S/PV.1198 Security Council

In accordame with tbe decision of tbe Couacil taken yesterday afternoon 1 propose, wlth the consent of tbe Council, to invite the representative of Cuba to take a Seat at tbe Council table. AC &a invitation cd the President, Mr. Alvamz Tabïo Broa) took a place af tke GJUC~~~ tekle. PRESIDENT: Before 1 give tbe floor to tbe speaker on my Est, 1 cal1 on tbe representative s a draft resolution forthe c Co~ldera~on. Allo~ me to read out tbe text of tbat draft resolution: n question of armed intervention bY tbe United States of America inthe domestic affaire of tbe Dombaican Republic. “1. Ccnaemns tbe armed intervention by the United StBLes of America in tbe domestic affaire of

This draft resolutfon Will be reproduced and circulated to the members of the Council in duc course.

In circumstances which, as you Will readily appreciate, Mr. President, are particularly painful to a Latin American country such as my own, 1 should like tc begin by stating the position taken by Uruguay in the Organisation of American States, since, as you know, that organisation was the first international body to consider the question whioh is now before the Security Council. 6. Wfth fne news of the serious events cccurring in the Dominican RepubliC durmg the last week of April, and in particular the landing by a force of 400 United Stak?s Marines for the declared purpose of carrying out a hmnanitarian operation of protectionandrescue, the Couucil of the OAS, aoting on a proposal by the Govermnent of Venezuela, decided to cal1 a Meeting of Consultation of Mlnisters of Foreign Affairs of the American States. 1 should like to point out that this Meeting was net convened under article 6 of the Interdmerican Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Treaty of Rio de Janeiro), which authorizes the convening of the Organ of Consultation in the event of aggression or any other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of America. but under article 39 of the charter of OAS, that is, “in order to consider problems of an urgent nature and of common interest to the Amer-ican States’*. 7. Of the nine Meetings of Consultation which have been held SO far, only two-the fourth snd the fifthwere convened under the terms of article 33. The other seven were called in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro. The dffference is or may be sigcfficant in a given case. 8. 1 shall net cnter into a detailed account of the events which are the cause of our present concern. They are a matter of public knowledge and were reviewed in detail in the three statements made at the 1196th meeting. My couutry opposed the request to convene the Meeting of Consultation, on the gound that the regional organisation was not authorised to take action in respect of tbe civil conflict taking place in the Dominican Republic, since it was a matter that came exclusively within the domestic jurisdhtion of that State. The information available at the time gave no reason to consider the situation capable of threatening the peace or security of other States in the continent. Nevertheless, the United States forces havfng already been landed, Uruguay announced. through its representative in the OAS, the displeasure of the Uruguayan Government, based onthe traditional y Subeequencly ckcuhted as document S/6328. %y Covernment is deeply disturbed at the tragic events and bloodshed of the past few days in the Dominican Republic, which bave struok at the body and seul of a people SO close and dear to all of us. Despite the gravity of the occurrences at Santo Domingo, the Covernment of Uruguay does not renounce its hope that at tbis important American juncture a11 Covernments of the continent Will fit all their actions to the norms of international law and conduct themselves strictly in accordance witn the multilateral juridical procedureslaiddown inthe in’ter-American system.” 9. When the meeting was convened, Uruguay first reiterated these fundamental reservations and again repudiated the a& of intervention carried out in contravention of articles 15 and 17 of the OAS charter. It then voted in favour of the draft resolution establishing a mediation commission on the understandii that the inquiry which was to be one of its tasks should not extend into matters which continued to rest wlthin the sole jurisdiction of the Dominican people. but should primarily concern the grave armed situation which had arisen owing to the landing of forces of an American State. 10. My country’s position rests squarely wlthin the stricte& juridical tradition of Latin America. The charter of theOrganizationofAmericanStates, adopted in 1948, represents the culmination of a long and sometimes arduous process aimed at formalizing certain basic guarantees without which inter-American comity facedthe danger, as history had demonstrated, of falling either into anarchy or under the despotic rule of the strongest. And the very heart of that whole system of guarantees was to be theprinciple of non-intervention. 11. The hlstory of the efforts to achieve its acceptance is very long, extending over many decades. and 1 do not propose to abuse the patience of members of the Coumil hy recounting the various vicissitudes, the failures and the successes. Suffice it to say that in the course of the discussions, polemics and doctrinal analyses over the decades, the meaning, the scope and the significance of the principle of non-intervention were carefully clarlfied and defined. If 1 may say 60, our peoples probably possess the greatest special expertise in this subject. Each and every word in each and every provision of the OAS charter has a specific meaning. No word is there by chance or as a result of what .a Secretary of State of the United States once called, quite well-meanlngly, YheSpanlsh and Latin mind, poetic and sentimental, enjoying the 12. As a result of this whole prooess, tberefore. agreement was reached on a text. article 15 of the OAS charter, which prohibits in tbe most explicit and categorical manner any form of intervention, direct or indirect, by one State or by a group of States, for any reason whatewr-1st me repeat, for any reason whatever-in the inter& or external affairs of any other contracting State. The article goes on to say that this prlnciple probibits not only armed force, tbe most vlsibleform of intervention, but also auy other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or agamst its political, economic and cultural elements. 13. Article 17, in turn, provides that the territory of an American State is inviolable: it may net be tbe abject, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State. directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever-1 repeat. on any grounds whatever. 14. The American States agreedthat the only situation in which the principle of non-intervention might net be rigldly applied-and hence tbis is an exceptional rule whlch must accordingly be subject to restrictive interpretation-relates to measures whlch, again, are adopted in accordance witb existing treaties, that is, which are adopted multilaterally tbrough the Organ of Consultation convened previonsly and in due form, and only in such cases as are stipulated inarticle 6 of the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro. 15. In a message broadcast on the evening of 2 May 1965, the President of the UnitedStatesexplained to bis people certain aspects of the situation in the Domlnlcan Republic and offered what 1 thlnk was implicltly an interpretation of the prlnciples which 1 mentloned. and to which he referred as the prlnciples of the inter-Americansystem. This Jobnsondoctrineas lt 1s now being called-or, if you prefer, this new corollary of tbe Monroe Doctrine, is net, as indeed Presldent hlonroe’s doctrine was not. either a strictly legal doctrine or an American doctrine, if we use the Word RAmerican” in its original sense, that is. applying to a11 tbe peoples of the Western hemisphere. It cannot be regarded as a legal doctrine. for the idea it embodies-that wbile revolutions areprimafaciethe interna1 affafr of countries and for them alone to deal with, they cesse to be 80 and become matters calling for hemispberic action whentbeir abject is to establish a communlst dictatorship-seems to go beyond the body of norms existing in the interdmerican system 16. In this regard the representative of the Unlted States cited, as le& basis for tbis doctrine, the decision adopted unanimously by the American States at the Rlghth Meeting of Consultation of Minlsters of Foreign Affairs at Pu&a del Este declarlng that communism was incompatible wlth the prlnciples and objectives of the inter-American system. However, the conclusions now beingdrawnfromthisdeclaration, also cited by President Johnson in his message, do not fully correspond to the ides and purpose wltb whlch the resolutlon in question was adopted. The only conclusion to be drawn from resolution VI of the Punta del Este Meeting of Consultation wasthat of the exclusion from orgaus of the interdmerican system of the Cuban Covernment or of any other Covernment associated wlth the same ideologlcsl or politlcal system. No single Word in tbls resolutlonand let me say in passing that this was the most extreme decision ever adopted in the inter-American system on a matter of general principle-allows the resolution to be regarded as authorising the type of action wbich bas been carried out or which might be carried out in the future in any of our countries. 