S/PV.1022 Security Council

The first item on the provisional agenda for this meeting is the adoption of the agenda, Are there any comments or objections7 2. 1 should like to say a few words in my capacity as the representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SO- CIALIST REPUBLICS. 3. The Soviet Union considers the question raised by the United States concerning the alleged threat on the part of Cuba to the security of the United States and the Western Hemisphere to be made up out of whole cloth. The action taken by the United States to bring the matter before the Security Council is a clumsy attempt to caver up the unprecedented aggressive acts oarried out by the United States against Cuba-the arbitrary and illegal naval blockade of the Republic of Cuba. In actual fact, the substance of the matter is that the United States . . . fond de l’affaire est pue les Etats-Unis . . ,

Point of osder, please. Are you speaking on the adoption of the agenda or are you making a speech?

Yes, 1 am speaking in connexion with the adoption of the agenda, and nothing else. My statement Will be brief. 6. The substance of the matter is that the United States is in effect establishing a blockade of Cuban shores carrying out provocative measures which con- 8. 1 should like to state, as PRESIDENT, that if no other members of the Security Council have any comments to make, 1 shall consider that the Council has adopted the provisional agenda, The agenda was adopted. Letter doted 22 October 1962 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/SlSl); Letter dated 22 October 1962 from the Permanent Representative of Cuba addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/5183); Letter doted 23 October 1962 from the Deputy Permonent Representative of the Union of Soviet Sociulist Republics addressed to the President of the Security Council (5/5186)

In accordance with the request made by the representative oî Cuba [S/5185], and under rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure, 1 suggest if there is no objection, thnt we invite the representative of Cuba to take a seat at the Council table in order to participate in the discussion of the question which tbe Council is to consider. Ai the invitation of the President, Mr. MaiYo Garcia Inchaus tegui (Cuba), took a place at the Council table,

