NICARAGUA / Este lunes 8 de marzo en la Revista en Vivo, transmitida por Canal 4; se realizó una entrevista al Doctor Carlos Argüello, representante de Nicaragua ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia de la Haya.
- Te recomendamos leer: Nicaragua sostiene encuentro con Ministro de Agricultura de Argelia
A continuación entrevista íntegra:
Periodista Alberto Mora
Establecemos comunicación vía zoom con el Doctor Carlos Argüello, Representante de Nicaragua ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia de La Haya. Buenos días, Doctor Argüello.
Palabras del Doctor Carlos Arguello
Muy buenas tardes para mí; buenos días para ti.
Periodista Alberto Mora
Quisiéramos que nos hablara un poco y nos brindara información para nuestro público, para nuestro Pueblo, acerca de lo ocurrido hoy en la Corte Internacional de Justicia. Entendemos que hoy comenzaron las audiencias, Nicaragua ha tenido la oportunidad de presentar sus argumentos; usted ha explicado que esta es una acusación en contra del genocidio que está practicando, no solamente Israel, sino, con el apoyo de otras Naciones, entre ellas Alemania, y Nicaragua por eso interpuso esta demanda.
Háblenos un poco sobre lo ocurrido hace unas horas, Doctor. Bienvenido de nuevo y muchas gracias por atender nuestra invitación.
Palabras del Doctor Carlos Argüello
Muchas gracias, Alberto; muchos saludos a todos. Sí, hoy por la mañana tuvimos las Audiencias en el caso contra Alemania. La razón de esto es importante explicarlo, porque como es bien sabido, Sudáfrica presentó una Demanda en contra de Israel por genocidio.
La razón de esta limitación, llamémosla limitación, al crimen de genocidio, es porque Israel únicamente acepta la jurisdicción de la Corte para ese tema, no acepta para ningún otro. Pero aparte de lo que está haciendo Israel, directamente Israel, también hay una serie de Países contribuyendo, apoyando militarmente inclusive a Israel. El apoyo militar principal a Israel y el principal apoyo obviamente viene de Estados Unidos, en primer lugar, pero en segundo lugar, viene de Alemania.
Entonces, a nuestro parecer, lo que está sucediendo en Palestina no es sólo genocidio, obviamente genocidio ya es lo máximo y cubre casi cualquier barbaridad que pueda estar sucediendo, pero, si por cualquier circunstancia dijeran o pensara algún País, como Alemania, no creemos que haya genocidio, como lo viven diciendo; entonces, independientemente de eso, lo que nadie puede negar porque está completamente a la vista, es que están violando el Derecho Humanitario, o sea, la Leyes de Guerra.
Como estábamos diciendo ahora en la mañana en la Corte, dejar caer una bomba de una tonelada en una población, en un lugar bien poblado, es un crimen de guerra hoy, y hace 100 años lo era también. Es decir, aunque no haya ninguna intención para destruir a todo el Pueblo Palestino, solo ese hecho de lo que están haciendo ya es un crimen; porque, para que se entienda, genocidio significa todo eso que están haciendo, más la intención de exterminar a todo el Pueblo de Palestina.
Entonces Países como Alemania dicen: No, no, si Israel no tiene esa intención, y se escudan diciendo: No hay genocidio. No hay nada. ¡No es cierto! Obviamente nosotros creemos que hay genocidio. Pero independientemente de que no haya genocidio, se está violando todo el Derecho Internacional Humanitario, todas las Leyes de Guerra. Todo lo prohibido, lo posiblemente prohibido está sucediendo, y la misma obligación tiene Alemania y los Países que están ayudando a Israel, están para ayudar a prevenir eso, como tienen para ayudar a prevenir el genocidio.
Entonces por eso nuestro interés era, como a Israel no se le puede demandar más que por genocidio, mientras que a Alemania nosotros podemos demandarla por su participación en el genocidio y por su participación en todo lo demás que está sucediendo, que es innegable; o sea, no hay raciocinio que pueda decir: Es que no hay intención de esto.
No, si no es cuestión de intención, ahí hay una realidad que está visible. Han desbaratado todo lo que es Gaza, no queda nada; han matado de miles de personas, niños principalmente. Es increíble, es una cuestión que no tiene nombre. Y para nosotros, si los Países principales, como Alemania, dejaran de ayudar a Israel, esto no podría estar sucediendo fácilmente; es decir, la cantidad de apoyo que le da Alemania a Israel es increíble.
Ahora en la Corte, por ejemplo, estábamos señalando qué es lo interesante de esto, porque no es simplemente que Alemania apoya a Israel, sino que hace una cantidad de negocios increíbles. Solo en Noviembre del año pasado, ya dos meses y medio de haber empezado la destrucción de Gaza, Israel le vendió a Alemania, no al revés, Israel le vendió a Alemania casi 4,000 millones de dólares en armamento. Imagínense lo que significa eso, que Israel le está vendiendo, pero Alemania obviamente le da a Israel.
Entonces no es que Israel necesite ayuda para defenderse… ¡Israel es una Potencia! Como decíamos en la Corte ahora, Israel gasta más en gasto militar, más que Irán, más que Egipto, digamos los Países vecinos, que tienen 10, 20 más población que ellos y 50 veces más de territorio. Es decir, Israel gasta 4 veces más per cápita que lo que gasta Alemania; incluso, per capital Israel gasta más en gasto militar que Estados Unidos, que es el País que más gasta en el Mundo.
Entonces, no es que Israel necesite ayuda, no necesita ningún tipo de apoyo, el único apoyo que sí verdaderamente necesita es el apoyo comercial, con el cual no podría sobrevivir si realmente se tomaran las previsiones y lo que manda el Derecho. Igual como sucedió en la época del Apartheid con Sudáfrica, cuando por fin todos los Países del Mundo cortaron relaciones con Sudáfrica, con la Sudáfrica del Apartheid, del poder blanco en Sudáfrica, a partir de ese momento se desmoronó todo.
Nosotros pensamos que lo mismo sucedería en Israel, desde el momento en que todos los Países cesaran su apoyo a lo que está sucediendo allí, otra situación se plantearía.
La demanda directamente en contra de Israel por supuesto que es muy importante, pero Israel no está haciendo caso. Nosotros consideramos que Países como Alemania mal pudieran, por su mismo público interno, estar haciendo caso omiso de cualquier orden que la Corte pueda dar.
Así que nosotros tenemos la esperanza, que si la Corte accede a los que se está pidiendo, que consideramos que es lógico, razonable y justo, entonces, difícilmente podrá continuar Alemania, y todos los Países que caen dentro del marco en que se ubica Alemania, todos estos Países encontrarán muy difícil continuar con ese apoyo a Israel. Y esa sería, digamos, la contribución que nosotros podemos estar haciendo, para buscar la Paz en esa región, para tratar de ayudarles a nuestros Hermanos palestinos, que los están masacrando de una forma increíble y vergonzosa, ante el Mundo que no hace nada.
Entonces Nicaragua, que no tenemos fuerza militar, lo único que tenemos es, en este caso específico, alguna experiencia en el litigio internacional ante la Corte Internacional. Como recordábamos ahora en la mañana en la Corte, ahora que estábamos presentando nuestro caso, mañana 9 de Abril se cumplen exactamente 40 años de haber presentado la Demanda en contra de Estados Unidos.
Fue el 9 de Abril de 1984 que presentamos la Demanda en contra de Estados Unidos, e incluso, había una solicitud que la señalábamos ahora en la mañana, porque en ese caso en contra de Estados Unidos una de las cosas que estábamos pidiendo a la Corte en ese momento, es que prohibiera que Estados Unidos continuara financiando, apoyando y dándole armamento a la Contra. En este caso lo que estamos pidiéndole a la Corte es, que le diga a Alemania que no puede continuar financiando, apoyando y dándole armamento a Israel.
Así que, curiosamente, se nos juntaron 40 años después situaciones similares.
