We analyze the participation of Latin-America and Caribbean Countries into Non-Aligned Movement with the purpose of fulfil a profile of their behaviour along the different Non-Aligned Conferences since 1961; to find which their main problematic and aspirations were, comparatively with the rest of Non-Aligned Countries; but mainly to settle a connection between the growth participation of these countries into the Movement and their different and unstable political regimes and consequently discontinuous foreign behaviour trends.

With this purpose, we will do a brief analysis about the characteristics of Non-Alignment, its evolution along all the Conferences since 1961 to New Delhi Summit held in March 1983; the interpretations that Latin-American Countries have done about non-alignment; the different connotations of the Latin-American problematic with regard to the rest of Non-Aligned Countries of Asia and Africa; and the different perceptions that some Latin-American Countries have about the problems that every Non-Aligned Conference discuss.

Our objective is to establish that, in spite of the growth participation of the countries of the region in the Non-Aligned Movement, its real participation is still diffuse and of limited compromise, excepted some countries that are living in a colonial or neo-colonial situation subjected to international pressures and, through their liberation movements they try to find in the Non-Aligned Conferences the necessary support to obtain their objectives.


The First Non-Aligned Summit have defined the Non-Alignment, not as a new bloc but as the behaviour of a group of countries that form a movement, with the purpose of cooperating in the seeking and consolidation of the place in the world through the opposition to the policy of division of the world in blocs; contributing to obtain the independence and self-determination of the peoples, and to foment the pacific cooperation. In this sense, non-alignment means mainly the determination to keep away from power blocs and groupings aligned against one another.

Among the interpretations on non-alignment that we can find in Latin-America, we think that the most important is into the Doctrine uphold by Argentine peronist Government since 1946. This Government adopted in that year the Doctrine of “Third Position”, doing reference to the nature of political and economic systems of capitalist and communist worlds. In this sense they are talking of a “valorative” concept of the world, of the man and of the society, that attempt to overcome through this Doctrine the struggle of class, the liberal individualism and Marxist collectivism. In this case Third Position means Third Conception, in front of the two international blocs, under the lemma “economic independence, political sovereignty and social justice”. Nevertheless, reference is not made to a world without blocks, but to a third alternative in front of the two blocks.

The “third position” of Perón is of doctrinal order, contrary to the “third position” of De Gaulle that had characteristic pragmatic in front of the peaceful coexistence outlined by Kruschev and accepted by Kennedy.

This three concepts exist into Non-Aligned Movement: through supporting the decolonization process the Movement seek for the political sovereignty; seeking the sovereignty over natural resources, and through some strategies to obtain joint positions in front of the Transnational Enterprises and to obtain a greater negotiations strength in front of the industrialized powers with the purpose of establishing a New International Economic Order (NIEO), the Movement seek for the economic independence; and, promoting social reforms for the Peoples of the Third World, seek for the social justice. The difference between the Doctrine of Third Position and the Non-Aligned principles is - in this case -that the Movement has declared that has not the intention of creating a new bloc, in the sense that the term “bloc” imply, starting from the ideological division of the world since the end of the Second World Way. But, in fact, the Movement constitute an alternative form for all the countries of the Third World that are trying to avoid its adscription, or to be forcedly aligned under the hegemony of the big powers.

Another interpretation of Non-Alignment was done by the Cuban Government of Fidel Castro, in the opening of the Sixth Non-Aligned Summit held in La Habana (1979), when he recognized in Soviet Union an allied of the Third World and a precursor of equality, in front of the imperialism incarnated by United States of America and Western Europe:

That we maintain fraternal relations with socialist community and Soviet Union? Yes, we are friends of Soviet Union. We are profoundly grateful to the soviet people, due their generous collaboration that helped us to survive and to defeat in difficult and decisive times of our life’s, when included we run the danger of being exterminated. And no one people has the right of been ungrateful. We are grateful to the glorious revolution of October, because it started a new Era in the story of mankind, made the possibility of defeat the fascism and created conditions in the world that, united to the self-denying struggle of the peoples, contribute to the collapse of the odious colonial system. To ignore it, is to ignore the same story. (...) I wonder if United States or some country of the NATO have sometime helped to any liberation movement in our world. (...) If to belong to the Non-Aligned Movement it is necessary to do treason to the deep-rooted ideas and convictions, it is not honour for me to belong to the Movement, and it will not honour for you too. No one revolutionary has the right of being a coward” 1.


The trajectory of the concept of Non-Alignment has been growing, and have had various interpretations, depending of the problematic of the countries that attend to the different Conferences.

In fact we can say that, there was not a unique concept of Non-Compromise but various, as much as there was countries under the pressure of big powers, for different circumstances and forms, to belong to one or another sphere of influence.

The recent independent countries, or some countries that are living neo-colonial problematic, they have reacted in accordance with each one own imperatives, and consequently, the non-compromise have different sense and motivations.

To analyze this problematic we will start from the following hypothesis: “There are not an univocal and statically category of non-alignment. Contrarily, every country or group of them have an own interpretation, depending of their own interest and historical circumstances” 2.

The concept of non-alignment or non-compromise had already appeared ending the Second World War. Between 1945 and 1955 (Bandung Summit) the non-alignment was born under Asian primacy. The basic idea was tied at to look for an international cooperation with the purpose of obtaining a greatest national liberty and the discolonization. To this principles was add the need of a pacific coexistence.

Between Bandung Summit and the First Non-Aligned Summit held in Belgrade (1961), started an important process of discolonization in Africa. To the concept of non-adscription and to the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist claims was add the idea of struggle against racism, due to Black African problems with South-Africa. They appeal to reciprocal assistance.

Between the First Summit and the Second one held in The Cairo (1964) was add the postulate of democratization the international relations into the patterns of pacific coexistence. They insert the economic equality principle emphasizing in the need of reciprocal help for the development.

Between the Second Summit and the Fourth one held in Argel (1973), we can see very important signals of fragmentation and the lose of dynamism of the Movement. There were few points of concord. Africa continued giving priority to its problems of colonialism and racism, while the Arab countries had put the accent in Palestinian problems, and the Asian one in Viet-Nam. In Daar-Es-Salaam Summit (1970) they attempt to adopt an unification objective based in the search of some mechanisms to overcome the poverty and the retard of the peoples, while in Lusaka Summit (1970) the most important objective was South-South cooperation, adding in Argel Summit (1973) the need of fulfilling the NIEO. Notwithstanding the differences have continued.

Between Argel Summit and New Delhi Summit (1983), there were not very important agreements of opinion. To the lack of success in Colombo Summit (1976), divisions were add in La Habana Summit (1979). In this last Meeting, the Movement came into an “ideology” stage that with the Presidency of Fidel Castro (1979) adopted pro soviet connotations, emphasizing the American and European imperialism, but considering the USSR as a friend and an ally of Non-Aligned Movement 3.

With New Delhi Summit (1983) and the Presidency of India, the Movement seems to have entered in a stage of moderation, adopting the primitive conceptions based on “non-aligned orthodoxy”, but improved by all that thought that have been adopted along the different Conferences.


III.1.Latin-American Particularities

Not only the perceptions but also the Latin-American problematic, have different connotations with regard to the rest of non-aligned countries. Concerning to this matter we think it is necessary to point at some fundamental aspects:

1) Latin-American perception over decolonization problem is different that one of African and Asian countries. In the first case the problem mainly turn around territorial sovereignty claims, such as Malvinas for Argentina, Belize for Guatemala, Guayana Essequibo for Venezuela, or the problem of Canal Zone -already returned by USA- for Panama. The Caribbean colonial problems have been foreign to the rest of Latin-American countries, and practically have never been presents in their policies. But their have considered, as an important problem the possible advance of communism in Latin-America, through Cuban revolution or another Latin-American country that adopt some “heterodox” or “secessionist” behaviour 4.

2) Latin-American economic problems are also managed in different form, seeing that in some way they have surpassed the traditional economy system and they have advanced through substitutive importation process, toward industrial development; while most of African and Asian countries - excepted someone - have yet an economy based on rural exploitation. However, toward ends of the ´80 and in the ´90, great part of the Asian countries reached high levels of industrialization and super-advanced technological development, while the Latin American countries continue with dependent economies, as factories of transnational companies and with a low or null autonomy of its economic and industrial development. In technological matter, they import the great majority of the products from Asia and, in the best cases -almost nonexistent- they arm it.

3) The ideas and values keep also some differences with regard to African and Asian countries, due especially to European influence in Latin-America, that have generated western conceptions since last Century. Contrarily, in African and Asian countries prevail local conceptions mixed with some influences from their colonialist countries, maybe adopted by the elite who have been educated in Europe, but not fixed in popular culture.

4) Latin-American problems are generally entailed at its relations with industrial powers and with international capital, besides their political relations with the hegemonic power; while Asian and African problems have its main relation with colonialism, imperialism and racism.

5) In foreign affairs matter, there are also some differences. Traditionally Latin-American foreign affairs have been -individually- with European countries and United States. They have had very few relations among them and with the rest of the Third World 5.

III.2. Vision of Non-Aligned Countries about Latin-American Countries

The growing Latin-American participation in Non-Aligned Movement, from Non-Aligned view-point, have been considered as a positive fact in different Conferences. But, to understand this participation, we must do an analysis about political particularities of the region in order to establish real patterns of action that help-up to this sub-continent to get a better insertion in the world, in accordance with basic principles of non-alignment 6.

Taking into account this aspect, we consider very important to mention, that we can not talk -at least for Latin-America - of non-aligned countries, but -in some cases and during the bipolar system- non-aligned governments or with a behaviour near to the non alignment thought.

This is intimately entailed with the characteristics of political processes in Latin-America, that they are on a permanent change like a pendulum 7. This implies that in different times the same countries adopt different postures with regard to non-alignment, depending it of the government of turn. In general, the Latin American countries -its governments-, in different stages, adopt different postures regarding their bonds with other Latin American countries or of the Third World, always keeping the distance and avoiding that it constitutes a possibility to generate politics of block or of alliance to maximize the acting capacity in front of industrialized States or transnational companies or international organisms. They always adopt individualized and “vertical” bonds with the industrialized countries assisting dogmatically to the neoliberal ideology.

For 1973 (Argel Summit), had already seven Latin-American countries as a member and seven observers 8. Besides Cuba, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago 9, were joined Argentina, Peru and Chile. In this three last countries there were -in 1973- governments with reformist characteristics. In Argentina had assumed the peronist government that same year. In Chile there was the Government of “izquierda popular”, (left tendency) of Salvador Allende since 1970, and in Peru the General Velazco Alvarado that had assumed through a revolutionary coup in 1968, also adopting reformist policies. However, finished Argel Summit there were news: the Chilean Government of Salvador Allende was overthrew by praetorian military coup whose it is still in the Government and there are not perspectives at least in the short time - of a constitutional aperture. The peronista Government could not gather at Fifth Summit in Colombo, because few month before was overthrew by a praetorian military coup. While the Peruvian process had a “change of guard” for 1975, that, without reverting the policies adopted by Velazco Alvarado, permitted that their became weakness. In 1980 gave-up a constitutional Aperture among a Very important economic crisis.

We have reference to these affairs, due to in the Ministerial Meeting of Lima (1975), the Movement concluded thereabout the “nationalism” and the search of structural changes in Latin-America, are positive facts. The problem is, firstly, that these policies are not undertake jointly or co-ordinately by the countries of the region, with the purpose of getting a mutual endorsement, but individually, without constituting a Latin-American “project”. Secondly, political attitude -in some cases “radicalized”- of some governments - notwithstanding their reformist policy sign- finish, not only undone the policies and labour made by their predecessor, but also adopting political pastures radically opposed. In this manner, we find ourselves, in a “pendulum” form, with nationalist processes in accordance with the basic principles of non-alignment, and processes with an “alignment” behaviour. Chile did not attend to non-aligned meeting since 1973, and Argentina notwithstanding the military process that has acceded at the government in 1976, and continued sending delegates to non-aligned conferences, its participation have been rather as observer than a full Member, excepted in occasion of Malvinas way, that compelled to military Government to attend to the Meeting of Coordinating Bureau (La Habana, June of 1982), to the Ministerial Meeting of Nicaragua (December of 1982), and to New Delhi Summit (March of 1983), seeking for Non-Aligned support for its sovereign claim over the archipelago lost in the war. In this case, we find ourselves with a non-aligned country - Argentina - but with a Government (1976-83) that permanently have adopted policies of defence and adscription to the so-called “Western and Christian World”. This policies have had profound implications against non-aligned principles, particularly in occasion of Argentine support to Garcia Meza's coup in Bolivia, or with the Argentine shipment of “military advisers” to El Salvador.

