S/PV.1036 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken yesterday, l propose, if the Council is in agreement, to invite the representatives of Haiti and of the DominicanRepublic to participate, without right ofvote, inthe deliberations of the Council.

The Council will now resume its consideration of the question that has been submitted to it. Yesterday evening, after our meeting, the Secretariat received a telegram from the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States conveying, for the information of the Security Council, .the text of a resolution adopted on 8 May by the Council of the OAS reminding the Governments of the DominicanRepublic and of the Republic of Haiti of the obligations imposed by the Charter of the OAS, and authorizing the Committee established by that organization's resolution of 28 April to study the situation on the spot and to offer the parties its services in finding a prompt solution to the dispute between them. That document has been circulated under the symbal S/5312 and will certainly not have escaped the attention of the members of the Security Council. 3. The representative of Haiti has asked for leave to speak, and if there are no objections onthe part of the members of the Council, l shaH give him the floor.

On reading through the file of documentsthatI had the honour of sûbmitting to your attention yesterday, you 6. No, l was not in the least surprised that the representative of the Dominican Republic should have been unable to deny any of the accusations brought by the Republic of Haiti. The facts are so clear, so blindingly obvious, and the sinister undertaking is so transparent! The task of theDominicanrepresentative was rendered a11 the more difficult because it was before the general public, before the world-wide opinion of which you. the members of the Security Council, are the representatives, that the Republic of Haiti had denounced the criminal plan that had been hatched against the only Negro republic on the American continent. . 7. As l said yesterd!:lY, every conceivablemethodhas been used to extinguish that torch which is Haiti. Yet it is burning still, this torch which was for so long the sole symbol in the international community of the hope and honour of a11 the black peoples of Africa. Doubtless.it was deemed that, as a: result of the crisis that the Caribbean has been experiencing for several years now, the time had come to put into practice a long-cherished plan. How could there be any doubt of the existence of such a plan when, to many ·people's justified surprise, an American journalist-at a time when the OAS and the Security Councilwere considering the situation between Haiti and the Dominican Republic-was able to ask the President of the United states this strange question: "Ml'. President, do you think that the Organization of American states should take action against the régime of PresidentDuvalier?" So it would appear to be no longer the settlement of the dispute between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, but, in some curious fashion, the settlement of the "Haitian question" which is at stake. This is indeed a most revealing frame of mind! 8. In fact, it is not at a11surprising that insteaddf refuting Haiti's accusations, the Dominican representative, side-stepping the issue, should have preferred to deal-with what?-with Haiti's internaI situation, and to conclude that Haiti's complaint to the Security Council is inadmissible. For cou1d he deny that the Government of the Dominican Republic 9. The Dominican representative has sought to circumvent the issue by once again putting forward aIlegations which have been acknowledged to be groundless by the OAS committee of inquiry itself. The DoII1inican representative is again harping on the theme that the Dominican Embassy in Port-au-Prince was violated. How can it have been violated, seeing that the parties concerned gave their consent? 10. For over twenty years now, the Dominican Embassy in Port-au-Prince-lil~e aH the other Embassies, for that matter-has been requesting special protection for the residence ofthe Ambassador .or Chargé d'affaires. That is why sentinels mount guard in the gardens of the Dominican Embassy, on the insistence of the Head of Mission, who has always been particularly considerate to the soldiers. Can Mr. Bobadilla, the Dominican diplomatie agent, deny that he himself frequently invited the soliers into his quarters and gave them something to eat? In view of aIl that, can it be asserted that this was a case of violation of an Embassy? It i8 the custom in aIl Latin American countries for one or two soliers to be detailed to watch over the residence of a Head of Mission, and the Heads of Mission always make"a point of asking the authorities for this favour. When they consider that the presence of a soldier is unnecessary, they ask the police authorities to canceL the arrangement. The Dominican Chargé d'affaires has, however, never approached the Haitian Government for any such cancellation, and has never so much as expressed disapproval, even orally, ofthe presence of a guard in the Embassy courtyard. Hence the 'Embassy was not violated. 11. Moreover, is there any cause forsu..rprise in the fact that the accusations of the DominicanGovernment are fantastic and mendacious? There is a wellknown precedent which illustrates the bad faith displayed by this Government towards the Government of the Republic of Haiti. On 28 August 1962, the Dominican Government alleged that a military jet aircraft had been lost over Haitian territory. What is more, the Raitian Government was accused of keeping the pilot confined in the national palace after it had confiscated the aircraft. This accusation was made in a note signed by Luis Amiama, Consul of the Dominican Republic in Haiti, on behalf of his Government. Shortly afterwards, however, it was learnt that the pilot had sought refuge in Havana, where he had been granted asylum. The Haitian Governmentwas the victim of a campaign of defamation in connexion with that incident. This gives sorne idea of the irresponsibility of the Dominican officiaIs, who did not hesitate ta concoct the worst possible accusations against a neighbouring country, without the slightest proof. 12. As can be seen, the so-called violation of the Dominican Embassy is nothïng but a piece of playacting, stageQ., it must be admitted, by a master, and the haste with which President Boscl;1 issued his 13. Furthermore, in the midst of a "patriotic campaign", of a "patriotic mobiUzation"-for had not Dominican national dignity been profoundly outraged, according to the Dominican leaders?-we see strikes breaking out, (on Tuesday the strike ofcivil servants), which are symptomatic of the highly unsettled conditions obtaining in the Dominican Republic. In the midst of a "national struggle", this is strange indeed. The sagacious Dominican people are apparently under no illusions about the rash undertaking in which it is the intention to entangle them. 14. The Dominican representative is also accusingthe Haitian Government ofhavingfailed to keep its promise to let those who sought asylum leavethecountry. This allegation is patently unfounded. In this case also, the Dominican Government has by its intrigues sought to heighten the tension between the two countries as much as possible. The Dominican Chargé d'affaires at Port-au-Prince has vacillated and has refused to band over the Haitians who had sought asylum in his Embassy to the Colombian diplomatie mission, which has been responsible for looking after Dominican interests in Haiti since thebreakin Haitian-Dominican diplomatie relations. By attempting to set up a bicephalous representation, theDominicandiplomat, whose intention was to hide behind the Ambassador of Colombia, inevitably delayed the departure of the persons who had sought asylum, for in the. circumstances the Government of Haiti could deal only with the Ambassador of Colombia. We should like to point out, however, for the edification of all concerned, that the Haitian Government has already granted safeconduct and passports to some fifteen persons who had sought asylum in the Dominican Embassy, as well as to persons who had soughtasylum in other LatinAmerican Embassies. The number of departures is ninety-three or thereabouts. 1 understand from a telegram that 1 have received from Port-au-Prince that there have been forty-two departures this veryday. Nothingcould more clearly show the bad faith and the tendentious activities of the Dominican Government. IS. More curiaus still are the argumentsadvanced by the Dominican representative to explain the powerfui military forces deployed by his country along the frontier. They are there, he says, not to invade Haiti, but ta repel any groups of Haitians that might cross the frontier. This is not without its comic side. Did net the Dominican representative himself read out the text of the telegram containing the ultimatum from 16. Actually, none of the arguments of the Dominican representative would deserve the slightest consideration were they not backed up by the firm intention ta deal a mortal blow to the Negro Republic of Haiti. In that case, why should not Haiti appeal to the highest international authority? And, since right is on its side, why should it not avail itself of this weapon which a weak nation is justtiied in using in order to defend its sovereignty, to protect its threatened independence and to demand that the prî..'lciple of the equality of States be respected? 