En fin, Alberto, lo importante es que en lo que nosotros podemos contribuir a buscar la Paz en esa Región y a buscar la Paz para nuestros Hermanos Palestinos, lo estamos haciendo. Creo que esa es la Misión y en eso estamos ahorita.
Periodista Alberto Mora
Doctor, ¿qué pasa con Estados Unidos frente a esto, porque es el principal socio, el que más apoya a Israel?
Palabras del Doctor Carlos Argüello
Los Estados Unidos, desde la demanda con Nicaragua, inmediatamente tomaron medidas para cancelar cualquier tipo de aceptación que ellos tenían a la Corte Internacional. De hecho, en la aceptación que ellos tenían, cuando Nicaragua demandó, había una serie de reservas que ellos tenían, que casi, si se hubieran atendido esas reservas, hacían prácticamente imposible demandar a Estados Unidos; pero con el caso nuestro, Estados Unidos mandó a cancelar todo.
La Convención de Genocidio que data de 1948, pasaron 40 años los Estados Unidos sin ratificarla, hasta 1988 la ratificaron, y no la habían ratificado porque no querían, precisamente, uno de los Artículos de la Convención que dice, que cualquier disputa se puede llevar a la Corte Internacional.
Entonces los Estados Unidos la aceptaron en 1988, primero, con reservas de que no aceptan ir a la Corte Internacional, y segundo, que cualquier disputa tiene que ser resuelta de acuerdo con lo expuesto en sus propios Tribunales. Entonces, para Estados Unidos es imposible llevarlo a la Corte Internacional.
Además, Alberto, otra reflexión que nos hacemos es, los Estados Unidos ya demostró, en el caso con Nicaragua, que simplemente hace caso omiso del Derecho Internacional. Nosotros no podemos obligar a Estados Unidos, por la fuerza, a que cumpla algo.
Ahora, en el caso de Alemania o Países similares, nosotros consideramos, por lo menos tenemos esa esperanza, que no van a ignorar cualquier decisión de la Corte. La jurisdicción que aceptó Alemania con la Corte, es una decisión, es una aceptación clara de la jurisdicción; significa que aceptan que la Corte decida el caso, no tienen ninguna reserva particular para decir que la Corte se está extralimitando en resolver algo. Ellos lo aceptan, igual que Nicaragua.
Por eso es que nosotros podemos presentar este caso completo en contra de Alemania. En contra de Estados Unidos, como digo, no podemos, y aunque pudiéramos, probablemente lo que estaríamos es simplemente perdiendo el tiempo, porque, primero, no haría caso políticamente, y segundo, que los Medios de Comunicación, bajo el control que tiene Estados Unidos, ni siquiera le darían relevancia a lo que está sucediendo.
Periodista Alberto Mora
Doctor, han comenzado las Audiencias, ¿cuáles son los próximos pasos? Si nos explica por favor, finalmente.
Palabras del Doctor Carlos Argüello
Bueno, que hoy nos tocó a nosotros presentar la Exposición, mañana por la mañana le toca a Alemania responder. Después de eso queda deliberando la Corte, normalmente pueden ser unas 2, 3 semanas para que dicten la orden solicitada. Nosotros lo que estamos pidiendo básicamente es que, cese el apoyo militar a Israel. También estamos pidiendo que se renueve el apoyo al Organismo de Refugiados de Naciones Unidas, que eso lo había cortado Alemania y lo cortaron varios Países.
Entonces la Corte puede resolver directamente sobre los puntos que solicitamos, o puede tomar otras decisiones. Así que habrá que esperar qué es lo que decide la Corte. Lo único que le pedimos y enfatizamos ahora en la mañana, es que la orden sea específica, porque si es una orden amplia, entonces siempre se buscará argumentación para decir la estamos cumpliendo, cuando en el fondo no se esté cumpliendo.
Entonces la orden tiene que ser, nosotros tenemos la esperanza y así lo estamos pidiendo, esa es una orden clara: ¡Cero apoyo a Israel, militar en particular! Esa es la orden que estamos esperando. Tendremos que esperar unas 2 o 3 semanas probablemente, después de mañana, para oír la decisión de la Corte.
Periodista Alberto Mora
Muchísimas gracias, Doctor, muy buenas tardes allá, como usted dice, y bueno, le agradecemos mucho que nos haya permitido conversar con usted durante estos minutos. Siempre es un placer recibirle. Felicidades por todo este proceso, y esperemos que la Corte detenga parte de lo que es este genocidio en contra el Pueblo palestino.
Palabras del Doctor Carlos Argüello
Muchas gracias, Alberto. Hasta luego.
A continuación entrevista íntegra en ingles:
Interview with Dr. Carlos Argüello, Nicaragua’s Representative
to the International Court of Justice in The Hague
by Media Outlets of the People President coordinated by Alberto Mora
April 9th 2024
Journalist Alberto Mora
Good morning compañeras and compañeros viewing our program, thank you for being with us and joining us this morning, Tuesday, April 9th 2024.
Today marks the 40th anniversary of the filing of Nicaragua’s historic lawsuit against the United States.
On a day like today, April 9th but in the year 1984, a small country like Nicaragua confronting a Super Power country, the United States, for its aggression against Nicaragua, financed by the government of Ronald Reagan, which is no different from other US governments, whose imperial policy never changes.
However, Nicaragua initiated that trial and won it and it must be said, there is also the US obligation to compensate Nicaragua for the damages caused, and that is a matter still pending such that a Statement was released yesterday demanding that the United States Government comply with the Compensation to Nicaragua.
Today William Grigsby joins me, thank you William for being with us, we have prepared a Special Program, we will interview Dr. Carlos Argüello to explain this Case, and he will tell us about this aspect of the History of Nicaragua, and also about today.
Also accompanying us via zoom, we welcome other Colleagues who are with us this morning. Roberto Zúniga, Press Director of Channel 13; we also have connected Moisés Absalón Pastora, Director of “Details of the Moment” of Channel 6; we welcome Moisés; also with us Adolfo Pastrán, Director of the Program “Informe Pastrán TV”, of Channel 6, welcome Adolfo. Also to Edilson Orozco, Journalist of the “TN8 Studio Program”, thank you for joining us this morning, Edilson.
We wanted to talk with Dr. Carlos Arguello this morning, about this 40th Anniversary that takes on a singular importance, as Dr. Carlos Arguello already said yesterday, due to the fact that Nicaragua is also at the International Court of Justice indicting Germany for genocide, for accompanying Israel in the genocide against the Palestinian people. We’ll talk to him in a few moments.
I’ll start with William who is here with us. William, we are talking about 40 years of that Historic Lawsuit, I was looking at the allegations in many of accusations made against the United States on April 9th 1984. The Court admitted the case, although the United States did its usual tricks to avoid and evade responsibility but in the end had to face the culmination with the Court’s Sentence. What can you think after 40 years of this historic action? What thoughts can you make after 40 years, Brother. You who lived through that event, you were young and we were in the middle of a Revolution. Two things, I would argue, Nicaragua defending its Sovereignty, Nicaragua defending its Right to Self-determination and Nicaragua, the Sandinista Popular Revolution, going to the International Court of Justice, as we have continued to do. Welcome William.
Journalist William Grigsby
Thank you very much for the invitation, greetings to all our compañeras and compañeros. I think it is important to remember the context in which it happened, both nationally and internationally. We filed this lawsuit in 1984, and we have already had about a year and a half of war, even more of covert actions, not so open but terrorist, blowing up bridges, mining ports, murdering people.
That is, there was a context in which Nicaragua’s Youth launched themselves to defend the Homeland, remember that at that time it was voluntary and the young people of the Sandinista Youth and in general, from the urban neighborhoods, from the rural communities, launched themselves to defend the Nation, going to the mountains.
Let’s remember another part of the context, the Argentine, Honduran, Brazilian, Salvadoran and gringo military advisers, forming the “Contra” in the south of Honduras. Let us also remember that in that year of ’84, a little earlier, another force of the “Contra” was formed in the south of Nicaragua, with the idea of suffocating us.
