S/PV.1203 Security Council

In accordance with the previous decision of the Councll 1 propose to lnvlte the representative of Cuba to take a seat at tbe Council table. At the iavitafion of the President, Mr. Alvarem: Tabfo (Cuba) h3ok s place at Ule Couacil table.

My delegation up to now has retiained from taklng part in tbe debate on tbe question before us b=ecause, in the opinion of our delegation, thls is a question to be dealt witb primarily by the countries of the Western hemisphere. That does not mean that my delegation is not deeply mncerned at tbe developments in tbe island Republic. Tbis is ail the more SO as two parts of our Klngdom are situated in or near the Caribbean area and are tberefore vital& lnterested in tbe peace in tbat area. 3. delegation does not coneider itself competent to into tbe questions conceming the intemal situation in tbe Dominlcan Republic. Suffice it to say tbat obviously tbe situation in that country in tlse lad ten days bas disclosed great upbeavals, and tbat law and order there were no longer being maintained, wlth ail tbe dangers inherent in such a situation. 4. delegatlon does not wlsh eitber to sub ce of the matter or to pmnounoe a Of ail fore@ forces. It is clear from the statements of tbe United States representative that hts Covernment, too, subscribes to this principle. 5. The question on which my delegation would like to concentrate its attention is: what organisation is competent from the legal point of view, and is most apt frOm tbe practical point of view, to bring about a speedy improvement inside tbe Dominican Republic, snd is most able to provide a framework which wfll allow the Dominican people to arrive freely at a democratic solution safeguarding its rights of selfdetermination? 5. nant nous pencher nisation compétente qualifiée dans la Rgpublique le cadre pourra cratique 6. It is a long-standing tradttionthat conflicts arising in the Western hemisphere not involving outside Powers be dealt with prtmarily by the countries tbemselves,, of that hemisphere, which means, in practice, by the Organization of American States. My country has always respected this traditionandshould like to do so again in this case. 6. qui naissent en cause aucune soumis c’est-a-dire américains. tion et voudrait 7. That conflicts in the Western hemisphere are primarily handled by the Organization of American States is not only a tradition, but is also in conformfty with the stipulations of the Charter of the Umted Nations. In two places the Charter stipulates that parties to a dispute should first of all seek a peaceful solution through regional agencies or arrangements. One place is Article 33, paragraph 1, which states that parties to any dispute shall, first of all, seek a solution by one of several means, enunciated in that Article, and one of those specifically mentioned is resort to regional agencies or arrangements. les conflits la procédure A deux reprises, un différend tion accords il est dit qne les parties moyens moyens r6gionaux. 8. forme 6. The otber place where the Charter says the same thing, but in other words, is Article 52. psragraph 2, which states: “The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacifie settlement of local disputes througb such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.” Tbe Charter tben goes on to impose upon the Security Cuunoti the duty to encourage this specific form of settlement tbrough regional arrangements. In paragraph 3 of Article 52, we read: Immédiatement de s6ourit6 ment paragraphe “The Security Council sball encourage the development of paoific settlement of local disputes tbrougb such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies eitber on the initiative of tbe states concerned or by reference from the Security CounoiLw g. clairement mal, 9. From Articles 33 and 52 of the Charter it seems clear to us tbat tbe first and normal way to try to solva .a dispute in the Western hemisphere is through 10. It is, therefore, perfectly correct that this etter was raised before the Securily Council, and that the Council is now discussing it. The Council should, however, in our opinion, keep in mind the self-limitation which follows fiorn bath the letter and the spirit of the Charter. The meaning of the Charter, it seems to my delegation, is perfectly clear from the Articles which 1 quoted; that is, the Security Council is tùlly competent to consider ail disputes which might endanger international peace snd security, but a solution of such a dispute should in the first place, as the Charter says, be solved through resort to a regional organisation where such an orgsnisation exists. 11. Whilst, therefore, both tradition and the Charter point to the Organisation of American States as the body most qualified to handle the present dispute in the Western hemisphero, practical considerations, too, lead to the same conclusion since the OAS has already taken the matter in hand. 12. A five-man committee of the Organisation of American States has been active for slmost a week on the island to bring about a cessa-fire, and on 5 May 1965 we were informed that, on that very day, a second and definite cesse-fire had been concluded in Santa Domingo under the auspices of the OAS. 13. Furthermore, the Mini&ers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of America States, as we bave been informed, decided on 6 May 1965: !/ “TO request Covernments of member States that are willmg and capable of doing SO to make contingents of their land, naval, air or police forces available to the Organisation of AmericanStates . . . to form an inter-American force . . . under the authority of this Tenth Meeting of Consultation.” 14. We have slso taken note with satisfaction of the statement made, with the authorily of President Johnson, by the United States representative to Organisation of American States. declaring tbat: R . . . wben the unified command of zation of American States determines tbat the fnter- American Armed Force is adequatefortbepurposes contemplated by tbe resolution adopted by this body on May 1st and that the Untted States forces are not needed as part of the Inter-American Armed Force, they will be withdrawn from the Dominican Republic.” For che text of the resoludoa adoptea ty DDE OAS [S/fi333/Rev.l]. 8ee rhe record of ch.5 1202nd meeting of the Courcil. paragrnph 36. 16. For a11 these reasons which 1 have mentionedtradition, the text of the Charter of the United Nations, and practical considerations-my delegation believes that the Security Council should, in compliance with Article 52, paragraph 3, whioh 1 have just quoted, encourage, in the words of the Charter, tbe settlement of this local dispute thmugh regional arrangements, which means in this case through the Organization of Amerioan States. 1’7. In the meantime. we believe that the Council should keep the matter on its agenda and could discuss it again if the efforts of the Organisation of American States should fail to bring about a satisfactory solution. Furthermore, it would be desirable in our opinion if the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States could, in conformity with Article 54 of the Charter, keep the Security Councll informed of the negotiations, the decisions and the progress of the OAS.