17. In that cOlmexion, the Dominican representative singularly restricts the scope of Article 52 of the United Nations Charter. Paragraph 4 of thatArticle clearly states: "This Article in no way impairs the application of Articles 34 and 35." Now, Article 34 states: "The Security Council mayinvestigateanydispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction 01' give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security." The provisions of Article 34 are further strengthened by those of Article 35, paragraph 1 ofwhich lays down that: "Any Member of the United Nations may bringany dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention oftheSecurity Council or of the General Assembly." The provisions of Articles 34 and 35 are therefore quite clear, as clear as the nature of the dispute between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. In view of the prevailing crisis in the Caribbean area, and in view of the nature and extent ofthe provocations by the Dominican Republic and of the fact that the latter has begun to carry out its threats of aggression against Haiti, there is danger of a vedtable conflagration, which could affect peace in the continent and in the world. 18. Moreover, although in legal doctrine it is recognized that the conceptof a regional agreementassumes the existence of a convention, it is also considered that in its ideal form that concept implies the setting up of controls by a higher international authoritywhich ensures that the individual agreements are consistent with the broader arrangements of which they are a constituent part. 19. The Governmed of Haiti, being anxious to safeguard its independence and to defend its territory' s threatened integrity, has availed itself of its legitimate right to appeal to the United Nations Security Council. It has every confidence that its complaint will be duly considered by the members of the Council. If, however, the Council should deem it advisable, despite the exceptional seriousness of the situation, to await the results of the OAS peace mission, in conformity with

The representative of the Dominican Republic has also asked to address the Council. and li there is no objection from members of the Council, 1 shall now caU upon him. 21. MI'. VELAZQUEZ (Dominican Republic) (translated from Spanish): 1 do not propose to engage in polemics with regard to the fresh aUegations made by the representative of Haiti. My statement yesterday was the definitive expressionoftheDominican position. 1 do, however. wish emphatical1y to deny al1 the untruths which have been uttered before thia Council in justliication of Haiti's attitude. 22. 1 should also like to take the opportunityof pointing out the weakness of Haiti's argument that the fundamental cause of the crisis between the Dominican Republic and the Republic of Haiti was the former' s intent to destroy the only NegroStatein the Americas. This is undoubtedly a vain attempt to divert attention from the'real crux of the problem. Suchan aUegation. such childish demagogy. is completely absurd-so absurd that it scarcely merits an answer. The Dominican people have a high regard for the Haitian people, particularly at a timewhenthey arewrithing in anguish under a régime which subjugates and martyrs them. It should be emphasized that racial antagonisms have never existed in the Dominican Republic, nor could they conceivably exist, since the population is composed of people from both races, who live in a close community of interests and feelings. 23. The crisis which has arisen between theDominican Republic and the Republic of Haiti is due, not to any aUeged, and absurd, racial reasons, but to the innumerable acts of hostility, systematic provocations and affronts to the dignity of the Dominican State, culminating in the attack on theDominican Embassy at Port-au-Prince. the seizure of the refugees there and the military occupation ofthe Embassy-unwontedacts which have not been and cannot be denied. 24. 1 shall not list the series of provocations and affronts which have gradually brought Dominican- Haitian relations to their present state of total disintegration. 1 do, however, want to emphasize that the root cause ofthis total disintegrationlies in the actions of the Duvalier Government, which wishes to maintain its l'ule at any cost. regardless of the means, and whose régime seems unable to coexist with others of a democratic cast, and least of all with the régime that recently emerged in the Dominican Republic as the result of elections in whichthe peoplefreely chose their leaders. 25. It should also be emphasized that the Dominican Republic has no aggressive designs on the Haitian 26. The Dominican positionwith regard to the solution of the dispute brought before the Security Council at the request of the Haitian Government is as already stated here. 27. The DominicanRepublicdoesnotseewhatreasons prompted the present Haitian régime to bring before this Council a problemwhich. because ofits geographic context and also by virtue of international arrangements to which both countries are parties, is in the bands of the Organization of American states. Wefeel that the whole purpose of the present Haitian régime in seeking to remove the matter from the jurisdiction of the OAS has been to divertworld attentionfrom the true origin of the dispute. in a vain attempt to win sympathy, which is unlikely to beforthcominginthis case, consid;:-ring the conduct of the presentHaitianrégime. deplorable from any standpoint. 28. Since. the!'efore. the matter has been referred to the OAS. the Dominican Republic considers that the latter should continue its work. as it is doing at this very moment. along lines which we aIl hope will be effective in restoring harmony between the Dominican Republic and the Republic of Haitias soon as possible.

Ihave before me a list of speakers. the first of whom is the réJpresentative of Venezuela. l calI upon him. 30. Ml'. SOSA RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela) (translated from Spanish): This meeting of the Security Council has been convened at the request of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Haiti in a telegram dated 5 May 1963 [S/5302]. in which he states his complaint against the Dominican Republic. 31. The Venezuelan delegation is surprised that this telegram make!3 no mention of the action alreadytaken and still being taken by the Organization of American States for the pacifie settlement of this question, although the Government of Haiti has not only accepted the jurisdiction of the regional agency in its dispute with the Dominican Republicbut has actually expressed approval of the referral of the dispute to that regional agency for solution. This is shown by the terms of the telegram dated 29 April 1963from the Presidentof the Republic of Haiti to the Chairman of the council of the OAS and also from the terms of the telegram dated 28.April from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Haiti to the Secretary General of the OAS. The two telegrams are reproduced in annexes 11 and 7 respectively of document S/5307. which has been circulated to the members of this Council. 33. Thus it is clearly established that both States, in compliance with obligations contracted under the relevant regional arrangements. have accepted the jurisdiction of the OAS. 34. Moreover, the action takenbythis regional agency in the current dispute is perfectlywithinthe letter and spirit of Article 52, paragraph 2, oftheUnited Nations Charter. 35. When the matter was referred to it, the OAS immediately took thenecessary steps to bring about the l'Rcific settlement of the dispute, in accordance with the aims and purposes of the OAS Charter, signed at Bogotâ, which are identical with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations Charter. This initial action by the regional agency is described in the document already mentioned [S/5307]. 36. Yest~rday the OAS. with the parties concerned, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. not participating in the vote in accordance withthe rules ofprocedure, 00- animously adoptedthe following resolution: "The Cooocil of the Organization of American States. "Acting provisionally &s Organ of Consultation, "Having heard the information given at the present meeting by the Chairman of the Council of the Organization, acting provisionally as Organ of Consultation, concerning recent developments in connexion with the current situation between theDominican Republic and Haiti. "Considering the progress that has been made so far towards reducing the tension between the two coootries, "Considering that despite that progress it is clear that situations liable to affect peace and security still exist, "Resolves: "1. To make a further urgent appeal to the Governments of both parties to continue their valuable cooperation, in a full spirit of continental solidarity, in the efforts being made by the. Organ of Consultation. and to refrain from committing any act incompatible with the obligations imposed by the Charter of the Organization ofAmericanStates not to have recourse to threats or the use of force except in the case of self-defence. and to submit all international dIsputes to the pacific procedures for settlement provided for in the inter-American system; "2. To authorize the Committee established bythe Organ of Consultation by its resolution ·of 28 April 1963 with the task of studyingon the spot the current situation between the Dominican Republicand Haïti ta offer the parties its services in finding a prompt This is the resolution, now published in United Nations document S/5312, to which the President of the Coooci! referred a few moments ago. 37. It is obvious, therefore, that the OAS is not only dealing with the matter with the consent of both parties to the dispute, but has already taken aIl measures so far required to bring about the pacifie settlement of the conflict. 38. Both Haiti and the Dominican Republic have signed the Charter of Bogotâ and are members of the OAS. Consequently, both coootries are boood by article 20 of that regional agreement, which states: "AIl international disputes that may arise between American states shaIl be submitted to the peaceful procedures set forth in this Charter, before being referred to the Security coooci! of the United Nations." 