As members of the Council know, last night the President received a letter from the Permanent Representative of the United States [S/53.81] with a request for an urgent convening of the Security Council. Thst letter was accompanied by the draft resolution [S/5182]. The President also received last night a letter from the Permanent Representative of Cuba with a request for an urgent conveniag of tho Council [S/51833. This taorning, the President received a letter from the Deputy Permanent Representative of the LJSSR with a similar request for the ‘urgent convening of the Council [S/5186] accompanied by the text of a statement l’y the USSR Government. 11. I woulcl suggest that these three letters should be considered simultaneously. If there are no objections, 1 shall consider that this suggestion meets with the approval of the Council. It was SO decided. 12. Mr. STEVENSON (Unitecl States of America): 1 have asked for an emergency meeting of the Security “Within the past week, unmistakable eviclence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases cari be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere. Upon receiving the first preliminary hard information of this nature last Tuesday morning at 9 a.m., I directed that our surveillance be steppecl up. And having now confirmecl and completed our evaluation of the evidence ancl our decision on a cours& of action, this Government feels obligecl to report this new crisis to you in full cletail. “The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations. Several of them include medium-range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1,000 nautical miles. Each of these missiles, in short, is capable of striking Washington, D.C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any other City in the south-eastern part of the Unitecl States, in Central America or in the Caribbean area. “Additional sites not yet completed appear to be clesigned for intermediate-range ballistic missilescapable of tsavelling more than twice as far-ancl thus capable of striking most of the major cities in the Western Hemisphere, ranging as far north as Hudsonls Bay, Canada, and as far south as Lima, Peru. In addition, jet bombers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, are now being uncrated and assembled in Cuba, while the necessary air bases are being prepared.” 14. In view of this transformation of Cuba into a base 14. for offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction, the plate-forme President announced the initiation of a strict quaranle tine on a11 offensive military weapons uncler shipment mesures to Cuba. He did SO because, in the view of my Governsives ment, the recent developments in Cuba-the importadécision, tion of the cold war iato the heart of the Americasl’évolution constitute a threat to the peace of this hemisphere, l’importation and, indeed, to the peace of the world. riques hémisphère 15. Seventeen years ago, the representatives of fifty- 15. one nations gathered in San Francisco to adopt the sont rbunis Charter of the United Nations. These nations stated des Nations with clarity and eloquence the high purpose which clart6 brought them together. They announced their common blaient. determination: “to save succeeding generations from de s, , . prkserver the scourge of war , . l to reaffirmfaithinfundamental de la guerre human rights O *. to establish conditions under which les justice and respect for the obligations arising from conditions treaties and other sources of international law cari be du respect maintained, and to promote social progress and better sources standards of life in largex fxeedomn. And in one sensocial tente, Article 2, paragraph 4, they defined the necesdans sary condition of a community of independent sovereign 1’Article 16. In this spirit, these fifty-one nations solemnly resolved to band together in a great co-operative quest for world peace and world progress. The adventure of the United Nations held out to humanity the bright hope of a new world, a world securely founded on international peace, on national independence, on personal freedom, on respect for law, for social justice and betterment, and, in the words of the Charter, for “equal rights and self-determination of peoples II. 17. The vision of San Francisco-and 1 was therewas the vision of a world community of independent nations, each freely developing according to its own traditions and its own genius, Pound together by a common respect for the rights of other nations and by a common loyalty to the laxger international osder. This vision assumes that this earth is quite large enough to shelter a great variety of economic systems, political creeds, philosophical heliefs and religious convictions. The faith of the Charter is in a pluralistic world, a world of free choioe, respecting the infinfte diversity of mankind and dedicated to nations living together as good neighbours, in peace. 18. Like many peoples, we welcomed the world of the Charter, for our society is based on principles of choice and consent. We believe the principles of an open society in the world order Will survive and flourish in the competitions of peace. We believe that freedom and diversity are the best olimate for human creativity and social progress. We reject allfatalistic philosophies of history and a11 theories of political and social predestination. We doubt whether any nation has SO absolute a grip on absolute truth that it is entitled to impose its idea of what is right on others. And we know that a world cofimunity of independent nations accepting a common frame of international order offers the best safeguard for the safety of our shores and for the security ofourpeople. The commitment to the world of the Charter expresses both our deepest philosophical traditions and the most realistic interpretation of our national interest. 19. Had we had any other vision of the world, had we sought the path of empire, aux opportunities for selfaggrandizement imrnediately after the war would have been almost unparalleled. In 1945, we were incomparably the greatest military Power in the world. Our troops and planes were dispersed at strategic points around the globe. We had exclusive possession of the terror and thepromise of atomic energy. Our economio strength was unmatched. If the American purpose had been world dominion, there could have been no more propitious moment to set out on such a course. 21. Instead of using our rnonopoly of atomic energy 21. t0 extend OUX national power, we offered in 1946 to atomique pour étendre notre puissance transfer the control of atomic energy to the United avons Nations. Instead of using our overwhelming economic & l’Organisation strength to extend OLW national power, we contributed de notre formidable more than $2.5 billion to the United Nations Relief notre and Rehabilitation Administration, much of which went ministration t0 the relief of suffering in the communist countries. reconstruction Ancl after 1948, we contributed many more billions to dont une large part a servi the economic restoration of Europe-and invited the de citoyens commuaist countries to participate as recipients in avons offert this programme. Instead of using our substance and nomie strength to extend our national power, we supported communistes the movement for independence which began to sweep lieu through Asia and Africa-the movement which has étendre added fifty-nine new members to the United Nations le mouvement in the years since 1945. Since the war, we have conet l’Afrique tributed $97 billion of economic and military assist- Nations ance to other nations-and, of this sum, $53 billion 1945. has gone to the nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin milliards America. militaire sont allés B des pays d’Asie, latine. . 22. 1 have often wondered what ths world would be 22. like today if the situation at the end of the war had monde aujourd’hui been reversed-if the United States had been ravaged avait and shattered by war, and if the Soviet Union had ravagbs emerged intact in exclusive possession of the atomic trouvée bomb and overwhelming military and economic might. et une formidable Would it have followed the same path and devotecl Aurait-elle itself to realizing the world of the Charter? attachee a édifier 23. TO ask this *estion suggests thecentralparadox 23. of the United Nations. For among the States which qui est pledged fidelity to the idea of a pluralistic world in les San Francisco were some who had an incompatible servir vision of the future world ordex. certains incompatible 24. Ras the Soviet Union ever really joinedthcunited 24. Nations? Or does its philosophy of history and its adh&6 conception of the future run counter to the pluralistic losophie concept of this Charter? ne sont-elles de la Charte? 25. Against the idea of diversity, communism asserts 25. the idea of uniformity; against freedom, inevitability; celle against choice, compulsion; against democracy, choix, dogma; against independence, ideology; against tolerl’independance, ance, conformity. Its faith is that the iron laws of formisme. history Will require every nation to traverse the same obligeront predestined. path to the same predestined conclusion. predestinée 27. But that day has not yet arrive& The conflict between absolutist ancl pluralistic conceptions of the destiny of mankind romains the basic source of discord within the United Nations. It has given rise to what is known as the cold war. Were it not for this conflict, this Organization woulcl have made steady progress towarcl the world of choice and justice envisaged at San Francisco. 28. But because of the Soviet rejection of an open world, the hope for progress ancl for pence has been systematically frustrated. And in these halls we spend much of our time ancl our energy either engaged in or in avoiding this incessant conflict. It began even before the nations gathered at San Francisco. As soon as the defeat of the Nazis appeared certain, 1 remind you that the Soviet Union began to abandon the policy of war-time co-operation to which it had turned for selfprotection, In early 1945, Moscow instructedthecommunist parties of the West to purge themselves of the sin of co-operation, and to return to their pre-war view that clemocratic governments were by definition imperialistic and wicked. Within a few weeks after the meeting at Yalta, the Soviet Union took Swift action in’Romania and Poland in brutal violation of the Yalta pledges of political freedom for those countries. At the same time, it began a political offensive against the United States, charging that the UnitedStates Government-the Government of Franklin Roosevelt-was -engaged in secret peace negotiations with Hitler. Roosevelt replied to Stalin that he deeply resented these Vile misrepresentations”. At the end of March 1945, Roosevelt cabled Winston Churchill that he was l’watching with anxiety and concern the development of the Soviet attitude” and that he was “acutely aware of the dangers inherent in thepresent course of events, not only for the immediate issue but also for the San Francisco Conference and future world co-operation ‘l. 29. It is important to recall these facts, because the Soviet Union has tried in the years since to tiretend that its policy of aggression was a defensive response to the change ,of administration in the United States, or to Churchill’s 1946 speech at Fulton, Missouri, or to some other event after the death of Roosevelt. But the historical record is elear. As soon as the Soviet Government saw no further military need for 34. The record is clear: treaties, agreements, pledges and the morals of international relations were never an obstacle to the Soviet Unionunder Stalin. And no one has said SO more eloquently than Chairman Khrushchev. 35. With the death of Stalin in 1953, the worlcl had a resurgence of hope. No one cari question that Chairman Khrushchev has altered many things in the Soviet Union. He has introcluced welcome measures of normalization in many sectors of Soviet life. He has abandoned the classic communist concept of the inevitability of war. He has recognized the appalling dangers of nuclear weapons. 36. But there is one thing he has not altered-and that is the basic drive to abolish the world of the Charter, to destxoy the hope of a pluralistic world society. He has not altered the basic drive to fulfil the prophecies of Marx and Lenin and make the whole world communist. And he has demonstratecl his singleness of purpose in a succession of agg?essive actsin the suppression of the East German uprising in 1953 and the Hungarianrevolution in1956; in the series of manufactured crises and truculent demands that the Allies get out of West Berlin; in the resumption of nuclear testing; in the explosion-defying a resolution of the General Assembly-of a fifty-megatom bomb; in the continued stimulation of guerrilla and subversive warfare a11 over the globe; in the compulsive intervention in the interna1 affairs of other nations, whether by diplomatie assault, by economicpressure, by mobs and riots, by propaganda, or by espionage. 37. The world welcomed the process known as “de- Stalinization” and the movement toward a more normal life within the Soviet Union. But the world has not yet seen comparable changes in Soviet foreign policy. It is this which has shadowed the world since the end of the Second World War, which has dimmed our hopes of peace and progress, which has forced those nations determined to defend their freedom to take measures in their own self-defence. In this effort, the leadership has inevitably fallen in large degree on the Wnited States. We do not believe that every action that we have taken in the effort to strengthen the independence of nations has necessarily been correct. We do not subscribe to the thesis of national infallibility for any nation, But we do take great pside in the role we have pesformed. 39. We have declined to be provoked into actions which might lead to war-in the face of suoh challenges as the Berlin blockade, such affronts to humanity as the repression of the Hungarian revolt, such atrocities as the erection of that shameful wall to fente in the East Germans who had bled to the West in such vast multitudes, 40. We have assisted nations, both allied and unaligne& who have shown a Will to maintain their national independence. TO shield them and ourselves, we have rebuilt our armed forces, established defensive alliances, and, year after year, reluctantly devoted a large share of our resources to national defence. 41. Together with our allies, we have installed certain bases Overseas as a prudent precaution in response to the olear and persistent Soviet threats. In 1959, eighteen months after the boasts of Chairman Khrushchev had called the world’s attention to the threat of Soviet long-range missiles, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, without concealment or deceit-as a consequence of agreements freely negotiated and publicly declared-placed intermediaterange ballistic missiles in the NATO area. The warheacls of these missiles remain in the custody of the United States, and the decision for their use rests in the hands of the President of the United States, in association with the Governments involved. 42. 1 regret that people here at the United Nations seem to believe that the cold war is a private struggle between two great super-Powers. It is not a private struggle; it is a world civil war-a contest between the pluralistic world and the monolithic world-a contest between the world of the Charter and the world of communist conformity. Every nation that is now independent and wants to remain independent is involved, whether they know it or not. Every nation is involved in this grim, costly, distasteful division in the world, no matter how remote, no matter how unintesested. 43, We a11 recognized this in 1950, when the Communists decided to test how far they could go by direct military action and unleashed the invasion of South Korea. The response of the United Nations taught them chat overt aggression would produce not appeasement, but resistance, This remains the essential lesson. The United Nations stood firm in Korea because we knew the consequences of appeasement. 45. The time has corne for this Council to decide whether to make a serious attempt to bring peace to the world-or to let the United Nations stand idly by while the vast plan of piecemeal aggression unfolds, conducted in the hope that no single issue Will seem consequential enough to mobilize the resistance of the free peoples. For my own Government, this question is not in doubt. We remain committed to the principles of the United Nations, and we intend to defend them. 46. We are engaged today in a crucial test of those principles. Nearly four years ago a revolution took place on the island of Cuba. This revolution overthrew a hated dictatorship in the name of democratic fxeedom and social progress. Mr. Castro made explicit promises to the people of Cuba. He promised them the restoration of the 1940 Constitution abandotied by the Batista dictatorship; a “provisiona government of entirely civilian character that Will return the country to normality and hold general elections within a period of no more than one year”; “truly honest” elections along with “full and untrammelled” freedom of information and political activity. 47. That is what Mr. Castro offered the people of Cuba. That is what the people of Cuba accepted. Many in my country ancl throughout the Americas sympathized with Mr. Castro’s stated objectives. The United States Government offered immediate diplomatie recognition and stood ready to provide the revolutionary regime with economic assistance. 