S/PV.1216 Security Council

In accordance with the previous decision of tbe Security Cou&l, 1 now propose to invite tbe representative of Cuba to take a place at tbe CounciI table. Af fhe iav~fafion of fhe Presidenf, Mr. Alvarez Tabio (Cuba) fook a place af the Cosncil fable.

Tbe Council will now contiiue its consideration of the item relating totheDominican Republic. 3. Mr. VELAZQUEZ (Uruguay) (translated from Suanishl: In accordance with wbat 1 believe was agreed -yesterday, the Council should now be able to proceed to a vote on the draft resolution submitted by my delegation [S/6346/Rev.l]l/. Therefore 1 should lie to request you, Mr. President, to take tbe necessary steps SO that we cari proceed to a vote on tbis draft resolution. 4. If 1 may, 1 sbauld like tc say a few more words. During several previous statements 1 explained the reasons which prompted my delegation to submit this draft resolution. 1 said then tbat we were very much afraid tbat the Cooncii migbt conclude thie debate witbout adop a decision; that that would certainly constitute a very serious precedent for the smaller countries whicb vmuld thus be deprived of the juridical Y 5. It was for that purpose, and solely for tint purpose-and therefore some other recommendations whioh we would bave liked to include had to be omittedthat my delegation submitted the original version on 11 May lS/63461?/. This has now been slightly amended to adapt it to the course of events andto the actual situation as it is today. 6. But this draft resolution, the original or the revised version, remains a minimum. 1 think that, if net unjust, it is at least inadequate to say that the gap has still to be filled between two propos&, one of wbich is my delegation’s proposai. The Uruguayan draft r.?solution is, in fact, a bridge across ht gap. 7. 1 do net think either it is realistic at this stage to consider that tbe basic elements of this draft resolution might eventually be modified or negotiated since it represents the greatest numberof concessions made by my delegation after lengthy consultations lasting many days. Consequently, it is pointless to repeat that the principle of non-intervention, the principle of banning the use of force and the principle of self-determination cannot be negotiated. 8. We are waiting with confidence andwithassurance for the Council to give its overwhelming support to this draft resolution. In our view, a vote in its faveur is a vote first for tbe principles of the Charter and secondiy for a number of reasonable, prudent and limited actions. 9. in the traglo situation whieh prevails, the voice of the Council, the stlll small voice of the Council, is the message for which those who bave chosenthe path of hononr and heroism are still waiting. 1 am sure tbat my colleagues Will understand this as 1 do and that after this meeting, which Will certainly net soon be forgotten, we will at least be able to be at peace with 01.11‘ consciences for the rest of the day.

The Secretary-General had asked to make a short statement before 1 give the floor to the representative of Uruguay, andIapologize for having neglected to oall upon him. 1 now give the floor to the Secretary-General.