The Ivory Coast delegation has listened carefully to the statements of those representatives who have spoken thus far. Extremely keen emotions have been aroused in this debate because of the principles which seem to be at stake. Therefore, my delegation, spealdng on behalf of its Government, considers that it must once again define its position with respect to these principles. 19. The Government of the Republic of the Ivory Coast is opposed to the overthrow of a legal and constitutional Government by unconstitutional means and especially by violence. This position is immutable, regardless of tbe place inwbichtheproblem arises and regardless of the régime chosen by the people of the country concerned in the exercise of their sacred right of self-determination. 20. The situation prevailing at Santo Domingo, which is the result of violence and the counter-violence which normally ensues, strengthens our conviction, if that were necessary, that our position safeguards order, peace and progress. 21. The other principle. which is just as fundamental as the first, is that of non-interventioninthe domestic affalrs of other countries. In the Ivory Coast we regard this as sacredandwe interpret non-intervention in the following way. No State has the right to train elements on its territory in order to send them to engage in subversive activlties in another country designed to undermine that country% legal and constitutional basis. No State has tbe right to send organized or unorganized armed elements into the territory of anotber country unless it has been requested to do SO by the legally constituted Government. We demand that all countries should abide strictly by tbese principles wbich are, in fact, laid down in the Charter as one of the main conditions for urliness and, therefore, for collective security. 23. Let US return to today and examine the Situation in that strife-torn island SO that we cari draw the conclusions wbtch help us to make headway in the search for a constructive solution. 24. Among the illegal methods of SeiSing power there is the coup d’état which, it is trUe, dces limit the damage because of its speed and the element of surprise. But there is also civil war which is more bloody and which phmges the country into total chaos wlth inestimable losses of human life. Each contending faction has had its foreign supporters who bave rushed tc its rescue. The history of this phenomenon bas shown that wherever ithas cccurredtheprinciples which 1 lnvoked earlier bave been flouted. UnfortUnately, in the specific case before us, it bas seemed tc us that the very people who are defending constitutional legality are those who have pald tbe price. We hope that, in spite of everything, the upsbot of these events will not be a return to illegality. 25. Clearly in such a situation where the foundations of the State, and indeed of the nation, are destroyed, there is a humanitarian problem SO tragic that it is difficult to overlock, even if we must staunchly defend certain political principles. Such is the problem of safeguarding the lives of innocent peuple who are not parties to the dispute, the problem of provldmg tbe population trapped in a civil war wlth food and medical supplies. Civil war is a curse just &s flocds and earthquakes are ourses. 26. It appears to me that these phenomena are apparent now in the Domlnioan Republic; SO much SO tbat the agreement wlth the emissaries of the reglonal organization, signed by Colonel Caamailo, the officer commanding tbe revolutionsries, advccates tbe evacuation of foreigners, the extension of tbe Mernational security zone to include all Latin Americanembassies and the distribution of focd and medical supplies to the entire population without political distinction. 27. The Ivory Coast delegation is glad tc see that there are some signs of pacification. Indeed, Colonel Cmmiïo has appealed to the Dominicans to unite, t0 rebuild the nation, to eschew hatred and to return to the IXle of law, with a capital “Ln, and to flod for guidance. IIe has said: “tbe nationalism of tbe DOminiCan PBople must net turn into antl-Americanismv; and he has added: “1 hope and expect ht the United 3tates troops v.dll leave Bantc Domingo aS scon as possib1e.v 28. Thus the Security Council will serve a useful and humanitarian purpose only if it seeks to bring about a solution wbich, wbile including the witbdrawal of tbe Umted states military forces, Will stabilise the Situation in the island, prevent a recurrence of hostilities, ensure food and medical supplies for the Population, and lead to a Swift andpeaceful settle- 29. Therefore, while denying the right of anyone to intervene in the legal and constitutional settlement ofi the problem, the Ivory Coast is certain that in thés particular case, the wlsdom of tbe Council wlll prevent it îrom adopting a solution of tbe vmay me strongest man winv type.

1 call on the representative of Cuba.

1 had net intended to speak again in this debate, as 1 thought it had been concluded. The events whlch have occurred during the last twenty-four heurs, however, introduce new factors which havs net yet been considered. 1 am referring to the recent decisions of the Organ of Consultation of OAS wbich bave been issued as a Council document [S/6333/Rev.l]. 32. Untll yesterday tbe Councll was considering the Soviet Union draft resolution. [S/6328]2/ condemning the invasion of the territory of theDommicanRepublic by armed forces of tbe United States of America. In effect, thls draft resolution asks, flrst, that this action sholùd be condetnned snd second, that United States troops be withdrawn lmmediately from the territory of that sovereign State. 33. Yesterday tbe OAS, after a painfuldeliverywhich called for tbe use of forceps, gave birthto a monster: notblng more or less than tbe transformation of the lnvading United States troops, sfter the crime was committed, into international peaoe forces. 34. Tlte United Nations has been striving for years to agreement on tbs organisation ofpeace-keeping forces. Tels pmblem was the root cause of the inability of the nineteenth session of the General Assembly to follow its normal course. At tbis very moment a Committee consistingof tbe representatives of tbirty-three countries is meeting in an effort to find a solution and yet the United States, by vlrtue of tbe able diplomacy of Mr. Ellsworth Bunker, as The New York Times of today says, manages iu a few hours to organise peace forces for tbe sole use of tbe customer, United States imperialism. 35. Thls decision of tbe OAS has a number of unsavoury aspects, among them tbe devious scheme to circumvent tbe law and tbe way in whichthis brand new resolution came about. There is afourteenth vote which deserves special attention, but we shall deal with tbat point later. 36. 1 sball confine myself to analysing the new situation from the pire& le@ point of view, but 1 should first Iike to devote a few minutes to today’s “Other authors, too, have emerged who, followlng the example of some delegations at San Francisco in their exaggerated fear that any specific referenceto the use of force might have restrictive effects. bave attempted to deduce from the wording of this provision of Article 2. paragraph 4, tbe very dangerous inference that force-and armed force, in particular-may be used in those case& in wbich the aggressor State is not lnterested in tsklng possession of fore@ territory and in which the occupation is carried out with the abject of seouring temporary objectives. . . Thls theory is quite wrong and clearly absurd. There cari be no doubt that the occupation of even the smallest part of the territory of a State without its consent constitutes an attack on its territorial integrlty and on its political independence. . . The only exception to the rule is self-defence against armed aggression by another State.” The pmfessor continues, in words wbichare specially relevant to the case under discussion: “TO condone any contrary practice would be tantamount to legalising aggression whenever the aggressor declares that his intention is not to violate the territorial integrity or political independence of the State attacked. . . We should have to admit that there was a real possibility that the use of force, even of armed force, is compatible wlth the purposes and aims of the United Nations.” 48. The United States Covernment has also vlolated the principle of the sovereign equality of allthe States Members of the Organisation and the prlnciple which forbids intervention ln matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States, which are enunciated in Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 7, respectively, of the United Nations Charter, and bas vltiated the aim whlch brought this Organisation into being: %J live together in peaoe with one another as good neighbours” and to strive for “tbe prevention and removal of threats to the peaoe, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of tbe peace”. 48. It must also be borne ln mind that the fundamental purpose of the Organisation is, as Pmfessor Jimgnez de Argchaga says in his book to wbioh 1 havs slready referred [lZOOtb meeting]: n . . . to maintsin international peace and security, but not at any price; peace is not to be achieved at the cost of injustice, as happened, for example, wlth tbe Munich agreement. . . . TO maintain peace, yes, but never at the cost of injustice or of a violation of international law . . . .u Y iv Derecbo ConsU~cional de 188 Nacimes Unidas (Madrid. E%ue18 de funclomrloa lmernaciomles. 1953). pp. 33 and 39. ence and sqx?rioflty. re net subject ‘CQ been ma aevercan force or coercive at tbe C?AS decisions are e 57. 1 oall upon the United States representative to explaln to the Council bow the repeated statements of the spokesmen for Washington-including that of Mr. Stevenson himself to tbe CounciI-tbat tbe Uolted States Govermnent recognises no competent autbority in Santa Dmninga cm be reconciled whh tbe fact that one of those wbo tcok part in yesterday’s vote was a representative of a non-existent Government. a person wbo represents nobody, as the United States representative here implicitly admits. Tbere are two alternatives: either Mr. Stevenson stands by . . .