39. This article of the Charter of Bogotâ is perfectly in keeping with Article 52, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter, which states: "The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such'agencies"- meaning regional arrangements or agencies-"shall make every effort to achieve pacifie settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Coooci!." 40. In such circumstances, the Security Counci! can hardly disregard the existence ofthe regional arrangement. Respect for treaties and conventions is the basis of the international order, and it is therefore a function of the organs of the United Nations to ensure the observance of this princjpIe. The only exception ta this rule would be the hypothetical case of treaties or agreements whose purposes or provisions were incompatible with the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations; but in the case of the Charter of the Organization of American states, and s}:lecüically in the case of the provisions contained in article 20, those provisions not only are compatible with the United Nations Charter but in fact correspond to the provisions of Article 52, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the world Organization. 41. It is a fact that, under the terms of article 102 of the Charter of Bogotâ, none of the provisions of that Charter shall be construed as impairing the rights and obligations of the Member states ooder the Charter of the United Nations. It is also a fact that, under the terms of Article 52, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter, the Security COUDCi! may, of its own accord or at the request of a Member State, assume jurisdiction in any matter of a regional nature liable to give rise to an international conflict Or dispute. Any State member of the OAS is therèfore perfectly entitled to bring a regional dispute before the Security Coooeil, or the latter may, of its own a,ecord, assume jurisdiction in the dispute. Logically, however, such Security Cooocil action should be taken 42. Consequently, there is no reason, practical or juridical, for the Security Councn to disregard the action of the OAS in the case under consideration, and my delegation therefore feels that the proper course, in the circumstances, is for the Security Council, under the terms of Article 52, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter, to recognize this fact and to leave the matter within the jurisdiction of the OAS. 43. Today, the OAS-the pride of the nations of the American continent, which had its beginnings atthe Congress of Panama in 1826, born of the genius of the Liberator, Simôn BoUvar-is perhaps the most advanced of the regional agencies. The OAS reflects American thought and embodies American law. The OAS is worthy of the confidence of aU the American states, whose institutional llie continues to be based on the fundamental principles of Western civilization. These principles, which already existed in the law of the Americas, are the same which were subsequently embodied in the Charter of the United Nations in 1945 and in tlie Charter of the Organization of American states in 1948. 44. It is this confidence in the OAS, togetherwith the legal and practical reasons already stated, which leads the Venezuelan delegation Once again to reaffirm its view that the current dispute between Haiti and the Dominican Republic should be settled by the OAS. 45. The Venezuelan delegation welcomes the closing words of the statement just made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Haiti, in which he expresses his confidence in the OAS and agrees to the continued jurisdiction of that agency in the matter, with the reservation that theSecurity Council may later assume jurisdiction li the occasion arises. 46. Ml'. CARVALHO SILOS (Brazil):Ishouldlikefirst of aU to place on record the position of my delegation concerning the competence of the Security Council to deal with a matter which is already under consideration by the Organization of American States: 1have no doubts whatsoever concerning this competence. 47. In this connexion, 1 should like to point out that Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that: "In arder to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security...". The San Francisco Charter thus clearlyestablishes that the Council has a primary responsibility in so far as the maintenance of peace and security is concerned. 48. Article 52 of the same Charter, the Article dealing with regional arrangements, states the following in paragraph 2: "The Members of the United Nations enteringinto such arrangements or constituting such agencies shaH make every effort to achieve pacüic settlement Besides, Article 103 of the United Nations Charter reads: "!n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shaH prevail." Morover, the wording of Articles 34 and 35 clearly indicates that the authors ofthe United Nations Charter, while having a preference for the forum ofthe regional organizations, make explicit the competence of the Security Council to deal with conflicts or situations affecting States Members of such regional organizations. 49. 1 am fully aware of the provisions ofarticle 20 of the Charter of the Organization ofAmericanStates, but 1 think that it should be interpreted having in mind article 102 of the same Charter, which states: "None of the provisions of this Charter shall be construed as impairing the rights and obligations of the Member States under the Charter of the United Nations" . Article 20 of the Charter ofthe Organization of American States does not stipulate that a member State should await the action of the regional organization. This article states only that the dispute should be settled through one of the methods envisaged in the Charter of the Organization of American States. Moreover, Article 36 of the United Nations Charter authorizes the Security Council to take up at any time any dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 of the same Charter. 50. In conclusion, in our view the Charter of the United Nations does not deprive a member of the Organization of American States ofthe right ofappealing at any time to the Security Council, which ":as the "primary responsibility" for the maintenanceofpeace and security. In facto a country which is a Member of both this Organization and of the Organization of American States is highly privileged, as it may use two different bodies to speed up the peaceful settlement of disputes. The rights of that country are thus strengthened bstead of being curtailed. A double blessing is a double joy. 51. 1 now come to the complaint submitted to the Security Council by the Government of Haïti. The Brazilian delegation has studied the statements made before this Council both by the Foreign Minister of Haiti and the representative of theDominicanRepublic and has also taken into consideration not only the documents conveyed to our Council by the Chairman of the Council of the Organization of American States, but also the steps which have been taken by the regional organization with a view to reaching a peaceful settlement of the dispute. prav~ice owing to the very particular political and social conditions which have prevailed in most of the countries of the area. In dealingwiththepresent case, one should bear in mind the customary,legaland con~ stitutional background of the institution of asylum as it has evolved in Latin America. In view of the importance of the political part played in Latin America by the right of. asylum, Latin American jurists and statesmen have produced a remarkablebodyofdoctrine dealing with the subject. Itwould notbe anexaggeration to say that the existence and the practice of asylum create very special relationships among Latin American countries. 53. In view of these reasons and having in mind both Article 36, paragraph 2, and Article 52, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter, and in the light of the statement made today by the Foreign Minister of Haiti, the Brazilian delegation estimates that at its present stage, the question can be satisfactorily settled by the Council of the OrganizationofAmerican states, which, at the requestofbothparties concerned, has alreaçly taken steps to restore peace and harmony in the area. 54. MI'. QUAISON-8ACKEY (Ghana): Once again it appears that the ominous clouds of war are gathering in the Caribbean, and the forces of destruction are straining at the leash on the border of Haiti .and the Dominican Republic. In consonance with its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, the 8ecurity Council has been called upon, at the request of the Government ofHaiti containedin the telegram of the Foreign Minister of Haiti to the President of the8ecurity Council [8/5302], "to examine as a matter of urgencythegravesituationnow existing between Haiti and the Dominican Republic". 55. We are not here engaged in ideological dissertations or legalistic interpretations of either the Charter of the United Nations or that of the Organization of American States, but may 1 sayat the outset that the delegation of Ghana is in complete agreement withthe representative of Brazil, and is gratified that the 8ecurity Council, without dissent, agreed to hear the complaint of Haiti against the Dominican Republic. While Ghana subscribes to regional arrangements, 1 must point out that the Charter of the United Nations laid down in paragraph 4 of Article 52 that Article 52 should in no way impair the application of Articles 34 and 35, which emphasize the surpremacy of the Security Council in matters which affect international peace and security. Therefore any member of a regional organization which harbours a legitimate grievance has an absolute right to come before this Council for succour. This is what the Government of Haiti has done. 56. My delegation views with serious concern the existing tension between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The explosive nature ofthis tensionwas evident 57. On the Dominican side the Secretary of State for External Relations of the Dominican Republic in a telegram dated 28 April 1963 [8/5307, aimex 2J complained of a violation of the diplomatic immunity of the Dominican Embassy at Port-Au-Prince, which was confirmed by the representative of the Dominican Republic yesterday, by members ofthe Haitian security forces, which broke into the Embassy to arrest some Haitia,n refugees seeking asylum there. The Haitian Government is also aeeused of eneouragingsubvel'sive activities against the Dominiean Republic. The telegram concluded with what the HaitianGovernment considered an ultimatum, and I quote: "In view of the seriousness of the facts and circumstances described in this communication, my Government looks to the Haitian Government to give unequivocal proof, within not more than twenty-four hours from the dispatch ofthis message, ofa radical improvement in its conduct towards the Dominican Republic." 