48. But a grim struggle was taking place within the revolutionary regime, between its democratic and its predominant communist wings-between those who overthrew Batista to bring freedom to Cuba, and those who overthrew Batista to bring Cuba to communism. In a few months the struggle was over. Brave men who had fought with Castro in the Sierra Maestra and who had organized the underground against Batista in the cities were assailed, arrested, and drivenfrom office into prison or exile, a11 for the single offence of anti-communism, a11 for the single offence of believing in the principles of the revolution they had fought for, By the end of 1959, the Communist Party was the only party in Cuba permitted freedom of political action, By early 1960, the Castro ri5gime was entering into intimate economic and political relations with the Soviet Union, 49. It is well to remember that a11 these events took place months before the United States stopped buying Cuban sugar in the summex of 1960-and many more 50. As the communization of Cuba proceeded, more and more democratic Cubans, men who had fought for freedom in the front ranks, were forced into exile. They were eager to return to their homeland and to save their revolution from betrayal. In the spring of 1961, they tried to liberate their country, under the political leadership of Mr. Castrots first Prime Minister and of a Revolutionary Council composed without exception of men who had opposed Batista and backed Che Revolution. The people and Government of the United States sympathized with these men-as throughout our history Americans have always sympathized with those who sought to liberate theis native lands from despotism. 1 have no apologies to make for that sympathy, or for the assistance which these brave Cuban refugees received from our hands. But 1 WOUM point out, too, that my Government, still forbearing, refrained from direct intervention. It sent no Americari troops to Cuba. 50. un nombre toujours qui avaient étaient dans leur patrie soit liberer ancien premier révolutionnaire qui avaient et6 les adversaires appuyé les révolutionnaires. ment d’ailleurs, ont eprouvé délivrer amende pour l’assistance ont reçue que mon gouvernement, de patience, s’est abstenu de recourir directe. Cuba. 51. In the year and a half since, Mr. Castro has continued the communization of his unfortunate country. The 1940 Constitution was never restored. Elections were never held and their promise withdrawn-though Mr. Castro’s twelve months have stretched to fortytwo. The Castro regime fastened on Cuba an iron system of repression. It eradicated human and civil rights. It openly transformed Cuba into a communist satellite and a police state. Whatever benefit this régime might have brought to Cuba has long since been cancelled out by the firing sqUads, the drumhead executions, the hunger and misery, the suppressionof civil and political and cultural freedom. 51. a poursuivi pays. Les encore bien devenus repression et des libertés Cuba eu sateIlite les depuis executions suppression 52. Pet even these violations of human rights, repellent as they are-even this dictatorship, cruel as it may be-would not, if kept within the confines of one country, constitute a direct threat to the peace and independenoe of other States. The threat lies rather in the submission of the Castro régime to the Will of an aggressive foreign Power. It lies in its readiness to break up the relations of confidence and co-operation among the good neighbours of this hemisphere, at a time when the Alliance for Progressthat vast effort to raise living standards for ail peoples of the Americas-has given new hope to the inter- American system. 52, de qu’elle directe si elles ne dépassaient La menace regime gére agressive. est de coopération phere, progrès, tend a élever des Ameriques, pays du système 53. le probleme Notre notamment patrie. 53. Let me make it absolutely olear what the issue of Cuba is. It is not anissueof revolution. This hemisphere has seen many revolutions,‘inoluding the one which gave my own nation its independence, 54, en parfaite connu radicales, raison pr&isement et sociale dans les AmBriques. 54, It is not an issue of reform. My nation has lived happily with other countries which have had thoroughgoing and fundamental social transformations, like Mexico and Bolivia. The whole point of the Alliance for Progress is to bring abcut an economic and social revolution in the Americas. .l 57. The foremost objection of the States of the Americas to the Castro regime is not because it is xevolutionary, not because it is socialistic, not because it is dictatorial, not even because Mr. Castro perverted a noble revolution in the interests of a squalid totalitarianism. It is because he has aided and abetted an invasion of this hemisphere-an invasion just at the time when the hemisphere is making a new and unpxecedented effort for economic pxogress and social reform. 58. The crucial fact is that Cuba has giventhe Soviet Union a bridgehead and staging area in this hemisphere; that it has invited an extra-continental, antidemocratic and expansionist Power into the bosom of the American family; that it has made itself an accomplice in the communist enterprise of world dominion. 59. There are those who seek to equate the presence of Soviet bases in Cuba with the presence of NATO bases in parts of the world near the Soviet Union. Let us subject this facile argument to cxitical consideration. 60. It is not only that the Soviet action in Cuba has created a new and dangerous situation by sudden and drastic steps which imperil the security of a11 mankind. It is necessary further to examine the purposes for which these missiles are introduced and these bases established. 61. Missiles which help a country to defend its independence, which leave the political institutions of the secipient countxies intact, which are not designed to subvert the territorial integrity or political independence of other States, which are installed without concealment or deceit-assistance in this form and with these puxposes is consistent with the principles of the United Nations. But missiles which introduoe . a nuclear threat into an area now fxee of it, which are installed by clandestine means, which result in the most formidable nuclear base in the world outside cxisting treaty systems-assistance in this form and with these purposes is radically different. 62. Let me state this point vexy clearly. Themissile sites in NATO countxies were established in response ta missile sites in the Soviet Union directed at the NATO countries. The NATO States had every right and necessity to respond to the installation of these Soviet missiles by installing missiles of theix own. These missiles were designed to deter aprocess of expansion already in progress. Fortunately, they have helped to do SO. 63. The United States and its Allies established their missile sites after free negotiation, without concealment and without false statements to other Governments. There is, .in short, a vast difference between .the long-range missile sites established years ago in Europe and the long-range missile sites established 65, Twenty years ago the nations of the Amer!cas were understandably disturbed by the threat of nazlsm. JUS~ as they would have reacted with vigour had any American Republic given itself over to the doctrines and agents of nazigm, SO today they look with equal concern on the conquest of Cuba by a foreign POWer and an alien ideology. They do not intend to applaud and assist while Mr. Castro and his new friends try to halt the march of free and progressive’ democracy in Latin America. 66. Yet despite the ominous movement of affairs in Cuba the reaction of the hemisphere and of my own Goveinment continued to be marked by forbearance. Despite Mr. Castrots verbal assaults on other nations in the hemisphere, despite his campaign of subversion against their Governments, despite the insurrectionary expeditions launched from Cuba, the nations of Fhe Americas retained their hope that the Cuban revolutlon would free itself, But Mr. Castro’s persistence in hic campaigns against the Governments of this hemisphere, his decision to become the junior partner of MosCIow, finally destroyed that hope. 67. If Cuba has withdrawn from the American family of nations, it has been Mr. Castro% own act. If Cuba is today isolated from its brethren of the Americas, it is self-inflicted isolation. If the present ,Cuba.n Government has turned its back on its own lustory, tradition, religion and culture, if it has chosento cast its lot with the Communist empire, it must accept the consequences of its decidion. The hemisphere. has no alternative but to accept the tragic choice whlch Mr. Castro has imposed on his people-that is, to accept Cuba!s self-exclusion from the hemisphere. 68. One after another, the other Governments of this hemisphere bave withdrawntheir diplomatie representatives from Cuba. Today only three still have their ambatisadors in Havana. Last Februaxy the American States unanimously declared that the Castro ragime was incompatible with the principles on which the Organization of Americaneyto,“Ud,d,“h,Pr”égi~~~~~~ and, by a two-thirds vote, participation in the inter-American system. 69. Al1 this, I remind the Council, took place before Soviet arms and technicians began to move into Cuba ‘70. On 11 September, just over a month ago, the Soviet Government saicl in an officia1 statement: “The armaments and military equipment sent to Cuba are designed exclusively for defensive purposes”. The Soviet Government added that Soviet rackets were SO powerful that “there is no need to search for sites for them beyond the boundaries of the Soviet Union”. And last week, on 18 October, Mr. Gromyko, the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, told the President of the United States at the White Bouse that Soviet assistance to Cuba “pursued solely the purpose of contributing to the defence capabilities of Cubafl, that “training by Soviet specialists of Cuban nationals in handling defensive armaments was by no means offensive”, and that “if it were otherwise, the Soviet Government would never have become involved in rendering such assistancelV. This once peaceable Island is being transformed into a formidable missile and strategic air base armed withthedeadliest, far-reaching modern nuclear weapons. 71. The statement issued by the Soviet Government this morning [S/5186] does riot deny thesefacts-which is in refreshing contrast to the categoric assurances on this subject which it hadpreviously given. However, that same statement repeats the extraordinary claim that Soviet arms in Cuba are of a “defensive character”. 1 should like to know what the Soviet Union considers t’offensive” weapons. In the Soviet lexicon, evidently, a11 weapons are purely defensive, even weapons that cari strike froc 1,000 to 2,000 miles away. Words cari be stretched only SO far without losing their meaning altogether. Yet semantic disputes are fruitless, and the fact remains that the Soviet Union has upset the precarious balance and created a new and dangexous situation in a new area. 72. This is precisely the sort of action which the Soviet Government .is- SO fond of denouncing as “a policy of positions of strength”. Consequently, 1 invite the attention of the Council to another remark in the Soviet Government’s statemeat of this morning: “Only madmen cari now take their stand on ‘positions of strength’ and expect that polioy to bring them any success, to allow them to force their owndispositions on other States. n 73. 1 need only mention one other curious remark in the Soviet Government’s statement of today, and 1 quote once more: n.. . who has authorized the United States to assume the role of arbiter of the destinies of other countries and peoples . . . Cuba belongs to the Cuban petiple, and only they cari be masters of their fate.” This latter sentence is, of course, a succinct statement of United States policy towards Cuba. It is, however, very far from being Soviet policy towards Cuba. Of the United Nations, this clearly is a threat to this hemisphere. And when it thus upsets the precarious balance in the world, it is a threatto the whole world. 75. We. now know that the Soviet Union, not content with Mr. Castro’s oath of fealty, not content with the destruction of Cuban independence, not content with the extension of Soviet power into the Western Hemisphere, not content with a challenge to the inter- American system and the United Nations Charter, has decided to transform Cuba into a base for communist aggression, into a base for putting a11 of the Americas under the nuclear g-un, and thereby to intensify the Soviet diplomacy of blackmail in every part of the world. 75. obtenu l’indépendance dans llhemisphère interamericain l’Union en une base permettant la menace nucleaire, et d’intensifier dans toutes les parties 76. In OUS passion for peace we haveforborne greatly. There must, however, be limits to forbearance if forbearance is not to become the diagram for the destruction of this Organization. Mr. Castro transformed Cuba into a totalitarian dictatorship with impunity; he extinguished the rights of political freedom with impunity; he aligned himself with the Soviet bloc with impunity; he accepted defensive weapons from the Soviet Union with impunity; he welcomed thousands of Communists into Cuba with impunity: but when, with cold deliberation, he turns his country over to the Soviet Union for a long-range missile launching base, and thus carries the Soviet programme for aggression into the heart of the Americas, the day of forbearance is past. 76. avons avoir qu’elle M. Castro une liberte accepter accueillir lorsque, l’URSS pour qu’elle en fasse de missiles menace l’heure 77. If the United States and the other nations of the Western Hemfsphere should accept this new phase of aggression we would be delinquent in our obligations to worlcl peace. If the United States and the other nations of the Western Hemisphere should accept this basic disturbance of the world’s structure of power we would invite a new suxge of aggression at every point along the frontier. If we do not stand firm here our adversaries may think that we Will stand firm nowhere-and we guarantee a heightening of the world civil war to new levels of Intensity and peril. 77. sion, les Etats-Unis occidental garde de la paix du monde. En acceptant ce bouleversement la voie a d’autres Si nous ne nous montrons nos jamais - et vous pouvez compter qu’alors civile dans le monde prendra chaque jour plus dangereuses. 78. We hope that Chairman Khrushchev has notmade a miscalculation, that he has not mistaken forbearanoe for weakness. We cannot believe that he has deluded himself into supposing that, though we bave power, we lack nerve; that, though we have weapons, we are without the Will to use them. 78. n’a pas fait notre croire la puissance armes 79. We still hope, we still pray, that the worst may be avoided-that the Soviet leadership Will cal1 an end to this ominous adventure, Accordingly, the President has initiated steps to quarantine Cuba against further imports of offensive military equipment. Because the entire inter-American system is challenge& the President last night called for an immediate meeting of the organ of consultation of the Organization Of American States to consider this threat to hemispheric 79. Nous et que les dirigeants perilleuse des Etats-Unis de nouvelles en imposant interamericain a, la nuit derni&re, de l’organisation 80. 1 am submitting today to the Security Council a draft resolution [S/5182] designed to find a way out of this calamitous situation. It reads as follows: “The Security Council, “Having considered the serious threat to the security of the Western Hemisphere and the peaceof the world caused by the continuance and acceleration of foreign intervention in the Caribbean, “NotinP with concern that nuclear missiles and other offensive weapons have been secretly introduced into Cuba, “Noting also that as a consequence a quarantine is being imposed around the country, “Gravely concerned that further continuance of the Cuban situation may lead to direct conflict, “1. Calls as a provisional measure under Article 40 for the immediate dismantling and withdrawal from Cuba of a11 missiles and other offensive weapons; “2. Authorizes and requests the Secretary-General to dispatch to Cuba a United Nations observer corps to assure and report on compliance with this resolution; “3. Calls for termination of the measures of quarantine directed against military shipments to Cuba upon United Nations certificationofcompliance with paragraph 1 above; “4. Urgently recommends that the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socalist Republics confer promptly on measures to remove the existing threat to the security of the Western Hemisphere and the peace of the world, and report thereon to the Security Council.l’ 81. 1 have just been informed that the Organization of American States this afternoon adopted a resolution by 19 affirmative votes containing the following operative paragraphs: “The Council of the Organization of Inter-American States, meeting as the provisional organ of consultation, “Resolves: “... “1. TO cal1 for the immediate dismantling and withdrawal from Cuba of a11 missiles and other weapons with any offensive capability; “2. TO recommend that the member States, in accordance with articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, take a11 I/ Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, signed at Rio de Janeiro on 2 September 1947. See UnicedNations,Treaty Series, vol. 21 (1948), 1. No. 324a. 2/ Subsequently circulated as document S/5193. “3. TO inform the Security Council of the United Nations of this resolution in accordance with Article 54 of the Charter of the United Nations, and to express the hope that the Security Council will, in accordance with the resolution introduced by the United States, despatch United Nations observers to Cuba at the earliest moment.” 82. The issue which confronts the Security Council is grave. Were it not, I should not have detained you SO long, Sinoe the end of the Second World War, thexe has been no threat ta the visionofpeace SO profoundno challenge to the world of the Charter SO fateful. The hopes of mankind are concentrated in this room. The action we take may determine the future of civilization. 1 know that this Council Will appsoach the issue with a full sense of our responsibility and a solemn understanding of the import of OUI? deliberations, 83. There is a road to peace. The beginning of that road is marked out in the draft resolution 1 have submitted for your consideration. If we act promptly, we will have another chance to take up again the dreadful questions of nuolear arms and military bases and the means and causes of aggression and of was-to take them up and do something about them, 84. This is, 1 believe, a solemn and significant day for the life of the United Nations and the hope of the ,world community. Let it be remembered not as the day when the world came to the edge of nuclear war, but as the day when men resolved tolet nothing thereafter stop them in their quest for peace.

