S/PV.1023 Security Council

In accordance uith the decision taken at our meeting yesterday afternoon, 1 invite the representative of Cuba to take a place at the Council table. 1. Le PRESIDENT (traduit du russe): Conformement a la decision prise b notre derniere séance, hier aprés-midi, j’invite le representant de Cuba a prendre place a la table du Conseil. A t thhe invitation of the President, Mr. Mario Garcia Inoh&stegui (Cuba), took a place at the Security Council table. Sur l’invitation Inchaustegui The interpretation into English and French of the s tatement made by the President speaking as the representative of the Soviet Union at the lO.Z?ndmeeting was given. Il est donne lecture de l’interpr&ation et en français de la déclaration parlant R&publiques seance du Conseil. Mr. V, A. Zorin (Union ofSovietSooialistRepublics) took the Chair.

This meeting of the Security Councilconvened at one of the most dramatic moments, fraught with peril for mankind-confronta us with a probiem which we mtist face with a11 the calmcalled for by the immense risk before us. 4. It has been proved that the Soviet Union has installed in Cuba rocketbases capable of sendingnuclear missiles over ,distances of 1,000 miles, andthatothers are now being installed for rackets with a range of 2,500 miles. Th,e fact that these bases have been built and equipped while hoth Cuba and the Soviet Union + were affirming that Cuba’s intentions were only defensive, and not affensive, has caused perplexity and created a feeling of insecurity and anxiety in the countries of the Americsn continent, which feel directly threatened by such weapons. Peace is in peril, and, with it, the survival of mankind on earth. The balance of terror, as the armed peace under which we live has been called, is on the point of being broken on our American continent, and ft is our imperative duty to prevent this if we wish to avoidthe great tragedy which horrifies us all. 5. Up to now, the more or less precarious balance between the two great blocs had been maintained; but the Soviet action in Cuba has modified it. Cuba, transformed avernight into an armed Power with the most death-dealing of offensive weapons-rackets and nuclear bombs-has become a source of concern and anxiety to a11 the other nations of the American continent. Tfie weapons available to Cuba are no longer defensive but offensive, and are of such a magnitude that they cari annihilate any of the hmerican republics and drag the world into the holocaust of a nuclear war. 6. Al1 members of this Council are aware of the tense situation existing between Cuba and the other American repuhlics, especially those in the Carihbean area. The communist régime in Cuba is notcontent to remain within its borders, but aims to export its system to the other nations of the continent. This is shown by the Cuhan radio% constant incitement to subversive action against the established Governments of other American Republics, by Cuban propaganda and agents working in those Repuhlics, and by the clandestine introduction into them of weapons tq équip guerrilla forces. 7. Al1 this in itself already constitutes a threat ta the peaoe and stahility of the nations of the American continent, but a much graver danger to peace has now arisen from the fact that the country carrying on these activities has nuclear missiles capable of annihllating any Of our countries. Such weapons, in Cuba!s hands, constitute an undeniable menace to the peace andsecurity of the rest of the American contfnent. 9. Accordingly, when 1 say that we are seriously alarmed by the existence of atomic missile bases in Cuba and the stockpiling of nuclear weapons in that country, and that we want this state of affairs to cesse, I am not speakingfor Venezuela alone: 1 am also speaking for Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador-in short, for the entire American continent, 10. 1 believe that the voice and opinion of a whole continent-of our countries which deeply love peace, which have always upheld the principles of the United Nations Charter, struggled against colonialism, defended the cause of the weak, and supported disarmament and the suspension of nuclear tests-must be heard in the United Nations and must supply matter for serious reflection. 10. Je suis convaincu que l’opinion de tout un continent, l’opinion de pays qui aiment profondément la paix, qui ont toujours defendu les prinoipes de la Charte des Nations Unies, qui ont toujours lutté contre le colonialisme, qui ont toujours soutenu la cause des faibles, qui ont toujours appuy8 la these du désarmement et de la suspension des essais nucléaires, je suis convaincu que cette opinion doit retenir l’attention des Nations Unies et donner matiGre & reflexion. 11. A notre avis, il est indispensable que le Conseil de sécurite prenne des mesures pour empecher que des armes nucléaires ne continuent b parvenir a Cuba et pour obtenir le demantelement des bases de missiles nucleaires installees dans ce pays, afin de conjurer l’immense danger que represente pour la paix mondiale l’existence d’armes nucléaires dans une region aussi agitée que l’est aujourd’hui celle des Caraibes. 11. We oonsider it necessary that the Security Council take measures to prevent the continued arriva1 of nuclear weapons in Cuba and to bring about the dismantling of the present nuclear missile bases in Cuba, in order to remove the tremendous danger to world peace constituted by the existence of nuclear weapons in SO agitated a region as the Caribbean is today. 12. We trust that the Soviët Union, whioh has set up 12. Nous espérons que l’Union these bases in Cuba, Will understand the va& anxiety établi ces bases a Cuba, comprendra l’immense they are creating in each and every country of the inquiétude qu’elles provoquent chez toutes les nations American continent, and that it Will co-operate in the des Amérique6 et oontribuera h supprimer un danger removal of this grave threat of war on our continent. de guerre sur notre continent. 