That’s the context, but also the US Congress was openly discussing how many millions they were giving to kill Nicaraguans. In this context, Nicaragua makes the decision that is a historic decision. Just filing a lawsuit implied enormous courage on the part of Nicaragua, of the Nicaraguan people, which matched the courage of the People and the country’s Youth, defending the Nation on the battlefield.
Journalist Alberto Mora
And it is in that circumstance that that Lawsuit was filed.
Doctor Argüello, welcome. Good morning.
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
Yes, good morning. Good afternoon, Alberto. Good afternoon, everyone.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Doctor, what reflections can you make after 40 years of the filing of that Lawsuit? A small country like Nicaragua, I said it at the beginning, against a giant like the United States; an aggressor, an imperialist giant, with an interventionist policy, which had already invaded us a thousand times, not a thousand times, I’m exaggerating, a lot of times, and well, it was causing damage to us, killing, murdering openly.
What reflection can you make after 40 years of this historic Lawsuit before the International Court of Justice in The Hague? I was telling Chele Grigsby that we could highlight two things: One, the fact that Nicaragua is always defending its Sovereignty, the Right to Self-determination, and also going to the International Courts of Justice to settle these issues. And the United States going crazy, as always, you mentioned it yesterday, so as not to assume responsibilities.
Welcome, Doctor, we would like a reflection after 40 years.
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
Thank you very much, Alberto, for having invited me to remind us of this very important moment. As William Grigsby was saying a moment ago, actually the context in which this situation took place is the most important thing.
That is, the idea of going to court was already in hand; probably, we had been turning that possibility over for more than a year. A series of things happened in 1983, I think it was in September, October, the US invasion of the Island of Grenada, which was a first taste, let’s say, of threats to us, the whole war was already coming against us. The attack came to Corinto and they mercilessly set fire to the gasoline tanks and all the fuel tanks that were there, endangering the 20,000 inhabitants at that time, without any mercy.
All these things were happening when the decision was made that the time had come to go to court. William pointed out this, this context, because many times, throughout all these years people ask: Whose idea was it? As if the simple idea had been, let’s say, the success of this matter. This is a matter that has been studied and consulted.
It was consulted, everywhere in the world it was consulted before doing so, this aggression against Nicaragua was coming to a crescendo and, obviously, as a lawyer, among the options we had was this appeal fto the Court, but the important point was, that there were political minds behind this, that they were analyzing and that they made the decision to proceed.
And it was carried out at exactly the moment when it was most important internationally and where this issue had the most impact. Because, one thing that we cannot forget is that, among the most important cases and many say that it is perhaps the most important that has been deliberated on by the Court, this case has been ours.
This is a case that all international law students have been studying for almost 40 years; that is, it is one of the most famous cases, certainly, indisputably, and it is due to what was happening in Nicaragua, the moment and the way in which it chose to act, and all the actions that were taken.
I think that what needs to be remembered, and frankly yesterday when we were initiating the case of these appeals against Germany for its support and complicity with Israel in the destruction of the Palestinian People, I was precisely remembering and I mentioned in Court, the fact that we had 40 years of having initiated this case against the United States and 40 years later we were still in the struggle, and that the stone we had tcast 40 years ago we were still throwing now in favor of the Palestinian People, of our Palestinian Brothers and Sisters.
That is to say, it is a case that has had a huge echo throughout the history of these 40 years, and like all of us who participated in this, it gives me great pride, great satisfaction every time I remember, to have had this privilege that the Revolution gave me, to have participated in this issue so important for all of us, and for humanity.
And I say humanity, because precisely this was not an isolated issue for Nicaragua, it is an issue that we continue to repeat and use, right now, in favor of our Palestinian Brothers and Sisters; but it is a resource that Nicaragua opened and that is there to serve Humanity.
So it was a task and that is why it seems to me that it is very important that we do not forget about it, especially the young people who are listening or who may be listening to this, so they realize what it is about, that it was not a simple matter that was taken to a court or that a letter was sent and that something happened. It was an event that was well studied, which took a long time to prepare, and that it was a heroic deed within the area, obviously of law that we are discussing, within the many heroic deeds happening at that time in Nicaragua, and which continue to happen, to one extent or another, in our day too.
But anyway, again thank you very much Alberto, thank you all very much, and I am attentive to hearing your comments here, and if I can perhaps serve as to amplify something, or remember, or use my memory to recall some event, with pleasure I am here ready to participate.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Thank you very much, Doctor. I’m going to go in the order in which I read out the participants. I asked William for a reflection and now I would like him to act as a Journalist, and I would like to give the floor to William, then I will go with the other Comrades. William, please.
Words of the Journalist William Grigsby
Thank you very much. Doctor, I remember that a couple of days before, or the day before Nicaragua filed the lawsuit, the United States decided to withdraw, that is, to ignore the jurisdiction of the Court, when it had already recognized it since 1946, if I remember correctly. And I think Nicaragua was planning to file the lawsuit on the 11th and not on the 9th. Can you remember the details of what happened then?
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
Yes. What a great memory, you have! Indeed, it was one of the things or matters of interest that the gringos with their espionage system were well aware of, knowing exactly in detail everything we were doing. Imagine, we are talking about 40 years ago, so now with the espionage systems they have it must be worse. If ten years ago, talking about Germany now, ten or twelve years ago they were eavesdropping the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, listening to her phone, the Gringos listening to the phone of the Chancellor, their German ally.
But anyway, what I recall is very true. I remember that it was on a Friday that the United States presented at the United Nations the Note from the United States Secretary of State, in which they said that they were going to suspend knowledge and acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court for a period of 5 years in everything related to Central America.
I remember we were notified, that this Note was submitted on Friday afternoon, and it was already night time on Friday in Holland when they notify us and, indeed, we were going to file the matter on Wednesday the 11th, but as that notice had arrived that they had sent that Note we decided to go immediately, and on Monday we immediately asked for the Court appointment and went to file the Lawsuit.
So thank you for that reminder, because we are celebrating today the 9th and it could have been effectively the 11th the official start of the Lawsuit.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Of course. According to what we were able to gather, it was the notorious George Shultz, and it was on April 6, 1984, when he said verbatim: “The aforementioned declaration should not be applied to disputes with any Central American State or that originate or are related to events unfolding in Central America; these disputes will be settled (as you are explaining) in the way that the Parties to the disputes in question agree.”
That is the History, History as the Chele remembered it and also Doctor Arguello.
Let’s go with Roberto Zúñiga from Channel 13. Roberto, welcome, we invite you to participate in this Special Program. Go ahead, Brother.
Journalist Roberto Zúñiga, Channel 13
The moment in which this Demand was initiated, we are talking about 40 years ago, 1984, a historical moment for humanity and especially in Latin America, in which the United States, as you said, had recently just carried out the invasion of the island of Grenada.
The United States was used to doing whatever it wanted practically, and they arrogated to themselves that right. 40 years later, Doctor, how much has this changed, and especially the legal implication that this Demand by Nicaragua has meant over time?
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
Among the things that have changed and that we have seen the change, not for the better, it is simply a change, if before the ways of attacking us had been through the creation of the Contras and the armed attacks on Nicaragua, and that was the basis of the trial. What we experienced in Nicaragua in 2018, sponsored by the United States, was another type of use of the system of destroying a government or attempting the destruction of a government in a more subtle and more indirect way.
Unfortunately, seen from this point of view, the United States learned the lesson of trying to do things in a different way, which is what they tried to do with us.
What they were doing in 1984 was what they had always been doing in all our countries. How many times have the Marines invaded Nicaragua? That is to say, in Nicaragua we have a history of invasions, and in all of Our America, especially in Our Caribbean-America, well, how many invasions by the United States had there not been…
That, let’s say, was the last provocation they had on the island of Grenada, which was a use of force, first, to compensate for a disaster that had happened to them precisely in the Middle East, that some bombs had exploded and killed I think they were 200 or 300 American Marines who were stationed in Lebanon.