kIy delegation sees in the draft resolution submitted on 11 May and redrsfted yesterday morning by the representative of Uruguay the fruit of a patient and intelligent effort to synthesize the opinions expressed during this debate. 13. TO our colleagues of the Netherlands and tbe United Kingdom, who at our last meeting expressed tbe wish tbat a compromise text might be drafted, 1 would say that in our opinion tbe draft resolution on which we are about to vote takes tbat desire largely into account. I feel ail the more free to state this opinion in that this text does net completely reflect tbe vlews of the French delegation on the serious matter before the Council. 14. We regret, for example, that it includes no provision with regard to the serious question of tbe presence of foreign troops on Dominican soil. The reference in the preambular part to Article 2, paragraphs 4 and 7, of the United Nations Charter iS of course particularly appropri:.:e in this respect. We should find it difficult to unGzr&nù that tbis reference to two fundamental principles of the United Nations might detsr members of the Council from supporting the draft resolution in question. 15. Similarly, this draft resolution obviously tskes into account a point of view shared by aI1 the countries of Latin America, as is clear from the statements made yesterday morning by our colleagues from Bolivia and Uruguay [1214th meeting]. Despite the reservations, sometimes justified, which may have been expressed here and there, the French delegation cannot but acknowledge the direct interest which all our Latin American friends naturally have in a situation which affects them most intimately, even though one of the main elements in it is not of tbeir making, and we should like topay tribute to the efforts they bave made to overcome the present crisis. 16. In short, it is clear that wbile the Uruguayan revised draft resolution may net completely satisfy all the members of the Council, it should not give rise to any serious objection on the part of any of them. At a11 events, tbe Frenchdelegationis extremely a$eful to Mr. Vel&ques for his initiative in submitting tbis text, which in particular bas the great advantage, in operative paragraphe! 3 and 4 as redrafted, of providing for the immediate decisions which the circumstances demand and which the sorely tried people of the Dominican Republic, who have been mentioned all too little in this debate, expeot of us. We shall therefore vote in faveur of the draft resolution submitted by Uruguay. 17. 1 would add that, for the reasons which 1 stated yesterday morning when we voted on the Soviet Tbe Tenth Meeting of Consultation Of MhdsterS of Fore@ Affairs, at Il.30 p.m., On 2I p(Iay, approved it resolved: (1) TO 6 to transform tbe suspension of b.ostïUlies into a permanent ceasefire, in accordame with tbe Act of Santa Domingo and with the resolution of tbis Meetingdated 19 May; (2) TO request the Secretary General oftbeorganizatlon, representii the Tenth Meeting of Consultation of ïWnisters of Foreign Affairs, to transmit tbe text of tbls resolution to the parties and to do everytbing possible to aclüeve its objectives. 19. Or. STEVENSON (United States of America): In anticipation of the fact tbat we Will be presently vcting, 1 assume, on tbe draft resolction submitted by the delegation of Uruguay, I believe that I should say a few words to explainwbytbelinited States hopes that tbis draft resolutiou will not be adopted. 20. You may recall tbat 1 outlined our general views on the draft resolution at a previous meeting (1204th meking], but 1 must make some furtber elaboration of ray objections in tbe light of tbe revisions submitted by tbe representative of Uruguay yesterday (1214tb meeting]. In presenting his draft resolution originally he indicated tbat his mainobjective, or at least one of his main objectives, was to avert serious damage to the United Nations arising out of tbe difficulties in tbe Dominican Republic and tbat he tberefore felt that the Council should reach some conclusion which would not pronounce on the substance of tbe question or include any controversial elements while at the same time acknowledgiag the competence of the Security Counci!. With +hat we certainly bave no quarrel. 21. The representative of Uruguay noted also the important part played by the OAS in achieving the cesse-fire and the fact that tbe OAS had established an Inter-American Force, and indicated that he did net believe that this was the tims to examine the rektionships between the OAS and the UnitedNations. With these objectives we do net, as I say, have any quarrel and we appreciate profoundly the desire manifested by the representative of Uruguay to give voice t0 them in his draft resolution. 22. OU~ feeling, however, is that the draft resolution does net really meet the criteria which he sets forth. It does net, in cur view, give sufficient recognition, g The fldl te* Of me te1egram WaS eutsequently circ”,ated as document S/6374. 23. Nor does tbe draft resolutionmention the appointment of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States as its representative in the Dominican Republic or the OAS decision on cooperation with the United Nations. And it does not ask our representative to co-operate wlth the OAS. The Secretary General of the OAS has been asked to co-operate with the United Nations. and it would seem to me to be most deficient if we did not reciproca:e by appropriate instructions to the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 24. Finally, 1 would note tbat paragraph 7 of the draft resolution asks the Organization of American States to co-operate in the implementation of the Securiiy Council resolution, but glves no recognition to the action taken by the OAS. 25. 1 must add that we also find difficulties with some aspects of the preamble, whlch still contains contentious elements which we had hoped would be eliminated. The text does, of course, obscure or eliminate some contentious points. Thus, in an effort to avoid dealing with the various scopes of regional action set forth in Articles 52 and 53, it simply refers to Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. 26. In other instances, however, it is selective, citing certain Articles of the Charter which support one thesis while leaving out those that support another. The rationale of citing Chapter WI instead of Articles 52 through 54, for instance, would bave argued for citing Cbapter VI instead of Articles 34 and 35 to the exclusion of Article 33. It would bave argued, similarly, for reference to Chapter 1 of the Charter instead of citing one of its Articles, in fact particular r a general reference to theOAScbarter of the various chapters to include all in a non-contentious form. ruguayan text yesterimprove this. In fact entious elements. For operative paragraph 3 of resolution 203 (1965) ed by tbe Coumil on 14 M+y 1965, which used a compromise word@g of “strict cesse fire”. Tbe members of tbe Council are well aware that thls was a deliberate ambiguity designed net to determine somethiag different from tbe action on of American States or a reaffiran wording clearly of an effort to move on iaUy here ratber than to encourage the reglonal 26. For these reasons, the United States is unable to support tbe Uruguayan draft resolution, altbougb it concurs in tbe substance of tbe two main points in that text, namely in tbe right of the people of the Dominican Republic freely to exercise, wltbout coercion of any hind, thelr sovereign right of selfdetermination, and in the appeal to all contending faCtio!Is to cesse hostilities. which should be done in compliance witb the OAS cesse-fire, and make every possible effort to acliieve a peaceful and democratic solution of tbeir differences.

If the Council is ready, we oould now proceed to vote on the revised Uruguayan draft resolution [S/6346/Rev.l.]. 1 shall now cal1 on members who wish to explain their vote before tbe voting takes place.