13. It is quite enough that weapons of mass destruction should be in the hands of the nuclear Powers. It would be more than enough if we now calmly allowed these weapons to be delivered to the only communist Government in America, for the purpose of increasing its military might to such a degree that it would be able to dominate, without more ado, any of our Americari Republics, or to plunge the world into a nuolear holocaust. 13. Alors que des moyens de destruction massive sont aux mains des puiSsanoes nucleaires, on ne saurait accepter avec indifference que des armes de ce typé soient livrees a l’unique communiste dlAm&ique, point son potentiel militaire qu’il serait en mesure d’imposer sa domination R l’une quelconque des républiques americaines ou de précipiter le monde vers une hecatombe nuoleaire. 14. My delegation trusts that good sense nnd a spirit of understanding Will prevail and that the two great nuclear Powers, the Soviet Union and the UnitedStates, 14. de oomprehension l’emporteront grandes puissances nucleaires, l’Union soviétique et u Distribué G!./ Suhsequently circulated as document 5/5193. 21 Inter-American Treatv of Reciarocal Assistance, signed at Rio de Janeiro on 2 September 1947. Sec U&edNations, Treaty L%es, vol. 21 (1948), 1, No. 37.4~. 2/ Traité le 2 septembre 1948, 1, No 324, a. 3 16, What in fact is happening is this: by a deliherate nnd deceitful act of provocation, the Soviet Union is introclucing into the Western hemisphere nuclear missiles of mass destruction. This affects the whole security of the Western hemisphere and representsa situation which those responsible for its defence cannot toleratc. That is the real point at issuebefore us, and not, as bas been pretended here, the right of a Government to take such measures as it may think necessary for its own defence. Let there be no mistakc alxmt it. 17. We have a11 studied the grave statement made by the Presiclent of the United States, and we have listened to the clenr ancl frank speech of his representative in this Council. These statements have explained the new situation with which we are now Emed and thc serious turn of events which has tnken place in Cuba, events which both by their very nature and hy the way in which they have corne nbout cari only give rise ta the deepest anxiety among the peace-loving peoples of the world. 18. The President of “Lhe United States explained to tho world why it had proved necessary to take new measures to combat the threat which Soviet policy in Cuba now presents and why he had instructed bis representative at the United Nations, in the face of this clear threat to peace ancl security, to request this emergency session of ‘che Security Council andto table the draft resolution which we now bave before US in document S/5183. 19, 1 do not iatend to enter into past history or to add to the survey of eventa madeby the representative of the United States. We a11 of us know from our own experience the tragic and terrible story which he SO clearly described of agreements broken and aggressions waged by the Soviet Union. We are faced today with a most serious act of recklessness which, as the United States representative said, cannotbe tolerated. The task and duty thus oast on this Council is overwhelmingly Important, for the outcome of OU~ deliberations hëre today Will determine whether the peoples of the world cari retain their respect for the United Nations and their faith that in the Security Council lies the ultimate hope for the preservation of peace. 20. The task facing us is easily described but difficuit ta accomplish. Somehow we must rebuild the world envisaged by the Charter; we must re-create an atmosphere of confidence and trust between the great Powers of the world. 21. I would ask members of this Council to compare the frankness and clarity of the statements made Isy the President of the United States and his .represen- 22. First, Mr. Gromyko. In that section of his speech dealing with Cuba Mr. Gromyko said the following: 22. Tout d’abord, dans la partie de son discours oa il traitait declar6: “It is also said that the United States of America Will he prepared to attack Cuba if it considers that Cuba is building up its forces to such a degree that it may constitute a threat to the United States of America, a threat to United States communications with the Panama Canal, or a threat to any State of the Western hemisphere. Any clear-thinking person knows that Cuba is pursuing neither the first, nor the second nor the third of these objectives. The statesmen of the United States of America also know this full well. They are further quite aware of the fact that the assistance rendered by the Soviet Union to Cuba for the strengthening of its independence has none of those objectives in view, since they are foreign to our policy.“~~ a attaquer Cuba s’ils estimaient que ce pays accumule des forces susceptibles de constituer une menaoe pour les Etats-Unis, ou pour le passage des Etats-Unis par le canal de Panama, ou bien une menace pour n’importe quel Etat de llhémisph&re occidental. Or, toute personne sensée sait fort bien que Cuba ne poursuit ni le premier, deuxibme, ni le troisi&ne de ces desseins, et les hommes politiques des Etats-Unis le savent euxmemes fort bien. Ils savent aussi parfaitement que l’assistance accordee a Cuba par l’Union soviétique pour consolider son indhpendance ne vise aucun de ces buts, car ils sont étrangers B notre politique 9.” That is the Soviet Foreign Minister’s public statement about the policy of the Soviet Unionandof Cuba in this Western Hemisphere. Telle est la d6claration faite en public par le Ministre des affaires étrangeres de l’Union sovi&ique concernant la politique de son pays et de Cuba dans I’hémisphBre occidental. 