In the same manner, have had inverse situations. The Bolivian and Nicaraguan joining to Non-Aligned Movement as Members in La Habana Summit (1979) “us clearly this fact. In the Bolivian case, which is the Latin-American country with the most important record of military coups; its impossibility of being a participant like an Observer or Full Member, was due to the constant corsi e ricorsi in its domestic and foreign policies. In the case of Nicaragua, “somocista dynasty” managed the country during decades, until their overthrow in 1979. However, neither in the first case nor in the second one, has been said the last word, for the reason that could the things newly turn to its origin.

This shows us, a view of Latin-American erratic political behaviour. In the Fourth Summit (Argel), the Movement has expressed that, in Latin-America there is each time a growth number of countries that manifest the will of emancipation, and that the non-alignment acquire greater amplitude and audience among these countries. However, the ideas expressed before the last paragraph, retract in some manner this. In the Ministerial Meeting held in Lima (1975), the Movement pointed out as a positive fact, the prop of the nationalism and structural changes in Latin-America. But this, must be seen through the “crystal of the pendulum” of Latin-American political regimes, where there is a dichotomy nationalism-adscription to the Western World principles. In this Meeting, the Resolution adopted by Latin-American countries in 1975, on maintaining freely relations with Cuba, has been considered as a triumph. But this was also give in an oscillated manner, depending on the government of turn in each country of the region. In the Seventh Summit, the Movement noted with satisfaction the determination of the peoples of Latin-America to pursue a non-aligned policy and to struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism and all forms of foreign domination, hegemony and interference in the internal affairs of States. These principles have been adopted, for example, in the last stage that is living the Argentine Military Government. But this argentine taking of political conscience, is more close to the needfulness of undergoing the reverse endured by cause of Malvinas war, that of a true conviction of non-aligned basic principles.



Since Ministerial Conference of Georgetown (August of 1972), the Movement started to analyze situations entailed with territorial problems in Latin-America. The first case entered upon by the Movement was the problem of Panama Canal Zone. In the Ministerial Conference held in Lima (august of 1975, was added the Belize case and Argentine territorial claim over Malvinas; and lately, in the Seventh Summit held in New Delhi (march of 1983), was treated the problem between Venezuela and Guyana over the Essequibo zone claimed by Venezuela.

These subjects have been treated in accordance with the claim of claimer countries, except Belize case, around which there are different point of view between the Movement posture and Guatemala, which is supported by several Latin-American countries. The problem of Essequibo zone has been treated, not so in function of Venezuela claim, but in the Movement interest of attaining that Venezuela and Guyana arrive to a just resolution by a negotiate way 10.

A.1. The Panama Canal Zone

The Panama Canal Zone problem has started before its construction, due to the “dollar” and “big stick” policies applied by United States in the zone. Panamanian governments claimed permanently the Canal Zone supported -at least morally- by the rest of Latin-American countries.

Panama joined the Non-Aligned Movement due to the revolutionary coup of General Omar Torrijos, firstly as an Observer and lastly as a Full Member (Colombo, 1976); beginning the treatment of their problem by the different Non-Aligned Conferences.

The Canal Zone problem has been an irregular evolution, full of vicissitude, but fortunately it finished - in principle -with the Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977, in force since 1979.

The support of Non-Aligned Group has been permanent, and in the same manner that reaffirmed their solidarity with people and Government of Panama in their struggle for conclude with the Treaty of 1903 over Canal Zone, and in their seeking for obtaining an effective sovereignty over their national territory; the Movement also adopted the determination of convoking all the Members of Non-Aligned Movement and the rest of the world, to adhere the Protocol of Neutrality over the Canal Zone, in order to get its effective respect.

However, we consider opportune to mention that this subject has not been treated in the same manner by the Organization of American States (OAS), due to the big influence of United States into the Organization, and its interest in solve this kind of problem by bilateral ways.

A.2 Malvinas Islands

This problem, that take origin from the beginning of last Century, has been provoked by the British invasion to the territory of Malvinas Islands in 1833. Since then, different argentine governments, constantly has claimed the argentine rights over the territory of these Islands included South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands, but without success.

In the same manner that neither has had big progress the bilateral negotiations between Argentina and Great Britain Governments.

In 1973, Argentine peronista Government has decided to join as Full Member into the Movement, starting the treatment of Malvinas subject in the Ministerial Meeting held in Lima (1975).

In the same form that the Canal Zone case, Malvinas' problem has not been treated directly into OAS, except in the Twentieth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (1982) convoked by cause of the war between Argentina and Great Britain. The main evidence of the treatment of the problem into OAS (historically) are the reservations that constantly have had the different argentine delegations to OAS Meetings, in occasion of the signature of a Treaty or International Agreement, where could be stated a confusion around argentine sovereign rights on Malvinas Islands 11.

Since 1965, the Decolonization Committee of United Nations, began the treatment of the problem based on the Resolution 1514 (XV) of General Assembly, adopting successive resolutions entailed specifically to the subject, such as 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII) and 31/48 (September 1 of 1976). Latin-American countries have supported - at least morally - Argentine claim over the Islands.

In April of 1982, Argentine Military Government has unexpectedly decided the invasion of the Islands, with the purpose of recovering it by the way of fact, adducing the permanent delay in the negotiations provoked by Great Britain. This invasion derived in a war between both countries, and has concluded three month after, with the triumph of Great Britain. Due to this, the Military Argentine Government - whose foreign policy has been of a frank adscription to the Western World principles and turned its back to -Latin-America and Non-Aligned principles, in spite of its participation, although passive, in the different Conferences of the Movement - has decided its participation in the Coordinating Bureau Meeting held in La Habana (June of 1982), with the purpose of finding the support of the Movement. With the same purposes has participated in the Ministerial Meeting held in Nicaragua (December of 1982), as well as in New Delhi Summit (March of 1983) with the President Reynaldo Bignone as the head of Argentine delegation. Argentina has obtained the wished support, but the Summit has expedited in terms of carrying the conflict through pacific means by negotiations. In the same manner, the Summit, besides expressing its satisfaction with the solidarity and firm support given by the Latin-American an other non-aligned countries to the Republic of Argentina in its efforts to settle the sovereignty dispute and prevent the consolidation of the colonial situation existing in these Islands; the Movement considered that the massive military and naval presence and the activities of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Malvinas Islands region are a cause for grave concern to the countries of the region and aversely affect stability in the area. Likewise the Conference took note of the statements made by the Argentine Republic during the thirty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly with regard to the reported introduction of nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the region of the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich.

The Malvinas' problem is, per se, of big geopolitics and strategic implication, due that the domain over the Islands implies the possibility of British projection over Antarctic region and to control the Pacific Atlantic passage, besides the possibility of controlling the rest of South-Atlantic area. This problem has became worse with the Argentine defeat in Malvinas' war, because now, the Argentine possibilities of recovering Malvinas Islands are far off. Since June of 1982, Great Britain has a biggest control over the Islands, the South-Atlantic region, over Pacific-Atlantic passage and over Antarctic projection. Besides, in the same form that Diego Garcia Islands case and the Pacific Ocean, this area not only will not be a “Zone of Peace”, but run the danger of becoming a missile basis of logistic support to NATO Members 12.

A.3. The Belize Case

This is a very complicate case to analyze due to the point of view of Non-Aligned Movement and some Latin-American countries, included Guatemala -the country that claim the sovereignty over Belize- are opposite.

Firstly, we must make clear that Belize (British Honduras), has, a special status as a Member of Non-Aligned Movement since the Fifth Summit held in Colombo (1976); while Guatemala attended only as a guest to the Ministerial Conference of Lima (August of 1975), but it is not Full Member or Observer of the Movement.

Secondly, Guatemala claims the territory of Belize to Great Britain since its independence in 1821. In 1895 abandoned the claims under the British promise of building a road between Belize and el Petén; but the road has never been built and Guatemala began claiming again since 1940. In 1862 Great Britain has constituted Belize as a British colony under the name “British Honduras”. In 1963 they have promulgated a Constitution, giving to Belize an autonomous regime. In front of the impossibility of the British retired, Guatemala gave a new impulse to its claims over the territory arriving at a situation of tension that in 1975 has provoked the reinforcement of the military garrison in Belize. In October of 1976, delegations of Great Britain, Belize and Guatemala maintained unfruitful meetings over the future of the colony. In may of 1977 the Government of Guatemala threatened to Great Britain pointing out that will recur to the arms, if this unilaterally give to Belize the independence. Ending 1982, Belize has obtained its independence with British support.

The Government of Guatemala noted down its claims over the territory of Belize in different reservations made in occasion of the signature or ratification of Treaties or International Agreements into OAS, in the same manner that Argentina have had on Malvinas' subject.

In 1975, the Belize case has been treated in Plenary Session of the United Nations General Assembly, and the decision over its independence showed the different postures of the countries of the region: voting against Belize independence: Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic and El Salvador. Abstaining: Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Ecuador. Voting against Guatemala claims - favourably to Belize independence Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago 13.

The treatment of this subject into Non-Aligned Movement has been different. The Movement started talking on Belize problem since Ministerial Conference held in Lima (August of 1975). Guatemala has attended to this Conference -solely - as a guest country, but did not attend a delegation of Belize. In this Conference, in the same manner that in the Ministerial Meeting of Coordinating Bureau held in Argel Pay-June of 1976), the Non-Aligned Members expressed their firm support to the independence of Belize, which is been frustrated by territorial claims, affirming its territorial integrity and the right of the people of Belize to their independence, the Conference agreed to offer I their support -to all the efforts tending to that purpose.

In Colombo Summit (1976) the Members recommended the strict application of the Resolution 3432 (XXX) of the United Nations General Assembly, appealing to the parts in conflict to prosecute the negotiations in accordance with the guide lines included in that Resolution. In the Ministerial Meeting held in New Delhi (April of 1977) and La Habana (May of 1978), the Movement reiterated its support to the people of Belize aspirations. In the Ministerial Conference of Belgrade (July of 1978) urged to the countries of the Movement to a strict application of the Resolution 32/32 of United Nations General Assembly of November 28, 1977, with the purpose of facilitating the objective.

Ended 1982, Belize got its independence with British support. In New Delhi Summit (March of 1983) the Movement noted with concern that another dangerous focus of tension exists in the region in Guatemala, whose regime is pursuing a repressive and expansionist policy which is reinforced by the use of its special military ties with the Zionist regime of Israel and with imperialism and which constitutes a threat to other States in the region, especially Belize.

A.4. The Essequibo Case

The problem over the territory of Essequibo shows us the conflict between Venezuela and Guyana, as a consequence of the British inheritance committed to the last country, due that Great Britain had not solved the problem with Venezuela before Guyana got independent.

Venezuela claims a zone of 203.310 km2, at present under the sovereignty of Guyana.

In 1814, Great Britain has acquired from Holland the territory named subsequently as British Guyana. The border with Venezuela was fixed in the Essequibo River. When Venezuela got independent from Spain in 1845 due to Madrid Treaty, all the zone comprehended to the west of Essequibo River was included as a part of the territory of that country.

The origin of the Venezuelan-Great Britain controversy was due to an expedition performed by a Prussian naturalist named Rovert Schomburgk in 1835, by commission of the Real Geographic Society of London, with the purpose of studying the virgin territories of Guyana, drawing up maps of that zone, where he has included 4.920 km2 of Venezuelan territory. Due to the success of the expedition, Schomburgk was newly sent in 1841, in this opportunity by the British Government. In this expedition, not only settled a new demarcation line, subtracting 141.930 km2 of Venezuelan territory, but also placed pillars and flags of delimitation. The British Government adopted until 1886 this second line traced by Schomburgk. In 1887, the naturalist traced a third line, subtracting 167.830 km2 of territory. Between 1887 and 1897 he traced a fourth demarcation line, subtracting this time 203.310 km2 of Venezuelan territory.

Meanwhile, in 1850 the Venezuelan and British Governments signed a Treaty, by virtue of which the first country got that Great Britain retired the marks fixed by Schomburgk at the same time that both States compromised themselves to respect the bordering status-quo, without attempting the territorial occupation of one or another side of Essequibo River.

However the Treaty remained without execution.

In 1885, Venezuela attempted to bear the dispute to an international arbitration, but neither had success. In 1889, Great Britain had military occupied the west extreme of Essequibo territory, declaring it British port of the colony.

In 1887, both governments agreed the arbitration of the conflict with the intervention of United States. In a meeting celebrated in Paris, in October 3, 1899, the Tribunal of Arbitration dictated the award, recognizing to Great Britain 159.500 km2 of the territory claimed by Venezuela. In 1900, the President of Venezuela, Cipriano Castro threatened not to execute the award, but Great Britain urged to this country to execute it under the punishment of realizing an unilateral demarcation of the territory. Different Venezuelan government had statements without success, up to in 1962, owing to the celebration of the 17th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, Great Britain agreed to discuss the problem into a tripartite commission with the intervention of the authorities -at that time colony- of British Guyana.

