The United States used its power of veto in the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday (21 March) when it voted against a resolution calling for the speedy conclusion of a new U.
SV Boyd about to speak
SV Boyd speaking
SV Boyd votes ZOOM OUT
GV Boyd speaking
GV ZOOM INTO Boyd
Initials ESP/0230 ESP/0245
Script is copyright Reuters Limited. All rights reserved
Background: The United States used its power of veto in the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday (21 March) when it voted against a resolution calling for the speedy conclusion of a new U.S.-Panamanian agreement on the Panama Canal.
The Security Council vote came near the end of a week-long session held in Panama City -- the first ever in a Latin American country.
The resolution called for a new treaty to replace a 1903 agreement that would take control of the canal from the United States and place it in the hands of the Panamanians.
The Canel debate, which had lasted several days, and during which three resolutions had been discussed, ended with the Panamanian delegate, Mr. Aquilino Boyd, calling for support for Panama's claims to the 500-square mile (12,200 square kilometres) canal zone.
The voting was 13 for the resolution, one (USA) against, and one (Britain) abstention.
SYNOPSIS: In Panama City, the United Nations Security Council nears the end of its debate on the Panama Canal with the Panamanian delegate, Mr. Aquilino Boyd, calling for support for Panama's campaign for a new agreement. Before the council was a resolution calling for a new treaty to replace the nineteen-hundred-and-three treaty which gave the United States rights in perpetuity over the Canal Zone.
It was the first-ever Security Council session in a Latin American country and the vote came after a week-long session.... much of it taken up with the Canal issue. During the debate, three resolutions had been discussed, but the United States delegation said it could not agree to any of them. However, the final resolution was put to the vote.
Throughout the council session, Panama had demanded the replacement of the old canal treaty which it claimed was signed under duress. The U.S. expressed willingness to conclude a new pact and negotiations have been going on for the past nine years. Washington, however, wants the United States to continues to be responsible for the operation and defence of the seaway for an additional period of time, to be specified in future negotiations. Final voting on the issue was thirteen for, with Britain abstaining and the United States voting against.... and using its power of veto in the process. Because of the veto, the resolution was rejected.