fundarnenttl ar-uments demonstratine -he hamful eiTectsthat a debate on this
item might have on the progress made in the regional forum, consisting not only
of the Contadora Group but also of the countries directly concerned, the Cen-
tral American countries, and might also have on the greit hopes, bascd on the286 MILITARYAND PARAMlLlTARYACTIVITIES
ratification of the Document of Obiectives Dre~aredin that forum hv the five
Central American countries, that thé contin;at;on of regional and global nego-
tiations, by simultaneously solving the various prohlems raised by the present
negotiations, by simultaneously solving the various problems Gised by the
present Central American situation, would soon lead to a general peace agreement
for Central Americ;~.
My Covernment, 1 repeat, has placed its total trust in the action of the
Contadora Croup and, faithful to its international commitments, is speaking on
this occasion in order to inform the international communitv of ,ts ~~~-tr~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a solution should he found to the Central American conflict - a solution
completely consistent with strict mutual respect for the principles of international
law which 1haveju:jt mentioned. Through ihe implementation of those principles
and through the thus far successful action and good offices of the Contadora
Croup, our countr:~would like to discourage East-West confrontation, because
it is for us. the Central American countries. to solve our own orohlems. as was
stated by the Presidents of the countries of the Contadora Ciroui at their meeting
in Cancin on 17July last.
There are no well-founded reasons at present to cxtract the Central American
question from the regional framework. For the moment, the suhregional forum
of the good oltice!; of the Contadora Croup must be allowed to pursue its
valuable participation in eiiorts to bring peace to the area. Meetings are planncd
for the comine wef:ks: orocesses of consultation are beine develoned: and Our
Covernment Kels that'if there exists on the part of tlhe ~ent;al ~merican
countries the sense of historic responsibility that should be characteristic of this
time in Central American life. if-there is eood faith in the neeotiatio-ns and in
ths agrssnicnis ihai tiiighi br.dd,~picJin i>urrcgion, il'ihere is a tirni ;incipositi\,e
p<>liticaluill on the pari of our counirics 10 achie\c harmuny, agreenient ;ind
coexistence - priiiciples which Honduras practises and upholds - then no
country involved sliould act in a way inconsistent with those objectives, so vital
to the prosperity of the region. either through unilateral acts of provocation by
means of sudden artd passing acts of aggression or by weakening the negotiations
in the Latin American forum bv means of ~olarization in this forum.
obÏain the suooort of countriei outside the continent. Thirdlv. it wishesto oolarize
the Central Àkerican issue through East-West confrontation. Fourthly, ii wishes
to strike a harsh blow at the Latin American process of negotiation. Fifthly, it
wishesto obtain sur~~ortfor its recentoro~osalto concludefour treaties :one multi-
lateral treaty among the fiveCentral ~merican countries, two bilateral treaties -
between the United States and Nicaragua, on the one hand, and Honduras and
Nicaragua, on the other - and a fifth treaty, to be called an agreement among
the countries interested in helping to solve the crisis in El Salvador. The latter
project is aimed oiily at protecting Nicaragua, guaranteeing it impunity for its
acts of intervention; it does not provide even the very minimum guarantees for
the other countries of the area - lcast of al1for Honduras. Furthemore, the four
treaties do not fulfilthe Contadora agenda, nor do they deal with the 21objectives
recently approved hy the fiveCentral American countries.
By means of al1those tactics, the Government of Nicaragua is trying to escape
from the future n~:gotiationswithin the Contadora Croup, to obtain political
support against alieged acts of aggression. and no1 to be censured for its own
ücts of aggression îgainst the rest of the Central American countries. Moreover,
it does not undertake to comply with the original objectives of the revolution - I:XHIBITS SLJB.MITT~ BY THE UNITED STATES 287
pluralism, a mixed economy, non-alignment and elections - which wereadopted
in the Organization of American States. Nicaragua is trying to evade a commit-
ment to cease its arms race and to restore the military balance and security of
the region. Furthermore, it is attempling 10eatend the competence of the United
Nations to cover the Central American crisis. through a total rejection of the
work of the Latin American forum and of the Organization of American States,
the continental body.
In that spirit, Honduras has joined its voice to those of the other delegations
that have participated in these deliherations in order Io reafirm its constitutional
Government's will for peace, its faith in the process of negotiations sponsored
by the Contadora Group and itscomplete commitment to the principlesenshrined
in the Charter of this Organization.
TAB H: ORGANI7.ATION OP AMERICAN STATE5 RESOI.UTION OP 18 NOVWBER 1983 ON
PEACE EFFORTS IN CENTRAL AMERICA (OASDOC.~~l~~s.675(~111.0183))
AGlRES.675 (XIII-0183)
Peace Efforts in Central America
(Resolutionudoptedai theseventhplenurysessionh . eldonNovemher18. 1983)
Having seen the communication presented by the Ministers of Foreign AiTairs
of Colombia, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela to this Assembly on the peace
efforts thev are makin- in Central America:
Noting the Dtclilriition rigncJ hy th? Pre>idcnts<ifC<il<imhidS.lc~ico,I'anama.
2nd Vcnc~uelaal Cancun. .Me\ico. on July 17. 1983:
Commending the Document of Objectives adopted last September under the
auspices of the Contadora Group, by Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Hon-
duras, and Nicaragua;
Coe-izant that the Document of Ohiectives contains a set of nrincioles for
ddrcsiing the moit icrii>u\problcmi of thc iirca and ~ichiei,ingpea~.c.sccurit).
and the coopcrdtion necdecifor thc rtyion's ccononiic ;ind social dcvclopmcnt .
Considering that the Contadora Group is engaged in a worthy effort aimed at
achieving peacefulrelations in the region, based on the creation and strengthening
of a climate of international security in keeping with the principles established
in international ldw, of democratic and pluralistic institutions, and of sustained
economic and social development activities,
R~so~ves :
1. To reafirm the importance of the principles and rules of American comity
contained in theCharterof the Organization of American States, and parricularly
the obligation to settle disputes hy peaceful procedures alone, to abstain [rom
the use of force, not to interfereeither directly or indirectlyor for whatever reason288 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
in the interna1 or er.ternal affairs of any other state, and to respect the right of
each state to lead its own cultural, political, and economic life freely and spon-
taneously.
2. To reafirm the right of al1 countries in the region to live in peace and
security, free from any external interference.
3. To express ils firmest support for the efforts of the Contadora Group and
to urge it to persevere in ils efforts.
4. To welcome wiihsatisfaction the Declaration of Cancun on Peace in Central
America issued by Presidents Belisario Betancur of Colombia, Miguel de la
Madrid of Mexico, Icicardo de la Espriella of Panama, and Luis Herrera Campins
of Venezuela.
5. To note with ai>~rovalthe ado~tion of the Document of Obiectivesao~roved
by the Central ~méican States al ihe proposal of the contadira Grou;,'which
contains a set of basic principles and commitments to be negotiated for addressing
the conflicts in the :rrea and achievinr oeace. internationil securitv. democracv.
-.
anil ihr co<~peratior,nrrded l'orihc region'seconomic and social dc!cldpmeni.
6. To urge the Cvnlrdl Anicrieün .*lÿtc\to ncgoiiate forihuiih. on the ba\is of
the vrincivies enunciated in the Document of Obiectives. aereements that will
formalize rhe objectives arising from those documents, ÿnd-devise monitoring
and verificdtion mechanisms that will ensure their fulfillment.
7. To request al1rhe statcs to abstain from any act that may heighten tensions,
ham~er the neeotiation efforts the Contadora Grouo is makine in mutual
;ipreenicni uiihÏhe Ccntr;il Amcri~anCiii\criiine!it,. or;iiipedc the CrcÿiOC;!
diniaie i>idi~loguc and ncggitiati<>n c<induc~\eto ilic residr:iiin1i uf peucc in
the region
TAB 1: TRANSLATIOS OF NEWS REPORT FROM MADRII> BY EP.1; OS MEETING BETUTEN
PRES11)ENTRITANCUR OF COLOMBIA AND PRIME MISISTER GONZALEZ OF SPAN
The following is a translation into English of a statement reported by Efe on
9 Octoher 1983:
Madrid, 8 Oct. (Efe) - Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez and
Colombian President Belisario Betancur reiterated in Madrid today that the
Contadora Group icontinuesto be the "only valid forum for achieving peace in
Central America".
In the government's "King's Room" of the Barajas airport, Gonzalez,
Betancur,former Vr:nczuelanPresident Carlos Andres Perez,and Spanish Foreign
Minister Fernandon Moran and Culture Minister Javier Solana discussed the
Central American situation for 90 minutes.
A few hours earlier in Oviedo, Betancur and Perez also met and discussed the
same subject with Ambassador Richard Stone, personal representative of US
President Ronald R.eagan.
"We have reached the conclusion," Prime Minister Gonzalez said, "that
Contadora is the only valid forum for achieving peace in Central America, and
it naturallv has Simin's suv..rt for this ohiective." "Bv havine achieved a
21-point ohjr.cti\c as e.~prc\\ed in the dociimcni prc>enteJ 10 Uiiiiccl Yationi
ScretrCinriI Je I':re/ de Cuillar. the Centr~I Anieric;in sitii:itii>n
be~onicsthe concein of the United F\.iiionr", PreriJcni Beli.irio Betan:ur rdid. BXHlBlTS SUBMITIEV BY THE UNITED STATES 289
At the end of the Madrid meeting - at dawn in Spain - with which Betancur
ended his 48-hour official visit to Spain, it was announced that the Colomhian
President would brief Venezuelan President Luis Herrera Campins on the results
of the meeting. Betancur and Herrera will meet for 50 minutes in the Caracas
airport during a technical stopover en route to Bogota.
At the end of the meeting, Prime Minister Gonzalez said regarding Spain's
role in the context of the Central American situation that "il is rather like a
tennis game in which WC return the bal1to Contadora, where the situation should
be solved since it is the .. .ooriatc forum".
Gonzalez stressed the "support" that the Contadora Group has received from
Spain, Europe, the nonaligned countries, and the United States. "This shows
us." he said."that there isno need for another alternative."
The Coli~mhianPrcsiJcnt cmphasi/ed the "p~iieni work" ih;it ihc Coniarl<>rli
Group - Ca>lomhili,Vene/uçl;i, Mcrico and Pananu . .have carricd oui .t<>
3chiei.c3 21-poini document i>foh~eçt~vc~" 'SOW thal lhe mue has beçome ihr.
concern of the United Nations. wewill see how each ooint can be imolemented."
Betancur stressed that "the Contadora Group Objectivesend &th the im-
plementation of the document. Wecontinue to believe that Central America can
achieve real peace hecause the document has the total support of the five
countries that make uo the reeion." Those countries are Nicaraeua-.Honduras.
Guatemala, Costa ~i~ and ~Ï~alvador.
According to Betancur, the document presented to the United Nations includes
solutions inthe military, border, social and economic areas.
The Spanish Prime Minister also reported that Betancur has been tasked with
informing the other leaders of the group about the talks held in Spain. The
Colomhian President also visited Spain to receive the "Prince of Asturias" prize
for Iberian-American co-operation.
Tonight's meeting was set up on Friday at the Spanish Prime Minister's
initiative during a reception Betancur held at the Colombian Embassy in Madrid.
"1 am returnine to Colombia verv satisfied with the meetines I held in Soain on
the suhject of Central America, ;hich concerns us al1and which 1am kre will
be adequately and peacefully solved", Betancur said.
'l'AB 1:TRANSLATION OF NliWS RliPORT IN CRII'ICA OF OBSERVATIONS BY FOREIGN
MlNlSTliR0YI)IiN ORTEGA DURAN OF PANAMA
The following is a translation into English of an article which appeared in the
Panama City newspaper Criricrrin Spanish, on 14October 1983:
Panamanian Foreign Minister Ovden Orteea Duran revealed vesterdav during
an exclusive intervie; with cririci that he Kars the Central ~merican conflicï
could undergo a regionalizaiion and involve neighboring countries such as
Panama andCosta Rica.
Foreign Ministers Meeting
Ortega said that the Contadora Group foreign ministers will meet in Panama
next weekend and that the ambassadors representing the Central American290 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
nations ai the United Nations and the Organization of American States will
participate.
Objectives Document
The Foreign Minister said that at that meeting, the foreign ministers of the
region will sign the "Objectives" document, and the Contadora Group will act
as witness.
This, he said, will permit work on additional activities aimed at stopping
armed border confrontations in those countries,a situation that is obstruciing
the signing of Central American peace treaties.
Great Danger
The Panamanian Foreign Minister, who has just returned from a visit to the
United States and Spain, said that "Panama and the Contadora Group are
concerned about Nicaragua's inclusion of the Central American situation in
United Nations dehites, sincethis could weaken the authority of the Venezuclan,
Mexican, Colombian and Panamanian elïort".
He added that "This situation, instead of favoring a suitable climate for
détente. would produce a greater controversy among the Central American
countries''.
Joint Elïorts
Ortega appealed to the common senseand intelligence oftheCentral American
governments and other governments of the world so that, even if the case is
debated in the United Nations, the result will be a resolution supporting the
area's peace initiative.
Ortega concluded hy saying that united eiTortsby al1concerned are necessary
to secure an imrnediate peace.
TAB K: UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLYRliSOLUTlON 38/10 ON THE SITUATION
IN CENTRAI. AMllRlCA
38/10. Thesiluarionin CenrralAmerica: rhrearsro iniernarionalsecuriryand
peaceiniriarives
Dale: 1I November 1983 Meeting: 53
Adoptcd without a vote Drafi :A/38/L.13/Rev.l
The CeneralAssembly,
Recull~n~Security Council resolution 530 (1983) of 19 May 1983in which the
Council encourdged the efforts of the Contadora Group and appealed urgently
to al1 interested States in and outside the region to co-operate fully with the
Group, through a frank and constructive dialogue, so as to resolve their dif-
ferences,
Reafirniing the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations EXHIBITS SUBM~TTEDBY THE UNITED STATES 291
relating to the duty of al1States to refrain from the ihreat or use offorce against
the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of any State,
Also re<?Dîrntingthe inalienable right of al1 peoples to decide on their own
form of government and to choose their own economic, political and social
system free [rom al1foreign intervention, coercion or limitation,
Cr~n~iib.ritrhai ihc interna1c<iniiict,in Ihe i~>uniriesofCentr:il Anlerira hicm
l'rom the cionrimic. ptilitical anJ 3ri;iaI criilditions obiaining in elich oi iho,e
couniriei 2nd ihat [hl.\, .h<>uldno[. thcrei'orc.hc placcd in tlic conte\[ of I:iist-
West confrontation,
Beeply concernedat the worsening of tensions and conflicts in Central America
and the increase in outside interference and acts of aggression against the
countries of the region, which endanger international peace and security,
Mindfirlof the necessity of promoting the achievement of peace on a sound
basis, which would make possible a genuine democratic process, respect for
human riah-s. and economic and social develoument.
A',.riny~vrrd<r.piii~r<i,niihat in recrnircrksarmed in~idcnis.horder clashes.
iicis of tcrrorism and sah<~iage.tr3ttic in 3rmi 2nd destahili~ing XIIO~S In and
against countries of the region have increased in number and intensity,
Noring ivirhgrear concern the military presence of countries from outside the
region, the carrying out of overt and covert actions, and the use of neighhour-
ing territories to engage in destahilizing actions, which have sewed 10 heighten
tensions in the re-.on.
Beeply concerned at the prolongation of the armed coniiict in countnes of
Central America, which has been aggravated hy increasing foreign intervention,
--
Beuring in mind the progress achieved in the meetings that the Ministers for
Foreign Afiirs of the Contadora Group have held with the Foreign Ministers
of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua in identifying
issues of concern and proposing appropriate proccdures for the consideration of
those issues,
Recalling the Cancun Declaration on Peace in Central America issued by the
Presidents of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuelaon 17July 1983 ',which
contains an appeal for political commitments on the part of countries situated
in and outside the region with the aim of achieving lasting peace in the area,
Beuringin mind the Cancfin Declaration and the endorsement by the States of
Central America of a Document of Objectives" which provides a hasis for an
agreement on the negotiations, that should be initiated at the earliest possible
date with the aim of drawing up agreements and adopting the necessary
procedures for formalizing the commitments and cnsuring appropriate systems
of control and verification.
Apprrcrriri,zythe broiid iniernÿiional support eipre~red for ihe crli>ris ihc
Coni;idura Ciroup ti)sciure a peaseiul and ncgoti~ied rettlcriicnt of the confli:ts
aficting the region,
1. Reaflrms the right of al1 the countries of thc region to live in peace and
to dccide their own future, free from al1 outside interference or intervention,
' A/38/303-S/15877 A.nnex
' Si16041,Annex. EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES 293
TA0 1.: NOTI :Y THE SECRtXARY-GENE RFTIIE UNITED NATIONS ON THE SITUATION
IN CENTRAL AMIIRICA. INCLUDING ANNEXSS SETIINC FORTH THE COMMUNICATION
THE SITUATION IN CENTRAL AMERlCA
Noie by ihe Secrerury-General
1. On 25 November 1received a visit from the Permanent Representatives of
Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, which comprise the Contadora
Group. On instructions from their Governments, they delivered to me a copy of
the communication submitted by the Ministers for Foreign Afïairs of the
Contadora Group to the General Assembly of the Organization of American
States, together with the text of the resolution adopted hy that Assembly on
14Novembcr 1983on the topic "Peace efforts iiCentral America". In accordance
with their request, these documents are transmitted to the Security Council as
annexes to this note. On the same occasion, they informed me of the calendar
of meetings of the Contadora Group, including one at the technical level on
1 and 2 December and another at the level of Ministers for Foreign Affairs
later.
2. In the past few days 1have also had interviews with the Permanent Repre-
sentatives of Costa Rica, El Salvador. Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua,
who have made known to me the opinions of their respective Govern-
ments concerning the situation in Central America.
3. On this occasion,1 must convey to the Security Council my impression that
there are certain developments in the situation which, if taken advantage of,
would make it possible to entertain hopes of improvement. Since 1last reported
to the Security Council in conformity with resolution 530 (1983)', while the
Council has continued to receive communications regarding the situation in the
region, taken as a whole they seem to indicate that there has been a reduction
both in the number of border incidents and in their scope and magnitude2.
Similarly, the pace of the efforts of the Contadora Group is accelerating, and in
that context diplornatic activity has been redoubled. Furthermore, there is per-
ceptible movement in the position of the Government of Nicaragua, consisting
mainlv in the submission of ~rooosals within the framework of the eiforts of the
contadora Groupand in measuies which, notwithstanding their domestic nature,
take cognizance of certain requirements of the other countries of the region.
4. 1 must state, however, Ïhat the situation in Central America continues to
be exceedingly complexand unstable, and that any of the multiple factors which
together account for its dangerous character, to which 1referred in my note of
18 October and which undouhtedly still exist, can aggravate it again from one
moment to the next. Accordingly if is essential, acting in good faith and in a
constructive spirit, to evaluate and take advzintage of the opportunity which is
apparently beginning to emerge.294 .MILrrAR AYND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
5. For tliis reason, and in accordancc with Security Council rcsolution 530
(19B3), 1wish to e:rpress my fervent hopc that the opportunity offered by the
heginning of détente to which 1 have referred will be used to the full and that
al1States. whether cirnot thev belone to the reeion. willco-ooerate in word and
deed to ensure that the eliort; of the-Contadora Group bear iruit, and that thcy
will refrain from any action or attitude which might have the opposite elïect.
Communicarionfro,>rlheMinisrersfor ForeignAffuirsoftheConrurlomCroupro
rheCeneru1 Assemblyof theOrgunizaiionofArnericonSrares
On the occasion of the thirteenth regular session of the General Assembly of
the Oreanization of American States. we, the Ministers for Foreign Ardirs of
Colomëia, Mexico, Panama and ~enezuela, have deemedit approprGtc to inform
this meeting of American Foreign Ministers of the efforts to achieve peace in
Central America carried out by the Contadora Group.
At the first meeting which we held on 8 and 9 Ianuary on Contadora Island,
emphasis was laid on the need to intensify the dialogue at the Latin American
level as an efictive way of dealing with the political, economic and social
problems which are jeopardizing the peace, democracy, stahility and development
of the peoples of the continent. Furthermore, at that meeting an appeal was
addressed to al1 the countries of the Central American area with a view to
bringing about, through dialogue and negotiaiion, a lessening of the tensions
and the establishm:nt of bases for creating a permanent climate of peaceful
coexistence and mutual respect among States, in accordance with the principles
of non-intervention and the self-determination of peoples.
We, the Ministers assembled there, in expressing Our deep concern at the
foreign intervention in the Central American crisis, pointed out that it would be
highly undesirable l'orthe conflicts in the area to be brought into the context of
the East-West confrontation. We also reailirmed the obligation incumhent on
States not to resort to the threat or use of force in international relations and to
refrain from any acts which might aggravate the situation and create the danger
of a generalized coriiiict spreading to al1States of the region.
In order to achieve these obiectives it was advocated that dialoeue and
negotiation should bc conducted among the States involved on wh&h it is
incumhent to make themain effort to promote pçacein the region. The Contadora
Grouv proposed to facilitate understanding and volitical conciliation amone the
CentraiAmerican countries in the conviction thai a solution at the regional'level
eould prevent an aggravation of the conflicts and pave the way to the establish-
ment of peace in the area.
The Foreign Ministers of the Contadora Group met periodically by thcmselves
and, on four occa:;ions, with their counterparts of Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. They also made visits to those countries
in order to hold talks with al1the Heads of State. The first threc meetings of the
Contadora Group with the Central American Foreign Ministers were held on
20-21 April, 28-30 ;Mayand 28-30 July 1983,respectively.These meetings made
it possible to niovi: ahead in estahlishing an agenda to covcr thc matters of
concern to each Central American countrv and the consideration of ~rocedures.
approichcr and po<siblcvciysof sol\ ing ipccificqucrtl.inr.,\I al1these mcetings.
the primïr) ohjr.cti\c was to 2re.itra ~li~ii;~cl'c,,nliJcn:e thdi u,,~uldmakc it
possible to initiate :substantiveneaotiations on each of the matters in dispute.
In view of the worsening ofihe conflicts in Central America, thé rapid MH~BITS SUBMIITED BY THE UNITED STATES 295
deterioration of the situation in the region, the mounting escalation of violence,
the progressive increase in tensions, the frontier incidents and the threat of a
military conflagration which might hecome generalized, the Chairmen of thc
Contadora Group decided to meet at Cancun, Mexico, on 16 and 17 July. At
this meeting, the Cancun Declaration on Peace in Central America was issued,
setting forth, for the first time, a set of specificcommitments which, if assumed,
would make il Dossibleto ensure oeaceful coexistence in the area.
On the s~inc;i~;:i\irin ihc 1lraJ; oi Statc callcd Lpon ilic rulcrs of ille Ccii1r:il
,\mericsn î<>untricr,Cuha and the I.'nitcdStatcr, ar \vclla, the Se<rctïr)-General
,>!'theIJniicd Naiioni .inilthe Sc;rctar!-Gcner:il oi'ihc Organi/diion ol,\incri:an
St:iic,. and the Ch:iirni.in of the Pcrm;incnt Cuunîil ci!i>urrcg~i>nao lrg~niration
i<ihupport the pcsic-msking clrt~rtsoi ihc grtiup in Central Amcriia.
Ai a rciuli of the nceotiations hcl,i on rhc bïiis ol'the C-ncun I)c~'lïrarion.
and takine into accouni the contributions of the Central American countries.
at the fo&th joint meeting of Foreign Ministers, held in Panama on 7, 8 and
9 Septemher, important progress was made, especiallywith regard to the formu-
lation of the Document of Obiectives whichcontains 21 basic ooints for achiev-
ing peacc in Ccntrsl i\mcrira. This Documeni. adopirJ hy ihc lyorcign.Minisiers
oi ihc region, \!,assubscquenily rndorsed by a11the Central American Ilcads of
State.
The Document of Objectives constitutes a set of fundamental principles and
commitments for dealing with the most serious problems of the area and for
achieving peace, security, the co-operation necessary for economic and social
develooment. and the strenethenine of the democratic institutions in Central
America. Ilc.,nstitutcs the firbl~pccljlcpoI111~3u1nJer,idnding which. under the
auspi~.csc,f the Ci>ni.idi>raGroup. u,ar adupicJ h) Coita Kira. FI Ssl~ador.
Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
In order to make nroe.esL in determinine the uuridic2l instruments and the
monitoring anil \crilicatiun machincry rcquired !'orcnhuring iullilmcni iii thc
obligations ;irising fnim the D~cumciii of Objecii\.es, the I'orci&nMinisiers of
the ciiunirici iiiihc Coniadora Group met in Panama Cil) on 21 and 22Oci<~her.
l'hc juridical insirunlents prcparcd ai ihït mcciing will hc ionçidcred ai ihc hfih
joini nieeting of toreign Miniitcrs schcdulcd fax 1)ccembcr
Ai the Drcieni timï ihc l'undamïnial atm <>fihc (.'<iniad<ira <ir<iun'\sciion is
the conc1;sion of specificagreements establishing and formalizing ihe commit-
ments assumed and elïectively guaranteeing Face, security, co-operation for
development and the strengthening of the democratic institutions in the region.