After that disaster that killed a lot, then after 2 months President Reagan decided to invade Grenada, as if he was invading the Soviet Union, at that time; the great invasion to a small island with a population of less than 100,000 inhabitants at that time; of which they even made a movie as if it had been a great historical episode.
But it also served, at that time, as a threat to Nicaragua, because obviously in the midst of all the attacks that were directed at Nicaragua, then it was a matter of wiping the record of what had happened to them there and serving as a threat against us.
So for us, to resort to the Court was to try to put a stop to this policy of aggression, open and brazen of the United States, as if it could be invading our Countries as if they were, in fact, part of the backyard of their house.
And I think what was shown in the Court was, first of all, that we demanded respect, not only for the way we were defending ourselves in Nicaragua with all the boys sacrificing their lives and all the misfortunes we suffered, but also with the full force of the law.
I think that this lesson, as I say, is so great that it is still leading the way and right now, today, 40 years later, this case that we are seeing, that of Nicaragua against Germany, is for me frankly a continuation of all the legal action that Nicaragua has had in defense of the Right of Peoples, non-intervention.
Anyway, I think we are continuing, a milestone was marked, it is an issue of which we all have to be proud. We paid with blood, unfortunately, with all pride, but that’s Life and here we are and I think we’re going forward with our heads held high.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Thank you, Doctor. Now I would like to give the floor to Moises Absalom Pastor of Channel 6. Welcome Moses, good morning again, and we invite you to participate.
Words of the Journalist Moisés Absalón Pastora
What is being done particularly through the People President media outlets, is to put in context such a memorable, historical date, (…) that marks the introduction of that Lawsuit against the United States at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, one fully supported given the aggression in that context against our Country, as already clearly expressed by Dr. Carlos Argüello, whose work we must recognize on behalf of our Country in that immense arena of International Justice and International Law.
But, naturally, I want to ask Dr. Argüello, what Nicaragua was able to achieve from the position it reached at the International Court of Justice, 40 years later, after that important Ruling in our favor, what did it mean for other Peoples, because that initiative, that accusation, at that time, for many Countries, for a great many who were watching us (…), many considered this to be a mere adventure, something impossible, but in the end, it was achieved.
Today, after that step taken by Nicaragua, other peoples who have been attacked have an opening, the only one, to appeal and accuse, although in terms of jurisdiction the United States says that The Hague has no jurisdiction.
Have we, as a State, as a People, as a Nation, set a standard for other Countries, talking about our contribution, Doctor Arguello?
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
I really believe that we achieved that and the step we took 40 years ago is a step that has opened the door, has opened the eyes of all the Countries of the world, that there are other resources too, that the Law is one of the main defenses that weak Countries have. Because in the past, the United States boasted as if they had a monopoly on virtue, that they were a Country with the entire Judicial System, with everything the most perfect; and that, in fact, was a bluff; that is, they accepted the Law as long as it suited its interests.
The United States and maybe I deviate a little from the topic, but at that point speaking out loud and forgive me because we old people have our memory sometimes that interferes with what we are talking about; but on that issue of disrespect for the Law, I would like to make a comment.
In 1979, 80, I was in charge, it was not publicly (…) but it was part of my responsibility, to try to put into practice an extradition treaty that we had with the United States that had been signed in 1907. Then, I remember that we went to the United States, the State Department told us: This whole matter can be processed here, and once it is ready, that you present all the evidence to us, then the process takes place.
So that’s how we proceeded, we spent a year presenting all the evidence; when we had everything ready, then we said: Well, we’re going to proceed to ask for their extradition. We asked for the extradition and, of course, from there the game started.
Obviously, the Extradition Treaty was null and void. The Treaty that existed, had been in existence for 70 years, the United States simply did not comply with it. So the Law for the United States has been non-existent. They boast that it is a country that respects the law, and that is not true. We’ve seen it.
That is, when we went to Court and went to Court in this case, the United States stopped going to Court, and told the Court to go to hell, even though there was an International Agreement that obliged them to go to Court; that is, they disrespected the Court. In other words, the United States has never respected the Law when they are not interested in it.
Moreover, perhaps deviating even more, going simply to the region we are talking about, we could remember this, that an Agreement with Iran had been signed 6 years ago, 7 years ago, an Agreement with Iran that was signed by European Countries and the United States. When Trump came up he said: This is not worth anything! and he simply unilaterally ignored what they had signed. This is a small detour, but my point is that the United States has never respected the law.
Then, by taking them to the International Court, we highlighted the importance for small countries like Nicaragua, and for the whole world, of making use of the law. And also to put in evidence, that the United States was false in claiming that it respected the Law, that it was not reasons of justification of Law that drove its policy, but strictly its economic and monopolistic interests. That’s what we proved and that has been in evidence all this time.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Of course. We are now going to ask Adolfo Pastrán, who is also connected to this Special Program, to also participate, on the occasion of this 40th Anniversary of the Presentation of Nicaragua’s Lawsuit against the United States before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, on a day like today but in 1984. Go ahead, Adolfo. Good morning again.
Words of the Journalist Adolfo Pastrán
Good morning, it’s a pleasure to see you and greet you all, especially Dr. Carlos Arguello thank you for sharing and remembering these historic 40 years.
I would like to return to the topic of International Law because, in reality, a small Country like Nicaragua, like us, having the courage and bravery to take the United States to the Highest Court of Justice of the United Nations for a war of aggression, because the United States created the Contras to attack Nicaragua and caused us so much harm, so many deaths, also violating International law, and the Court determined that Sovereignty should be respected and also Non Intervention in the internal affairs of Countries, that is a huge precedent that remained for history. I would like your comments.
And secondly, you were saying that 2018 was also a war of aggression against us, and that has been changing, now they call that aggression Sanctions. I would like your comments on this. Thank you.
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
Thank you very much. Starting with the issue of Sanctions, which is precisely one of the things in this issue of Palestine and in this Lawsuit against Germany; that is, one of the things that drive us and me personally, is that these Countries like Germany, which dare to go around putting sanctions on everyone, from the moral high ground, like the United States, “defending the law,” and we are going to sanction so-and-so, or we are going to sanction another; but now they are seeing that the destruction and killing and massacre of the entire Palestinian People, they continue to support Israel. Where are the sanctions?
As I mentioned yesterday, as regards the United Nations Refugee Organization, the UNRWA as they call it, Israel in January said that 6 or 12 of the officials employed by that Organization were involved in the events of October 7th that started the attack against some Israelis, which caused or gave an excuse to start this.
So, immediately Germany ordered cancellation of the aid to Palestine given by this Organization, which is a United Nations Organization, because Israel said that 6 or 12 officials, out of the 12,000 or 15,000 who work, were involved. Without proof, to this day they have not proven anything, but they went and canceled it immediately.
That’s why I told them yesterday, with the words of Israel alone, they canceled it, but with everything that all of humanity is saying, from the Secretary General of the United Nations, and the Red Cross, everyone, everything that is happening in Palestine, what Israel is doing, the genocide that they are committing, and they continue to help him. They don’t pay attention to that.
Where is the moral authority? Where is the respect for the law, of what they are doing with these Sanctions? How was that Refugee Organization sanctioned? By simply suspending aid to this United Nations Refugee Agency. So these sanctions are simply political decisions that use to try and dress up as Law.
Now, what they did to us in 2018 is obviously ironic. I was reading media from that time, in which there are interviews with some of these people who were involved, and they were talking to them and they say: Well, yes, until 2018 everything was fine; if it hadn’t been for what they did and then things got bad.
That brings to mind, I remember, an interview which Don Enrique Bolaños, the former President, had given, I don’t have the date very precisely, when he had been invited by a group of the most important businessmen of Central America, and had met with them. Later Don Enrique gave some statements, that he had really disliked the meeting because at that meeting all the businessmen were praising the way President Ortega was handling things in Nicaragua.
