Grilling for U.S. over military intervention

Press, 22 December 1989, Page 8

Grilling for U.S. over military intervention

NZPA-Reuter New York United Nations Security Council members attacked the United States yesterday for its military intervention in Panama with only Britain and Canada speaking in its defence. In spite of direct or implied criticism of General Noriega, the Soviet Union, China, Latin American States and other nonaligned nations made clear a military onslaught by a big power against a tiny country violated norms of international conduct.

American justifications for the intervention were "no more convincing than if a cat said it was chasing a mouse because it had to protect itself from it,” the Soviet Ambassador, Alexander

Belanogov,said. Britain and, to a lesser extent, Canada supported the intervention While? France criticised the United States but did not demand censure of Washington’s action. Before the brief council session, the nonaligned nations, which include Latin American States, issued a statement urging the United States to withdraw its troops from Panama and solve outstanding issues through negotiations. Missing, however, were representatives from Panama. Diplomats throughout the day repeatedly postponed the council debate, requested by Nicaragua, because of/controversy over who represented Panama — General Noriega’s' envoy or a new dele-

gate sent by Guillermo Endara, recognised by Washington as Panama’s new President. In addition, the United States made clear its preference that the Organisation of American States rather than the United Nations deal with the controversy. Consequently, the council will meet again in an effort to come to a resolution or at least issue a statement in an attempt to reflect world opinion. In defence of the United States, its Ambassador, Thomas Pickering, said the action was designed to protect American lives as well as to “fulfil obligations of the United States to defend the integrity of the Panama Canal treaties.”