Weconsider that the neeotiation orocess olïers ~ossihilitiesof successin the near
future. \Vr urge ihe Crniral ,\meriran couniries io e\pcdite and intensify their
eiioris IO th:ii end ;anduc Lrgc :ilSicite, having an inicrcii in anil tic5 uith the
region to co-operate in achieving Ouraim of peace
Annex II
(See supru, Tub II,11.2871296 MILITARY AKU PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
TAR M: UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENT TRANSMITTINC TEXT OF COMMUNIQUÉOF FIFTH
JOINT MEFTINC OF (:ONTADORA CROUP AND OF CENTRAL AMERICAN STATES AND
INCLUDINC A,AN APPENDIX "MEASURI~STO BE TAKEN TO FULFII. THE COMMITMENTS
tiNTI:REI>INTO IN THE DOCUMENT OF ORJECTIVF.S"(VOCSn .i39171 ANI>5116262)
General Assemhly; Security Council (Docs. A139171 ; S/16262)
Lerler Bated 9 January 1984/rom rhe Chargéd'Affairesa.i of the Pernzanent
Missionof Panamato ihe UniredNaiionsAddressedru rhr Secrerary-General
1have the honour to transmit the tex1of the communiqué (Annex 1) issued
at the conclusion of the fifth joint meeting between the Ministers for Foreign
Affairs of the Contadora Group and the Foreign Ministers of Central American
countries, held at Panama City on 7 and 8 January 1984.
Also enclosed is the appendix to the communiquéentitled "Measures to be
taken to fulfil the commitments entered into in the Document of Objectives",
which was approved at the aforementioned meeting.
In addition,1have the honour to transmit the text of a statcmeiit (Annex II)
made by His ExcellencyMr. Ricardo de la Espriella, President of the Republic
of Panama, on the occasion of the adoption of the "Measures 10 he taken to
fulfil the commitments entered into in the Document of Objectives".
1would request you to arrange for the distribution of the communiqué,the
appendix thereto and the statement of His Excellency the President of the
Republic ofPanama as a document of the General Assemhly,under the itemsen-
titled "Development and strengthening of good-neighhourlincsshctween States",
"Review ofthe implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of Inter-
national Security", "Development and international economic CO-operation":
"Peaceful settlemerit of disputes between States" and "The situation in Cen-
tral America: threats to international peace and security and peace initiatives",
and of the Security Council.
(Signed) Leonardo KAM,
Ambassddor,
Deputy Permanent Representative,
Chargéd'Affairesa.i.
On 7 and 8 lanuarv 1984.the Foreien Ministers of Colombia. Mexico.Panama
;inJ Vcne~urla.mcmhcrr oiihc Coniddi~raGroup. met with ihc I:orcign Slintrieri
,>iCi)iia Klia. 1'1SaIvild<lr.G~aicni;il.t. I-loiiJurü~;inJ F\12:irdgudal I'dn3nl3
City, Republic of Panama.
The meeting, which was the twelfth meeting of the Contadora Group and the
fifth held with the Foreign Ministers of Central American States, marked the
end of the one-year period which has elapsed since the Contadora Declaralion
initiated the reeional oeace-maki-. orocess. The oarticipants stressed the fun-
ditnienial rolc plabcd 'by the Contadord proce\\ ;n sirc&ihcning Ihc dialogue
beiuecn ihc Statci ,>fCciiiral Amcrica and in ihc queil for a politic:ilentInie
order to reach rxareful and nerotiated settlements of the disputes and to restore
hamony and siahility in the area.
The joint meetiiig of Foreign Ministers laid down some specific measures EXHIBITSSUBMITTEDBY THE UNITED STATES 297
for the implementation of the Document of Objectives, adopted by the Central
American Governments in September 1983, on the basis of the Cancun Dec-
laration on Peace in Central ~merica. To this end. il ado~ted the document
annexed hereto, entitled "Measures to be takçn to fulfilthe c&nmitments entered
into in the Documcnt of Objectives", whichrelates to questions of regional
security, political matters and CO-operationin the economic and social spheres.
Panama, 8 January 1984.
Measuresro Be TukenIo Fu@/rhe Conimirmenrs Enrereidnroin theDocumerirof
Objecrives
The Governments of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and
Nicaragua.
Considering:
1. Theadoption by the fiveGovernments in September 1983of the "Document
of Objectives" as a frame of referencefor the regional agreementto achicvepeace,
2. The necessity of instituting measures designed to fulfil the commitments
embodied therein,
Resolve:
1. Toodopr the followingmeasures for immediate application:
1. Securiryquesriuns:
(a) The preparation by each of the Central American States of a register or
inventory ofmilitary installations, weapons and troops, with a viewto developing
-uidelines on a .olic. for their verification and reduction which sets ceilines and
provides for a reasonable balance of forces in the region;
(h) The establishment of a lis1and timetable in eacb country with a view Io
reducing, and cventually eliminating, the presence of foreign military advisers
and other outside elements participating in military or security activities;
(c) The identification and elimination of al1forms of support or encourage-
ment to and financing or toleration of irregular groups or forces engaged in
destabilizing Central American Governments;
(dj The identification and disbandment of irregular groups or forces which,
acting from or traversing the territory of a Central American State, participate
in destahilizing actions against another Government of the region;
.e, The identification of areas. routes and channels used for ill-ral trafic in
arm, uiihin and ouiside the repion. ro ihai >uih irallic mil) bc hiuppcd.
1; The ~.,t;iblishnir.ntof niczh.ini<m%oi direct cornmunirdiion iiith ;i VI:,,
1.)a\,crlin>!incidcnt~ bct\iccii St4tr.r ;incldc\i-inc >i>luiionrin ~hccvcni of ilic
occurrencë of such incidents ;
(u) The promotion of national reconciliation on the basis of justice, freedom
and democracy and the establishment for this purpose of macbinery to facilitate
dialogue between the countries of the region;
(bj The guaranteeing of full respect for human rights and, to this end, the
securing of cornpliance with the obligations embodied in international legal
instruments and the relevant constitutional provisions;298 MILITARYANI) PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
(c) The promule.ation or review of legislalion on the electoral process with a
view to the holding .f elections that guarantee the eRective participation of
the oeoole:
(2) ?heestahlishment of independent electoral bodies to prepare reliable elec-
toral registers and to ensure that the electoral process is impartial and demo-
cratic:
(e) The issue or, where appropriate, the updating of regulations guarantceing
the existence and participation of political parties which represent the dilTerent
currents of opinion;
(f) The estahlisliment of an electoral timetable and the adoption of measures
designed to ensure that the political parties participate on an equal footing;
(g) Endeavours to bring about genuine political trust betwecn the
Governments of thi: area in order to promote détente;
3. Ecunumicandsuciulyuesliuns:
(a) The strengthening of programmes of assistance to Central American refu-
gees and the promotion of voluntary repatriation, with the CO-operationof the
interested Governnients. in liaison and101CO-ordinationwith national humani-
tarian bodies and competent international organizations;
(b) The extensicin of full CO-operationto the Central American lntegration
Bank. ECLA, the C:ommitteefor Action in Suooort of the Economic and Social
~evelo~ment of Central America and the Gen&al Treaty on Central American
lntegration (SIECA);
(ci Joint neaotiiitions to obtain external resources to help reviialize Central
~merican integation processes;
(d) The encour;igement of trade within the region and the promotion of
greater and hetter access of Central American products to the international
markets;
(e) The promotion of joint investment projects;
(f) The establishment of just economic and social structures which will rein-
force an authentic democratic system and give the peoples full access to the
judicial system,em-loyment, education, health and culture;
II. Toaurharize: the Technical Group, as advisory body of the Joint Meeting
of the Ministers for Foreign AKairs of Central America and of the Contadora
Grouo. to follow iio the measures orovided for in this document on securitv.
political and economic and social qu.criion>.The Trchnical Group u.111 report
the meeting i)fMinirtcrs on the progrcss madc in carrying oui thesc mcasurcs;
III.To estublish:in the framework of the Contadora Group, three working
commissions for the nu. .se of nre..rina st-dies. le.al-drafts and recommen-
dations concerning security and political matters and economic and social
questions and of rnaking proposais for verifying and supervising the implemen-
tation of the measures agreed upon;
The working commissions will be governed by the following rules:
(a) They will be composed of representatives of the Governments of Central
America, and each country may designate up to two advisers per commission;
. . Thev will he convened hv the Contadora Grouo. which will ~articioate in
their meeting\ in orilcr thatii &ay continuc to colla~oratc astivcl; in th; study
oithe a\rigncd topirr and in ihc prepsr<tiion i~iagrccmeni.,:
(c) Recourse to external advisers, whether the latter are experts in their
individual capacity or representatives of international organizations, mus1 be
approved in advance by consensus; FXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES 299
(d) The working commissions will be set up by 31 January 1984at the latest.
for ivhich purpihe ihe pariicipsiing ~;o\~ernm~nis~a~dilelsignatc ihrir reprr\cnta-
iives and ;icl\ircr>anaiIl ~.onimunicairthcir names in duc cours ihc Mini.try
of I.oreign AlTitirsof the Kepubli.OC P,in;ima:
je) Each commission will prepare and presenl ils timetable and programme
of work before 29 Fcbruary 1984;
(f) The working commissions will carry out their tasks within the framework
established by the "Document of Objectives". They will be co-ordinated by the
Technical Group and will present their sttidies, legal draftsand recommendations
to the Joint Meeting of Ministers for ForeignAlfairs by 30April 1984at the latest.
Panama, 8 January 1984
Sralementhy Ili.s E.~cellencyMr Ricurdr,delu Espriellu,Presidenrof rheRepuhlic
of Panomu,upotzthe Adoptionof rheDocriment"Measuresto Be Takenro Fiilfil
rke Conzmitments Enteredirrtoin ilie Drlcumentof Objectives"
In my capacity as President of the Republic of Panama, a member country of
the Contadora Group, 1 should like to state that I am pleascd at thc adoption
by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Central American countries of the
document eniiiled "Measures to be taken to fulfil the commitments entered into
in the Document of Objectives".
This act represenis a real advance in the negotiations undertaken with a view
to the signing of legal instruments which will ensure a lasting peace in Central
America. It is also a recognition of the cflorts made by the Contadora Group
over the past year.
We urge the Heads of State of al1the Central American countries and of al1
other States with interests and relations in the region to exert their political
influence bv sun~ortine the document entitlcd "Measures to be taken to fulfil
the commiimefits enteFed into in the Document of Objectives" and to pledge
without reservalions their firm guarantees to ensure the successof this important
diplomatic option for peace.
Ricardo DE LA ESPRIEI.LA,
President of the Republic of Panama
Panama, 8 January 1984.300 Mll.1TARYAND PARAMILITARY ACTlVlTlES
PART2. COUMUIVICATI ~FTETEUNITEU STATE SO THEREGISTRA OF THE
INTERNATION CAULRT OFJUSI.ICI!
TAB N: L ~ R OF 13APRIL 1984
Emhassy of the United States of America, The Hague.
April 13, 1984.
Dear Mr. Torres B~!rndrdez:
1wish tu acknowledge on behalf of the Government of the United States of
America receipt of your letter of Apr9, 1984,transmitting (1) a certified copy
of an application rif the Government of Nicaragua to the Court naming the
Governmenl of the United States as respondent, and (2) a certified copy of a
request of the Government of Nicaragua for the indication of provisional
measures with respi:ct to that application.
In accordancc with Article 40 (2) of the Rules of the Court, 1wish to advise
you that the United States designates as its Agent with regard tu Nicaragua's
application the Horiorahle Davis R. Robinson, Legaldviser of the Department
of State, and as ils Deputy Agent Mr. Daniel W. McGovern, Principal Deputy
Legal Adviser, US Department of State. All communications tu Mr. Robinson
or Mr. McGovcrn rnay be addressed to the United States Embassy inThe Hague.
In accordance with Article 31 of the Rules of the Court. the Agent of the
United States is prepared tu meet with the President of the Court at the
President's convenience to discuss questions of procedure, and would request
such a meeting before the scheduling of hearings or other action in the case. As
you are aware, Mr. Robinson is presently in The Hague and could meet with
the President at a rnutually convenient time next week.
The United States is of the firm view that, under the terms of the United
States Declaration of August 14, 1946, assenting to jurisdiction of the Court,
and its communication of April 6, 1984,the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider
the application of the Government of Nicaragua. A fortiori the Court lacks
jurisdictiontu indicate the provisional measures requested hy the Government
of Nicaragua.
The United S1atc:snotes that the allegations of the Government of Nicaragua
comorise but one facet of a comolex of interrelated oolitical. social. economic
and >ccuriiym.itierr thst ci~nfr<~niihc Central Amîrvan rcgion. Tho~ rnattcrr
arc the riibicit of:i ;cgiuri;ildiplon~,itii.ni>an:ithe 'Cont:tdor;i Proces".
which hasbecn cnclo~scdhv ihe Oreanization of American States. and in which
the G<i\crnmcni of Nlcsr:igud pdrtiiip:itc,. Thir pr.xcrir\tr<>nglyruppctrtc,J
hv the I:niicJ Staiis as the mixt apprilprisie mL.ans,ri rcsiil\ing ththr.ompli.xoi
issue>. consiitent 'xiih the Cnlicd Nxtion, Charter and the Ch;iricr of the
Organization of American States, in order tu achieve a durable peace in the
region. The concern of the United States is that bilateral judicial proceedings
initiatedhy Nicaragua would impede this ongoing rnultilateral diplornatic process.
This concern motivated the decision of the United States which was communi-
cated to the Secret:iry-General on April 6, 1984.
The same concern makes the indication of the provisional measures requested
bv Nicaragua oarticularlv inao~ro~nate at this time. In the oresent situation in
-.
Central Amerii3. tlic ind;idiiii; oriuch measiirej çould irrcp&bl? prejuJicc the
inicrestr oi';i niim<iStlite, and rcrii>uslyintcrfcrc wiih the negoii:itions bcing
conducted pursuant tu the Contadora Process.
Finally, the Unired States notes that the events of which the Government of EXHIBITS SUBMI~D BY THI? UNITIIII STATES 301
Nicaragua complains allegedly took place over at lcast three years. See Annex
A to application. These circumstances arc inconsistent with an argument that
there is urgency to Nicaragua's request for the indication of provisional measures.
For the reasons stated ahove concerning jurisdictional questions, the United
States requests the Court to strike Nicaragua's application from the Court's list
of pending mattcrs. Alternatively, the United States considers that the circum-
stances and the extraordinary character of the measures requested by Nicaragua
require an opportunity for written submissions by the parties and, thereafter, an
oral hearing on Nicaragua's request for the indication of provisional measures.
The Agent of the United States will be prcpared to discuss with the President
the scheduling of written suhmissions hy the parties and oral proceedings before
the Court.
Please accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
Sincerely,
(Signed) L. Paul BKRME~ II,I,
Ambassador.
Sir,
1 have the honor to refer to the Application of the Republic of Nicaragua of
9 April 1984 (the "Application"), to its Request of the same date for the
indication of provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute of the Court
(the "Request"), and to Article 48 of the Statutc of the Court. The United States
wishes to bring to the notice of the Court information that the United States
has recently rcccived,cstablishing that Nicaragua has not accepted the compul-
sory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 of the Statute of the Court.
Consequently, the Application does not meet the requirements of Article 38 of
the Rules of Court, particularly paragraph 2 thereof. The United States respect-
fully submits, therefore, that an immediate decision should he taken to preclude
any further proceedings on the Application and the claims contained therein or
on the Request.
In this regard, 1have the honor to cal1attention to the following:
1. The Application refers in its opening paragraph to ". . .the Declarations
made by the Republic of Nicaragua and by the United States of America
accepting thejurisdiction of the Court as provided for in Article 36 of the Statute
of the International Court of Justice . . .".The Application further states in
paragraph 13thercof that "[hloth the United States and Nicaragua have acçepted
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 of the Statute of the
Court". Both the reference and the statement are incorrect. As of the date of the
filingof the Application, Nicaragua had not accepied the compulsory jurisdiction
of the Court.
2. Nicaragua has not specified in the Application the legal grounds upon
which the jurisdiction of the Court is said to be based. In the absence of any
other indication, the United States assumes that Nicaragua is seeking to rely
upon Article 36, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Court, which reads:302 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
"Declaratioris made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent
Court of International Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed,
as hetween rhs parties to the present Statute, to be acceptanccs of the
compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the period
which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms."
On 14 September 1929, Nicaragua signed the Protocol of Signature of the
Statute of the Permanent Court of lnternational Justice. The Protocol of Signa-
ture provided:
"The prescnl Protocol, which has been drawn up in accordance with the
decision takeri hy the Assembly of the League of Nations on the
13th December, 1920, is subject to ratification. Eacb Power shall send its
ratification to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations; the latter
shall take the necessarysteps to notify such ratification to the other signatory
Powers. The r;itiiïcation shall he deposited in the archives of the Secretanat
of the League of Nations."
But Nicaragua never ratified the Protocol of Signature of the Statute of the
Permanent Court. Thus, the declaration which Nicaragua made on 24 September
1929 purporting to accept the Optional Clause never entered into force. As a
rcsult, Nicaragua never accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent
Court. Consequently, Article 36,paragraph 5, of the Statute of the International
Court of Justice is inapplicable, and cannot serve as the basis ofjurisdiction over
the Application and the claims contained therein or over the Request.
3. The Report of the Permanent Court of lnternational Justice 1929.1930,
Ser. E, No. 6,at l45-146, lists Nicaragua among the "States having signed [the
Optional Clause]without condition as to ratification but not ratified the Protocol
of Signature of thri Statute". These are descrihed as "States not bound by the
Clause". Id.at 146.This Report does not include Nicaragua in the list of "States
at present bound by the [Optional] Clause". Id. at 145. Nicaragua is similarly
listed in subsequent issuesof theReportsofihe PernlanenrCouri~$lnrernarional
Jusrice.See, e.g., Reporr 1930-1931, Ser. E, No. 7, at 159, 161. 457; Reporr
1937-1938,Ser. E No. 14, at 59-60. Seealso, Colleciionof Tests Coverningihe
Jurisdicrionof rhe iCourr,Ser.D, No. 6, al 19(1932).
4. On 29 Noveniher 1939,Nicaragua addressed a telegram to the League of
Nations stating that an instrument of ratification of the Protocol of Signature of
the Statute would follow. See Sixreenrh Repnri of rhe PermanenrCouri of
lnrernarionalJuslice (15 June 1939 to 31 December 1945), Serics fi, No. 16,
p. 331; lnternational Court of Justice, Yearhook1982-1983, p. 79, In. 1. 1 am
informed that the records of the League of Nations in Geneva reveal that no
instrument of ratification from Nicaragua was cver received. On 30 November
1939,the Acting Legal Adviser of the League of Nations informed the Govern-
ment of Nicaragua that the Secretariat of the League of Nations was at the dis-
posai of Nicaragua to facilitate the deposit of such an instrument.(SeeAnnex 1
hereto, paragraph 3.) Later, on 15 September 1942, the Acting Legal Adviser
(M. Emile Giraud) wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
drawing attention to Nicaragua's telegram of 29 Novemher 1939and adding:
''1have nev-r receivedthe instrument of ratification, the deposit of which
is necessary to bring Nicaragua's obligationinto being."
(See Annex 1hereto at pardgraph 5). Attached to Annex II hereto isa duly authen-
ticated copy of a letter dated 13 May 1943from the United States Ambassador EXHIBITSSUBMITTGUBY THE UNITED STATES 303
to Nicaragua to Judge Manley O. Hudson. In that letter, there is further
evidence that as of that date, Nicaragua had not ratified the Protocol of Signa-
ture and therefore was not bound thereby. Additional confirmation of the non-
ratification of the Protocol of Signature by Nicaragua appears in the twenty-
First List of Signatures, Ratifications and Accessions in respect of Agreements
and Conventions concluded under the Auspices ofthe kague of Nations, which
includes Nicaragua in the list of "Signatures not yet perfected by Ratification".
See League of Nations, Oficial Journal, SpecialSupplement No. 193 (10 July
1944), at pp. 37, 42-43. So far as the United States has heen able to ascertain,
there is no indication that Nicaragua ratified the Protocol of Signature before
the Charter of the United Nations entered into force on 24 October 1945, or
before the League of Nations and the Permanent Court of International Justice
were dissolvcdon 18April 1946.That being so, Nicaragua cannot be deemed to
have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
under Article 36, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Court.
5. The Unitcd States is further informed that Nicaragua has never deposited
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations a declarafion accepting the
Court's compulsory jurisdiction pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the
Statute of the Court.
6. In the circumstances, the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the
Application of the Government of the Republic of Nicaragua or any part of that
Application, and the Request for the indication of provisional measures does
not relate to any case properly before the Court. For these reasons and in
consideration of Article 48 of the Statute of the Court, the United States
respectfullyseeks [rom the Court an immediate decision which will preclude any
further proceedings on the Application and the claims contained therein. or on
the Request.
7. This letter is without prejudice to any other rights, claims or positions of
the United States. whether under the Statute of the Rules of the Court or
othcririsr., including, withoui Iini~tatiiin,wch a.. m.iy relati>the jurirdistii>ni~f
ihe <:<lurior ihc admis\ihil~iyi>fth? Applic:ition
Please accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration
Sincerely,
(Signed) Davis R. Ro~lNsoN,
Agent of the United States of America
Annex 1
1. Since receipt of the Registrar's letter o9 April 1984(171558). the United
States has examined whether Nicaragua acceptedthe compulsory jurisdiction of
the Permanent Court of lnternational Justice. lnauir,es in the Unit~d N~ ~ons
Secretariat in New York disclosed that any relevant materials would he located
in the Learue of Nations Archives in Geneva. From inquiries made in Geneva.
the fol10w~~has been established.
2. Nicaragua's telegram of 29 Novemher 1939, referred to in the letter of the
Agent of the United States of 23 April 1984, was receivedin the League of
Nations in Geneva on 30 November 1939.
3. On 30 November 1939,the Acting Legal Adviser of the League of Nations
wrote a letter to the Nicaraguan Ministry for Foreign Afiairs in which, after
acknowledging receipt ofthe telegram of 29 Novemher 1939, he stated:304 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
"En réponse.je m'empressede vous informer que le servicecompétentdu
Secrétariatse tientà la disposilion de votre gouvernement pour lui faciliter
les formalités relativesau dépotdudit instrument de ratification."
There is no reply to that letter in the fileof the League of Nations.
4. On 4 August 1942,the late Judge Manley O. Hudson, then in residence at
Harvard Law School, wrote to inquire as to the status of Nicaragua's ratification
of the Protocol of :Signature. On 15 September 1942,the Acting Lcgal Adviser
of the League ofNations, M. Emile Giraud, replied (in part):
"H'e h~ir' nc1recei,sedihe rd~ilicdi~onilr'ccjjdrIO ~on~pleic~hc SI~II~IIU~~'
<)I'ihrCourt Proi,>ioland 31 the samc lime 10 hring inio ii>rccthe ohligaii<~n..
conccrnini! Ariiclc 36. Hui on Xoiembcr 29th. 1939.lhc Sccrctarv-Gcncrdl
was inforkd by telegram ihat the Court ~rolocol was ratifiid by the
President of the Republic of Nicaragua. We have however never received
the instrument of ratification itself, which should have been sent to us.
Nicaragua is therefore not bound either hy the Protocol or hy the
Optional Clau!:e."
5. On 16 Septeniber 1942, Acting Legal Adviser Giraud scnt the following
letter to the Ministi:r for Forcign AiTairsof Nicaragua:
..Par un ir'l:graninic en &lie du?Y novcnibre 1939.,nus iiicr bicn {oulu
mefairesd\i)ir qur lepri>ti>s<idlce \ignalure du S1.111Irla Cour pcrm;incnic
Je Justice in1crn:itioii;ileIdu 16 deccmbrc 1920) avait Ci6 raiifii: nar Ic
présidentde la ~é~uhli~uè de Nicaragua et que instrumen dt rati&ation
serait envoyéau Secrétariat.
Or, je n'ai jamais reçu cet instrument de ratification dont le dépet est
nécessairepour faire naitre effectivement l'obligation. Peut-ètre cet instru-
ment s'est-ilperdu en cours de route.
J'ai tenu a attirer votre attention sur cette question."
6. This letter of 16 September 1942 is the last document contained in the
United Nations Lilxary, Geneva, League of Nations Archives, 1933-1946,File
No. 3C/17664/1589.This filecontains al1the materials for the period from 1933
to 1946 relating to Nicaragua's actions in connection with the Protocol of
Signature of the Stcituteof the Permanent Court of International Justice and the
Optional Clause.
[Whcn copies of the original document on file in Geneva are received in The
Hague, the Agent of the United States will transmit copies to the Registrar.]
The Hague, 23 April 1984
Annex II
1. Wh~lcthi:inqiiiric,ti,nhich Anne\ l r:im \\Cr?king p,r,,eJ. ihr'I>:p.iri-
iiicni ,if Siaic ~111.L'iilicdSi~iesCi<~vcrnmcniin \\'arliiiigi<>n. .C.. c<indur.icd
an examination of its own archives 10 determine whethir thev contained anv
rr'lc\;ini inforniaiion on ihc possiblc iicxpiance by Siciiriiguii of ihc conipul-
sor) jurisdirtiiin ol'ihc Pcrmoncni Court of Intcrnatii>nlilJusiicc Thai examina-
lion rei~c:ilcddcsv.iich Uo 1035of 1.1Miiv 1943froni thc Uniicd Si;iics Anibiis-
sador to Nicaragua forwarding to the ~e~artment of State a letter of the
same date from the Ambassador to Judge Hudson reporting on the results of
the Ambassador's inquiries at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua.