We think it deplorable that at a moment of grave tension, fraught with the danger of nuclear war, a permanent member of the Security Council should see fit to use inappropriate language in referring to Heads of Government and topass judgement on facts that belong to history and to the sovereign domestic political organization of States. 86. The representative of the United States is highly satisfied with the social system thathe represents. We hold an entirely different opinion on that score and we reject his allegations ooncerning our history and social system as false and interventionist. 87. There is, however, something in the statement just delivered by the United States representative that we should like to single out. Referring toour country, he said: Vhis once peaceable island , . .l’. He was refaisait-il ferring to the island of North American investments, to the island of racial discrimination, to the island of exploitation and illiteracy, to the island of the cruel 88. TO speak on behalf of the Revolutionary Government of Cuba has always been an exceptional honour for us. TO speak today on behalf of our people and of our Revolutionary Government, at a time when the threat of direct war waged by North American imperialism hangs more heavily than ever over our homeland, is a twofold honour. We belong to a people who are ready to die for their independence and sovereignty, and we who are ready to die have an inalienable right to make our voice heard by those who are dragging mankind towards a holocaust. 89. We reject as false and dishonest a11 the. accusations levelled by the President of the United States and now repeated here by his representative in the United Nations. 90. The people and Government of Cuba have been forcecl to arm for defensive purposes in tlhe face of the repeated aggressions of the United States Government and, as Mr. Osvaldo Dorti&, our President, affirmed a few days ago before in the General Assembly: II ..a We hope to be able one day to throw these armaments overboard. We are a peace-lovingpeople; tic wtit peace, and not war. The people of Cuba aspire only to carry out the great triumphs of its future history in developing our country through peaceful and creative work. We have been obliged to arm ourselves, not in order to attackanyone, any nation, but only to defend ourselves. “We replied to the joint resolution of the United States Congress at the appropriate time with a statement approved by our Council of Ministers, the pertinent pàrt of which 1 Will read to you . , ,: ‘lcIf the bnited States could give Cuba effective and satisfactory guarantees concerning the integrity of our territory and if it would desist from its subversive and counter-revolutionary activities against our Ijeople, Cuba would not need to strengthen its defences and would not even need an army, and we would gladly apply a11 the resources now employed in defence to the etionomic and cultural development of our nation.’ “If the United States could give assurances, by word and deed, that it would not commit acts of aggression against our-country, we solemnly declare that there would be no need for our weapons and otir armies, because we want peaoe and ive warit to carry on our’wor&’ in peace.” 31 91. Cuba is a country that has seen its plantations set on fire from the air by United States aircraft without any declaration of war; ,Cuba is a country that has seen its factories Sabotage$ and its workers killed Or wotided‘ at the criminal h8nds of agents of the 31 Officia1 Records’of the General Assembly, Seventeenth Session, Pleqary Meetings, 1145th meeting, paras. 5,6-58. 92. This boycott and this pressure have corne from the same Government which is the international proteCtO1~ of colonialists, dictators and discriminators and which iS itself bath discriminatory and colonialist, 92, Ce boycottage d’un gouvernement les pays colonialistes des mesures même la discrimination 93. Pirate ships have once again ploughed thewaters ‘.of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, operating ;, from United States bases and with the open assent of 1 the United States authorities. And these letters of ?“marque have been granted without the existence of a state of war between Cuba and the United States. 93. caines et des autorités marque d’état de guerre entre Cuba et les Etats-Unis. 94. The latter-day monarchs, in their imperialist rivalries, proved to be more respectful of international law than is the Government of the United States in this age of the United Nations and of international co-operation. 94. leurs respectueuses le Gouvernement sation des Nations nationale. 95. As the representatives who readtheunitedstates Press may see for themselves-The New York Times and other newspapers published photographs a few days ago-Cuba is a oountry which has had to endure and is still enduring the training on United States territory of armed groups and saboteurs for the purpose of destroying our Revolutionary Government. And this without any declaration of war. 95. américaine quelques jours, naux ont publie des photographies pays entrain& armés son gouvernement y ait eu déclaration 96. de violations les Etats-Unis lieu le 22 octobre a autre encore indéfiniment. aerien et de nos eaux territoriales ment agresseur interminable. 96. We have just received the latest news regarding the most recent violations of our air space by the United States Government: they occurred on 22 October at 9.46 and 10.55 p.m., and there was another at il.45 p.m. 1 could go on citing at length from the interminable list of violations of our air space and waters by the imperialist, aggressor Government of the United States. 97. Cuba alors concernant cas 97. Al1 these activities against Cuba have been ‘carried out despite the fact that Cuba and the United States, amongst other Governments, are signatories of the Convention of 1928 concerning the Duties and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife;g the following obligations of the contracting States are clearly set forth in asticle 1 of that Convention: Q’irst: TO use a11 means at their disposa1 tQ prevent the inhabitants of their territory, natiOna or aliens, from participating in, gathering elements, crossing the boundary or sailing frOm their territory for the purpose of starting or promoting.civil strife. IfSecond:. TO disarm and intern every rebel force crossing their boundaries . . l IlThird: TO forbid the traffic in arms and war material *. . y convention &pted ~,y the Sixth International Conference Of Americaa states signed at Havana, February 20,1923.See LeWJe of Nations, Treaty series, vol. CXXXIV, 1932-1933, No. 3032. 99. We now understand why SO much difficulty has been experienced in arriving at a definition of the term “aggression” in the United Nations. At this moment, when the world is threatenecl with nuclear war because of the United States aggression against Cuba, it would indeed be a good thing if the representatives in the Security Council and a11 the representatives to the United Nations were to examine the facts of the relations between Cuba and the United States in the light of the United Nations Charter and of international law.. 100. The President of the United States claims, and his representative is repeating it here, that our defensive weapons affect the security of his territory. Now 1 appeal to the conscience of the members of this Council: do not the military power and the aggressions of the United States constitute a threat to our people? 101. We do not understand the conception that the United States seems to entertain of the juridical equality of States as lai,d clown in Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Charter. That is to say, that the United States, in its capacity as a military Power and a highly developed country, cari promote, encourage and carry out a11 types of aggression, tiycott, sabotage and acts contrary to international law, whereas Cuba, a small but valiant country, may not arm in its own defence. 102. After SO flagrant a violation of law has once been sanctioned, what small country Will feel secure in its sovereignty and independence? It Will be suffitient for a great Power, neighbouring or otherwise, to clecide that the régime of any small State is subversive or that its defences represent’ a threat to security, for this to constitute a pretext for intervention and for acts of war such as our country is experiencing toclay. At that rate, no sovereignty Will be left intact and only the law of the strongest Will prevail in relations between States. 103. Who are those who accuse Cuba of being a base that threatens United States territory? They are those who possess the only foreign base in Cuba, against the Will of our people, and are now reinforcing it SO that they may attack us from there also; they are those who keep soldiers in the four corners of the globe, thousands of miles from their own territory; they are those who occupy Formosa and South Korea and intervene in South Viet-Nam; those who help the colonialists in Angola and have supported, and continue to support, the interventionist manœuvres in the Congo. 104. According to the statements made by therepresentative of the United States, there are two types of military bases and two types of rackets: good milita-y bases and evil military bases, good rackets and evil 105. Only a week or SO ago, when the war hysteria against Cuba amongst the United States Congressmen began to find expression in the public statements with which we are familiar, Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that Cuba’s arms were defensive: now because of a report fxom his Intelligence Service, he is dragging the world to the very brink of war, without producing any evidence in support of his statements, without even consulting his military allies. Fox the United States has done a very strange thing: it sent its ships to Cuba, it also dispatched its aircraft to Cuba and around Cuba, and only then did it consult its allies and the international organizations. 105. psychose parer M. Kennedy a reconnu, publiques, Maintenant, de renseignements, guerre affirmations Car les Etats-Unis ils ont envoyé leurs aussi ils internationales. 106. From now onwards, war ox peace-the ghastly nuclear war-will depend on what the United States Intelligence Service may see fit to assert. It is as though the international organizations and the Security Council had no reason to exist! As though any State could unilaterally take it upon itself to determine whether certain measuxes affect its sovereignty! For what purpose would be served by your presence here, gentlemen, as representatives in this Security Council, in the light of such an argument and of such ,a point of view? 106. guerre renseignements Comme de séourit6 si un Etat quelconque ment le droit porte vous soyez semblables vue? 107. dans Membre Etat Membre que je sache, le fruit syst&mes l’intolérance y a-t-il contre ses voisins, mettent systéme il n’est pas possible avec un gouvernement de morale avec les pays selon leur situation 10’7. 1 should like the representatives to tel1 us just what xight a Member State has to insult and attack another Member State because of its social system. As far as we are aware, the United Nations was born of the common efforts of States with different social systems who were struggling against nazi and fascist intolerance. What is the difference between Hitler% threats and aggression against his neighbours and the present aggression of the United States against Cuba on account of the latter% social system? What is the meaning of the statement that our r8gime is not negotiable in this hemisphere, and what kind of morality is that of a Government that negotiates with regimes on the basis of their geographical situation? 108. And what contempt for the principles of the Charter, signed as it was by States with different social systems, do such principles imply! The Charter calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States. Cuba has always been ready to negotiate peacefully, as the records of a11 the organs of the United Nations will abundantly confixm. Cuba has always been ready to seek a settlement of its disputes with the United States, But what has been the reply of the United States? It has been the haughtyreply of one who would set might above right. 