In 1965, they met themselves unfruitful. In 1966 they did it in Ginebra and decided to institute a Mixed Commission. Besides, they agreed themselves that, when British Guyana become independent, the Government of Guyana will be considered as a part in the search of solutions. In the same manner they established themselves that, if in a period of 4 years they would not find a solution, they will recur to the means purposed in the Article 33 of the Charter of United Nations. Expired the term in June 18, 1970, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the three countries met themselves in Port Spain and signed a Protocol by which they agreed that the Governments of Venezuela and Guyana - which got independent in may 26, 1966 - will not do any claim that come up from the position, sustained by Venezuela, which one the Treaty of Ginebra has reference on the nullity of the award of 1899. The Protocol have been agreed with a limit of 12 years capable of being prorogued automatically. The problem still has not been solved 14.

Venezuela is an observer country in the Non-Aligned Movement since the Second Summit (The Cairo, 1964), and has attended regularly to all the Conferences until New Delhi Summit (March of 1983). Guyana is Full Member since the Third Summit (Lusaka, 1970). However, the problem of Essequibo has been newly treated in the Ministerial Meeting of Coordinating Bureau held in La Habana (June, 1982), and subsequently in New Delhi Summit (1983), which noted the efforts being made by the Government of Guyana to consolidate its independence and sovereignty. In connection with the claim which Venezuela is advancing to more than two-thirds of the territory of Guyana, they recalled that the Protocol of Port Spain had expired in June 1982. They called for a peaceful and just settlement of the controversy based on the principles set forth in paragraphs 134 and 135 of the Communique of the Ministerial Meeting of the Bureau held in La Habana in June 1982, especially those relating to the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in the settlement of disputes and respect for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and in strict compliance with the Geneva Agreement of 1966.

These situations are provoked by colonial powers as Great Britain, which, besides favouring the “balkanization” of the regions as Latin-America create focus of tension between the States of the region, that are profited by the big powers in their own benefit.

A.5 The Bolivian Outlet to the Ocean

Bolivia got independent in 1825. In 1840 have been discovered important deposits of guano and niter in Atacama region that served as natural border between this country and Chile. In the same period started to come in British capital, instituting Anglo Chilean enterprises for the exploitation of guano and niter in that zone.

In 1842, the Chilean Government declared national property the littoral territory comprised between the Port of Coquimbo and the headland of Mejillones (29° 35´ and 23° 6´ South latitude). The Government of Chile established by law that all national and foreign ship that draw out guano without permission of Chile from anyone of the points comprised in that demarcation, would be confiscated. The Bolivian Government wished to make an end to this invasion of its sovereignty, attempting to defend its economical interest, claiming as itself the territory comprised between the littoral of Atacama and the Salado River. There was successive diplomatic missions toward Chile that, while have obtained something of indemnification did not obtained to put an end to Chilean activities.

Bolivia sent troops to the border, capturing Chilean citizens, receiving as an answer the Chilean claims of the territory in conflict. This situation conducted to an impasse of the relations between both countries. Newly in 1856 were started the diplomatic negotiations and 10 years after they signed a Treaty of Limits by which was fixed as the border between both countries the parallel of 24' South latitude, and agreed at the same time the common exploitation dividing into equal parts the benefit, between the parallel of 23' and 25' South latitude, specifying that the Chilean citizens that have properties inside of that limits could work and to exploit the mines without paying any tax or charge to the Bolivian Government.

This Treaty carried out as a consequence the legalization of the British and Chilean enterprises in Bolivia. Bolivia could outlet to the sea through a band of land more or less 40 leagues limiting with Chile. The littoral was converted in a real Chilean port.

In 1872. The Chilean Government pressed with the purpose of obtaining bigger benefits and to solve some pendent questions of the Treaty of 1866. Both Governments signed a new Treaty in 1874 by which, Chile compromised itself to resign to its respective part of right that perceived over the exploitations of niter and guano; being fixed the same limits of the Treaty of 1866. By its part, Bolivia compromised itself not to raise the rights of export in the zone, neither to require contributions to the Chileans which being radicated there.

In 1873, Bolivia and Peru subscribed a secret Defensive Alliance Treaty, compromising themselves mutually to defend themselves in case that same country will pretend to prive them of any part of their territories.

The Treaty of 1874 has been rigorously criticized by the Bolivian legislature, demanding for 1878 the collect of a tax of ten (10) cents by quintal of niter exported. The company that exploited the niter was Anglo Chilean. The Chilean Government considered this measure unlawful of the Treaty of 1874, claiming against the Bolivian Government but without success. The contract with the Chilean Railway Company and niter of Antofagasta was cancelled, being ordered the embargo of its properties. The Chilean’s answer was the shipment of its fleet, declaring formally the occupation of Antofagasta and its troops were expanded to the desert of Atacama. In March 1. 1879 Bolivia declared the war to Chile; a war in which subsequently entered Peru by virtue of the secret Treaty. Bolivia was routed in May of 1880 and Peru in January of 1881.

In 1882 was signed between Bolivia and Chile the so-called Pact of Truce, through which that country recognized the absolutely and perpetual domain of Chile over the territory occupied between the parallel of 23' and the parallel of 24°, losing a portion of territory of 153.000 W. In 1904 was signed a Treaty of Peace and Friendship, in substitution of the former Treaty, through which was agreed definitively the Chilean sovereignty over the territories in dispute.

Bolivia has permanently expressed its claims in order to get its outlet to the Pacific Ocean until the present, but without success 15.

Chile joined the Non-Aligned Movement as Observer in the Second Summit (The Cairo, 1964), and began being Full Member in 1973 during Argelia Summit. But this same year, a praetorian military coup overdrew the Government of Salvador Allende, separating itself definitively of the Movement. Bolivia has participated as Observer of the Movement since the First Summit held in Belgrade (1961), and began being Full Member in La Habana Summit (1979).

The problem of the Bolivian outlet to the sea began to be treated in an indirect manner in the Ministerial Meeting of Coordinating Bureau held in La Habana (March, 1975), being contemplated in the Program of Actions of the Economic Part, when have been treated the problems of the land-locked countries. The same treatment have had in the Fifth Summit held in Colombo (1976).

The problem has been treated in a direct manner in the Sixth Summit held in La Habana (1979), being reiterated its categorical support for the Bolivia's legitimate and rightful claim in New Delhi Summit (March, 1983), requesting the Conference a direct and useful outlet to the Pacific Ocean, over which it would have full sovereignty.

A.6 The Antarctic Region

This is a subject of different treatment by the Group of Non-Aligned Countries and some Latin-American countries.

Setting aside the historical reasons that same Latin-American countries fence with the purpose of getting the acknowledgment its sovereignty over a portion of the Antarctic Continent, we will do a brief analysis of the Antarctic Treaty, signed in Washington in December 1, 1959 by suggestion of United States in 1958.

In the Antarctic Conference held in Washington between October 15, 1959 and the end of that year, was signed the Antarctic Treaty by Argentina, Australia, Belgic, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, the Union of Southern Africa, the USSR, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, and United States of America.

In the Article IV incised 1, paragraph a), the Treaty establish that: “None disposition of the present Treaty would be interpreted as a resign by anyone of the Contracting Parts to its rights of territorial sovereignty or the territorial claims over the Antarctic, that anyone have foregoing invoked.”

By virtue of this Treaty there are liberty to research or cooperate in the Antarctic region, but not in absolute form. The Treaty contemplate the proceeding used for the Geographic International Year, in the meaning that the activities performed, could not involve economic purposes neither lucrative objectives, being restrained the activities allowed only to the signatory States and the Adherers that by this act repute it selves to be submitted to the rules established in the Treaty.

All activity of military character has been forbidden, including manoeuvre or arms essay. It is allowed the employ of military personal if it constitute a necessary infrastructure for the professional conditions and logistic required, considering the climatic peculiarities of the region.

The Treaty did not establish an automatic term of extinction. It establish a term of thirteen (30) years, which finished, anyone of the Contracting Parts with right to participate on Antarctic Meetings stipulated in the Treaty, could require the celebration of a Conference with the purpose of revising the Treaty and to establish a mechanism for its retirement. The amendment must be approved by all the Contracting Parts. We then infer that the Treaty will not expire, finished the 30 years, bit it is ruled a special proceeding of revising it

(*) Adherers to the Antarctic Treaty: Polonia, Checoeslovaquia, Dinamarca, Holand, Rumania, Democratic German Republic, Brazil. Other States that have interest in the Antarctic Continent: Sweden, Spain, Uruguay, Italy, Peru.

From these commentaries we may conclude that the position of certain Non-Aligned Countries as Argentina for example, or Observers of the Movement such as Brazil, would not coincide with the Non-Aligned intension that the exploitation of natural resources in this region must be done in the interest of all Mankind - following the sea-bed and ocean floor model, adopted by the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea - due to this countries aspire to see recognized its territorial aspiration over is portion of Antarctic Continent; claims that, as the case of Argentina already have the character of conflictive due to, for example, the Antarctic portions that propitiate as its respective territories Chile and Argentina as so Great Britain are superposed.

It is true that non country have had any mention or reference to the territorial claims over the Antarctic Continent in the Non-Aligned Conferences, even in the Seventh Summit held in New Delhi (1982), where it is explicitly referred the subject in the Economic Part item XVIII bis. But this is not an indicator that could not come forth future claims or conflicts on the subject, if the Movement will not adopt concrete strategies 16.


B.1. Military Bases and Zones of International Tension

There are two problems that in spite of the permanent preoccupation and attention that the Non-Aligned Movement has given it, the trend is to increase it, with such intensity that we could say the present international system it is characterized by pockets of local order in a sea of disorder, where those countries that have a better management of the international situations would be beneficed in its objectives 17.

The problem of the foreign military bases in colonies, non-autonomous countries or States submitted to a some kind of neo-colonial entail by the big powers, has been treated since the First Non-Aligned Summit. In the Meeting held in Belgrade (1961) have been denounced the colonial problems that compel the countries which wish its independence, to pay the price of accepting foreign military bases in its territories in change of its freedom.

In the Second Summit (The Cairo, 1964) has been done the same accusation, in item VIII under the title “Military Pacts, Troop and Foreign Bases” doing mention to the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the States, being mentioned the specific case of the north American bases in Guantanamo (Cuba).

In the Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau (La Habana, 1975), has been reiterated the claims for the military bases installed by United States in Cuba, being added the case of Puerto Rico and Panama. In the same manner have issued the Ministerial Meeting held in Lima (1975), the Ministerial Meeting of Coordinating Bureau held in Argel (1976), as so the Fifth Summit (Colombo, 1976).

In the Ministerial Meeting of Coordinating Bureau held in New Delhi (1977), have had noted that, in spite of the positive tendencies in the international relations, characterized for the strengthening in the struggle for the liberation against all the manifestations of the imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, the racism, the Zionism and all other forms of foreign domination and exploitation, its being observed too many crisis without solution and some new tensions and rivalries between the powers that have had its apparition or it have extended to new regions. In this Meeting has been reiterated again the demand that United States should return to Cuba the territory illegally occupied by the Guantanamo Naval Base.

The Ministerial Meeting of Coordinating Bureau held in La Habana (1978) has expressed its firm conviction that, due to the decolonization process has arrived to a crucial stage, the question over the foreign military bases in colonial and non-autonomous territories, acquire particular meaning as an obstacle to the effective fulfilment of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV). We would add, in accordance with that we have said in the head of this item, that the situation tend to become worse and not to be solved, taking as example the crisis of Malvinas between April and June of 1982, that has resulted in the colonial reaffirmation of Great Britain over those Islands, and the installation of military bases that serve of logistic support to the NATO in that South-Atlantic zone, with the aggravation that Great Britain can project itself through the Islands to the Antarctic region and to control the Pacific-Atlantic passage. In this same Meeting has been reaffirmed the preoccupation for the existence of military bases in Latin-America, urging to the immediate vacancy of Guantanamo Naval Base by United States.

In the Preparatory Meeting held in Belgrade (1978), has been reiterated again the accusation of aggression, pressures and threats against Cuba by the United States Government, reaffirming likewise the condemn to the blockade, and urging the immediate restitution of Guantanamo Naval Base to Cuba. In the same manner has issued the Sixth Summit (La Habana, 1979).

The Seventh Summit held in New Delhi (1983) took note with great concern of the continuing tension in Central-America, the Caribbean and South-Atlantic. Furthermore, having analyzed the situation in the region, they considered that Central America faced a serious political, social and economic crisis brought about for the most part by the traditional repressive power structure and by national economic structures that produce poverty, inequality and misery and aggravated by the interference and intervention to which those countries have been subjected since the end of the last Century. The Conference asserted that the processes of change in Central-America could not be attributed to or explained by an East-West ideological confrontation.

This kind of tensions, in countries with praetorian military governments such as Argentina; Uruguay or Chile are interpreted as a direct communist advance of USSR or through Cuba, as a results of its expansionist policy of world domination, adopting to these effects postures of “cold war” in theirs foreign policies, without doing any difference between the struggle for the liberation and the imperialist domination, being it soviet or north American. The Argentine foreign policy during the military process installed in 1976 has been anti-Third World, anti-Non-Alignment -in spite of having maintained its participation into the Movement - and turned its back to Latin-America, maintaining a close relation with Europe and European and north American private banking. With the Malvinas' crisis, provoked by the Argentine Government in the beginning of 1982, modified its strategy, seeking for support in the Nonalignment and in Latin-America against the policies of United States, Great Britain and European Economic Community (EEC).