23. Et voici ce que le Président de la Republique cubaine lui-même a dit B l’Assemblée g&n&rale au sujet de la politique étrang&re de Cuba: 23. And this is what the President of Cuba himself had to s?y in the General Assembly on Cuba’s foreign polioy : “Faithful as it is to these tenets of its international policy and to the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, Cuba does not constitute the slightest threat to the security of any countryin our ‘, continent, It has never displayed, nor does it now et aux principes sur lesquels est fondée la Charte des Nations Unies, Cuba ine représente aucun danger pour la s6curité d’aucun pays de notre continent; il ne nourrit, et n’a jamais nourri, d’intentions agressives & Yegard d’aucun d’entre eux; il respecte au contraire de façon absolue. la politique de nonintervention, car notre pays est convaincu, comme le montre son histoire meme, qu’il appartient b chaque peuple souverain de deeider de son propre destin sans subir d’odieuses ingbrences Btrang@res.” display, any nggressive intentions against any of them, but rather the most absolute respect for the polioy of non-intervention, being oonvinced, as our own national history goes to show, that everypeople has the sovereign right to shape its own destinies without odious interference from outside.” Un peu plus tard, le président Dortic6s a assurances suivantes: Later in his speech President Dortic6s gave the following assurances: “We want peace and 1 repeat here that we are ready to take a11 the steps that are required in order to guarantee peace.” 4/ le r6pete ici - a faire tous les pas utiles pour assurer la paix9.n 24. We also heard the remarks of the representative of the Soviet Union yesterday in which he said that the American charges about the supply of offensive weapons to Cuba were false. But he did not deny, nor did the Cuban representative deny, that the Soviet Government had furnished missiles to Cuba. By no stretch even of the Soviet imagination cari a nuclear missile in Cuba with a range of over 2,000 miles be oalled defensive. ‘24. Nous avons egalement entendu hier le repré- sentant de l’Union sovi&ique s’inscrire en faux Contre les accusations am&rioaines de fourniture offensives a ne ment sovi6tique avait procur6 des missiles à Cuba. Il est impossible, même avec toute l’imagination des . Soviétiques, de qualifier de défensif un enginnucl6aire dont la portée est sup6rieure & 2 000 milles. v Officia1 Records of the General Assembly, Seventeenth Session, Pknary Meetings, 1127th meeting, para. 45. 3/ Documents Séances plénieres, . 4/ Ib&,, i145th meeting, paras, 78 and 83. 4/ Ibid., 1145eme %y putting medium-range and intexmediate-range ballistic missiles into Cuba, Russia is deliberateIy placing her own power in a position to do threc things: to thxeaten the United States, to threaten the Carihbean, and beyond those two, to threaten South 1 “America. We must recognize that this is plainly an act of power. “At a time when the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear countxies is on the agencla at Geneva, Russia introduces these weapons into new places, At a time when the United Nations, actually this week, is beginning to debate this yuestion and trying to carry on discussions, that is the time when the Russians do what they have not-repeat, not-done in Eastern Europe, that is, put their offensive weapons onto the soi1 of a satellite, “There is, 1 fear, another aspect of Soviet policy of which we must be aware. Memory is short. But you Will a11 remember that only eighteen months or SO ago the Russians were operating amoratoriumof nuclear tests, They bxoke that moratorium without notice, but it wns plain from the scale of the tests Ebat under the caver of the negotiations at Geneva they had been preparing this great series of nuclenr testa. “Only last week, Mr. Khrushchev instructed Mr. Gromyko to .assure President Kennedy that there wexe no offensive weapons in Cuba and Russia had no intention of putting them there. ‘Xithin a week of that statement by the architect of Soviet policy, it had been proved that those words wexe said only to..deceive. “At the United Nations last year 1 said that no genuine peace would corne to the woxld until this double-dealing was exposed. 1 find it necessary to repeat that. If the world wants peace, the countries, particularly through their membexship of the United Nations, must insist that these practices in doubledealing must cesse and cesse now. 1 believe that thïs Is SO fundamental to the future peace of the world because, if we continue, no one can say we cannot drift into war. “The Americans are therefore right to let the world see plainly what is being done in secret by the Communists under their noses. Neutralism is no guarantee of safety.” That .is what Lord Home said. 26, My country has always held that a sovereign people has the right to choose its own ideology, government and political way of life. We strongly believe too that each country has the right and duty to look to its own defence. We ourselves are members of thxee purely defensive alliances-NATO, CENT0 andSEAT0, organizations recognized under the Charter and the PUrPOSe of which is to defend and prote& the way of 27. We have ncver denied the right of the Cuban l~eol~le to choose their own political rhgime or thc right of the Cuban Government to take suc11 defensivc! measures as they think necessnry for their own clefente. We do not dispute that a sovereign State is entitlecl to cal1 for military aid from nnother Government. In that, the Governments of the UnitedKingdom, the United States, Cuba and the Soviet Union are a11 agreed. But no one cari fit the installation of these missile sites in Cuba in10 that picturf?. Legitimato defences are one thing; nuclear missiles with ranges from 1,000 to over 2,000 miles are quiteanother. And then, add to this the fact that these weapons of mass destruction are being installed in secrecy andbehinda mask of duplicity. 