The Uruguayan draft resolution on whioh we are about to vote sums np admirably a11 the currents of opinion in the Council, subjeot of course to some slight sbades of differenoe wbich are inseparable from the prinoiple of compromise. We aIl hnow that thediffioulties whichwehaveencountered were due to tbe fact that some members of tbe Counoll wanted it to be stated explicitly that the Council favoured tbe Organisation ofAmerioanStates, whereas some others wanted the exact opposite. 32. The draft resolution also reaffirms sometbing which is a necessity and even an obligation: namely, me principle of non-intervention in the internai affairs of another country. It is true that everyone arOund this table has affirmed this principle, but it was necessary to draw attention to it, as does tbe draft resolution, in view of the multiplicity of institutions and representations in the Dominican Republic. 33. The draft resolution also reaffirms the right of the people of the Dominican Republic tc selfdetermination-a right which they should enjoy without restraint. 34. The draft resolution mentions, too, the important matter of the cesse-fire which, as we know, the members of this Council bave already unanimously called for in an interim resolution. It was nevertheless necessary to supplement that request, and that is what has been done in paragraph 4 of the Uruguayan draft resolution. The cesse-fire depends on the two factions, and whileour authorityoverthesetwofactions may seem to be limited, we cannevertheless dc something to induce them tc respect the decision we took yesterday; that is what we are doing in calling upcn a11 States not 0nIy to refrain from encouraging or aiding those factions but indeed to deprive them of anything which might encourage or help them to go on fighting. For that reason. my delegation vfelcomes paragraph 4, which calls upon ail States to refrain from supplying either of the two factions, directly or indirectly, with facilities or military assistance of any kind. 35. Finally, the Uruguayan draft resolution “invites the Secretary-General to continue to watch closely the eventsv. Tbis draft resolution really is a truc compromise and it wonld be difficult to understand how the Security Council could fail to adopt it. 36. With regard to the amendments, the Ivory Coast delegation stated its position on them yesterday and we voted in accordance with tbat position. After the vote, the question of the degree to which Afro- Asian opinion is represented was raised. The Ivory Coast was a sponsor of the resolution of the General Assembly regarding tbe enlargement of tbe membership of the Security Council and it hastened to ratify the amendments to the Charter providing for such enlargement. It is well aware, hcwever, that even if we added twenty Afrodsian members to tbe Security Council that would in no way change the situation there. 38. I say tbk simply in order to reply to wbat the Ivory Coast regarded as an attack upon it. In conclusion, bowever, I hope tbat the Council Will appreciate the need ami the desire of the smalI Powers to see a compromise resolution adopted inanendeavour to solve a tragic problem in wbich a small Powerthe Dominican Republic-has become the viotim. We are sure that tbe draft resolution submitted by tbe representative of Uruguay would help towards SUC~ a solution. For tbat reason the delegation of tbe Ivory Coast Will vote in faveur of it.

No other representative has asked for the floor to explain bis vote before the votiag takes place. Therefore we now proceed to tbe voting stage. There is a series of Soviet amendments, which wilI be explained by the Soviet representative.

The USSR delegation would like to remind the Council of tbe amendmeats which it proposed to the draft resolution submitted by the delegation of Uruguay and which still stand; 1 refer to the amendments set out in document S/6352/Rev.Z. I should like to read these amendments as they are now worded. 1 e that all members have the text of our amendments before tbem. We propose the following: “(1) Delete tbe first preambular paragraph. “(2) Add the following preambular paragraph: “Having considered tbe question of the armed iutervention of tbe Unitsd States of America in the interna1 affairs of the Dominioan Republic.’ “(3) Delete the tbird preambular paragraph. v(4) AM the following words to operative paragrapb 1: ‘and condemns the armed intervention of the Wniéed States of Americain tbe internalaffairs of tbe Dominican Republic as a gross violation of the Charter of the Unitsd Nations’. ‘(5). Delete operative paragrapbs 6 and 7. “(6). Add the following as an operative paragraph: “Demands that the Government of tbe United States immediately withdraw its armed forces from tbe territory of tbe Dominican Republic’. n The meeting was suspended at 11.25 a.m. and resumed at il.40 a.m.

First of ail, 1 should like t0 inquire whether everyone at this table has a final copy of tbe revised USSR amendments which contains six paragraphs. Incidentally, 1 must draw the attention of those members of the Security Council, who had earlier received the same revlsed draft on a thinner paper, that they bave now been provlded wlth another text. There is a slight difference between the first text and the second text. In the first draft, paragraph 6, which says, ‘Add thefollowlngas an operative paragraph:“, begins that operative paragraph with the words: “Calls upon the Government of the United States . . .“. We understand that the Soviet text whkh had been presented began with a word which is accurately to be translated as, “Demands that the Government of the United States. . .“. Tbat is the only verbal difference between the two drafts. 1 take it that a11 members have the final document. 43. If everyone has document S/6352/Rev.Z, we shall now proceed to vote on the USSR amendments contained therein. 44. 1 now put to the vote the first amendment, reading “Delete the first preambular paragraph”. A vote was taken by show of hands. In faveur: Union of Soviet Socialist Repubks. A@ast: Bolivia, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Malaysia, Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay. Abstaining:. China, France, UnltedStates of America. The first amendment was rejected by T votes to 1. with 3 abstentions.

1 put the second amendment to the vote. It reads as follows: “Add the followlng preambular paragraph: “‘Having considered the question of the arr!ed intervention of the United States of America in the inter& affairs of the Dominican Republic.’ ” A vote was taken by show of hands. In favouc Jordan, Unionof Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Bolivia, China, Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Unlted States of America, Uruguay. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favotir: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Bolivla, Iwry Coast, Jordan, Malaysia, Netherlands, United Kingdomof Great Britain andNorthern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay. Abstaining: China, France. De Ihird amendment was rejected by 8 votes fo I, witb 2 abstenmns.

We now move on to the fourth amendment, whicla reads as follows: “Add the following words to operative paragraph 1: ‘and condemns the armed intervention of the United States of America in the internai affairs of the Dominican Republic as a gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations’.” A vote was taken by show of hands. la faveur: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Againstt Bolivia, China, Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nortbern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay. Rbstaiking: France, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Malaysia. Tbe fourfh amendmenf was rejected by 6 voles to 1. with 4 abstentions.

We now proceed to the fifth amendment. wbich reads, “Delete operative paragraphs 6 and 7”. A vote was talcen by show of hsnds. In faveur: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Bolivia, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Malaysia, Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay. hbskining: China, France, UnitedStates of America. The Pifth amendment was rejected by 7 votes to 1, with 3 abstentions.