108. charte systbmes d’agir! differends dispos6e que l’attestent bats toujours aux Etats-Unis. Unis? Ils ont repondu avec la brutalité B faire pr&aloir 109. What the United States has done now is to adopt 109. a unilateral waxlike measure, inspired by its thixst fait for neo-colonialist domination and control-for such guerre, is the naval blo’ckade of Cuba-and thereupon to cal1 contrale on the Secuxity Council and other intexnational organs maritime t0 sanction that flagrant violation of law. For that at de sécurit6 least is the purpose of the United States: it takes a pour essayer certain step behind the back of the international. ortion flagrante ganization, behind the back of the regional organiza- Gouvernement 110. TO what international body did the United States turn to inform it in advance of its aggressive intentions? Why did it not accuse us before this Council and await its decisions? The United States did not do SO because it has not a single legal or moral ground on which to justify the forceful measures taken against our country, measures that have dragged the world to the brink of nuclear war and extermination. 111. What right has the United States to cal1 for dismantling and disarmament when in Cuba itself it occupies a base against the Will of our people, and on its own territory and indeed throughout the world it possesses bases which are in fact aggressive bases directed against States Members of this Organization? 112. What right has the United States to ask that observers should go to Cuba? The United Nations observers should rather be sent to the United States bases from which the invasions are launched and whence the pirates sally forth to harass aState whose only crime is that of striving to foster the development of its own people. We shall not accept observers .of any kind in matters that pertain to our domestic jurisdiction. The manœuvres of imperialism in the Congo Will not be repeated in Cuba. 113. The United Nations has no reason to implicate itself in aggressive and warlike measures adopted unilaterally by a great Power against a small State, without regard to the United Nations, And the United States, whioh did not arraign Cuba before this international organization but resorted to such measures without the latter% consent, has no right whatsoever to have its violations sanctioned by the latter, Such an endorsement would be a shameful page in the history of this body and would sow the seed of its destruction and of the wholesale destruction of mankind. The United Nations must withstand the pressure and the intimidation that the United States is trying to exercise upon it. Either the United Nations will make the United States abandon its outrageous use of force or the United States Will disregard the United Nations and we shall witness a war of extermination in which vast numbers of people, including thousands of North Amerioans, Will be killed. 114. The naval blockade unilaterally decreed by the United States is an act of war against the sovereignty and independence of our country which our people Will resist in every way and by every means. It is moreover an act of desperation on the part of the United States. The latter has failed in all its attempts to destroy our revolution. Now itis tryingthe ultimate means, namely, war, even though that Will imperil the lives of millions throughout the world. It sent saboteurs to our territory and failed; it launched invasions against us, and failed. The Vuban fiasco”, as it is called here-to refer to it in their own language-stands indelibly recorded as a victory of our PeoPle, the first victory of theLatin Americanpeoples 115. The United States thought that by its economic boycott and its pressure on other countries toprevent their trading with Cuba, it would vanquish us through hunges. What do you think of that, Mr. President: t0 vanquish the population of a State Member of the United Nations through hunger? What a heroic deed it would be to bring a people to its knees through hunger, a11 because of its social system, in the socalled “Development Decade”! But its attempt to overoome us through hunger also failed, 116. What else could it do? Reach an agreement with Cuba? Would that it had tried to do SO, for the sake Of WOrld peace! But no; that did not suit its overweening pride, its record as an aggressor Government, of which The New York Times itself gave us an outline today. 116. Que pouvaient-ils avec Cuba? Si seulement ils avaient essaye, pour la paix du monde! Mais non! Cela ne correspondait pas B leur orgueil, Lc leur puissance, B leur pas& de pays agresseur, que le New York Times lui-marne nous rappelle aujourd’hui. 117. It matters not that the Charter imposes on Member States the duty to settle their disputes by peaceful means; it matters not that the Charter imposes on Member States the duty to sefrain from resorting to the use of force. In the opinion of the United States, that holds good in dealings with powerful nations, with the great Powers, with those who possess nuclear weapons, but not in the case of Cuba, a small country only ninety miles away from that empire. 117. Membres le devoir de résoud+e leurs differends de façon pacifique; peu importe que la Charte impose aux Etats Membres le devoir de s’abstenir de recourir & la force. Pour les Etats-Unis, cela n’est valable que lorsqu’il s’agit de pays forts, de grandes puissances, poss4dant des armes nuclfiaires, non dans le cas de Cuba, petit pays situê seulement à 90 milles de l’empire. 118. Mais Cuba a ces& B jamais d’étre une “zone d’influente”. cette rtigion à laquelle M. Kennedy faisait allusion hier comme étant *bien connue pour ses liens particuliers appartient a l’Amérique latine, B l’Am&?ique de Rod6 et de MartI, & l’Amérique Chapultepec. 119. Et le représentant des Etats-Unis a assez peu de pudeur. - pardonnez-moi l’expression - pour quer ici l’histoire communaut6 latino-américaine derni&res annees. On y trouve la plus prodigieuse accumulation de pillages et de rapines, de violations et d’ingérences dans les affaires d’autrui, de cations de territoires aucun empire se soit jamais sendu coupable depuis l’origine des tempe. 13.8. Cuba, however, has ceased forever to be a “sphere of influence”; Cuba has ceased forever to belong to that area referred to by Mr, Kennedy as “well-known to have a special and historical relationship to the United States”, as he said yesterday. Cuba is in Latin Americn-the Latin America of Rodb and Martf, the Latin America of Benito Ju%rez, the Latin America of the heroic sons of Chapultepec. 119. And the representative of the United States has the shamelessness-1 am sosry to have to describe it thus-to refer in this forum to the history of the United States in its relations with the Latin American oommunity during the last 150 years. A history more fraught with pillage and depredation, with violations and interventions, with confiscation of territories and with domination, has never been recorded in respect of any empire throughout the history of the universe. 120. This America of ours, this America of JO& Martf, is an America that is bounded to the north by the Rio Bravo; let the representative of the United States mark those words and ask his experts to tel1 him what they mean. And Cuba is a territory free of a11 Yankee interventionist influence in this Latin American community. 120. Notre Ambrique, celle de Jose Martf, est une AmBrique qui a oomme limite, au nord, le Rio Bravo. Ecoutez bien, Monsieur le représentant des Etats- Unis, et demandez & vos spécialistes de vous traduire le sens de cette phrase. Et notre île de Cuba, qui est un territoire niste yankee, appartient 9 cette communauté latinoaméricaine. 121. Les Etats-Unis font appel, en désespoir de cause, h. l’Union soviétique pour discuter avec elle des problèmes cubains. Ils ne se rendent pas compte que la majorité des Etats du monde respectent Cuba et que, parmi les Etats qui respectent Cuba, qui respectent la souverainett3 cubaine, figure l’Union sovietique. la maniére coloniale, ils oublient que les relations 3e Cuba avec les autres Etats sont fondees 121. Finally, the United States is callingontheSoviet Union to discuss the Cuban problem with it. It ig ob- ,livious of the fact that most of the States in the world respect Cuba, and that amongst the States that respect Cuba and respect Cuban sovereignty iS the Soviet Union. Accustomed as it is t0 solving its problems along colonialist lines, it forgets that Cuba% relations with other States are based on ec[uality and XeSpeCt for sovereignty, and that Cuba alone has the right to disouss its disputes with the United States and to take sovereign decisions regarding them. l’égal% lue personne dfautre que Cuba n’a le droit de discuter VA11 Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of politioal independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” 3.23. The United States blockage of our homeland is an act of war. It represents the use of force by a great Power against the independence of our homeland. It is an act in violation of the Charter and of the principles of the United Nations, 124. We shall resist these illegal measures on the part of United States imperialism. TO the imminent armed attack by the United States, our people and its Government have replied with general mobilization, Mr. Fidel Castro, OUF great leader-and when 1 say ‘1 reat g leader”, 1 do SO with loving admiration and respect, fox it is he who had led us to victory in the face of tyranny and who has guided our people in a11 our battles against imperialism-has said: “A Yankee who dies invading this land Will die as a pirate in the eyes of the world, he will die as a bandit, A Cuban who dies defending his homeland will die surrounded by glory in the eyes of the world, with the law and the sympathy of a11 the peoples of the world on his side. And if they corne, many Yankees Will die, because they will not find us with our guard down; they Will not find us unarmed, they are not going to catch us unawares.” 125. We appeal to the Security Council, in the name of the Charter, in the name of international morality and in the name of theprinciples of law, for the immediate withdrawal of the aggressive forces of the United States from our toasts and for the cessation of the illegal blockade unilaterally decreed by the Government of the United States in utter contempt of the Charter. We appeal for the immediate withdrawal of a11 troops, ships and aircraft sent to our toasts and for the cessation of the provocative acts in Guant%namo and of the piratical attacks organized by agents in the servioe of the UnitedStates Government. We appeal for the cessation of a11 the interventionist measures taken by the United States Government with respect to the domestic affairs of Cuba and for the cessation of the violations of our air space and our waters. 126. In deciding to make war on our country, the United States Government has disregarded its own public opinion. Recent surveys of that opinion have shown that the majority of the North Amerioan people do not share the aggressive intentions of their monopolies. The President of the United States has made an appeal wbioh is both hypocritical and offensive to our people; it is the appeal of an aggressor against our country, of one who would vanquish it by hunger, of one who has failed in a11 his schemes for reducing it to the state of subjugation in which it was formerly kept, during that period to whioh his representative here has SO nostalgically referred. And now this Government would like to commit the vheroic” act of attacking it with its armies. 128. Mr. Kennedy, gentlemen aggressors: In Cuba, t0 die for the homeland is to live; there are Cubans who Will live to see imperialism bite the dust of defeat in Cuba and there are Cubans who Will live to witness a new and promising socialist society. 128. Monsieur a Cuba, Cubains poussi&re pour voir l’avènement si riche de promesses,