28. The President of the United States referred to the public and private assurances which he had received to the effect that the Soviet Government would never install missile bases in Cuba. 29. We have a11 heard the Soviet Government boast that it has the capability to destroy the world. They have said that there is no need for the Soviet Government t0 shift its weapons for a retaliatoryblow to an;; 0the.r country. The representntive of the Soviet Union has already drawn the attention of this Council to the flaunting by his Government to the world of the fact that its rackets are SO powerful that there is no need for them to senrch for sites beyond the boundaries of the Soviet Union, 30. And yet when those very assertions were being macle, when disarmament discussions are inprogress here in the United Nations, when there havebeen conversations between the United States and Soviet Governments about Iimitingthe sprendof nuclear weapons, and when we are likely to clebate this subject further in the General Assembly. at such a time plans were going forward for the supply of these very weapons of destruction to the Cuban Government, 31. While the Soviet Governmen’t was acting out its lie, orders were being given, plans laid and preparations being made for the supply of missiles ta Cuba. Who cari possibly believe in the honesty of Ehe Soviet Gove rnment’s intentions in these circumstances? Such calculated double-dealing is bound to throw a sinister light on its intentions. 32. Let us compare for a moment dispassionately what the Soviet Government has said and what it has done. Let us compare the secretive and furtive way in which it has acted in Cuba with the open attitude of the Governments of NATO who have not attempted to hicle the establishment by mutual agreoment of their bases for the defense of the free world. We are forced to conclude that these bases in Cuba are not for defensive purposes only. We are îorced to believe that the Soviet Government sees for itself some significant advantage, and when it attempts to steal this advantage in such an underhand way, the free world must alert itselî to a potential threat to its security and to a grave danger to mankind. “There are . . . certain lessons which 1 think, we oan learn, first, from the destructive power of the nuclear bomb , . . the first is this, and it is perhaps the overriding fact of our present situation, There is, in fact, today a stalemate in nuclear poser and, because there is a stalemate in nuclear power, there is a stalemate in power politics. It is truc that it is a stalemate of fear, nevertheless it has brought us a . respite from war. It mny be that we only hold the peace by the balance of terrer; nevertheless the peace is held, and for ,that ,at least we should bc grateful.“2’ 34. As 1 have saicl, we cari only assume that it is in this context that the Soviet Union sees advantage to itself through its latest actions in Cuba. If not, it would never have embarked by such devious means on such a dangerous course. It must hope by this advantage to increase the aren of communist domination and to gain a significant military advantage in favour of the communist Bloc. 35. 1 am not saying that they are right in this assessment, but whnt 1 will say is this. One of the cardinal principles upon which a11 our disarmament discussions have been based is that there must net be a significant change in the balance of militasy power, for on this balance the security of each and every one of us, inoluding the Soviet Unlon, depends. 36. 1 Will now return to the situation in Cuba itself, The truth is that the threat cornes not from without against Cuba, but from within Cuba against its neighbours. The representatives of thc Latin American countries have, as we have heard, met to cliscuss the situation as provided for In the Rio Treaty of 194’7. These countries represent a voluntary association of freedom-loving peoples who joined together for their mutual defense and mutual benefit in an organization whose existence is recognized under the charter. We have had read to us in this Council at the last meeting the text of the operative paragraphs of the resolution which they adopted with near unanimity. This resolution fully supports that tabled by the representative of the United States in this Council. 37. The consensus of our Latin American colleagues is that these latest moves in Cuba do indeed represent a real threat to their security. That this is the case was put to us with solemn clarity a few minutes ago by the representative of Venezuela spealting on behalf of an entire continent. 1 listened to him with deep understanding and full agreement. It is the Latin American countries who are in the Western hemisphere, and it is they who are Cuba% neighbours. It is they who have the experience and the knowledge with which to judge these latest events. We agree with their assessment. Furthermore, if they are threatened, then we are threatened too. For in this nuclear age the whole free world stands or falls together. ?/ 13, 1134th meeting, para. 48. 39. The way now to restore confidence in the Western Hemisphere is for these offensive missiles to be dismantled and withdrawn. Only then cari we believt! the honesty of the pronouncements made by the Soviet and Cuban leaders that they have no aggressiveintentions. Let them now live up to their words and remove the threat which they have unnecessarily placed among us. Let them, hefore it is too late, withdraw these missiles which never should have besn introduced, Let them consider the real interests of the Cuban people and of the world. 40. TO quote LordHome once again, he saidyesterday: “1 hope the Russians Will see in time where their policy is leading. I cari promise them this: immediately she settles down to negotiate, with sincerity she Will find the most ready response from our Government. The President of the United States is olearly looking forward to the day when we cari get round the table and work out solutions of a11 our difficulties in negotiations which are genuine.” 41. My Government fully supports the provisions of the draft resolution [S/5182] before this Council submitted by the representative of the United States involving as they do a request to the Acting Secretary- General to dispatch to Cuba a UnitedNations observer corps to assure and report on compliance. In SO doing, we urge the Governments of the Soviet Union and of Cuba to heed the appeal of a.11 peace-loving peoples in the world.