58. In paragraph 5 of his telegraphic reply (8/5307, annex 7J to the Dominican 8ecretary of 8tate, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Haiti gave an uildertaking that: "The Haitian Government will continue, as ithas always done, to ensure the complete security of the diplomatic missions accredited to Haiti and will see to the security of the staff and premises of the Dominican Mission in Haiti until it is withdrawn from the terrïtory of the Republic, in accordance withthe indefeasible standards of international law and the relevarit usage." 59. The immediate outcome of these exchanges was a rupture of diplomatie relations between the two countries. 60. The Haitian Government's complaint of troop movements and ma:;sive preparations against its territory by the Dominican Republic has been largely substantia.ted by press, radio and television reports. To quote but one example, The New York Times of 6 May reported: "[DominicanJ Army forces, supported by 8herman tanks and lighter armour and artillery, complete~ The writer then went on to locate the disposition of other troop concentrations for an attack on Cap Haitien, HaitiYs second largest city. Dominican warships were also reported to be proceeding towards Gonave Bay. From aU accounts the DominicanRepublic enjoys an overwhelming military superiority over Haiti, which adds to the seriousness of the situation. 61. It is not the intentionofmy delegation to pronounce itself on the merits of the case put before us by the representatives of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. One fact is clear to my delegation, and that is that there has been some sabre rattling and a display of force on the Haitian-Dominican border. In fact, there has been gunboat diplomacy. 62. The representative of the Dominican Republic in a statement here yesterday did not deny that the Dominic~n troops had been moved to the frontier. On the contrary, he confirmed that they were stationed there for defensive purposes, in view of the att.acks by Haitian troops On the Dominican Embassy at Portau-Prince. 63. Without in any way questioning the validity of the explanation given by the representative of the Dominican Republic and his good faith, 1 wish to underscore the potential dangers in such troop movements, especially in a period of tension and crisis. It is difficult at such times to avoid incidents which could lead to armed clashes and unnecessary bloodshed. My delegation concurs with the view expressed by the representative of Costa Rica "that these events constitute a situation that might endanger the peace of America" [Si5307, annex 3]. 64. My delegation has on previous occasions stated the principles which guide its approach to problems such as the one we are now discussing. Ghana has always maintained that the political comp1exion of a government is a matter for the people ofthat country, and 1 reiterate what 1 said before this Council on 24 October 1962, during the Cuban crisis: "... the Government of Ghana has always been dedicated to the right of peoples to decide on the political, economic and social systems of their choice, without foreign pressure. We stand by General Assembly resolution 290 (IV) whichcalls on all states: "'To refrain from any threats or acts, direct or indirect, aimed at impairing the freedom, independence or integrity of any State, or at fomenting civil strife and subverting the will of the people in any State'. "We are equally committed to the principles of non-intervention and of equality of rights in international relations. We believe strongly in the peace- 66. While we deeply deplore the unfortunate incidents which have been brought totheattentionofthe Couneil, we notice one redeeming and felicitous feature, that is, the willingness of bath parties ta resolve their differences by peaceful mean.s.They have reafflrmed before this Council their favourable response to the urgent appeal to them made by the Chairman of the Council of the Organization of American States, in a telegram dated 6 May [Si5304], "not to have recourse to the use of forceexcept in the case of self-defence and to submit aU international disputes that may arise between them to the pacific' procedures'for settlement provided for in the inter-America.n system". 67. It is my delegation's fervent hope that these undertakings will be scrupulously observed by bath countries, and that they will continue to exercise restraint and l'noderation until a peaceful solution is found. Mere protestations of peaceful intentions are not enough. They must be matched by deeds. 68. The delegation of Ghana is gratifièd to note that the Council of the Organization of American States, actingprovisionally as Organ of Consultation, is actively considering the matter and taking measures to heal the breach between the twosister countries. Furthermore, bath Haiti and the Dominican Republic have pledged their full support to the Organization of American States in its endeavours to seek a peaceful solution to the problem. As soon as the matter came before the Council, however, we received news of the evacuation of citizens of other countries from Haiti. My delegation hopes that this is a mereprecautionary measure and not an indication of any worsening of the situation. 69. It Is the understanding of my delegation that fresh moves are being made to seek a speedy and péaceful solution ta this present crisis, and in fact we have before us the telegram from the Secretary-Generalof the Organization of American States stating that a peace mission has bRen sentto the area. May 1 express the hope that these endeavours will be pursued with vigour and promptness. Wh9.t is important is that the situation should not get worse while thepeace mission is at work. We do not want ta go back to history, but there were the events in Guatemala in 1954, when the Organization of American States was involved in the . same issùe. The endled ta the downfall of that Government and this should not be forgotten. There should be 71. The delegation of Ghana therefore proposes that the Security Council should now formally appeal to both Haiti and the Dominican Republic to resort to peaèeful means to settle their differences, should exhort the Organization of American States, in conformity with Article 52 of the United Nations Charter, to continue its efforts towards a solution of the problem, should allow this item to remain on its agenda, and finally; should request thatthe results ofthe negotiations bé com.'1lunicated to the President of the Council and to the Secretary-General. Meantime, as 1 said before, nothing should be done by any party concerned to aggravate the situation. 72. In concluding, 1 wish to repeat my delegation's hope that all parties concerned will co-operate and bend their energies towards an amicable settlementof this conflict, so that peace and co-operation mayonce again prevail in this part of the Caribbean. 73. MI'. FEDORENKO (Union of Soviet 80cialist Republics) {translated from Russian): The Security Council is today faced with the tense situation existing in the region of the island of Hispaniola, in the Caribbean Sea, a situation which could have serious consequences for peace and security. In his telegram to the President of the Security Council and in his statement to the Security Council, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Haiti has made serious accusations against the Dominican Republic. In turn, charges have been brought against Haiti by the DominicanRepublic. 74. The seriousness of the situation, however, does not lie inthese mutual accusations, but in the fact that on either side of the border dividing the Island of Hispaniola and off the shores of the Island, actions of a mîlitary nature are taking place which threaten to culminate in a direct military clash. The danger of these actions is particularly evident from the fact that citizens of a number of foreign nations are being hastily evacuated from Haiti. 75. Summing up the present situation, it may be said that against a background of charge and counteroharge-and to someextent under cover of these cbarges-certain events are gathering head in the 76. The degree of tension in theregionandthe nature of the even more serious events gathering head make it essential for this question to be dealt with by the Security Council üself. The argument that the matter is already being considered by the regional body, the Organization of American States, so that there is no need for the Security Council to deal with it. cannot withstand criticism from either the legalor thepractical point of view. 77. As we know, the Charter of the United Nations and the responsibilities of the Members ofthe Organi';' zation have definite priority over the charter and responsibilities of regional organizations. including the Organization of American States. This fact was pointed out, in particular, by anumber of Latin American delegations-for instance, that of Brazilduring the second part of the sixteenth session of the General Assembly. It has also been stressed by speakers at today's meeting of the Council. 