And precisely that management that was being carried out is what had been irritating the United States, which since then, long before anything happened in 2018, they were already trying to impose sanctions on us. Because it was not even in the time of Trump, but already in Obama’s time when, Congress had already approved Sanctions against Nicaragua, when nothing had happened, until that moment, of the later events that they themselves sponsored.
So, simply none of those were moral or legal reasons to impose sanctions, they were simply political decisions, based on their interests: We are going to sanction this Country because it is not with us, period, or because we are don’t like this government. But there is nothing of law or morality behind any of this. All that is a falsehood.
That’s why with our case, when we went to Court 40 years ago, we made that situation clear for the first time: That it’s just not true that they’re defending Law or Morality… No! Nicaragua was, Nicaragua is the one that was defending the Law.
Journalist Alberto Mora
We want to give the floor to Comrade Edilson Orozco, Journalist of TN8, of Channel 8,. Go ahead. Welcome. Good morning.
Journalist Edilson Orozco
Good morning, Alberto Mora, good morning to Dr. Carlos Argüello and all the compañeros from the People President Media. You have already mentioned that this was a case that showed how Nicaragua, despite being the People of a small country had the courage to face this giant; a case that can be called “David vs. Goliath”, and it has been 40 years.
Doctor Carlos Argüello, I think that all the people of Nicaragua are asking ourselves: Are there international legal mechanisms that can make the United States pay the debt that it has with Nicaragua, and what is being done to bring it about?
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
The thing is that as regards the Court’s judgments, the only power able to impose them by force, has to be through the United Nations Security Council. When the sentence came, we even appealed to the Security Council, and what happened? The United States applied its veto, which is one of the ironic things about the International Legal System as it stands, that the Country sanctioned opted for its Right to a veto to avoid that sanction being imposed on it.
The situation is that the Court ordered that the United States has to indemnify Nicaragua, and that compensation remains in force, it is a historical obligation that exists on the part of the United States and it is a historical Right which Nicaragua has not renounced.
We, the current Government constantly remind the United Nations, and International Organizations, because the claim is alive; it may be necessary to have to wait until the right time to try to make it effective, but that debt has not disappeared.
In the history of Peoples, 10, 20 years is sometimes not enough; that is, that debt is not going to disappear, we can continue for 10, 20 years, 100 years, how ever many they may be, that debt exists, it is a legal debt, let alone the moral one that it is also, but it is a legal debt that is pending there, it has not been renounced and there it stands.
Unfortunately in International Law it is not like in a court of a State, where the Judge simply makes the order and the police go and take out the furniture, or demand some means of payment and execute it by force.
In international law unfortunately things can’t happen that way, but the debt has not disappeared by any means, it is there; it must be kept alive and we must remember it.
Similarly, when one has a claim to a territory, just because ten or thirty years have passed, the right to claim it has not been lost. In the same way that we recovered our seas in the Caribbean from Colombia, after decades of being in that situation, so eventually things do happen, but everything has to proceed in its own time and above all keep the claim alive.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Yesterday the Government recalled the obligation of the United States to compensate Nicaragua, in the way you are referring to, to indemnify Nicaragua, and as you say, that is pending; although they never assume their responsibilities. I would like to ask you about some aspects having to do with what was done at that time, because it was a titanic work and it was established, according to historical documents, for March 29, 1988, that Nicaragua would present the damages for which the United States had to respond.
There are items here, sometimes, although it is terrible to talk about items because one is talking about human lives, about people, about the destruction of a country as well; for the people killed and injured there is another large amount of millions of dollars that Nicaragua calculated, complied with that, for the direct material damages.
There is another amount of millions for the loss of production, for damages caused by direct attacks by the United States including mines of ports, for Defense and Security expenses, for damages derived from the trade embargo, for damages caused to the development potential, for damages caused to social development, for reparation for the attacks against sovereignty, for reparation for moral damages.
That is, there is an amount that has been calculated sometimes in the first instance with US$12,000 million, then at a later moment reaching US$17,000. I mean, it’s not a small amount and this denotes the magnitude, the destruction they caused to us back then, Doctor.
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
Yes, indeed, Alberto. That was another job within the legal framework, within the work, and if you want of administration, to prepare that Report, to quantify the damages caused to Nicaragua. There was a team there that worked, involved a number of Nicaraguan institutions, as I am not a specialist in that field, that was mainly coordinated by Dr. Paul Oquist who was a brilliant man; he was in charge of preparing everything, collecting all those elements that finally added up in that way…
Naturally, with the team of lawyers, we were all reviewing and seeing all the documents, but obviously in order to do all the assessments of the damages caused, specialists were needed in those matters, and everything was calculated in the best possible way and was presented.
The issue of whether it was US$12,000 million or US$17,000 million, also depends on the timing, because obviously in terms of money, a debt of one million dollars 100 years ago is not the same as a debt of one million dollars today; obviously the monetary value changes.
In addition, this was not a total evaluation, this is simply what had been done up to that moment; the war ended, we were making a calculation in memory, I do not remember until what date it had been done (…) later the amount would have been above the then $17,000 million. Obviously now the equivalent would be a much larger amount.
But all this was done in the most exact way possible, all the specialists we had in the different necessary fields took part, to be able to evaluate of all the damages in the different areas, because the damages in Agriculture, in Industry, the damages of all kinds that they have suffered, the damages in the School System, Doctors, etc. That is, the whole system of Nicaragua, the whole life of Nicaragua had been affected and damaged, it it could not be circumscribed exclusively as just military issue; in fact, they damaged the entire country, tried to destroy as much as possible.
Journalist William Grigsby
Just to comment Doctor, remembering what happened, I would say that there are at least five political victories that the People of Nicaragua obtained, let’s remember that it is the People of Nicaragua, it is not the supreme figure of the State, it is the Nicaraguan people who were with their blood defending the Nation, and a group of jurists headed by Doctor Argüello, accompanied that sacrifice and presented this Demand. But I would say, first, the very fact of filing the Lawsuit is a Victory; secondly, the fact that the United States did not recognize the jurisdiction of the Court, and the scandal that meant because it was a global scandal, I remember that, is another Victory. I mean, they said, that by doing so they were going to avoid this problem and it was exactly the other way around.
Thirdly, I remember that just as the Precautionary Measures are being requested right now on the case of Germany, Nicaragua requested the Precautionary Measures and it was unanimous that they were granted to Nicaragua, another great victory that was to suspend aid to the counterrevolution at that time. The fourth is when the judgment itself, on June 27, 1986, and well, then the compensation, the amount of compensation that was already in 1988. In other words, Nicaragua won a victory on all sides. And I loved that quote from Doctor Arguello, what an astute thing to say! It is the same stone of Andres that achieved this Victory in The Hague; it is a beautiful phrase. And also it seems to me, it synthesizes what happened there.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Of course, and to pass the word to Dr. Arguello as well, reinforcing what he was saying, one of the aspects you mentioned are the Precautionary Measures that were on May 10th 1984.
They say that the United States, so that you can see the dimension of these Precautionary Measures: That the United States must immediately cease and refrain from any action that has the effect of restricting, blocking or endangering the entry or exit of Nicaraguan ports, in particular, by laying mines; because they had mined our ports.
That the Right to Sovereignty and Political Independence possessed by the Republic of Nicaragua, like any other State in the Region or in the world, be fully respected and not compromised in any way by military activities and that paramilitaries forces are prohibited by the Principles of International Law, particularly by the Principle that States refrain in their international relations from resorting to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, and by the Principle relating to the duty not to intervene in matters that depend on the national competence of a State, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Charter of American States.
Doctor, they ignored this, as usual. Welcome again.
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
It is interesting to remember that point of the mining, because that showed the absolute disrespect of the United States for the norms that even all its allies accepted. That is to say, this mining of the ports scandalized all its European allies, the entire Right Wing of the world, because it is one of the basic prohibitions.