Excuse me, Mr. President. Before our colleague continues his speech, 1 sbould like tohearananswerto tbis question from tbe Unlted States representative. We are uuabIe to obtain from him ananswer to a number of questions. 1 should like to know whether he is preparedto answer this question now. 59. 1 do not insist on the consecutive interpretation of my remarks on the usual understanding.

I should be very happy to answer tbe gentleman% question when 1 please, Mr. President.

The USSR delegation wishes to draw tbe Councll’s attention to tbe mauner adopted by tbe officiai representative of tlae United States of America: wben specific questions are put to him he declares bimself to be impotent in the matter.

1 .tbink tbe gentleman misunderstoodme. 1 acknowledged no impotence in the matter. 1 said I would answer tbe question wben I pleased.

Every individual is legally entitled to bave bis wisbes and subjective ennotions. But, this is a meeting of tbe Security Council; it is not a club for entertainment, or tbe expression of wlshes and emotions. A serious debate is in progress bere and responsible answers should be given. Thls is wbat we expect from tbe United States representative, not emotional outbursts and tantrums. ALVAREZ TARI0 (cuba) (translated frorn se cirwmstawes, never it suits ssibleconclusion, 68. Let us now consider tbe substantive aspect of Of Second question. The decisions of OAS letely mdl and void SO far as their 1s wncemed, be mIportant articles charter of BO onvert the a ession committed ession, tbe OAS asic prinoiples, f tbem after its conduct in tbe case of cuba. me Ii& of prmciples which it bas vkdated is a long one, but, even at the risk of abusing patience of the members of tbe Security Council, 1 shall enumerate tbem. 71. Article 1 of the charter of tbe OAS lays down as one of the basic purposes of tbe organization tbat of defendf tbe sovereignty, territori ~de~e~~a~e of me American States; same organination create a so-called %ter-American forcew cmsisting of the very forces wbicb, by tbeir gres on Dondnican soil, bave been violating tbe sow ty, territorial integriiy and independence of a member State? 72. EOW cari the purpose proclaimed in article 4 @ of tbe OAS charter-nameiy, to “prevent possible causes of dEficulLies and to ensure the pacifie settle- 73. When article 5 (a) of the same charter lays down as aprincipleofthe AmericanStatestbat “Internation& law is the standard of conduct of States in tbeir reciprocal relations”, how cari the OAS attempt, with its action yesterday, to ascribe validity to one of the most open breaches of international law whicb bas occurred in many years? 74. The force in question, moreover, by reason both of its political objectives and of its composition, is incompatible with respect for the personality. sovereignly and independence of a member State, thus contradicting the specific affirmation of these principles in article 5 (bJ of the OAS charter as pillars of international order. 75. This illegslly created force obviouslyrepresents a flagrant violation of article 5 (e) and (r) of tbe charter, which, in addition to condemning aggressive war, states that an act of aggression against one American State is an act of aggression against all of them. Is it possible to conceive of any greater contempt for international law than when the OAS, instead of condemning the aggressor country-tbH. is to say. tbe United States of America-assigns to tbe United States expeditionary forces the task of “the restoration of normal conditions inthe Dominican Republioa and of “maintaining the securily of its inhabitants and the inviolability of human rights.. .* the rights of these same Dominicans bave been the victims of United States bullets? 76. Since, according to articles 1 and 8 of tbe OAS charter, *Every American State bas tbe duty to respect tbe rigbts enjoyed by every otber State in accordance with international laww, and these %ndamental rights. . . may not be impaired in any manner wbatsoevern, tbe resolution which Mr. Stevensonread to us yesterday with such enthusiasm is illegal on two counts: in that it assigns the task in question to forces wbich, for ten days, have been encroaching on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Dominican Republic, and also in tbat tbe new form wbicb tbe OAS is attempting to pive to tbis military presence is a violation of the rigbt of self-determinaany reatin v&atever~-and, 1 repeat, “for any 35eason emm-411 the internai or external affairs of any 7’8 Tbw lt is clear that the OAS charter does net rise any gmup of its members to do wbat it bits each of them fmm doing ind.itiduaUy. From attempted. Perhaps tbis is the point at wbicb tbe invalidity of tbis legal monstrosity of tbe gentlemen OAS is most flagrant. 79. But tbis is not all. Tbe inviolability of the territory of a State and tbe nnlawfulness of its military occupation or of otber measures of force taken against it, even temporarily, on any grounds whatever, are laid dowu by tbe regional organisation in article 17 of its charter. Lt is obvious that the resolution under consideration makes a mockery of this principle. since it not only attempts to justify tbe earlfer unilat f Dominicanterritory itary also proposes tbat it Conti y, or, as is said in paragrapb 5, until SUC~ time as tbe OAS bal1 determine. Tbis is in addition to the absurdity-and it needs to be repeated-tbat it is stfB tbe trwps of the aggressor country itself wbicb bave to carry out s %ontinentalw assignment. 80. Let me now quote the text of article 18 of tbe OAS charter. It reads as follows: The American States bind tbemselves in their international relations not to bave recourse to the use of force, except in tbe case of self-defense in accordanoe with existing treaties or infulfillment thereof.* 81. Tbere is no doubt as to tbe interpretation of tbis provision: the sole exception to tbe prohibition of tbe use of force sancticmed by inter-American law is self-defence, wbicb implies, we must presume, tbat there must have been an earlier armed attack against one or more of tire members of the “inter-American ‘QV”. md it is clear that tbis did not occur ase under discussion. In tbis matter the OAS is consistent witb tbe principle embodied in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations; and since the regional organization ranks lower tban tbe world Organisation, this conld not be otberwise, 82. In providing for an armed presenoe on tbe territory of a member olution adopted yesterday morning at t onay tbis cardinal principle harter 84. Opsrative paragraph 1 of tbe resolution prpvides that forces contributed by member States %ill operate under tlae authority of tbis Tenth Meeting of Consultationa, the technical term for the meetiug which, to America’s shame, has been taking place for some days in the capital of the United States. In addition, as 1 said before, operative psragrapb 5 states tbat %be withdrawal of tbe Inter-American Force from tbe Dominican Republic sball be deter- . mined by this Meeting”. 