We now go on to the sixth amendment, the last, which is in these terms: “Add the followlng as an operative paragraph: “‘Demands that the Government of the United States immediately withdraw its armed forces from the territory of the Dominican Republic’.R A@insf: Bolivia, China, Netherlands, United Itingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Unlted States of America, Uruguay. RbStauliag: France, Ivory Coast, Malaysia. The siuth smendmenf was rejecfed by 6 votes fo 2, wifh 3 abstentions.

As a result of the voting, ail the amendments submltted in document S/6352/ Rev.2 have been rejected. 51. Before putting the revised Uruguavan draft resolution to the vote, 1 cal1 on the representative of the Soviet Union.

For reasons which the USSR ddegation has repeatedly mentioned in its statements in the Security Council, we cannot support the inclusion in the Council’s resolutions of any provisions which contain either direct or indirect expressions of approval of actions of tbe Organization of American States, which are altogether contrary to the United Nations Charter. At the same time, we are prepared to support a number of provisions contained in the Uruguayan draft resolution, despite its inadequacy. In this connexion, we propose that separate votes should be taken on the third preambular paragraph and on operative paragraphs 6and7. 53. If these separate votes are taken and if, as a result, the paragraphs 1 bave mentioned are deleted. the USSR delegation Will be able to vote infavour of the remainder of the Uruguayan draft resolution. 54. Thus, the fate of a number of important provisions in the Uruguayan draft resolution is in the hands of the Uruguayan delegation itself. In other words, the issue now hinges on whetberthe Uruguayan delegation agrees to separate votes being taken on the paragraphs 1 have enumerated. 55. Despite the fact that our important amendments to the Uruguayan draft resolution bave not been accepted, we are making this further major effort to enable the Security Council to adopt a decision. 56. We appeal to the delegation of Uruguay to show a proper understanding and a sense of responsibility as regards the arguments of tbe USSR delegation and its request for a separate vote.

My delegation has heard the request which the representative of the Soviet Union has just made in exercise of his right under the second paragraph of rule 32 of the provisionalrulesof procedure. 58. 1 very much regret tbat my delegation is net authorized to concede the separate vote requested by tbe Soviet Union representative. 1 am slnoerely sorry since Uruguay, tbroughout its participation in 69. ~owever, we are mw faced with a unique and very peculiar situation. First tbe system Of voting in tbe Seeurity Coumil-wbicb, as we all lmow and as tbe Ivory Coast representative ri out a few moments ago, is not a cratic p that the exercise of that freedom e pmduces different results dependkg on wbich members’ votes are being considered ami, in consequence, makes it impossible to achieve that equality of opportunity whicb my delegation witb its liberal attitude bas always wished to encourage. GO. Secondly-and 1 need bardly say this since the Soviet amenciment makes it clear-my delegation knows perfectly well bow tbe delegation requesting the division Will cast its vote. 61. 1 believe, as 1 bave already said on many occasions, that tbe two paragraphs, wbose deletion is requested, aie essential to tbe Uruguayan draft resolution since tbey provide a balanced solution to the very delicate problem of barmonieingtbe functions of tbe United Nations with tbose of the regional agencies. 62. When 1 introduoed tbe draft resolution, 1 saidand 1 repeated it yesterday and today-that my primary concern was to affirm the competence of the Council wlthout beginuing to questionordetermiue at this tims tbe competence of these regional agencies and that I considered tbat tbe formula proposed by my delegation was best able to reflect this view and avoicl introducing any controversial or polemic elemeuts. 63. 1 am sure that tbe Soviet Union representative Will understand that for my delegation these two paragraphs are basic elements of its draft resolution since without tbem tbe minimum on which it hopes chat general agreemsnt may shortly be reached would be lacking. If, as a result of a separate vote, they were Mt accepted, the whole framework of the draft would collapse. 64. AS Mr. Pedorenko said just now, the fate of some parts of the draft resolutiou may or may net be in my hands. However, the fate, not of a few Parts, but of the whole draft resolution, Will certainly not be in my hands, since witbout tbese two paragraphs my delegation would not be able to vote for its own draft resolution. 65. I am sure that the representative of the Soviet Union Will understand the reasons wby-with sincere regrets, I must repeat-1 am compelled to decline bis request. 6’7. It is wlth a feeling of regret that we are forced tc state that during this explanation we heard no convinclng or satisfactory arguments which might persuade us not to insist on our pmposal. Trutb is indivisible: for us the truth is one. We cannot retreat fmm our position of principle, which is bassd entirely on observance of the United Nations Charter. We cannot depart fmm the fundamental principles of onr Organisation. We do net wish to be a party tc the destruction of the United Nations Charter. 66. On the strength of all this, the delegation of the Soviet Union repeats that it cannot support the Uruguayan draft resolution in the form in whlch lt is to be put to the vote.

In view of the statement by the representative of Uruguay, the draft resolution as a whole [S/6346/Rev.l] will be put to the vote. A vote was taken by show of baads. lo faveur: France, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Malaysia, UntguaY. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. AbstaWng: Bolivia, China, Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthernIreland, United States of America. 2-k result of the vote was 5 in faveur, 1 agaiast, wifh 5 abstenfions. The draft resolotion was net adopkd, baviag failed to oblaia fhe affirmative votes of sevea members.