1 ehould now like to make a statement in my capacity aS the representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SO- CIALIST REPUBLICS. 129. moi de prendre representant LISTES SOVIETIQUES. 139. Before proceeding to state the position of the Soviet Govesnment on the question submitted by the Soviet Union to the Security Council for its consideration, 1 should like to say a few words ooncerning the speech made by the United States representative, who defended the position of the United States on the ques- 130. sovibtique a saisi ques mots des Etats-Unis a l’égard cru devoir soumettre CO11 which his Government deemed it essential toplace before the Security Council. 131. 1 must say that even a cursory examination of Mr. Stevenson’s statement reveals the totally untenable nature of the position taken by the United States GOV- 131. Je dois dire que même un examen superficiel de ce qu’a dit M. Stevenson de fondement la question Conseil, vernement devant le Conseil et devant l’opinion publique mondiale. ernment on the question which it has thought necessary to place before the Council, and its complete inability tc defend this position in the Council andbefore world public opinion, 132. Mr. Stevenson touched on many subjects. He gave a falsified account-let us be frank-of the history of post-war .relations, describing the United StateS Government 1s position as well-intentioned throughout and denigrating in every possible way that of the Soviet Union, He spoke about the history of the Cuban revolution-although it is difficult to understand wha’c the United States has to do with the interna.1 affairs of the sovereign State of Cuba-and he drew an idyllic picture of the history of the Western Hemisphere for the paSt 150 years, seeming to forget about the policy of the “big stickfi followed by the United States President McKinley, the Olney Doctrine, the actions taken by Theodore Roosevelt in connexion with the Panama Canal, the boastful statement made by the American General Butler to the effect that with his marines he could hold elections in any Latin American country. 132. II a donné une version falsifiée l’histoire guerre, l’attitude denigrant de toutes les maniares sovietique. cubaine, encore les affaires concernent idyllique pendant les avoir oublie la politique des Etats-Unis initiatives canal de Panama et la declaration cain Butler, liers pays de l’Amérique 133. He made no mention of a11 this. The United States is even now attempting to apply this policy of the “big stick”. But Mr. Stevenson apparently forgot that times have changed. 133. encore du “gros que les temps ont chang6 depuis cette Bpoque. 134. Mr. Stevenson also referred to the qUeStiOn Of bases in various areas of the world; hefailed to mention, however, that the United States has such bases in. thirty-five oountries, and has assumed the role of world policeman. 134. des bases 3ans mentionner, Jedent de telles bases dans 35 pays du monde, )uant ainsi le role de gendarme du monde. 135. What is surprising, however, is the fa& that Mr, Stevenson said practically nothing about any Political, legal or moral grounds, deriving from the United Nations Charter, for the aggressive acts which the United States Government has oommitted during 135. Chose étrange, Tour uridiques, Jnies, les Etats-Unis 136. 1 have no desire to engage in polemics with Mr. Stevenson and with the United States in general on those subjects which Mr. Stevenson dealt with in his lengthy statement, for 1 well understand that a11 the matters he raised are only a smoke-screen, an attempt to divert the Council from its consideration of the substance of the problem which directly relates to the provisions of the United Nations Charter and the flagrant violations of those provisions that the United States has committed before the eyes of the whole world. Therefore, 1 shall not follow Mr. Stevenson’s lead and 1 shall not reply to a11 bis unsubstantiated and false statements concerning the position of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union’s position is clear and delinite. It is known to the whole world and 1 shall not stoop in my statement to answering the petty, disparate and insignificant points which Mr. Stevenson attempted to raise before the Council. 137. The Sccurity Council meets today in circumstances which cannot but give rise to the gravest concern for thc fate of peace in the Caribbean region and in the whole world. It is not a trivial matter that is involved; it is a matter of the unilateral and arbitrary actions of a great Power, .which constitute a direct infsingement of the freedom and independence of a small country. It is a matter of a new and very dangerous act of aggression in a chain of acts of aggression which the United States has already committed against Cuba in violation of the most elementary rules and principles of international law, and in violation of the fundamental provisions and of the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter, of which the United States is also a signatory. 138. Yesterday, the United States Government plaoed the Republic of Cuba under a virtual naval blockade. Insolently flouting the rules of international conduct and the principles of the Charter, the United States has arrogated to itself-and has SO stated-the right to attack the ships of other States on the high seas, which is nothing less than undisguised piracy. At the same time, the landing of additional United States troops has begun at the United States Guantknamo base in Cuban territory, and the United States armed forces are being placed in a state of combat readiness. 133. Suoh opportunistic actions, along with the statement made yesterday on radio and television by the President of the United States to explain them, show that United States imperialist oiroles Will stop at nothing in their attempts to strangle a sovereignstate Member of the United Nations. TO this end, they are prepared to push the world to the abyss of a military The statement goes on to say: 11 *.. the Soviet Government has instructed its representative in the United Nations to raise the question of the immediate oonvening of the Security Cour&1 to consider the following question: ‘The violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the threat to peace by the United States of America. 11 Fulfilling the instructions of our Government, we have accordingly raised this question and intend to discuss it. “The Soviet Government Will do everything in its power to frustrate the aggressive designs of United States imperialist ciroles and to defend and strengthen peace on earth.” In addition, the statement says: “The Soviet Union appeals to a11 Governments and peoples to raise their voioe in protest against the aggressive acte of the United States of America against Cuba and other States, strongly to condemn such acts and to take steps to prevent the unleashing of a thermo-nuolear war by the United States Governmenttt 141. As we know, Mr. Mario GarcfaInchaustegui, the Permanent Representative of Cuba, also submitted a letter to the Security Council with a request for an urgent convening of the Council, “to consider the act of war unilaterally committed by the Government of the United States in ordering the naval blockade of Cuba”, This letter is contained in Security Council document S/5183. 142. These are unambiguous requests addressed as a matter of principle to the Security Council by ~VO States whose actions are prompted by the recognition of the extreme gravity of the highly dangerous situation created by the United States, and by a desire t0 strengthen international peace and security, which are threatened by the aggressive actions of the United States. These two letters differ as night does from day from the hypocritical communication sent t0 the Security Council by a State whioh, acting behind the Co~noills back and in contravention of a11 the PrinciPles of the United Nations Charter and of international law, has already taken military action against a small Member State of the United Nations, but iS now CYnioally trying to don the vestments of the peacemaker. 143. The present aggressive actions of the United States of America against Cuba represent a logical stage in that aggressive polioy, fraught with the most serious international consequences, which the United 144. As we know, Cuba’s complaint against theunited States polioy of constant threats, repression and aggressive aotivities against it was first discussed in the Security Council as early as July 1960. Cuba again appealed to ,the Security Council in January 1961, revealing further aggressive activities on the part of the United States of America and the preparationof direct military aggression against it by that country, and the Security Counoil was again obliged to examine some serious facts that had been brought to its attention, At that time, the Unitcd States representatives in the Council flatly denied those charges. 145. The real value of the false assurances we then heard from the United States that “there was never any plan for any such invasion” [922ndmeeting,para. 20]- those were the very words of the UnitedStates representative-became perfectly obvious when, only three months after those assurances, in April 1961, the United States organized, prepared and carried out an invasion of Cuba by bands of mercenaries. And once again the United Nations-this timo the General Assembly, at its fifteenth session-was obliged to consider the question of acts of aggression by the United States against Cuba, for whioh the President of the United States officially assumed persona1 responsibility. 146, Nevertheless, the United States learnt no lesson from the “April fiascoV. It not only began to prepare for a second invasion of Cuba on a larger scale, but tried first to isolate Cuba and to involve the Organization of Amorican Sta.tes in its aggressive activities against that country. At that time, Cubadrew attention to the danger which the continuation and intensification of that course of action represented to the cause of world peace. Cuba’s complaints of further acts of aggression against it on the part of the United States, including that oountry’s illegal use of the Organization of American States, were discussed at the sixteenth sessions/ of the General Assembly and at meetings of the Security Council in February and March 1962 [992nd to 998th meetings]. 147. If any further proof were nbeded of the justioe of these charges, it has been abundantly provided, as we have already said, by the aots of aggression of the United States Government against Cuba which were announced yesterday and which are aggravated by the campaign shamelessly launohed here by the United States delegation to oreate a smoke-soreen to conceal those acts of aggression. s/ Officia1 Records of the General Assembly, Sixteenrh Session, First Committee, 1231st to 1243rd meetings; and ibid., Plenary Meetings, 1104th and 1105th meetings. 149. Everyone Will remember Mr. Stevenson’s statement on 15 Aprilo( that the United States was not planning any aggression against Cuba, while on 17 April United States mercenaries landed at Playa Girbn. What credence are we to attach to the statements of the representative of a great Power who dared to mislead world public opinion and the officia1 organs of the United Nations in order to conceal the activities of the United States intelligence agency which was preparing for aggression and had ordered MI?. Stevenson to say nothing about it? faite des credit l’opinion officiels de renseignements paré l’agression rien dire? 150, It is truc that today the United States delegation has somewhat changed its tune. Today it no longer denies that the United States has undertakenunilateral and arbitrary military action against Cuba, The pretext which the United States has found for committing further acts of aggression against Cuba is, if 1 may say SO, %ewtt. Having dug deep in the rubbish-heap, officiais of the United States Department of State have now brought up for their GovernmenVs attention the version of the so-called ttestablishment of Soviet rocket bases” in Cuba. Briefly, an order was issued to find some pretext to justify aggression, while the rest was left to the resourcefulness of the officiais: it was for them to find an excuse. And now there has emerged into the light of day, in a statement by President Kennedy and in a letter by Mr. Stevenson, the United States representative, the story of “incontrovertible prooftl of the existence of Soviet rackets in Cuba -“proof” which is quite obviously false. entrepris, actions commettre Cuba, peut dire, un prétexte dans tous les coins, ment d’Etat leur gouvernement Cuba, En un mot, l’ordre prétexte reste à eux de chercher! dans la déclaration lettre du représentant thèse.concernant presence dont la fausset8 151. Si, dans ces conditions, Etats-Unis ment, s’il n’a pas hesité h soutenir la thése, totalement fausse Eu&es ment qu’il couvrir qu’il simplement aujourd’hui politique dite de “la nouvelle frontiere”. 151. The fact that in these circumstances the United States Government bas finally decided to take the course of open falsehood, that it has not been ashamed to put out the manifestly false and slanderous story of the alleged presence of “offensive” Soviet rackets in Cuba, merely proves that it attaches no importance whatsoever to what pretext it should use in this case to justify the further acts of aggression it is already carrying out against Cuba and merely shows the depths of cynicism to which the United States officia1 policy of the “new frontier” has now fallen. 152. The falsity of the charges now levelled by the United States against the Soviet Union, which consist in the allegation that the SovietUnion has set up offensive weapons in Cuba, is perfectly olear from the start. First of ail, the Soviet delegation hereby officially ‘confirms the statements already made by the Soviet Union in this connexion, to the effect that the Soviet Government has never sent and is not now sending offensive weapons of any kind to Cuba. The, Soviet delegation would recall, in particular, the statement issued by Tass on 11 September of this year on 152. lancent maintenant contre l’Union sovi4tique, que l’union “armes Premiere tout d’abord ce sujet par le Gouvernement indiquant n’envoie La délegation sovietique declaration 6/ Ibid., Fifteenth Session (Part If), First Committee, 1149th meeting. 1149ème United States observers in the Pacifie recently had an opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of aim of the Soviet rackets. 153. The Soviet delegation would also recall the statement made by Mr. Gromyko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, in the General Assembly on 21 September, to the effect that any sober-minded person was aware that Cuba was not building up its forces to such a degree that it could ltconstitute threat to the United States of America, a threat LO United States communioations with the Panama Canal, or a threat to any State of the Western hemisphere” and that “the assistance rendered by the Soviet Union to C!uba for the strengthening of its independence has none of those objectives inview, sincetheyare fore& to our policyl’ . I/ 154. We should also like to recall the following statements, to which the representative of Cuba has also referred, made on 8 October before a plenary meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations by Mr. Dorticos, the President of the Republic of Cuba: “We have been obliged to arm ourselves not in order to attack any one, any nation, but only to defend ourselves.t’ ‘1 . . . Cuba does not constitute the slightest threat to the security of any countxy in our continent, It has never displayed, nor does it now display, any aggressive intentions towardb any of them.” 8/ 155. Finally, only today, the Soviet Government again stressed the following points in its officia1 statement [S/Sl.SS] which has been circulated to members of the Council: ilwith regard to the Soviet Union!s assistanoe to Cuba, this assistance is exclusively designed to improve Cuba!s defensive capacity. As was stated on 3 September 1962 in the joint Soviet-Cuban communiqu8 on the visit to the Soviet Union of a Cuban delegation composed of Mr. E. Guevara and Mr. E. Aragones, the Soviet Government has responded to the Cuban Government’s request to help Cuba with arms. The communique states that such axms and military equipment are intended solely for defensive purposes. The Governments of the two countries still firmly adhere to that position, YSoviet assistance in strengthening Cuba!s defentes is necessitated by the fact that, from the outset of its existence, the Republic of Cuba has been subjected to continuous thxeats and sots cif provocation by the United States.” ?./ ibid., Seventeenth Session, Plenary Me- 1127th meeting, para. 45. 8/ G&, 1145th meeting, paras. 56 and 78. 157, Mr. Stevenson has cited Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter. This clause reads as follows: I’All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or politioal independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” 158. But do not the declaration of a naval blookade of Cuba and a11 the military measures which were taken as from yesterday on the instructions of the President of the United States constitute a threat Or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Cuba? Any thinking person Will realize that this is a most flagrant violatlan of the very principles of the United Nations Charter to which the United States representative had the temerity to refer. 159. The United States delegation is now trying to use its own fabrications in the Seourity Council for absolutely monstrous purposes-in order to try to obtain the retroactive approval of the Security Council of the illegal aots of aggression already undertaken by the United States against Cuba, acts which the Unlted States is undertaking unilaterally and in manifest violation of the United Nations Charter and of the elementary rules and principles of international law. 160 The peoples of the world must ClearlY realize, hdever that in openly embarking on this VentUre the Uni&d States of America is taking a Step along the road which leads to a thermo-nuolear world War. Such is the heavy price which the world may have to pay for the present reokless and irresponsible actions of the United States. 