Because when you are going to lay mines, the first thing you have to do is warn that you have laid the mines and warn everyone first; it is one of the obligations of the Laws of War, which is to warn immediately. The United States laid mines, without warning, several ships were destroyed and that was the last straw, that’s where it comes in too, the way things have been changing in the way the United States handles things. At that time politically they believed they had the right to do anything and they could hardly care less what the world said.
Among the things that must be remembered here, is that the proof of all these events was not a matter that we had to look for hidden under the table. President Reagan of the United States with regard to the mines, said: But what are they complaining about if they are just very small mines that we laid; we presented all that in Court.
So what proof were we going to need that the US had laid mines, if the President of the United States was admitting it? And as William recalled, at the beginning, how shamelessly they discussed this issue in Congress.
That’s one of the things that left me cold, when I sometimes went to meetings in the United States to discuss these issues, which could be in a cafe or in a place where they had the television on and they were discussing how to use the Contras to come and attack Nicaragua, publicly.
That is, they were doing everything with complete brazenness, the United States was the owner of the world, at least the owner of all the Americas, and they believed themselves entitled to do whatever they wanted. That is one of the things we effectively put an end to, the United States can hardly dare to act so brazenly again.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Doctor, before I give the other guys the floor, I don’t want to let this opportunity pass, I think once, you told us about it. There was a CIA document that was presented there, which they called “Psychological Operation in Guerrilla Warfare”” which encouraged assassinations. Doctor, tell us about it.
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
That’s another matter, ever, even for the US allies (…) with an instruction, a detail let’s say, some few things came to light. Because while we can well imagine the barbarities that took place and all the things that happened, by pure chance a Training Manual prepared by the CIA for the Contras in fact came to light.
In that Training Manual, with some specious title as you mentioned, for Guerrilla Warfare Manual, whatever title they may want to have given it. It was a Terrorism Manual in which they told the Contras that they had to get to a town, first look for all the leaders of the Town and repress them, that is, kill them, that was the first thing and they began to give instructions on how they should proceed to prevent there from being uprisings against them. (…) It made one’s hair s!
And that manual the Court saw, and the Court saw that that manual had been discussed (…) one of the things that were absolutely self-evident and tested was the preparation of that manual. The Court devotes several pages simply to detailing that, which was an issue when the United States dares to talk about terrorism elsewhere.
It’s amazing when you see those things, how it was possible to get the manual from them, you see, these terrorists that you mention, they were just apprentices of this manual that they prepared 40 years ago. I mean, the things they were willing to do were incredible, anything was worth it at that time as if the Rule of Law were non-existent.
Journalist Alberto Mora
The compañeros who are connected, who want to ask some questions or offer some input, we are available. I think we have Moses there.
Journalist Moisés Absalón Pastora
Nicaragua is one of the most recurrent countries in the use of International Law to resolve its problems, to seek vindication of rights that imperial arrogance in many ways wanted to take away from it. This accusation, which was made against the United States, is based on the blowing up of fuel pipes or mined ports, bombings, etc. The United States has obviously rejected this in terms of jurisdiction.
We have in our favor, a calculation of that indemnity of 17,000 million dollars, which according to the projection, to the processing, to the interests today could be multiplied enormously, but the thing is that we are assisted by reason (…) in international law (…)
We went against Colombia and recovered the Oceanic Platform in the Nicaraguan Caribbean, more than 70,000 square kilometers, we have managed through those positions; winning and sometimes losing (…) Doctor Carlos Argüello, (…) President Violeta Chamorro without consulting anyone, without taking into account what the Mothers of the fallen may have thought about that situation, without even thinking about the elements that the marine platform might represent or the structure of the State so as to consult on whether that decision was legitimate.
The point is that she tried per se, to forgive, incredibly, and effect the suspension of that sentence; as if the personal position of a President who decided, by herself and before herself had more jurisdiction in that particular, than the final Judgment of that International Court of Justice, and was after all a decision that belonged to us Nicaraguans.
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
In this regard, precisely anticipating the possibility that some settlement could be reached that would affect the interests of Nicaragua, the National Assembly in 1989, at the beginning of the 90s, had taken a Resolution precisely to make sure that only with a decision of the Assembly could the demand be abandoned. But it is one thing to desist from the action, that is, to stop the lawsuit, and it is another thing to desist from the Right that one has to claim it. You can say, I’m not going to keep fighting but that doesn’t mean that one is giving up the Right.
But this memory brings back spinning in my mind other things that I have seen over the years, mainly the illusion that the United States manufactures and that the pro-Imperialists manufacture, that with the United States one returns to paradise, and with the friendship of the United States all problems are solved.
The idea in the 90s was that to keep on fighting with the United States was pointless, since the United States is going to give us big aid, but the United States never gave any aid. The help of the United States, and those who study this can see it, the great help was to stop preventing international organizations from helping Nicaragua, which is what they had been doing, but to say that the United States took out funds as it gave to the Contras, to give to Nicaragua, it never gave, nor has it ever given.
So to think that something was going to be gained, which is perhaps what was naively sold to the Nicaraguan government at that time, and perhaps, to renounce that case, to stop following up the Demand was going to bring collateral benefits with the United States, that was also an illusion.
And in practice, those who want to see and still think that there great things just round the corner, the only thing that comes is the same. What happened in all those years, what was the great help of the United States? Nothing, nothing, just stop attacking us directly, that was it.
But despite the fact that the Executive gave up the action to move forward with that Demand, but Nicaragua has not renounced the Right to Compensation, that is still fully valid, as one cannot renounce the National Territory either, so to the good, because some President here or there may say let’s give up; but that is part of the Nicaraguan heritage.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Adolfo Pastran, please.
Journalist Adolfo Pastrán
Thank you. To ask the Doctor how far this case of Nicaragua has served for Education and Global Awareness in defense of International Law.
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
In fact, since my profession as a lawyer, and the contact I have with colleagues, I have even met high-level professors, who have told me that they often use the Judgment in the case of Nicaragua v. United States as a textbook.
It’s not really just words because for those of us who study International Law, it’s actually a case that addresses an enormous amount of incredible International Law topics, that practically every topic that you study is a law lesson.
So, it is a matter that even intellectually is still studied in all universities, and obviously that intellectual study also serves as moral Education for the students themselves, because they are inevitably seeing not only the rules of Law, but in what context they were used.
So, it is a lesson that Nicaragua gave to the world and that continues to be a lesson and continues to be studied. So this is another angle for this case as well, which has been very important.
Journalist Alberto Mora
We have Edilson Orozco, go ahead Edilson, Channel 8. Welcome back.
Journalist Edilson Orozco
(…) Relations with other with other World Powers in the creation of a new Multipolar World. Could this change the way international law is practiced in the future?
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
The reality is, we weren’t really creating new law, we were just executing existing law. And the simple truth is that with the rules of law that exist, if only they were truly applied and applied to everyone, we could live together in this world; that’s the problem.
The problem is that these rules only apply to the weak and when you want to apply to the strong, then they try to suspend them. Let me give an example, there is an International Criminal Court that was created approximately 25 years ago, fortunately Nicaragua is not part of that Court, but also let’s note that the United States is not a party, China is not a party, Russia is not a party, India is not a party, obviously there are a lot of countries that are not a party. But what’s the matter? That in that Court they prosecute and have been dedicated to prosecuting the first three quarters of that History Africans; that is, there has been no European, no American there.
Five years ago ago someone tried to say something about the United States there, at that time there was Mr. Bolton this person of nefarious memory, Bolton, who was the one who organized things against us in 2018. Bolton was there and then was sent to tell the Criminal Court in The Hague, that if they touched a US American they were going to send the US Army against them all.
So, what I’m going to do and give that example, is that in that International Criminal Court you can’t touch the United States there, but you can touch all the Africans you like and all those who are part of it, who make a living out of their prosecutions; they live by applying the law to the vulnerable, but when anyone seeks to apply the law to powerful countries, then they do not.