Today, on the seventeenth anniversary of the coming into force of the United Nations Charter, which gives expression to humanity’s hopes for peace, it is indeed painful to find ourselves meeting here to debate one of the most flagrant violations of that Charter, a violation by the United States of America which threatens the very existence of our Organization. 43. The maintenance of international peace andseourity rests on respect for the princip1e.s of the Charter, which proclaims the equal rights of peoples, including their right ta self-determination. We cari assess at this moment a11 the implications of the irresponsible acts which impair these principles and threaten a11 humanity by pushing it to the brink of a thermonuolear war. It is precisely the acts committed by the United States against Cuba, andnot other elemenfs, as the United Kingdom representative has just claimed, which today threaten the peace of the world. 44. It is the pressing duty andthe great responsibility of the Security Council and the United Nations to act with resolution in osder to bring to an end the imminent peril which threatens free Cuba and the peace and seourity of a11 peoples. 45. This is not the first time that the United States Government has taken action against the heroic Cuban people. The efforts of the United States ta strangle 49. On 7 September last the President of the United States asked Congress to authorize the calling up of 150,000 reservists, A short while later, on 13 September, President Kennedy made a statement attributing full freedom of action to the United States Government. On 19 September, the United States Congress adopted a resolution on Cuba, according ta which the use of a11 available means, including armed force, W%3 proclaimed as the officia1 policy of the United States. Contrary to the assertion of the Pres.ident of the United States that the reason for the blockade was the discovery during the past week of offensive installations on Cuban territory, in reality thepreparatory measures for action began much earlier. 59. On 1 October, the plan of action was already on the desk of the State Department. The review U S A- 51. In addition to the direct military preparations on United States territory, 175 organizations of mercenaries are making intensive preparations for a new invasion of Cuba. 52. The culmination of this policy towards Cuba is to be found in the measures announced by President Kennedy in his televised statement on the evening of 22 October. 53. Faced with such a constant stream of threats, is it net indisputably legitimate for a country to take whatever action it deems necessary to organize its defence? 1s not this an elementary right inherent in every State and enshrined in the United Nations Charter? TO choose not to exercise the right of selfdefence would be to surrender unconditionally, to sacrifice national independence, to place oneself at the mercy of the aggressor. 54. We have heard authorized representatives of Cuba declare, both in the General Assembly, through the voice of the Cuban President, and here in the Council, in the convincing statement made by the representative of Cuba last night, that the Cuban people are peace-loving and wish to devote themselves to peaceful and creative work and that Cuba needs weapons only for defensive purposes. Both those representatives expsessed to the General Assembly Cuba!s firm determination to settle a11 disputes by negotiation, and by appealing to conscience and reason. They gave us clearly to understand that the organization of their defence was but the inevitable result of the hostile policy of the United States. If the cause is removed, the elfe& Will automatically cesse. 55. What political and moral authority has the United States to denounce the defensive system of a small country at a time when, as is well known, the United States itself bas scattered hundreds of aggressive rnilitary bases throughout the world, thousands of miIes from its own frontiers? When the prohlem of military bases on foreign territories was discussed at the Disarmament Conference at Geneva, the United States delegation turned a deaf ear to a11 proposals for the abolition of those bases. On whatgrounds does the United States arrogate to itself the right to decide whether the>military aystem of a given country is of a defensive or offqnsive character? If there is anything of an offensive character on Cuban territory, it 56. The real reason for the action of the United States Government against Cuba is the political régime chosen by the Cuban people, in full exercise of its sovereign prerogatives. The United States policy, aimed at overthrowing the legal Government of Cuba and changing its social system, has been openly proclaimed. Since traops cannot be mobilized to fight against ideas, the United States Government needed pret;exts to justify its warlike actions, and thus it was that the alleged danger to the United States by the @mal1 State of Cuba arose. The real issue is quite another thing: it is the hatred of the imperialist circles in the United States for the Cuban regime, These circlos cannot resign themselves to the existence of a sovereign and independent CubanStatewhich is freed from the colonial domination of the United States, 57. Today, as always, the aggressor tries to transfer his guilt to his victim, Eo camouflage his actions by alleging a danger to his own security in order to create a façade of legality. On this occasion he has even submitted a so-called forma1 complaint, but the distortion of the facts cannot exonerate the United States Government of its responsibility. Its aggressive actions constitute a ruthless violation of the principles and the fundamental provisions of the United Nations Charter, and is a direct negation of the general norms of international law. 58. The United States is guilty of having flagrantly violated the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, which lays upon Member States the obligation to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the Unlted Nations ré a 59. This action is a11 the more condemnable since, as is clear from Mr, Kennedy’s statement, the United States is determined ta continue on its course with a11 the inevitable consequences. The path chosen by the United States is indeed a dangerous ons; only a Government that does not even consider the fateof its own people can venture into such activities. But the leaders of the United States should realize that we are living in 1962, in the seventh decade of the twentieth Century. 