That letter from the Ambassador to Judge Hudson reportcd that the Foreign EXHIBITS SUBMITIED BK THE UNITBU STATES 305
Minister of Nicaragua had informed the Amhassador that as of that date, "there
isno record of the instrument of ratification havingbeen transmitted to Geneva".
An authenticated copy of the full text of the despatch and enclosed letter is
appended to this Annex II '.
2. The Department of State has found no further documentation, from any
source, relating to this matter.
The Hague, 23 April 1984.
TAB P.COMMUNICATION TO THE REGISTRAR OF TIIB COURT FROM COSTA RICA,
18 APRIL 1984
The United States has received from the Government of Costa Rica the text
of a communication, which the Government of Costa Rica indicated that it
would send to the Registrar of the Court, an English version of which we under-
stand to he as follows:
Honourable Sir,
With regard to the case presented hefore the International Court of Justice hy
the Government of Nicaragua, the Govcrnmcnt of Costa Rica wishes,hy this
means, to present for the consideration of the Court the following commu-
nication :
Costa Rica declared ils permanent neutrality in belligerent coniïicts which
aiïect other States in Presidential proclamation on Novembcr 17, 1983.The neu-
trality of Costa Rica is active, and for this reason fully compatible with the right
of Costa Rica as a Memher of the United Nations and the Organization of
American States in al1that relates to the prcservation of peace and international
security, as wellas in relation to those activitiesconducive to a peacefulsolution
of disputes between States.
As a perpetually neutral State and a country situated in the Central American
region, Costa Rica has a special interest in the peaceful solution of disputes and
coniïicts which aiTeclthis area of the world. For this reason and in pursuit of
this interest in peace and international order, the Government of Costa Rica
would like to provide its Observations concerning the case presented by the
Government of Nicaragua against the United States of America and its Appli-
cation for the adoption of provisional measures in conformity with Article 41
of thc Statute and Article 73 of the Rules of Court, without these Obser-
vations being considered as an intervention in thc casc. in accordance with the
doctrine of Article 62of the Statute of the Court.
' Forthe documentsappcndedtothis Anncxsec lixhihitIsupra.fNorrby rheRrgisrry.]306 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVIT~
Based on the above, the Government of Costa Rica wishes to make the
following Observations :
1. The "case" o~esented bv the Government of Nicaragua b-fore the Court
touches upon only one aspect of a more generalized conilict that involves other
countries within the Central American area as wellascountries outside the region.
Faced with such conflicts, a group of American nations, within the doctrine
of Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations and of Article 23 of the
Charter of the Organization of American States, created the so-called "Forum
of Contadora" in order to seek at a suhregional level,a solution to such conflicts,
since their continuation would constitute a grave threat to the international peace
and security of the entire Central American area. Within this forum intense
diplomatic negotiaiions have taken place to resolve the conflicts, not only in
their militarv aswct. but also their causes. which are of a oolitical. social and
ceoni)mir.naturi hg>thinterna1 and cxlernal This proces, 1\'\er). fdr along and
hï.. .,participlint:ilthe couniries ui'thc rcgion. spccaiically C'olomhia,\lcxico.
Plinlirnli.Vencruel;i. Cosi;r Kim. FI SaI\,lidor. Guaiemslli. Iliiiiduriis :lnJ '\lia-
raeua. and with thr suooort of the international communitv.
-
2. The Government'~f Costa Rica is of the opinion th& whatever measure
which the Court miaht adopt in the "case" presented for ils consideration, taking
such measures outsi'dethe iontext of the comolete oolitical and militarv situation
that prevails in the Central American region, coild become a distoriing factor
in the ditticult equilibrium sought hy the Forum of Contadora in a broader
framework of solutions and could com~romise. if not undertaken with orudence
and equil).. nll pos:ihiliii01'.iici.c\\ i~irihc "1-ori01 Cont;idor;i".
3 Therefore. Coi~liK1r.3~.ithout prctcnding tujudgc in 319 w;iythe appropri.
;ilencss of the pro\isional mra,urrb which thc Court mav dccide. expres~eslhc
following opinion :
1. Whatever provisional measure the Court may adopt should entail
obligations anil commitments by both parties to the dispute.
II. The adoption of any provisional measure, whatever its nature, should
take into accoiint the existence ofthe diplomatic effort which is being carried
out in the Contadora group, with the participation of al1 the countries of
the area, and which seeks a solution to the conflicts such as those which
have been hrought hefore the Court.
TAB R. COMMUNICATION TO TIIE RECISTRAROP TIIFCOURT FROH EL SALVADOR,
. 19 APRIL 1984
The United States has received from the Government of El Salvador the text
of a communication, which the Government of El Salvador indicated that it
would send to the Keestrar of the Court, an English version of which we under-
stand to be as follows:
Excellency :
Although nota 11artyto the case brought before the Court by the Government
of Nicaragua requesting provisional measures related to its complaint against IIXHIBITS SUBMIT~ED BY THE UNITED STATES 307
alleged US military activities in the region, the Government of El Salvador
wishes to provide the Court with certain information on the circumstances
surrounding the complaint by Nicaragua and the whole Central American
situation.
The problems besetting the Central American region are many and interrelated.
They are political, economic, social, human rights and secunty issues; some are
bilateral and others multilateral; some are legal while many are of a non-legal
nature. The Government of El Salvador recalls that the Contadora process in
which Nicaragua is a participant was initiated to deal with the entire array of
these questions and that itis now engaged actively in its work. The Governments
of El Salvador and Nicaragua, with the other concerned govemments in the
region, have endorsed the Contadora process without reservations, as has the
Organization of American States. The Government of El Salvador continues to
consider the Contadora process as the uniquely appropriate forum, consistent
with Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations and Article 24 of the
Charter of the Organization of American States, in which to seek a rcalistic,
durable. ,cei-nal ocacc scttlement that would take the manifold leeitim~~c ~" ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
interests of each participating State into full account.
The issues raised by the Government of Nicaragua cannot be divorce* from
the regional issues under negotiation in the Contadora process. In the view of
my Government, the complaint by Nicaragua, if considered hy the Court, or if
the provisional measures were ordered by the Court, would damage prospects
for success of multilateral ncgotiations within the Contadora framework, especi-
allv if such measures were aonlied to onlv one nar.v t, the disnute.
iherefore, my Governme~'requests th& the Court take serio;sly into consider-
ation its viewsas expresscd above, and that the Court take no action with respect
to the requested provisional mcasures which would becontraty to the negotiaiing
process now taking place within the Contadora group for a comprehensive,
regional solution in Central America.
Please accept, Excellency, assurances of my highest consideration and es-
teem.
TAB S. NOTE PROM HONDURAS T0 THE SECRETARY-GENERALOF THE
UNITED NATIONS, 18 APRIL 1984
The United States has reccived from the Government of Honduras the text of
a note addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, containing
observations on the pending rcquest for provisional measures, an English trans-
lation of which isas follows:
Mr. Secretary-General :
I ha\e ilie honuur IO cprcss to i'our ExicIIency the dccp roncïrn of the
tio\ernnient of llundurlir rcgarding ihc new inicrn~iii~ndl-le\~cilniiiaii\c undcr.
roke by ihr Giivcrnmcnt <ifNicaragua. The purporc ofihis iniiiati\c is 10 rciiio\,c
from fhe jurisdiction of the groupseeking a peaceful settlement, the Contadora
group (Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela), the discussion of the poli-308 MILITARY AND PARAMlLlTARY ACTIVETIFS
tical, economic, social and security crisis which is anècting the Central Ameri-
can reeion and which. because of its comolex nature. reauires a comorehensive
multil&ral solution.
Your Excellency is aware that this crisis is the result of interna1 conflicts in
certain countrics of the area, a lack of respect Torhuman rights, economic and
social underdeve-~oment. and. most esoeciallv. the arms race and the inordinate
build-up of the ~icaraguan ~rmed Forces.'The Government of Nicaragua is
engaged in the dest;ibilization of ueighbouring governments by providing encour-
aeë&ent. financiriz. training and loeistical and communications assistance to
g;oups of insurge& from-other central American countries with a view to
establishing sympa1hetic governments within those countries.
It was brecisëly in order to seek a comprehensive solution to the Central
American crisis that the Contadora Group proposed direct negotiations hetween
the nations of the region. That proposal was accepted by the Government of
Honduras, which, from the start, supported it fully and participated actively in
al1meetings convened by the Contadora Croup.
On April 4, 1983,the Government of Honduras submittcd to the Permanent
Council of the Organization of American States a draft resolution aimed at
restoring peace to the Central Amencan region. On the request of the Contadora
Group, submitted to the Permanent Council through the permanent representa-
tive of Colombia, 1-londurasagreed to suspend discussion of ils draft resolution
so that the direct nagotiations sponsored by this group of OAS member countries
would have a chance to achieve positive results. In this respect, His Excellency
Bernardo Sepulveda, Secretary of Foreign Relations of Mexico, acknowledged
at a press conference in Mexico City on April 13, 1983, that the conciliatory
attitude of Honduras within the OAS was what had made the fraternal effort of
the Contadora Group possible. Referring to the Panama meeting of the Conta-
dora Group ministers, during which this effort was decided upon, the Mexican
Foreign Minister sciid:
"First of all, it was realized that the immediate concern was to ensure
that the OAS Permanent Council would not hamper the Foreign Ministers
of the Contadora Group in their efforts to find solutions for Central
America. This was an urgent issue inasmuch as the OAS Permanent Council
was scheduled to consider a draft resolution submitted by Honduras that
same Monday aftcrnoon. Fortunately, through sseries of conversations we
had with other parties concerned, an agreement was reached to postpone
consideration of the draft resolution in the OAS Permanent Council, and
this relievedthe pressure so that the issue could he shiiîed from the regional
forum to the Panama forum - that is to say, to the Foreign Ministers of
the Contadora Croup. At the same time, it was clear that it would also he
necessary to tiike steps to prevent duplication in the United Nations system
of etïorts that had jus1 hegun in Panama on the previous Monday."
"The parties coiicerned welcomed Our proposal enthusiastically and decided
to ask the OAS Pcmanent Council to postpone its consideration of the issue.
This was the first iiction taken on the matter," stated Minister Sepulveda, "and
as 1said hefore, it freed us hy making it possible for us to exercise direct juris-
diction over the problem."
In more than a year of delicate multilateral negotiations, the Contadora Group
has had the full :;upport of the Organization of American States (AG Res.
675-XIIl-0183) and the United Nations General Assembly (Res. 38/10) and
Security Council (Res. 530-1983), as well as the international community in
general, regardless ofideological, political, economic and legal systems. EXHIBITS SUBMITIED BY THE UNITED STATES 309
That is why the Government of Honduras considers it necessary and in the
hest interests of the nations of the Central American region and of other peace-
loving nations for the Contadora Group to continue its ciTorts to achicve a
lasting and stable pcace in the region without this process being hampered by
some country seeking recourse to other means of peaceful solution.
In accordancc with this vicwpoint, which is shared by the majority of the
Central American countries and by the Contadora Group, the Government of
Honduras wishes to point out the dangers of discussing the Central American
crisis in various international forums simultaneously, as the Government of
Nicaragua kas requested, when direct negotiations are already in progress. This
viewpoini has also heen corroborated by the fact that the United Nations
Security Council and cenerai Assembly, and the OAS General Assembly, have
sent the Central American issue back to the Contadora Group, to which they
give their unconditional support.
Once again the Government of Nicaragua is seeking to flout the Contadora
negotiation processhy attempting 10hring the Central American crisis,essentially
a political issue,under thejurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. This
isdetrimental to the negotiations in progrcss and failsto recognizcthe resolutions
of the United Nations and the Organization of American States or the full
international endorsement that the Contadora peace process has so descrvedly
received.
Needlessto say, the negotiations conducted by the Central American countries
within theContadora Group are expresslyauthonzed by Article 52ofthe United
Nations Charier and Article 23 of the OAS Charter, which provide for regional
settlcment of disputes.
The Government of Honduras. without oartici~atinr! o. see-ine to inter-ene
in sny iray in the pruicr.Jings initi~ird hy Nic~rligulirgain.i thr. Unilcd Silitcs
<iiAmcricain lhc Inicrnsiional Court ofJusticc. vicw, wiihcimcern thc porsibilii)
ihai a dccision hy the Couri coul<lalleci ihe \c?uriir. ofthc ~eoole;inclthe Si'itc
of Honduras. which denends to a lar~e exteiit on ihe bilatéral'and multilateral
agrecmcnts on international CO-operationthat are in force, published and duly
renistered with the Officeof the Secretary-General of the United Nations, if such
a decision attempted to limit these agreements indirectly and unilaterally and
the~e~ ,le~ ~mv ,o~ ~rv d,f~nce~e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Government of Honduras also considers that sincethe Contadora Group
unanimouslv a~oroved the "document of obiectives" of Seotemher 9. 1983.
which encompasies al1 the problems related t6 various aspecis of the regional
crisis, and since negotiations are in progress between the five Central American
countries in the three working commissions created for this purpose, these
negotiations must continue without disruption by removal of the matter from
this jurisdiction.
In view of the reasons stated above and in consideration of Nicaragua's pe-
tition that the Court impose precautionary measures in the proceedings initia-
ted by Nicaragua against the United States of America, 1 respectfully request
that Your Exccllency transmit with due urgency to the clerk of the Interna-
tional Court of Justice the text of this note expressing the Honduran Govern-
ment's concerns about the imoact such measures could have on the neeotia-
lions in progrcss and ihc intcrnatiunal rccurit) of thc St;ite oi Iliindurli.,. -
I avail mysrlf olthii <lpportunii). 10 rcneu 1,) Your I~xcellr.ncylhc lirsuranccs
of my highest consideration.310 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
TAB T: PRFSSRELEASE ISSUED BYGUATLUALAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
(Translation)
Guatemala reiterates that the Central American issue should be discussed by
the Contadora Croup; that any attempt to seek another forum or international
body in order to discuss security prohlems of a political, economic and social
nature has a negative impact on the Contadora process.
Guatemala once again states its endorsement of and support for the positive
work of the Conta~lora Countries, and will spare no eiïort in seeking formulas
to relax the tensions and achieve permanent peace in theion.
IN THESliNATEOF THE UNITED STATES
November 28 (legislative day, October 29), 1945
Mr. MORSE(for himself, Mr. TAFT,Mr. GREEN,Mr. FULBRIGH.M I~,. SM~L.H,
Mr. FERGUS~N ., r. AITKI~M, r. BALL, r. CORDONM . r. WII.II, r. TOBEY,
Mr. Mn~~usorr, Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, Mr. MYBRS, AND
Mr. MCMAHONs )ubmitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Foreign Relations
July 25 (Iegislative day, July 5). 1946
Reported by Mr. THOMAo Sf Utah, with an amendment
[Omit the part struck through]
August 2 (legislative day, July), 1946
Considered, amended, and agreed to
Resolution
Resolved (tico-1Airdsof lhe Senuiors presenr concurring rherein). That the
Senate advise and consent to the deposit hy the President of the United States
with the Secretar) General of the United Nations, of a declaration under
paragraph 2 of arricle 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
recoenizine as com~ulsorv inso Iacio and without soecial arreemeni. in relation
to aiy otier state'acceGi& the same obligation,' the juhsdiction of the ln-
ternational Court of Justice in al1legal disputes hereafter arising con-erning EXHIBITSSUBMITTEO BY THE UNITED STATES 311
a. the interpretation of atreaty;
b. any question of international law;
c. the existence of any fact which, if established. would constitute a hreach of
an international ohligation;
d. the nature or extent of the reparation to he made for the hreach of an
international obligation.
Provided, That such declaration shall not apply to -
a. disputes the solution of which the parties shall entrust to other trihunals
by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded in
the future;
b. disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of the United States as determined hy the United States; or
c. disputes arising under a multilateral treaty, unless (1) al1 parties to the
treaty affected hy the decision are also parties to the case before the Court, or
(2) the United States specially agrees to jurisdiction.
Providedfurther, That such declaration shall remain in force for a period of five
years and thereafter until the expiration of six months after notice may he given
to terminate the declaration.
INT~~RNATION CAOURT OF ~UST~CE
July 25 (legislative day, July 5), 1946. - Ordered to be printed
Mr. Thomas of Utah, from the Committee on Foreign Relations submitted the
following
REPORT
(To accompany S. Res. 196)
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the resolution
(S. Res. 196)providing that the Senate advise and consent to the deposit by the
President of the United St~~ ~ ~ith the Secretarv Gene-~ ~ ~ ~~- ~ ~ ~nited Nations
of a declaration under paragraph 2 of article j6 of the Statute of the Interna-
tional Court of Justice recognizing as compulsory ipso facto and without special
agreement, in relation to any oiher ~tatë accepting ihe same obligation, the
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in certain categories of legal
disputes hereafter arising, hereby report the same to the Senate, with an
amendment, with the recommendation that the resolution do pass as amended.
A. TEXT OF RESOLUTION
Following is the text of the resolution, as amended hy the committee:
Resolved (two-fhirds of the Senutors present concurring fherein), That the
Senate advise and consent to the deposit hy the President of the United States
with the Secretary General of the United Nations of a declaration under para-
graph 2 of article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice recog-
nizing as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to
any other state accepting the same obligation. the jurisdiction of the Interna-
tional Court of Justice in al1legal disputes hereafter ansing concerning -
a. the interpretation of a treaty;
h. any question of international law;312 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of
an international obligation;
d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an
international obligation.
Provi<le< l,hat such declaration should no1 apply to
u. disputes the solution of which the partics shall entrust to other tribunals
by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded in the
future;or
h. disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of the llnited States.
Providedfuriher, That such declaration should remain in force for a period of
five years and then:after until the expiration of six months after notice may he
given to terminate the declaration
B. HEARlNGS OF THE SURCOYMITIEE
On November 28, 1945, Mr. Morse suhmitied Senate Resolution 196 for
himself, Mr. Taft, Mr. Green, Mr. Fulbright, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ferguson. Mr.
Aiken, Mr. Bali, Mr. Cordon, Mr. Wiley, Mr. Tobey, Mr. Magnuson, Mr. John-
ston of South Carolina, Mr. Myers, and Mr. McMahon. The resolution was
referred to the Cornmittee on Foreien Relations.~ ~ J~ne~12. 1946. Chairman ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Connally appointed a subcommittee consisting of Senator hom m (Uatah) as
chairman, Senator Hatch and Senator Austin to hear witnesses on the resolution
and to recommend anv amendments that rnieht seemao~ro~riate
The subcommittee held hearings on July fi.12,and'i5, &th Senator Morse,
Dean Acheson (Acting Secretary of State), and Charles Fahy (legal adviser of
the Department of State) appearing and a nurnber of other witnesses testifying
on behalf of important private organizations. Outstanding jurists and inter-
national Iawyers also subrnitted statements for the record. Witnesses appeared
or statements were subrnitted from the following organizations:
American Bar Association
Atiicri<;inSs<.cty of Intcrn.iii.~n.ilL.ia
,\mcricdn A~,.XI;III,,~O( L'ni\:rsbly \\'o~i~:n
Gcncrdl t'cJc.r;itiurior \\'oiiicn'i Cluhi
Young Womeri'sChristian Association
Americans United for World Governrnent
Friends Comniittee on National Legislation
National League of Women Voters
Federal Bar Association
Women's Action Committee for Lasting Peace
Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in Amenca
Catholic Association for International Peace
Pennsylvania Bar Association
National Couiicil of Jewish Women
National Edu~:ationAssociation
C. OVERWHliLMlNC PURI,IC SUPPORT
The subcommitree was impressed by the fact that al1 the witnesses who
appeared were enihusiastically in favor of the acceptance on the part of the IIXHIBITSSUBMITIED BY THE UNITED STATES 313
United States of thejurisdiction of the lnternational Court of Justice with respect
to legal disputes. The general feeling seemedto be that such a step taken now
by the United States would be the natural and logical sequel to Our entry into
the United Nations. Twelve months' consideration since the signing of the
Charter has strengthened the conviction that this action would immediately
increase faith in the eiiicacv of the United Nations10 Dromotc order and Wace.
This relative unanimity'of American public opini&n was demonstratéd on
December 18,1945.when the house of delegates of the American Bar Association,
without a dissentine vote. oassed a resolution u- -na the President and theSenate
to take appr~~priat~aciti>n..ci!thc c~rlicciprli.-tic.ihlctimcIO axepi the iom-
puisor) ~uri~dictionof ihc Couri. Thc Amerlcan So:iety of Inlcrnational La\\,,
on A~ril 27. 1946.Iikcwiic ~ilt~plc'd:iiii\or:~blcrc~.iluiit~nh;iundnimoiis \oie.
~any other national organizationa, with large memberships, including the
American Association of University Women,the General 1:ederation of Women's
Clubs, the Fedcral Bar Association, the Inter-American Bar Association, the
Federal Council of Churçhcs, the National Leanue of Women Voters. the
American Vctcrans~ommittec,the National ~ducatron Association, the ~ational
Council of Catholic Women, and the American Association for the United
Nations, have similarly endorsed the proposal,
t>I'AVORABLIIACTION BY FOREIGN RBI.ATIONS COMMITr1:E
On July 17 and July 24 the subcommittee reported its findings 10 the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. After a discussion of the legal and constitutional
issues involved (see secs. G and J below) the committee reported the resolution
to the Senate for favorable action. The vote, which was taken on July 24, was
unanimous.
E.PURPOSB OP THE RESOLUTION
The immediate purpose of the resolution is to authorize the President to file
with the Secretary General of the United Nations a declaration accepting the
compulsory jurisdiction of thc lnternational Court of Justice ovcr certain
categories oc legal disputes arising between the United States and any other
nation which has accepted the same obligation. The United States would acquire
the right and duty to suc or be sued in respect to such other states and would
give the Court the power to decide whether the case properly falls wiihin the
terms of the agreement.
The ultimaie ournose of the resolution is to lead to eeneral world-wide
acceptance of thejunsdiction of the International Court of ~;stice in legal cases.
The accomplishment of this result would, in a substantial sense, place inter-
national relations on a legal basis, in contrast to the present situation, in which
states may be iheir own judge of the law.
The United States has now become a member of the Court, but membership
in itself means comparatively little. It is true that states can agrec to submit
specified cases to the Court, but they have always been able to settle their dis-
putes by arbitration, assuming ihey could agree to do so. So long as individual
members can refuse to be haled into the Court a regime of lawin the international
community will never be realized. The most important attributc of this or any
other court is to hcar and decide cases. For this function it mus1havejurisdiction
of the parties and the subject matter.314 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYAC~IVITIFS
F.OBLIG.\TIOS USSUER THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS
The unJrrtaking ol'ihis oblig~tion hy nicmhcrr <ifthe Unitcd Nailun, ir .I
Ii>gir.liiluliillment ~~i'oblig;iiionsalrcady cxprci<cd in the Ch~rtcr. The prc~iiiblc
cxprcsscs ihc dcterinin~tiiin <ifthc pcoplcs of ihc United Sation,:
". . .to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the ohli-
galions arising from treaties and other sources of international law can he
maintained . . ."-
and to this end -
". . . to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of
methods, that armed force shallnot beused, savein the common interest. ..".
Among the purposes of the United Nations set forth in article I is -
". ..to hring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles
of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international
disputes or sitiiations which might lead to a breach of the pcacc . . .".
One of the principles of the Organization as set forth in article 2 is that-
"al1 memhers shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in
such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not
endangered".
Article 36, paragraph 3, of the Charter provides that the Security Council
should -
". . .take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be
reierred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance
with the provisions of the Statute of the Court".
In addition, hy virtue of thc gcneral right of states to bring disputes hefore
thc Sccurify Coun-il, any statc is liable Io have its political disputes brought
bcfore thc Council without its consent and to be subject Io such moral obligation
as attaches to a recommendation of the Council (arts. 36 and 37 of the Charter).
It is incongruous ihat such rights and obligations should exist with respect to
political disputes but that there should he no similar obligation for the members
of the United Nations to submit their legal disputes to adjudication.
G. JliRlSDICTlOS COSF'ERRED DE,FINED AND LIMITED
The scope of the jurisdiction to be conferred pursuant to this resolution is
carefullv defined and limited.
There is, in the first place, a general limitation of jurisdiction to legal disputes.
The resolution, like article 36, paragraph 2, of the Court Statute, states this
limitation in eeneriil terms and ~roceeds~todefine the four cateeories of disoutes
thus included':These are:
a. the intemretation of a treatv2 ,
b. any quesÎion of international law;
c. the existence ofany fact which, ifestablished, would constitute a breach
of an international ohlkation;
d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an
international obligation.
A second major limitation on the jurisdiction conferred arises from the con- EXAIBITS SUBMIITI~D BK THE UNITEU STATES 315
dition of reciprocity. This is again specified inthe resolution in the language of
the statute, the pertinent phrase being as follows:
". . . recognizing . . . in relation to any other state accepting the same
obligation, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice . . .".