The same Seventh Summit denounced the new and increasing threats and acts of intimidation against Nicaragua, as well as measures of economic pressure at the international level. The Conference commended the peace initiatives presented by Mexico, France, Venezuela, Colombia and Panama, and welcomed the positive response of Nicaragua. Called on the Governments of United States and Honduras to adopt a constructive position in favour of peace and dialogue in conformity with the principles of international law. In this context, was considered to be a paramount importance the right of any State to freely choose its own political, social and economic system.

Expressed their concern that the situation in El Salvador had continued to deteriorate owing to unsolved social and economic problems and to continuing repression and imperialist intervention. They further expressed their concern at the growing involvement in the conflict of the army of Honduras, which would contribute to the expansion of the conflict, and welcomed the peace initiatives of Mexico and Venezuela and France and Mexico.

Into the frame of these situations, the Conference urged all States to scrupulously refrain from all acts of intervention and interference in the internal affairs of States as well as other forms of pressure, including economic or military blockades. The Argentine interpretation on this case is that the soviet and Cuban policy is interventionist, wherefore, the support to anti-communist groups or to United States, sending “military advisers” such in the case of El Salvador, is acting in defence of the Western and Christian principles and against the Cuban soviet interventionism.

The Conference also reiterated its appeal to the United States Government for an immediate and unconditional cessation of all acts of aggression and threats and the lifting of the economic blockade, which has been maintained against Cuba for twenty-two years and has recently been intensified with the adoption of the Syms Amendment and by new restrictive measures against Cuba's financial, credit and trade relations.

It also reiterated its full support for the just demand that the United States should return the territory illegally occupied by the Guantanamo Naval Base.

Were recalled the decisions adopted by the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries since its foundation to the effect that the establishment of foreign military bases against the will of the countries in which they are installed constitutes a violation of their national sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and were pointed out the danger represented by the existence of military bases and the conduct of military maneuvers directed against countries of the region.

By virtue of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty), signed in Rio of Janeiro in 1947, and which true purpose is to maintain the security of United States, attempting to create security in the Latin-American region; is being realized traditionally and yearly, joint naval maneuver, led by United States, in the South-Atlantic and South-Pacific regions, to which the Argentinean, Brazilian and Chilean armies, permanently attend. These maneuvers are acquainted as “UNITAS” operatives. To the last operative did not attend Brazil and Argentina due to the situation provoked by Malvinas' conflict, but was realized an operative in the South-Pacific region with the Chilean participation.

The Seventh Summit had also condemned the covert and overt actions and the political and economic pressures being exerted by imperialist forces against Grenada, and noted the recent events in Suriname and the measures taken by certain governments in the response to these events, expressing their support for Suriname's sovereignty and independence.

Lastly the Conference considered that the Latin-American Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Treaty of Tlatelolco), could not be effected until conditions have been created to enable all Latin-American States to sign and ratify it, and all nuclear powers to respect it.

It is evident that, in the same standard that the Non-Aligned Conferences have gone forward, the problems with military bases as well as the existence of international forms of tension have gone growing. This perhaps happened as a consequence of the same evolution of the international community toward the conformation of a new system of relations, in which the weak countries press in order to obtain a greater liberty of action and to evade it selves of the pressures of the big powers at the same time that the last one try to avoid that the control of international situations escape from its hands. It is indubitable that, both superpowers try of reap the biggest fruit of all conflict that come forth, notwithstanding these have been provoked by causes entailed to the North-South confrontation, in the Central -American or the South-Atlantic region. In the same standard that weapon development is becoming more specialized, the domain over the insular regions seems becoming also more important. Ascension, Diego Garcia, Malvinas, are clear examples of that we want to say and shows us a very important strategic location: the domain of the Atlantic meridional region, the domain of the Atlantic-Pacific passage and the Antarctic projection, at the same time that base for the control of the petroleum and strategic resources route by the South-African region; and the domain of the Indian Ocean in which the USSR has also manifested its presence through the bases in the zone of Horn of Africa, without taking in account the maritime domain that have in all the seas of the world through its submarine supremacy.

B.2. The Diego Garcia´s Case

We referred to the Diego Garcia's case, placed in the Archipelago of Chagos in the Indian Ocean, as a problem of indirect interest to Latin-America and the Caribbean, hard-upon of the conflict originated in the South-Atlantic with Malvinas' war.

I Effectually, in this last case, nigh the possibility that Great Britain will adopt a similar behaviour that it has used in the Diego Garcia's Island; installing a base that will serve for its own purpose as well as logistic support to the NATO in the Malvinas' Islands. The declaration of “Peace Zone” to the South-Atlantic by the Non-Aligned Movement, analogically with the criterion adopted with the Indian Ocean declaration, which the United Nations General Assembly has also done, we guess, is the first step that must be done in that region. Likewise, must be avoided that the model Diego Garcia will be extended by all the world, which will generate a new Era of confrontation between the big powers, with the disastrous consequences for the rest of the countries.

The Diego Garcia's subject started to be treated by the Non-Aligned Movement in the Meeting of Coordinating Committee held in Argel (1974) where has been manifested that the fact of the strengthening of the Anglo-American base of Diego Garcia's Island, in spite of the wishes of the countries with and without littoral of the Indian Ocean, of converting it in Peace Zone, increase the international tensions and the rivalry between the big powers in that region, attempting against the cause of peace and the vital interest of developing countries in that region.

In the Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau held in La Habana (1975), was reiterated the condemn for the enlargement of the military installations in the Diego Garcia's Island, being considered imperative that the United Nations Declaration over the Indian Ocean as a Peace Zone be strictly executed. In the Ministerial Meeting held in Lima (1975), was again reiterated the same preoccupation, being purposed, among the strategies to strengthen the peace and international security, to eliminate the international focus of tension, the dismantling of the military bases, the creation of peace zones and the strengthening of United Nations.

In the Meeting of New Delhi (1983), the Conference reaffirmed the determination to continue their endeavour towards the attainment of the objectives embodied in the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace, and expressed, in particular, their full support for Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, where there are Anglo-American bases.

It is obvious that to express preoccupation by part of Non-Aligned Movement, due to the circumstances that is living the Indian Ocean, it is not enough, in spite the strategies that are been adopted in order to strengthen the peace and international security. We consider this insufficient, due to, the “model” its been extended to other regions, specifically to the South-Atlantic, and could give it very good resultant to the big powers, and subsequently to prejudice in a bigger manner to developing countries of different regions where this model will be adopted. The Non-Aligned countries and in general all developing countries, must adopt with the greatest urgency, joint measures, based upon creative strategies, in order to make sure a maximum of success in its purposes and not to let delivered so important problems, as we mentioned, to the goodwill or to the strict fulfilment of International law by the big powers, seeing that, it is notorious that this will not result.


The problems of colonialism and imperialist policies have been the fundamental cause of Non-Aligned Movement. These subject have been present in the Oppressed Peoples Congress held in Bruxels in 1927, where attended Mexico; in the Meeting convoked by Nehru held in New Delhi in 1949, where attended Asiatic countries; in the Meeting held in Bandung - first immediate antecedent of Non-Aligned Movement - in 1955, where have been established the non-aligned principles followed until the present; and, of course, in each Meeting of Non-Aligned Countries held since 1961. These have been the problems of the history of Mankind and they will be in the future, until the Mankind find a formula that solve the problem of the asymmetrical interdependence relations system

In the item A. of this work, we have had reference to one of the colonial problems in Latin-America, entailed fundamentally to the suspended sovereignty situations, over specific portions of the territory of some Latin-American countries. In this item, we will particularly study the colonial problem under its traditional conception.

The First Summit, held in Belgrade (1961), noted with concern, the colonial situation that are still living many countries of the world. This, besides of being a not solve problem in Latin-America and the Caribbean, has not received a joint treatment for its solution by part of the countries of the region. Not even have been created working groups, whether for the treatment of the situation of the Caribbean countries or to act over the problem of Malvinas, Essequibo, Panama Canal Zone, or Belize, notwithstanding having done declarations of similar tone in international form or voted in the same manner.

The particular case treated in this First Summit, has been the Angola's situation under the colonial policy of Portugal. Analyzing it from the point of view of Latin-American behaviour, we guess it is important to mention the Brazilian case. We may divide the Brazilian attitude in two stages: 1) Brazil has escorted the Portuguese colonial policies; 2) Brazil supported the independence of Black Africa, following a foreign policy based in the responsible pragmatism.

Beginning the decade of seventies, the Garrastazú Medici Government, signed a commercial agreement with Portugal, through which the Brazilian enterprises could export its products to the Portuguese colonies in Asia and Africa.

In 1973 the South-African Government started an approaching towards Brazil with the purpose of establishing a South-Atlantic Defensive Pact, with anti-communist connotations, but, notwithstanding having established close commercial entail between both countries, the Pact did not prospered, We to this could prejudice to Brazil in its good relations with Black Africa.

During the XXVII Session of the United Nations General Assembly, Brazil voted against the Resolution by which have been proclaimed as the authentic representatives of its countries, the Movements of Liberation of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea Bissau. In the XXVIII Session of the General Assembly, also voted against the Resolution that admitted to Guinea Bissau as a Member of that Organization. For 1974, had a change in Brazilian Government, acceding the presidency the General Geisel, who adopted the policy of responsible pragmatism, at the same time that a military coup overthrown the Caetano regime in Portugal, being installed the revolutionary regime of General Spínola with a favourable orientation to the independence of Black Africa.

In 1974, Brazil recognized the independence of Guinea Bissau; in 197S recognized the Government of Angola under the leading of Agostinho Neto; and immediately recognized the Mozambican Government 18.

While Brazil showed a favourable evolution towards the Black African independence, Argentina had an erratic policy, maintaining preferent relations with South-African Government and of distance with the countries whose independence could have pro-communist connotations, in accordance with the precepts followed by Argentine Government.

In the First Summit was also condemned the policy of apartheid followed by South-Africa.

Besides the Brazilian behaviour of prudence and equidistant between South-Africa and Black-Africa, some Latin-American countries have maintained relations with South-Africa, among them, Argentina in the periods 1966/72 and 1976 henceforth -in spite of its condemns against apartheid in international forum-. The same can be said of the Chilean Government of Pinochet, who has envied “military advisers” to South-Africa in order to help it in the struggle against the guerrilla in Namibia's region. Likewise the cases of Uruguay under the military regime and Paraguay that has a praetorian government since many years ago, without appearance of leaving the power.

In the Second Summit (The Cairo, 1964), was condemned the colonialist and neo-colonialist manifestations in Latin-America, pronouncing they for the application of the right of Peoples to self-determination and independence in that region.

The self-determination and non-intervention have been two principles traditionally supported inside of Inter-American System by Latin-American countries; but, unfortunately, as much as a declamation that in the field of facts. The main colonial preoccupation for Latin-America - as we already had reference before - has been the communist advance, but not the colonial policies of France, Great Britain or United States in the region, seeing that there are a close relation between the economies of these countries, at the same time that a close ideological entail. The way of Malvinas has been a touch of look-out over this subject, at such point that the praetorian Argentine Military Government has started to wield the colonialism subject as a flag, in front of the attitudes of Great Britain and United States.

Among the concrete subjects that have been treated, the Conference had reference to the delay in being conceded the independence to British Guyana (nowadays Guyana), a country that has inherited the dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela for the Essequibo region. Likewise was considered the situation of Puerto Rico as an associate State of United States.

One of the problems of greatest attention for Latin-America - that has been also treated into OAS and United Nations -is the appearance of “micro-States”, particularly in the Caribbean region; whose, although they receive the benefit of their political independence, they lack of an economic, financier, commercial and technologic development enough to survive, remaining practically and automatically submitted to neo-colonialist policies. Non-Aligned Movement must also consider this situation, among their economical strategies with the object of avoiding the appearance of new wrongness at the same time they are trying to solve others.

In the Georgetown's Declaration of August, 197 2, was expressed again the preoccupation for the Caribbean Peoples, which are still under the colonial yoke, being also reiterated the decision adopted in the Meeting of The Cairo over the problem of Puerto Rico. The same reference has been done in the Fourth Summit (Argel, 1973).

In the Ministerial Meeting held in Lima (1975), the Conference noted with concern about the visit of the Chief of South-African racist regime to Uruguay and Paraguay, and the increase of the relations of other Latin-American Governments, particularly Chile, with South-African regime. Argentina had to resolve this problem, ending the military period installed in 1966, with the peronist Government, and equally to revise its relations with Israel into the frame of the conflict with Arab countries in the Middle-East. But, being installed the new military Government in 1976 the policies were reversed to its original condition. This Ministerial Meeting insisted over the problem of Puerto Rico, and also demanded the cease of colonial situations in the region.