161 But why bas the United States hastened to take furiher aots of aggression against Cuba and only then gone through the motions of appealing to the Security Council? The answer to this question is given by.the’ very logic and sequence of the actions of the Umted States Government: only someone who was already sure that the Security Council would not Support-as indeed it could never support-aggressive action could act in thés way. The real aim of the United States was to present its aggression to the Security Counoil as a fait accompli. Appealing to the Seourity COUnCil was, SO to speak, merely play-acting intended, in plam words to side-track world public opinion. No prOOfS are needed, of course, when one makes suoha CyniCal gesture: it is enough simply to talk about alleged “incontrovertible evidence”. 163. What are the faits accomplis with which the United States is presenting the Security Council? First, the United States has unilaterally declared a virtual blookade of Cuba. Secondly, the United States is sending, not mexely into the Cuba region, but directly into Cuban territory itself-to the United States base at Guantanamo-powerful armed forces ordered to xemain in a state of complete combat readiness. Thirdly, the United States has officially stated that it does not intend to limit itself to these actions, but intends to proceed to “further actionna-as is stated in Mr. Stevensonls letter-against Cuba whenever it may see fit. In other words, the United States is attempting, SO to speak, ta reserve the right to continue open militaxy aggression against Cuba. 164, Great as is the danger hanging ovex Cuba as the result of these aggressive actions of the United States, however, it does not representthefull seriousness of the cxitical situation which has arisen, The most serious aspect of the present xeckless actions of the United States against Cuba is that, to judge by officia1 United States statements, the United States Government is ready to unleash a nuclear world war in order to attain its aggressive aims in respect of Cuba. 165. In Mr. Stevenson’&! letter of 22 October to the President of the Security Council, [S/5181] it is expressly stated: “What is at stake is the peace and security both of a single region and of the whole worldtf. The United States thus announces to the whole world its readiness to risk a11 in a game where the stakes are the fate of world peace and the lives of millions and millions of people. 166. Peace-loving nations have long been afraid that the reckless aggressive policy of the United States with regard to Cuba may push the world to the bxink of disaster. The alarm of the peace-loving elements and their efforts to induce the United States Government to listen to’ the voice of reason and accept a peaceful settlement of its differences with Cuba have been manifested in the course of the general debate during the seventeenth session of the GeneralAssembly, which ended only a few days ago, I Will qunte just a few of the statements made during this debate by heads of delegations-statements made at the highest level on behalf of the Governments of the respective countries. 167. On Ootober 2, before the General Assembly, Mr. Fawzi, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republio, said: rThe situation around Cuba is a source of concern to many levers of peace and of the rule of iaw in international relations.“Y 9/ Ibid., 1139th meeting, para. 142. - “It is beoause of this necessity that we regard the attempts made to upset the political system ohosen by the friendly people of Cuba as a danger to world peaoe. The people of Cuba has no aggressive intentions and is entitled to seek economic and social liberation,~~lo/ Yet tho United States is forbidding the Cuban people to wish for that. Les Etats-Unis 169. Mr. Jawad, the Foreign Minister of Iraq, said: 169. d’Irak, “We a11 have as neighbours countries withdiffering sooial and political systems and no country has the right to impose its system upon others.” It .is only the United States, whioh wants to acquire that right for itself. Mr. Jawad continued: Il n’y ce droit. “This is the essence of the accepted policy of peaceful coexistence, and any other policy would inevitably lead to aggression. The people of Cuba are free to choose their own system of government and no State, however big and powerful, has the right to interfere in the interna1 affaira of other States.‘l-/ 170. It Will be remembered that the heads of the delegations of many other countries also strongly urged the United States to respect the sovereign right of the Cuban nation to Select the form of government which suits it best, to seek a peaceful settlement of its disputes with Cuba, and to abandon its attempts to SOlVe these differences by force. Now that the United States has carried out its latest far-reaching acts of aggres- Sion against Cuba, it cari clearly be seen how cynically the United States has reacted to these and many other appeals to observe restraint in its international polioies and to live up to the lofty principles of the ‘United Nations Charter in its relations with Cuba. 170. de toute une série d’autres sur la liberté regime pacifiquement Unis et Cuba, et sur le fait que les Etats-Unis renoncer par la force, viennent agressives quel cynisme et beaucoup d’autres dans leur tions avec Cuba les nobles principes Nations 171. ont relations en État de guerre. les nombre ceux leur politique Cuba. Par cet acte agressif, contre formel particulier, des Nations de la sécurité 171. When it announced the introduction of its blockade against Cuba, the United States took a step which is unprecedented in relations between States notformally at war. By its arbitrary and piratical action, the United States menaced the shipping of many countries-including its allies-which do not agreewithits reokless and dangerous policy in respect of Cuba. By this aggressive action, which put the whole world under the threat of war, the, United States issued a direct challenge to the United Nations and to the Security Counoil as the principal organ of the United Nations responsible for maintaining international pease and security. 372. In stating its intention of involving the Organization of American States-which it is already ordering to impose colleotive sanctions on Cuba-in acts of aggression against Cuba, the United States is openly usurping the prerogatives of the Security CoUnCil, 172. leurs des l’application les Etats-Unis lo/ ibid., 1151.~ meeting, paras. 113-U4. w Ibid 1152nd meeting, para. 26. A’ 174. Displaying total indifference to the serious international consequences whioh its unilateral action against Cuba may have, the United States hss directly threatened international peace and security, and has thus automatically raised by its actions the question of the need for the urgent convening of the Seourity Council to consider the critical situation which has arisen. 175. The fact .that the United States itself has appealed to the Security Council is merely an attempt to put on a bold face in this matter. The United States knew perfectly well that after carrying out such blatantly aggressive actions against Cuba it would in any case have to appear before the Security Council in order to answer for its provocative and reckless actions, Indeed, how could the Security Council ignore the fact that the United States, is arbitrarily setting up a blockade of Cuba, is takingapatently provocative step, committing an unheard-of violation of international law, flouting the United Nations Charter, and throwing down a challenge to a11 peace-lovingnations? How could the Security Council ignore the fact that, by its aotions, the United States is openly establishing the law of the jungle ln international relations, and has already reached such a pitch of cynioism that it is not only carrying out acts of aggression against a small country, Cuba, but is even demanding that Cuba should account to it for the way in which the defence of Cuba has been organized, and at the same time is insisting on the removal from Cuban territory of the armaments which are essential for the defence of Cuba against United States aggression? 176. In his speech today, Mr. Stevenson permitted himself to say a number of times that Castro was doing this, that and the other with impunity, had entered into relations with Jhe Soviet Union wlth impunity, etc., as though the United States was called on to punish anyone who established relations with any country in the world, including the Soviet Union. 1s Mr. Stevenson going to punish himself for having established relations with the Soviet Union and for negotiating with it? 177. The Security Council would not be carcying out its bounden duty, as the principal organ responsible for maintaining world and international security, if it ignored the aggressive actions of the United States, which mean no’ching less than that the United States has set out to destroy the United Nations and to unleash a world war. 178. What, then, are the actual facts now facing the Security Council? These facts may be summarized as follows: (a) The United States Government has stated that it wifi take action against the ships of other countries, sailing on the high seas, of a type for which there cari be no other name but piracy. The decision of the United States to stop and search Cuba-bound ships of (b) In orcler to caver up its actions, the United States is putting forward pretexts which are made up out of whole cloth. It is trying to misrepresent the measures taken by the Cuban Government to ensure the defence of Cuba, Like any State which values its sovereignty and independence, Cuba cari hardly fail to display serious anxiety for its security in the face of aggression. avancent des .prétextes essaient adoptbes par le Gouvernement assurer soucieux Cuba, placee devant l’agression, de s’inquiéter (2) From the very first days of its existence, postrevolutionary Cuba has been subjected to continuous threats and provocation by the United States, which has stoppecl at nothing, including armed intervention in Cuba in April 1961. revolutionnaire provocations reculent à Cuba, en avril 1961. (cl) The United States imperialists have openly declared that they intend to impose their policies on other countries, and they are brazenly demanding that armaments intended for national defence should be removed from Cuban soil. vertement aux autres retiré destiné à la defense du pays. (5) The Soviet Government has consistently advocated that a11 foreign armed forces and armaments should be withdrawn from the territory of other countries to within their own national boundaries. This Soviet proposa1 is intended to clear the international atmosphere and set up conditions of mutual trust and understanding among nations. However, the United States Government, which has stationed its troops and military equipment a11 over the world, stubbornly refuses to accept this proposa1 of the Soviet Union. The United States is using the presence of its armed forces in the territory of other countries to interfere in the interna1 affairs of other States and to further its own sggressive plans. The attitude of the Soviet Government is and always has been that il; is essential to eliminate a11 foreign bases and withdraw allforeign soldiers and arms from the territory of other countries. The Soviet Union would have no objection to this operation being carried out under the observation of representatives of the United Nations. et continue armees soient I’interieur sition international fiance dans les rapports vernement et obstinement sovietique. de leurs s’immiscer Etats Gouvernement est nécessaire établies sur le territoire les troupes L’Union ceci se fasse de l’Organisation les exigences contenues dans la declaration dent Kennedy, international ni au regard des dispositions Unies, droit d’armes En vertu Etat posseder Le Gouvernement vernement destine a sa défense, faisant, mbme ne menace personne, visée autre’ .region du globe. L’Union sovietique pas de bases militaires soviétique ne cherche sin&rement République souveraineté (fJ The United States has no right whatever, either from the point of view of the accepted rules of international law relating to freedom of shipping, or from that of the provisions of the United Nations Charter, to put forward the demands contained in the statements of President Kennedy. No State, no matter how powerful it may be, has any right to rule on the quantities or types of arms which another State considers necessary for its defence. According to the United Nations Charter, each State has the right to defend itself and to possess weapons to ensure its security. The Soviet Union, at the request of thecuban Government, is supplying Cuba with armaments intendéd for defence and only for defence. In SO doing, the Soviet Union is not trying to gain any advantage for itself in Cuba, and does not represent a tkreat to anyone. The Soviet Union is not pursuing any warlike aims at a11 in this area, just as it has no warlike aims in any other areas of the world. The Soviet Union does not bave military bases in thirty-five countries, The Soviet Union is simply making a sincere effort to help the Young Cuban Republic to retain and strengthen its sovereignty and indepenclence. (h) The Soviet Government calls on a11 the peoples of -the world to raise their voices in defence of the United Nations, to refuse to permit the break-up of this Organization, and to oppose the policy of piracy and thermo-nuclear warmongering followed by the United States , 179. The Soviet delegation, fully appreciating the heavy responsibility inoumbent on the Security Council at this critical time, considers it essential, as a first priority, that the United States should cesse andcompletely withdraw a11 the aggressive measures which it has taken against Cuba and other countries. 180. In view of the pressing need to take these steps, the Soviet delegation, on the instructions of its Government, submits to the Security Council for its consideration: the following draft resolution [S/5187] titled ltViolation of the United Nations Charter and threat to the peace by the United States of America”: “The Security Council, MGuided by the need to maintain peace and safeguard security throughout the world, LtRecognizing the right of every State to strengthen its def ences, tlconsidering inadmissible interference by some States in the interna1 affairs of other sovereign and iqdependent countries, “Noting the inadmissibility of violations of the rules governing freedom of navigation on the high seas, II 1. Condemns the actions of the Government of the Unitcd States of America aimed at violating the United Nations Charter and at increasing the threat of war; “2. Insists that the Government of the United States shall revoke its decision to inspect ships of other States bound for the Republic of Cuba; “3. Proposes to the Government of the United States of America that it shall cesse anv kind of interference in the interna1 affairs of the Republic of Cuba and of other States which creates a threat to peace; “4. Calls upon the United States of America, the Republic of Cuba and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to establish contact and enter into negotiations for the purpose of restoring the situation to normal and thus of removing the threat of an outbreak of .war.l’ 181, It goes without saying that the Soviet delegation Will vote against the draft resolution put forward by the’ United States delegation, [S/5182] which is an absolutely unprecedented attempt net only to justify 182. We cal1 on a11 the members of thesecurity Council-and-so serious is this question-even on the allies of the United States to weigh carefully a11 the possible consequences of the present aggressive actions of the United States and to realize to what a disastrous course of action the United States is trying to commit the Security Council and the world as a whole. 182. de securite, les consequences Etats-Unis, ce pays le monde entier. 183, There is not, and there cannot be, any doubt that the small but heroic Cuban nation Will not find itself alone in its hour of need. As the Soviet Government stressed in its declaration of 18 February 1962, 183. Il n’y Cuba, ce pays petit mais heroi’que, ne restera seule la declaration du 18 fevrier “Cuba is not alone. It has many friends, not only in Latin America, but throughout the world, and among them is the Soviet Union. The Republic of Cuba, as Mr. Khrushchev, the head of the Soviet Government, has clearly stated, cari always rely on the aid and support of the Soviet people. TheSoviet Governmentls public warnings to the enemies of democratic Cuba still remain in force today.” -! 184. de leur responsabilite dront les evenements des circonstances seulement actuelle pour le sort de la paix dans le monde entier. 184, The realization by delegations of their responsibility for the outcome of the train of events set in motion by the aggressive actions of the United States against Cuba is, in the present situation, of direct significance not only for the settling of the present difficulties in the Caribbean, but also for the fate of peace throughout the world. 185. Before the interpreation is given, and speaking in my capacity as PRESIDENT 1 cal1 on the representative of Ghana on a point of order. 185. la parole, du Ghana, sur un point d’ordre. 186. glais]: d’inconvenient, nous avec d’autres avant nous venons d’entendre. nous faire lrinterpr6tation. 186, Mr. QUAISON-SACKEY (Ghana): If there is no objection on the part of any member of the Counoil, 1 would propose that those of us who wish to attend a meeting with other delegations outside the Council chamber might leave and permit the consecutive interpretation to be given. In that case, 1 assume that our deputies cari sit in our places while the Interpretation is being given. 187. I make this suggestion on the assumptionthatno one else will speak. Therefore, mine is an appeal to the Counoil to permit those of us to leave who wish to attend another meeting to consider this grave situation. que personne que nous pouvons accepter