Jurisilicilon15ihur confcrred only :irIimongsi:iieslilingJeclaraii<in\. In aJJltli,n.
the s~iiiilarphraw in ihr Siatuie of ihc i'criiiaiieniCouri of Intcrnationiil Justice
was interpreted by the Court as meaning that any limitation imposed by a state
inits grant of jurisdiction therehy also became available to any other state with
which it might become involved in proceedings, even though the second state
bad not specifically imposed the limitation. Thus, for example, if the United
States limited its grant of jurisdiction to cases "hereafter arising", this country
would be unable to institute proceedings regarding earlier disputes, even though
the defendant state might not have interposed this reservation.
A third limitation specified in the resolution is that the United States should
bind itself only as 10disputes arising in the future. The United States mdy not,
therefore, be confronted with old controversies as a result of filingthe proposed
declaration.
A fourth limitation provides that the proposed action shall not impede the
parties to a dispute from entrusting its solution to some other tribunal if thcy so
agree.The same provision isfound in the Charter ofthe United Nations, article95.
The fifth limitation is that the proposed declaration shall not apply to matters
which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States. A
provision similar in principle is found in article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter,
providing that nothing in the Charter shall authorize the organization to intervene
in essentially domestic matters. The committee feels that the principle is also
implicit in the nature of international law, which, under article 38,paragraph 1,
of the statute, it is the duty of the Court to apply. International Iaw is, by
definition, the body of rights and duties governing states in their relations with
each other and does not, therefore, concern itself with matters of domestic
jurisdiction. The question of what is properly a matter of international law is, in
case of dispute, appropriate for decision by the Court itself, since, if it were left
to the decisi~ ~of~each individual state. it would be oossible to withhold anv
case from adjudication on the plea that it is a matter if domestic jurisdiction. ft
is plainly the intention of the statute that such questions should be decided by
th; CO&, since article 36,paragraph 6, provider:
"ln the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the
matter shall he settled by the decision of the Court."
It was also hrought to the attention of the subcommittee that a nimber of
states, in filing declarations under the Statutc of the Permanent Court of Intcr-
national Justice, interposed reservations similar to that of the resolution under
consideration, but in no casc did thcy rescrve to themselves the right of deci-
sion. The cornmittee therefore decided that a reservation of the right of de-
cision as to what are matters essentially within dornesticjurisdiction would tcnd
to defeat the purposes whiçh it is hoped to achieve by means of the proposed
declaration as well as the piirpose of article 36, paragraphs 2 and 6, of the
Statute of the Court.
The resolution provides that the declaration should remain in force for a
period of 5 years and thereafter until 6 months following notice of termination.
The declaration might, therefore, remain in force indefinitely. The provision
for 6 months' notice of termination after the 5-year period has the eRect of a316 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
renunciation of ariy intention to withdraw Our obligation in the face of
a threatened legal proceeding.
Hon. John Foster Dulles, adviser to the State Department in relation to the
Dumbarton Oaks proposais and adviser to the United States delegation to the
United Nations Conference on International Organiration, which drafted the
Charter and the Statute of the Court, fileda rnemorandum with the suhcommittee
favoring agreement by the United States to submit to impartial adjudication ils
legal controversies. He pointed out that failure to take that step would be
interpreted as an elsction on our part to rely on power rather than on reason.
MI. Dulles advocated that the United States ought now to make the declaration
suhmitting this country to the jurisdiction of the Court according to article 36
(2) of the Court Statute. He suggested, however, clarification of certain matters
in the declaration, ro wit :
"1. Advisoryopinions.- The compulsory jurisdiction should presumably
be limited to disputes which are actual 'cases' betweenstates as distinct
from disputes in which advisory opinions may be sought."
On this point th,: committee view is that the jurisdiction to be accepted pur-
suant Io Senate Ri:solution 196 is coextensive with the jurisdiction defined in
article 36 (2) of the Statute of the Court, which is limited to legal disputes as
distinct from the broader category of"cases" referred to elsewhere in the statute.
With respect to Mr. Dulles' suggestion, Hon. Charles Fahy, legal adviser of
the State Departmsnl, made the following reply:
"The declar;ition under article 36 (2) would grant jurisdiction in 'al1legal
disputes', as thcrein described. But thejurisdiction of the Court (art. 36(1))
extends 10 'cases which the parties refer to it' and 'ail rnatters especially
provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or the treaties and
conventions in force'.Thus the Court's ~ossibleiurisdiction is broader than
thejurisdiction conferred b$ a declaratioi under article 36(2). The provisions
of article 36(:!)are limited to 'legaldisputes'. This cornpulsory jurisdiction
clearly exclu di:^cases which are not legal disputes, such as a~case to he
decided ex aequo et bono under article 38 (2) if the parties separately so
agree. Such agreement, of course, would be over and above any jurisdic-
lion accepted hy the proposed declaration under article 36 (2). The only
jurisdiction of the Court with respect to advisory opinions (art. 65) is as to
a legal question on rcqucst of whatever body may be authorized to make
such a request under the Charter. It is entirely apart from the compulsory
iurisdiction wliich a State-erants bv its declaration under article 36,(2.. No
proviiion in llic declaration u,nuld rccm nesc,rdr). 1,)maks 11cls:ir thal ihs
Jcilrirrilion under ariicl36 (2) ii indecd Iimiied Io thc jurisdiction i.i\,ered
by that article.
2. Reciprociiy.- Jurisdiction should be compulsory only when ail of the
other parties Io the dispute have previously accepted the compulsory juris-
diction of the Court."
The committee considered that article 59 of the Court Statute removes ail
cause for douht hy providing:
"The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the
parties and in respect of that particular case."
If the United States would prefer to denyjurisdiction without specialagreement,
in disputes among several states, some of which have not declared to be bound, EXHIBITS SUBMIITED BY THE UNITED STATES 317
article 36 (3) permits il Io make ils declaration conditional as to the reciprocity
of several or certain states.
Mr. Dulles'objection might possibly be provided for by another subsection in
the first proviso of the resolution, on page 2, after line 14,reading:
"c. Disputes arising under a multilateral treaty, unless (1) al1parties to
the treaty aflected by the decision are also parties to the case before the
Court, or (2) the United States specially agrees to jurisdiction.
3.International Iaw. - If the basic law of the case is not found in an
existing treaty or convention, to which the United States is a party, there
should be a prior agreement as to what are the applicable principles of
international law."
The committee considered both the policy and the parliamentary problems
this suggestion raises and decided to leave Senate Resolution 196unchanged as
to this point, for the following reasons:
Article 92 provides:
"The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ
of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed
statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of Inter-
national Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter."
The Charter cannot be amended by a mere declaration of some of the states
parties to the present stÿtute. What a state may do is limited by article 36 (3):
"The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on
condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain states, or for a
certain lime."
This does not permit a state to condition submission upon different principles
of international law than those which article 38 commands to be used, thus:
"1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with inter-
national law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
u. international conventions. whether eeneral or oÿrticular. establishinp. -
rules expressly recognized by the contesti& states; .
6. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted aslaw;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
d. subiect to the orovisions of article 59. iudicial decisions and the
teaching; of the mosi highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as
subsidiary maris for the determination of rules of law.
2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a
case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto."
To accomplish substantial altcration of the applicable principles ofinternational
law would require consent of ail the other parties to the Charter. The purpose
of this declaration is to avoid the procedural ncccssity of "special agreement"
and to recognize jurisdiction ipso facto over the specified subject matter and
parties.
Hon. Charles Fahy, legal adviser of the State Department, in a memorandum
prepared for the committee, replied io Mr. Dulles' suggestionas follows:
"3. Mr. Dulles suggests there should be prior agreement as to what are
the avvlicable urincivles of international law if the basic law of the case is
not fiund in an existing treaiy or convention. He feels that to permit318 MILITARY Ahm PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
krisdiction of legal disputes concerning 'any question of international law'
is too vague ai this time.
It is most inadvisable to accept this view. It would seriously impede the
progress of the Court in the accomplishment of its purpose. The procedure
followed in thi:case of the Alabamn arbitration, referred to as an instance
where previou:;agreement on the applicable law was had, was long before
the estab1ishmi:ntof the Court.The Charter of the United Nations and the
oresent statute of the Court are desiened to enlist suliicient confidence in
judi~ial dctcrn;inaiions h) the Court I<Icnahlc it10 hccome ;iu,ciul <>rgdn
in the ,eiileiiient ofIct';il iliipuiis. To rcquire noa an ~igrccmcnt.in ~idvaiicr.
oi ,ubmission iothe Ciburi.,>nthe iinolic~blr.orinsiolcs t~finirrn;iiitinal Iau
would take from the coukt one of'ke prin&pal Purposes of its creation.
The United States should not insist on such a requirement. Whatever risk
to the United States is involved in entrusting cases to the Court for its
determination of the a~olicable basis of decision under international law is
outweighed b:, the trekendous advance which would be made by our
acceptance of such risk in the development of iudicial processes in the
world order."
Other ooints referred to the committee bv Mr. Dulles for clarification related
to the pioblem of domestic jurisdiction, the possibilily of resorting to other
tribunals, and the desirahility of establishin. a time limit for any declaration the
United States might make.
As has been indicated ahove, domestic jurisdiction is safeguarded by article
1 (1) of the Chartc:r of the United Nations, limiting the purposes of the United
Nations to international disputes or situations, hy article 2 (7) excludingdomestic
jurisdiction. The committee accepted article 36 (6) of the statute as covering
this point.
"ln the eveiit of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the
matter shall bi: settled by the decision of the Court."
Ihe righi IO ruhinit Ji,puic~ to otlier tribunal\8..rcscricd in Stnatc Kcjoluiion
196.page 2. Iine 8 This reser\,aiiun i> pcrmiiied by article 95 olthe Charter.
Wiih respect Io ;ir>o>iihlciimr Iimii~tion,Scn:itc Keboluiion 196 providcs (or
5 years' d'ration I,l;s time of 6 months following notice of termination of the
declaration. A furiher discussion of these points will be found in the first part of
section (G) above.
II.COMI'UI,SORY JURiSUlCTlON PRIOR TO Tllii UNITliNATIONS
The first import;int step in the direction of compulsory jurisdiction was taken
by the Advisory C:ommittee of Jurists appointed hy the League of Nations in
1920 to oreware tlie Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice.
This ~o~m~ttee, u,hich included among its members the Honorable Elihu Root,
former mernber of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of War,
and Secretary of State, recommended a draft providing for general compulsory
jurisdiction over speciriedcategories of legal disputes. Itwas proposed that this
should be binding upon al1parties to the statute. This provision proved unac-
ceptable to some of the larger powers when it was presented to the League
Council and Assemblv. and there was substituted for ita orovision verv similar
to article 36, paragraph 2, of the present statute, enabling'such States as desired
to do so to agree among themselves to accept the jurisdiction of the Court as to
the enumeratëd caiegor~esof legal dis put es.^ EXIIIBITS SUBMITIBD BY THE UNITED STATES 319
Under this provision some 44 states, including 3 of the 5 states now permanent
members of the Security Council (Great Britain, France, and China), at one lime
or another deposited declarations accepting this jurisdiction.
Proceedings were invoked in II cases under these declarations, 2 of which
proceeded to final determination. One of these was the Eastern Greenland case,
involving conflicting claims to territory by Norway and Denmark. Upon the
rendering of the decision of the Court, Nonvay withdrew the decrees affecting
the territory which had precipitated the dispute. The second case which went to
decision involved a claim by The Netherlands against Belgium for alleged
wrongful diversions of water from the Meuse River. The other nine cases were
terminated on procedural points or were withdrawn.
1.COXPULSORY JURlSDlCTlON UNDER THE UNtTED NATIONS
The negotiations leading to the conclusion of the statute of the new Inter-
national Court of Justice saw a renewal of the eiTort to obtain general com-
oulsorv,i>risdiction. It is indicated in the Reoort of the 1945 Cornmittee of
Jurist,, which met in Washington 10 iorniul3tc pr,ipo,al> relxiing in thc judicial
i>rganof the propoxd \\,orlrlorgani/:iiii,n, th.11a m:ijority of ihe Comniiitcc wa,
in favor oi'i~)mriulior~iurirdiction. At Sm Francisco ihc di,;u,sion uar rcneued.
and again a vérysubsÏantial body of opinion was shown in favor of general
compulsory jurisdiction. Due to the opposition of some states and the douhtful
position of others, it was felt, however, that such a provision might endanger
acceptance of the Charter, of which the statute was to be an integral part. This
was the position of the United States delegdtion. It was, therefore, agreed to
retain the optiondl provision in a form similar to that employed in the Statute
of the Permanent Court of International Justice. This is the present article 36,
paragraph 2 of the statute, pursuant to which the action envisioned hy the
present resolution would be iaken.
The San Francisco Conferenceadded an additional paragraph to article 36 of
the statute, according to which declarations accepting the jurisdiction of the old
Court, and remaining in force, are deemed Io remain in force as among the
parties to the present statute for such period as they still have to run. Nineteen
declarations are currently in force under this provision.
A further indication of the sentiment prevdiling among United Nations dele-
galions at San Francisco was the adoption hy the Conference of a recommen-
dation to the members of the Organizdtion -
"that as soon as possible they make declarations recognizing the obligatory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice according to the provisions
of article 36 of the statute".
1.TIIE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESINVOLVED
Durine the discussion which look olace in the subcommittee three imoortant
consiituiion;il issues\rue raired. Theie issues uerc (1) Ciin ihc propojed action
be iaken by the trcaiy-making procesr or is a Jolni resolutiun oc the iu,o Iiou\cs
prefcrahle; (2) is it proper procedure to obtain the advice and consent of the
Senate nrio~ ~o~ ~~ ~ ~ ~it of the declaration hv the President: and 131would
the deposit of the declaration hy the President eitablish treaty relations betwecn
the United States and the United Nations or between the United States and the
various members of the United Nations whohave deoosited similar declarations?
With respect to the first issue, a declaration of this kind is no doubt unique320 MILITARYAND PARAMlLlTARYACTIVITWS
so far as the United States is concerned. No one. however. can douht the oower
of this Government to make such a declaration. The isone of
During the dehatcs on the United Nations Charter the prohlem was discussed at
some leneth on thc: floor of the Senate. and il was ienerallv aereed that the
~residenïcould not deposit the declaration without colgressional action of some
kind granting him ihe authority todo so. To clarify the issue Senator Vanden-
herg requested an opinion of MI. Green Hackworth, then legal adviser of the
Department of Statc. The pertinent paragraph of this opinion, which Senator
Vandenherg read oii the floor of the Senate on July 28, 1945,follows:
"If the Execdlii,e should iniiiate action i<iarrcpl rompulsor) jurisdiction
of the Court uiidcr the optional clxuseconiained in ~irticle36of thc \tatute.
such orocedurc as mieht-he authorized hv the Coneress would be followed.
"
anil ii n<b~peciiicpr.i;crlurr \\,ire prcs~rihcd hy $idtute, the propos~l u.oul,l
bs jubniiiieJ IO the Seniite iiiih requcsi iiir II, ddvvc aiiJ coiisciit IO the
lilinl: oi thc nccrsar) Je;Iar3tion wiih the Sccrci;ir~Ciencral i~i the I:niieJ
Nations."
Since that lime both the President and the Secretary of State have indicated
that, in their opinion, either the procedure outlined in Senate Resolution 196
(calling for a Iwo-thirds vote of the Senate) or that outlined in House Joint
Resolution 291 (calling for a simple majority vote of the two Houses) would
furnish a satisfactory legal hasis for acceptance hy the United States of the
compulsory jurisdiction clause.
Inasmuch as the declaration would involve important new obligations for the
United States. the icommitteewas of the ooinion that il should be aooroved hv
the treaty proccss, ,withtwo-thirds of the ~énatorspresent concurrini.'~he for&
and effect of the di:claration is that of a treaty, hinding the United States with
resoect to those sbites which have or which mav in the future devosil similar
Jeil~r<iiions. More~vcr. under our ïonïiii~tional iy.tem ihe pcaiciul sctilemcni
oi di<putcr ihrough ïrbitraiion or judiclni scitlernent h~s;ilwayi heen eonjidered
a proper suhject for the use of the treaty procedure. While the declaration can
hardlv he consideri:d a treatv in the strict sense of that tem. the nature of th~ ~ ~ ~
ublig~ti.ins .i\sumeJ by the iontracting pariics are juch thai nu aciion Iess
colenin or Icçrfornilil than th;ii reqiiircd f,>rireliiier shriulJ bc coniemrilaicd
With respect to the sccond issue,-theanswer may he found in the Constitution
itself. Article 2, section 2, provides that the President shall have "powcr, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, providcd two-thirds
of the Senators present concur". It is evidcnt that the advice and consent of the
Senate is eauallv effective whether given before. durine. or after the conclusi~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
of the treaty. ln'fa(:t. President wa&ington app;oachedthe Senate for its advice
and consent prior to the negotiation of treaties, and this practice was followed
on occasion bv other Presidénts.While the oractice of onor consultations with
the Senate feli into disuse after 1816, a recéntprecedent may be found in the
convention of 1927, extending the General Claims Commission, United States
and Mexico, of 19'23.The treaty was signed on August 16, 1927,pursuant to a
Senate resolution (if February 17, 1927. A similar example is the convention of
1929, again extcnding the life of the Commission. The convention was signed on
August 17, 1929,pursuant to the Senate resolution of May 25, 1929.
With regard to thc third issue, the proposed declaration would not constitute,
in any sense, an a1:recmentbetween the United States and the United Nations.
It is rather a unil:iteral declaration having the force and effect of a treaty as
between the United States and each of the other states which accept the same
obligations. It is merely an extension of the general principle that any two states EXHIBITS SURMI~EU RY TIIE UNITED STATES 321
may agree to submit cases to arbitration or judicial settlement. The so-called
optional clause would permit a large number of states to take such action with
respect to the four categories of legal cases enumerated.
As to whether the United States can enter into a treaty with the United
Nations, the question is not here at issue. In any event, it is clear that the United
S~a~e~ ~an conclude aereements with the United Nations. inasmuch as the
United Nations ~articihtion Act authorized the President & take such action
in conformitv with the ~ledgeof the United States to make armed forces available
to the ~ecurfiv~ouncil under article 43 of the Charter. Moreover, there amears
to be nothing in the Constitution which forbids the conclusion of a'ireaty
between the United States and an international organization.
If it follows that the legal capacity of the United Nations is al1that is required
to enable the United States and the United Nations to enter into treaty
relationships, article 104of the Charter would seem to establish that authority.
Article 104reads:
"The Organization shall cnjoy in the territory of each of its members such
legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the
fulfillment of its purposes."
K. DESIRABILITY OP SPIiEDY ACTION
Most of the witnesses appearing before the subcommittee expressed the hope
that the Senate would act spccdily in order to demonstrate once more the
conviction of the people of the United States that peace will be possiblc only if
law and justice are firmly embedded in the foundations of the United Nations.
To be sure, the extension of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice will not usher the world automatically into an era of pcacc; it
is only one important step in man's long and painful march toward a warless
world. The acceptance by the United Siates of the compulsoryjurisdiction clause,
however, would constitute a step of great psychological and moral significance.
It would help develop a spirit of trust and confidence, particularly on the part
of the small states. toward the United States. And it would give impetus to the
principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes as the judges of the new Court
begin their work at the Peace Palace in The Hague.
On Julv 28. 1945. the Senate ratiiïed the United Nations Charter bv the
-vc~ ~l~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~~ ~ ~~ 8~ t~ 2. ~ince that time the oe. .e of the United Siates.
the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President, and the Secretary of
Staie have repeatedlv asserted the conviction that the foreign policy of the United
States must be cente;ed about the activities and the orgtansofthe Ünited Nations.
The International Court of Justice is one of the principal organs of the Unitcd
Nations. It would seem entirely consistent with our often pronounced policy for
the Senate to take speedy action in order to cnsure our full cooperation with the
work of the Court at the earliest practicable date.
The Senate Foreign Relations Commiitee, in its report to the Senete on the
United Nations Charter, expressed the following view:
"Unless weare prcparcd to take al1steps which are necessary to effectuate
Our membership in the United Nations, we would be merely deceiving the
hopes of the United States and of humanity in ratifying the Charter."322 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITILk5
TAD Y.REPORT OF SECRITARY 01' STATE GEORGEP.SIIULTz TO THE CONGRESS ON
UNITI!I> STATES EFFORTS T0 ACHIEVE PEACE IN CENTRAI, AMERICA ,s MARCH
1984
Oo behalfof the President 1am pleased Io fonvard herewith a report on US
efforts Io achieve psace in Central America, as required by Section 109 (f) of
the Intelligence Autliorization Act of 1984.
That legislation inakes clear, as the Administration has long maintained,
that a major share *ofblame for the conflict in Central America rests with the
Government of Nicziragua.
Noting that Nicaragua should be held accountable for its actions before the
OAS IOraanization of American Statesl. the Intellieence Authorization Act
rccomkc~dcd ihat ilic I>rcsidcniscckthe r~.con\.cning07 the Sc\,cntccnth Irciing
of Consulialion of ihc O.AS Foreign Slini\tcrs IO e\,aluaic thr aciii~itiesof the
Ciotcrnmcnt or Nic;ir;~gua.Thc Ac1furthcr rccommcnded that ihc Presidcni :
seek OAS actions which would ensure Nicaragua's compliance with its obli-
eations :
- enco"rage the OAS to seek resolution of the conilicts in Central America; and
support measures of the OAS and of the Contadora Croup to end support . .
for subversion in Central America.
The report which 1 now submit describes the efforts the United States has
mîdc. co"risicnt wiih lhc inleni and spirit01'ihc ,\ci.IO ;tchic\.epeacc Ihrough
dialogue and ncgo1i:tiionsin Ccnlral AmenCa I'hcrcporl point. out thal. dcspitc
ihc valuable conir~hutiiinsmade bv the OAS ovcr the yeur in ihc cause of ~>e:icc.
efforts to engage th? OAS constrbctive~~in the currént conflict generally have
not met with the siipport of the memher States, especially the countries most
directly involved. The Nicaraguan Government, in particular, has strongly
opposed direct OAS involvement inCentral American nepotiations.
.Thc cilorth oithe Conia<lor;iCroup ha\c pro\,idcJ an ckctivc aliiriiatc forum
for rcgion;il ilialogu:. This rcpcirt Jcscrihci the nialor dci.el<>pmcnisof ihc pdst
ycar uithin the Coniadsra framcuork and actions t;ikcn hs ihc IJniicd States io
Support the Contadora objectives. We are mindful that Ïnuch of Contadora's
successstems from ils regional nature and accordingly we have limited ourselves
to a facilitating role.
The regional Statt:~,recognizing the legitimate US inierests and ties to Central
America, have welcomed our assistance in promoting dialogue both among the
governments of the region - through the Contadora process - and within the
war-lorn countries of Central America, through contacts between the Salvadoran
Peace Commission and the FDR/FMLN [Revolutionary Democratic Front/
Farabundo Marti Liberation Front] guerrilla front and promotion of dialogue
between the Nicaraguan Government and its armed opposition.
The enclosed report describes these stens in detail. Thev include hiph-level
public statements 0f United States backing'for the contado& process; meetings
between US officiais and Latin American counterparts on this issue; and a
continuous process of consultations in the region, both by our resident ambassa-
dors and by Richard B. Stone, the President's former Ambassador-at-Large for
Central American negotiations.
' Tcxt oridenticalletterrrom SecrelarShulk 10Thomas P. O'NeillJr., Speakerof
the House alRepreseritativesa,nGeorge Bush,President ofthe Senafe,March 15,1984. EXHIBITS SUBMIITIID BY THE UNITED STATES 323
These efforts will continue. Ambassador Harry Shlaudcman, whom thc
President has nominated to replace Ambassador Stone as Ambassador-at-Large,
will heein his consultations with reeional leaders soon after his confirmation~o
emphagze the President's decp, pegonal commitment to diplomatic solutions in
Central America.
Regional dialogue is essential 10 peace and stahility in Central America. But
it is only one aspect of Our policy toward the area. We also support political
reform, economic development, and the security of the region's democratic
nations. By proposing signiricant increases in future US assistance to the region,
as recommended bv the National Bioartisan Commission on Central America.
the President has stresscd that the US has hoth vital interests in this region and
the will and capability to work with the Central Americans for peaceful de-
velopment and the resolution of disputes.
As noted above, a key to peace is Nicaragua's attitude toward ils neighbors.
We have attempted to bring economic and diplomatic pressure to hear on
Nicaragua ~reckelv 10 encourage the Nicaraman Government to ioin with its
noghbors in regio"31dialogue.~\t the \am? Fime. uc have nidde cicar ihrough
puhlic \tatcmcnis. diplomatic chaiinclsIO the Nicïraguan Go\crnmcnt, and cm-
versations with other governments, that wewilloverlook no genuine opportunity
for peaceand willrespond in kind to positive, concrete stepsfrom the Government
of Nicaragua.
Thus far, that governmcnt kas no1 taken actions that would rcRect the com-
mitments made to the OAS in 1979.In this regard, it is worth noting the majority
finding of the Bipartisan Commission that ". . .we do not helievc it would be
wiseto dismantle existing incentivesand pressures on thc Managua régimeexcept
in conjunction with demonstrable progress on the negotiating front".