17. When thls issue was dlscussed in the Flrst Commlttee of the General Assembly at the Sixteenth Session, 1 made the following statement on behalf of my delegatfon: Wruguay wlshes to state clearly that in no case and from no point of vlew cari the resolutions adopted by the Eighth Meeting of Consultation be regarded as acts of aggression against Cuba. This would violate net only the provisions of the Charter, whlch qualifies as unlawful any aggression which is not ln response to unlawful aggrassion, but also the principal inter-American treaties wbich emphatically enjoln our States to settle their controversies, whether they arisebetweentweoramong more than two of them, by peaceful meaus.” 3/ 18. 1 also said-and this is precisely the point at issue now-tbat tbe deolaration of lncompatibllity approvso at Punta del Este was in no way an act of intervention and that my country. which had acted as host to the hlstoric Montevideo Conference of American States in 1933 where this principle was recognlzed by all 19. Neither cari my delegation agree that the doctrine expounded by President Johnson and reiterated here by the representative of bis Govermnent may be considered at this juncture to be a oommon doctrine of the American Republics. Thls doctrine-like ite remote predecessor, the Monroe Doctrine. and like the first corollaries to that doctrine, the Olney corollary and the Roosevelt corollary-is a statement not alone of policy, as 1 believe 1 have shown, but of a purely uuilateral policy formulated on its own responsibility by the Govermnent of the UnitedStates. 19. la reprise puisse doctrine doctrine, la premiers Olney ment crois rigoureusement sabilité 20. 1 also wish to stress that the Government of Uruguay does not agree with the implications of this doctrine and Will express its viewb whenindue course th6 mat-ter is raised in consultations betwee- .he Latin American countries. Moreover, my delegacion does not agree-and it Will state its position at the Meeting of Consultation-that this doctrine is applicable indirectly to the continent as a whole. at least in its present formulation. 20. ment I’interpr&ation le moment prétation entre formulera Gouvernement il fera Réunion &.re Brig& continent qu’elle 21. Before oonsidering what possible courses of action might result from the present discussion in the Council, there is one comment which 1 feel it is essential for me to make. 21. éventuelles délib6rations pr6cision 22. sentant toujours, réserves p6tence de ce que nous prioritaire 22. In the statement made yesterday by the representative of the Unlted States. to which I listened with the attention which bis statements always deserve, some reservations were expressed, not perhaps about the competence of tfio Council, but at any rate about the existence of what we might term an overriding competence of tbe regional bodies. 23, discussion B affirmer quant connafire troverse mettre sécurité est ganisme &#voque graphe Nations la situation contraire I’Article 23. While 1 do not intend to embark on a doctrinaire or theoretical discussion, 1 wish to state that my delegation has no doubts as to the competence of the Security Council to inqulre now and in the future into any dispute or situation the continuation of which may be a threat to the maintenance of peace and international security. even if the dispute is at the time under consideration by a regiohal body. This authority. which the provisions of Article 52, paragraph 4, and Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter of the Unlted Nations clearly confer upon the Cou&l. is even more appropriste when the situati& involved appears prima facie to contravene international law aad. in particular, Article 2, paragraphs 4 and 7, of the Charter of the United Nations and articles 15 and 17 of the charter of the Organization of American States. “My country combines membership in the United Nations with membership in the Organization OP American States. in the belief that the principles of the regional system and the safefards which it offers cannot be invoked in order to prevent States from having direct anu immediate access to the jurisdiction of the United Nations or to dayrive them, no matter how temporarily. of the protection of the agencies of the world communlty. The legs.1 protection afforded by both systems should be combined. never substituted for one another. “The negstive decision adopted hy the Securiiy Council constitutes a very serious precedent for the countries of Amer!-a since its result mustbe to diminish OP delay, SO far as they are concerned, the respective application of the juridical safeguards against aggression established in the Charter of the United Nations.“q 25. There are, S is truc, a number of precedents; examination of the more recent precedents Will show. however. that they are net derived from identical cases. For example, when in July 196L the Security Council heard a complaint by Cuba agaiust the UnitedStates of America, a resolution, under which it was decided to adjourn the consideration of the question pending the receipt of a report from the Organisationof American States, was adopted without a dissenting vote 1876th meeting]. At the same time, the members of that organization were invited to lend their assistance towards the acbievement of a peaceful solution andalI States were urged in the meantime to refrain from any action which might increase the existingtensions. The two sponsors of the resolution, Argentina and Ecuador, nevertheless made an explicit reservatlon to the effect that the resolutionwas not lntended either to deny the Security Council’s competence toconsider the complaint or to settle the legal question of which of the two organs, the world Organisation or the reglonal body, should first take action. The resolution noted that the question was already under consideration by the OAS and that it therefore seemed desirable to hear the latter’6 vlews SO that the Council might be in a better position to assess the problems under discussion. As the representative of Ecuador said, by taking this action the Council would not only not restrict iis competence but would be exercislng it. 26. When a further question raised by the same Government was dealt with in December of the same year, the Latin American members of the Council, Ecuador snd Chile, submitted a draft resolutions maklng specific recommendations to the Governments 1 am now referring to the most January 1964, foPLon;ing tbe hich oocurred in the Panama the regioml organisation had Security Coumil tien by the repreergency rneasuses posai and authoriz deoided sole@ in tbe Rght of practicalconsiderations, tbat is to say. as a matter of political prudence and net of priaciple. 29. 1 stated earlier my Gcvernment’s position with regard to tbe initial action taken in connexion with y did so, despite its reservations and Iegitimate a~~~~e~io~, because of the bumanitarian aim ofthe resolution and because its abject was to r-tore so in that the facts and the e facts be properly fnvestigated did SO ther words, in order to sincere support for the ideal of inter- American solidarity and of tbe peacefnl settlement of in faveur of this resolution, we did en as authorisfng the regional in matters wbich ths decide, without direction bviously not our intention t okwe tbe organisation bad taken a bandevent, contained nc EaaOViS!~~ Or a~bOrf~-from any action, tbat is b/ Ibid.. TmmIerb Yesr. Sumlemen~ Par *priI, May and Jun63 1966 30. These erpectations were not entirely fulfilled. lm-ther steps-again taken by unilateral decision wi’hout authorizatlon from the regional body-were revorted to, which shows, wefeel. thatthe organization is net in a position to uudertake, or a least to carry out effectively, the responsibiiities whlch bave been entrusted to it. Naturally, we do not wlsh to See its efforts paralyse&, on the contrary, we hope that they Will continue, slnce, after all, the presenceof the OAS Committee in that unfortunate Republic is the only presence there of law and justice and the protection they afford. 31. AS 1 mentioned a moment ago, the Meeting of Consultation is now in session to consider the adoption of further measures. 1 believe that a proposa1 to establish a multilateral force Will also be examined. 1 cannot, of course, predict the result of these discussions nor the entent of support for or effectiveness of any decisions that may be adopted. 