1s it possible, in our time, to revert to the period when the Caribbean was proclaimed a “Yankee lake”, where every year for thirty years there ivas United States intervention in that region, where the United States Marines set up Governments and handed down laws to the people, and where the declared policy of the United States was the “big stick” policy? 60. The course of history cannot be reversed. The peoples have proclaimed the defence of national indemdence as a sacred and unassailable.principle. The changes that have occurred in the balance of power at ’ 62. What the United States suggests to the Security Council, in the draft resolution before us [S/5182], cari be summed up in the following points, which are Utterly absurd, First, the United States is “gravely concerned” about a situation that it has createditself; it notes 9hat further ccntinuance of the Cuban situatien may lead to direct conflictll, after having itself . pushed the matter to the most dangerous extreme. 63. Secondly, the United States asks the United Nations to take note that “a quarantine is being imposed” round the island of Cuba, This is in fact a naval blockade-a military action on which the UnitedStates has embarked unilaterally and improperly, independently of the United Nations and against its interests. 64. Thirdly, the United States asks the Council to adopt meaaures in regard to Cuba’s defence system but not the military installations and preparations of the United States directed against Cuba. 65. Fourthly, the United States is resorting to the fdeal plan for an aggressor-and the Suez experience is an eloquent instance-namely, to achieve its ends by unilateral means and then to turn to the United Nations to obtain officia1 endorsement of the results, 66. Finally, if the plan succeeds the United States is generously prepared to allow termination of tha measures of quarantine which it has itself imposed. 6’7. This document, tihich contains SO many distortions, contradictions and clumsy subterfuges, is contrary to the spirit of responsibility that should infuse : the resolutions which we adopt. We know that the ’ United Nations has .often been described in speeches by American representatives “as an instrument of United States foreign policy”. Contempt for this Organization cannot, howeves, be pushed to the point of asking it to endorse the aggressive acts of the United States. ‘In fact, the .United States delegation is pusely and simply asking the Security Cotmcil to sanction the United States aggression against Cuba. 1~ other words, the Security Council is requested to give the United States a certificate of good conduct for the I ecbiomic and military blockade of Cuba, for the in- 6 vasion of mercenaries financed and equipped by the * TJnited States Government, and for interference by . _. . the United States in the domestic affairs of Cuba, The Security Council is asked to abprove an armed block- . Y, ade, decreed yesterday, and an act of direct aggression by the United States against Cuba. 69. The Romanian delegation considers that the aggressive actions of the United States against Cuba constitute a threat to the peace under Article 39 of the Charter, It is the duty of the Security Council to condemn the actions of the United States against Cuba and to take a11 necessary steps to bring them to an end immediately. The United Nations must compel the Government of the United States to observe the fundamental principles of the Charter and the norms of international law. 70. The naval blockade set up by the United States in time of peace places the freedom of the high sws at the mercy of a single State. Such actions gravely prejudice the equal rights of a11 States in the use of the high seas. The Members of the United Nations which ratified the Geneva Conventions on the High Sea& and thus recognized their legal force cannot WitneSS such a clear violation of those Conventions without condemning the guilty State. The acts of piracy committed by the United States threaten not only the vessels belonging to one State but the vessels of a11 States. These acts reflect the policy of force which has for years envenomed the international atmosphere. 71. It is surprising, to say the least, to hear the representative of the United Kingdom, one of the greatest maritime powers of the world, give his agreement to the naval blookade which has already been applied at the present time, unilaterally and improperly, by the United States. This is tantamount to supporting the acts of piracy which the United States is preparing to commit. It is a position that disregards the economic interests of a11 countries, including the United Kingdom. Recently the leaders of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom stated that the British shipowners were firmly demanding respect for their trading and navigation rights on the high seas. These United Kingdom circles remind us that the principle of freedom of the seas was in the past SO important to the United States itself that in 1812 and 1917 it was willlng to go to war in order to enforce its observance by other nations. 72. According to international instruments-and 1 .cite the Declaration on Armed Neutrality of 1780, the Paris Declaration of 1856 on Maritime Law, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 190’7, and the London Declaration of 1909 concerning the laws of naval war-a military blockade beyond the shores of a State may not be instituted .unless war has begun between the Parties to the dispute. 