Assembly urges support for Contadora efforts towards negotiated settlement in Central America.

The General Assembly on 18 November asked the Contadora Group and Support Group to persevere in their valuable efforts to achieve peace in Central America, and urged all States to continue to give them their "resolute support".

The Assembly made its appeal in adopting without a vote resolution 41/37 on the situation in Central America.

The Assembly reaffirmed its conviction that a global, comprehensive and negotiated solution of the conflict in Central America required that all States fully respect the principles of international law enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Also, it expressed the conviction that the peoples of Latin America wished to achieve peace, development and justice without outside interference, agreeing that the worsening of the crisis in Central America could create serious tensions and conflicts throughout the continent.

The resolution was sponsored by the Contadora Group (Colombia, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela) and its Support Group (Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay).

In a joint declaration (A/41/662-S/18373) entitled "Peace is still possible in Central America," issued on 1 October, those countries said Latin America did not wish any Central American State to threaten the stability or security of other States. The Governments directly or indirectly involved in the conflict had the primary responsibility for preventing war. "War cannot be avoided if the protagonists want war. This war, however, is still not inevitable", the Contadora and Support Groups declared.

Introducing the draft on 18 November, Andres Anguilar (Venezuela) noted that it had been inspired by a decision adopted on 14 November at the Organization of American States (OAS) meeting inn Guatemala City, and that the basic motivation behind the text was to avert war and defend peace in Central America. A speedy solution to the conflict was one of the greatest concerns of the international community, he declared.

The Assembly had before it the most recent draft of the "Contadora Act on Peace and Co-operation in Central America", contained in a report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Central America (A/40/1136-S/18184) that was considered at a Security Council meeting in July (see UN Chronicle, 1986, No. 5). The text - intended to be the basis for a negotiated settlement to the problems in the region - contains measures for far-reaching co-operation in political, security, economic and social affairs.

The Secretary-General noted that the latest version reflected changes with regard to the two points of disagreement - military manouevres and arms control and verification. "The new formulations do not reflect exactly the viewpoints of any State of the region, but rather represent an effort to harmonize the proposals submitted by the Central American countries", the report said. Those countries had had difficulties in reconciling national security interests with those of the region as a whole, and with the problems created by increasing military activities, the Secretary-General pointed out.

Statements

The views of more than 65 countries were reflected in the debate on the situation in Central America, held on 17 and 18 November.

Contadora views: Mr. Aguilar (Venezuela) said the efforts of the Contadora and Support Groups for a peaceful and negotiated solution to the situation had received growing support from the international community, but were not intended to substitute for the responsibilities of the Governments directly or indirectly involved in the crisis. The Group had prevented the deterioration of a situation that might lead to a general conflict and had achieved agreement on the basis for an overall solution. Foreign intervention continued to be an unfortunate ingredient in Central American history. But the present international circumstances did not allow for anachronistic attitudes of domination or subjugation of weaker peoples by the most powerful. Latin America must be a zone of peace.

Carlos Alban Holguin (Columbia) said that peace in Central America could be achieved only through respect for the international legal system and the United Nations Charter. Restoration of dialogue within the Contadora process was indispensable, as it would contribute to maintaining faith in peace, however tenuous. States of the region must settle the conflict, and countries with links to and interests in the region must show respect for the Central American countries' will. States acting as mediators in the situation must remain scrupulously neutral. "The final chapter of Contadora has not been written because peace has not been achieved in Central America", he said. The draft Contadora Act was a "true model of systematic diplomatic efforts made in the quest for mediation in a tormented region".

Mario Moya-Palencia (Mexico) said the permanence of the inter-American system was a "very important pawn" in the world balance. The Central American crisis had again tested the region's capacity to find solutions to its own problems, which would require the goodwill of both the countries in the region and those with links to and interests in it. Disagreement with a political system was not a valid reason to carry out actions that contradicted international law. Attempts at destabilization and military escalation reduced the possibilities of understanding. The Contadora process could not substitute for the political responsibility of the Central American Governments.

David Samudio (Panama) said the Secretaries-General of both the United Nations and the OAS had agreed that the causes of the worsening situation in Central America were conflicting ideologies, attempts to impose unilateral solutions and the use of force. Central American countries must overcome their differences and mutual mistrust and show determination to negotiate the necessary final adjustments to the Contadora Act. Prevailing social and political conditions were not hampering peace, he emphasized. The debate on the situation in Central America, instead of dealing with "threats to international peace and security, and peace initiatives", should focus on joint action to rebuild economies devastated by war and to restore the national integrity destroyed by economic, social and political differences.