Bioartisan coneressional su..rt for US pol.cv.i. Central America remains
;in importani giial ,,i this ,\Jminirtration. I urgc pronipi congression~lappri)val
<iiihc C'cntr~lA1neric.i Deniocr:içy, Pcace and I>e\elopmeni Initiaiive sj an
important first step toward meeting Our objectives in the region. Along with
earlv Senate confirmation of Ambassador Shlaudeman as Ambassador-at-Large. -
adequate, timely funding for the programs to advance Our goals in the region,
including those authorizcd hy the Intelligence Authorization Act, is clearly in
the national interest. Such &ions would sienal continued US willingness -o
support Our malor nÿtion;ll object~vesin Crntral Amcrica. including thc critical
se;irch ïor a comprchcnii\e. verifi:thlcbdjis for ending the zonflict in that region.
Sincerelyyours,
(Signed) George P. SIIULTZ.
Report' Submitted Pursuant to Section 109 (f) of the IntelligenceAuthorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1984
March 15, 1984
The achievement of genuine, lasting peace in Central America is the paramount
goal of US policy toward thc region. It constitutes a central component of a
series of closely interrelated US national objectives. These include: the streng-
thening of democratic institutions, economic development, and improved living
' Appcndiccs arcnot included.324 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
standards for the~. .nles of the re-ion and~sc~ ~ ~~,for the countries of Central
America froni cxtcrnal thrcats and forcign-sponsorcd subvcrnion Our intcrcsts
in thc arc3 arc cri:.ic.tI.a, spcllcd out clcÿrly in the rcpciri oi'thc Nationlil
Binartisan Commissionon Ccntrnl Anicrica. and the Admini~triti<>nhas nuriucd
an.active search for means to end conflictand bring about a reconciliation within
and among the Central American nations.
Section 109 of the Intelligence Auihori7ation Act of 1984requested that the
President report to the Congress on US efforts to achieve peace in Central
America. Under section 109,the President was encouraged to take several steps
in pursuit of this goal, specifical:y
To seek a prompt reconvening of the Seventeenth Meeting of Consultation of
Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of Amencan States for the
purpose of reevaluation of the compliance by the Government of National
Reconstruction of Nicaragua:
(1) with the commitments made by the leaders of that Government in July 1979
to the Organization of American States; and
(2) with the Charter of the Organization of American States.
To vigorously seek actions by the Organization of American States that would
provide for a full range of effective measures by the member States to bring
about compliance by the Government of National Reconstruction of Nicaragua
with those obligatii~ns,including verifiable agreements to hait the transfer of
military equipmcnt ;andto cease furnishing of military support facilitiesto groups
seeking the violent ioverthrowof governments of countries in Central America.
To use al1diplomatic means at his disposal to encourage the Organization of
American States IOseek resolution of the conflicts in Central America based on
the provisions of the Final Act of the San JoséConference of October 1982,
especially principles(d), (e) and (g),relating to nonintervention in the interna1
afîairs of other countries, denying support for terrorist and subversive elements
in other States, and international supervision of fully verifiable arrangements.
To support meastires at the Organization of American States, as well as efforts
of the Contadora Croup, which seek to end support for terrorist, subversive, or
other activities aimi:d at the violent overthrow of the governments of countries
in Central America.
This report, subniitted in response to section 109 (Jj of the act, is intended to
inform the Congres3 of the efforts taken by the countries of the area and by the
United States to promote peace in Central America and to put these in the
perspective of other major developments in the area.
Background on RegionulPeace Eflorts
A prominent conclusion of the House Permanent Select Committee on Iniel-
ligence in the report and legislation cited above was that there must occur
marked changes in behavior by the Government of Nicaragua in order for peace
to be possible in Central America. We concur with that report and with the
report of May 13, 1983, and the staff report of the Subcommittee on Over-
sight and Evaluation of the same committee of September 22, 1982, that the
Government of Nicaragua bears a heavy burden of responsibility for the tragic
situation that confronts us in Central America today. Specifically,the May 1983
report said : "the Sandinistas have stepped up their support for insurgents in
Honduras" and that Cuban and Nicaraguan aid for insurgents constitutes "a
clear picture of active promotion 'for revolution without frontiers' throughout326 MILITARY AND PARAMILI'rA RCTIVITIE5
In recognition of the failure of initial eflorts to find a satisfactory vehicle in
which to pursue a settlement, the key regional nations active in the search began
in early 1983to seek diiierent forums and formulas that would address the obsta-
cles to peace in the region, notably Nicaraguan intransigence. The result was
Contadora.
The CunfudoruProcess
By April 1983 - responding to external and interna1 pressures - Nicaragua
agreed to join El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Costa Rica in regional
negotiations under the auspices of what became known as the "Contadora Four"
(Mexico, Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela). Initially, much of the region's
leadership was guai-ded in its opinion of the Contadora Group's prospects -
recalling that Nicaragua had already hacked away from the OAS and the San
José Final Act.But pressures on Nicaragua to end the growing conflict and the
skillfuldiplomatic eKorts of the other regional countries allowed the new process
to develop momentum.
The first operational issuestreated by the Contadora Group occurred in spring
1983resulting from Nicaraguan interrerence with Costa Rican use of navigation
ri-hts on the San .luan River, the cavture bv Nicaragua o- five Costa Rican
gu:~rd\mcn. an inci.r\it>n inio Cusi.i Kii.iiiicrrii<ir) hv.i Uic.ir.ipuan milii:ir)
Lnii. .ind ihc capturc of:i C~st;i Kican sport iirhing \ci>r.lby ':i~ir;igii;in p;~trol
boaii iiiCosis Kic;i,i\i,.iiers.On \la) 6, the C;oi,crnnisnt%>fC'ssi;iica rcqucsied
that an OAS peacekeeping force he sent to patrol the border. The contadora
Group, however, a:;ked that the OAS defer action on the request until it had
had an opportunit) to consider how to deal with the border incidents. Costa
Rica agreed to th<:deferral, and on Mav 13. the Contadora Four Foreign
~inistGs met in Panama and agreed to criate a Border Observer ~ommissi&n,
composed of civil and military representatives from each of the Contadora Four
countries, with responsibility for monitoring the border and making recommen-
dations for preventing incursions and keeping peace. The border observer force
began ils work May 22, 1983, and, after consultations in both capitals and
on-the-ground inspections, reported to the May 28-30 meeting of the Con-
tvdora Croup.
By April 1983Nicaragua had begun to participate in the Contadora proçess.
However, it still soiight to avoid the concept of regional negotiations, preferring
to deal individually and bilaterally with its neighbors from what it saw as a
position of strength. Only on July 19, 1983,did Nicaragua accept Contadora's
multilateral framework for discussions. On that date, Nicaraguan head of State
Daniel Ortega announced a six-point Sandinista Front diplomatic proposal.
Although itrecognized the need for an end to arms supplies to the Salvadoran
guerrillas,it also called for an end to security assistance to the Salvadoran
Government; while it called for an end to foreign military bases in the region,
il studiously ignori:d the issues of foreign military advisers and Nicaragua's
rnilitarizationIt said nothing about democratization, and had no provisions for
effectivevcrification.The United States urged Nicaragua to follow up its proposal
in the Contadora Croup.
On July 17, chiek of State of the Contadora Four met for the first lime and
signed the Canciin Declaration on Peace in Ccntral America, which proposed
that the Central Arnerican States undertdke a series of commitments for pedce.
The chiers of State transmitted the tex1of their declaration to their counterparts
in the United States and other countries "with interests in and lies to the region",
including Cuba . . . EXIIIBITS SUBMI~TEDBY THE UNITED STATES 327
The President responded hy lctter 10 the four chiefs of State on July 21,
reiterating US adherence to the four fundamental principles for Face in Central
America. As the official Contadora chronology descrihed it, his letter ". . .
signalled that [the US] Government has consistently expressed strong support
for the Contadora group and that the Declaration of Cancun, by articulating
the critical issues which mus1 bc treated to reach an efkctive and enduring
resolution of the Ccntral America conflict. is an imnortant contribution to
advancing that process" ...
The Contadora process continued intermittently through the summer of 1983,
achieving an impoÏtant milestone on Septemher i0, 198%when al1participants,
including Nicaragua, agreed on a 21-point Document of Ohjectives which
addressed al1 of the major concerns of the countries of the region and of the
United States. This document represented a major breakthrough in the Central
American peace process in the form of a written commitment to an agreed set
of objectives, whichincluded political, economic, and security conccrns.
In the security field, the Document of Ohjectives called, inreralia, for steps to
end sunnort for external subversion. reductions in the numbers of foreien militarv
..
and securit) ~dviscrs. 3hall tu tllcpalarms 1r;iFTiclinga.nd controls on armdmcnir
and iroop Icvcl,. The socio-economic ohje;tii,e. rmphasired ihc need for gre:itcr
regional cooperation and called for assistance to, and the voluntary repatriation
of, Central American refugees. Democratization, national reconciliation, and
respect for human rights arc primc clements of the political objectives, which
cal1for establishment throughout the region of democratic, reprcsentative, and
pluralistic systems that cnsure fair aiid regular elections. While thcre is need for
specific and verifiable undertakings on a range of sensitive issues beyond an
agreement of principles, this was a key first step for Contadora . . .
Although Nicaragua billed itsclf as the first State to sign the Document of
Objectives, the Sandinistas were clearly uncomfortable with many of them,
particularly those calling for respect for basic human rights and national
reconciliation through democratic pluralism. Consequently, the Sandinisias, while
unwilline to accent the onnrohrium for scuttline Contadora. have reneatedlv
sought undercit the pr&ess by pushing their ivn agenda elsewhere.'
In particular, they have sought to involve the United Nations in Central
~merican issues.anticinatine a fsendlier hearine in this forum than in Contadora
or the OAS whcrc ihc ~and;nlrtas' record wdrk; rgain\t them. In O.lober 1983.
for erxmplc. Nicaragua intruduccd thc C'cntrïl Amcrican issur bclore the KY
Sc~uriiyCounctl - a,herc itsi.3dis:ui~cd inc~nclusiiel) - hredkinr:an cxplicit
commiiment to the Contadora Groun that it would not do so.The othcr central
American nations, the Contadord &ur, and the Unitcd States al1prefer that the
issues he treated in a local forum of those most directly concerned rather than
entering the highly politicized arena of UN debate.
In late October. Nicaraeua tried another tack.-or~ ~ ~ine. firstto the Contadora
Group (through ~exico);nd then to the United States, fTurdraft peace treaties.
The treaties covered four areds: Honduran-Nicaraguan relations; US-Nica-
ra-uan relations: relations between the fiveCentral ~merican countries: and the
conIlici in lil ~al~ador. Although the ircsiirs ackn<iulcdgcdthe need for ïn end
tu ~uppurt ror al1gucrrtlla groupj and said thrt cïch Siaie bhould no1take $tep<
to threaten or to attack the others, the treaties stepped hack from the position
adooted bv the sienatories to the Contadora Document of Obiectives. For
example, they igno;ed the Contadora objective of establishing demkcratic insti-
tutions. reflecting instead the Nicaraguan position that democratization is not
susceptibleto treitment in international agréements.They also sought to diminish
legitimacy of the elected Government of El Salvador hy treating it as simply one328 MILITARYANI> PARAMII.ITARY ACTlVlTlFS
of Iwo helligerent parties to an interna1 conRict; disregarded the objective of
restonng military talance among the Central American States; and made no
serious ~ro~osals fi~rverification and control. [Althoueh Nicaraeuan Foreien
~ini\te; 3iigucl I:l'Ercolo aflirmeJ thar the iruiicr -.proi,idcd-l;,r "on-site
vcrilic~tion". the irîatics coniaineil nu burh Ianguiige) '1he Niciiraguiln draCt
irc:itics dcicrrril tri~;,tmcntof Foreign :icliicr:. and arm, bi~ilJiip.inJ f~il1%)
sddres5 the Cont;idi~raohjesti~esdcdling u,ith refugccs In ,hori. the) cIisregarJcd
mdny UVihç 21 piiinti ~nd rcncircd the Sdndinijta piish Ijr hil:iier;il ;inJ
piecemeal agreements. Thus, while paying lipservice to ihe aims of Contadora,
the Sandinistas were stillfar from rager participants and actively sought to
change the direction of the process.
Birccl Unilcd Stares Efforis
In his Apnl 27. 1983, address tu a joint session of Congress, the President
announced his intention to nominate a personal representative to Facilitate
Central American iiegotiations - both talks between the States and dialogue
within countries to heal fragmented societies. Although the United States and
the regional governinents agrccd that direct US participation in Contadora would
not be heluful. al1r~artiesrecoenize the strone and leeitimate US interest in the
process and the ne&ifor our suiport and invoïvement.-on May 26, 1983,Senator
Richard B. Stone vias appointed hy the President as Ambassador-at-Large for
Central Americün r,egot&ions to fiIlthis role.
Beeinnine with his trio IO the nine ~artic.oati.. ~ontadora countries in earlv
Junc 1983.zlmha>r:iJi)r Slonc'i initidlcoliriilt.Itlons io~urcdon \i,s)10pr.imote
niultilvtcr;il iicgoti.itiun, rriihin thc C<int.idoraproce.> ,>il~nitiiiingcont:iït
hct\iceii the SaI$;iJ<>ranI'eace C<>nimi<>i,>en~.t.ihlisliedin tcbr.i,irIYb3.aiid
the tI)K t3II.N g~errilla Cro~it.Ihc ruc:~diiig inonth, ticri. ih:ira:icri~cJ h)
a ;crici of r'snruli;iiions :tmong the Ccntril Amcrican 2nd the CS~ni.idurüI'ùur.
Ambassador Stone soon became a principal su~wortinr!actor in thcse onroinr
discussions, albeit not a direct partiiipant'in the'~onta$ora process. ~uring th;
period, he also hegan to set the stage for possible talks between the Government
of Nicaragua and its armed opposkion.
Proeress came first on hrineine the Salvadoran euerrillas 10 the table with
the ce Commission. On lu& %. 1983,~mhassadOr Stone made preliminary
contact with repre::entatives of the FDR/FMLN guerrilla groups. In August,
thev met for the second time. These eiforts were ins~rumentaiin arranrine direct
coitacts between the Government of El Salvador and these guerrilla 60;~s. On
August 29, 1983,the Peace Commission of the Government of El Salvador and
representatives of the FDRIFMLN guerrillas held their first direct meeting. That
meeting represented an important step by the Salvadoran Government toward
implementing the !Septemher 1983 Contadora Document of Objectives which
called for "pluralisin and ils various manifestations,. . full play for demoçratiç
institutions,.. . aiid the need for political accommodation in order to bring
about dialoguc and understanding". At the second meeting with the FDKJFMLN
in Bogoti, September 21. the Peace Commission ofered the opportunity to
discuss electoral giiarantees. The FDRJFMLN rejected the ofer and insisted
instead, as in the past, on formation of a new provisional government in which
they would be included prior to a "national debate" and elections.
In their latest proposal, dated January 31, 1984,and publicized in a Mexico
City news conference on Fchruary 9, 1984,the FDR/FMLN leaders again pro-
posed the formation of a provisional govemment. The measures proposed hy
the guerrillas include abolishing the 1983Constitution, legitimizing the power of EXHIBITS SUBMITTEII BY THE UNITED STATES 329
the insureents. oureine the armv. dissolvine the securitv forces. bannine the
~~~~~T~at~ohalk~ublican Ailiance] and judging and punishingcivil
and military personnel involvedin alleged ~oliticalcrimes.The formation of the
provisionaÏgovernment would be broÜghi about through a negotiation which
would inçlude mediators nominated by the various parties to the talks and
international witnesses.The process would culminaie with the organization of a
single national armv made UD of the insurrents and the ~urred Government of
El Sal\,ador Cories.'bothof uhizh iiould r&in ihcir rreapons
\\'hile reiuring io pdriiiipatc in cleiiii>nb.ihc ~ucrr~lsaidhthiii the vain€
s~.hcJ~lcilin El S~Iiador it,r Mdrch 15,1984. "iiiiuld no1hc the <,hle:oiJirc~i
military attacks". Their recent actions and commcnts in their propiKanda radio
broadcasts makc it clear, however, that they have no1 wavered in their violent
opposition to the clections and that their dcstructive activities will continue
before, during and after the balloting. On January 27, a guerrilla group
assassinated LegislativeAssembly Deputy Arnoldo Pohl of the ARENA party,
calling the murder a "response" to the clections. On February 24, PAlSA
[Auihentic Institutional Salvadoran Party] Deputy Roberto Ayala wasmurdered,
hringing to four the number of assembly members killed by leftist violence.
Although no group has yet claimed the Ayala murder, it is almost certain the
work of the Clara Elizabeth Ramirez Front (CERF), a leftist urhan terrons1
group which took responsibility for the assassination of Pohl and another
ARENA deputy.
In addition to these attacks on politicians, the guerrillaspersist in other attacks
against the population and the economic infrastructure aimed at creating
conditions that would make it impossible to carry out elections. These have
included the murder of an American woman, the destruction of an important
bridge, the bombing of a civilian train, the burning of a coffce-processingplant
that employed 400 people in an area that has suikred significant economic
hardship at the bands of the FMLN. and two attacks on an agrarian reform
co-op in which 9 innocent CO-opmembers, including 3 children, were killed.
Neverthclcss, the Government of El Salvador has publicly rcitcrated, as recently
as Fcbruary 2, 1984,that the door remains open to dialogue. The United States,
through Ambassador Stone, also confirmed that il remains ready to further
sincere talks. This effort will be resumed after the March 1984 presidential
elections, looking toward legislativeand municipal voting in 1985.
Both the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN) and the Revolutionary
Democratic Alliance (ARDE) have made known their interest in returning to a
Nicaragua in which the original promises of the Sandinista revolution were
observed. ARDE had issued a declaration of necessary conditions for ils return
on Deccmber 16, 1982; ils leader, Eden Pastora, stated that ARDE would hegin
military operations against the government on April 15, 1983, if the condi-
tions were not met. The Government brushed aside the declaration, and ARDE
commenced guerrilla operations in April 1983. The FDN, which had been
conducting military operations against the government since early 1982, issued
ils conditions for an end to fighting on January 16, 1983.The Nicaraguan
Government similarly ignored this declaration.
ln latc 1983,Ambdssador Stone began consultations with the various Nica-
raguan armed opposition groups to promote a processof national reconciliation
that would complement hisefforts to support the parallel efforts toward recon-
ciliation in El Salvador. Although the various groups were initially di-
vidcd on what terms were acceptable for an end to the fighting. they agreed to
discuss a common platform and to meet with Ambassador Stone in Panama
from Novembcr 30 to December 1, 1983.Followingthat meeting, the FDN, and330 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIIS
MISURA (the Miskito, Sumo, and Rama lndian opposition group), supported
by ARDE, offered to hold a direct or indirect dialogue with the Nicaraguan
Government on ending the fighting in return for full democratization.
ARDE and the FDN issued further detailed statements on this subject on
February 18, 1984, and February 21, 1984, respectivcly. . . .A comparison of
their ~ositions with that of the leftist Salvadoran rebels clearlv indicates that the
Ntcaragudn opposition is prepared io ;icccpt a dcnio~~r,iticoiit<onie. while the
S;ili;idor;iri l.'\ll.i\ 1sinri,iing cvcn iii<ircrigidlyd<potic'r-.haring icirm~la.
\\ttlioutcaris r.lcitions. '1cvcrthr.lc~r.the '1ic.ir~ruan G<~i.ernmcnihss rriurncrl
negotiations-with ils armed opponents, and the Nicaraguan Minister of'~ustice
affirmed on March 9, 1984,that the government would try some of the armed
opposition leaders in absentia.
These etiorts to stimulate the overall process of dialogue within the region
have ofïered both the FDRIFMLN and the Nicaraguan Government a peaceful
and democratic way to end the fighting. Unfortunately, neither side has seized
the opportunity. As noted, the FDRIFMLN rejects elections in favor of imme-
diate power sharing. The Nicaraguan Government appears to have ruled out
negotiations with the armed opposition and shows no signs of changing its
politicalsystem in a way that would allow the opposition the right to compete
for oower. Since December 4. 1983.Nicaraeua has olïered safe conduct. under
\omc condiiionr. to çert;itn nienibers of the ,irmeil opposition. buIIhliscn:luded
pdrtiitpation in thij progran hy ihc armcd oppiisiii<)nIrader,hip. thus Jcnving
thrm the .ihilii\tii.,nie,i the clcctiiin ~~licdulcdiirr Soi,cmbcr IYX1 ,\lth,,ueh
the unarmcd, jegal opposition will be allowed to participate in those elections,
there are numerou!: obstacles to a true contest for power, as will be seen below.
While Ambassador Stone was promoting interna1dialogue, the United States
also actively pursited a program of clarifying and building support for the
multilateral Contaiiora process and its 21-point Document of Objectives. On
October 7, Secretary of State Shultz met with Central American foreign ministers
and UN ambassadors at the UN General Assembly. They discussed the need to
move foward sirnultaneouslv on al1 noints elaborated in the Document of
Objectives and emphasized interna1democracy in al1Central American countries
as an essential method to ensure enforcement of al1commitments. The Secretary
and the Foreien Ministers of Costa Rica. Honduras. El Salvador. and Guatemala
followed up ïhis discussion with a Novemher 16 meeting on the margins of
the OAS Gencral Assembly and again in Caracas in January 1984 during the
Venezuelan presidential inauguration.
During this samc:period, Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Lang-
horne Motley made two trips to Central America to discuss al1 aspects of the
conflict. On his first trip in September, Ambassador Motley hoped to include
Nicaragua, and the Nicaraguan Government initially welcomed his visit
However, shortly before his scheduled arriva1 in Managua, the Sandinistas
canceled his appointments with senior officiais. Assistant Secretary Motley
postponed his visit, and the Nicaraguan Government later invited him for
talks on October 13. In his discussions in Managua, Motley encouraged the
Nicaraguans to intplement the original principles of their revolution through
sincere negotiations based on the 21 points.
In the meantime. wewereactive in oursuinz-these issuesboth in this hemisohere
and wiih <~urEurepean alliei, mo.1 ol'whom backcd the conccpt of a regional
Pace efi)ri. hut I;.ckcd first-h:ind inform;iiion on the d)n;iniics 01'rclaiions an
ihc rczion and of <:ontadora In a scricrof viç$isand consuli;iiiuns. Aii1b;issxior
~tone-and other sznior officers explained to European and other hemispheric
governments how the groundwork had been prepared for agreement in the Docu- EXIIIBITS SUBMIITEU BY THE UNITED STATES 331
ment of Objectives and the reasons for strong US support. We confirmed the
belief of many Europeans that only a comprehensive and completely verifiable
treaty could bring about peace in Central America.
During November and December 1983, the Contadora Croup considered
several proposals for converting the Document of Objectives into such a viable
and verifiahle finaltreatv. TheContadora Four. Nicarama. and the other Central
Amcri~.linSi;iies 311 presentcd suggcsiiuns for the csriient oiii Iin;il ;igrecniciit.
r\ Vix .Minirtcri.ilTcihni;il C<imiiiir\i<inaiicmptcd ti)reci~n;ilcthe pri>p<~ssl.,
but IIhcc:imcilcir thai onl, ihc ninc iiircir- minisicr. c,~uldiIcci<lcoii the ncxt
steps to take.
On December 22, after consulting with Ambassador Stone, the President once
again publicly reaffirmed our strong support for the peace process undertaken
bv the Contadora Crouo. The President said. "1 want to rciterate mv s.ono..
and iommitmeni ri>IAmhiissad<~r Sti,nc's]dcliïaic b~tcru;i;il niission"
Amhïs>aiior Sionc travclcd .+giln 10 the region priur id the Jsnuÿry 7-8 Cureign
ministers meeting, to suggest means of facilitatingdiscussion of thc various oeace
proposals and ti reiterze our strong conviction that Contadora's momintum
should be maintained. In his January meetings in Managua, Ambassador Stone
emphasized to the Sandinistas that Nicaragua could respond to al1US concerns
bv sincere neeotiations to turn the Document of Obiectivesinto a comorehensive.
oper;itional iinJ \criiiiblc agrccmcni. Ilc ;il\,urged the Slindini,ilir IO open i
di;iloguc \i,iih the irmcd iipp<>siti,>n groiip.. noiing iho~ gr<>-ip\'~>iTc tc) Ili?
down their weapons in exchange for democratization.
In these and othcr meetings we have madc clear to the Sandinistas our four
policy objectives vis-à-visNicaragua:
I 1J Implemcntati<~n<~ithe Sandinirta,' dem<vriiii ciimmitmcnir IO ihc O,\S;
(2) Tcrmination of S1iciragu.i'sbupport fdr subversion in ncighboring Stÿtcî.
(3) Kcmoval oi'S<~i.icC i uhin militarv pcr\onnel anil iermin;iiion oftheir milit;irv
and securitv involbernent in ~icaraeuu .and
(4) The reduction of Nicaragua's recenlly expanded military apparatus to restore
military equilibrium among the Central American States.
At the January 1984foreign ministers' meeting,the Contadora Croup reached
a second imooriant milestone in the oeace neeotiations. an aercemeni on oro-
cedures and'guidelines for translating the 21 objectives'into krifiable commit-
ments. The Contadora Four and the Central Americans charged three working
commissions to refine proposals on political, sccurity and socioeconomic issues.