78. It follows from the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter that regional agreements or regional agencies and their activities are permissible only when they are compatible with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. They may not. indeed must not. be a hindrance to the exercise of the rights and the fulfilment of the obligations of the United Nations. It is noteworthy that article 102 of the Charter of the Organization of American States provides: "None of the provisions of this Charter shaH be constru,ed as impairing the rights and obligations of the Member States under the Charter of the United Nations." 79. Moreover. it can be seen from the practice of the Security Council and other United Nations bodies in recent years that the United Nations has repeatedly considered issues arising in the region in which the Organization of American States functions, whetheror not the particular issue was at the time being considered by that organization. 80. We also wish to point out that the question now before the Security Council goes far beyondthe framework of the internaI relations, as itwere,of the inter- American organizatioil and is basicaHy an issue which cannot fail to interest the entire United Nations. and particularly the Security Council, whose main task it is to ensure peace and international security and to avert any military conflicts and the threat of such conflicts. 81. The situation that has arisen in the relations between two States-the Dominican Republic and Haitiarouses very serious concerne \Ve do not intend to go into the details of the dispute between these two States. Everyone knows what kind of régime the Duvalier rêgime is. and the Soviet representative is the last who can be suspected of any special sympathies 83. The members of the Council are alreadyacquainted with the account given here of the formal sequence of actions on both sides. It i8 equally well known, however, that the true cause of the present complications on the island of Hispaniola is a tangle of contradictions created in the region by policies and actions of wider scope. We have been told here that what is going on inHaiti is intolerable for any civilized Sta.te and much to be deplored. Wefind, therefore, that no State member of the Security Council shows any marked desire to identify itself with Haitian domestic policy. But we must ask why it has proved possible for such repressions and l;he like to occur. And in this connexion a number of highly interesting facts inevitably come to mind. 84. It is common knowledge that for nearly two decades the direct responsibility for Haiti's initiation into, what is called "Western democracy" was borne by one country and one country alone, the United States of America. From 1915 to 1934 this tutorial role was played by the United States Marines, who, nôt in any figl,ll'ative sense. but quite literaUy. occupied the country; After the Second World War, 'the United States gave $95 million to Haiti, and almost haU of this sum, as the United States Press itself admits, . was given directly to the Duvalier rêgime. As early as 1949 the United States concluded an agreement with Haiti for a United States Air Force mission to be sent there. In 1955 a United States mission was sent to Haiti to train land forces. FinaUy, in 1958, under an agreement concluded directly with the Duvalier Government, the United States sent to Haiti a mission made up of officers of the Marines. These missions continued training the Haitian army untU very recently. 85. We realize, of course. that some apparently nalve persons might ask what specific bearing aU this has on the question being considered by the CouncU. 1 should like in this connexion te draw the attention of Council membl'lrs to a sta~ement by Louis Dêjoie, a member of the Haitian opposition, made as recently as 4 May and reported in The Washington Post of 5 May. According to that newspaper, Mr. Déjoie blamed the United States for much of the situation that existed today and saidthat more than $2 million in military equipment had been sent to Haiti in the past few years, and had been put to good use b~ Duvalier. 86. New let 1.1S look at the latest issue of U.S. News &'World Report, dated 13 May-inAmerica they some": 87. The picture that emerges is at first sight rather odd. How could such a strained situation threatening even armed hostilities develop between Haiti and the Dominican Republic when both these countries learned the principles of "democracy" from the same teacher? 88. The situation on the island of Hispaniola is really serious and fraught with dangerous consequences. But the danger arises not only, infact not so much, from the attitude of the Government of the Dominican Republic to the Duvalier régime. As a Japanese saying puts it, crabs play their little games too, but are careful not to show themselves out of the water. It appears, though, that this saying is only partly true, because as the events it has instigated develop, the party most closely concerned, the United states, is beginning to act more and more in the open. Referring to the United States actions, The New York Times of 29 April stated the following: "Of deeper concern to the United States as well as to the newly inaugurated Dominican Government was that President Duvalier's battle for survival against his opponents at home might lead to a complete breakdown of authority and an extreme Leftist revolution. " You could not put it plainer than that. 89. In the light of these facts it becomes clear why the Haitian shores should suddenly be visited by the United States Navy, which, as we are given to understand, may at any time land Marines, and not for tourist amusements, l dare say. The object of this blatantly provocative action, this completely undisguised intervention by the United States, is to dictate the direction in which the internaI political life of another country, Haiti, should develop. Acting on its own and through those who choose to act as its obedient servants, the United States has resorted to flagrant blackmail and threats of force, meddling in the domestic affairs of a country of Latin America. 90. The fact that the United States Navy, nowmassed off the Haitian shores, is preparing for direct intervention in the situation now prevailing inthe region, is ope:lly admitted by the entire United States Press. The magazine Time of 10 May-again anticipating the date-describes this in the epic manner: "Just over the horizon stood a U.S. Navy task force, "-and let me point out that it is still there today, only much closer~"and Marines aboard the aireraft carrier Boxer were prepared to land, if necessary,,,-and the following explanation we shall leave to the magazine's own conscience-"to save 92. In other words, to sum up, the United States, in interfering in this tense situation, is prompted, not by any hypothetical desire to strengthen democracy in Haiti, as it sa often likes to say, but by a desire to suppress the democratic forces in that country. It is prompted not by the wish to save American lives in Haiti, but by the wish to protect American capital there. 93. But we ask why, on what gl'ounds, the United States decided that it could intervene uni!aterally in the situation, which was dangerous enough as it was. Why did the United States assume these police functious and send its Navy to Haitian shores-the aireraft carrier Boxer, with dozens of aircraft on board, and· other warships carrying landing craft and Marines? Who gave the United States the right to stage this show of force and threatenthe actualuse of force, to dictate to another country the precise direction its internaI developments should take? 94. Only the day before yesterday, at a meetingof the Security Counci! devoted to anotherproblem. attention ,vas drawn to the fact thatthe UnitedStates Sixth Fleet i8 now conducting a show of force in the Near East. Today the Councilfinds that the UnitedStates is making use of its Navy as a direct threat in another part of the world-off the shores of Haïti. Perhaps the United States wants to reintroduce the ill-famed institutionof gunboat diplomacy. But the time when the lawless pursuit of this policy was tolerated has long since passed. 95. The United States, asking no one's permission, sees fit to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries, ordering 'its Navy to proceed to foreign shores for purposes of provocation. Butthis is nothing but an open violation ofthe UnitedNations Charter, for the Charter says that all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force. If the position and the logic of the United States were to be adopted by others, any country couldopenly threaten to use force against any other country if events in the latter were not to its liking. 1 think there is no need to prove that sULh a policy is completely alien to the spirit and principles of the United Nations Charter and may lead into ve:L'Y dangerous waters. 96. In thsse days when we are commemorating the eighteenth anniversary of the victory over fascism in the Second World War, the priee of peace should be very clear in our minds. 98. There can be no doubt that the main condition for the elimination of the existing tension is the immediate withdrawal from the land and sea frontiers of Haiti of aIl land, sea and air forces, in order to remove any possibility of armed hostilities in the region; and also the immediate cessationofall foreign intervention in the domestic affairs of Haiti, which can and must be settled by the Haitian people alone. Such action would clearly be in the interests of the peoples both of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and in the interests of the peoplesofotherLatin American countries and of aIl the peace-Ioving peoples of the world. 99. These are the measures whichwe believe must be taken without delay if we are to eliminate the serious threat to peace inthe region ofthe island of Hispaniola.