I think we could a11 agree to what the representative of Ghana has just proposed, since it is theright of every member of the Security Council to have his deputy replace him for part of the meeting, and while the interpretation is taking place every member of the Security ‘Council is free to make such use of his time as he considers best. 1 would just like to draw your attention to the fact that we should perhaps arrange now to continue the meeting of the Security Council -/ Document A/5093. 189. 1 cal1 on the representative of the Uiited States on a point of order.

I have no objection to the proposa1 advanced by the representative of Ghana, if he Will permit me to say one word before representatives leave the room.

1 find myself in some difficulty, for 1 cari only cal1 on representatives to speak on a point of order. If the substance of the matter is to be dealt with, we shall have to wait for the interpretation, after which, 1 shall of course cal1 on the representative of the United States.

I was under the impression that perhaps there would be no objection on the part of members if, before we leave, 1 were to add a further Word. If there is any objection, of course, 1 Will not, but if there is none, 1 should like to have that permission.

1 know of the objection of at least one member of the Security Council, and 1 think that that is sufficient to decide this question in accordance with the normal rules of procedure. 194. If there are no objections to the proposa1 of the representative of Ghana, we shall act accordingly, and arrange to meet at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. Let us now continue with the interpretation, after a short break to enable a11 those persons who do not intend to remain to leave the Council Chamber. 195. 1 cal1 on the representative of France ona point of order.

1 wonder whether one of the aims of consecutive interpretation is not that it should be given before a full hall rather than an empty one. Furthermore, some delegations might perhaps wish to meet this evening to discuss the important statements which have been made today and, if SO, some or perhaps a11 of them Will also need their alternates, who are not simply supernumeraries who are here for the purpose of listening to consecutive interpretations. 1 therefore wonder whéther my collegaue from Ghana would agree to the following suggestion: to break off the debate now, because it is late, and tomorrow we would propose to begin a little earlier, perhaps about 9.30 a.m., with the consecutive interpretations, SO that we might resume the debate at the time you yourself have set, Mr. President, that is, at 10.30 a.m. That is my suggestion.

1 would like to meet the wishes of the representative of France in this matter, but 1 would also like to draw the attention of members of the Security Council to the need for saving time SO that we cari discuss and finish with this urgent question as soon as possible, Therefore, if there are no other suggestions, 1 fix the next meeting of the Security Councilfor 9 a.m. tomor-

First, the whole practice of the Security Council objeCtS to it, and secondly, one of the permanent members of the Security Council objeots-the representative of the Soviet Union, 201. If there are no objections, 1 shall declare the meeting closed. Tomorrow’s meeting Will begin at 9 a.m. The meeting rose at 8.20 p.m.