32. In the light of what 1 have said, one possible course of action might be for the Council to request that a11 unilateral action should cesse immediately. Another might be for the Council to lend its moral authority to the cesse-fire and to the re-establishment of normal conditions SO as to enable the Dominican people, once and for ail, to exercise its sovereign right of self-determination fully and freely, wlthout threats or coercion. Another possible and, in my view, desirable course would be to support and continue to support the reglonal organisation in its present efforts and in any legitimate measures it may decide to take in the future. 33. As 1 said only a short time ago in tbls very chamber on assuming the office of representative of Uruguay on the Security Council, my country has long realized from its own hlstorical experience, which has been no less unhappy than that of other Latin Amerlcan countries. that the world must be governed by real respect for the rules of international law and morality. Without this, harsh reasons of state Will continue to be the predominant factor in international relations and the fate of small bountries Will remain precarious and uncertain. 34. Our attitude is not what some realistic minds might describe as one of sanctimonlous legality. There are very real grounds-and the case we are now considering is an example-for the small countries’ belief that strict and faithful application of juridical provisions governing what is termed security under law represents one of the corner-stones of 0111’ own security. lww far we c5a go 5nd. t still, tbe extent to wbich we second comment is a essed to the repre- 0% tbe Soviet Union. I s surprised to read those mentioned by been the scene of a landing 1 mwst confess tlmt, desplte whole li%e in mY couatay and for historical stadies. to life bas been devoted. it is éhe %irst time that 1 bave heard of the occurrence of Su& 5 faataatie event. 39. I am quite sure that MT. Fedorenko made an nt mistake and that the blame m5y Ige with on5 Bacl many documents wbich. as hetoldus yesterday, 5kays bas 5t bis disposai. 155 surethatmy inteaded to refer to tbe mita of Urnited States 42. NIr. FEECRENKO (IJmon of Soviet SOCialiSt Republics) (translated from Russianj: MY delegation bs asked for tbe floor in order to clarlfy one of tke matters toucbed upon by Mr. Carlos Maria Veblsquez, tbe representative of Uruguay, in Ms statement. We listened to his statement wlth great interest and attention. It was reasonable, sensible and to tbe point; we sball corne back to that. 1 should like, bowever, to make a sligbt correction. 43. Among tbe “papersv wbicb wsusedIsballventure to draw attention-hot on tbe scent-to one wblcb first came to Iigbt not in our couutry. not in tbe Soviet Undon. but in tbe Unlted States of America. in tb0 United States Dep ent of State; we were using rmation from a United States source. In order tbere sbould be no doubts concernlngour sources, requested the Presldent of tbe Security Couucil to clroulate as an officia1 document of tbe Security Council tbat very npaperm. for wbicb we are entlrely ludebted to tbe Department of State. It bas now been issued as an officiai document under the symboI S/6325awlth the title “Article from the UnltedStates Department of State Bulletin No. 578 of 31 JuIy 1250R. . ObvlousIy tbe Uruguayan representative was already a grown man by tbe time tbat occurred. ings la that document, of course, was before came Wo the world. in agreement there-and on the same line. headll wPurposesW, we read that Amerioan ere landed there “to protect American consulate and American Pife and property”. 45. I S.lsa invit the Uruguayan representative’s attention to No. 17 of that same document, where lt SayS tbat in 1358 Amerlcan troops were landed tbere “to protect Iife and property of foreign residents; action taken at request of reguIar Covernment in conjunction witb forces of otber powers”. 46. If. tberefore, the repres any claims on ébat account. I them in their entirety to tbe tbe Wnited States of America. if be coneiders tbat appropriate anal necessary. 4’7 Aa I bave spoken very olearly and precisely bave referred to a document wblch bas already been issued, I tblnk tbere is no needfor a oonsecutive interpretation of my remarks. 48. Tho PRESIDENT: 1 that tbe representative of the soviet Union said tbat be was raising a point of order on which I would be askedto make an immediate 50. In ouropinion, the regional agenoy sbould, accord- . to aB precedents, continue to dealw-iththe matter. country% views on tbe substance of tbe problem tbe measures required for its solution wiB @erefore b-e explained in extenso by the Bolivian delegation to the Organisation of American States. 51. TO lend greater weight to what K have said and following the example of the Counoil% action at its 1086th meeting on 10 January 1964 in connexion 1 should like to suggest, proposa& tbat it would President of the Counoil ring political groups in the Dominican RepubPic to tahe all possible measures to secure a cesse-fire andthe suspensionof hostilities; second, express the Security Council’s bope tbat tbe law and order SO tbat nd a peaceful solution to request tbe Secretaryof American States to any negotiations which adoptedbythe regional organisation. 52. There cari be no American wbo does not deplore what has bappened, but the present shedding of American blood calls for mature, calm and conclusive action ratber than inU ammatory speeches. no forma1 resolug it forward in tbe moment for tbis may belp to reduce and provide a breatbing space in whiob the be balted and tbe li SS of anger, can le t are necessary in nations and prese If-determination. 54. Lord CARADON (United once that 1 have listened with speeob wbich bas just been made by the representative of Bolivia. 1 would lihe to say immediately that I the spirit aad the purposs of the proposais which he s just put to us. We will, no doubt, return to consider hi5 suggestions later. 55. Out of the consequent confusioncertainfactshave &&y emerged. ??mm tbe informatIon available to rament, it is clear that an internal political caused a cbaotic situation. Uncontrolled e and looting in tbe capital, Saato Domingo, tbreatened lives and property, including tboseofmany foreign nationals. The only Uominican forces whicb had any recognlzable claim to be in a WSitiOn to maintain order declared their iuability to do SO. They requested the Uuited States to take steps to protect foreign nation& whose lives were in danger. 57. My Government fuRy understand, therefore, what prompted the emergency action tahen by the United States Government, and my Foreign Secretary iu tbe lieuse of Gommons yesterday bas already expressed his gratitude for United States help in evacuating Rritish subjects. 58. We welcome the efforts of the Papal Nuncio in Santa Uomingo, supportedby a number of his diplomatie colleagues, to arrange a cesse-fire. And we welcome the action of the members of tbe Organisation of Americau States in sending the Secretary General of that organisation immediately to Santa Umningo. We also warmly welcome tbe decision of the OAS tahen last Saturday to appoint a special committee of five representatives. first. to mahe the cesse-fire effective, and secondly, various factions involved 59. My delegation consider that in adoptingthe course they did the members of the OAS bave acted precisely in accordance with tbe &ns and the principles bath owu orgauization and of tbe United Nations We are confident tives of the ion to bring the fi stop andto exercise effective mediation ognized and praised by impartial observers everwhere. 60. lt is well tbat we should be reminded that Article 33 of the Charter of tbe United Nations specifically pmvides for. the peaceful settlement of db3 by regional agencies suchastheOrganiaation Of ican Statas. Under Article 36, para this Cou&l is enjoined to tahe into consi edure for settlement by the parties. Ar 9 Member States to ve pacifie settlement of local di gements before referr under Article 54. 62. It is to tbe Organisation of American States tbat we should look to find a settlement, and tben to facilitate a rapid return to normal conditions, and tben to leave the way open to the establisbment of a free government based on the wlsbes of the Dominican PeoNe. r. ALVARRZ TABIO (Cuba) (translated from 1 should like first of all to refer to wbat termed a preUminary issue wbich has been re. 64. Tbe United States representative yesterday and the representative of Bolivla today put forward the proposition-an untenable one, in my opinion-tbat there were certain limitations on action by tbe Security Council in situations, su& as the one witb which we are clealing, inwhicb international peace and security are threatenedby tbe increasingly flagrant ion against ihe nations of tbe Western is being pursued by the Covernment United States. Mr. Stevenson has vehemently asserted that the Councü. sbould refrain from taldng a decision on the substance of the question before us, in view of the fact that the inter-American regional bOdy bas been considering the matter for several days and bas already taken a number of measures. 