Several representatives wish tc explain tbeir votes on the draft resolution and 1 cal1 upon tbe first of these, the representative of tbe United Kingdom. 71. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): First of’all, 1 would wish to take thés opportunity to express to the representative of Uruguay my special appreciation for the courtesy and consideration whlchhe showed tc me yesterday when 1 requested that the vote should be taken today and not last evening. Tbat was 5 request ma& to him wltb the full knowledge of the urgency of the matter wbich we were discusslng and it was in no sense a request for delay except under the necessity of most anxiously and careiûlly considering the draft resolution which he had brougbt tc us. 1 would also, if 1 may, respectfully, say tc him that 1 agree with mucb of what he said today. m, 5t least, ac we muat seelc 5 bridge vieais of otbers. I belïeve, in spite of tbe fact that the resolution which he ha.9 succeeoed, that be bas in fact to the agreement s COunCiI following n. 73. P wcmld go on to say tbat in tbe resolution itself my debgation ad my Government cxmsider that tbere $5 a est deal which is convim necessaay, SO muc5 kleed t5at it bas been a matter e wbicb that we resoluin mis Coumil, we wotdd bave been in tbe greatest difficulty in deciding wbether t0 vote in faveur or whether t0 abstain. 14. Nev s. I must say tbat there are certain features resohttion on whicb, as the representative of Uruguay lmows, we bave serious reservations. We believe that it slnould be possible, using a est deal of the material on wbich be bas worked so carefally, now amd witbout my unnecessary delay to pmceed to make an endeavour to set out again the considerations wbich will command the widest SuppOrt in this Counoil. It is only because 1 believe that we sbould make tbat effort ami that tbat effort could succeed, tbat my delegation cast tbe vote which we bave just cast. Tberefore. I sbould like to say again that in my delegation we are determined that in kbis matter we sb0uld net be. negative, we should n0t be passive; we must be positive and constructive. 75. We thank the representative of Uruguay for havlng Ied the wav in a serious sud constructive effort to find tbe best solution to OUT pmblems. We greatly e chat in thés final effort he will bring his wisdom ment to belp us. Therefore, in explanae 1 say that we shaIl seek immediatelybave su stions to put forward-for practical and positive action to be taken, botb at once and following up tbe immediate situation again with a comprebensive resolution which commands maximum support. B is because 1 look to tbat result that 1 found it necessary just now to abstain on the resolutien wbich was bmugbt before us. 16. r. FEDORENKO (Union of soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The USSR deIegation today submitted some amendments to tbe Uruguayan draft resolution which were dictated by me u.9 take States a effective action against United ion. The aim of the USSR amendments is to CO categorically tbe crime of the United States interventionists and to demand tbe immediate awal of United States occupation troops from minican Republic. Cil. 78. The USSR delegation bad shown itself ready to meet the Uruguayan delegation half-way andto support the Uruguayan draft resolution. despite its weahnesses and serious shortcomings, as the bar-est minimum we could accept. B was, however, absolutely clear tbat it was essential to delete from tbe Uruguayan draft resolution whatever not only was net usefnl, but might be used by the aggressor for his ovm selfish ends. It was for this reason that we appealed to the Uruguayan delegation net to abject to our request for a separate vote on the third preambular paragraph and on operative paragraphs 6 and 7 of the draft resolution, which refer to the activities of the Organisation of American States. 79. The USSR would have been failing in its duty as a permanent member of the Security Council if it had not opposed these paragraphs on principle. Lt is no secret to anyone that one of the main caver skies advsnced by the United States for its aggression against the Uominican Republic was its claim that tbe question must be referred to the Organisation of American States. 80. The United States, in a cowardly fashion, is tryiag to caver up its criminal and shameful intervention using the name and banner of that organizatien, We must say that ail manceuvres and trichs employed by the United States imperialists not only represent a challenge to the Security Cou&l, but are fraught with extremely serious consequences for the future of the United Nations, for the magie transformation of its soldiers’ uniforms by the United States constitutes a tlagrant violation of the United Nations Charter, an unprecedented act of lawlessness which strikes at the foundations of our Organisation. 81. The United States representative never gavs us an answer to our question: by what rigbt didthe Organisation of American States, witbout the authorisation of tire Security Council, undertahe enforcement action againstasmallLatinAmericancountrywhichis, moreover, a Member of the United Nations? We never had a clear anawer frombim andthat, of course, is understandable, for tire Organization of American States has received no mandate for such action from the Security Council, as provided for in Article 53 of tbe United Nations Charter. 82. The USSR delegation considers it to be its duty, in ail seriousness, to draw the attention of ail the Members of the United Nations to the faCt that tbe actions now being undertahen by the Organisation of American States at the bidding of the United States lead to the weahening and destruction of the United Nations and to lawlessness and anarchy in international affairs. The result of these actions Will be tbat the United States will completely elimmate the responsibility of tbe United Nations for tbe USSR dslegation f voting in faveur ed of tbe Uruguayan ations Charter tienty years aga, but also by aU those lembers of tbe United Natias wbo joir.od our Orgaaization siace tien. 85. We should also like to empbasize that the USSR stands guard over the Charter of the United Nations. The USSR b,as always, inaail circumstances, resolutely cause of the peopIes in tbeir m and iadependeace and bas ession, colonialism and tbe tiumari dootrine of sacism. 86. For OUT part, we should alsn like to point out tbat certain members of the Security Council coasider themsekes justified in speaking out against the Uaitecl Nations Charter, whicb they are bound to respect, but cb net ahvays bave the courage aad resolution to speak out agaiast open aggression o* even against the occupation of a sovereiga couatry. Tbat, inter ah, bas been revealed duringthe Security Couno~ideratioa of tbe question of United States armed invasion of tbe Dominican Republic, a State Member of tbe United Nations. 87. IvIr. President, witb your permission, 1 sball net ask for coasecutive interpretation.