73. In setting UP such a blockade of Cuba, the United States bas committed an act of war against that State. Military blockade is one of the forms of aggression. It bas been defined as such in many international instruments; 1 would cite, first and foremost, the ConVentiOnS for the Definition of Aggression concluded in London on 3 July and4 July 1933, which were recog- 6/ Convenrions adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Law of tbe Sea beld at Geneva from 24 February to 27 April 1958, 75. The Cuban people, like any other people, has the sacred and inalienable right to determine its own future according to its own convictions, without fore@ interference or threats in any shape or form. 76. The Government and people of Romania express their sympathy and their solidarity in the rightful struggle of the heroic people of Cuba and their revolutionary Government to repel the organized aggression of the United States. The Romanian Government will give full support to measures aimed at stopping the aggression. We trust that at this hour responsible spokesmen and politicians Will use a11 their resources of calm, sagacity and restraint and that reason will prevail in the acts of the United States leaders SO that this dangerous course of events may be ended. 77. While a11 mankind is concerned over the consequences of these actions on the part of the United States against Cuba, while every human being is profoundly disturbed over the fate of peace, we express the hope that the Security Council also Will become aware of its heavy responsibility and Will adopt the decisions which the world expects of it. 78. The Romanian delegatiop considers that it is the duty of the Security Council decisively to condemnthe acts of the United States Government against Cuba, acts which threaten international peace and security. The Security Council must insist on the immediate raising of the naval blockade and the cessation of a11 interference in the interna1 affairs of the Republic of Cuba and any other States. With that purpose in mind, my delegation wholeheartedly supports the draft resolution submitted by the delegation of the Soviet Union [S/5187], which provides positive and effective measures for solving the serious problem before the Council, and we shall vote in favour of that text.

L&e a11 members of the Council, I am sure, Ireland has watched with growing con&rn and apprehension developments in relations between the United States and Cuba over the past few years. 80. It was inevitable, perhaps, that the policies pursued by the Revolutionary Government which took z/ Lesgue of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. CXLVII, 1934, No. 3391, art. II. concerns, measures which inevitably aroused widespread ill-feeling and resentment in the UnitedStates. 81. Like other revolutions, moreover, Castroism, as it has corne tobe called was inspiredby a propagandist zeal which prompted it aotively to pursue Ehe spreading of its ideas to other countries in Latin America, It is not necessary Or relevant for my purpose to trace the course and the consequences of these activities. It is sufficient to note that they led to a serious deterioration in the relations between Cuba and other countries of Latin America and to such an increase of uneasiness and tension that today normal diplomatic relations exist between Cuba and onlyfive othor countries in Latin America, 82. The policies adopted by the Revolutionary Government in Havann with regard to United States interests in Cuba provoked, in their turn, measures of ecoaomic reprisa1 on the part of the United States. The United Statcs had formerly taken 60 to 70 per cent of Cuba% total exports and had been the traditional supplier of 70 to 80 per cent of Cuba’s imports. This long-standing pattern of trade was to a large extent disrupted, withserious consequences for Cuba’s economy. The resulting contraction in trade between the two countries was followed in due course by the establishment of closer economic and other relations between Cuba and the countries of Eastern Europe. 83. The rapprochement between Cuba and the countries of the Soviet bloc, although originally economic and commercial in character, gradually developed a political complexion which became more pronounced when the Government of Cuba announced its adherence . to the doctrines of Marxism-Leninism. This was undaubtedly a new and disturhing development in the political relationships of the Western Hemisphcre. As was made clear in the Declaration of San Joses/ of August 1960, the growth of Soviet intervention in Cuba was resented by a11 the other States in the area as “an attempt capable of destroying hemispheric unity and jeopardfzing the peace and the eecurity of the hemisphere”, The fact ia that Cuba’s emergenoe as a Marxist-Leninist State had inevitably injected the “cold war” into the political relations oftheAmerioan States among themselves, and they were dismayed by the danger to American solidarity and security which the new development was seen to portend. 84. The train of events which 1 have sumtiarized might have been arrested and the difficulties it created might perhaps have been solved in a spirit of oonciliation and mutual understanding, but for the recent decision of the Soviet Union to strengthen Cuba’s military potential. 81 Resolution 1 adopted by the Seventh Meeting OI Consultation of MinIsters of Foreign Affairs of the American States, held ar San José. Costa Rica, Z-29 August 1960. See document S/4480. 86. It is difficult for us, as it must be for others, to understand the reasons which led the Soviet Government, given the present state of tension existing throughaut the world, to take a step which has the effect of upsetting the existing delicate balance of world security, the stability of which it is in the interest of a11 of us to maintain. For several years now no new fore@ military bases have been established throughout the world. Many of us were beginning to hope that a11 the greater Powers, realizing the immense responsibilities which the possession of nuclear armaments imposes, were seeking ways of withdrawing from foreign bases wherever they could, thereby relieving the tension which the maintenance of such bases tends to prolong. It is certainly a great disappointment to any such hope that, having regard to the vital interests of a11 small nations in reducing world tensions and promoting peace, any small nation, no matter from what motives or undes what provocation, shoulcl willingly become a new strategic base for the prosecution of the cold war or a spearhead in a nuclear conflict. 