65. Since, inourstatementyesterday [1196thmeetihg] ws clearly demonstrated tbe compelling political reasone for tbe United States delegationls attempt to sbield itself behind its ministry of colonies, we SbalI confine ourselves to analyslng its position solely in tbe ligbt of tbe relevant provisions of tbe Charter of the United Nations, wbich tbe United States representative was very carefnl not to mention. IIe knows perfectly well that tbere is no legal justification for excluding this question from Council consideration and action snd tbls explains tbe clrcumspection witb wbicb he spoke on this point. Altbougb he states tbat he welcomes the Council’s discussions, his conclusions are, as we bave said, opposed to any action by this principal organ of the United Nations. 66. Article 34 of the Charter coufers on tbe Security Conncil power ta investigate any international dispute or situation which, as in the oase of the aggression against tbe Dominican Republic, clearly represents a tbreat to every member of tbe international community. Article 34 does not tel1 us that a distinction must drawn between sources of friction which occur in areas in wbich tbere is a regional agency and those which occur in regions in wbich no su& agency exists, or that, in the first case, the CounciI sball net tske cognisance of such disputes but may take action only in the second case. Tbis would vlrtually divest the CounciI of part of its autbority, on which, 67. Although the Charter states. in Article 52, tbat none of its provisions precludes tbe existence of regional agencies, it nowbere achnowleges that thq bave primary responsibility, much less sole responsibility, for dealing witb any tbreats to international peace and security wbicb may arise in tbe area concerned. On the contrary, paragraph 4 of Article 52 prOVides that tbe Article “in no way impairs tbe application of Articles 34 and 35”, the Articles to wblcb 1 bave already referred. 68. If tbis were net considered sufficient, C%apter VIII contains other provisions, such as Articles 53 and54. m tbe natural and logical subordination of the regional agency to the recommendations and decisions of its superior, tbe Seourity Council. Tbe United States representative mentions reports by the OAS to the Council. In view ofpossible misinterpretations, it must be stressed that tbe information wbtcb tbe regional agfmcies must supply to the Council on activities undertahen or in contemplation for tbe maintenatme of international peace and security, in accordance wltb Article 54, is not and cannot be sn adequate substitute for tbe Council% direct cognlzance of tbe question, which it may undertahe wbenever it deems it necessary. In fact, under tbe provisions of Article 36 of tbe Charter, the Secnrity Counoil may take cognisance of a situation or dispute -at any stage* and may arecommend appropriate procedures Or methods of adjustment”: cases wbicb are under consideration by a regional agency are not excluded. This is made even more clear in the cases referred to in Articles 39, 40, 41 and 42. 69. There is therefore nothing in tbe provisions of Chapters Vi and VII of tbe Charter on which tbe United States delegation cari justifiably base a restriotive interpretation of tlae powers of the Seourity Council simply on tbe ground tbat one of the partiesin tbis case, as it bappens, tbe aggressor-has had recourse to tbe regional agency in order to caver np its arbitrary actions. If an ssor tbe United Nations Secur could prevent ouncil fMm beii of and from tahing deoisions witb regard to its sive actions simply by convening the regional 71. The reference made by the United States representative to Article 33 is therefore inconsisteni. axl tbe only thing he cari d0 is to admit that its provisions do not diminish the authority of the Council. It might be well to state that it is useless to invoke precedents. 72. TO summarise: first, any Member of the United Nations, whether or net it is a member of one of the regionsl agencies referred to in Article 52 of the entitled under Article 35, paragraph 1, er to brmg to the attention of the Security any situation likely to endanger the peace and aeourity of the international commun@, irrespect& of wbether or not the Member is directly involved in the situation: second, the Council, under Article 34, is fully empowered to take cognisance of sucb situations at any..stage, as provided in Article 36; third, the result of the CouncilC investigation may be either tbe recommendations mentioned in C%apter VI or the measures referred to in Chapter ” Charter of tbe United Nations; four% tbe regional agency has under consideration as or dispute as dangerous as the present one must in no way restrict the powers granted by all thé Member States to the Security Council under Article 24 of the Charter, which defines the Council as the organ baving primary responsibility for the of international peaceandsecurity, which of ail-whetherc - -st they are members of regional agencies or are dire;~iy involved in the situation in question-in carrying out its duties under this responsibility. 73. 1 rt of this opinion 1 should like to quote from roduction to the Annual Report of the Saxe neral to the nintb session of the General Assembly: V?cw example, tbe importanceof region monts in the maintenance of peace is fully d 74. Witb Olympic scorn, the United States representative devoted the wbole of bis reply to my statement of yesterday to a monotonous repetition of a refrain be must aow lmow bybesrt: first, the offensive language used in denounclng tbe unjustifiable aggression of his Covermnent against tbe Uomlnlcau EepubIio and then, tbe tbreat whioh tbe revolutionary Covsrnment of Cuba represeuts to tbe security of the bemispbere, witb tbe usual barping on the rackets episode, communist subversion, and SO fort& 75. On tbe first point, 1 would reply tbat tbe Spanisb language abords in adjectives to describs su& actions and 1 cari assure the representative of the United States Covermuent tbat I used only the most appropriate; I bave not by any means exbaustedtbe rich resources of Spanish vccabulary. It is, after all, understandable that the trutb, when coucbed in revolutionary language, sbould offend tbe ears of tbe representative of tbe most aggressive imperialist r&gime of our time, especially when it is coupled witb the fact tbat 1 represent tbe country whicb bas had to exercise tbe greatest courage and determination in confronting the unbridled fury of that r&gime. 76. 1 am reminded of some words I read some time ago wbich were written by a distinguished North American Citizen. 1 thlnk he was a former Judge of the United States Supreme Court: to paraphrase the proverb, 1 have forgotten the saint% name, but net the miracle. IIe said that tbe Covernment of the United States resembles a giant, maddened by hatred of socialism and liberation movements, who is roving abcut the world armed with an atomic cudgel with which he is prepared to oppose progress even at the rlsk of destroying buman life. Ididnotgo quite SO far. Bavlng heard Mr. Stevenson use the language of Shakespeare SO skilfully in defence of bis Covernment’s brutal acts of aggression, ‘we might saythathe waated to serve us a dessert: aggressions in heavy syrup. 77. But let us getbacktotheadjectives.We desoribed as a notorious lie Mr. Stevenson% assertion in the Council tbat tbe United States planes wbicla tcok off from United States bases to bomb tbe people of Wavana, mercilessly causing deaths amongthe civilian population, in preparation for the ill-fated Bayof Pigs invasion, were Cuban Air Force planes. We denied it bere and tbe late Presideat Kennedy was subsequently $0 confirm tbe lie. de repr&sentative considérations b-e Etats-Unis temps américains. dit la V&it& du la V&rac%8 de ses d&arations. 13. President on says tbat he is net on either sîde in the fi mg. That is not teRing tbe trutb inasmuch as it a known fact that the intervention by United States invasion forces, and particularly the occupation of San Isidro base were carried out in order to prevent the forces of the ngorillan Wessin from cmmbIing. IIe says that be wants peace ut bloodshed and he is imposing it by gnnfire. 19. parti pas d’invasion notamment que les forces Le presfdent effusion 88. We bave called President Johnson% policy in tbe Dominican Republic criminal, and that ie thc proper adjective to describe it because any act tbat violates the law is criminal. As a result of United States military action in Santo Domingo, net a single principle of tbe United Nations Charter bas been left intact: sovereign equality, territorial integrity, self-determination of peoples and non-intervention, tbe very corner-stones of our constitutional structure. Consequently, under existing Iaw, this conduct is criminal and the man responsible for it is a criminal. 