My delegation, in conformity witb OUI GOVerment’S position, wbicb seems to be shared by most Latin Amerioan Covernments, regrets tbat it bad to abstafn during the vote wbicb bas just been taken. It did SO simply beoause the Uruguayan draft resolution, in spite of its undeniable merits, does ii& explicitly mention the competence of the Organization Of American States to deal witb the Dominican Sih%tiOn Or tbe effectiveness of its work and reduces it from its lofty position to tbe lowly status of a fact-finding mission invited merely to co-operate wiéh 0tb.53 organisations.

As I explained yesterday, my delegation felt much sympathy for tbe 90. My delegation explained its views on this subject in detail on 7 May [1203rd meetiig], ami 1 do net want to do SO again now. 1 should therefore like to Emit myself to summarising our position in this regard, as 1 stated it. The Security Cou&l is fully competent to consider all disputes and situations which migbt endanger internationalpeace and security, but a solution should in the first place be sought through resort to a regional organisation, where such an organisation exists. 91. If the draft resolution of the representative of Uruguay had been voted upon paragraph by paragraph, my delegation would bave been able to vote for most of its paragraphs. However, the representative of Uruguay preferred to have his draft resolution voted on as a whole, and we fully understand his reasons for wishing to do SO. But in these circumstances, we had no choice except to abstain from the vote on te draft resolution as a whole. 92. We are now faced with a situation in which tbe draft resolution of Uruguay has not been adopted. My delegation feels that this is all the more reason to emphasiee the suggestion which 1 made yesterday [1214th meeting] and which was made earlier in this meeting by the representative of the United Kingdom, namely, that we should now try to agree on a draft resolution which would contafn those important, positive and constructive elements on which there is fairly wide agreement in the Council. We hope that by doing SO we may net only bring our debate to a constructive conclusion, but also still salvage the main elements and the valuable elements of the Uruguayan draft resolution. J.f there are other delegations of the same Me\r, 1 hope that perhaps between now and the next meeting of the Council we may concentrate our efforts on makinp su& an attempt.

As there are no further speakers who wish to explain their vote after the voting, 1 should like to speak briefly as the representative of MALAYSIA. 94. We found ourselves able to support and vote for the Uruguayan draft resolution. Witb respect to the operative paragraphs. we were able to accept them fully as principles wbich take account of the necessary conciliatory procedures that are urgently required in the immediate future to bring some measure of happiness and security to the people of the Dominican Republic. 95. We wish to emphasize that we bave net resigned from our position that in tbis context the first responsibility-without prejudicing the primary responsibility of the Security Cou&l-was tbat of the 97. speaking as PRESIDENT, I give the floor to the represeatative of the United States, wbo wishes to The United d States of America): States abstained on the very tbougbtful snd Worhmanlike draf% resolution presented bere morning by the delegation of Uruguay, for reathat 1 bave previously expressed. We stiX e chat some otRer action may command tbe support of the great majority of the Security Counoil. 99. Tàe fact tbat tbe Soviet Union felt it necessary ta vote against tRe Uxuguaym draft resolution because it even referred totbeOrganisationofAmerican States Ras clarifieà for all the basic and crucial the Cowti Ras been facing. erican States is a regional d Nations wbfch is specifi- Cally PX~vfded fox in the Charter. This Council must 5X% I SUbmit, by its action fail ta mcognfse thts relatfonship and permit tbe hostility of a singe member of this Cou&l to dfsturb tbis relationehip 0x. beCaUEe of its enmity tocards the OAS, to obstruct thfs Counoil in the taking of anar appropriate action

1 give the floor to tbe representative of the Ivory Coast, who wishes to exercise the right of reply. 101. IMr. USHER (Ivory Coast) (translated from French): When 1 spoke of the veto of tbe great Powers and therefore of tbe rule of unanimiiy, I did net say tbat 1 was opposed to it. It is a provision Of tbe Charter; until tlmt provision is amended, the Iwq Coast Will respect the Charter, as indeed it always does. 102. Neverthehss, 1 did say thattheruleofunanimity was perbaps the reason for the diffioulty wlth which we are faced. This matter reminds me of some advice given to me by a wise teacher, a very honomable Ambassador of a Latin American oountry to the United Nations. Ke aaid: “You know, here there 1s always something that disappears. When there is a dispute between two small Powers, if we work at it the dispute between the two small Powers disappears. If there 1s a dispute between a great Power andasmsll Power. c; the small Power disappeare. If there is a dispute between two great Powers, then it is dramatlc, for it ia the United Nations wbich disappears.” 1 believe that the Seourity Council is about to disappear. 1 do net say that 1 am opposed to the ruIe of unanimity, but 1 do say chat the Council is about to disappear perhaps because of that rule. 103. 1 do net want to be pessimistio; the situation is toc serious for that. But if we wait for unanimity to be aohieved among the great Powers on the Domiuican question, we shall certain@ bave to wait a long tle. 1 am ahsolutely convlnced of that. In vlew of tbe opinions expres.+ci here during this debate, 1 cari affirm, alas. that 1 do net believe in the unanimi@ of the great Powers on the Dominican question.