Certain members of the Security Council and the Haitian Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is to leave New York tomorrow morning, have expressed thewishthat our consideration of the question might be concluded this evening. 1 am informing my colleagues of this because our meeting might weIl extend beyond the usual time. 1 apologize tothemforthis in advance, and 1hope that they will not object to it too strongly. 101•. Ml'. YOST (United States of America): 1 should perhaps sayat the outset that 1 am always gratified by the faithfulness and attention with which our Soviet colleague reads the American Press. 1can only recommend, hopefully, that he continue to do so with somewhat more thoroughness and objectivity. However, Ido find it most unfortunate that he so often insists on introducing the cold war, with its familial' and baseless accusations, into the deliberations of this Council. Such behaviour, together with the extravagant Soviet use of the veto, is hardly likely to strengthen public confidence in the dignity and seriousness of this Council, to the successful functioning of which the United States, for its part, attaches such outstanding importance. 102. To turn to the business before us, the situation which confronts the Council has been fully presented, and 1 shall be brief. The representative of Venezuela has given us an excellent analysis of the juridical questions involved, particularly as to the rights and obligations of members of the Organization of American states. The representative of Brazil has described how the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Charter of the Organization of American States complement !Uld complete each other. ' 103.. On 5 May, the Government of the Republic of Haïti requestedthat the Security Council be convened urgently .to examine the matter before us. It has been the tradition. of the United States that, except in unusual situations, a request by a Member State for meetings of the Security Council on threats to the 105. Pursuant to these procedures envisaged in both Charters, we strongly believe that the proper agency for action in this particular situation· is the Organization of American States, especially since thatOrganization has promptlyand effectively seized itselfofthe problem. As the Security Council is aware, after being seized of the problem, the Conncil of the Organization of American States appointed a committee of five members to make an immediate, on-the-spot study of theevents cited by the Dominica•• Republic. Bolïvia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and El Salvadorweredesignated members of the Committee. 106. The Committee left on the night of 29 April for Port-au-Prince, where it was received by the Haitian Government. During its three-day visit, the Committee received full assurances that the Government of Haiti wouldguaranteethatforeign diplomatic missions, their personnel and those who have availed themselves of diplomatie protection would be respected, and that safe-conduct documents would be granted so that persons in asylum in certain embassies could leave Haiti. 107. The investigationthen continued to the Dominican Republic, and four members of the Committee returned to Washington on 5 Maytoreportto the Council of the Organization of American States. The Chairman and another remained in the Dominican Republic to maintain a close watch over developments in the dis.. pute. 109. At its meeting on 8 May, the Council of the Organization of American States adopted a further resolution, which has been read to this Council and with which we are familiar• 110. 1believe that the prompt andenergetic measures taken by the Organization of American States have aIready gone far towards preserving the peace and restoring calm in that area and that they have prevented actions which might have aggravated the situation. The Organization of American States il3, moreover, continuing to give the situation its active attention and to report fully and promptly to the Security Council on this dispute, pursuant to Article 54 of the Charter. 111. In closing, 1 should once again like to stress the harmonious inter:..elationship between this Council and the Council of the Organization of American states in dealing with important questions affecting the maintenance of peace and security. Prompt action by the latter in a regional dispute is appropriate and is clearly the procedure envisaged by the United Nations Charter. In the opinion of myGovernment, for the reasons we have put forward, the proper course is for the Organization of American states to continue the laudable and effective efforts it is now making to resolve this dispute.

There was no dissent in the Council regarding the fact that the dispute which has arisen between the Dominican Republic and the Republic of Haiti was of such a nature that it might endanger peace and security in the area. The Security Council therefore agreed to consider the matter when this was requested by one of the parties concerned. 113. It is to be hoped, however, that the peak of the tension may already have passed. The ominous and extremely short-term aspects of the dispute, which were in the foreground towards the end of last week, are now, we feel justified in believing, somewhat in the background. The most immediate threat of an armed conflict therefore appears to be over. 114. My delegation further finds it encouraging that both parties have expressed their willingness to cooperate with the Organization of American States with a view to reaching a peaceful solution. Throughout the years the Organization of American states has proved to be an important peace-keeping instrument for settling disputes and conflicts in the area which it embraces. This was also appreciated at the time when the United Nations Charter was worked out, as the Charter, directly inspired by the Organization of 116. pursuant to the provIsIons of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council has been kept informed of the energetic efforts made by the Organization of American states to achieve an honourable and peaceful settlement of the dispute which has arisen between two of its members. In the view of the Norwegian delegation these efforts have been fully in line with the proud traditions of the Organization of American states. The Norweghn delegation believes that in the circumstances the procedures initiated by the Organization of American states offer the best prospects for a peaceful settlement. They should be ,allowed to continue unfettered. My delegation sincerely hopes that the Organization of American states will be successful in its efforts, and will be able to report to this effect to the Security Council. In the meantime, we encourage the parties to restrain themselves in words as well as in actions in order to facilitate this task of the Organization of American states. 117. In conclusion, 1 want to state that the Norwegian delegation has limited itself strictly to the dispute bètween the Dominican Republic and the Republic of Haiti which is before the Council. My delegation has not feIt that it was called upon to comment on other aspects of the difficuIties with which the two countries and their peoples are faced, andto which, in particular, one of the parties concerned made reference. 118. Ml'. JIMENEZ (Philippines): My delegation has listened with deep concern and great interest to the statements already made relative to the main item in our agenda, namely the complaint of the Republic of Haiti against the Dominican Republic contained in document S/5302. We have also listened attentively to the Foreign Minister of Haiti and to the representative of the Dominican Republic. 119. The present dispute between Haiti and the Dominican Republic is grave enough, in the view of my delegation, to constitute a serious threat to peace and security in the Caribbean. That a tense situation exists cannot be denied; it must not be allowed to deteriorate any further. 120. My delegation feels that Articles 33, 52 and 54 of the United Nations Charter have the utmost relevance to our deliberations on this question. Paragraph 1 of Article 33 provides that the parties to any dispute shaH, first of all, among other things, resort to regional agencies or arrangements. Paragraph 2 of Article 52 states that Member States constituting regional agencies "shall make every effort to achieve pacifie settlement· of local disputes through such nThe Security Council shall at all times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements or by regional agencies for the maintenance of international peace and security.n In accordance therewith, the Organization of American states, in document S/5301, has informed theSecurity Council of its activities regarding this dispute. 121. The two countries concerned are members of the Organization of American states andsignatories to the Charter of Bogotâ. It was therefore logical that their dispute, before it became inscribed in our agenda, was already being dealt withby the Council of the Organizatian of the American States. Already important work has been initiated by that body which, in application of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, is now acting provisionally as an organ of consultation. A fact-finding committee, formed bya l'esolution passed by the Council of the OAS on 28 April 1963, has already been sentto Haitito make an on-site investigation of the events denouncedby the Dominican Republic. Yesterday the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States informed the 8ecretary-General of the United Nations, in document 8/5312, that it had expanded the composition and the terms of reference of this Committeeto include actual settlement of the dispute between the two countries. Needless to say, the COIrl..mittee's report and efforts will be of the greatest importance to bringing about a just and fair solution. 122. My delegation also attaches importance to the fact that the Presidents of bath countries concerned expressed their willingness, on 29 April 1963, to cooperate with the fact-finding Committee formed on 28 April. This afternoon we have been glad to heal' the Foreign Minister of Haiti express anew his confidence in the Organizatiqn of American States. This spirit of regional co-operation was again emphasized in the telegram dated 6 May 1963, contained in document S/5304, from the Chairman of the Council of the Organization of American States to the President of the/Security C0l-tncil, which stated that the Council of the Organization of AmericanStates, actingprovisionally as Organ of Consultation, is continuing to study the current dispute between the Dominican Republic and Haiti and is accordingly making every effort to bring about peaceful settlement through the appropriate regional agreements and organizations. This decHaration, in the view of my delegation, carries great weight. 