89. du presidont et c’est viole forces portent la Charte souveraine, détermination pierres Par façon en porte 81. On the subject of the rackets wbichkir. Stevenson claims Cuba intended to use against the UnitedStates, 1 should like to relate a brief anecdote. On one of my visits to Mexico City, tbe beautiful capital of onr sister Republic, 1 went into one of the neighbourhood stores and found an enormous knife with an elegant bandle, and on its blade the famous words of tbe illustsious Benito Juarez: “Respect for tbe rigbts of otbers ie the essence of peace”. That is the device on our defensive weapons. They threaten nobody; tbey are intended to protect the sovereignty, independence and integrity of my country. 81. son, Cuba aurait les anecdote. la ville soxr, de la ville beau les ‘paroles pair, est Celles-ci QU% 82. communiste, portent Am&ique l’agression 82. Ae for tbe old, time-worn topic of communist subversion, everyone knows who is subverting peace and order in Latin America in tbeir a escalation towards disaster. 83. latine doctrine clairement la guerre de 83. President Johnson% policy in Latin America is the iIl-timed extension of the defunct Monroe Doctrine. which was defined in olear terms by President Polk during tbe war wi+h Mexico. IIe said: % virtue of the hionroe Doctrine, no European Power shall occupy territories in America, but there is nothing to prevent the United States from doing son. occuper s’oppose “Tlae diplomacy of tbe present administration. has sought to respond to modern ideas of commercial intercourse. Tbis policy bas been oharaoterized as substituting dollars for bullets. It is one tbat appeals alihe to idealistic bumam, ‘tarian s t5 dictates of sound polio) and str ta timate commercial aima It is fs dire&& to the increase of American trade upon the axiomatic principIe tbat the Goveroment of the Uuited States shaI1 entend aIl proper support to every Iegitimate snd beneficial American enter-prie abmad.’ In unambiguous Iauguage, President Taft thus gave solemn expression to wbat was alrrady in fact a traditional policy. 85. R :: tbe style of bis predecessors did not suit the arefined minda of President Wilson, IIe therefore hastened to disguise his imperiadist polioy under the ideological cloah of a crusade for democracy. Let us examine, for instance, bis ‘~declaration of polioy tobe followeda in the specific case of Mexico: aGo-operation [among the countries of America] is possible only wben it is sustained in each instance by the orderly funotioning of just govermeuts founded on law and not on arbitrary andilIegal force. We hold, as we thinh a11 enlightened heads of republican governments will hold, tbat jus vemment6 always rest on the consent of tbe erned and tbat tbere cari benofreedomwithoutorder based on law and public awareness and approvsl . . . We shall exert all our influence to seoure compliance with th.ose prinoiples in deed and ira prastice in tbe tbat disorder, personal intrigue and tbe of oonstitutional rigbts weshen and discredit governments and do injury to nobody more Tan to the people who are unfortunate euough to have tbeir lives and everyday affairs so disturbed and upset. We cari have no sympathy for those seehing to seize power in order to satisfy their own interests and ambition.a 86. this hypooritical messianism as a preteat, the States tivermnent orderedthobombingand occupation of Veracruz and Iater organised General Persbing~s punitive expedltion against Pan&0 Villa. 87. In the final analysis, Wilson, like Roosevelt and Taft, was an ardent champion of “dollar diplomacyn, 38. tradition que les Etats-Unis démocratie la rep5tition slficatlcn agressions 88. Today, Presidmt Johson hSS taken UP the Begacy of bis predecessors and is telling tbe world tbat tbe United States seeks to restore peace sud demacracy in the Dominican Republic.Itis arepetition of Wilsonian messianism and it is being escslated band in band ~6th tbe escalation of United States aggressinn everywhere in tbe world. 89. Les Ev6nements un fait Large publicil& tionnelle ment de 1963, a élu le colonel dent de la République ce ce pays. Cela démentit de par les porte-parole - depuis le pr&ideut sur auraient sous une domination Une fois 89. Current developments cotiirm tbat statement. I should like, for example, to refer to the faCt-fully reported last night by the Press-that a comtitutional congress held in Santa D0mlng0, acting in accordanoe with tbe provisions oftPle1~$3~mlnicanConstitution, has elscted Colonel Francisco Caamak President of the Dominican RepubIic and that, as a result, there is mw a cmstituticmal govermuent in Bat country. The whole parapbernslia of faIse and lyingstatements made by spokesmen of tbe UuitedStates Governmentfrom President Johnson to Mr. Stevenson-regarding the sinister ma&inations of Cuba and otber countries aimed at imposing some merciless and intangible fonn of foreign domination on the Domitican RepubHc, bave been categoriczdly refated by fact. Once again, tbe Pie bas been expsed. The vam R StitUtiQ~al”, whicb ME. Stevenson found SO re- P ant yesterday, is the one which spplies. 90. The situation bas been clear fmm the beginning and it is now crystal clear. On tbe one hand, there is tbe Domiïïcsn people striggling for its iudependence, its territorial integrity, . sovereignty and its Constitution. On tbe other there z-e tbe invading United States troops, ‘wgOriEasn, in connkume witb a gang of ing against the independence of the Dominican people, against tbe country% territorial integrity, agaimst its sovereignty and against its eonstltution. et elle est maintenant d’une son ind&pendance, sa souveraineté part. complicité l’indépendance territoriale sa 91. The justice of tbe Dominican peuples struggle is olearer than ever. Tbe criminal inxuvement of the Unlted States in Santo Dom&0 bas bee5 faposed more starldy tbaan ever. 91. est plus Qvidente de l’intervention 5 Saint-Domingue que jamais. 92. Witb regard to what I have just said, I should Iihe, with your permission, Mr. President, to drawtbe attention of tbe Council to certain statements made ht night b;r Hr. Juan Bosch, the same Juan Bosch , as a result of the irresponsibllity wlth which United States Gowrnment juggles faots, is being accused by that Gowrnment of hacking the sinister mac-hinations t0 which I referred earlier, 92. de d’appeler déclarations ce même irréfldchie des faits. courager déja fait allusion. 93. According to a report national, IvIr. Bosch, CO Of the ConstitutionaI G said tbat “this means constitutional gover GQvernments in Ame g0vernment is an expression of thewilpof the peoplew. NOthinw more is needed to rip off the Veil of slander 93. mations nationaI. qui a eté instauré que constitutionnel du continent ment, “The truth is tbat the constitutional forces are nOt Communists and are not under communist influence. They are in control of the situation. By themselves, they are stronger militsrily than the Wessin forces. n And he went on to say: ‘The cease-fire was vlolated by the hiarines . . . 1 do not believe in the OAS. 1 do not believe in it because the very fouudation of the OAS bas been destroyed by this invasion. v Those words are particularly enlighteningandrequire no further comment. 95. At one point in his most interesting statement, the representative of Uruguay expressed dlspleasure at the remarks 1 made yesterday concerniug tbe shameless behaviour of the OAS, repeatedly demonstrated since the Costa Rica meeting, in seeking to “legalize*’ the repeated acts of aggression by the United States. 1 respect his point of view, but 1 continue to hold the view which 1 expressed here: tb& th@ United States, by using the OAS to further its imperialist aims on our continent, has vitiated and altered the raison d%tre of that organization and transformed the latter in fact into a colonial office of the Washington Goverument. 96. This mornlng, the United States Press reported a number of otber interestlng statements by leaders of the rebellion described by the UnitedStates Government as a wcemmunistnrebellioncontrolledfromCuba. 97. However, 1 shall confine my reference to the Sharp retort of Colonel Caamaflo, the mari who bas heen appointed President of the Constitutional Government and who said yesterday: *We have nocommunist problem”, thus squarely rejectlng the charges whicb huve been made. 1 should remind ~OU chat thés Colonel CaamaIïo-who continues to emerge as a leader of the constitutionalists-is tbe same mari wbo led the original rebellion of 24 April. Consequently, it is not truc, as the spokesmen for Washington repeat ad nauseum, that the revolution has been betrayed-Mr. Stevenson% favourite phrase-nor chat deceitful agents of international Comn’udSm bave replaced the original rebels. 