Thev aereed that the commissions would formallv constitute themselves hv
, -
January 31, would prepare work plans by Fehruary 29, and would present
recommendations to the foreign ministers by April 30. By establishing working
groups and a series of benchmark dates, the Contadora Croup madeilear thaï
progress in al1 three areas is essential if a fomal peace agreement is to be
attained. The group since has met the first two benchmark dates.
For its part, the United States sent a ieam of security specialists to Central
America in Februarv-March io orovide exoertise to friendlv eove,nucnts in this
phase of the process and to underline our own strong commiiment to its success.
At the most recent meeting of the Contadora Group, held in Panama on Feb-
ruary 29, the working commissions agreed on agendas to guide their work until
April 30. They agreed to caucus again with the Vice Ministerial Technical
Commission on April 2-4 and 24-28, before meeting withthe foreign ministers.
In moving from the conceptual stage to actual drafting of language which
could fom the basis ofa Central American peace treaty, the Contadora process
has entered a labor-intensive phase. A verifiahle agreement to implemcnt the 21332 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
points would addn:ss our concern:: with Nicaraguan behavior, would meet the
interests of the otlier Central American States, and would give Nicaragua a
concrete framewor'k for peaceful political and economic cooperation with its
neighhors.
Contridoruundthe OAS
The United Statr:s and other memhers of the OAS have respected the efforts
of the Contadora <;roup hy supporting the peace process it has fostered. In an
effort to move th,: process forward, we have not invited more direct OAS
involvement at this time. althoueh we have heen careful to leave oDen that
possibility. The OAS rolein othe;regional disputes has heen veryconstructive.
Future OAS invohement could be appropriate and highly desirable, depending
on the circumstances that arise. We could foresee circumstances where the
organization could play a useful role in helping to further develop or implement
the tems of an agreement in Central America. At this stage, however, countries
insideand outside the region, as well as those involved in the Contadora process,
would iritemret a US effort IO shift the n-sotiati...~rocess into the OAS as a
r<,t-[ii n<lconiidc icc111Coni:iJors thdi \ioiil<igrc:itly rcd~.c ils ~ll'c~l~~cnc~~
Othcrs ibould scr. ilmorc ,imply 3, .IlJS cll;>rtio \ah<>tagcihr. pcdce pri>ccrr.
Thcrcforc. the Cni.cJ St;itr.sso fiir h.15;ilicni~t1.a<hic\c ils goal,. incluilina
those mentioned in section 109 of the act, through support forthe contadora
process rather than by more direct and immediate involvement of the OAS or
attempting to revive the San Joséconcept.
Sumntory of DiplumuticEfirrs
As stated above, US support for the Face process has heen mdnifested by
various actions: high-level public statements of US bdcking for the Contddora
process: meetings by the Secretary of State with Latin American leaders on this
issue; a continuou:; process of consultations in theegion: private demarches to
governments in Latin America and Western Europe asking them to lend diplo-
matic assistance tki these regional negotiations; dispatch of a security experts
team; and the efforts of the President's special envoy who over the pas8 months
has made 12 trips to Central and South America to carry out his mission of
furthering regional dialogue.
Through al1of these efforts. the Administration has acted in full accord with
the spirit of section 109 of the act. The President has reiterated the continued,
dedicated support ~f the United States for the negotiating process and the cause
of peacc in Central America. His prompt nomination of Ambassador Harry
Shlaudeman to succeed Ambassador Stone is a sign of the Administration's
intention to remaiii fully engaged in this process.
Other Dimensil~no sf lhe UnitedStatesSeorchfi,r Peuce
As implied in our four-point policy toward Central America. the United States
has contrihuted to the search for peace hy providing needed economic and
security assistance to democratic countries in the area in order to reduce vul-
nerability to exterriallysupported insurgencies and to provide needed confidence
to facilitate partic:ipation in regiondl peace discussions. By proposing signi-
ficant increases in future US assistance to the region, as recommended by the
National Bipartisan Commission on Central America, the President has demon- strated our vital interest in this area and strong commitment to pcaceful
development and the prompt resolution of regional disputes.
As outlined above. an essentialfactor behind the Dro.re-sto date in Contadora
h.~shccn NIC.I~.I~U~\'t* illingncsb - :ilheit gruJging -- IO p~iriicipxtcin the
proccss. \\'hile the hhiit in Si~ilragua'sposiurc .ippcars due IIIpari 16)I,ICII;SiinJ
ii).Idesire niit to hc hl~mcilI;)r iailurc.II1.clcar ih31un x rnorc baric Ic\'el.ihc
Sindiniscds have nio\.cd (rom a pria posiii,in uf unyielding obrtruciionirm io
ihcir prewni siancc a\ a direci rehultof pressure irom ils neighbors. ihe CniicJ
States, other governments and international bodies, and the armed Nicaraguan
onnosition. The United States has attemnted to bnne economic and diolomatic
Géssureto bear on Nicaragua precisely&cause it had becomeclear thai witbout
it Nicaragua would be unwilling to modify its aggressivepoliciesand nondemo-
cratic syskm of internal controG. The ~niied ~tzs has not been alone in taking
such steps: West European and Latin American countries have informed Nica-
ragua that additional economic assistance will depend upon improving its atti-
tudc toward political pluralism.
At the same time. the armed oooosition in Nicaraeua kas steooed uo its
activities,demon~tratin~clearly to théworld the extent which the'Nicarapuan
Revolutionary Government's failure to respect its internal and exiernal commit-
ments kas led to oo. .ar discontent. ~hese actions have imoosed a stilï orice on
ihc SanJinisias and oHeran inceniive iu explurc muiual aisirmmudaiiun.
Alihough our rclaii<~nswiih ihe Nicaraguan Ci<)vcrnmcntarc sirainerl. thr
Uniied Siiiie\ has kep. ope. ils Jircct channels ,ICcomniunic;liion to ihc $.in-
dinistas. Initial attemots to eneaee Nicaraeua bilaterallv wereunsuccessful.Nica-
ragua did not respond in a positive, substantive manner to two US proposais
madc in August 1981and in April 1982to resolvetensions in the rcgion. Through
these oroo&als. the United ~iates addressed Nicaraeua's statedconccrns about
a1leged US intervention and the activitics of ~ica&uan exile groups in the
United States, as wellas Nicaragua's support for guerrilla groups, militarization,
the oresencc of foreim mililarv advisers. the need for~democratization. the
pussible resuntpiion of UScconomic asii,i;rnce iciNicaragua. and inicrn~iional
\erili;atii)n. Xlore reccntly. in ;iddiiii)n ti)Amhaicadi)r Siune's ci)nvcrsaii<~ni
with Nicaraguan leaders, including four meetingswithjunta coordinator Ortega,
Assistant Secretam of State for Inter-American Alïairs Ambassador Lanehome
A. Motley visited'~icara~ua in October 1983. Later that month, ~mbassador
Motley receivedNicaraguan Foreign Minister Miguel D'Escoto.
In iate November and early ~ëcember of 1983, as the Nicaraguan armed
opposition intensified its attacks, the Sandinistas took several actions tbat
suggestedthey might be willingto address in a more serious manner the concerns
of Nicaragua's neighbors and of the United States. These actions included
announcing preparations for elections, now schedulcdfor Novcmber 1984,an
amnesty program for certain Miskito Indians, a safe-conduct program for some
members of the armed opposition, relaxation of press censorship, hints that
certain Cuban civilian advisers were lcaving Nicaragua (which conformed to
orevious rotation schedules). and assertions that some Salvadoran euerrilla
ieaders had been asked by ihe Nicaraguan Government to leave the country.
The Nicaraguan Government also reiterated its support for an end to al1foreign
support for-guerrilla groups in the region, a reg&nal arms freeze followed Ly
arms negotiations, and reciprocal bans on foreign military hases and foreign
military advisers.
In Dcccmber 1983, the Secretary of State noted the positive nature of these
gestures, but stressed that it was important for the United States to see what
reality lay behind the rhetoric. The United States madc clcar, through public334 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTlVlTlES
statements, diplomatic channels to the Nicaraguan Government, and in conver-
sations with other governments, that il was willingto respond in kind to concrete
and genuine steps (Tomthe Nicaragudn Government.
Thus far, howev?r, that Governmcnt has not taken actions that would affect
ils basic policies of military expansion, dependence on a substantial number
of foreign military and security personnel, and continued material support for
guerrilla groups in the region. In Tact'a detailed look al the hints of moderation
proved discouraging. Although 2,000 Cuban teachers left Nicaragua on normal
rotation, about 1,000may return this month, leaving the Cuban civilian presence
at 4,500 to 6,500 and the Cuban military and security presence at about 3,000
persons. In addition, the Soviet Union and other Soviet-bloc countries main-
tain about 100military advisers. While some civilian leaders of the Salvadoran
guerrillas left Nicaragua, the Salvadoran guerrilla military personnel remain.
Nicaraguan support for the Salvadoran guerrilla command-and-control centers,
training facilities, and arms shipments has continued. Likewise, Nicaragua con-
tinues to receive Iieavy anns from the Soviet bloc, building an arsenal that
dismays and alarms its neighbors.
The Nicaraeuan militarv and securitv forcesnumber ai leasl 75.000(includinz
regular troop< rescrves and organized militia), compared with about'43.000 in
Guatemala, 22,000 in Honduras, 40,000 in El Salvador, and about 8,000 civil
and rural guards and police in Costa Rica. In September 1983,Nicaragua insti-
tuted urii&rsal dr;ift iegistration, placing il in position to maintain and to
expand its military force.
The Nicaraguan Government's tentative moveson the domestic front havc
similarly lacked substance. The amncsty program for Miskitos was ill-received
by the Miskito people, 1,200of whom Redto Honduras in December 1983,claim-
ing mistreatment and torture by Nicaraguan authorities. Likewise, the safe-
conduct program for the armed opposition appears to havc few if any takers
amone ihe insureents. who remain hiehlv skentical of Sandinista intentions.
~lthou~h the hndinistas finally ainounce'd a date for elections, a first step
to potentially fulTillingits 1979 pledge to the OAS, the Nicaraguan opposition
remains convinced that the Nicaraguan electoral system now being devisedwill
no1 nermit a true contest for oower to occur. For examole. there has been no
intimidaiion and haraisment.or Sandinista access CoState resouicei. Sandinista
leaders have said that armed opposition leaders will not be allowed to run for
office,and it now appears possible that the state of emergency (in effect since
March 1982)will 1101be lifted for a long enough period to allow the opposition
a fair chance to compete. A possible clue as to the type of election planned by
the Sandinistas came from a comment of Minister of Planning Henry Ruiz on
February 3, 1984,,uhen he said the Nicaraguan people had a right to "pluralism,
but with a Sandinista heeemonv".
Meanwhile,the l\licara&an ~overnment pcriodicallyoffersvividremindersthat
despite occasional relaxation, press ccnsorship remains very much in effect. New
crackdowns Ied the independent newspaper ~L.uPrensa not to publish on three
occasions in January and Febniary of 1984.Nor has the Government relaxed its
control over newsprograming by the remaining independent radio stations.
Conclusions and Recommendarions
In the foregoing history, two themcsemerge - the persistent efforts to achieve
peace bythe Unitsd States and most regional governments, and the obstruction- IIXHIRITSsuBMrrrI:t) BY THII UNITED STATES 335
ist response to these efforts by the Government of Nicaragua. As noted, there
recently has been some movement bv the Sandinistas awav l'romtheir basic in-
transigence, but we have not yet seen any real change in thkir goals of spreading
revolution or consolidating their rule. Rather. it appears that as the Sandinistas
have become increasingly isolated and pressured at home and abroad. they have
rc.ipi)ndcdb) gi\ing uut~publi~hini>.in> sign~l,. ~cc<1mp3nici l) ronic gr"dg~ng
1;ictic;ilrhili,. On the h3\1s nt'pcrlorni~ncc IO date. their ;iim rrcm. ii>hr to
adopt dr nirn~nii,r'h;ingcjsuilic!cnt onl?icirrduce internal and c\icrnal pressure
to modify their basic sistem. In the mëantime, they have taken no stepsihat are
no1instantly reversible, as they proved when they cracked down with new inten-
sity on Lu Prensu in January and February 1984.
Consequently, while the United States and Nicaragua's neighbors believe
strongly that pressure is working - and indeed, has proven to be the only
effective inducement to the Sandinistas - we believe that it should only be
reduced or removed when Nicaragua undertakes the real changes in its external
and internal policies that will contribute to regional peace. It is worth noting
that 10 of the 12 members of the National Bipartisan Commission on Central
America, chaired by former Secretary of State Kissinger, concluded ". . we do
no1believeit would be wise to dismantle existing incentives and pressures on the
Managua régime except in conjunction with demonstrable progress on the
ncgotiating front".
Bipartisan congressional support for US policy toward Central America
remains an important goal of this Administration. There are several areas in
which future congressional support is essential to meeting Our objectives in
this area.
Firsr, prompt congressional approval of the Central America Democracy.
Peace and Development lnitiativc is an important first step. This proposal is
proof of US recognition of its vital interests in the area and the need to adopt
innovative measures ta deal with the complex situation. Prompt approval would
signal continued bipartisan interest and support in the United Statesfor peaceful,
democratic change in the arca. To not approve it or to dilute it significantly
would be read throughout the arca as a sign of US unwillingness to shoulder
ils responsibilities in Central America. That would only weaken Our friends'
confidence in their ability tohelp maintain security and democracy and promote
economicgrowth under terms of any negotiated settlement - or even to negotiate
successfully.
Secund, carly Senate confirmation of Ambassador Harry Shlaudeman as
Special Presidential Envoy for Central American Negotiations is also highly
desirable.
The rhird area is adequateand timely funding for programs authorized by the
Intelligence Authorization Act. Representatives of the executive branch have
discussed this with appropriate committees of the Senate and the Flouse. We
have round conclusively that the broad array of incentives, hoth positive and
negative, that currently exists in the area plays a very important role in reassuring
Our allies and in convincing those who oppose them that the Unived States will
stand by ils friends and its commitments. To hamper US ability to maintain
these incentives would delay rather than advance Ourefforts and those of other
countries to achieve peace in Central America. MILITARYAND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
Exhibit IV
TAB A :UNITED NATIONS GBNBRAL ASSEMBL PA,TIAL PROVISIONAI. VIIRRATIMRECORD
OF MEFTlNG OF 9 NOVEMBER 1983(DOC.~/38/~~.49)
PROVISIONAL VERBATIMRECORD OF THE FORTY-NIW H EkTINC
Held a1 Headqiiarters, New York, on Wednesday, 9 November 1983, at
10.30 a.m.
Presnlenl: MI. iiiceca (Panama)
- The situation in Central America: thredts to international peace and security
and pedce initiatives 1142(coniinued)
...................... ......
[Mr. KusalesRivera. El Solvudur (interpretation from Spanish)]. . .1should
like to referIo El Salvador's policy based on what we have stated in the past.
We know that Central America is now a region in turmoil. and hence we have
acted with the mo:;t scmpulous respect for the principle of non-intervention in
the aKairsof our ncighbours. Nicaragua, on the contrary, kas followed an inter-
ventionist policy, and the accumulation of evidence singles out the Govern-
ment of Nicaragua as the prima? factor in the instability of Central America.
Thus my country has been the victim, among other warlike and hostile acts,
of a continuing traffic in weapons, with Nicaragua as the las1link in the chain.
From there orders are scnt to armed groups of the cxtreme left operating in El
Salvador. These groups have their heddquarters in Nicaragua and logisticsupport
is channelled through them. Here by way of illustration 1should like Io refer to
two publications.
In Time magazine of 9 May 1983under the heading "Like a Sears Roebuck
Catalogue", we read :
(spoke in English)
"According to a Sandinista military defector interviewed by Time, the
building of a Nicaraguan arms link to El Salvador began almost as soon as
the victorious revolutionaries took power in the Nicdraguan capital of
Managua in July 1979.Says the defector: 'Il took nine months to plan the
operation. The arms tkit evcntually went to El Salvador were first taken
from Ourforci:swho fought against Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza
Dcbayle. After the triumph, they were instructed to turn in their weapons,
which were piit in warehouscs and held for shipment to El Salvador. Then
ilwas discussed who would take them there. 11was decided that the organi-
zation to run this was [Sandinista] military intelligen..." EXHIBITSSUBMIITED BK THE UNITED STAm 337
TAR B :NOTES FROM THE PERMANENT MISSIONOF HONDURAS TO THE ORGANIZATION
OFAMERICAN STATES (OASDDCUMENTS)
NOTE FROM THE PERMANENT MISSION OF HONDURAS TRANSCRIBING THE TEXT OF THE
NOTE PROM THE MlNlSTER OFFOREIGN APPAIRS OF HONDURAS TO THE AMBASSADOROP
NICARAGUA TOTHAT COUNTRY DATEU JANUARY 5,1983
No. 31/83/MPH/OEA/CP January 6, 1983.
Excellency :
1 have the honor to addrsss Your Excellency inorder that the Member States
of the Permanent Council may be informed of the text of the note from His
Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Honduras, Dr. Edgardo Paz
Bamica, to His Exccllency the Ambassador of Nicaragua to Honduras, Dr.
Guillermo Suarez Rivas, in which my Government once again makes a strong
protest over the consecutive violations of Honduran sovereigntyand of the most
basic human rights of our citizens bypart of the Sandinista Amy of Nicaragua.
The tex1of the note reads as follows:
"Oficial Note No.05-DA. Tegucigalpa, D.C., January 5, 1983.
Excellency:1have the honor to address Your Excellencyto inform you that
on December 26 Iast, al 14:00 hours, seven memhcrs of the Sandinista
Popular Army penetrated the village of Sabana Yasy, in the township of
San Marcos de Colon, Department of Choluteca, and look Pedro Torres
and Danilo Rueda Cruz, both Honduran citizens, backto Nicaragua against
their will. Their fate is unknown. On bebalf of mv Government. 1herebv
make a strong forma1protest over this new act bypart of the armed forces
of Nicaragua violating Ournational territory. It does no1augur wellfor any
improvement in relations between Our two countries in the New Ycar. 1
ask Your Excellencyto use your good officesto ensure that the persons kid-
napped are trcated humanely and retumed to their homes. Accept, Excel-
lency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. Edgardo Paz
Barnica, Minister of Foreign Aflairs."
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration,
(Signed) Roherto RAMOS Busros,
Acting Rcpresentative.338 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYAC~IVITIPS
NOTE PROMTHE ACTING REPRESBNTATIVEOF HONDURAS TRANSCRIBING THE TEXTOP
THE NOTE SENT BY Till? M1NISTF.ROF FOREIGNAPFASRSOP HIS COUNTRY T0 Tltli
AMBASSADOI<OP NICARAGUAIN HONDURAS. DATEDJANUARY 6, 1983
No. 32/83/MPH/OEA/CP January 10, 1983.
Excellency :
1have the honor of addressing Your Excellencyto forward to you the text of
the note sent by His Excellency Dr. Edgardo Paz Barnica, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of my country, to the Ambassador of Nicaragua in Honduras, Dr.
Guillermo Suarez Rivas, whercin my Government files yet another energetic
protest to the hostile acts perpetrated in Honduran territory by memhers of the
Sandinista Amy. The text reads as follows:
"Official Note No. 11 DA. Teeucigaloa. D.C.. 6 Januarv 1983. His Ex-
cellency, Dr. Guillermo ~u&ez~~iv&,'~mbassador of Nicaragua, City.
Excellency: 1again address Your Excellencyto bring to your attention two
more border iricidents ~rovoked bv elemenis of the ~andinista armv. These
incidents con,?itutc <inopen i,iol;tti~~iiIlondiiran sovcrcignt) In eiicc~,
on Dcscnibcr 26 la>[, in ihe P~<I Verde >ccior. Conccpiion Jc \laria
Jurij<Iiciii,n,S~ndinirt~f<~r~cirired imon3 miirol oithc Hiinilur.in armi,.
which was forced to return the fire.On January 4, at 10:00 am., in thé
place called El Anonal, also in the Jurisdiction of Concepcion de Maria,
another Honduran patrol, belonging to the XI Infants. Batallion, was
amhushed bv armed Sandinistas who fired 82mm caliber mortars. machine
guns and rifle:;.This unjustified attack was also repelled. On mi Govern-
ment'sbehalf, 1must once again vehementlyprotest the Nicaraguan Govern-
ment's hostileacts and reconfirm ~onduÏas's commitment 6 Deace. not-
uithri.inJing ihc c.rcrcisc 01'ihc right of Icgiiiinaic ielf deicnx ahcncvcr
circunirl.Inccwi warrsni. i\cccpi. Ex~cllcnçy.the rencwcila.sur.inces ol'm).
highe-ii.iiiriJ;.r~iiuEJg~rilu Pi, Ilürnici. Miniiicr di torcign Ali;iirr."
In \ieu of the Iiircgoing. I would rcspcctfully requcst thii Your 1:~ccllen~y
gi\c instruciionriï h;ivcihir oilicial norr.circul~ied Io al1the Mciiibcr Siaies on
the Permanent Coiincil.
Accept, Excellency, therenewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signer/) Roberto RAMOS BUSTOS,
Acting Representative
No. 02/83/MPH/OEA/CP 20 January 1983.
Excellency :
1have the honor to inform Your Excellencyof the note His Excellency. the
Minister of ForeignAffairs, Dr. Edgardo Paz Barnica, has sent to theAmbassador EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STAWS 339
of Nicaragua in Our country, Dr. Guillermo Suarez Rivas, which reads as fol-
lows:
"Communication No. 33 DA. Tegucigalpa, D.C., 19 January 1983. His
Excellency,Dr. Guillermo Suarez Rivas, Ambassador of Nicaragua. Excel-
lency: 1 have the honor to address Your Excellencyto express deep regrets
concerning the continued hostile acts by the Government of Nicaragua
against my country. Honduras. In fact, on the thirteenth of this month at
9:15 am., a five-man patrol of the Eleventh lnfantry Batallion of our
armed forces was attacked bv members of the Sandinista armv in the Palo
Verde sector, Concepcion he Maria Jurisdiction. Despite ihe repeated
manifestations by the Nicaraguan authorities as to their peaceful aims, con-
tingents of the Sandinista veovle's armv continuouslv harass members of
ou; armed for~.csand alar& thc 14ondur;inçitirens residing in the border
area. Thrse evcnth ha\? si)mciimes IrJ IIIrcgrcitliblc lo3,cs our sitifen\'
Iivcs.and naturiilly ihc\,do not help mainiain the harmonious rclaiion, thai
should exist betw&n Honduras and Nicaragua. Once again, on behalf of
my Government, 1 lodge a strong protest for the hostile acts by the
Sandinista People's Amy that deplorably continue to be repeated. Accept,
Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. Edgardo
Paz Barnica, Ministcr of ForeignAfiirs."
1wish to ask Your Excellencyto kindly convey thisnote to the Member States
of the Permanent Council.
Accept, Excellency,the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed) Roberto RAMOS Busros,
Acting Representative.
SOTE FRIN '1III A.Uil.\SSAl>OH. 131iR\lASRTPKt.<I ISl IVEOF 1IOI>IIRAS.
TRASSl'RIRIS<iTIII: T)YCil: TllSOTI! 5I:SRY TllF b(lS1SIHK OFCIKFI<iS AFIZ,\IRSOF
HIS COUNTRY TO THE MINISTI. OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OFNlCARl\GUA, DATED MARCH
24, 1983
No. 1I/83/MPH/OEA/CP March 25, 1983.
Excellency :
1have the honor to address Your Excellencyto make known to you the tex1
of the note sent by His Excellency,the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofHonduras,
Dr. Edgardo Paz Barnica, to Her Excellency,the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua, Mrs. Nora Astorga, which reads verbatim as follows:
"Note No. 208-DSM.Tegucigalpa, D.C.,Marcb 24, 1983.Her Excellency,
Mrs. Nora Astorga, Minister of Foreign AiTairs, Managua, Nicaragua.
Madam Minister: 1 have the honor to address Your Excellency to advise
you that las1 Sunday, March 20, 1983,patrols of the Sandinista People's
Armv seized two fishine boats. in territorial waters of Honduras. off Punta
~onhe~a,and look the;essels and their crew membersJulio ~imeoez,Marco
Arriola Santos, Pedro Antonio Sandoval, and Andres Cruz, to Nicaragua,
whose whereabouts are unknown at this time. My Government vigorously
protests this new act of provocation by Nicaraguan authorities, and requests340 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
your excellent good offices10ensure the return of the captured persons and
the boats unlawfully seized. Under present circumstances, this type of hostile
action seems to be addressed to provoking a violent reaction hy the
Honduran Government in an attempt to involve it in the interna1 conflict
that Nicaragua is suffering. Once again, 1 express to Your Excellency our
firm determinrtion to remain absolutelv neutral in reeard to that coniiict.
ïnJ Io .ICiinl,, in Jcl'cnrc our ndiionrl rotcrcipiit) ii~idicrriiorial intcg-
rily i\cr.epi, E,<cllcn.y. the rcncur,rIabsurmcr., ofiiiy hlghrsl coiisidcr~tion.
Edg;irJo I'az Iiïrnicd. Minisirr of li>rçign Afiirr of IlonJurar."
SOT,: \O 15/83 iRO\i Tiiii AhlRASSAl>OR.PliR>lASl:TRI:PRF-SI!TrAT <I'IIIiI>IIKAS.