125. It has been debated whether a dispute between two States belonging to the Organization of American States·should be considered in the Security Councilor should first be dealt with by the regional machinery. Haiti is, of course, fully entitled under the Charter of the United Nations to bring its complaint to the Security Council, as the principal organ primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. As a practicalmatter, however, my delegation is inclined to think that the Organization of American States is in a better positionthan the Security Council to deal with a dispute of this nature. Indeed, the present dispute has already been under consideration by the Organization of AmericanStates, and this is a fact which we cannot overlook. 126. The Chairman of the Council ofthe Organization of American States has, in bis telegram dated 6 May 1963 to the President of the Security Council [S/5304], informed us that his organization is continuingto study the current" dispute and is accordingly making every effort to bring about a peaceful settlement throughthe appt'opriate regional agreements and organizations. He has rightly reminded the clisputing parties of their obligation under the Charter of the Organization of American States to submit aIl disputes to the pacifie procedures for seUlement provided for in the inter- American system. 127. Moreover, we have been informed today that, following a decision reached yesterday by the Organi- , zation of American States, a special mission is on its way to the Caribbean area, enpowered to perform whatever service is necessary to find a prompt solution to the situation. 128. It· may also be noted that both parties to this dispute have manifested a ready responsiveness to the peace-keeping efforts of the Organizationof American Sta.tes. 129. In theeie circumstances, it seems to me and my delegation that it is the better partof wisdom for the Security COUDcil to wait for the result~ of the action already taken by the regional organization before embarking on anymeasures of its Own or taking any parallel action. Indeed, it is incumbent upon the Security Council to encourage pacificsettlement of local disputes through regional arrangements or

My delegation has already had occasion, in other circumstances, to state my Government's point of view regarding the validity of the two opposing contentions: whether the Security Council has priority in considering the case submitted to us or whether the case should be kept withinthe competence of a regional o:rganization. Indeed, during the debate 1 have in mind, which took place in the First Committee of the General Assembly, certain decisions adoptedat the inter-American meeting held at Punta deI Este.!! were cïted to dispute the competence of the Committee. At that time the Committee: in spite of the differences of opinion, maintained its competence to examine the qùestion submitted to it. 1 shall merely recall my Government's position today in order to make it clear that, in view of the differences of opinion which have been expressed, we have no reason to doubt the Security Council's priority as far as. the examination of this question is concerned. 131. This does not mean that my Government is opposed to the consideration of a matter 'endangering pel,lce in a particular area of the warldby an organization especially suited to dealing with it, by virtue of its .statutes and machinery. But, in conformity with a tradition weIl established in Latin America itself,itls the international Organization which, according to internationallaw, has priority in taking up the question. 132. It has been argued that, in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter, such a question might in its early stages be kept within the competence of the regional . organization. Article 52 of the Charter, however, elucidates Article 33 and, while in its paragraph 3 it encourages the development of such orgatlizations, there is general agreement that it should net he interpreted to meanthat the international Organization could relinquish such competence, much less transfer its authority to a regional organization. 133. If there were only this first juridical argumen.t to support the thesis that our meeting is in order, 1 iNould have gane no further. But, apart from the existence of a regional organization, the incidents which have led the Government of Haïti to appeal to the SEicurity Council are serious and important enough to justify the convening of this Council andthe urgency with which the request was made and the meeting was called. 134. Obviously the principles involved in the two statements m.ade yesterday and today by the Haitian and Dominican representatives are indeed very important from the point of view of the United Nations. On the one hand we were informed, .on the basis of certain facts, that one of the most sacred principles Jj Bighth Meeting ofConsultation ofMinis;ters ofForeignAffairs of the American States, held in January 1962. 135. In the statements which have been made l have not heard any explanationwhich wouldconstitute a valid challenge to this principle. l would even refer to the pertinent manner in which sorne members ofthe inter- American organization who are also members of the Security Council have developed this point of view with considerable force. 136. Before concluding, l shall recall a sayingthat he who can do the most can also do the least. The Government of Haiti, a Member of the United Nations and a member of the inter-American organization, must naturally interpret this double membership as an enhancement, not a restriction, of its rights as a member of: an international organization. That is why, in invoking the competence of the Security Council, it has made use of that right, and we are in complete agreement with it, since it i8 demonstratinga conciliatory spirit and a willingness to co-operate. Thus, a State which can, at a giventime, bringa matter before the Security Council-as has been done this afternoon-may also consider that the situation has become' less serious and less urgent and may refer it to the organization to which the question was submitted sorne days eal 'iF~r and which, as a result of considerable efforts, ha ~ already succeeded in warding off the threat and may very likely achieve a definite and satisfactory solution of the problem before us. 137. l associate myself with the hope expressed by other delegations that the wisdom of the two Gove:çnments will prevail over the passions which dominated the beginning of the debate and the beginning of the crisis, so that the Security Council, in close association with a regional organization which is, in sorne measure, a moral extension of the Council in that region, will be able to achieve the desired solution, in full collaboration and in a spirit of positive cooperation.

My delegation has studiedcarefully the statements of the representatives .of Haiti and the Dominican Republic and we have also examined the various documents whiClihave been brought to our attention, inparticular the reportsreceived from the ChairInan ofthe Couneil of . the Organization of American States and the Secretary-General of that organization. l~\}.Almost aIl the speaker$ before me ïnthis debate baveexpressed theïr regretat the discordwhich has ari.sen betwe.en Haïti àndthe l)0lllinican Republic. The United KingdoIIl.most·sincerely Ehares this view. Only olle speaker, characteristically enough, hassought to widen the area .of âisagreem.enîand tension. Fortunately, however, this Council·can take sorne 141. For the Security Council to intervene at this hopeful stage of developments would be superUuous. It would be better for us to be guided by the provisions of Article 52, paragraph 3, of our Charter. others, including the representatives of Venezuela andBrazil, have already brought out this point and '1 think 1 need labour it no further. 142. In the interest of saving time, and with your permission, Mr. President, and that of my other colleagues, 1 am ready to waive the translation of my statement.

1 believe that the United Kingdom representative's suggestion will be favourably received, on condition that, in accordance with the usual proviso, it does not constitute a precedent. 144. Speaking in my capacity as the representative of FRANCE, 1 should like to make a brief statement. 145. 1 have listened attentively to the statements of the Haitian Minister for Foreign Mfairs and of the representative of the Dominican Republic. 1 have read with interest the various documents distributed at th~ request of each party and those addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations andto the President of the Security Council QY the Secretary- General and by the Chairman of the Council of the Organization of American States. 146. While not underestimating the seriousness of the disagreement between the Republic of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, 1 do not intend to analyse the events which have taken place or to express an opinion regarding occurrences which are at presentbefore the competent bodies of the Organization of American States. My delegation ha.s been impressed by the efforts which that organization has made and is continuing to make to arrive at an amieable settlement in conformity with the regional agreements concluded among its members, including, 1 would remind the Council, the two parties concerned. 147.. Howbeit, my delegation does not consider it useful to enter into a theoretical discussion of, the respective functions of the Security Coûncil and the regional organizatiol1s. In the present case, the '150. In my capacity as PRESIDENT 1 notethatall the members of the Council have now had an opportunity to express their views on the question on our agenda. 1 also note that no draft resolution has been submitted; indeed, it is clear from today's discussion that most members of theCouncil consider it preferable, at the present stage of the matter, to leave the initiative to the regional organization which is endeavouring to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute between two of its membèrs. Furthermore, those members have indicated here that they have no objection to that procedure. 151. 1 have no speakers on my liste Therefore, unless any of my colleagues wish to speak, 1propose to adjourn the meeting, on the understanding that, in accordance with our custom, the question to which we have devoted our last two meetings will remainon the Security Council's agenda. 152. 1 am convinced that the two parties, in conformity with their obligations as States Members of the United Nations, will abstain from any action that might compromise the success of the steps taken to bring about the prompt and peaceful solution oftheirpresent dispute for which we all hope.