That’s why what I’m saying is that in reality, and it was one of the things that really was an achievement, you might say an enormous one, that precisely a small country like Nicaragua put the United States in the dock of the accused. That was the great achievement, and if we could always do it that way, then obviously the Law would progress, then we would begin to be all more or less the same; but as long as the Law is only applied against us, and in favor of the powerful, then something is wrong there.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Roberto Zuniga, Channel 13.
Journalist Roberto Zúniga
Doctor, 40 years is quite a long time, four decades is a long time; I think all of us here involved in this conversation lived that moment. I think Edilson of Channel 8 wasnot, but the rest yes, somehow we lived that historical moment.
But how do we explain to a young person of 18, 20, 30 years old, who today lives linked more to the world of Technology, to Social Networks, to the maelstrom of what we live every day today? How do we explain to that young person, to that girl, to that boy the historical importance of this Lawsuit?
Words of Doctor Carlos Argüello
I think this conference is one of the ways to do it, I try to put myself in the mind of a 30-year-old, even a 40-year-old, who really did not live through all these things (…) and all the barbarities that happened and everything that gave rise to this Lawsuit and this action.
I think that young people have to learn in the same way that all of us have learned; that is to say, there are milestones in the history of a Country and in the personal history of all of us that serve to educate us, and possibly what Nicaragua did against the United States, is one of them, precisely because it serves to educate youth, so that they also realize that it is not some story currently invented by politicians what had happened in Nicaragua and what was happening, but that it is a reality, that the US was taken to an impartial Court (…) and it ruled in favor of Nicaragua.
So, I think that any young person who sees this reality and realizes it; that is, it is not my father, my grandfather, or my uncle who is telling me this, nor is it the President, nor is it a legislator. This is what happened, this thing that happened you want to prove it, where does it exist, it’s not even a history book written by someone.
Here is the history, the history of what was happening and what did happen at that time is part of the History the Records of the International Court and that in 100, 200 years they will continue to study it. So, there is the truth that is at least in my field, to transmit to young people, so as to tell them, look again, here it is, I am not making it up, here it is. I think this serves as a good reminder and education for young people.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Doctor, I would like to ask you, as William mentioned at the beginning, about a Victory of the Nicaraguan People, a Victory for the Sandinista Revolution, a Victory for everyone, but I would like to ask you, and once you mentioned a couple of Stories about the role played by two people back then, the Chancellor of Peace, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann and President Comandante Daniel Ortega. Perhaps you could refer a little to those historical moments, the conversations you had with them, the role they played. Go ahead, Doctor.
Words of Carlos Arguello
Yes, Alberto, at first maybe I hinted a little bit at that topic, because I say sometimes it seems that the Lawyer in Court who is the protagonist; the same way that in a hospital at a certain moment the Doctor who is there, or an engineer who participated in making a road.
But the important and vital thing in this, is not that a Lawyer has said to a leader, look, there are these mechanisms that can be done, those are the things that you can do. Well, in the same way, I suppose there are the engineers who will say, this can be done, that can be done.
The talent of the leader, the talent of Father d’Escoto, of Comandante Ortega was precisely to see the importance of this, and I say this not because we can say now that it was obvious; no, it is that it was not obvious, that’s why I remembered on other occasions that there were many at that time who advised against going to court.
I even noted the Soviet Union at that time, the people of the Soviet Union did not advise us to go, that is, nothing less and nothing more than that, they did not advise not because they were in favor of the United States at all, but because they could not see how this Demand could prosper, because if it did not prosper, then then it would be worse for Nicaragua. So where was the success of this? In fact it was the way the case was prepared and handled.
Speaking of Father d’Escoto, the Chancellor, a brilliant man, the Father d’Escoto touched all the possible contacts there were, because they were there around the world, he went to consult friends at the United Nations, he went to Africa talking to people, consulting with all the lawyers, with all the people, to see about making this decision. It wasn’t as straightforward as saying look, what about the idea of filing this lawsuit, anyone can say that.
The thing turns on the preparation and taking the decision, so that’s where the leader’s mind comes in, yes indeed this seems to me, this hospital yes we are going to do it here, or that hospital we are going to do it there, this we are going to do it here, not because the leader is a Doctor, or an Engineer in this, but the virtue of the leader is to know where the proper path in each field may be.
Because a Head of State is not an expert in all the world’s different fields, far from it; he is not supposed to be an expert in Public International Law or that he has to be a Doctor, or an Engineer and so on, but what he does have to have is a talent for making decisions and seeing where the best path may lie.
That’s why what I’ve always point out, because usually it looks like a team of lawyers are the ones who did everything; but it’s not like that. Because that path was opened and they told us and set us along it, here you go now, and that path has already been prepared for us, and it was an intelligent and brilliant decision with a great deal of preparatory work that had been done to get there.
That is why it is very important to remember this, because it is much more than a team of Lawyers and that if there had not been that brilliant team… It’s not that I’m minimizing the work that the Nicaraguan team did, or trying to offer false humility, obviously we were a very competent team, but also the United States had a very competent team; and when we were with Colombia, Colombia also had a very competent team.
So, the decisions are not just to say: Ah, it’s that my team was the best, or something. No, we’re not necessarily talking about this team being better, it’s that the decision gets made about that moment, and the path that is going to be followed.
This was very important for me, and those two at that time, Father d’Escoto and Comandante Ortega were vital, because not all Sandinismo at that time agreed that this should be done. This was done because Comandante Ortega and Father d’Escoto were in agreement, they were determined that this was the right thing to do.
That’s why whenever I talk about this I recognize this crucial merit, because it is not an obvious merit, because for them nothing was sure about going before the Court; but the beginning of all this is due to them and to their decision and their vision in this matter. So that’s really important.
Journalist William Grigsby
For my part, one last thing: Doctor, moving ahead in time, to June 27th ’86, did you expect the Sentence to be favorable? How did you, the team, react once the ruling was favorable?
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
It was actually a great moment if you will, we were waiting for it, already obviously we knew or could have sensed that the sentence was going to be favorable, based on the case that the United States itself had said, it was not going to continue.
Because it must be remembered that when we asked for the Provisional Measures, the United States participated; then the United States said: The Court has no jurisdiction. And the United States participated and I mean that it participated with a huge team of lawyers, who even said that it was David against Goliath fighting, because it was the little team of Nicaragua against the dozens of gringos on the other side.
Over that, the United States fought to the death, and when the Court decided that it did have jurisdiction, the United States said: So much for that! I’m not going along with this! Because I already knew that once the Court accepted that it had jurisdiction, it was impossible for the Court to rule against Nicaragua. And how was it going to rule against, going back to what we had mentioned, if everything was proven and said in public, from the President admitting to the laying of mines? What is it that the court was going to have to spend time trying to decide? In other words, all of these were obvious violations of international law.
So in a sense, we saw it was almost impossible for the Court to come with a Ruling that was not favorable to Nicaragua. Obviously we didn’t have details of how the whole thing was going to be, but we were had some idea… When Father d’Escoto arrived in The Hague there was also a team in Washington to cover the news, another team in Managua, so we were all there waiting. It was a great moment, obviously, one of those moments that one has once in a lifetime, maybe, having lived one.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Well, let’s see if the other participating Brothers have any comments or anything else. They tell me that Channel 8… Go ahead!
Words of Journalist Edilson Orozco
Doctor, Nicaragua is currently handling or going through a new trial at the International Court of Justice; you already mentioned that it the joy of knowing that Nicaragua won against the United States. Do you have the same expectations with this new case, now against Germany, where it is demanded that the genocide against the Palestinian People be stopped?
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
Well, we have the same expectations, but I have to warn that we are opening a new field, because Israel’s action is obvious, and International Law says that when genocide is being committed or violations of the Law of War and International Humanitarian Law, all countries have an obligation to prevent that from happening.
So, for example, what Germany is alleging is obviously not new because it is not part of the situation, it says: This case is based on the fact that Israel is committing a crime and not Germany; one must first prove that Israel is committing a crime before going against Germany. And I mention it even though the topic is very specific, I’m trying to generalize it.