The Ministerial Meeting of Coordinating Bureau hold in Argel 0576), reaffirmed the inalienable right of the People of Puerto Rico to its autonomy and independence, at the same time that expressed their solidarity with the Peoples of Guyana, Jamaica and Barbados, when took acknowledgment of their denouncement respect the attempts of creating instability to their processes. In the Fifth Summit (Colombo, 1976), were done the same references, urging to the Movement to intensify their efforts in order to accelerate the process of decolonization of Puerto Rico in accordance with the Resolution 1514 (XV) of the United Nations General Assembly. The same subject was approached in the Ministerial Meeting held in La Habana (1978), condemning at the same time the increase of entails with the racist South-African regime by Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and other Latin-American countries.

The Sixth Summit (La Habana, 1979), observed that Latin-America is one of the regions of the world that historically have suffered, in a great mode, the aggression of United States and European imperialist powers, the colonialism and neo-colonialism. At the same time was supported the anti-colonial struggle of Puerto Rico, Belize, Guadalupe, Martinique and French Guyana.

The Seventh Summit (New Delhi, 1983), were glad to note that since the Sixth Summit Belize, Saint Lucia and Antigua and Barbuda had become independent and are now Members or Observers of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. They also urged to support the legitimate demands for freedom, peace and independence of those Latin-American and Caribbean peoples which are still subject to colonial domination and dependence, and called for the early implementation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) in those territories. Likewise reiterated their support of the Puerto Rican people's inalienable right to self-determination and independence in conformity with the named Resolution.

Analyzing the colonialism and neo-colonialism subject, we observe three important aspects: 1) Latin-America have not a defined policy to solve the colonial problem. In this case, we are not doing reference to the individual postures of some governments, but to the region as a whole. There is not a Committee or a Permanent Working Group or Ad-Hoc, devoted to interchange the experiences or to elaborate joint strategies. 2) It is true that the colonial situations constitute a problem based principally in the North-South confrontation, occasioned in its greatest part by the traditional structures of repressive power and by the national economic structures that generate poverty, inequality and misery; situations that are aggravated by the intervention and interference of the powers, whether those colonial or neo-colonial. But the policies and strategies of the different Latin-American Governments are not coherent as for their perceptions over the real causes that provoke it. 3) Intimately entailed with the said in the item 2), the problems of colonial or neo-colonial order, have also entail with the East-West conflict. The Cuban revolution of 1959 provoked the entrance of the cold war in Latin-America and the maintenance of the system of relations, practically until the present, based upon the unlike perceptions of the different Governments of turn in the region. Nicaragua, El Salvador, are also indicators of this problem.

In Latin-America there are countries with moderate political postures such as Mexico, Venezuela, Panama, and recently Colombia and Brazil, that tend to give a solution to the problems of colonialism and neo-colonialism, under formulas in which the reflex of East-West conflict will be avoided. But there are also countries such as Argentina or Chile, under praetorian military governments, that in all the action or struggle against colonial or neo-colonial situation, they see an actual or potential danger of advance of communism, whether in a direct form through USSR or by means of the policies developed by the Cuban Government. This dualism in the Latin-American behaviour, aggravate even more the situation of cold way to which has been submitted the region during the last twenty years. The solution of these problems are in the avoidance of extreme political postures, that invariably give benefit to one or another head of bloc. But, to avoid these tipe of postures, it is necessary before to solve the difficult problem of the instability of the constitutional Latin-American Governments.


One of the central objectives of Non-Aligned Movement, is to achieve the democratization of the international relations, based in the pacific coexistence, with a pluralist conception, free from all policy of bloc. This is an objective to which the present world tend, but still constitute a serious problem its achievement, and Latin-America do not escape to this situation.

In the official declaration of the Preparatory Meeting of the First Summit held in The Cairo (June of 1961), interchanging opinions with regard to the international situation, the Conference proposed to analyze the main points entailed with the basic principles adopted in Bandung, among which it is the pacific coexistence between the States with different political and social systems.

Analyzing the Latin-American situation we must to take in account not only the plurality of regimes and social systems - fact that unquestionably happen - but the coexistence (or not) of those different political and social systems. The instability of the Latin-American political regimes, that cause as a consequence the discontinuity of the policies adopted - provoking erratically behaviours has, as a main base the impossibility (at least actual) of achieve a coexistence between the regimes of different sign. This throws all the other principles, such as self-determination, or provokes different interpretations with regard to non-intervention. Saying the things in other form, in Latin-America the political systems of different sign coexist but not live together.

The First Summit (Belgrade, 1961), declared that the Latin-American intervention in the international relations is, each time, more active. In this aspect, we must do a differentiation between Latin-America as a “geographic region” and as a “joint international actor''. In the first sense, we only find a group of countries which main connections are the geographic contiguity between them, and subsequently they constitute a (geographic) region. But, in the second sense, we observe that in fact, Latin-America do not constitute a region, due to the lack of coordination of their foreign policies, to the different perceptions over the world-wide problems of the different political regimes of turn, and due to the lack of coherence between the foreign policies of these countries, aggravated by the lack of coherence of policies followed by each State in particular, provoked by the political pendulum of the different governments with different sign, by cause of the coup. Not existing similar perceptions with regard to the world-wide problems, become difficult to adopt joint solutions or joint positions, and of course, to avoid the conflict between States of the same region.

In this same Summit was affirmed that “each State must solve the problem of its own political, social and cultural system, according to

their own conditions, needs and possibilities”. In a growing interdependent world, such as the present, aggravated with a growing asymmetry in that interdependence, result very difficult to solve, individually, the problems connected with the essence and survival of the States that are in an underdeveloped situation. In the Latin-American case, due to the historical structure of the Inter-American System, based in the Rio Treaty of 1947, and in the Charter of the OAS (1948), the interventionism, not only north American -with the purpose of maintaining the “equilibrium of the bloc”- but also from some Latin-American Governments has provoked that each country would be unable of adopting their own political, economical, social and cultural system. The interventions to Guatemala under the Government of Arbenz in 1954, or to Dominican Republic in 1965, through the Consultation System based in the Rio Treaty; or the Cuba's case which has been excluded of OAS in 1962 due to the incompatibility of its political system with the Western way of life; inclusively the shackles that through the Hickenlooper or Gonzalez Amendments had to suffered the Peruvian Government of Velazco Alvarado, due to the nationalization of the International Petroleum Company (IPC), or the pressures to which has been submitted the Chilean Government of Salvador Allende, are enough eloquent of that we have expressed before.

In the last part of the Political Declaration of the First Summit, it is expressed that “conscious that the differences of ideology are part integrant of the growing of a society (...) the Government have to abstain of utilizing the ideological struggles in order to maintain the cold war, to exert a pressure or to impose its will”. In Latin-America, the maintenance of the cold war has been a rule of its behaviour. In 1964 the Brazilian military Government adopted the “doctrine of national security” and established the policy of “ideological frontier”. These same doctrine and policy were adopted by the praetorian military Government of Onganía since 1966, maintaining it - in the same mode that the Brazilian Government - until the beginning of the seventies. In the Conference of Presidents of America - held in Punta del Este, Uruguay (1967 the Government of Onganía maintained that the military security in the region was a basic requirement to achieve the economic development, in open contradiction with the postures maintained, for example, by the Chilean Government of Frei or the Colombian one of Lleras Restrepo, who postulated that the joint economical development, through the regional integration was the way to solve the security problems. In the Tenth Conference of Commanding Officers of American Armies - held in Caracas, Venezuela in 1973 - the Commanding Officer of the Argentine Army, General Raúl Calcagno maintained the thesis of economic security as a requirement so important or more than the military security, for the development

of the region; but his proposal has not success, at the same time that was set aside by the praetorian military Government who overthrew the peronistas in 1976. In the Conference of Commanding Officers of American Armies -held in Washington, December of 1981 - the position of General Galtieri (Argentina), maintained be postulates of cold war, in such extreme that, to achieve the north American support in order to solve the problem of Malvinas, decided to send “military advisers” to El Salvador. Previously, the Government of General Videla also supported, through military advisers the coup realized by General Garcia Meza in Bolivia. The reverse of the coin it is constituted by the Andean Pact countries position that, in the XVII Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs - held in 1979, due to Nicaragua's crisis - adopted a moderate posture, avoiding the direct intervention - or through other States of the region - of United States, in order to solve the conflict between Somoza and the Sandinista group. At the present time, the so-called “Group of Contadora” formed by Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia and Panama, follow the same patterns with regard to the Nicaragua's crisis between the Sandinista Government and the ARDE Group (Democratic Revolutionary Alliance) 19.

If it is true that the Latin American problems happened inside of the context of North-South confrontation, these still have too many connotations based in the East-West conflict. To each heterodox policy followed by a Latin-American Government, happened a coup or international pressures in order to obtain that, that State “returns to its normal behaviour”. The peronista Government that acceded to power in 1973 was overthrew in 1976 by a praetorian military coup. The Government of Allende in Chile suffered the same destiny in 1973. The peruvian revolution that has started the General Velazco Alvarado - besides the international pressures that had to suffer - has been “weakened” by his successor, the General Morales Bermúdez, that carried out the things to its initial situation, transferring the Government to President Belaúnde Terry in middle of an economic crisis. Bolivia has its history riddled of military coups. The situation in Central-America and the Caribbean, each day, it is being more compelled by the big international pressures, where the North-South confrontation it is being mixed with the East-West pressures.

In the different Non-Aligned Conferences, the Movement made reference to one or another situation. On one side, they encourage and support the nationalist policies followed by some Latin-American or Caribbean Governments, or they deplore a military coup or the international pressures to which are being submitted some Governments. But, on the other side, it is notorious that, the same countries, which, in one opportunity have been bowed by the Movement, opportunely are considered unfriendly, as a result of a coup has absolutely reverted the former process. This, make imminent the need of adopting strategies truly creative’s, in order to achieve the stability in Latin-American constitutional processes. Strategies that have not be based, of course, in the good will of the Army Forces, or in the exclusive hope of a change of structure into the Army Forces, attempting to submit it to the constitutional power. It is also necessary the adoption of policies “truly moderate” in order to achieve the objective of a greater autonomy, avoiding in this manner the direct confrontation between dissenting groups, or to enervate the “punisher” spirit of big powers. And, above all, the mutual support between the constitutional Governments of the region.


Inside the frame of the problems to which it is being submitted the present world, and the characteristics of the international relations system, the Non-Aligned Movement, has faced a serial of strategies in order to contribute to solve those problems that afflict, in general, to the Third World countries. We consider, these strategies are important, in spite of it are restrained in great manner, in the Latin-American case, by the instability of thi Governments and the discontinuity of the policies of these countries. One or another aspect are intimately entailed, and its successful implementation, constitute the sine-qua-non requirement in order to achieve the objective of a negotiating strength, that allow to Latin-American countries and in general to the Third World to treat in equal conditions with industrialized powers.

We will divide the treatment of the economic subjects and strategies by the Non-Aligned Movement in six main topics.

I. It is proposed - as a main strategy - to support their selves individually and collectively in their self-strength, to avail the economic potentials in mutual cooperation benefit and the increase of negotiation strength, with a vim to establishing the New International Economic Order.

I.1. Treatment of the Subject in the Non-Aligned Movement

In the Preparatory Conference of Daar-Es-Salaam (April of 1979), was considered the need to aim the economic development based in their self-strength. The same strategy was purposed in the Fifth Summit, adding that the objective was to avail the economic potentials in mutual cooperation benefit and the increase of their negotiating strength, to establishing a NIEO. In the same manner was manifested the Ministerial Meeting of Coordinating Bureau, held in New Delhi (1977), and the Ministerial Meeting held in La Habana (1979) in which has been added, the need that the Movement have to persevere in its catalyser role in the Group of 77, in order to strengthen the common front, to establishing a NIEO. In the Sixth Summit held in La Habana (1979) was referred again the importance of collective self-reliance, and expressing their support to establishing a NIEO.

In the Preparatory Meeting held in Belgrade (1978), was estimated that the Fifth UNCTAD, which would take place in Manila (1979), would be a step towards the constitution of a NIEO. The Seventh Summit (New Delhi, 1983), welcomed the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the three recent regional Ministerial Meetings held in Baghdad, Libreville and Cartagena in preparation for the Ministerial Meeting of the Group of 77 which is to take place at Buenos Aires in March-April 1983 and urged all participants in UNCTAD VI, especially developed countries, to avail themselves to the utmost of the opportunity offered by the Belgrade Meeting to display a new and effective spirit of multilateral co-operation through significant political decisions.

Among the strategies considered in the Seventh Summit, the Conference purposed the creation of a self-reliance structure of economic relations between developing countries, following with the dominant scheme of the Movement.