COSTAISISü Till1I:YT UF TlllSOT); SFST RY llli(.~>I:\~RY'YlSlSlliR OF iOKI:l<iS
AFFAIRS TO THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRSOF NICARAGU >A,TlilAPRlL 15, 1983
No. 15/83/MPH/OEA/CP April 15, 1983.
Exccllency :
1have the honor of conveying to Your Excellency and, through you, to the
Member States of the Permanent Council, the text of the note sent hy His Excel-
lency, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Honduras, Dr. Edgdrdo Paz Barnica,
to His Excellency,the Minister of Nicaragua, which reads as follows:
"Communication No. 228-DSM.-Tegucigalpa, D.C. 15April 1983.Excel-
lency: 1 have the honor to address Your Excellency IO inform you that
yesterday, 14 April, at !:O0 p.m., two Nicaraguan pdtrol boats attacked
with naval guns two Honduran fishing boats which were located at 15.8"
north latitude and 82.31' Westlongitude, in the vicinity of Bobel and Media
Luna Keys, in Honduran jurisdictional waters. The boat Nile-King was
seriously damliged hy this unjustified attack, and the Buyunu-6 was taken
to Nicaragua11territory, the fate of its crew unknown. My Government
strongly protests this newact of aggression by the Government of Nicaragua
against unarmed, civilian-operated ships. 1wish to remind Your Excellency
that the main purpose of the meeting held last year bythe commanding
officcrsof the naval forces of Honduras and Nicaraeua was 10seek suitable
mcasurcs i<>a,ioiJ iniidcnis of ihis kinrl. Thr. delexaïion of IlonJura\ made
spccificpropor~ls io such elTeci.uhilc ihc Govcrnmcnt ai Nicaragua ncwr
e.xr>resseJiiscll'ihcrcon nor haiiiIosicrcd holdine ufihe subscqueni meciine
that was azreed uoon. thus showine its reluct&ce to reach ueaceful and
ci\ili~cJ siiïuiion\;O ihc pri)hlcm Gccd hy the Cenirdl r\me;iixn arïa in
gcncr.11and oiir iwo <ouniries in pïrticular. Acccpi. Fx;cIIcncv. lhc rcnc~cd
a,rurïn.u OC m\ hiehcsi <,in>idcraii<in.EJexrrlti Paz U.irnica. \liniricr 01
Foreign AiTairs.". -
Accept, Excellency,the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed) Roberto MART~NIO :~. DO~~EZ,
Ambassador. EXIIIBITS SUBMIITED BY THE UNITED STATES 341
1WS~'KIIIIS~i 7111TUT 01: TIIE SOIli 1ilAl tiii. ~<lSlSllROF FURIIGS AFVAIKS Oi' ItIS
<'OIITIRY r\i>l>RISSI~I>'IOVlllIllSlSIEK OF HlRI(I(iS AFFAIRS VI:SIC<\KACUA. t>Ali:t>
No. 16/83/MPH/OEA/CP April 18, 1983.
Excellency :
1 have the honor to address Your Excellencv to make known to vou. and
ihrough your kindnesr 1,)ihc rr.prcseniaii~cs of the .Memhcr Slalcs on thc
Permanent Counril. the tc.xiof n noic addres.eJ hy His E\ccllcncy Dr L'dgarJo
P;u Uarniia. Minirtcr of Forcicn Alfiiirsof tlondura%. I~Iihc hlinisicr of Furcien-
Aiïairs of Nicaragua, which rGds verbatim as follows:
"Official Note No. 146DA. Tegucigalpa, D.C. April 15, 1983. Excellency:
1have the honor to address Your Excellencyto protest vigorously over the
statements made by Commander Humberto Ortega Saavedra, Minister of
Defense of Nicaragua, that appeared in the New YorkTimes of April 10.in
an article signed hy Stephen Kinzer. That Commander, in a hostile and
orovocative attitude. has said that the Sandinista Government is disoosed
iu i4i<ir action, ,>i tlondur.in rcioluiioii:irier against ihr. Ciin~iiiuiii,n.il
G<~i.ernmrntiii'niyc.>untr) Among uthcr thingr. hc,ils<> sa)i ih~t'Hi)n<lur.i\
is going to see the cost of confroniing an arnÏed movement like the one we
are facineu and thal the Sand~nis~a Go~ ~ ~-~t ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ and
even hundreds of offers of military support from pro-Sandinist groups in
Latin America and Europe'. Nicaragua's response to those olfers, he said,
'willbe made known at the orooer tiÏne2.~he& statementsconstitute a clear
threat by the Governmeni Of Nicaragua, in open violation of the Charter
of the United Nations and an admission that that Government usurps the
right to intervene in the aiïairs of other countries, making use of the most
cowardly means of struggle. terrorism. In this regard, il mus1 have heen
highly satisfactory for Your ExcellencyIo ascertain that one of the subversive
movements has already decided to give cffect to its offer of solidarity with
the Sandinista Government. oiïerine it as a worthv receotion in Boeoti a
terrorist act against the Embassy orHonduras in kolom'bia, as a result of
which the Secretary of the Mission lies between life and death. Moreover, 1
consider that the statements of the war-hardened Commander and its most
immediate consequences constitute a real threat to the pcace negotiations
undertaken by the distinguished foreign ministers of Colombia, Mexico,
Panama and Venezuela. It is not by criminal acts such as those that the
Minister of Defense of Nicaragua, directly or indircctly, has already hegun
to commit, that we will see peace and security return to Central America.
On the contrary, this manner of acting shows the interesi the Nicaraguan
Government bas in internationalizing the interna1 eonflict it kas with its
own people of Nicaragua. Once more I declare the pacifist calling of my
Government, ils constant willingness to settle international disputes by the
civilized means established hy law, as well as its firm decision to defend the
national sovereientv and territorial intecritv- in2 .cordarice with the DTO-
visions of the Üniied Nations Charter. Accept, Exccllency, the renewed
assurances of my highest consideration. Edgardo Paz Elarnica, Minister of342 MILITARYAND PARAMILITARYACiIVITIE3
Accept, Excellency,the assurances of my highest consideration
(Signed) Roherto MART~NIO ~RZDOI(IEZ,
Ambassador.
NOTE NO. 17/83 PROM THE AMMSSAIXX PERMAhXhT REPRJiSEhTATIVBOP HONDURAS
TRANSCRIBINGTHE TEXT OF THE NOTE SEhT BK THE MINISTEROF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF
HIS COUNTRY TO TFII~MISISTEROF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OFNICARAGU DAATED APRIL 19,
1983
No. 17/83/MPH/OI!A/CP April 20, 1983
Excellency:
l have the honor to address Your Excellency to make known to you, and
throueh vour kindness. to the reoresentatives of the Memher States on the
-.
Permancni Cauncil, thc teKiof a noie rcnt by Ili; I~\cellencyI>r lidgardo I'u
Hiirnira. hlinijter of Foreign Arldirbor Ilonduras. Io His Exccllcncythe Minisicr
of Iorc~gnAifÿirs irf 'li~.aragua,u,hich rcadi \crbatim as ljllous
"Official Note No. 243 DSM. Tegucigalpa, D.C. April 19, 1983. Ex-
cellency: 1ha~e the honor to address Your Excellencyto inform you that
today a1 eleven hours, while a fishing boat was navigating in territorial
waters of Horiduras, it was pursued by a patrol boat of the Sandinista
Peo~le'sArmv and insistentlv harassed. In view of this circumstance. Iwo
pat;ol boats ofthe Governméntof Honduras went in aid of the aforehen-
tioned fishing boat, and bllowing this four more patrol boats of the army
of that country amved, and an aÏmed confrontation occurred in ond dur an
territorial WdtCrS.at longitude 82.40"" and latitude 15.10"' north in the
Atlantic Oceaii. Later, the two Honduran patrol hoats returned to their
bases. In view ofacts such as those that 1recount to Your Excellency, which
can be seen as an act of hostilitv and ae-.ession ae-inst the territorial
iiitegrii) of tlon<lura%.m) Cii~\crnmcnt. h) thii iiicdns. prcseiii, its niost
vrgorou\ protcrtIO the Jisiinguishc.l Gi>\crnmcnt<IINic.ir.igua and \c:r
iibeli,~hli~1.)reiicrate .inx more ihst irail; ;udj ihosc cilcd continue
Io occur,-they will continue to he repelled hy the army of Honduras in
fulfillment of ils constitutional functions of defending the national sover-
eignty and making use of the right of self-defenseestahlished in multilateral
lezal instruments. I wish to remind Your Excellencv once more of the
c&tinuing rehsal of the Government of Nicaragua to attend a meeting of
naval chiefs planned since several months ago, aimed at secking machinery
for preventing acts such as those that motivate this note of proÏest. ~cce~Ï,
Excellency,the assurancesof my highestconsideration. Edgardo Par Barnica,
Minister of Foreign AtTaks."
Accept, Excellency,the renewed assurances of my highestconsideration.
(Signeil) Roberto Mnn~iNEzORDO<T~,
Ambassador. EXHIBITS SUBMIiTEI) BY THE STATES 343
NOTE NO.25/83 FROM ntE PIIRMANENTMtSSlOS OF HONDURAS TRANSCRIBING THE
No. 25/83/MPH/OEA/CP 30 June 1983.
Excellency:
I have the honor to convey to Your Excellency, and through you to the
Member States of the Permanent Council, the text of the note sent by His
Excellency, the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs ofHonduras, Mr. Arnulfo
Pineda Lapez, to His Excellency,the Minister of Foreign Affairsof Nicaragua,
which reads as follows:
"Tegucigalpa, D.C. 29 June 1983. His Excellency,Mr. Miguel D'Escoto
Brockmann. Minister of Foreign Affairs.Managua. Nicaragua. Excellency:
1am addressine Your ~xcelleniv to nrotest stronelv a new ict of--eeression
againil my co;ntrs by the ~eo~le's'~~ndinist;,icks, whiih took place on
the ninctccnth oi'thi, monih. II ci)nsi\teJ id the \helling of the Honduran
communirv ofCifucnics. eausina the desiruciion of ihr homes of Mr. Ccciliii
I'lorcs ani hlr* Eu\ehia chdein. Despite the ilpcnl) hoitile nature of the
dits Iiks the on< Jr.rcrihcd. ihc Il.inJuriin Iirmy rciraincd froni aniuering
the tire, in one further eiïort to avoid an armed confrontation between ou;
Iwo countries, which the Nicaraguan Government seems determined to
unleash, with the ominous outcome that can be easily predicted. Accept,
Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. Arnulfo
Pineda Lapez, Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs."
Accept, Excellency,the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed) Roberto RAMOS BUSTOS,
Charge d'Affairesa.i.
OF HONDURAS TO THE MtNlSTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRSOP NICARAGUA
No. 26/83/MPH/OEA/CP July 1, 1983.
Excellency :
1 have the honor to convey to you, and through your kindness, to the
representatives of the other Member States on the Permanent Council, the text
of the note sent hy His ExcellencyArnulfo Pineda Lapez,Minister of Foreign
Aiïairs of Honduras, to his Excellencythe Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nica-
ragua. That note reads verbatim as follows:
"Note No. 311 DA. Tegucigalpa, D.C. June 30, 1983. His Excellency
Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, Minister of Foreign Affairs,Managua, Nica-
ragua. Excellency: 1have the honor to address you in regard to Notes Nos.
331-DSM and 306-DA. Dated June 21 and 24 from this Ministry. The
respective notes were in reference to the deaths of United States journalists
Dial Torgerson and Richard Ernest Cross and to injuries suffered by a344 MILITARYAND PARAMlLlTARY ACiIVITIES
Honduran citizen, Francisco Edas Rodriguez, and to the hlowing up of a
truck. Both incidents occurred on the road between Cifuentes and Troies.
The Governmcnt of Honduras again wishes to register its most energëtic
protest as contained in those Notes and after receiving the report of a
commission of military specialists appointed to conduct a thorough investi-
gation of the incidents is fulfillingits obligation to clarify that the cause of
the criminal asi;aultswas not the firingofantitank grenades from Nicaragua
as was initially helieved. It has heen confirmed that they were causedby the
explosion of antitank and antipersonnel mines placed hy the Sandinista
forces on the tlonduran highway with the perverse intent to cause this type
of indiscriminate hloody act in open violation of the territorial integrity of
Honduras. Aci:ept, Excellency,the renewed assurances of my highest con-
sideration."
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highcst consideration.
(Signed) Roberto RAMOS Bus~os,
Chargé#AlTaires a.i.
NOTE NO. 27/83 FROM THE AMBASSAW PERMANEhT RIIPRISENTATIVEOF HONDURAS,
TRANXRlRlNG THE TEXT OF TIIE NOTE SENT BY THE MlNlSTER 01: FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF HIS COmTRY TO TIlII MINISCER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF NICARAGUA OA,TED
JULY 1, 1983
No. 27/83/MPH/OEA/CP July 5, 1983.
Excellency :
1have the honoi. to convey to you, and through your kindness to the repre-
scntatives of the other Member States on the Permanent Council. the text of
a note sent by His ExcellencyArnulfo Pineda Lbpez, Minister of Fo;eign Affairs
of Honduras to His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicara-
gua. That note reads verbatim as follows:
"Note No. 312 D.A. Tegucigalpa,D.C. July 1, 1983.His Excellency Mig-
uel d'Escoto Erockmann, Minister of Foreign Affàirs of Managua, Nicara-
gua. Excellency: 1 am addressing you to protest once again the repeated
acts of harassment by the Sandinista People's Army against Honduran
territory. Yeslerday, June 30, at approximately 15:30 hours, Sandinista
troops fired on Our territory using 50-caliber machine guns in the Cifu-
entes sector. Pis a result of this new act of aggression a Honduran soldicr,
Luis Antonio Artica, was wounded on that same day at 24:OOhours,
midnight, the Sandinista troops continued their constant harassment by
firingon the same sectorwith 81millimetermortars. Today, at approximately
11:OOa.m. the Sandinista People'sAmy opened fire on Honduran territory
in the sector between El Zanjon Hondo and Las Canitas. This time the
Sandinista trooos used small caliber weanons and heaw artillerv. The
actions described above are in addition to'the interminahie list of border
incidents çarried out by the Sandinista army in open provocation of
Honduras, for the purposc of creating a belligerent spirit in Our country,
which would lead to an international escalation of the serious interna1
conflict Nicaragua is experiencing. The armed forces of Honduras have EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES 345
maintained a serene and prudent attitude, but 1 wish to inform Your
Excellency and through you your Government, that those forces will
enereeticallv reoel anv altemot bv the Sandinista Peoole's Armv to enter
our ïerritoj.My Cio;ernme;t hofds the Government 2 ~icara~ia respon-
sible for the serious consequences that could be derived from the continua1
harassment and provocat~ons by the Sandinista People's Army and it
energetically protests once again over its constant aggressive and warlike
actions. The Government of Nicaragua seeks through those actions to
maintain and deepen the climate of tension in the Central American area,
for the ouroose of weakenine the oossibilities of the reeional neeotiation
under way,' sponsored by the coitadora Croup, thusucontradizing the
statements of its leaders who falselymaintain that they desire peace through
dial-gue and ne-otiation. statements that..car more to be intended 70
c<>i,crthe prcparation si .in 2pgrr.rsi.in larger propc>rtioni :ip;iinrt
Ilnu. I'hcGsvcrnmenr ~II'I-liinilii~gainilcmündi of the Go\,ernnient
of Nicaragua that it cease ils actions of harassment and provocation against
Honduras and urges it to commit itself seriously and with responsibility in
the process ofregional negotiation undcr way, which for now is the only
possible path for finding peace and security in Central America. Accept,
Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. Arnulfo
Pineda Lopez, Minister of Foreign Afiirs."
Accept, Excellency,the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed) Roherto MART~NE O~RWNEZ,
Ambassador.
NOTI? NO.29183 PROMTHE AMBASSADO PRRMANENT REPRESENTATIVEOP HONDURAS~~~.
TRANSCRIBINGTAI?TEXT OF THE NOTE SENT BY T1IEACTING MlNlSTER OP FOREIGN
Al'l)\lROP HIS COUNTRYTO THE ACTING MINISTIIR01' 1:ORBIGNAPPAIRSOF
No. 29/83/MPH/OEA/CP July 11, 1983.
Excellency:
i have the honor to address Your Excellency to make known to you, and
through your kindness to the representatives of the other Member States on the
Permanent Council, the tex1 of a note sent by His ExcellencyArnulfo Pineda
Lopez, Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Honduras, to Her Excellency the
Acting Minister of ForeignAffairsof Nicaragua, which rcads verbatim as follows:
"Official Note No. 322 D.A. Tegucigalpa, D.C., July 8, 1983.Excellency:
I am addressing Your Excellency to inform you of the following facts:
(a) On Sunday, July 3, at 16:OOhours, the Honduran soldier Roberto Meza
Ramos, when returning from his guard duty near the La Vigia Ravine,
along the Las Trojes-Cifuentes highway, stepped on a mine, which blew off
his right foot.b) On Tuesday July 5, at Ill00 hours, forces of the Sandini-
sta People's Army opened fire on Honduran positions located in the same
scctor, trying to protect a patrol that was infiltrating ncar Cifuentes, possibly
to continue mining the highway. (c) That same day, first at 20:40 hours
and again at 2215, the Sandinista forces harassed the Honduran positions346 MILIT~Y AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
with group fin: and 81mm. mortars. (d) Finally, at 9:45 hours on July 6,
the Nicaraguan forces renewedthe harassment with heavy weapons, causing
a slight wound in the face of a Honduran soldier hy fragments of rock
impelled by the expansion wave of one of the projectiles. Once more, my
Government ir obliged energetically Io protest these hostile acts of the
Government of Nicaragua, which violate the sovereignty and the territorial
integrity of Honduras, despite the fact that it is aware that, in accordance
with your Note No. 103of July 5, to detract from the serious charges made,
Your Excellencywill reply that they should be attrihuted to 'Pro-Somoza
or other mercsnaries'. 1 consider that that is an easy way to unload res-
ponsibilities aiid to try to give some credibility to the latest propaganda
maneuver of the Government of Nicaragua, in the sense that il is groups of
anti-Sandinistas and the Honduran army itself that attack the Honduran
population and territory for the sole purpose of blaming the Sandinista
forces.1also believe, Madam Minister, that not even the great publicity
resources the Nicaraguan Government has availahle will be sulficient to
sustain such an unlikely plan of action. Accept, Excellency,the renewed
assurances of my highest consideration. Arnulfo Pineda Lapez, Acting
Minister of Foreign Affairs."
Accept, Excellency,the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed) Rohcrto MART~NE O~nuoN~z,
Ambassador.
TAB C :Noni FROH ME PERMAhTNi MISSIONOP COSTA RICA TO THE ORGANIZATION
OF AMERICANSTATB (OASDOCUMENT)
NOTE FaOM THE PERMANFNTMISSIONOF COSTARICA. TRANSMllTlNG THE TEXT OP THE
March 1, 1984.
Excellency:
1 have the honor to transmit to Your Excellency, for your information and
the appropriate purposes, a copy of the note dated Fehruary 29, 1984,addressed
to the Secretary Cieneral of the Organization by the Acting Representative of
Costa Rica, enclosing the tex1of the note sent by the Minister of ForeignAlïairs
and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Alïairs of Nicaragua, on
events that occurrc:don Fehruary 23.
Accept, Excelletcy, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(Siped) ValT. McCo~io,
Assistant SecretaryGeneral,
Officerin charge of the General Secretariat. EXHIBITS SUBMIiTEU BY THE UNITED SXATES 347
OEA-No. 107,
Fehruary 29, 1984.
Excellency :
1have the honor to address Your Excellencyto send you herewith the text of
a note addressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairsand Worship of Costa Rica,
Dr. Carlos JoséGutiérrez,to the Minister of Foreign Aîïairs of Nicaragua, MI.
Mieuel d'Escoto Brockmann.
fhat note describes the serious events that occurred on February 23, 1984,
when members of the Rural Guard of Costa Rica, in Conventillos, wereattacked
with heavy weapons from Nicaraguan territory hy members of the Sandinista
People'sArmy, whilethe former were making an investigation of cattle smuggling
in Costa Rican territory.
1 shall av~reciate it if Your Excellencv will make these events known to the
Amhassad6&, Permanent ~e~resentativésof the Member States, and the ob-
scrvers to the organization of American States.
Accept, Excellency,the renewed assurances of my highest consideration
(Si~ned) Luis E. GUARUIA,
Acting Representative
February 28, 1984
Knowing that Your Excellencyis meeting with the other Ministers of Foreign
Aîïairs of the Contadora Group, it seems to me very important that you
gentlemen study the danger to peace in Central America represented by acts of
aggression such as that 1 referred to in my protest note.
The Government of Costa Rica maintains ils firm will to cooperate with the
effort of pacification yougentlemen are making. But in no way can it permit or
ignore acts of open aggression against its nationdls, members of its public force,
or ils territory.
Accept, Excellency,the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed) Carlos JosÉGWIÉRREZ,
Minister of Foreign Affairsand Worship
San José,February 28, 1984.
Excellency :
1 mus1 address Your Excellency to inform you of the serious evcnts that
occurred las1 February 23, hetween 11:OOa.m. and 12:OOnoon, when members
of the Sandinista People's Amy attacked Costa Kican territory in the border
zone of Conventillos with 50-caliber machine-gun fire and 82-millimeter mortar
fire, seriouslyendangering the livesof members of the Costa Rican Rural Guard,
who were carrying on patrol work.
For the purpose of avoiding a confrontation, the Costa Rican patrol chose
to withdraw. The intense fire continued for more than 45 minutes and left as
evidence numerous impacts of mortar shclls, some of them located more than348 MI1,ITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTlVlTlES
1,000 meters from !he horder line, within the national territory. In addition, as
a result of this att:ick. more than 45 hectares of pastures of the Conventillos
Farm were burned.
1mus1emphasizt: to Your Excellency that the horder line, in the zone where
the attack occurred, is duly marked and that the Costa Rican patrol was doing
regular lookout work in full daylight, to prevent smuggling.
The distinguishcd Government of Nicaragua cannot expect that, in the face
of the incornpreheiisible events that have occurred, the Government of Costa
Rica will maintain the patient and conciliatory attitude that ilhas maintained
until now as a contribution to the pacification of the region. These events
constitute a flagrant violation of the national territory, for which reaso1 must
present a most vigorous protest to Your Excellency'sdistinguished Government,
and state to you ttiat they place in doubt the sincerity of the intentions of the
Government of Nicaragua to reduce tension in the area.
1 likewise helieve it appropriate to inform Your Excellency that, as a conse-
quence of the events mentioned, the Government of Costa Rica hds decided to
postpone the meeting of the Mixed Committee that was going to he held in the
heginning of the coming month of March, as well as to recall the Ambassador
of Costa Rica to Nicaragua for consultation.
Finally, 1must niake Your Excellencysee that, firni as the will of the Govem-
ment of Costa Rica to support al1efforts for hringing peace to Central Arnerica
is, it considers that an essential condition of that attitude is absolute respect
for the territorial iiitegrity of the country, to defend which it will resort to such
means as it deems necessary.
Accept. Excellenm:yt,he renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed) Carlos JosBGUTI~RREZ,
Miuister of Foreign AKairs and Worship.
TARD : NEWS ACCOUNTS FROM COSTARICA
COSTA RICA: MORE ON MONGE CHARGES AGAINST NICARAGUA
(Excerpts) San Jose, 1 Aug (ACAN-EFE) - Costa Rican Prcsident Luis
Alherto Monge Alvarez today levied several charges against the Nicaraguan
Government. accu!,ineiu of failinu .o nunish three dinlomats involved in terrorist
niiiritics and ofprcl\oaitionson thea>unty'h norihern border (p~>%~g orn~ticdj.
In a bpeïch bro,iJca,t 10the nation ovcr radio and iclc\~ision.Prcsidcni Monge
reiterated Costa Rica's neutralitv. while warnine that his Government will tu;n
to the Inter-American system iLthe event that war breaks out hetween Central
American nations.
Monge added thit Costa Rica'sneutrality in a (potential - fris)Central Amen-
can theater of war can be strengthened only hy mutual respect among neighhor-
ing countnes.
After noting the elforts that his Government is mdking Io overcome the
economic crisis with which the nation is aiïiicted, Monge Alvarez denounced the
Costa Rican left xing which, at the same lime that the diplomatic incident was EXHIBITS SUBMITI'ED BY THE UNITED STAES 349
taking place with the Nicaraguans, has stepped up acts of social agitation in an
effort to destabilize the democratic system.
On the case of the Nicaraguan diplomats, Monge said: "1 wish to alert my
compatriots Io the gravity of this incident, hecause the Nicaraguan Government
has failed to show due respect to the Costa Rican people and Government."
(Passage omitted.)
After firmly stating that his Government will not fall "into the provocatory
~~,n"..Mon~e~~'id that his countrv will avoid confrontations. "but will not
e\p,ide,in .in)\iay .ind under ;iiiy:ircum\iances. rhc dut) I<Id:icnd our icrriiori.îl
iiitcgrii" anil th< riglit<>Ii\,ein pz.icc.witlrout ii>rcigninlcrfcrc.ii:c oiany kind".
bin~ ~lv. the C<I>I~Kiair Pre\idcnt nieniioncd tlir rll;>rt\ th:ii arc bciiir made
to mainiai"~neutrality and mutual respect, "which influenced the deciSion to
revoke Eden Pastora's visa".