85. The attempt to establish this so-called multilateral operation, and the two paragraphs wblcb we have just cited, create grave dangers for the constitutional order of tbe United Nations and constitute a permanent tbreat to the sovereignty of allthe States of Latin America. 86. Let us now consider the third questbn wbich I raised. Even if we admit, for tbe sake of argument, tbat the Washington decisions are valid from botb tbe formal and the substantive points of view, cap. tbe OAS carry out such decisions wlthout tbe autborization of tbe Security Council? 87. The Organization of American States, as a regional organization, is not autborized to decide upon enforcement action, and still less to implement such decisions, wltbout the authorization of tbe Security Council. Tbe latter is tbe only international body having authority to use force. 1 sball net read out Articles 52 and 53 of tbe United Nations Charter, as they are well known. 88. The only argument wbicb tbe United States representative could find in order to deny the applicabirity of these rules in the present case is indeed a wesk one, namely that, in thls case, the point at issue is slmply tbe peaceful settlement of a dispute. 89. In tbe. first place, the so-called dispute was net oriylally international in character. At tbe beginni it was a private matter among tbe Uominican people tbemselves; it became an international conflict precisely as a result of the arbitrary intervention of the United States armed forces. In the second place, the invasion of tbe territory of a sovereign country by a foreign State is not simply a dispute or controversy among States whichcanbesettledby~ machinery. The provisions of the OAScbartercaunotbeinvoked in support of intervention in an interna1 problem of a sovereign State; they could only bave been invoked in tbis case inorder to condemn tbe United States Government for its arbitrary action in invading the territory of tbe Dominican Republic without any justification otber tban tbe argument tbat “might is righta. whdted states Goverame~t bas played tbe Bd btdly@ in &is case, t0 ns8 fcrce tmder ccdified Mertiond Baw. T former is expressly probibited Even if we could a@~%, OAS cas &cide upon enforcement action a te in connexion wi 95. Id bardly needs stressing tbat to categorize the ikwasion of a sover mainta~g peace is settlement of a disput by force a part e~mmnic and social aystem it wishes. 97. The UnitedStates Government, wuncne assistance of the doubtful majority wbich it bas managed to obtain in tbe OAS, bas tried to use the latter body as a new “lloly Alliance” direoted against the selfdeterminationof peoples. It seems that the failure of the ~V~O$ Alliance” of the nineteentb Century has & served as a warning to it not to seek to resurrect such an alliance in the middIeoftbetwentieth century. 98. TO sum up and in conclusion, we maintain tbat the Security Council should take action on the following aspects: (8) the unilatersl action of the United States in the Dominican Republic oonstitutes a flagrant violation of international law and of the sovereignty, independence and invlolability of Dominican territory; (b, the OAS decisions, under universal rule of law, are nul1 and void ab initia and neitber time nor confirmation at a laterconfer validity on wbat is nul1 and void from the outset; (c) in any case, the OAS devisions cannot be implemented without the authorization of the Security Council; (d) when an act wbich was completely null and void at the outset has been consummated, in accordance witb an old rule witb wbich everyone is is familiar, the status quo antes must be re-established; &II tbe Government of the United States must be ordered to evacuate immediately the military forces under its command which are present in the territory of the Dominican Republic-a sovereign State and a Member of tbis Organization; cf) tbe OAS must be ordered to refrain from taking any a plementation of its resolutionwitbout theau of the Security Council. 99. lVIr. ORTIE SAN2 (Bolivia) (translated from Spanish): Althougb 1 cannot speak for theOrganization of American States, 1 consider tbat since my country is a member of that organisation, 1 have a duty of elementary loyalty to express the displeasure witb wbich my delega.tion bas listened during this debate to statements attacking the integrity of the Organization of American States. 100. When, last Dscember, I was President of this Council and we were discussing the question of the Congo, I was very pleased ,to note tbat no one. at any time or for any rea6on whatsoever. insulted the Organieation of African Unily either tacitly orop@nly. On the contrary, tbis Council unanimously agreed to hand over that delicate questiontotheAfricanregiona1 organisation. 102. 102. It is certain tbat tbe Organization of American Sates, as ail dise tbat is buman, is sometimes lax pays in tbe exercise of its sovereignty lt rejohed the Or@zation witb the by tbe IWbian representative, Ba&l #The best way in wbicb Bolivia could contribute tbe seventy-fiftla anaiversary of the inter-American systemwas byrenewingitsmemberand, in general, the ning of the inter- Ameriean system, are aI1 basic aspirations of Bolivia’s present fore@ polioy.” 103. uou y Psesident, in yourrestrained and lucid s sterday, were good euougbto stress the importance of regionsl organisatiars and you informed us abocrt the efforts made in Asia to en segional awareness. Tbe Organisation of States ashs for no more nor les6 than wbat we Americaus have already given to Africa snd Asia: Ioyalty in our intentions and respect in our laquage. 3104. In tbe Americas we bave at least five uoiversities that bave existed for more tban tbree bundred years; we have some of tbe most advauced social lsgislation in the world; we do net suffer from tbe cancer of any type of discrimination. 11: is quite misfortune is fortune of othersW. We are a ctive attitude to bistory anal life witb the justice tbat caonot be denied, as long