96. As more and more irrefutable proof came ta ligbt, the spokesmen for the UnitedStates Govermnent bave had to retreat, to swallow their own words, as Mr. Johnson himself did in bis speech Iast rd we ail know, it is not the first time this bas happened. The Unlted States Government and its spckesmen consistently seem to apply tbe famous Gcebbels theory that a lie, if repeated often enough, in tbe end Sou&s like tbe truth. This time, however, as on many otber occasions, their manœuvres boomeranged and the result ha5 bcen that, once again, they bave bsen completely dlscredited in ths eyes of the worId. mterests and without regard for me dk#ty,.sover- DXI. Tbe pretext iuvoked by the Was 5ited States bas become heir to the infiarnous Bitlerian empire. isaic dispatcb of fmd and medicine ples of tbe soverei agency, to condemn in the 6 TEVRNSCN (United States of America): I s made yesterday the representatives Soviet Union anàofCubs inst my Govexnment epresentatives of I would prefer to stions further aud ay bave wben we Bolivia and the United exmtae these speeches add what further observations resume agaiu tomorrow. 105. M0wever, a4 I e no preteace of being a milihXy historian=-indeed 1 am more interested in 106. 1 confess to feeling somewhat fIattered by bis apparent acceptance of this publication as a reliable source of information. There have been times when 1 tbought perhaps he questioned the Urdted States version of any bistory. 1 note, however, that he bas not asked that the entire contents of that section of the Bulletin be circulated. Perhaps there is a reason. CerEyone familiar with the writing of history iu the Soviet Union is aware of the proclivity to expunge from the record past events and pers& that the Soviet Government would prefer to pretend never existed. In this connexion, 1 noted recently, in tbe 6 April edition of The NewYork Times-another source which the Soviet representative frequently quotes when it serves his purpose-a report to the effeot tbat the names of Nikita Ehrushcbev and bis close associates are now being weeded out of the revised history of the Communist Par@ of tbe Soviet Union. 107. With that reminder fresh in mind, 1 am sure the representative of the Soviet Union will understand it when 1 state that 1 shall now request that the rest of the relevant contents of the Bulletin of 31 July 1950 be circulated as an officiai document of the Security CounoiI. o/ Therein, in fact, will be found the text of President T ruman% Message to Congress of 3 July 1950 on why the United States was resisting communist aggression in Korea. Let me quote what one of the deleted portions of the Bulletin says: “This mem.orandum is directed to the authority of tbe President to order the Armed Forces of the United States to repel the aggressive attack on the Republic of Eorea. “As explaiued by Secretary Acheson to the Press on June 28 as soon as word of tln? attack on Korea was received in Washington, it was the vlew of ths President and of all bis advisers that the first responsibility of the Government of the United States was to report the attacktotheunited Nations. vAccordingly, iu the middleof the night of Saturday, Juae 24, 1950, Ambassador Groes, the UnitedStates deputy representative at the Seçurity Council of the United Nations, notified Mr. Trygve Lie, the Seoretary-General of the United Nations, tbat armed forces from North Korea had commenced an unprovoked a.ssault against the territory of the Republic of Korea. nThe President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, has full control interest of the United States. Rotb ~te~~o~ law and Article 39 Charter aad the resolution pur ize th mited states t0 repel tbe ion against.tbe Republic of Korea.’ 198. peler peuvent culier, envergure gbt serve to remind tbose wïth extremes towht&Communists : in this case aIbout armed intervention in of vmrld dominion. 109. qui a venir 109. Le$ me a t, of course, 1 only raised this entirely irreLevant subject to sfford my Soviet an O~~~n~~ to use some of bis additional in exercise of bis right of re9ly. réponse. 110. obscurite d&eloppament, la en France 111. tion meurtriers Etats-Unis ressortissants évacuation. and should ha= wished to se8 to their evacuation. 112. Eowever, a5 in maay simihr cases in the past, su& operations should be Rmited in their objective, ir duration and in the scope of tbe measures thés not b8 tbe case we would bave to , owing to the dispatch and landing of a consid8rable numb8r of United States trcops, we are faced witb a genuine armed intervention tbe neoessity of which is not apparent. 112. dans opérations leur osuvre. de l’envoi considérables, véritable paIXfI 113. At the present time, net baviug h8en kdly informed of the reasons tbat stify the maintenance of intervention force Dominioan Republic, w8 cari only express tbe bo9e tbat a fratricidal war will be halted, that the Dominïcan people will b8 given an oppmtunity freely to chwse their Government and tbat tbe presence on th8 island of the troops landed tbere will b8 speedily ended. 113. des forces ne fratricide soit ment sente s position, wbich is baS8d on our attac ent non-intervention, seems to us all case tbe intervention against tbose who claim to 114. ment s’imposer vetion se réclament (Union of Soviet Socialist RepubEcs) (translated from Russian): We bave just heard a statement by the UnitedStates representative, who, aa we ail noted, discussed everything except tbe substance of the question before tbe Security Comoil, a question inconne~oawithw~chheoccupies today a speoial place on the ben&, not only as the 115. listes vention des a abordé saisis 117. The United States representative’s outcry over the State Department document circulatedbyus, wbich convlcts the United States of committing aggressive acts and interventions, his outcry over tbe Korean situation, was, as we all heard, described by the speaker himself, who said that it was ail entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. IIe does, indeed, sometimes speak the truth. It is irrelevant to the matter which we are discussing in the Security Council today. It relates to another matter, about wbich the Security Council has also expressed its opinion and on whlch the position of the Soviet Union is very well known to him. The best thing to do is to go to the original sources, to see how the country concerned sets forth and formulates its own position. 118. Our colleague has taclded something which is not his subject. IIe correctly stated that he is no military strategist and, of course, no historian. Al1 the more reason, then, to askwhy he becomes involved in something which is not his m&tier, wbyhe confuses the issue. In general the United States representative’s retort in regard to the Korean situation calls to mind the saying-if 1 may quote tbe wlsdom of the East-tbat “he acts like a blind mari who has suddenly lost his cane”. 119. Yesterday’s meeting of the Security Council fully exposed the absolute groundlessness of the United States representatlve’s efforts to justl, by hook or by crook, the barbarous violation by the United Statss of the United Nations Charter-the overtarmed intervention of the United States in the domestic affaire of the Dominican Republic, for which United States imperialism must answer before the Security Council. 120. My delegation, as members of tbe Council Will recall, put very specific questions to the UnitedStates representative directly relating to the matter which we are discussing. We noted in particular that in embarking on a criminal invasion of the territory of another country for the purpose of lntervening in its domestic affairs the United States was flagrantly violatmg the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, which reads: “Al1 Membsrs shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independonce of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with tbe Purposes of the United Nations.” It is perfectly obvious that our assessment of the inadmissibility of the use of force by the United States against the Dominican Republic was based on clear-tut provisions of the United Nations Charter. 122. Further, in stating that the armed intervention of tbe United States in the domestic affairs of the Bomiaican Republic was a flagrant violation of the Unitsd Nations Charter we also referred to Article 2. paragraph 7, of the Charter, which categorically prohibits such intervention in the domestic affairs of Sixtes. In other words. we were basing ourselves on very specific considerations. 122. vention intérieures violation Egalement interdit dans dit, nous sommes 123. If the United States representative is net afraid of such a product of acommunist propagandaa as the United Nations Charter. would he mind taking that Charter in his hand and showing us what Article or what provision gives even the slightest justification for the high-handed intervention by the United States in the domestic affairs of other States Members of the United Nations? Would he mind showing us the exception in the Wnitsd Nations Charter, invisible to otbers bat perceived through the murky Windows of the White Bouse, which permits the United States and only the United States-since it is precisely the United States which is claiming that right-to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries? 123. encore pagande Unies, prendre article moindre pays Membres nous citer mais visible Blanche, les précis6ment dans les affaires de la sorte? 