87. As members of the Council are aware, my country was neutral during the Second World War. Our neutsality had as one of its fundsmental bases a principle enunciated by the then leader of our Government, Mr. de Valera. That principle was that under no circumstances would we allow our country to be used as a base for attack against our neighbour, Great Britain. The principle is relevant to the case of a11 small countries threatened with involvement in conflicts or rivalries in which their powerful neighbours are engaged. It has special validity in the case of small countries placed beside powerful neighbours with whom they may have disputes or disagreements, as at the time of the Second World War we had-and indeed still have-with our neighbour, Great Britain, in regardto the partition of our country, but itis, we believe, a principle worthy of the consideration of the Government of Cuba. 88. One of the major points of disagreement which emerged from the statements submitted to the Council by the representatives of the United States and the Soviet Union, reIates to the character and purpose of the large-scale military equipment recently supplied to Cuba by the Soviet Union. The UnitedStates asserts .that the missile bases recently established in Cuba 89. There is some force in the argument often used that whether a weapon is to be regarded as offensive or defenslve depends less on its intrinsic character than on the intentions of those who possess it. W’hatever may be the intentions of the Soviet or the Cuban Government, however, it appears undeniable that the installations, missiles and aircraft now in Cuba are capable, in the hands of ill-intentioned persons, of constituting a deadly threat Eo the security of North and South America. 90, The enclosure to Mr. Morozovis letter of 23 October 1962 to the PresidentofIheSecurity Council [S/5186] states : “Today, as never before, statesmen must show calm and prudence, and must not countenance the rattling of weapons.tt What we find it hard to understand-and a fact of which we have heard no satisfactory explanation at this table-is why it should have been regarded as wise and prudent, in the present state of world tension, to establish new miIitary installations of Ehis striking power in a small , country in such close proximity ta the American continent, 91. As I bave said, 1 cari understand Cuba’s concern for its nationai securlty. But its national security already had the benefit of a forma1 assuranceof military assistance Erom the Soviet Union if it were attacked. In a skatement to The New York Times on 13 July 1960, Chairman Khrushchev said: rlSllould the United States imperialists undertake aggressive action against the Cubanpeople upholding their national independence, we would support the Cuban people.” Moreover, on 11 September 1962, the Soviet Union, in an officia1 statement, said-and 1 quote the statement: tl I 4 . the Soviet Union does not need to transfer to any other country, such as Cuba, its existing means for the repelling of aggresslon and the delivering of a retaliatory blow . , , , Ehe Soviet Union had suah powerful rackets for the delivery of these nuclear charges, that there fs no need to seek places for their installation anywhere outside the borders of the Soviet Union.” 92. The question inevitably arises, in view of these statements, why the Soviet Union should have chosen this moment to establish new missile and bomber bases ,on the island of Cuba? Why should Cuba, already assured of the powesful protection of thesoviet Union, have sought to reinforce it by obviously less powerful and more vulnerable bases in its own territory? 93. It is quite true, in principle, as the representative of the Soviet Union has argued, that it is for Cuba in 94. This is a political fact which we cannot ignore, The Soviet Union may criticize the reactions of the United States in the case of Cuba, but it cannot fail to understand them. On more than one occasion in the past the Soviet Union has itself issued Stern warnings to neighbouring countries regarding the possible consequences of the stationing of nuclear missiles on their territories. 95. We have reached the stage when the extension of nuclear bases and the spread of nuclear weapons have become unacceptable to reasonable men as methods ‘of solving the problems of world security. If the principals in the present crisis proceed on their present course, a headlong collision is bound to oocur which may well lead to world war and a11 that it means. The search for a peaceful solution was never more urgent ox more necessary, or indeed more difficult. But, as Edmund Burke once said: “If measures of peace are necessary, they must begin somewhere; and a oonciliatory temper must precede and prepare everyplan of reconciliation.n 96. In the spirit of this phrase 1 havesearched carefully in the statements submitted to the Councilby the United States and the Soviet Union for some indication of a willingness on both sides to seeka peaceful solution of the problem now before us. In his statement to the Security Council on 23 October [1022nd meeting], the representative of the United States stated that his Government was willing to confer with the Soviet Union on measures to remove the existing threat to the security of the Western Hemisphere and the peace of the world. In the draft resolution [S/5187] which he submitted to the Council yesterday, the representative of the Soviet Union proposed that the Council should cal1 upon the U$ted States of America, the Republic of Cuba and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to establish contacts and to enter into negotiations with the purpose of normalizing the situation and of thus removing the threat of war. In both cases the contaotti and negotiations were suggested as the final step in a wfder scheme of proposals upon whichagreement may take time to achieve. But let us make no mistake about it, the danger to peace with whioh we are faoed will not brook delay. Moreover, it cari only be dispelled by agreement, and agreement cannot be achieved without discussions and negotiations. Let us hope, therefore, that negotiations Will be entered into while there is still time. It was SO decided. The meeting rose at 1.15 p.m.