I.2. Situation in Latin-America

In the Latin-American case, the “collective self-reliance” or the “collective support in self-strength”, has been the implement less used, to achieve the objective of a greater development or to increase the negotiating strength. Firstly, all financing, credit or investment, has been permanently seek out of the region, not jointly but in an individual manner, regardless the possibility to use the internal sparing. The Alliance for Progress - policy adopted by United States in the sixties - is one of the most clear demonstrations that Latin-America might have based its development on function of the use of its internal sparing, seeing that, the quantity of dollars that left the region for concept of enterprises profits, that, those that the region received for concept of investment. To give an example of the case, between 1961 and 1963 has been granted 1.818.600.000 u$s to Latin-American countries, divided in: 747,8 millions from AID, 317,7 millions from Food for Peace, 295,5 millions from Eximbank, 336,9 millions from Fiduciary Found for Social Progress of IDB (International Development Bank), and 130,7 millions from others. The 85% of the whole amount corresponded to loans and the 15% to subsides. Besides, in the same period, north American enterprises drew out from Latin-America 641 million dollars for 1960, 711 million dollars for 1961 and 756 million dollars for 1962, that have an amount of 2.108 million dollars of Latin-American sparing which have left the region, giving as a result a negative balance 20.

Secondly, most of the Latin-American countries have followed, in accordance with the tradition, opened policies to foreign capital, adopted to the rules established by the grantor of the credit as for the orientation of the investment; in that manner have been developed with priority those sectors of greater convenience for the countries or enterprises grantors of a credit, loans or investment, and not those, that the Latin-American priorities had considered as important.

With regard to the subject of international economic relations restructuring, although there are a general consensus in Latin-America, about the need to establishing a NIEO, the perceptions with regard to its conformation are different, at the same time that have not been adopted joint strategies with the object to act in the different international form with that purpose. In UNCTAD V the posture of Argentine praetorian military Government has been that its country is part of the “middle &Ass of nations” and, subsequently, if it is not and industrialized power neither is a Third World country. The posture of Argentine Government has been that Argentina have to constitute itself in a “bridge” intermediary between the technology made by industrialized powers and the needs of developing countries. During the Preparatory Ministerial Meeting to UNCTAD VI held in Buenos Aires (April, 1983), the Argentine posture changed, being close to the Third World thinking, due to fundamentally to the bad relations existent with the EEC and United States, as a result of the Malvinas' war.

II. Comprehended inside of the scheme of Item I: To increase the bilateral, regional and interregional cooperation between Non-Aligned Countries and in general between all developing countries.

II. 1. Treatment of the Subject in the Nonaligned Countries

The Preparatory Meeting held in Daar-Es-Salaam (1970) purposed, among other strategies to increase the negotiating strength, to increase the bilateral, regional and interregional cooperation between Non-Aligned countries and in general with developing countries. The Ministerial Meeting of Coordinating Bureau (La Habana, 1975), noted with satisfaction that the Andean Pact and Caribbean Common Market (CARICOM) integrationist experiences, constitute a valuable contribution to Non-Aligned countries as a whole. The Ministerial Meeting held in Lima (1975) considered that the intensive development of a narrow economic, financial, scientific, technologic and cultural cooperation between Non-Aligned countries, with the object of creating a true horizontal cooperation between them, With regard to raw materials and the adoption of a common policy in front of the transnational enterprises activities, will originate a growth-negotiating strength, tending to the democratization of the international order.

The Fifth Summit (Colombo, 1976), supported the beginning of SELA (Latin-American Economic System) activities and condemned all the maneuver and pressures oriented to obstruct them.

The Ministerial Meeting of Coordinating Bureau (New Delhi, 1977), among the specific subjects, estimated necessary a greater international cooperation in the field of nuclear energy with pacific purposes.

The Seventh Summit (New Delhi, 1983), expressed satisfaction at the efforts of the States of the region to strengthen their unity, solidarity and co-operation through the various processes of regional integration and supported the aspirations for the creation of a regional organization representative of the interest of all countries of the region. Likewise, and as a strategy, considered that the sub regional, regional and interregional cooperation among Non-Aligned and other developing countries should be promoted as an essential element in the restructuring of international economic relations. In that meaning the Conference pledged to mobilize all necessary resources and deploy the requisite means in supporting that co-operation and to this end, rely increasingly on their own resources, skills and technologies and strategies of development based on their own socio-economic realities and factor endowments, to assist each other in building and strengthening indigenous capacities, infrastructures and skills, to undertake the formulation of programs and projects, including joint ventures, for collective self-reliance within the context of national development plans.

II.2. Situation in Latin-America

It is true that Latin-America have a tradition in matter of economic integration, but this, did not signified a deepen in matter of cooperation among the countries of the region, seeing that the percentages of commercial interchange have not increased significantly with regard to periods before. The intra-Latin-American commercial interchange for 1938 has been of 6.1% and for 1975 -afterwards of fifteen years of integrationist experience through LAFTA- of N.Y. Although the commercial interchange increased the 100% in 38 years, the amount it is not important, seeing that it suggest the 87,5% of Latin-American commercial interchange is done with the rest of the world, and at least the 60% of this amount with industrialized countries. Besides, the success of the Latin-American integration, depend of the Governments existent in each Latin-American country, seeing that the instability of the regimes and the discontinuity of the policies, provoke that whether we found that the new Government in some of these countries adopt postures anti-integrationist. In the same manner occurs with regard to the relations with foreign capital; there are nationalist Governments that might be succeeded -military coup intervening- by opening Governments to foreign capital, without establishing any conditionality based in national interest or in the rules of the game established by the integrationist process.

However the said, Latin-America has adopted mechanisms with the object to achieve a greater co-ordination of its foreign policies and to increase its negotiating strength in front of third States or international organizations. The first mechanism adopted in this sense has been the Special Committee of Latin-American Coordination (CECLA) in 1961, but its existence did not signify a great advance for the purposes established and, once more, due to the instability of the Governments that provoked the discontinuity of its policies. For 1969, through the so-called Viña del Mar Consensus, Latin-America adopted a joint posture in front of the United States, getting as a result the modification of the hemispheric policies followed by this country. But this lasted hardly one year. In 1971, the Declaration of Buenos Aires on the EEC also obtained the coordination of the Latin-American postures, but with the same results that the Consensus of Viña del Mar. In 1975 CECLA was replaced by the Latin-American Economic System (SELA), by proposal of the Governments of Venezuela and Mexico, under the double purpose of coordinating the foreign postures of the region and to increase the possibility of intraregional co-operation, specially seeking strategies to take out the integration systems of the situation of stagnation. Notwithstanding, SELA until the present could not execute its commission - in spite of the efforts of that organization - due to the Governments of Member countries - specially the “big ones” - have not manifested a real political will to implement the objectives established in the organization's constitutive charter 21.

In the nuclear field - which it is very advanced, especially in Argentina and Brazil - there are, to the present, some bilateral agreement oriented to establish lines of joint co-operation with pacific purposes among the different signatory States. This could be a point of departure to be availed for the Third World countries.

With regard to the Latin-American aspirations to create a regional organization representative of the interest of all countries of the region, as a result the Malvinas' crisis, we can say that, this is not the first opportunity in which the subject has been planed, seeing that in 1973 have been purposed modifications to the constitutive Charter of OAS with the same purposes, and there was some postures that maintained the creation of an Organization of Latin-American States, this is, an organization from which would be excluded United States. Notwithstanding we ought to think that it is not the creation of new organizations the main problem, but to make function the already existing. On the other hand, SELA is a sort of Organization of Latin-American States; if its functioning is precarious - due specially to Latin-American causes we could not assure that the solution of all maladies is in the creation of a new organization.

III. Among the strategies already functioning: To support the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, purposed by the President Echeverría Alvarez and approved by the United Nations General Assembly by Resolution 3281 (XXIX) in December 12, 1974, and to the Sixth Period of Session of United Nations General Assembly in which has been treated the problem of raw materials, being promoted among the strategies of action, the collective self-reliance and the strengthening of international co-operation, propounding at the same time to settle the bases for a NIEO.

III. 1. Treatment of the Subject in the Non-Aligned Movement

One of the strategies to achieve the restructuring of international economic relations it is the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. In the Third Summit (Argel, 1973), was expressed the support to the Charter, having manifested that United Nations ought to give priority to the subject in its XXVIII Period of Session of the General Assembly. The Ministerial Meeting held in Lima (1975), pointed out as an important Latin-American contribution in the struggle to settle a NIEO, the fact that the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States has been approved, in the same manner that has been adopted the Program of Action of the VI Period of Sessions of the United Nations General Assembly. In this same Meeting the Conference urged to the strengthening of all form of co-operation, in such manner as to the interdependence reflect the unequivocal passage to the common objective of setting the NIEO.

The Seventh Summit (New Delhi, 1983), concluded in the same manner, at the same time that expressed their concern at the inadequate implementation of the provisions of the Charter of reference and called upon those developed countries which had not accepted the Charter to re-examine their position and to abide by its principles and provisions.

III.2. Situation in Latin-America

In Latin-America, we find a country: Mexico, which is a simple Observer of the Non-Aligned Movement, but has contributed with its purposes in a greater measure that other countries of the region which are old Full Members of the Movement.

To understand the Latin-American behaviour over the subject, we remit ourselves to the expressed in the last part of item 1.2.

IV. The adoption of joint policies in front of the foreign capital and the activities of Transnational Enterprises.

IV. 1. Treatment of the Subject in the Non-Aligned Movement

The Ministers of Foreign Affairs Meeting held in Georgetown (1972) had reference to the need of adopting common policies of treatment to the foreign investments. In the same manner concluded over the subject the Ministerial Meeting of Coordinating Bureau (La Habana, 1975), adding their satisfaction for the valuable contribution made by the Andean Pact countries adopting the Statute over Foreign Capitals through its Resolution 24 as an answer to the threat of the Transnational Enterprises. The Ministerial Meeting (Lima, 1975), reiterated their support to the Resolution 24 of Andean Pact at the same time that urged to the countries of the Movement to adopt common rules for the treatment to the foreign capital and the activities of Transnational Enterprises. The Preparatory Meeting held in Belgrade (1972), expressed their complete support to the efforts realized in Latin-America, oriented to the consolidation and defence of their sovereignty and the recuperation of their riches and natural resources, condemning all sort of foreign pressures.

IV. 2. Situation in Latin-America

In the concrete case of the treatment of foreign investments, if it is true that the Andean Group adopted a Statute to the Treatment of Foreign Capital through the Resolution 24, this experience have had little success. In part, due to the lack of supporting by the rest of Latin-American States - not members of the Pact - and also, due to the political pendulum to which we had reference; in this particular case, in Chile, which in 1973 through a praetorian military coup acceded the General Pinochet, favouring in first instance to the foreign capital with the benefits of the enlarged market, in open contradiction with the Resolution 24, through the decree 600, and subsequently, due to the Commission of the Andean Pact - the organism that take decisions in the Andean Pact - urged to the chilean Government to regularize its situation, provoking a crisis in 1974 which result was the withdrawal of Chile from this system of integration in 1976. In general, in Latin-America - excepted the Andean Pact's case - never was possible to settle a “steady system” of common treatment to the foreign capital, that could have in a manner, continuity.

The subject on the protection and defence of the sovereignty over natural resources, not only is submitted to foreign pressures, but also to the idiosyncrasy of the ruler elite in the country where there is some sort of foreign exploitation over that resources. As we have said before, there are some Governments that adopt nationalist postures, and others that follow opening postures to the foreign capital and to orient it in form of investment toward the high priority sectors, in accordance with the national interest, but, favouring the interests of those enterprises or countries that realize the investment with purposes based in their own particular interest. To these Governments, all policy tending to the nationalization, to control through the State the national economy, or to do the agrarian reform, is to follow “communist methods”, that attempt against the Western and Christian principles that must be defended. They are addicted of the privatization of the production's factors, not because they consider that the State have to act in a subsidiary form, but because their policies are based in the connivance with private interest, which in most of the cases are not nationals but foreigners 22.

V. It is purposed the creation of Associations of Producers Countries of Raw Materials.

V. 1. Treatment of the Subject in the Non-Aligned Movement

The Second Summit (The Cairo, 1964), expressed in the Item X of the Economic Part, that the economic emancipation is an essential element in the struggle against all political domination; at the same time that put the accent in the defence of natural resources as a guarantee to assure the economic development.

In this sense, the Meeting held in Lima, observed with satisfaction the activities of OPEC that has changed the strengthen correlation in the international economic struggle, recognizing that by first time the developing countries can achieve objectives of increase its negotiating strength- in the management of its natural resources. The Movement took also note of the policy of those countries, of investing its liquid actives in the development of its own nations and to canalize a part of these actives in the growth of other developing countries.

The Fifth Summit (Colombo, 1976), called out that due to the low prices of the raw materials, there are a growing deficit of balance of payment of developing countries. The Sixth Summit (La Habana, 1979), put the accent in the need of seeking true energetic solutions for the developing countries.