124. That too is a specific question and we expect a clear and specific answer. nous en attendons 125. In his statement the UnitedStates representative kept referring vainly to the Organization of American States. sometimes with relevance but more often net. in an attempt to create the impression that wbataver happens the United States has already as g&d as received from that organieation, in advance, a sort of indulgence tc commit any outrage against the Dominican Republic. 125. des souvent am&ricains, pays sorte pourrait DOl-LlilliCaiXle. 126. But in this case we wish to draw attention tc somethii else. We have noted that in seeking to conceal its activities behind the Organizaticn of American States, which, as tbe representative of Cuba juatly remarked, is a “colonial office” for cwntriee in Latin America, the United Statea doss not besitate to violate the Charter of that very Crganization. In support of our arguments we quoted, in partictdar, article 17 of the Charter of that organizatiOn; we are prepawd to qnote it again, although attention has also been drawn to it by the representative of Uruguay. It reads: “The territory of a State is inviolable: it may not bs the abject, even tamporarily, of militaryoccupation or of other measures of force taken by another 127. In this case too. as you see, we have been and we shall continue to be very specific. 123. We consider that the Security Council is entitled to hear the United States representative make specific references to the Charter of the Organisation of American States in connexion with his assertions to the effect that the United Smtes cari act as it pleases in the territory of any State member of tbat organisation; tbat the United States cari send its troops to oC%upy Latin American countries, in particular the Dominican Republic; that the United States cari give any excuse for such an invasion-and that Will be sufficient. Al1 this finds its expression, as the representative of Uruguay rightly stated, in the so-called “Johnson doctrine”. 129. We are waiting for the United States representative to point to any such articles in the OAS charter. 1 think that the remarks of the United States representative on that subject Will be listened to with interest by the representatives of the Latin American countries as well. 1.30. The substance of the questions which we put to the United States representative yesterday are elementary in their simplicity. TO just what provisions of the United Nations Charter cari the United States representative refer in order to justify the criminal and outrageous act of lawlessness which the United States has committed in the Dominican Republiz? We expect an answer to that question from tho United States representative, because he is defending an unjust cause without reflecting on what it is that he is defending and how he is defending it. As the United States representative has had more than enough time for reflection, it must be supposed that he Will glve the members of the Security Council an answer without delay. 131. Allow me to say a fewwords about the statement made by the United Kingdom representative. He was most impressive in setting forth his position on the question which the Security Council is discussing. 1 regret that he has left his Seat-by chance, of course. 1 hope, however, that his colleague in the United Kingdom delegation will try to give Lord Caradon an accurate account of what 1 am now going to say. 132. The United Kingdom representative asked in particular that the Security Council should net examine this question but should turn the whole matter over to the Organization of American States. He spoke about the need to settle the matter by peaceful means and he even referred to tbe Charter of the United Nations. 133. In this connexion we must ask one question: has our United Kingdom colleague suddenly forgotten that the United States has moudted an armed invasion Of the territory of a sovereign State, a State which 1s a Member of the United Nations? What peaceful means is he talking about if United States occupation forces are in the Dominican Republic? 135. AR tbis tbe United Kingdom representative bas passed over in silence. As a permanent member of the Security CounciI. invested vdth special responsibility uuder tbe Charter of our Organization, the m representative bas not said, inciis bis attitude and the attitude of tbe m Governmeut towards the act of military lawlessness, towards the open aggression committed by the United States against the Dominican people. Apart from expressions of gratitude addressed to tbe United States, we have heard nothing articulate on tbe substance of the question from the Uniied Kingdom representative. 136. We understand, of course, tbat tbe United Kingdom Minister is now occupiedwith snother matter wbich is also being consideredbythe Security Council, but we are struck by the fact that our United Kingdom colleagae bas not found the courage to condemn the bloody retribution visited on the people of a small Latin American country by UnitedStates imperialism. 137. In this connexion, we would like to mention tbat we listened witb interest to the brief and highly expressive statement of Mr. Seydoux, the representative of France, who clearly stated his attitude towards tbe actions of the United States of America. 138. TO return to the UnitedKingdomrepresentative, we sbould like to say. incidentally, that in Londonwbicb is uot as close to the scene of the armed intervention as is the United Kingdom representative hem-voices are being raised in protest against the ression. It is highlv instructive to note the names oftbosewho are statingtheir positions. They evoke certain associations in our minds. 139. I bave before me a communiqu6 fmm France- Presse of 3 May. It states that on 3 May a group of Labour members in the Bouse of Gommons expressed dissatisfaction witb the Fore@ Office, wbich would net say whether the UnitedKi advance by Washington about the n in Santa Domingo. 140. Mr. Michael Foot, who 1 believe is a brother of tbe Uuited Kingdom representative in tbe Security Council, asked inparticular, 60 tbe communiqu5 states, tbat the head of the Foreign Office, inhis instructions om representative at tbe United Nations, should make it clearly understoad that ‘the United Wngdom is against the monstrous ression 141. Of course, we are far from sny thought of interfering in the family sffairs of Lord Caradon. That, one might say. is his domestic affair. We have quoted this item of information as objective evidence. 142. The Soviet delegation would like to stress once again that the landing of United States troops in the Dominican Republic and the participation of these troops in the suppression of the struggle being waged by the people of that small country for freedom and indepsndence cannot be considered as anything other than an act of direct aggression, as flagrant inter ference in the domestic affairs of the Dominican Republic. 143, The Security Council is therefore not onlywithin its rights, but is indutyboundto give urgent consideration to the question of the United States armed intervention in the domestic sffairs of the Dominican Republic, which ha6 been raised by the Soviet Union. 144. The references which we have heard today in the Security Council to the fact that the question of the situation in the Dominican Republic is a subjeot for consideration by the Organisation of American States csnnot serve as any justification whatever for failure by the Security Cou&l to carry out its duty in connexion with the situation which bas arisen in the Dominican Republic as a result of aggression by the United States. 145. We consider that the representative of Uruguay was quite correct when he spoke on precisely this point. 146. The Charter of the United Nations, as we know. does not preclude the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with matters relating to the maintenance of internationalpeaoe and security. Under Article 52 of the Charter, however, an indispensable condition for the aotivities of such regional agencies is that they should be consistent with the purposes and prinoiples of the United Nations, especially with those principles under which, inorder to ensure prompt and effective action, the Members of tbe United Nations have conferred on the Security Council, and no’ on any other body, primary responsibility for the maintenance of internationalpeace and security. 147. In conclusion, we would like to express our conviction that the Security Council Will duly point out to the United States the truth enshrined in the Charter of tbe United Nations, but lon ignored by the United States, thnt it is for the people of any country to choose wbatever system they please and no one has tbe rigbt to interfere in their domestic affaire. 150. I wiI1 once again waive the right to consecutive translation. 151. Tbe PRESIDENT: 1 caR on the representative of the United States in exercise of his right of reply.

