text: priate manner to the observations put forward by Ambassador Parsons, 193. Further on the Prime Minister says: “It is very difficult to know who you are negotiating with. You negotiate at the United Nations with a Mr. Ros.“‘~ 194. “A Mr. Ros,” Ambassador Ros deserves great respect. He has won our affection and OUI admiration, because he is an institution in the United Nations and in the Movement of Non-Aligned Coun- tries. He is a man deserving of great respect. Yet this is how “civilized” Governments treat others. 1%. The Prime Minister also says: “But, YOU see, we were already negotiating with him back in February.“:‘: In other words, the idea that they had talked with him in February did not make much difference, The11 something more serious is stated, something that I’c:~IIY should give cause for thought, because this disruption. this upheaval, this poisoning of inter- nationaf relations has unwisely been brought to he1 mM important ally, the Government of the United SiilkS. -- 196. She says, in a reply: “President Reagan telephoned President Galticri to say: ‘We hear you are making plans to invade. JJon’t*’ I*:> 197. Where do you see, in relations between free and sovereign peoples, the President of a State, no matter how powerful the State might be. telling another leader: “No! You can’t do this; you have to do what I want you to do”? That is simply abandoning one’s sovereignty. It is humiliating. It is unworthy, There is no word for it. I do not know whether this is the truth or a lie, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has no right to put President Reagan in a position which will cause resentment in Latin Amer- ica. I am not the only one saying this. Today’s issue 
analysis: The text appears to be a speech or statement about international relations, specifically criticizing the actions of governments and their leaders. The topics discussed include diplomacy, sovereignty, and the treatment of other nations, which suggests that the category should be related to international relations.