BY RICARDO ALARCÓN
The following selection is excerpted from the U.S. Hands Off the Mideast! Cuba Speaks Out at the United Nations. As Washington deepened its preparations for the 1990 - 91 slaughter of the Iraqi people, Cuban government ambassador to the United Nations, Ricardo Alarcón, used the platform of the UN Security Council to condemn economic sanctions against Iraq and to defend its sovereignty, while telling the truth about Washington's acts of aggression. Below are remarks made by Alarcón at an Aug. 6, 1990, Security Council meeting. It is copyright c 1990 by Pathfinder Press and reprinted by permission.

To Cuba, the principles of noninterference in the internal affairs of states, no matter what the reason may be; of the nonuse of force in international relations; of the peaceful settlement of disputes between states; and of respect for the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of all nations are essential principles of international order. It is in defense of these principles that we have expressed our disapproval and condemnation of the entry of Iraqi forces into the territory of Kuwait a few days ago, and have declared that this state of affairs must be ended through the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and the full restoration of Kuwait's sovereignty..

Reference is frequently made in our debates to the changes taking place in the international arena. I wonder whether anyone really believes that what we have here is also the expression of a change, of something new in international life. Is the United States really concerned with defending the rights of weak states, of small countries? Is this really a defense of the principle of nonintervention? Are we really talking about defense of the principle of the nonuse of force in international relations? Is it really the need to promote respect for the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of states that motivates the United States to urge these sanctions against Iraq? Is that really the reason?

Is the defense of the legitimate interests of the Kuwaiti government really the concern that has led the U.S. delegation to act as it is doing now? Or is it the ambition of the United States to intervene in and dominate the Middle East? My delegation has no doubt as to what the answers to these questions would be, but the Council and the international community have no reason for any doubt in that regard either.

The draft resolution before us was originally received by all of us in an almost identical version when it was faxed to us from the U.S. Mission at 5:48 p.m. on Friday, August 3. An attempt is now being made to justify the actions it proposes on the grounds that Iraq has failed to carry out the withdrawal of its forces from Kuwaiti territory or by interpreting various statements made in Baghdad on Sunday [August 5] or what has been said here by the permanent representative of Iraq. But that is not the truth.

The plan to impose sanctions on Iraq actually existed before we entered this new phase of Security Council deliberations, at a time when no one even knew about the statement made by the Iraqi government, also on August 3, to the effect that it was going to begin to withdraw its troops from Kuwait. But apart from this, while we were discussing or negotiating or holding consultations on this draft resolution, the U.S. government sent a contingent of marines to the territory of Liberia.(1) I do not recall any consultations held on that subject...

To justify this draft resolution, reference is now being made to the positions taken by various states or groups of states concerning this lamentable conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. But we cannot help recalling that for twenty-three years all the states of the region - Iraq, Kuwait, and all the other states - all the Nonaligned states and the General Assembly, almost unanimously, have condemned Israel's occupation of the territories we have come to describe, by diplomatic tradition, as the occupied territories. Apparently those territories can be occupied forever...

The territory of Angola - part of it -was occupied for some fifteen years by the South African regime's troops.(2) My delegation does not recall any occasion when anybody discovered the principle of noninterference and respect for territorial integrity, let alone urged the imposition of effective sanctions upon South Africa to compel it to abandon Angolan territory.

The territory of Lebanon - or part of it - has been occupied by Israel for twelve years. On the eve of this deplorable and regrettable conflict between Kuwait and Iraq, as we all know, the Council had to consider once again the situation concerning the United Nations force in southern Lebanon. We had to confine ourselves to renewing that force's mandate and to issuing a terse and carefully worded presidential declaration that made no reference to stiff sanctions against Israel, despite the fact that Israel, as the secretary-general's own report stated, is not complying with the relevant Security Council resolution, is not cooperating with the United Nations force in the area, and, even worse, is attacking it...

Seven months ago the territory of another small and weak country [Panama] was invaded by the military force of a great power and in a matter of hours that power, the United States, took possession of that country. There was one innovation in that case that was perhaps without precedent. A new government was installed, and perhaps for the first time in the world the president, the head of government, took the oath of office at a U.S. military base, naturally in the presence of the commanding general of the occupying forces.(3)

That happened seven months ago. There was, of course, no U.S. draft resolution calling for the imposition of sanctions against the United States. But beyond that - regrettably I must say this - there was likewise not much sentiment in favor of such a proposal among the other members of the Council, and consequently the Security Council did not even make a statement on the matter. The General Assembly did do so; on that occasion it adopted a resolution, and the vote showed that four of the countries sponsoring the draft resolution now before us voted against the General Assembly's resolution concerning the illegal U.S. invasion of Panamanian territory.(4)

1. On August 5, 1990, the day before Alarcon's remarks, Washington dispatched an airborne contingent of 255 marines to civil wartorn Monrovia, Liberia, declaring they could "remain as long as necessary to assure the security" of U.S. citizens.

2. Troops of the South African apartheid regime, with the backing of Washington, invaded Angola in 1975. Their attempt to overturn the government of the newly independent state was blocked, however, thanks to the assistance of Cuban volunteer troops. The South African government continued its war against Angola until 1988, when its army was decisively defeated by Cuban, Angolan, and Namibian forces at Cuito Cuanavale.

3. U.S. troops invaded Panama December 20, 1989, installing Guillermo Endara as the country's new president the same day. Endara was sworn in at Fort Clayton, a U.S. military base in the canal zone.

4. The four members of the Security Council whose representatives voted against the resolution on Panama were Britain, Canada, France, and the United States.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home