The attention of tbe whole world is riveted on the question on tbe Security Council% agenda-a question of vast lnternational significance. 107. The crux of the matter, as is particularly obvlous now, is that United States imperialism, in gross defiance of the United Nations Charter and of tbe elementary rules of international law. bas openly unleashed an armed intervention against a smaIf countiy Member of the United Nations, the Dominican Republic. 108. The United States is interfering in a most sbameful mariner in the inter& affairs of this sovereign ccuntry and is forcing on tbe Dominican people nrrangements which arepleasfngandprofitable only to the United States interventionists. 109. Today those who hypocriticallyproolaimedtheir mythical dedication to tbe ideas of freedom and democracy are striding with fixed bayonets over tfie land of yet another of tbeir vlctims. Nowtbe mask has been taken off and tbe lying slogans havebeen dumped on the scrap heap of history. It bas become the officiai policy of the United States opemy to engage in armed interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The bestial countenance of United States imperialism has been revealed to tbe whole world. Tbe United Nations and ail mankind are faced witb an unprecedented challenge from overweening Unit& States imperialism. 110. These are the sober facts. R, however, tbe United States expected to be able to evade responsibility for its crime, it made a serious mlscalculation. In the Security Council, hi the eyes oftbe whole world, to its sbame it has found itselfin the dock. 111. The discussion in the Security Councll of the question of the armed intervention by the United States in the inter& affairs of the Domlnican Republic is evldence that the criminal deeds of the aggressor and the policy of arbitrary action and naked violence have been duly rebuffed. In the Security Council, as throughout the world, United States imperialism is being universally condemned. 112. We bave heard here the just voice of tbe oountries of Latin America. Mr. Vehlequez. tbe representative of Uruguay, demonstrated in his statement that the United States interventionists are iguoringall the rules and principles of international law. IIe stated in no uncertain terms that the Security Council must cal1 for the immediate cessationof the arbitrary, unilateral actions of tbe United States. IIe deolared unequivocally that he was in faveur of the Dominican er CaQ z2rmdse t tbe ~~tl~tlQ~ tbe interventlonist t~~~ates-~el~~~terve~t~o~ Russians are rigbt wben tbey say: lucE; ont amtbes raven% eyes.’ va-l ive. rances of sneechres t in tic a dispute is involved. any mre thm if it were r in any other country. If, on d a ciisp&e betvfeen the tited States intervente but aazressicm and ~te~e~eQce in tbe internal affairs &y, for wbich action the Netkrlands ofcensure. rised t tbe Ne &iQdS uld bave corne ta tbe aid of the aentatke in vsi e Organization 6 as a scree r United S%es 119. At today’s meeting, some members of ihe CQ~ncil have sounded a note that is out of tune witb Wrld public opinion and we had the impression chat they were in some degree justlfying the United States aggression. 129. The peoples of Asia, Africa sud Latin America are demanding the immediate withdrawal of United States troops from the Dominican Rslmblic; in this connexion, it is regrettable that some members of the Council, who have accepted the weighty responsibility of membership, have in fact spokenof anything and everything, except theaggressionbeingcommitted by the United States. 121. The enumeration or repetition of lofty andnoble principles cannot in itself help matters. These principles must bs applied to actual situations wherever they arise-in Africa, Asia or Latin Amerioa. Tbat is. precisely why we were entitled to hear this from the Council members who spoke at this meeting. Tbe world is indivisible; we cannot apply one yardstick to events in one continent, inonebemisphere, pleading exceptional circumstances and situations, andanotber yardstick wben tbis continent is somewhat removed from the speaker% own country. Such an approach would only spur on the aggressor to further crimes agalnst the peoples of Asia, Africa sud Latin America. 122. Today tbe repulsive cbaracter of the United States invasion of a sovereign LatinAmericancountry is all too obvious. Aven tbe United States Press writes about it openly. For example, this is what Tbe New York Times said yesterday, iu an eclitorial entitled aTbe Illusion of Omnipotencew, abOUt language being used by the Uuited States today: *Tbis is tbe language of 1898, not 1965. In its development if not in its origin, the Marine intervention inthe Dominican Republic was reminiscent of 1916.v As everyone knows, tbis was tbe year wben the United States Marines landed in the Dominican Republic once before-for the same purposes, but on snother pretext. ioto motmta~ of at bat. W3w economical tbe C dlplomtist observed today. ‘TO preserve a demic re~~~t~o~~ from sixty of their agitators res a wbole Yankee division’. D 125. lin fact, m 0 story about comis over. Tbis genre 1s net vslid aoy Ong been obmlete. revert eC Tbe New York Times editorial1 ed, I sbouk3 hhe to readfrom it the following s, wbicb merit tbe Council% attention: I ion of American States was Dei informed of tbe intervention until aller it had been accomo1ished.a We are not saying that the Americans are saying it; these are the words of a newspaper which here in the United States is widely tbought of as solid and respectable. 127. TO avoid the monotony of citing a single source, 1 shall quote the French newspaper, Le Monde, which published the following report from Ottawa from the Agence France-Presse, dated 4 May, concerning a statement by Mr. Lester Pearson, the PrimeMinister of Canada. Speaking inthe Canadian House of Gommons, he said: “We have no proof, despite all our efforts, which would allow us to conclude tbat the Dominican rebellion is being supported by CubanCommunists.” He added: “we have not received sufficient evidence from the United States authorities-and we are in touch with them on this matter-to justify any conclusion on our part at this tirne.” This makes it quite clear that even theallies of tbe United States are not taken in by its “cover stories”. 128. The truth is that the United States invaded the Dominican Republic witb the sole purpose of imposing by force on the Dominicanpeople a régime which would bs to the liking of the United States-a reactionary mllitary junta. 129. Mr. Juan Bosch, who was elected President of the Dominican Republic in 1962 and then overthrown by that junta, which was and is openly supported by the United States, sarcastically summed up a few days ago tbe actual results of theflagrant interference by United States imperialism in the internal affairs of the Dominican Republic. Mr. Bosch, who is known to be in very close contact withhis country’s patriotic forces fighting against the interventionists, said bitterly of the situation brought about by theintervention: “The hesident of Santo Domingo is Johnson. He is our chief, OUI boss.” Mr. Bosch emphasised tbat there really is a conspiracy as regards the Dominican Rspublic-a conspiracy of United States imperialism, of United States officiai propaganda. "Something evil is happening+, he said, ?here is a tremendous conspiracy against the truth.’ 130. In these conditions, now that the boots of the United States interventionists are trampling over Dominican soi1 and the cynicism of the United States seems to have exceeded all bounds, we are faced wlth another monstrous piece of hypocrisy. Onlyyesterday the United States, again using the Organization of American States for its imperialist ends, pushed through tbat organisation a resolution declaring, as the gag of the Organisation of American States ~ver the Uaite.d States interventicmist trwps: formation of an inter-Americm force w-31 United States intementionist soldiers, no more United S&&es occupation -tlaey bave been oonverted into Latin Asnericans. How was 6 àone? the United States soldiers baen issuedlatinlmerican ican States, Le Monde on 5 ~owimg conclu~gret sians htbe musical as wellasin ~~abl~b~ data tbe number of those t nearly double. r. Stevenson replied that he had net United States soldiers were actually concentrated United séates soldiers in the Dominican Republic. is fully entitled to of the statements 137. We again address to Mr. Stevenson a question wbich we have already put to him many times: Is he prepared to spesk on tbe substance of tbe matter, or does he need time to dash out for tbe latest paper? We hope that tbe Security Council Will finally hear tbe trutb from the representative of tbe United States, if only on this one question. 138. As for the claims of the United States that it is not for the Security Council, but for tbe Organization of American States to deal witb the question of the armed intervention by the United States inthe domestic affairs of the Dominican Republic, we again put to tbe United States representative a question to wbicb he bas still not given an answer. 139. We remind him once again that Article 530f tbe United Nations Charter clearly and distinctly states tbat no enforcement action shall be taken witbout tire authorization of the Security Council. Tbe United States representative must render an account Iaere of tbe action taken by the Untted States occupation forces. 