V. 2. Situation in Latin-America

With regard to the subject of defence of sovereignty over natural resources, we guess it is not necessary to add any commentaries to the already said in the items before.

As for the OPEC case -policy not all the Latin-American States have manifested agree with. On the particular case, the Argentine Government considered that the organization has been the causer of the economic and financial problems that are facing the world at the present time, forgiving that, industrialized countries have provoked the economic underdeveloped of the producer and exporter countries of raw materials its contributions to developing countries have been around of 6% of its GDP (Gross Domestic Product) combined, in spite of growing worse its interchange terms, while industrialized countries have not fulfilled its objective of 0,7% of its GDP and each time they are more distant of this percentage. The deficit of payment balances of developing countries passed from 12.000 million dollars in 1973 to 112.000 million dollars in 1980. The export revenues decreased in 150.000 million dollars. The load of its foreign debt has reached to 540.000 million dollars and the debt service payments to 106.000 million dollars, of which, more than 50% belong to Latin-America 23.

Among the OPEC countries, Venezuela - Latin-American country - has been one of which has contributed to solve the needs of the region, especially through the institution of a triangle trade with Central American countries 24.

The attempts to create Associations of Producers and Exporter of Raw Materials following the OPEC model, have had a relative success, due specially to that most of these products are not strategic, or are also produced by the industrialized countries, or are perishables and subsequently could not be store in stocks, etcetera. However those Associations, have been, and result important, in the sense that allow to increase the negotiating strength of the country members of each Association 25.

VI. To establish mechanisms of solidarity and help between Non-Aligned countries that favor the economic security and collective action in front of the strength of the industrialized powers that tend to distort the economies of developing countries, in accordance with the propositions of Argel Summit (1973) in its Resolution N° 3.

VI. 1. Treatment of the Subject in the Non-Aligned Movement

In the Ministerial Meeting held in Lima (1975), was reaffirmed the need of establishing mechanisms of solidarity and help between Non-Aligned Countries, doing reference to the Resolution N° 3 on economic security and collective action adopted in the Argel Summit.

VI. 2. Situation in Latin-America

In the Latin-American case, has begun emphasizing since decades before on the need to aply mechanisms for collective economic security. Included, in the amendments that have been done in the Charter of OAS in 1973, kept expressed that not only ought to pay attention to military security but also to economic security. In the same mode has expressed itself the Tenth Conference of Commanding Officers of American Armies held in Caracas (1973). In 1975, owing to the amendments inserted to the Rio Treaty, was included the collective economic security subject, and for 1976 was adopted a Convention on collective economic security. But neither the amended Rio Treaty not the Convention of reference achieve an effective life, seeing that were not ratified by the Latin-American States -setting aside that had the opposition of United States, also member of the Inter-American System-. The economic sanctions applied by EEC to Argentina due to the Malvinas' crisis, made evident the need of the mechanism of reference. At present, it is newly being treated this subject into the SELA. As we have said before, all is liable to the stability of the Governments and the continuity of the policies, with the object that the strategies that the Latin-American countries adopt, reach a true life, and allow to achieve a true negotiating strength.


1. After the analysis carried out, we observe that our hypothesis kept confirmed, in the sense that have been made different interpretations over the Non-Alignment in the region, based in the different perceptions of the countries and Governments.

2. Likewise, the Latin-American problematic have had different connotations with regard to the rest of Non-Aligned countries of Asia and Africa.

3. Still nowadays, in spite of the growth joining of Latin-American countries to the Non-Aligned Movement, their participation is wordy and of limited compromise, using the Non-Aligned Movement mainly as a forum for the treatment and the search of solutions to their problems.

4. In the Latin-American case, we can not to talk of Non-Aligned countries but Non-Aligned Governments, seeing that the existing political pendulum leads to the adoption of different postures in relation with Non-Alignment in a same country.

5. There are different subjects on which the Non-Aligned posture and the Latin-American one, are not coincident, such as Belize's case or the Antarctica for example.

6. Notwithstanding the anti-colonialist posture of Non-Aligned Movement, has not been taken justly note of the colonial inheritance that in various cases have forsaken, particularly Great Britain, to some Latin-American countries such as Guatemala or Venezuela for example, resulting therefore the treatment of these subjects in a partial. manner into the different Non-Aligned countries Conferences, seeing that it is supported preferably that country which is Full Member of the Movement and not that one, that in accordance with its historical legacies exert just territorial claims due to it have been despoiled by the European colonialist policies during the last Century. These situations provoked by colonialist powers favour the conflicts between the States of the region and to “balkanize” Latin-America in benefit of the powers with hegemonic interest.

7. As according as the armaments development become improved, and the decolonization process more accelerated, result imperative for the big powers to achieve the domain over the insular regions. Ascension, Diego Garcia, Malvinas among others are clear examples of that we have expressed.

8. The solution under the colonial regimes, not only ought to attend to their political independence, but also to their economical problematic, specially in the case of “micro-States”, with the object of avoiding the appearance of new wrongness, at the same time they are trying to solve others.

9. With regard to the colonial situations in Latin-America it is observed some important aspect:

a) Latin-America has not a definite policy to solve the colonial problem. In this: case we are not doing reference to the individual postures but to the region as a whole.

b) The colonial situation constitute a problem based mainly in the North-South confrontation, brought about for the most part by the traditional repressive power structure and by national economic structures that produce poverty, inequality and misery and aggravated by the interference and intervention to which those countries have been subjected. But the policies and strategies of the Latin-American Governments are not coherent as for the treatment of these problems, not even with regard to their perceptions on the true causes that provoke it.

c) The problems of colonial and neo-colonial order have also entailed with the East-West conflict. The Cuban revolution of 1959 provoked the entering of the cold war to Latin-American and the maintenance of this system of relations practically until the present, based in the unlike perceptions of the Governments of turn in the region. The cases of Nicaragua and El Salvador are also indicators of that we say.

d) As according as prevail some postures such as that which the Andean Group adopted in the XVII Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs to treat the crisis of Nicaragua in 1979, or that which the so-called “Contadora Group” adopted to the problem recently originated in the same country; could be avoided the conflictive solutions based in criterion of cold war, at the same time that will be solved in a big manner the problem of self-determination, the respect to the authentically pluralism in Latin-America and the double interpretations over the meaning of non-intervention.

10. In Latin-America has been not achieved the true respect to the pluralism, neither the political coexistence among regimes of different sign. This explain the pendulum to which it is subjected the region and the uninterrupted restorer coups, at the same time that the duplicity of interpretations with regard to non-intervention principle. This also impede to achieve a coordination of the foreign policies diminishing the possibility of establishing joint strategies and to increase the negotiating, strength of the region, at the same time that avoid the possibility of conflict between the States. This contributes to the Latin-American “balkanization” and disable a greater cooperation.

11. There are Latin-American countries, whose status into Non-Aligned Movement is Observer, such as Mexico and Venezuela for example, but its policies - besides of being stables and continuous - have contributed in a greater manner to the solution of the problems and needs of Latin-America, at the same time that they are more close of Non-Alignment principles that other Latin-American States which are Full Members of the Movement since years. This shows the importance so much the continuity of the policies, as the “moderate political postures” but firm, to achieve the objective of a greater autonomy.

12. To solve in a non-conflictive manner the colonial problems in Latin-American, whether of interrupted sovereignty or of entailing to a colonial power -as have been happening and still happen in most of Caribbean countries- ought to create permanent or Ad-Hoc Working Groups with the object of interchanging experiences and to elaborate joint strategies, without prejudice of the activities that individual or jointly the Latin-Americans States will accomplish at the international forms.

13. In the particular case of Malvinas Islands, ought to declare the South-Atlantic as a “Zone of Peace” analogously with the criterion adopted for Indian Ocean, so much by Non-Aligned Movement as for United Nations General Assembly, at the same time that to seek joint strategies to avoid that the cases of Diego Garcia, Malvinas and Ascension be spread to the whole world, generating a new Era of confrontations between the superpowers, with the logical disastrous consequences for the rest of the countries.

14. In the same manner must be established a defence and security system which take in account the true problems of the region, unlike of the mechanisms of Rio Treaty. Notwithstanding, the importance of the functioning of this systems, it is not in the creation of new organizations but in the political will of the Governments of the member countries in order to the already existent be functional to the these aspirations and needs.

15. With regard to the military coups in Latin-America it is essential to adopt strategies truly creative to achieve the stability of the constitutional processes. Strategies which will-not ought be based in the good will of the Army Forces or in the exclusive hope of a change in their structures with the object to subject them to the constitutional power. Having in account the Latin-American characteristics have to adopt “moderate policies” to achieve the objectives of a greater autonomy, avoiding in this manner the direct confrontation among dissenting groups or to enervate the “sanctioning spirit” of the hegemonic powers. This must necessarily be accompanied with the reciprocal support between the constitutional Governments of the region with the object of strengthening the stabilizing mechanisms.












1958 Frondizi (civil) 1962 military coup. Guido (Vice President in charge of the Presidency. 1963 Illia (civil) elected for President

There are conflicts between Guatemala and Great Britain over the sovereignty of this region since the XIX Century.

1960 Paz Estensoro


1956 Kubitschek (civil). 1961 Quadros. 1961 Quadros resigns and acceded Goulart. Both with an universalist conception of the Foreign Policy and aproximation to the Third World. 1964 Praetorian military coup Gral. Castello Branco. Continue the Presidential succession by elections with Hegemonic Party, practically without Oposer Party.

1958 Carlos Lleras Camargo,

(civil liberal).

1963 León Valencia



1966 Praetorian military coup. Gral. Onganía as President.

1966 Got independent from Great Britain. Acceded to Goverment Democratic Labour Party elected in 1971. Errol Barrow.

1964 Military coup. Gral. Barrientos as President.

1969 Barrientos die. &ceded Siles Salinas (civil). 1969 Military coup Gral. Ovando Can dia.

1967 Gral. Costa e Silva. 1969 Goverment of the Military Command. 1969 Gral. Garrastazú Médici.

1966 Carlos Lleras Restrepo (civil liberal)


1970 Military coup. Gral. Levingston as President. 1971 Military coup. Gral. Lanusse as President. 1973 Elections. Elected peronista party Governed with various President of the Party.

1970 Military coup Gral. Torres (leftist Goverment). 1971 Praetorian milita ry coup Gral. Banzer.

1974 Gral. Geisel. Opening to the Third World, specially to Black African Countries. The Ideologic Frontier, Doctrine was abandoned and adopted the Responsible Pragmatism Policy

1970 López Michelsen (civil)


1976 Praetorian military coup. Gral. Videla as President with military succesion each three years

1976 Elected Labour Party. Acceded to Goverment Tom Adams as Prime Minister.

1978 Elections. Frustrated by a military coup Gral. Pereda. 1978 was overthrew by Gral. Padilla Arancibia. 1979 Elections. Wins the socialism without majority. Acceded to Presidency the President of Senate Guevara Arce. 1979 Military coup Natusch Busch. Give the Presidency to President of dismissed Senate Gueiler.

1979 Gral. Figueiredo has a more opening policy than Geisel, using the political patterns of Quadros and Goulart in his Foreign Policy.

1978 Turbay Ayala



1983 (October) elections acceding the civil Goverment President Raúl Alfonsin December 1983.

1982 Got independent with british support.

1980 Elections wins socialist Siles Suazo. 1980 Praetorian Military coup Gral. Garcia Meza. 1982 President Siles Suazo


1989 eleccions. Due to the hyperinflation, Alfonsín gives the government in advance to Carlos Menem. Begin privatizations of publics enterprises and neoliberal policies.

The government of Menem, goes out of the Movement, criticizing it.

1985 elections. Tancredo Neves won the elections. Die immediately. José Sarney assumes. 1989 presidential elections. Fernando Collor de Melo assumes de presidency. Neoliberal model of the economy. Privatization of the public enterprises..


In 1995 Carlos Menem was reelected.

In 1999 Fernando De La Rua won the elections like candidate of the Alliance, political party result of the convergence of the Radical Party and Frepaso.

1991 a Parliamentary Commission judges Collor de Melo for corruption. Itamar Franco assumes. December 1992 Senate condemned Collor the Melo, Itamar Franco assumes definitively. Fernando Henrique Cardoso Economy Minister. Presented Plan Real to fight against hyperinflation. 1994 Fernando Henrique Cardoso assumes as president.











1959 Echandi Jiménez


1962 Orlich (civil)

1959 Revolutionary

coup made by Fidel

Castro. Adscription

to Sovietic Bloc.

Presidency of Dorticós

1958 Alessandri (conservative)

1964 Frei Montalva (Christian Democrat)

1960 Velasco Ibarra (Oligarchical Populist)

1961 Julio Arosemena.

1963 Military coup. Acceded the Military Command.

1956 Colonel José Maria Lemus.

1960 was overthrew by a leftist military coup Military Command.

1961 was overthrew and replaced by a Government Directory of moderate tendency. 1962 was promulgated a new Constitution. Elected Lieutenant Colonel Julio A. Rivera.