Support Group: George A. Maciel (Brazil) said Group members had expressed serious concern over indications that the States with interests in the region were acting "to place themselves in positions of force and, indirectly, to make the negotiating process unproductive". The granting of any kind of military assistance to the parties involved in the conflict contributed to the escalation of tensions in the region.

Marcelo E.R. Delpech (Argentina) said that Central American countries were now living through a crucial period as they tried to change old structures. When work on the Contadora Act began, it had seemed like a utopian dream, but its completion showed what dialogue could achieve. If it were accepted by the countries concerned and its provisions complied with, peace and progress in the area would be guaranteed.

Julio Cesar Lupinacci (Uruguay) said a just and lasting peace in Central America could be achieved only through strict respect by all States of the principle of non-intervention. Any comprehensive settlement must encompass political, military, social and economic aspects of the crisis. Bilateral differences between countries of the region and those with ties to and interests in the area were profoundly disturbing factors that must be overcome.

Carlos Alzamora (Peru) said that every act of intervention unnecessarily radicalized the political process in the region and jeopardized the future for democracy. Ending foreign intervention, however, would not in itself solve the Central American problem; that would require extension of the Contadora negotiating process to guarantee security to all those directly concerned, ensure respect for their right to self-determination, and open the way to national unity and regional brotherhood.

Parties concerned: Nora Astorga-Gadea (Nicaragua) noted that there had been an increase of more than 10,000 per cent in United States military assistance to Central American countries between 1980 and 1986, from $10 million to over $1 billion. In addition to another $200 million that had been approved for the Nicaraguan counter-revolution, there was unofficial aid from so-called "private networks", exemplified by the aircraft recently downed in Nicaraguan territory. That assistance had but one objective - destruction of the Nicaraguan revolution through a regional war of "incalculable dimensions".

Repeatedly, the Contadora countries had called for suspension of support for all irregular forces trying to destabilize the Central American States. United States aggression had led to serious economic and social problems in Honduras, Costa Rica and El Salvador. In Honduras there were now three armies - the American army, the Honduran army and the contras.

Nicaragua had sought untiringly for a peaceful solution through bilateral and regional negotiations, and had been the only country to sign the Contadora Act, but the United States had consistently, opposed negotiation, Nicaragua was forging its own revolution and was threatening the security of its neighbours, much less the United States. The small, poor underdeveloped countries of Central America were offering new terms of reference for the third world. "What is being decided on in Central America are the social changes required by two thirds of mankind to achieve a minimum level of living and survival in order to recover their dignity, respect and self-determination", she said.

Roberto Martinez Ordonez (Honduras) said that Nicaragua, supported by the Eastern bloc, was clearly trying to build the most powerful army in Central America and support subversion in other countries. With hardly more than 3 million people, and despite severe economic and social problems, it had created an army of 150,000 troops. There were no United States military bases in Honduras, as Nicaragua claimed. Honduras had modernized some of its military facilities because of the irregular situation in the area. It had repeatedly expressed its willingness to set a limit on arms and eliminate military advisers from the region, but Nicaragua refused to agree.

The draft Contadora Act did not solve the problem as a whole; it deferred negotiations on disarmament until after the Act had entered into force, which was tantamount to sanctioning the de facto hegemony of one Central American State over others. Nicaragua's intransigence had prevented the inclusion of essential commitments on security, democratization and national reconciliation. And Nicaragua, at the very time it had begun negotiations within the Contadora context, had instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice against Costa Rica and Honduras, in violation of the commitment by the Central American countries to stay within Contadora. Nicaragua should be reminded that it must abandon other procedures in order to keep the Contadora process alive.

"The scriptural message that peace on earth is for men of goodwill does not seem to apply to Central America", said Roberto Meza (El Salvador). The good intentions and good offices of two countries, Nicaragua and Mexico, were belied by their actions. It was not enough that Nicaragua had expressed its willingness to sign the Contadora Act without refining the arms control system proposed by other Central American countries. While the subtleties of the issue were being debated, Nicaragua had doubled if not tripled its military might, justifying its build-up on the basis of internal guerilla activity and expectation of invasion by a super-Power.