Residents of Cristo Rey de Los Chiles charged yesterday in Ciudad Quesada
that a patrol of Sandinist soldiers raided their village hetween Saturday and
Sunday.
Col. Rolando Francis, rural police chief, said yesterday afternoon that the
Corps would investigate the case.
Public Security Minister Harry Wohlstein did not know the details of the
incident and asked Colonel Francis to investigate the facts.
According to the residents, eight heavily armed Sandinist soldiers carrying
modern radio communications equipment marched into the town at 1600 on
Saturday. The town is located 15km inside Costa Rican territory.
The invaders said that they were searching for deserters from the Sandinist
People's Amy (EPS) and for anti-Sandinists. Because of their action, the mem-
bers of some 20 area families decided to flee to the mountains. They returned to
their homes the next day, after the patrol left the town.
The Sandinists left early Sunday morning and took two Nicaraguans with
them as prisoners.
The townspeople were so alarmed that even yesterday they refusedto sleep in
their homes, for fear that the Sandinists might return.
It was also reported that on Saturday evening, one resident went to the rural
Police Post a1 Los Chiles to report what had happened, but no attempt was
made to verify the report because of a lack of personnel.
Colonel Francis acknowledged this and said that they were getting ready to
leave early today in order to investigate.
The report was disclosed hours after Col. Rafael Artavia Jaramillo reported
in San José,after touring towns near Santa Cecilia, that the entire border region
was calm.
He said that during the past week he and a contingent of Civil Guards had
toured the towns ofSanta Cecilia,Armenia, Inocentes, Los Angeles, SanAntonio,
San Cristohal, Brasilia, El Chingo, La Virgen and Verdun, and that the local
townspeople had told him that everything was normal.
According to Artavia, the townspeople are very calm. He did not observe
great Sandinist military activity in the area, although reports from Los Chiles
and Upala claim that vigilance has heen increased. MILITARY AhV PARAMILITARYACTIVITIES
FILI'OF QUOTATIONS ON CENTRAL AMERICAN ISSUES
(From La Nacionii?ternacional S,an José,Costa Rica, Central American Edition
of September 22-28, 1983 - original in Spanish)
"Without Support"
Costa Rica - The ArchbishopofSan Salvador,Msgr Arturo Riveray Damas
said Sepiember 15 in San Jose that the Salvadoran peo~le ~o not support~t~e
guerrillas.
The prelate participated in the first lnterdisciplinary Course on Human Rights,
held in San José.
He declared that. if the Salvadoran -uerrillas had . .ular..uooort at this time,
they would already have won.
He explained th;it the area of operations of these forces is located in places
that are 70 per cent depopulated, and although their attacks are directed at
im~ortant communities. thev do not remain there. but retreat instead.
Msgr. Rivera y 1)amas affirmed that there is ni doubt that the insurgents are
receiving foreign a:;sistanceand that they have gained expenence and increased
.
effectivenessin their tactics of attack.
Even so, he noted that the only way to resolve the Salvadoran coniiict is
dialogue; he discounted the possibility of finding a resolution through armed
confrontation. (9128183MS)
(Comment by FMLN-FDR represenotfii'eRuben Zamora at open meeting in
Washington June21. 1983, sponsored by Washington Office on Latin America
(WOLA))
Responding to a question, Zamora said that the FMLN takes "full responsi-
bility" for the death of Lt. Commander Schaufelherger who was "carrying a
machine-gun in one hand and a walkie-talkie in the other. The advisers weren't
sent here to teach liberal arts . . .We can't guarantee that this won't happen
again." (9128183MS)
(Interview with Cqxra Rican ForeignMinister FernundoVolio, RPC television,
Panama, July 30, i983 - original in Spanish - FBIS)
1am extremely puuled about the great international commotion over US fleet
maneuvers in Central American waters. since nothing is being said hy the same
international communitv about these 14lSovietl shi~sand other shios that have
. .
arrived in Nicaragua over many years - 4 years - with war materiel. This has
altered the region's military balance and created an international communist
threat to the entire region. It has clearly and irrefutably established the presence
of the USSR and Cuba in Central America. This presence is very dangerous -
not only to Central America, the entire Cental American isthmus, but to al1
Latin America. There is an uproar about US iieet maneuvers, but not about this
ominous Soviet presence inour territory, Central America. (9/28/83 MS) EXEIIBI TJBMITII!L>BY TIIII UNITEDSTATES 351
(Interview with Cosra Ric~nForeign Minisrer Volio, RPC television, Panama,
July 30, 1983- original in Spanish- FBIS)
tvcry coninlunisi régime 1s cxpansioni\t. becïusc Io fulfill its uhjcrIi\~e~
international iommunism rhuuld and musi e.\tcnd conimunisi Jominliiiun cvery-
u,here hot cvcn ihc cominiinisls ihemsrlvcsdeny lhis Hcncc.tliihind of hca\,il)
armed régime - armed heyond its needs for national defense - represents a
threat to our peoples and Io Costa Rica. The international community must,
therefore, wake up from its lethargy and come to the defense of countrics like
Panama and Costa Rica, which want to live in freedom. (9/28/83 MS)
(PresidenrLuis Alberro Monxe of CosluRica. in conversation Auausr14, 1983.
with Senator Tsongas, ~b&reisman ~han&n, Taylor of ~osrin Globe and
Zuckerman of ArlanricMonrhly- translated from Spanish)
There can be no peace without liberty. Peace in Central America mus1 cross
over the bridge of democratic elections. (9130183MS)
(Journalist Michuel Kramer in theSepiemher 12 issue ofNew York magazine)
Those who dismiss the Sandinistas' extr;iterritorial-rrehv etorictaren
deludin- themselves. When Comandantc Bavdrdo Arce savs "WCwill never eive -
up supporting iiur hroihers in FI Salv.idor". he me;iil.AnJ Sanrlinisia drlèn,c
mini\trr tluniberto Ortcpd is cqually seriou, u,hcn he 53)s. 'Of course we arc
no1ashamerl 10hc hclnine FI Sïivador \\'c uould like lu hcln a11rc\olutions"
In practice, such word; have translated into supplying the ~afvadoran guerrillas
with whatever they need. (And the guerrilla high command operates from a
headquarters in Managua.) (10/3/83 MS)
(Full tex1 of letter to Nicdrdguan Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega from US
CongressrnenBarnes, Zublocki, Humiiron, Soiurz, Fascell,Torricelli, Mikulski,
Slark, Ale.rander,Wrighr, Yorrun and Leach,June 2,1983)
We are writing because of our alarm over the current situation in Nicaragua.
The tragic fighting which is now taking place threatens to turn into full-scale
civil war. oossiblv with international ramifications. Alone with this we see a
conspicuo;s ~uban presence, serious human rights violatiuns, and the absence
of democratic rights and of movement toward the institution of a truly demo-
cratic system.
We helieve il is now imperative that the Government of Nicaragua open
negotiations with the democratic opposition both inside and outside of Nicaragua
with a view to sceking a political solution which would arrest the trend toward
civilwar, repression, and Cuhan domination, and would place Nicaragua on the
path toward the achicvement of the objectives agreed to at the 17th Consultative
Meeting of the Organization of American States in 1979.
WCappreciate your consideration of this very important matter.
(10/3/83 MS)352 MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY AC~IVITII?.~
(Nicoru~aim /)<./r~t.J<i.i~rrr llunrhr,rri~Orregu.quoted in Managua's Id Pr<.,içu.
Ocrohrr 2 1983 - original in Spani,h)
Our army will repel armed attacks from the contras no matter where they
come from . . We will pursue them in those territories which we consider no
man's lands near oiir borders. (10/4/83 MS)
(Nicaraguan Inrerior Minisler ïbmas Borge, speech at 2nd anniversary of the
FSLN in Managua. July 19, 1981 - translatcd from Spanish - FBIS)
This revolution goes heyond our horders. Our revolution was always inter-
nationalist from the moment Sandino fought in La Segovia. (10/4/83 MS)
(From Sandinisra posrer at Managua airport, 1983, quoting from Sandino -
original in Spanish)
Frontiers should not exist between the peoples of Latin America because we
al1share the same fate against the Yankee imperialists. (10/4/83 MS)
Eulogy by Salvailoran guerrilla leader Cayerano Carpio at funeral services in
Managua for Con~mander Ana Maria, April 11, 1983 - translated [rom
Spanish - FBIS)
. . .the memhers of the Directorate and al1its working teams, some inside the
country and others outside the country, are steadfastly at work fully aware of
the need to unite the interna1 struggle with international solidarity and with the
struggle of al1 peoples for the liberation of Central America and El Salvador.
That is whv we move from one countrv 10 another . . The Central American
people;' 5trugglc ir one singlc ,trugglc a11the Central ,\merisan nations ti.111
healrne ilne rev<~lu!ionary firc ifCIS iniperialirm carries uut itjaggrcsri\,e plans
againri Nicaragua .inciI!ISal\ador. (IU/J,83 MS)
(From statement issued Marc1112, 1983, by the ERP (Salvadoran) General
Command, signed by Commanders 'Mariana', 'Luisa', 'Balta', 'Chico', 'Jonas'
and Joaquin Villalobos - original in Spanish - FBIS)
. . we cannot and should no1iail to include our plans within the framework of
a regional conflict, in which the intcrests of the peoples of Central America. the
Caribbean and Latin America in general are at stake. (lO/5/83 MS)
(Leader of FPL (Salvadoran) guerrillas quoted hy a Copley News Service
reporter who spent 12 days with the guerrillas, cited in The Nriv World(NY),
Morch 19. 1981 - translated from Spanish)
The Mexicans sliould not think because they are helping us now, that they
will escape revolution. We know who they are and after we have won in El EXHIBITS SUBMlmD BY THE UNITED STATES 353
Salvador and Guatemala we will give fraternal help to Our Mexican revolution-
ary friends. (10/5/83 MS)
(The Nicaraguan FSLN "72-Hour Document" of Ocioher 5. 1979 - translated
from Spanish)
The popular Sandinista revolution bases ils forcign policy on the full exercise
of national sovereignty and independence and on the principle of revolutionary
internationalism. (10/5/83 MS)
(From the rnajority(Boland) reporiof ihe US flousePermanenrSelecrCommiiiee
on fnrelligence "to amend the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 1983 to
prohibit US support for military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua . . ."
May 13, 1983)
At the lime of the filing of this report, the Committee believes that the
intelligence available to il continues to support the following judgments with
certainty:
A major portion of the arms and other material sent by Cuba and other
communist countries to the Salvadoran insurgents transits Nicaragua with
the permission and assistance of the Sandinistas.
The Salvadoran insurgents rely on the use of sites in Nicaragua, some of
which are located in Managua itself, for communications, command-and-
control, and for the logistics to conduct their financial, material and
propaganda activities.
The Sandinista leadership sanctions and directly facilitates al1of the above
~~~~~-~~.~~-~
Nicaragua provides a range of other support activities, including secure
transit of insurrents to and from Cuba, and assistance to the insurg-nts in
planning their ictivities in El Salvador.
In addition, Nicaragua and Cuba have provided - and appear 10continue
providing - training to the Salvadoran insurgents.
Cuban and Sandinista political support for the Salvadoran insurgents has
been unequivocable for years. The Committee concludes that similarlystrong
military support has becn the hidden compliment of overt support.
(lO/5/83 MS)
(From a speech, "What 1s Happening in Central America", by Veneruelan
author and intellectual Carlos Rangel (delivered at a Caracas conference spon-
sored by Enfique Magazine July 15, 1983) - translated from Spanish)
If one analyzes what ishappening in Central America, it really becomesevidcnt
that the Nicarapuan process, the Nicaraguan revolution, is being taken over by
the communistempi;e, and thdt the oily thing slowing down-the process 'r
governing it are tactical considerations. This is right there in the open, it is
overtly admitted. Most or al1 Sandinista commanders are Marxist-Leninists.
Their behavior proves it. Their statements, their trips, their vote in the United
Nations, the style of annual demonstrations, of the celebration of the anniversary354 MlLlTAR Y ND PARAMILITARY ACTlVlTlES
of the revolution, th: fact they get arms and advisers from communisi countries,
in short there is sucli a long list or evidence that it is needless to comment upon
it...
There is objective evidenceof the real aim of the Salvadoran guerrilla. There
is no mistaking here. There are well-known statements of Icadcrs such as
Cayeiano Carpio - who died in those rather strange circumstances known to
us al1 - who declared to "uno mas uno", in Mexico, that there is only one
revolution in Central America and that the turn of Costa Rica would also come.
That irrcpronchnbly dcmocraiic and ;im;i/ing ,m:ill cuuntry. a country iiiihi>ut
;in ïrniy. one ihat dccs noi ihrcaten11,neighhors or anyhod) clbe 13,ncvcrthclcsr.
one of the objective:;of this Central American revolutionary process
Weare witiessing a process through which Nicaragua is hécomingcommunist ;
one in which it is being used to subsequently conquer the whole of Central
America. The communist empire will remain aggressive as long as a non-
communistcountry exists.Communist eovernment isno1interested incoexistence.
It needs to expand, il needs to annihiite those enemies it creates on its borders
as soon ;is ilgrabs power. Democracy in Costa Rica cannot be accepted, it
cannot be tolerated, hecause it constitutes a permanent ternptation for the
population of Nicaragua. (10/6/83 MS)
(From article in PrinceronAlumni Weekly,September 7, 1983, by CBS documen-
tary producer CVilliun~Ursclrel.Jr.,rcproduced in the CongresrionulRecord)
The Sandinista government forces the farmers to seIl their crops to the State
at very low, fixed prices. The government arhitrarily confiscates their land,
commandeers their (cars,their trucks, and their sons for the military. Those who
complain or refuse 2.resent to La Rarranca prison near Esteli which a Sandinista
"vigilante" told me "probably" holds more than 350 men and women. They sit,
month after month, without trial, accuscd of "anti-patriotic" sentiments . . .
What kas happ..ed to the Sandinistas in Nicaraeua -eminds me of Cuba. A
Icii-wing pariy. uitt gcnuinc popular \Lpport, uverthrcu a rcprer,i\<: righi-\ring
rcginic. Rui being nuJ: up of lusi ,>nepart!. thc neu governmcni h;ir bccoinc
incr~.ïa~nglyra\r.hiii and d~ci~iori~lIo mmni;Jtn iii iovcrcigniy. (10/6 83 .VS)
(From "Central Arnerican Quagmire" article hy Alun Riding, N. Y TintesBureau
Chief in Mexico City, in "America and the World" issue of ForeignAfairs,
1983, p.651)
But the Sandinistas dominate al1 aspects of the nation's lice through their
powerful military, party and bureaucratic machines. And they have not only
moved farther and faster to the Left than many Nicaraguans hoped, but they
have also concentrated power in the hands of the nine-man National Directorate
to such an extent that any suggestion of concessions to the opposition is vetoed
by the radicals. The issue, then, is not how truly Marxist-Leninist the régimewill
become, but rather how Stalinist; once again, it is less a question of ideology
than one of pourer. (10/8/83 BW) EXHIBITS SUBMlTTED BY THE UPIITEU STATES 355
(From interview with Eden Pastora in the San Pedro Sula El Tiempo,Ocrober
25, 1982, in Spanish)
Peace in Central America is inextriçably linked to Nicaragua. There can be no
peace in Central America if there is no interna1 peace in Nicaragua. There çdn
be no peacc in Nicaragua as long as the slaughter of the Miskitos, Sumus and
Ramas continues; as long as there is no freedom of the press; and as long as
the occupation by Cuban, German, Soviet and Bulgarian troops continues.
This is what we resent in these nine commanders. We were the only people in
the world capable of practicing nonalignment, because we made our revoluiion
in the 20th century supported in the first two years by $1.2 billion inaid from
around the world. We got help from everyone: from the gringos, Gemans,
Russians, French, Spanish, Swedes, Nonvegians - from al1 of Europe, Latin
America and the Arab world . . .we could have practiced polydependency in
order to avoid falling into a dependency on one of the two superpowers . . We
lost the chance that no other people in the world had: the chance to make a
true revolution, genuine, the prototype of a Latin American revolution.
(IO/8/83 BW)
(Nicaraguan poet Pahlo Anronio Cuudru, in an interview in La Nucion
InternacionalOcrober 5. 1983 - original in Spanish)
1am not totallv in exile. but 1 reoresent within that atmosohere a kind of
interniil exilc: I ;im crcluile<land marginali~cdjust as isanyone who suggeiis an
indepcndcnt point of vicwor who dcicnds the indepenJence t~l'thcivrttcr in the
faceof the power of the State . . .
1am against the perversion of the revolution which they have engineered . . .
My obligation as a poet is to hold up the banner of resistance against the
tremendous damage which is being done to Nicaraguan culture. (10/11/83 MS)
(From a pamphlet prepared by several Nicaraguan FSLN organizations in
commemoration of the 16th anniversary of the death of Che Guevara, quoted
in pro-GRN U NuevoBiario Ocrober8, 1983 - original in Spanish)
For us Sandinistas evoking Che Guevara is to keep in mind the projection
without frontiers of the revolutionary, of the internationalist, of the man who
goes in search of peace. (10/13/83 MS)
(From a Sepren~he2r1, 1983, article inThe Wu.~hhinprP oost,"Base for Fcrrying
Arms to El Salvador Found in Nicaragua")
k.tero Jc l'silrc R:imm, 'Iiraragu;~- A r:idio-cquipped a,areh<>uaeand bo;it
F~:ilii).disguircass li~hing~iiopcrati\con an isliinInnorihiicstcrn Fiickrag~~.
has servedfor three years as a transhipment point for smuggling arms to El
Salvador. numerous residents here sav.
~liho&h the Nicaraguan Govern;nent denies the operation, fishetmen and
others in several tiny coastal hamlets nearby say that soldiers in military vehicles
regularly trucked wooden boxes to the water's edge and loaded them in motor-
powered launches bound for El Salvador's Coast40 miles to the north.356 MILITARY AND PARAMII.ITARY ACTIVITIES
Fishermen renom occasionallv findine similar wooden boxes containine foot-
-
long "bazookas" - presumably mortar shells or similar munitions - on shore
norrh of the mouth of this estuary where the boats battle the surf to enter the
A 14-boat fleet, including half a dozen large dugout canoes that can carry
thousands of pounds of cargo, has been involved in the operation, residents say,
with regular departiires at two-week intervals . . .
Anti-Sandinista "counterrevolutionaries" attacked the island Sept. 14,blowing
up the warehouse and three small boats . . .
Sandinista authorities claimed the FDN had attacked the state-financed Mario
Carrillo fishing cooperative. Barricada, the orricial newspaper, condemned the
~ ~~ ~ as "irratio~ ~ cr~minalitv".
. . inIWO visitstu La (:onchi, ihc swampy island ba,e sai<lby ihr.Governnient
IO housc the Mario CarriIlil coopcraiivc. reporters round no r.v~denccthc l'diiliiy
was ever used for fijhing . . .
Fishermen and other residents who live in huts lining this tangled estuary, and
also small farmers and fishermen in Jiquilillo, Padre Ramos, Venecia and other
nearby hamlets, said La Concha island was not a fishing cooperative but a
"militarv hase".
~ ~ ~ ~
... "1 don't get iiivolved in politics, but everyone around here knows they are
carr.ing-the arrns to El Salvador". said the wife of a Padre Ramos fishçrman.
(10/14/83 MS)
***
(From the WashingronPosr's For ihe Record column, October 18, 1983,p. A16)
From a statemenr before the Organization of American States' Human Rights
Commission by Bernard Nietshrnann, a geography professor at the University
of California, Berk<:ley:
1 had the opportunity [this year] to go inside Nicaragua with the invitation
from the Miskito, Sumo and Rama nations to visit their territory. I was in a
Miskito area in eastern Nicaragua for several weeks. 1 traveled from village to
village, staying for siaryinglengths of lime depcnding on security considerations.
1 talked to hundreds of people, lived with them, ate what they were barely
managing to live on, experienced the conditions, met many people l'd known
from my previous visitsyears ago, listened and asked questions, and carried out
research on what had happened to them during the years sincethe 1979Sandinista
revolution . ..
11is with sadness that 1 repon widespread, systematic and arbitrary human
rights violations in Miskito lndian communities. These violations by the
Sandinista Governinent include arbitrary killings, arrests and interrogations;
rapes; torture; continuing forced relocations of villagepopulations; destruction
of villages; restriction and prohibition of freedom of travel; prohibition of village
food oroduction: restrict~~n and denial of relieio-s freedom: and the lootine of
hous~holds and Sackingof villages . . .
From their violations of human rights of lndian peoples, the Sandinistas have
created a pcople in rebellion, lndian peoples united against them. United because
of interna1 not external reasons. United because of what has happened 10 them
at the hands of the Sandinistas. (10/18/83 JH) EXHIBITS SUBMIITBD RY TIIE UNITED STATF3 357
(From an article hy LoivrenceE Hurrison titled "We Tried to Accept Nicaragua's
Revolution". The WashingtonPosr, Thursda): June 30. 1983)
Weprovided assistance valued at $120 million, including 100,000tons of food.
We had tried very hard to huild that new relationship. But the effort failed,
principally, 1helieve,hecause the Sandinistas could not live with a positive image
of the US Government. They did not try al all. And many in the United States
cheered them on. (lO/l8/83 BW)
(From an article hy AndréFontaine titlcd "I-low Many Vietnams?', h Monde,
Augitst 3,1983, translated/reprinted in WurldPress Revie~vV, olume 30, Issue 10,
Octoher, 1983)
Many fundamental reasons warrant such a vote [to cul off covert funds to
anti-Sandinista forces], even iit is only a rejection of Reagan's simplifications.
Nevertheless, it gives Soviet President Andropov and his allies in Havana and
Managua too much confidence. The USSR is stepping up arms deliveries to
Nicaragua and, through il, to the Salvadoran rebels, causing Reagan increasing
concern. He sees the trouble threatening the Panama Canal and the US
southern flank. (10/20/83RH )
(From Joint Communiqué of the Nicaraguan opposition - ARBE, FBN,
MISURA, and UTRANE, Augu.st15, 1983)
Central American stability will hecome a reality only when there is a truly
democratic government in Nicaragua that willexpress the free will of the people
of Nicaragua through free elections, the observance of freedom of the press, of
relieion. of thoupht. of soeech. and of assemblv. as well as the establishment of
genuinc social ,usiicc. A demoïratiz go\crnnient th31 ul<~uldrcspond tu thc
n;iiionxI intcrcsts urihc Nicaragu;in pcoplc ;andnot to the expansionisi intcresis
ofthe Si>vicilinion A a-vernmcni th~t hec~use0111sJcmocrxtic ~rincirilc\u.111
guarantee peace, progress and dcvclopment in the region. (i0/20i83 MS)
(Arisrides Calvani, Secretary General of the Christian Democratic Organization
of Latin America and former Venezuelan Foreign Minister, quoted in Lu Nucion
lnrernacir~nal,edition of Octuber 13-19. 1983- original in Spanish)
The Sandinista Government refuses to opcn the way to a genuine process of
democratization . . .It's not true that peace must be achieved first and Iater
democracy, hecause without democracy there can be no peace. (10/20/83 MS)
(Archbishop of Managua Msgr. Miguel Ohando y Bravo, homily of Octoher 9,
1983 - original in Spanish)
1 am afraid that Our people may lose their smile [of hope], once they stop358 MILITARY AND I'ARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
being Nicaraguans, because we are already too influenced by other pcople who
arc no1 Nicaraguan (10/20/83MS)
***
(From La Nacion h~iernacional (San José, Costa Rica) edition of November
2, 1983)
Panama. The Panamanian Hueo Soadafora said Octoher 20 that the
Revolutionary Democratic ~lliancei~~~~) of Nicaragua "does not reject the
Sandinista Revolution" and that that movement, directed by Eden Pastora, is
neither "counter-re~~olutionarynor anti-Sandinista".
Spadafora, former Vice Minister of Health of Panama, stated that "ARDE is
attacking the totalirarianism of the nine" (in rcference to the Commanders of
the Sandinista Front) who "have yoked themselves Io the car1 of Soviet
irnperialism".
Fighter in the war of Guinea-Bissau (1966) at the side of African leader
Amilcar Carbral aiid in the overthrow of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio
Somoza (1978-1979). Soadafora said that he now fiehts toeether with Pastora
because his moveiiieni, ARDE, "is revolutionar~, nnnyaligned and anti-
imperialist". (11/9/83 MS)
(From La Nocion /nfernacional (San José, Costa Rica) edition of November
2, 1983)
US-Nicaragua: for each a diplomatic "round"
The decision by the US House of Representatives to reject, by a wide majority,
funding to the Central Intelligence Agency (CM) to help the rebcls who are
trying to overthrow the Sandinista régime was"a hlow" in favor of Nicaragua
in the diplomatic and verbal battle in which il kas been involved with the United
States for thelas1si:veral months.
Nonetheless, the latter nation achieved a point in its favor with the virtual
collapse of a peace plan for the region which was presented to the Americans hy
Foreign Minister MiguelD'Escoto and which didn't even get any response [rom
cither Central America or the Contadora Group - formed by Mexico, Venezuela,
Colombia and Paiiiima . . .
Oral Arguments on the Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 25 and 27 April and 10 May 1984, President Elias presiding