1966 Trejos Fernández


1966 Elections. Acceded Otto Arosemena Gómez. 1968 Elections. Acceded Velasco Ibarra

1967 Elections. Acceded Sánchez Hernández


1970 Figueres Ferrer


1974 Obduber (civil)

1970 Allende (Leftist Socialism)

1973 Praetorian military coup. Acceded to Goverment Gral. Pinochet. Chile withdraw from the Andean Pact and Non-Aligned Movement.


1972 Military coup. Acceded Gral. Rodríguez Lara.

1976 Military Triumvirate

1979 Elections. Acceded Roldós Aguilera.

1972 Elections. Acceded Colonel Molina

1977 Elections. Acceded Gral. Romero.

1979 Military coup.Civil War.


1978 Rodrigo Carazo


Presidency of Fidel Castro

1978 Got independent from Great Britain. President Fred de Garzón. Prime Minister Patrick R. John


1981 Aguilera die. Acceded Osvaldo Hurtado

1980 Acceded Napoleón Duarte

1982 Alvaro Magaña













1962 Got independent from Great Britain. British Governor.

1958 Lóez Mateos

1964 Diaz Ordaz

1956 Luis Somoza


1965 Got independent

from Great Britain.

1963 René Schick

1966 Guerrero 1967 Anastacio Somoza

1968 Arnulfo Arias

1968 Leftist military coup. Acceded Gral. Torrijos. Changed the Constitution and got plenary powers with José Maria Pinilla as President.

1969 was constituted a Civil Command with Demetrio Lakas Bahas.


1974 Got Independent

from Great Britain. Prime Minister Eric Gairy

1970 Is proclaimed the Republic and the Governor was replaced by the President Arthur Chung.

Until the decade of '70 the Mexican governments have a close relation with United States due to its economy and commerce.

1970 Echeverría Alvarez. Changes in the Foreign Policy oriented towards the Third World.

1974 Anastacio Somoza.

Until ended the decade of '70 Nicaragua was governed practically by a Family (The Somoza Family and their clientelist group) in close entail with United States.


1979 Military coup. Acceded Maurice Bishop

Arthur Chung. Was reelected in 1976

1976 Presidential Elections. Wins the Peoples National Party. Acceded Michael Manley as Prime Minister.

1976 López Portillo

1979 Revolutionary

coup with Civil War. Acceded the Sandinista Command with five members.

1978 President Arístides Royo, elected by the National Assembly of Representatives.


1980 Elections. Wins the Labour Party. Acceded Edward Seaga.

1982 Miguel Lamadrid

1980 two members of the government resign their dignities.

1982 Military coup.

Acceded Ricardo de la Espriella.

1983 was changed de Constitution, enlarging it.












1956 Manuel Prado Ugarteche 1962 Elections. The majority candidates did not win the elections due to not to achieve the necessary minimun of votes. Before the Congress would decided the Goverment, a military coup established a Military Command.

1963 Elections. Accceded Belaúnde Terry

1962 Got Independent from Great Britain. Maintain relations with the Commonwealth, specially on the Court of Justice subject.

1956 Collegiate Executive

1959 Rómulo Betancourt before a long military period with Pérez Jiménez as President. Government of modernizing type, pro northeamerican.

1964 Raúl Leoni


1968 Leftist military coup. Acceded Velasco Alvarado

1966 Oscar Gestido.

1967 die and was replaced by Pacheco Areco.

1969 Rafael Caldera


1975 Got Independent from Holand.

1971 Elections. Acceded Juan María Bordaberry. Problems with guerrillas provoked a military coup. Continue Bordaberry as President but controled by the Military Command.

1973 Carlos Andrés Pérez


1975 Velasco Alvarado was taken ill, being replaced by Gral. Morales Bermúdez who reverted the policy made by Velasco Alvarado.

1977 Elections. Acceded Henck Arron as Prime Minister.

1976 It is established the Republic. President Ellis Clarke. Prime Minister Eric Williams.

1976 was dismissed by the Military Command and acceded the Chief Commander of the Army, Gral. Aparicio Méndez.

1979 Luis Herrera Campins. It is the politically more stable government in the last 25 years in the whole Latin-America.


1980 Elections. Acceded Belaúnde Terry.

1980 A military coup dismissed the Parliament and acceded Ferrier. The Colonel Bouterse established a civic-military government. Henk Chin-A-Sen.

1980 Prime Minister George Chambers.

Possible electoral outlet for 1984 with military control.



Foto AutorEsta página fue hecha por  Luis DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA

** Doctor en Ciencia Política y Relaciones Internacionales (Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Argentina). Profesor y Evaluador en Cursos d Grado, Postgrado y Doctorado en el país y en el exterior.  Director del Centro de Estudios Internacionales Argentinos (CEINAR) y de la Revista Argentina de Relaciones Internacionales, 1977-1981. Miembro Observador Internacional del Comité Internacional de Apoyo y Verificación CIAV-OEA en la "desmovilización" de la guerrilla "contra" en Nicaragua, 1990. Director de Doctorado en Relaciones Internacionales, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Rosario, Argentina, 2002-2005. Investigador Científico del "Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas" (CONICET).


Home    Arriba     Al Indice General   América Latinal


* Published as: Latin-America and the Caribbean Countries Participation in the Nonaligned Movement (English version), in The NonAligned World, Vol. II, No 2, April-June 1984, New Delhi, India. By invitation of M.S. Rajan, Director of School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. Pages 27-51.

1 Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries Speeches, (La Habana, Edited by Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, 1980), pages 5-6.

2 See Puig, Juan Carlos, in “Politica de Poder en América Latina” (various authors), (Buenos Aires, Pleamar, 1974), pages 157. Likewise, HAMON, Leo, Non-Engagement et Neutrality des nouveaux Etats, in DUROSELLE and MEYRIART, “Les Nouveaux Etats dans les Relations Internationales”, (Paris, Centre d'Etudes des Relations Internationales, Librairie Armand Colin, 1962).

3 See PUIG, Juan Carlos, in “Politica de Poder en América Latina” (various authors), (Buenos Aires, Pleamar, 1974), pages 151-173. Likewise SOEDJATMOKO, Non-Alignment and Beyond, in “The Non-aligned World”, (New Delhi, Jawarjalal Nehru University, 1983), Vol. I, N° 1, pages 6 and 7.

4 The “heterodoxy” is when a country hegemonized, act in function of its national interest, without necessarily breaking or to face to the hegemonic power. The “secesionism” is when a country hegemonized, breaks with the hegemonic power.

5 See Puig, Juan Carlos, in “Politica de Poder en América Latina” (various authors), (Buenos Aires, Pleamar, 1974), pages 162-164.

6 This exercise today (year 2000) could be useless, since the non alignment lost the basic objectives of the Movement with the end of bipolar system and the politics based on closed blocks, at the same time that the high degree of immersion of the Latin American countries, through its governments in the neoliberal ideology.

7 See DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA, Luis and other, El Sistema Político Latinoamericano, in “Revista Argentina de Relaciones Internacionales” Buenos Aires, CEINAR, 1979), Vol. V, N° 13, pages 5-64.

8 In the First Non-Aligned Conference Cuba was the unique Full Member, and Bolivia, Brasil and Ecuador were Observers.

9 Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago joined the Movement as Full Members in the Lusaka Summit (1970). For the New Delhi Summit (1983) Mere were 17 Latin-American Full Members, 9 Observers and one as a Guest.

10 Guyana is Full Member since Lusaka Summit (1970). Venezuela is Observer Country since the Meeting of The Cairo (1964).

11 For example, the reservations had to the signature of the Declaration adopted in the First Meeting of Consultation held in Panama in 1939; the same in the Second Meeting of Consultation held in La Habana in 1940 on the occasion of the signature of the Convention on Administration over the European Territories and Colonies in America; at the signature of the Rio Treaty in 1947; in the Ninth Pan-American Conference held in Bogota in 1948 on the occasion of the signature of the Resolution XXXIII; in the Fourth Meeting of Consultation held in Washington in 1951 on occasion of the signature of the Resolution VI; in the Extraordinary Inter-American Conference held in Washington in 1964 on occasion of the signature of the Act of Washington; on occasion of the signature of the Protocol of Amendments to the Rio Treaty in 1975 in San Jose of Costa Rica; etcetera.

12 See for example the works of ROGERS, Bernard W., (Ally Supreme Commandant in Europe - SACEUR) Les menaces accrues qui pesent sur la sécurité de l'Alliance appellent une risposte soutenue, in “Revue de l´OTAN”, (Bruxelles, June of 1981), Vol. 29, N° 3, pages 1-6. Likewise, STANHOPE, Henry (Correspondent of Defense of Times-London), l'Alliance dans un monde élargi, in “Revue de l´OTAN”, (Bruxelles, December of 1980), Vol. 28, N° 6, pages 7-11. Were it is talked about the need of attanding to the internal and external threat to the Atlantic Alliance, and subsequently the need of extending the NATO basis outside its frontiers.

13 See Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, A/10023.Add.8, Part III, Chap. XXX - A/C.4/SR.2162 and 2173 - A/10427/3432, XXX, Belize Case.

14 See AGUILERA, Jesús Antonio, Las Fronteras de Venezuela, (Caracas: Edited by the Author, 1976), pages 63-80

15 See BOLIVIA: El camino al mar sigue lleno de obstáculos, in “Comercio Exterior”, Mexico, Banco Nacional of Comercio Exterior, February 1977), Vol. 27, N° 2, pages 195-201.

16 On the subject see ARDUINO, Norberto, Antartida Argentina, su situación actual, work realized under the direction of Luis DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA, in the International Relations Course of the University of Salvador -Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1977 - published in “Revista Argentina de Relaciones Internacionales” (Buenos Aires, CEINAR, 1978), Vol. IV, N° 11, pages 42-55. Likewise, PUIG, Juan Carlos, La Antártida Argentina ante el Derecho, (Buenos Aires, Depalma, 1960). BUM MENENDEZ, Armando, Pequeña Historia Antartica, (Buenos Aires, Francisco de Aguirre, 1974). PINOCHET de la BARRA, Oscar, La Antartida Chilena, (Santiago de Chile, Editorial del Pacífico, 1948). DE CASTRO, Therezinha, Rumo a Antárctica, (Rio de Janeiro, Freitas Bastos, 1974). CARDOSO de MENEZES, Euripides, A Antarctica e os desafíos do futuro, (Rio de Janeiro, Capemi, 1982). ARBUET VIGNALI, Heber, PUCEIRO RIPOLL, Roberto, y GARRE COPELLO, Belter, Antártida Continente de los más para los menos, (Montevideo, Fundación de Cultura Universitaria, 1979). In “Los Países No-Alineados” published by Prensa Latina/Agencia de Prensa Orbis, (Praga, 1982), Wen is gived the data on Argentina it is indicated that “have also a portion of 965.314 K2 in the Antarctica between the 25' and 74' of longitude until the South Pole”, page 69.

17 See DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA, Luis, La Problemática del Orden, in (various authors), “Geopolítica y Relaciones Internacionales”, (Buenos Aires, Pleamar, 1981), pages 1-39.

18 See MARTINIERE, Guy, La Politique Africaine du Brésil (1970-76), in “Notes et Etudes Documentaires”, (Direction de Documentation Francaise, July 13, 1978), N° 4474, pages 7-64.

19 See DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA, Luis, El Sistema Interamericano y las Relaciones entre Estados Unidos y América Latina, in “GEOSUR”, (Montevideo, 1983), Vol. IV, N° 41, pages 3-25.

20 See for example SELSER, Gregorio, Alianza Para el Progreso: La Mal Nacida, (Buenos Aires, Edic. Iguazú, 1964).

21 See DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA, Luis, El Sistema Económico Latinoamericano (SELA): su efectividad como instrumento de integración latinoamericana, in “El Derecho Internacional en los Congresos Ordinarios”, (Córdoba, Argentina, AADI, 1981), pages 235-273.

22 See for example the Item R. of the Programme of Action for the Economic Co-operation, of the Final Declaration of the New Delhi Summit (1983), in “Política Internacional”, (Belgrade, Jogoslovenska Stvarnost, April 5, 1983), Vol. XXXIV, N° 792, page 69, Were it is talked on the importance of the Public Enterprise and the industrialization and the global development of the developing countries.

23 See “Política Internacional”, Belgrade, Jugoslovenska Stvarnost, April 5, 1983, Vol. IV, N° 792, page 43.

24 See DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA Luis, Venezuela, América Latina y Argentina, in “Revista Argentina de Relaciones Internacionales” Buenos Aires, CEINAR, 1976), Vol. II, N° 4, pages 47-55.

25 See DALLANEGRA PEDRAZA, Luis and other, Aptitud de los Estados Latinoamericanos para adoptar decisiones conjuntas: el caso de las Asociaciones de Productores in “Revista Argentina de Relaciones Internacionales”, (Buenos Aires, CEINAR, 1977), Vol III, N° 7, pages 5-19.