But even more reprehensible morally was Mexico's double standard. No Government could play a good-offices role with respect to a Government that it was systematically, seeking to discredit. Mexico must choose its role - that of good offices within the Contadora Group or that of promoter of the Salvadorian insurgency. Despite its criticisms of Mexico, El Salvador fully endorsed the efforts of the Contadora Group. El Salvador had demonstrated its willingness to engage in dialogue with its insurgents; it wondered, therefore, why Nicaragua would not do likewise with its armed opposition.

Fernando Andrade Diaz-Duran (Guatemala) said the Governments of the region must be prepared to make mutual concessions to reinvigorate the Contadora process and bring about genuine reconciliation at subregional and national levels. Peoples of the region must be able to choose the system of Government they wished, with respect for political and ideological pluralism and fundamental human rights. Violence or foreign interference would only make a solution more difficult. States must refrain from any military or other action designed to exert political pressure in the area.

With the worst regional economic crisis in decades, integration remained the best strategy for promoting joint development. Central Americans welcomed the Secretary-General's initiative for a co-ordinated plan of large-scale assistance to the five Central American countries to help them over the present economic crisis.

Carlos Jose Gutierrez (Costa Rica) said the Central American crisis had arisen "like all crises, from the disturbance of a previously existing balance". In 1978, there were four authoritarian Governments and one democracy in the region; in 1986, there were four democracies and one authoritarian Government. An ideological battle between those who sought to strengthen democracy and those who did not wish to see it achieved stimulated and supported the armed confrontation in Central America. The crisis had been complicated by being converted into an East-West confrontation.

Other views: Oscar Oramas-Oliva (Cuba) disavowed the claim that Central American instabillty was due to an alleged East-West confrontation, and said the economic and social situation of the peoples in the region was the real cause of their problems, "nourished by the most barefaced imperialist interference in their internal affairs" by the United States. The Reagan Administration's policy cynically violated international norms by perpetrating acts of war against a country with which it maintained diplomatic relations. The United States was deliberately obstructing attempts to achieve a negotiated political settlement to the Central American crisis.

Aleksandr M. Belonogov (Soviet Union) said that the course of events in Central America was becoming increasingly dangerous, with the United States intensifying its intervention in Nicaragua's affairs and making no attempt to conceal its goal of overthrowing that Government. The United States policy of aggression was an open challenge lo the international legal order, and it was using interventionist actions to justify allegations of increasing Soviet military presence in Nicaragua. The Soviet Union had "no intention of imposing anything or of setting up military bases in Nicaragua, or anywhere else for that matter". To achieve peace in Central America, there must be an end to interference in the affairs of States in the region, respect for their right to self-determination, establishment of good-neighbourly relations and assistance in resolving urgent social and economic problems. The Soviet union endorsed the efforts of the Contadora and Support Groups.

"For all of its problems, Central America is not the dark and desperate place that some might suggest", said Paul S. Trible, Jr. (United States). Rather it was a region of hope. Costa Rica - a venerable democracy and refuge for those fleeing repression - was an example of what was right in the region. In Guatemala, institutions of liberty had taken root, replacing a military rule plagued by serious human rights abuses. El Salvador was making a difficult transition and had rallied under President Duarte to create a strong foundation for freedom. By contrast, Honduras had travelled a "far smoother road to democracy". On the other hand, in Nicaragua, a "sad and battered land" where the promise of freedom had been denied, "democratic forces" had waged a courageous struggle against a highly organized and massive effort to impose a totalitarian system, so that even there, there was hope.

The United States had an unshakeable commitment to the democratic process, demonstrated by the significant economic and technical assistance it provided.

Contadora Group

praised by

Secretary-General

On 14 December, at a ceremony for the presentation of the "Beyond War Award 1986" to the Contadora Group (Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela), Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar said the Group had made "valuable and tireless efforts in the search for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement to the problems of Central America". Although their efforts had not yet fully achieved their objective, he said, they had served to identify all the aspects of this complex problem, to place Latin America at the centre of the negotiating process, to put forward sensible proposals for a solution, and, of special importance, to avoid a worsening of the situation and prevent a generalized conflict from breaking out in the region.

Further, the participation in those efforts of the Support Group - Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay - had shown that the question of Central America was of interest and concern to Latin America as a whole, which realizes the dangerous consequences of a prolongation of the current situation, he stated.