1 merely wish to say a few words. First. 1 would like to thank all the countries whloh voted in favour of the draft resolution submitted by my delegation and in particular those wbich, in elcquent ternis, expressed their support. Secondly, 1 should like to thank, without exception, a11 those wbioh would have liked to vote in faveur. Even tbougb they do not Count under tbs provision31 rules of procedure of the Council, intentions and purposes do Count. 105. In any case, 1 dc not think tbis day bas been sterile and fruitless. After aI1, each one of the regions represented in the Uuited Nations, eaob one of the continents, has spoken in support of the draft sesQluti0n. of a very short draft resoluterms of which I .sbaD now read [S/6375): ‘me secusi$J comlcn, satisfaction the suspension of hosdeoisians of the Or s taken oa 20 and 21 *(a) Calls fos a ccntinued ad complete cessation of bostiiities; w(2) Ca% on aU concesned to intensif& efforts to tbls end ~dto~~~og~preju~ce the achieveate and urgent aim. @ debate, my delegation ha6 conneml nesohkion wkdch will caver all tbe probPera> we me conaidering. NS. Rut tk necessity to worh ou a new snd agreed sesolution which cari carry maximum support slmubl S&=-~ submit ta and t0 the defleot us bas to be doms now. webaadisc w erday aad I was greatly impressed by the fact very many memkrs of tlae Counail wished to sec r action takem bere immediately. Ibelieve urgency bas net diminisbed. fndeed, reports here at tbe CQUnC~ table, whether tbey are canfirmsd or not, wbich reinforce the sens8 af urgsucy that 1 feel. 110. Uesterday, I said that I deplored and denounced tho6e wba had duriog recent days or weehs, for their 0wn zsasa cauaed a conflict and had departed from tbe tswe ch the Orgauisation af American States ished. We sbaR deplore and denaunoe any tbis immedfate urgent action to t.bis problem will sink those differ- 112. We were glad to receive the report today from the representative of the Secretary-General that the temporary truce appeared to be extended buttlmt it is a precarious truce, and we surely must usé our maximum. influence to see that it is converted into a permanent cessation of hostilities. 113. With regard to the second preambular paragraph of the draft resolution where we welcome the decisions of the Organisation of American States of 20 and 21 May, 1 might quote from the decision of 21 May when the resolution of the Organisation of American States made this the first purpose of its resolution: “TO cal1 upon the parties to transform the suspension of hostilities into a permanent ceasefire in accordance with the Act of Santo Domingo and with the resolution of this Meeting datedl9 Maya. 114. We a11 agree with that purpose. There is no possible point in any quarrelling on the purpose; we are in fundamental agreement with the purpose; we are working for the same purpose. St would be wrong and it would be unreasonable if, for any consideration whatsoever, those who wish to achieve this tùndamental purpose were to disagree or to fail to take the action that is necessary. 115. As to the urgenoy of a continued and complete cessation of hostilities, we lmow tbat that is basio to any reasonable outcome of the conflict of the Dominican Republic at this time. Without a cessation of hostilities maintained, we oannot go forward to the other purposes, on which 1 believe we are agreed, which are the withdrawal of all troops coming from outside tbe Dominican Republic and the holding of free elections in that country. 116. The second operative paragraph of the draft resolution calls on all concerned-why should it net be a11 concerned?-to intensify their efforts to this end and, equally important, to do nothing whatsoever to prejudice, by any meaas whatsoever, the achievement of this immediate and urgent aim. 117. 1 greatly hope that the Council, laying aside whatever differences we may bave, may agree on this fundamental purpose, may agree on its urgency. may agree that we should net hesitate to carry out this action now, today. Then we should proceed, in my opinion, witb a11 due speed to consider the wider resolution on which 1 believe the great majority at least of the Counoil wlll be able to corne to agreement very soon. 118. Two tbings are necessary: an immediate action as 1 recommend, and equally urgently, the work SW~UX (France) (translated from Frencb): At tbis juncture itis obvious tbatthe Security be able t0 agree on a formula that tbe substance of tbe matter. The is well lmown; it was set fortb in my statement of 4 Yay [I198tb meeting]. Smce tbat tlme, la m>tll on the draft resolution of Uruguay we bave sbcmn where oar preference lies sud tbe we attaeh to haltmg the hostllities aod to ntion in the domestic affairs of tbe Dombioan Republic. 12% It appears to üs, however, that for the moment, fm the bonour of the Security Councll and tbe United tbe essential task 1s to avoid leaving thls witb0ut any conclusion, even a provlsional one, aad ta make it clear tbat tbe Councll must continue do deal witb tbis question and that, over and above alI, the truce obtained by the representative of tbe Secretary-General should not be an epbemeral episode, at the end of which flgbting will resume. 121. It is therefore essential that the Security Caumil sbould keep the matter under review and that by renewing its appeal of 14 May lt should clearly express its desire to see the present suspensionof hostilitiss become permanent. It Will then perhaps ba possible to pursue in a better atmosphere the efforts undertaken to enable tbe population of tbe Dominican Republic at last to cboose its own government freely, by democratic means. 122. For tbat reason, without in any way repudiatlng its previous statements, the French delegation deems it appropriate to propose for the approval of tire COUnCil the following te&., wblch in its brevlly stresses the essential elements of our conoern at this tiie. We hope tbat it may be possible for ail tbe members of tbe Councll to subscribe to thls ww+L 123. This is the text of tbs draft resolution, whlcb 1 sball now read out: The Security Counoll, “Deeply concerned at tbe situation in the Domlnicari Republic, nRecalllng its resolution 203 (1965) of 14 May 1965. “Requests tbat the suspension of bostilities in Sa& Domingo be transformed mm a permanent cesse-fire.” 124. r. FEDORENKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): We bave just beard the views expressed by Mr. Seydoux, the representative of France, wbich are dlctated by hls concern over the alarming situation and by a feeling of responsibllity over tbe traglc consequences that mlgbt, ensue lf the Security Council does net take urgent msasures fortbwitb. The USSR delegationunderstands tbose vlews and tbepmposal just madebyhfr. Seydoux. It strengthens our conviction tbat it is essentlal to take su& a decision, sinoe the situation in Santa

