44-45
sanctions against the United States, but beyond that — regrettably I must say this — there was likewise not much sentiment in favour 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 voted to adopt 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 United States invasion of Panamanian territory.
It has been said by some in our consultations that our inability to adopt positions consistent with the defence of those principles in other cases should not make us fail to do so now. In other words, we should let the United States choose how, where and when those principles should be applied. However, we are not talking about past history now. The Council can, if it wishes, adopt effective measures with respect to the Power which continues to occupy the "occupied territories". The Council could take effective decisions concerning the Power which continues illegally to occupy southern Lebanon, and of course against the Power which continues to occupy Panama seven months after its invasion. Then, if there were the slightest intention of being consistent, we could begin here and now to rectify this contradiction which arises when, in a selective fashion, an attempt is made for the second time, as Ambassador Pickering has reminded us, to institute such drastic sanctions against a country.