The important thing about this issue that we are exploring right now is, because it is a universal obligation that we are invoking; that is, it is an obligation of all countries, the obligation to prevent genocide, not to allow genocide to occur; not only to punish it, but to prevent it, and to uphold the Law. So we are talking about obligations that not only concern Germany, they are universal obligations of all countries in the world; that is why it is a case that transcends by far Nicaragua’s lawsuit against Germany.
This is an issue that concerns all countries which, knowing that barbarities are being done on one side, continue to participate, and not by means of the Sanctions that I talked about earlier with Alberto, Sanctions put in place for political reasons; but, the obligation they have to act when something is actually happening, like what is happening in Palestine, and they do not do so.
So what we are invoking here is an obligation of all the Countries of the world. We are invoking it against Germany in particular, because Germany is the second Country that sells the most armaments to Israel and trades with Israel. Against the United States we cannot act because it does not accept jurisdiction, but Germany does.
So it is against Germany, but as I say, if this action proceeds against Germany, it means and the Court will have to say so, that this kind of obligation is applicable to everyone, because if the obligation only applied once genocide was already proven, then where is the obligation to prevent it? That is to say, if the obligation to avoid genocide and ensuring that the norms of International Humanitarian Law are complied with only come into play once genocide has already been proven and a Country has been destroyed; then where are those obligations to try to protect and prevent?
So that is what we are exposing, in that aspect, it is a novel case. It is not to say: You have already judged this before and this leads here and so this is the consequence. We consider that it is a very important issue of International Law that we are invoking, and if this succeeds it will also be a milestone in the history of International Law, because an International Order will effectively be imposed as an obligation on all the countries of the World.
And here we are seeing it play out live, because it is very easy to say that less severe obligations are being fulfilled in some way, but here we are seeing a very serious matter where what is happening is self-evident, and that many powerful countries act if it they are not concerned. So, that’s what’s at stake here.
And also, with that background that we have, remembering, for example, just now that I was talking about the Terrorism Manual, Alberto, one of the points in the case with the United States was, to what extent did the Court have to decide, whether the United States was responsible for the violations of Humanitarian Law that the “Contra” was committing? Because the United States was not committing them directly, but it was the “Contra”.
So the United States was saying, No, this is not us committing them. But what the Court said is: Yes, however the United States had the obligation to avoid it as much as possible, and instead of avoiding it, what it did was issue that Manual, for example; so instead of preventing violations of humanitarian law, what it was doing was encouraging them.
So, even that thread of connection exists between this case of ours and the current one, and it was one of the things that I didn’t touch on in depth, but I mentioned it when I mentioned Nicaragua’s case: That Nicaragua was also asking the United States to stop providing weapons and give all the support to the “Contra”; here we are asking Germany to stop helping Israel in the genocide and the violations that it is committing.
So there is a thread that unites the cases, and as I say, if this is achieved, as we have all the optimism that it will be achieved, it will also impose new rules and issues that will be of the utmost importance, that Countries like the United States do not comply or act as if they are not involved, but once the Court says this, this will be an issue that will have to permeate throughout Society, in all Societies.
Right now there is almost a universal revulsion to everything that is happening in Palestine; so, if the rules of International law begin to be applied, the people of the world will understand what the norms are and will realize who is applying them and who is not; therefore, they will be able to better judge the importance of their Countries and their Governments respecting those Laws.
So we have that optimism, our Presidency Comandante Ortega, Compañera Rosario, have been pressing me on this issue; they are very attentive to everything that is happening. We are all concerned in a very heartfelt way, that is, very attached to the cause of our Palestinian Brothers.
Anyway, this history that we have of 40 years ago that we are living right now, is a small contribution that we are making, already in my old age, let’s say, I am trying to contribute a little with the time I have left. But anyway, we move on, which is the important thing, and we all have to move on.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Thank you, Doctor. Let’s see if some of the Colleagues want to add something, since we still have time. Moses Absalón Pastora.
Journalist Moisés Absalón Pastora
I would like to ask Dr. Carlos Argüello, the fact that in this context we commemorate and remember, 40 years ago precisely this Initiative of presenting the accusation. But observing how International Law continues to be violated, how we have extraterritorial violations by states, recently what happened in Ecuador; we are sadly seeing what is happening in Gaza, with the position of the Zionist Government of Israel; and how we are seeing how that war is being mounted against Russia using Ukraine as a NATO penetration camp; and we are seeing many more things that put in reference a common factor, and that is that the United States is the one behind all these situations that are so deplorable for humanity.
In that sense, Dr. Carlos Argüello, before a ruling on which the United States argues that the Hague has no jurisdiction, those talents, those thoughts of the Judges at the International Court of Justice, what do they note, what do they say outside the action of their usual procedures to settle disputes, between one State and another State, given that common factor. Is the United States the country most accused in the International Court of Justice?
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
Well, actually, here, and I have said it many times, the importance of this Appeal to the Court, or one of the very important points it has, is the education of Peoples. In the United States itself, where I have been able to read in the newspapers and given the limits controlling information that exists in the United States, the control of the mainstream media, but even there one can clearly see that even within the United States there is a very strong current, which is stunned and terrified with what it is seeing happening in Palestine. And that it has some force, because US morality and US law depend on the results of public polls.
So President Biden, so far as his morality permits, is now discovering that the Palestinians are suffering a little, but of course, he keeps giving Israel weapons, but publicly they make some admission, because the polls make them. But there also comes a time when the polls become irresistible, because piublic opinion is what ultimately chooses the heads of State.
So, a case like the one we are taking right now, is a case that also serves you to give context to this public opinion, and that no matter how much they don’t want it in the normal, traditional US media, such as the main newspapers, the news programs and the main television channels of the United States, there are now a great many information mechanisms that cannot be completely controlled, despite the fact that the United States obviously, and you know better than I do, how they seek to control even Tik Tok and all those issues that they don’t want to be interfered with in any way. But now it is very difficult to control all the information media.
So, a Court Ruling and what is happening in the Court serves to educate and give impetus to people and give context to what they are demanding, and to the demands they make internally in their own Countries, which is also a great force.
That is why, returning to what I was saying, and to which I have referred for many years and I have repeated it on some occasions in Nicaragua when I have been interviewed, because it is a truth and that is how I have seen it for 40 years, it is something I read from a French jurist: What do you do when a Power does not comply? What path is left for a country?
In this case, as I say, not even the UN Security Council anymore, because nor can we appeal to the Security Council, so what path does a country have left? The mobilization of Shame! The mobilization of Shame! To go to court and have a Court Sentence that is not followed, is a disgrace that no government can avoid. And if there is an internal movement inside the United States, even if the mainstream media don’t give it publicity, or officially, those things do come to light, and that’s very important.
So, obviously it is not a nuclear bomb that one is handling, but even so it is a very important information bomb, it is an education bomb and, in that sense, we are motivating, mobilizing and moving the World. What we can try and contribute is this modest contribution, and that is part of our contribution.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Let’s see if we any other compañero would like to participate? Any of the compañeros want to ask something?… Well, I think we just have to thank each of the participants, but mainly Dr. Carlos Argüello. Doctor Argüello, it has been a pleasure to talk with you, we thank you very much for having the opportunity to have you here this morning. Congratulations to all of us on this 40th anniversary. If you want to add something, final words, Doctor, please do…
Words of Dr. Carlos Argüello
For my part, thank you very much also for giving me this opportunity and, frankly, with these modern means now this kind of communication is almost as if I had visited Nicaragua for a while, without the bother of getting on a plane. So, thank you all very much. I think the conversation we have had has been interesting for all of us and for me in particular. Thank you very much, everyone.
Journalist Alberto Mora
Thank you very much Doctor; thank you very much to Pastrán, to Moises, to Roberto, also to Comrade Edilson of Channel 8, and to William Grigsby who was accompanying us here. William, thank you for having been with us, thank you for the attention given, and we hope that you enjoyed this Special Program. Have a good day.
Esta entrada fue modificada por última vez el 14 de abril de 2024 a las 2:42 PM