140. We again ask him: When did tbe Security Council authorise this action? Wben did tbe Counoil issue a mandate for tbe application of enforcement measures against the Dominican Republic? Let bim show us a resolution of the Cou&l lo tbis effect. Instead of obtaining a mandate from tbe Security Council, tbe United States shows us scraps of paper adopted behind closed d’ors in an organisation wbere it lays down tbe law. 141. Tbe intervention intbe DominicanRepublic is one further manifestation of tbe United States polioy of arbitrary action and imperialist aggression. We bave already had occasion to observe tbat lately the United States has been commttting one act of aggression after another: the expansion of the “dirty wsr” in South Viet-Nam, tbe barbarous bombings of tbe Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, tlte piratical and gangster-like raids on Laotian towns and villages, the massacre of Panamanian patriots, tbe iandin of United States and Belgian parachute tro0ps in CO -and aow, tbe wanton amed invasion of atill anotber sovereign State, tbe Dominican Republic. 142. Su& undisguised banditry poses a particular~y serious and direct tbreat to the small countries of Latin Amerioa, Africa and Asia. Uesterday it was and Panama; today it is South Viet-Nam United primiples is nonws of States md Of fQX-CQ Zl@ii%St hndepeUdQnOQ Of t? IS BOt thQ pII1sWW action taken by tbe session of thé General Assembly? Is it net witb these purposes in mind th~y tried to paralyse the United Nations? 145. T$e ruhg circles in the United States show culiar disease wbicb Qat for the pQoplQS Of the entireworld, for aSl tbe countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia. WQ aR rQmQmbQr that tbQ ConunuUiSt scare was USQd aS a screen for faSCiSm, which precipitated tbe Second World War. And who were the fiist vfctims of the Hitler invaders? Austria, Poland, Czechoslovahia, Demnark, Norway, France and otber Rumpean countries. Can we forget tbat, espQcia.Ry today, when the nations of the world are celebrating the twentieth amiversary of the victory over the brownplague? Can t that when we see that thQ United States r more brasetiy assuming tbe mle of hi ding thQ fats Of WtiQaS, 146. We s.re net surprised tbe Wnited States represQntative-+nd 1 am of CoUSSQ Speaking of tbQ United States representative in bis officias, not bis PWSOnal, capacity-should have resorted to spreading nomensicas rumeurs about foreign agQnts in the DoF2~dcaQ RQPUbliC and Qngaged in thQ mit.hlQtiQal of which hé is SO fond, of how many tberere are in that country, etc. 148. Cari the existence of various political parties in the Dominioan Republic serve to even the slightest extent as a pretext for the United States to intervene in the domestic affairs of that State? If we were to follow this very strange logic of the United States representative, then we could, on the outlandisk pretext that in some countries there are political parties whioh are objectionable to United States imperialism, go very far indeed. even to encouraging the landing of United States armed forces in any and ail countries. We migkt tell the United States representative in confidence tbst inItaly, for instance, there is quite a large connnunist party, many members of wkich are deputies to the Itslian Parliament-and tkere are hundreds of thousands of Communists and tkose who vote for tkem number in tke millions. Does not his reasoning imply tkat United States imperialism cari reserve tke rigkt to send its troops into Rome or Naples? And in that case they must net forget to stop in London on tke way and to brIng their tanks, because in England, too, there are Commun&s to be found. 149. The United States representative must tell tke Council wkat the United States soldiers are doingto repress tke Dominican people and by wkat rigkt they are there. 150. One need only watch tke news on United States television to become convinced that tke United States interventionists are waging a real war against tke people of the Dominican Republic. We observe tke tanks clankbrg along and see tke lines of United States soldiers in battle formation carrying out punitive actions against the people. Tke United States interventionists are making ample use of keavy automatic weapons, machine-guns and Le like. 151. There are nowover 30,OOOUnitedStates troopsofficers and men-in the territory of the Dominican Republic. Familiar numbers, tkese. And are we now to expect otker, equally familiar tkings-napalm and bombs dropped by United States aircraft, and tken toxic substances, poison gas, and after that an announcement from tke Pentagon tkat preparations are being made to use yet otker weapons of mass destruction in tkat part of tke world? And then the process will be repeated in some otker country, and tken in some otker part of the world, and aR su& actions Will bs given a semblance of propriety by means of sesolutions adopted under pressure and under orders, and we skall again find ourselves sitting in tkis ckamber 1istenIng to tke legends and myths reeounted by United States representatives, and even tkat only wken tkey r&rese and a breacb cf must perform as essor must be held in cdteck. 5 the members of discussion of the situation in the Dominican Repubk. representative ofCubaa&ed, ifluaclers tirn corre6tly. what tJae United States had done understood him properly, that e sevolt against Juan Bosch and owerthrew a few facts . 159. NO~, as to President Juan Bosch, we gave hlm very substantial economic aid, techuical assistance, educational assistance and development advice, counsel and aid. The Unlted States waited for more tban two months, and received assurances in respect of civil liberties and assurances that an election would be held, before it recognizedthe juntawhichoverthrew President Bosch. 160. The representative of Cuba, agam if 1 understood himcorrectly, hasquotedSalvadordeMadariaga, wbom 1 acknowledge that Iknow audrespect profoundly, as saying tbat to qlaim Bosch is a Communist would be ridiculous. This seems to me a little surprising in vlew of the fact tbat 1 do not kuow anyone wbo is claiming tbat President Bosch is a Communist. Certainly nobody in tbe United States Governmenthas said SO. But what we have been saying here-and I thought 1 had made it clear-is that the movemeut to restore him to power under tbe Constitution that prevailed at the time of his inoumbency was being taken over by Communists. And 1 should like to point OUt to the Council that even now President Bosch cari he quoted, as he was here today, because he lives and speaks freely, without restraint and with full United States Press coverq?, in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico-as do, 1 could add, a great many refugees from Cuba. 161. 1 was a little surprisedto hear tbe representative of Cuba questioning the legality of the action of the Organisation of American States wbich, for tbe last week, he has been denouncing in contemptuous language, snd from which Cuba has been expelled. 162. 1 Will not attempt to add anything to the statement-the very remarkable statement, Ithink-by Ambassador Ortis Sans of Boliviaaboutthebonouable institution, the Organisation of American States, which bas been SO grossly slandered. 1 would just lie to comment, however, that theunjust insinuations agaiust the Organization of Amerioan States serve only to reveal its effectiveness. Tbat it is no supine creature of any one of the members would be obvlous to auyone who followed its debates on a varieiy of subjects, including the debate on the creation of au armed force to watch over the situation in the Dominlcan Republic. My Governmeut is proud to be a member of thls unique organization and to abide by its decisions. This organisation wbich many years ago was the dream of the Liberator, Sim6n Boli’var, is growing with the years and showlng, we believe, the flexibility required of living organisms to meet new problems. Jlt is an integral part of the Unlted Nations system. We look forward to its increaeing usefulness sud its effeetiveness in the years to corne. 163. I sball net dwell on what tbe representative of Cuba said by way of repetition of his attacks on wbat my Goverument has done to evacuate foreigners, to revert tu bis question about the tmired by tbe Organisation of Americaa States. 104. I sb0Pd point out to him that +he decision-as to an States is, of course, a tien of American States, not for us and wrt for Guba. Apparently, however, be question tbe Ecminican vote. The fa& iv+ and bere ï invite tbe attention of my colleague, Ambassador Fedorenko even if tbe Domiaican t been represented, tbere w0uld rente wbatever in the outcome. Tbe es of procedure for meetings of the of Omsultati0n protide that decisions shall en by two thirds of tbe coumries represented at tbe meeting. T~US, even if tbe Donunican Republic bad net been represented at the Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Forei Miiisters, the resohrtion t tbey adopted on 6 May woutd still received necessary two-tbirck vote, that is, een votes out of a total of nineteen present. 165. 1 bqe Ambassa the representative of io form, may find occasion to answer I asked ~im-~dwi~o~t interruptbag my question as to tbe number of communist agents active in the arn Id uprising in tbe Domïnican Republic. As we baveallnotedfrom the ne!wspaprs, which evidently he reads avidly, we bave already identified some fifty-four and publisbed tbe list. tien of p@‘=bBpS WmKd. i to un&r I er from Ambassador Fedorenko’s remarks today that he has no intention of answeringmyquestion. And 1 certainly cari understand that, because communist agents, partictdarly when they are endeavouring to . . .