1 now give tbe floor to the Secretary-General, who has a statement to make.

1 just wish to inform the Council that at tbis moment a report from my representative, Mr. Mayobre, is on the way; the indications are that it is going to be an important report. 128. 1 was wondermg whether the Counoil would agree to a suspension of the meeting for a half hour or SO. 1 expect to be able to submit this report in about a half hour. Of course, if it is the desire of the Council, you may wish to conrider the advisability of having an afternoon meeting at 2.30 or 3 o’clock.

While 1 bave no confirmation of the report that has just been conveyed to us by the representative of the Soviet Union, there is something I sm autborised to communicate to you. 1 have been informed wlthin the last few minutes that the factionheadedby Colonel Caamaflo in the Dominioan Republic now appears to be concentrateci in tbe downtown areaof Santa Domingo, bounded on tbe north by the Une of communications, on the west by tbe safety zone, onthe east by the river and on tbe south by the sea. 130. As members of tbe Council are awsre, tbe United States and OAS forces Will continue to prevent, by force if neoessary, any armed crossing of the line of communications, any violation of the securitysone, or any attack by sea. As far as air attacks are concerned, 1 am also informed LtSat the United States forces have effectively blocked the use of the San Isidro airfield for combat purposes. Our hope is that in these circumstances there will be in fact an effective end to the fighting among the Dominican factions which would permit political discussions to pmoeed. 131. The representative of the Organisationof Americari States, its Secretary General, Mr. Jo& Mora, is working day and night to bring about the reconoiliation which is SO necessary to enable the Dominicaris to work out their political destiny.

The suspension of our meeting for half an bour or one heur, as has been proposed, is quite advisable. By the time we reconvened, we wo*uld have before us, we hope, the officia1 report of the Secretary-General on tbe situation. 133. While 1 have the floor, 1 would like, if 1 may. to make one comment on tbe draft resolution just read out by the representative of France. It seems to me that that proposai represents the minimum decision that we could adopt under tbecircumstances.

1 caRon secretary-General for a brief intervention. Tbe tent of ayem?“s report le B situation is ominous. T. SEYDOUX (France) (translated from : P asked for the floor slmply to tell the representative of Jordan that 1 natumlly see a0 objection to an addition speci@lng tbe role whlch tbe Secretary-General shculcl continue to play wltb text WMCh COWM But il goes without saying that 1 have

If no one else wlshes to make any statement, I sbould Iike to inquire what the feeling of tbe Coumil is: wbetherwe should suspenclthe meet- DOW and meet again tbis sfternoon at 2 oWo&k, or wbetber we sbould meet at some otber tle convenient to the members. 139. Mr. RIFA’I (Jordan): 1 propose that we suspend tbe meeting for one heur and reconvene at 2 o’clock. 140. Tbe PRESIDENT: If that is acceptable to ail tbe members, the meeting could be suspended until 2 o’clock. 141. Lord CARAWN (United Itingdom): 1 am perfectly ready to corne back at any time, but 1 wonder whether a slightly longer time might not give us, perbaps, an opportunity to return to our missions to reoeive any furtber reports that we may bave from different sources and then to corne back here. It might be difficult to do tbis witbll an heur, and some of us might corne back to find tbat we were net fully assembled-not an unusual occurrence inthis Council.

The President has learned by experience not to stick his neck out too frequently. But 1 should like to auggest, if it is in accordance with the convenience of the members, that we might meet at 3 o’olock, as uaual, which would give us a little more time. By that timewe may be in a position, alao. to have fuller reports from ail sources. 144. 1s that generally acceptable? It is only when 1 raise the gave1 that new suggestions corne on. 145. The meeting is adjourned until 3 o’clock tbis afternoon. The meeting rose af 1.sp.m. TAIN UNITED otions moy be abtained ut the world. cm Soles Section, LSS ~~~~Ioo~o~s des Notions Unies sont wpnees d6pcsitaires du monde entier. Informez-vous ICACIONES ioner Unidas in UN. wcs: $U*s. 1.06) (OP %q