Mr. Fedorenko seems to be indignant because 1 meationed an irrelevant subject. He evidently considered it relevant when he circulated to the Council as an officia1 document a portion of a State Department Rtdletin of fifteen years ago: but somehow it becomes irrelevant wben 1 call attention to a portion of tbat Bulletin wbich he omitted. Well, perhaps this tactic of the Soviet Union representative is SO weIl known that it ta0 is irrelevant. 153. As regards the balance of Mr. Fedorenko’s remarks. I gather that he does not want me to withhold my observations until the Council’s next meeting, as1 had proposed todo. Icertatnlydonotwant to disappoint him. With the Council’s indulgence, 1 shall therefore say a few further words. 154. The Soviet Union representative bas bitterly attacked our action in the Dominican Repiblic. He says that it was an act of open aggression. First of all, 1 note that in his haste to cite every possible provision tbat he might accuse us of vic:&ng, he has even dragged out Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations. But that Article deals only with limitations on the authority of the United Nations itself; it is in no way relevant to the situation before the Couacil. P55. But let me say directly and explicitly that the United States has committed no aggressionagainstthe Dominican Republic, nor does it intend to commit any aggression. Tbe United States has notviolated Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, which states that: ‘Al1 Members shall 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 mariner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.m 153. The United States is not employingforceagainst the territorial integrity of the Dominican Republic. The United Séates seeks not a square inch of Dominican territory, nor is the United States employing force iast the political independence of the Dominican 157. On the contrary; the measures currently being taken by my Government are designed to protect lives and to preserve the political independence of the Dominican people and to preserve their right freely to choose their own form of government. The United States is supporting the political iudependence of the Dominican Republic in the most profound sense of preserving for the Dominican people the right and the power to choose for themselves-a power v!hich, once lest, cari seldom he regained. 158. Our action on 28 April in dispatching the first of the security forces we have sent to that troubled island was taken, net against the willof the Dominican authorities, but only when law enforcement and military officia& in circumstances where there was no Government authority, informed my Government that the situation was completely out of control. 159. 1 would remind the Council of the following statement made by President Johnson yesterday: “We bave two purposes: we want to evacuate our citizens, and we want to see that a plan is worked out where the people themselves cari Select their own government, free from any international conspiracy or any dictatorship of any kind. All we are in the Dominioan Republic for is to preserve freedom and to save thosepeoplefrom conquest. The moment that the Organisation of American States oan present a plan that Will bring peace on the island and permit us to evacuate our people, and give us some hope of stability in government, we will be the first to corne back home.” 160. As 1 stated a moment ago. 1 shall bave more to say at a later meeting-of course, with no expectation that it Will be pleasing to the Soviet Union or to any who prefer a bloody revolution to the peaceful settlement of a political conflict by the Domicican people.

1 cal1 on the repreSentathe of the Soviet Union in exercise of his right of reply.

We bave ~63. Tbat is what we did not bear. We heard only fask ta&, u&sEbskankiaked asserkions and seandalous skakements wbicb were nothing but a challenge to tbe Securiky Council and the United Nations. The United States represenkative went SO far as to suggesk that the Uaited States bad commitked no aggression, was nok guipty of intervention sud had nok interfered in tbe domestic sffairs of khe Dominican Republic. 164. But yw vfere preseck ak koday% meekiig of kbe Security Council, Mr. Stevenson. You heard the accusations brougbk against you. Kave youpondered ?ver wbat ail tbis means? Pou bave remained deaf. ad tbat is very regrettable. You are trying to get aikh fast kalk. ?Jut ik is prectsely khis tbak a kbe complete ~te~abi~i~ of your position qd proves tbat ik is you who msk bear the grave tbe monstrous crime which you wbich your armed forces are now while we meet bere in kbe has done does not n a violation of all and of the United Nations Chartes. if all khese unprecedented crimes are but kindness and good works, khen tbexe are no Pimits to cynicism and hypucrisy. 166. By whak righk have Uniked Skates armed forces violated the sovereigaky of another St&!? By what rigbt bave tbey occupied the what right are khey aktempk to skifle a popular movement wbicb is exclusively concerned wikb the people’s own inkernal affairs andwith the determination of tbeir fate? By wbat right? By one rigbt only. By khe gangster% rigbk of strangkb anci armed force. 167. If tbe Dominican people were stronger, they immediately bave repulsed the Uniked Skakes sion. The misfortune of tbe Dominican people tbe fack tbat they have not yet managed to stand on tbeir own feet. But they Will do SO. If aU tbis, as you bave said, .&&. Stevenson, isbut Lindness and good works. then bow are we to underskand the incursion of more tban 18,000 United States armed troops ifo a smap1 ialand couakry, tbe Dominican Republic? And you here, in tbe Security Counoil, are trying to were doing go&, that you were

Mr. Stevenson apparently thought he had great news for us yesterday and today when he told us that his President had said that United States troops would be wlthdrawn once the OAS had worked out a plan for peace and stability. The news could net ba worse because we know that the plan for peaoe and stability worked out by Washington% colonial office Will be a plan for the peace of the graveyard and for the stability of ao armoured tank. 1.7:. His statement was simply part of the undisguised attempts which are being made to legalize the intervention in Santo Domingo by internatlonalizing it. It is the same trick which is being used in Viet-Nam. The democracy which the United States hopes to implant in the Domlnican Republic is a nGorillocraoyn representing imperialist interests. The meefing rose af 6.20 p.m. IN UNITED oni Qub~icatio~s may be obtained throa~hout the world. nited Nations, Sales c ENT SE Q~~CU~~~ LES PU LICATIONS Les ~~~~ic~tio~s des Nations Unies sont ences dépositaires du monde entier. adresser-vous à: Nations Unies, Section LICACIONES Las Qublicaciones de las Naciones cas-s distribuidoras en todar portes irijare B: Naciones Unidas, Seecibn Litho in U.N. Price: $U.S. 1.00 (or quivaPent