May Easkiftberepresentative of the United States will gïve way to tbe representative of the Soviet Unicm, sobe mayanswerthe question tbat was put to bim by the sepresentative of the Unitsd S&&es? FE~~E~~Q (Union of Soviet Socialist (translated from Russian): I am prepared r. Bresident, abhough 1 see tbat . . . r. STEVRNSON (United States of America): oontinue with my statement, or does anyone 169. The PRRSIDENT: I request e representative of tbe Soviet Union ta reserve bis repKy untti after 171. I gave Mr. Fedorenko an answer the other &y about the number of United States forces in the hominican Republic and 1 must say in ail candeur tbat I have no intention of obliging him titih~urly bulletins, but 1 cari assure him that the figure of 30,000 which he used, I believe tbls afternoon, is no more authoritative than most of the other data tbat bis reference service culls from our newspapers. 172. The representative of Cuba, who I believe is a distinguished jurist, has given us an extensive dlncourse on international law including his views on the subject of intervention. 1 should think that any Cuban would be rather diffident in t&ing ahout international law, although 1 would concede that he must be well qualified ab an expert on intervention and 1 am sure that he could give us an interesting analysis as to why Cuba% 9esolute aidR. to quote the language of the so-called freedom fighters, to independent Latin American countries as well as to Guadeloupe, Martinique and other areas officially announced in Havana in November, is neither illegal intervention nor a violation of the Organisation of American States or the United Nations Charter. We have been informed at some length by Mr. Fedore& about the situation and the views of many people by quotations from our Press. 1 should thlnk that this would reveal to hlm how the United States operates: free speech, a free Press, free debates, freely elected public officia& debates even betweenlegislaturcs and the executive. Out of thls free and open exchange we often finslly get tbe truth. I would commend this system to him.