1 shall'try tobe as brief as possible. In his statement, the representative of the United Kingdom spoke, among otherthings, of an attempt by one delegationtowidenthe discussion on·this question. 154. One could not help detecting a certain annoyance in his remarks,evidently because notenoughattention had been given to the role of the United Kingdom. It is qUite possible that the Soviet representative did in fact .leavesomething out. In this connexion 1 shot::!-'l like to say that this statement by the United Kingdom representative enables me to make good ·an omission, that is,ft· reminds methat apart from the United States naval forces already mentioned, the British destroyer Cavalier is aiso lying in waters off Haïti. Does not aIl this bring to mind, Mr. President, the French proverb which says that one'13appetitegrow~ with eating? 155. lexpect the gen.tlemen from the UnitedKingdom will not deny this fact, but will follow the prudent

1 merely wish ta thank you, Mr. President, and the members of the Security Council for having heard the complaint of my Government regarding the threat of aggression currently directed against it. 1 cannot conceal my satisfaction at finding that this threat of aggression is unanimously recognized and deploredby the Council. My country particularly welcomes the unanimously expressed wishes for the re-establishment of peace and security in the Caribbean area and it will collaborate fully in the efforts to be made ta achieve that objective. My country also thanks the Security Council for maintaining the question on its agenda. :

1 have asked for the floor merely to clarüy a point which the Minister for Foreign Affai:r:s of the Republic of Haiti has just expressed. 159. What the Security Council recognized in the various statements made here was not the threatfrom the Dominican Republic .but the tension which exists between the two countries. This much was acceptedby aIl the members of the Council. h The meeting rose at 7.25 p.m. AFRICA/AFRIQUE CYPRUS/CHYPRE: PAN 10 Aluandar tha Great CZECHOSLOVAKIA/TCHÉCOSLOVAQUIE: 6RTIA LTD., .~O V" SI"e~kach, CESKOSLDVf.NSKY SplSOVATEL Narodnl Trld" 9, Praha, DENMARK/JIANEMARK: N'neR.de 6, K.benhavn, FINLAND/FINLANDE: 2 Keskuskatu, Helsinki. FRANCE: ÉOITIONS 13, rue Soulllot, Paris CAMEROON/CAMEROUN: LIBRAIRIE DU PEUPLE AFRICAIN La Gërante. B. p. 1197, Yaoundë. DIFFUSION INTERNATIONALE CAMEROUNAISE DU LIVRE E.T DE LA PRESSE, Sc~gmelima. CONGO (Léopold.llla): INSTITUT POLITIQUE CONGOLAIS, B. p. 2307, L~opoldvolle. ETHIOplA/iiYHIOPIE: INTERNATIONAL PRESS AGENCY, p. O. Bo. 120. Addis Ababa. GHANA: UNIVERSITY BOOKSHOp UOIversity College of Ghana. legon. Accr•• KENYA: THE E.S.A. BOOKSHOP Box 30167. Nairobi. MOROCCO/NlAROC: CENTRE DE DIFFUSION DOCUMENTAIRE DU B.E.p.,. 8. rue Mlchaux·Bellalre. Rabat. SOUTH AFRICA/AFRIQUE DU SUD: VAN SCHAIK'S BOOK STORE (pTY.I, LTD. Church Street. Box 724. Pretoria. SOUTHERN RHODESIA/RHODÉSIE DU SUD: THE BOOK CENTRE, Forst Streel. Salisbury. UNITED ARAB REpUBLlC/RÉpUBLJQUE ARABE'UNIE: LIBRAIRIE "LA RENAISSANCE D'ÉGYPTE" 9 Sh. Adly Pashl, Cairo. :~~:::::Nr~~~:~~L~~~~B~~~ÉC::liE R. EISENSCHMIDT Sttlwanthaler Str. 59. ELWERT UND MEURER Hauptstrasse·101. Berlin·SchoneberR. ALEXANDER HORN Spieselgasse 9, Wiesbaden. W. E. SAARBACH Gertrudenstr.sse 30. Këln(1), GRUCE/GRtCE: LIBRAIRIE 28. rue du Stade, Athènes. HUNGARY/HONGRIE: p. O. Bo. 149, Budapest ICELAND/ISLANDE: B6KAVERZLUN EYMUNDSSONAR H. F. Austurstraeti 18. Reykjavik. IRELAND/IRLANDE: STATIONERY OFFICE. ITALY/ITALlE: lIBRERIA COMMISSIONARIA Via GinO Capponi 26. Firenze. & Via Paolo Mercuri 19/B. LUllEMBOURG: LIBRAIRIE J. TRAUSCHSCHUMMER Place du Théâtre. Luxembourg, NETHERLANDS/pAYS·BAS: N. V. MARTINUS NUHOFF lange Voorhout 9. 's·Gravenhage. NORWAY/NORviGE: Karl Johansgate. 41, Oslo. POLAND/POLOGNE: Warszawa. PORTUGAL: lIVRARIA 186 Rua Aurea, Lisboa. RDMANIA/ROUMANIE: Str..Aristide Briand 14-18. p. o. Bo. 134·135. Bucure~t SpAIfUESpAGNE: LIBRERIA BOSCH Il Ronda Universidad. LIBRERIA MUNDI·pRENSA Castell6 37, Madrid. SWEDEN/SUtDE: C. KUNGl. HOVBOKHANDEL Fredsgatan 2. Stockholm. SWITZERLAND/SUISSE: LIBRAIRIE pAYOT, S. A., HANS RAUNHARDT, Klrchgasse TURKEY/TURQUIE: LIBRAIRIE 469 Istiklal Caddesi. Beyoglu. UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST UNION DES RtpUBLlQUES SOVltTlQUES: MEZHDUNARODNAYA KNYIGA. Smolenskaya UNITED KINGOOM/ROYAUMl1:-UNI: H. M. STATIONERY OFfici: P. O. Box 569. tondon. (and HMSO b:anches În Bristol. Cardiff. Edlnburgh. YUGOSLAVIA/YOUGgSLAVIE: CANKARJEVA ZALOZBA ASIA/ASIE IIURMA/BIRMANIE: CURATOR. GOVT. BOOK DEPOT, Rangoon. CAMBODIA/CAMBDDGE: ENTREPRISE KHMÈRE DE LIBRAIRIE Imprimerie & Papeterie. S. à R. l.. Phnom-Penh. CEYLON/CEYLAN:. LAKE HOUSE BOOKSHOp Assoc-. Newspapers of Ceylan, P. Q. Box 244, Colombo. CHINA/CHINE: THE WORLO BOOK COMPANY. LTD. 99 Chung King Raad. lst Secnon. Taipeh, Taiwan. THE COMMERCIAL PRESS, LTD. 211 Honan Raad. Shanghai. HONG KONG/HONG·KONG: THE SWINDON BOOK COMPANY 25 Nathan Road, Kowloon. INDIA/INDE: ORIENT LONGMANS Bombay. Calcutta, Hyderabad. Madras & New Delhi. OXFORD BOOK & STATIONERY COMPANY Calcutta & New Delhi. p. VARADACHARY & COMPANY, Madras. INDONESIA/INDONÉSIE: pEMBANGUNAN, LTD. Gunung Sahari 84, Djakarta. JApAN/JApON: MARUZEN COMPANY. LTD. 6 Tori·Nichome, Nihonbashi. Tokyo. KORIA (REl'. OF)/CORÊE (RÊp. DE): EUL·YOO pUBLISHING CO., LTD. S, 2·KA. Chongno, S.oul. PAKISTAN: THE PAKISTAN CO·OpERATIVE BOOK SOCIETY Oacca. East Pakistan. pUBlISHERS UNITED. LTD.. Lahore. THOMAS & THOMAS, Karachi. PHILIPPINES: ALEMAR'S BOOK STORE. 769 Rizal Avenue, Man.la. pDpULAR BOOKSTORE, 1573 Dorotea Jose, Manlla. SINGApORE/SINGApOUR: THE CITY BOOK STORE. LTD., Collyer Quay. THAILAND/THAïLANOE: pRAMUAN MIT, LTD. 55 Chakrawat Raad. Wat. Tuk, Bangkok. NIBONDH & CO.. LTD. New Road. Sikak Phya Sri, Bangkok. SUKSApAN pANIT Mansion 9. Ra;adamnern Avenue. Bangkok. ~~~~~:6S~~:~~iEéE Jugoslovenska Knliga. pROSVJETA 5.Trg Bratstva i Jedinstva. pROSVETA pUBlISHING Import·Export Division. Terazije 16/1. Beograd. ~:~~~~~E_~~E:ÊT~~:É;ûf~)iHU 185. rue Tu·do, 8. P. 283. Saigon. EUROPE AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE: GEROLD & COMPANY, Graben 31. Wren, 1. B. WULlERSTORFF Markl,'s 5iUikusstrasse la. Salzburg. G.EORG FROMME & CO.. Spengergasse 39. Wien, V. BELGIUM/BELGIQUE: AGENCE ET MESSAGERIES DE LA PRESSE, S. A. 14,22, ,rue du Persil, Bruxelles. BULGARIA/BULGARIE: RAZNOïzNOS l, Tzar Assen. Sofia. LATIN AMERICAI AMÉRIQUE LA'J:'INE ARGENTINA/ARGEHTINE: SUDAMERICANA, S. A.. BOLIVIA/BOLIVIE: L1BRERIA Casilla 972. La Paz. Priee: $U.8. 0.50 (or equivalent Litho in U.N.