The Soviet delegation wss prepared to give an immediate reply to the question put by the UnitedStates representative, but he was apparantly the captive of what is set out in his text. His rhetoric did not allow for a reply from us, that is, for the possibility of an immediate reply. 174. He has therefore found bimself in a somewhat unfortunate situation. 1 should advise bim inthefuture to leave room for a possible reply from us, to reserve, SO to speak, a place in which to bear the truth-a place for the truth. 175. Me presented some arithmetical data yesterday and repeated them today. Arithmetic has obviously let him down. He has quoted figures which are at variante with the facts. In the face of United States intervention, in the present state of occupation, net single individuals, not tens or scores of them, but every Citizen has become an agent for bis CountrY. Al1 Dominicans, moved by the sacred Will to defend their sovereignty snd independence, are now resisting se tbeii will. That n the colonial OQ Government. to clear up OR~ point because of ch bave been made here. The same with the 0 ration of African the second remark wbich he es net bave to ask permission Central lnteliigence Agency to hold tbis type t reCadn tb.at the other day he was we bad not held elections. I mn gofng

My list of speakers is exhausted, as perhaps we all are. 1s there anycne wbo wishes to speak now?

At the last meeting of the Council I stated that some furtber developments which had receutly occurred concerning the situation in the Domlnican Republic warranted careful attention and that, coasequentIy, 1 was taklng tbe liber@ of requestingthe Soviet Union representative to agree tbat the draft resolution submitted by his delegation should not be put to tbe vote immediately. 186. After certain consultations whlch 1 bave beld today, 1 find myself obliged to declare that some members of the Council would &II Iike to bave a little more time to consider certain aspects of tbe problem which we are dlscusslng and wbich in our opinion are important. Consequeatly, I should I to take advantags once again of the courtesy of the representative of the Soviet Union and ask bim to agree that voting should net take place at today’s meeting. I am sure that he Will bave no objection if he besrs in mind the various reasons that Ieadme to make this request. Moreover, 1 am sure he wlll not be surprised since he is certainly famlliar wlth a very popular proverb from the reglonof Azerbaijanand Ishall quote the English translation from the excellent bcok by Victor de Gulnabourg eatitled Wit and Wisdom of the United Nations wblch is SO often used and SO little quoted: ‘You will make a present of the cloth: they Will tben askfor the Unlng.n

The representative of Uruguay has expressed a valid reason for a new appeal to postpone the voting on the Soviet draft resolution before the Council. Iagainwishto associate my delegation and myself with that appeal. 188. The situation in the Dominlcan Republic continues to be of concern to tbe Securiiy Council, and the Council should make every effort possible to meet tbe requirements of tbat situation. 1 feel certain that tbis approach is wldely appreciated. 1 therefore trust that tbe representative of the Soviet Union will willlngly, and for the second time, sllow some more tlme for efforts to materialize on tbe abovementioned Unes. 1 thank him in advance.

As we a11 know, the representative of the Soviet Union is always ready with his answers to any questions. Will he now answer the question that has been put to him? 190. hir. FEDORENKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translateci from Russiau): The repre- Iikewise stressed the atkm of tbe question by tlle st organ of this hternaticmal rds tbe next meeting, I sbould like to T tbe representative of uru~ay bas P~&U date and time in rdnd. r. VELAZQUEZ (U~~ay~ (translated from delegation and aiso, I thii, the delegsve refemed. vmnld be reacly to CQWCil tQ CO on RIonday acceptable to r members resentative of Uruguay alterneon. 1 bave made otlaer Seoretariat point of would be more acceptable tban STEVENSQN (United States of America): e ~~ave~o~jectio~~~e postponement ay b the Canneil that lxivtng ermon would be extremely use 1 bave certain unavoidable Rowewr, 1 would be quite ting on Tuesday if it accommodates tbe wishes of the Council. I oan assure tbe representativs of tbe Soviet Union tbat it will not cause me t5e least discomfort to bave tbe rope around my ne& for that mucb longer.

It bas been suggested by the ifepmsentative of the United States tbat for reasons d convenien@e he would prefer to bave the meeting on Tuesday morning ramer than on IMonday sfternoon.

,We have just beard a statement from the United States representative. We of course realize fulI well bow the representative of the United States must now be feel ; as they say, lkowever, “one must bow to the inevitable”. I stiIl voice my preference for Monday.

There is another suggestion, and that wouldbe to bave a meeting tomorrow.

1 understood from the representative of Uruguay that he wanted the weekend to be able tB complete his consultations and Ibelievethat is why he suggested Monday. 201. Mr. RIFA’I (Jordan): If 1 may be allowed to do SO by the representative of Uru!$uay, I should like to suggest as a matter of convenlence that we meet on Tuesday’ morning, if no objection is raised. 1 myself cannot be available during the weekend. Therefore Monday Will perhaps be the only useful day for exchanging views and holding consultations. Thus 1 hope that Tuesday morning will be agreeable to everybody.

1 believe that the representative of the Soviet Union has met the request of the representatives of Uruguay and Jordan nearly three quarters of thw way. IIe could probably go the other quarter, 60 that we could meet on Tuesday morning.

The Soviet delegation is unable to resist SO resolute an assault by our distinguished colleagues from Jordan and Uruguay, and we acquiesce.

We are particularly grateful that we shall not be required to meet on Monday. Tberefore we shall meet on Tuesday at 10.30 a.m. T%e meeffng rose at 6.35p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED United Nations publications may distributors throughout the world. write to: United Nations, Sales COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS Les publications des Nations Unies sont agences dépositaires du monde entier. au adresser-vous à: Nations Unies, Section COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES Las publicaciones de las Naciones casas distribuidoras en tadas partes dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Section Litho in U.N. Price: $U.S. 1.00 (or equlvalem