S/PV.1221 Security Council

Before we proceed to the subject on our agenda, 1 should like, and 1 am sure that 1 am speaking in the name of the whole Security Council, to express our heartfelt congratulations to the representative of the United States. and througb him to his Government, for the brilliantly successful completion of the four-day Gemini space flight, of which we have just been informed. This magnificent achievement of American space science and of the two brave cosmonauts constitutes a further significant step in the conquest of space and opens up new vistas. the scope of which we cannot as yet fully grasp. 2. iKhile expressing our profound joy at this new progress in space science, as the Council had the opportnnity 10 do over three monthsago [1193rdmeeting] at the experiment then carried out by the Soviet Union, may we also express the hope and the faith tbat these two great nations may likewise lead us in similar progress towards better communications, in the deeper sense of the word. between the nations on our own planet. 3. If we in the United Nations should prove incapable of making proportionate progress in the science of making nations coexist in peace, we might well face the apocalyptic day when man in bis folly Will destroy bis own planet just at the moment when he is on the verge oi capturing the secrets of other planets.

I am moSt grateful, Mr. President, for your kind remarks about the achievement of the astronauts. Your charitable and meaningful words Will, of course, be communicated to my Government promptly. and Adoption of the Agenda The agenda was adopfed. Letter doted 1 May 1965 from the Permanent Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics addressed to the Presideot of the Security Council CV631 6)

In accordance with the Council’s previous decision, 1 propose to invite the representative of Cuba to take a seat at the Council table. Al fhe invitation of fhe Preaident, Mr. Miguel J. Alfonso (Cuba) foolc a place at fhe Couacil fable.

Before we proceed, Ishouldlike to inform the members of the Council in a few words about the news which 1 received during the week-end concerning some mortar and bazooka fire which took place in the night of Friday to Saturday in Santo Domingo, and 1 should like to explain to them what was done with that information. 7. Early on Saturday afternoon, the Secretary- General transmitted to me a preliminary report which be had received concerning this incident. Later that same afternoon. 1 received a telegram from Mr. Jottin Cury, in which he complained of “the persistent military hostilities of the American troops”, which, according to his telegram, had nine times fired mortar shells on civilian sectors in the western part of the City. 8. Both documents indicated that there had been shooting, which regrettedly resulted in the loss of two lives, in a number of wounded. and in material damage. It was also apparent from these two documents, however, that there was no question of the whole cesse-fire being in danger of bretiing down. Furthermore. it was clear from the information re-. ceived by the Secretary-General that both the United Nations team and Mr. Jo& Mora and the inter- American force were investigating the incident. 9. Under these circumstances, there did not seem to be any need for a special meeting of the Security Council. 1 did, on the other hand, want the members of the Council to be informed of the incident as soon as possible. 1 therefore asked the Secretariat-and the Secretariat very expeditiously ohliged-to circulate the content of the two documents to the members of the Security Council that same day, and this happened late on Saturday afternoon. It was circulated as provision& information until the incident hsd been investigated and the report thereon received. 11. 1 apologize for the somewhat informa1 form in which this information was distributed during the week-end to the members of the Security Council, but it seemed to me that it was very important to them to receive the information as soon as possible and that this be done in the most correct form. 12. This morning, two communicationswere received transmitting reports on this subject by the Secretary General of the Organisation of American States (OAS) [S/6417 and S/6418].g In addition, the Council has received a report from the Secretary-General on the matter [5/6420].1/ 13. Furthermore, in connexion with the charges we heard at our last meeting, concerning alleged violations of human rights, a report was received this morning from the OAS concerning the activities in the Dominican Republic of that Organisation’s Commission on Human Rights and that report will shortly be circulated to members as document S/6419. u 14. In addition, late this morning 1 received another telegram from Mr. Jottin Cury, copies of which Will now be distributed to members of the Council. 15. These are the documents which are before us pertaining to the subject on our agenda. The Council Will now continue its consideration of the item before us. The first speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Jordan, to whom 1 now give the fioor. 16. Mr. RIFA’I (Jordan): Mr. President, it is an honour for me and for my delegation to join you, Sir. in expressing to the represeotative of the United States of America and, through him, to the United States Government. our most sincere congratulations for the remarkable new American achievement in the conquest of outer space. The successful journey of “Gemini IV” opens an infinite horizon in the science of exploring outer space-a field which should bring together a11 such efforts of advanced nations in the common service of human progress. 17. The Council has before it three items which we are required to deal with in the course of the present debate. The first is the officia1 statement of the Soviet Government as delivered in this Council by the representative of the Soviet Union at the opening of u Sac Officia1 Records of the Security Council. ‘&endeth Year, Supplement for April. May and June 196s. 19. The debate in this Council on the question wlth which we are seised, no matter how Sharp and violent a course it might take, should necessarily-in the light of the present political tension in the worldyield positive results. Otherwise lt Will be a serious handicap for the efforts of nations when they cannot find the place or organ to deal effectively with serious international problems. 20. If the Security Council is to be immobllized in the exercise of its primary responsibilities. then each country Will take it upon itself to act in the manner which Will best serve its own interests and Will defend its own policies. Such a development Will inevitably lead to armed confrontation, the consequences of which Will be incalculable. 21. This is why the statement of the Soviet Union justifiably urges the members of the Security Council and a11 States Members of the United Nations to glve serious consideration to situations such as the one with which we are dealing. It might be appropriate in this regard to add that, in the present disturbed international conditions, where the shadow of war is stretching more widely and more darkly, this Council must more than ever be aware of the great responsibility it shoulders. 22. As to the legal aspect of the Soviet statement, the Jordanian position was made clear on more than one occasion in the present debate. We firmly believe that the United Nations Charter does not permit a military action of the type wbich took plaoe in the Dominican Republic, whether thisaction wasunilateral or was given a regional form. Collective measures in self-defence are permitted under the Charter, but no enforcement action cari be taken under regional arrangements without the authorisation of theSecurity Council. 23. With this, allow me to turn to the letter signed by thirteen of our colleagues and friends from the Latin American States [5/6409] and to make a brief comment. As far as the OAS is concerned, in its ?/ Incorporated ,n the rec&d of che 1220th meeting, para. 120. 28. Mr. Mayobre, as representative of the Secretary- General of the United Nations and personally is enjoylng. as we all know, wide popularity in Santa Domingo and is held in high esteem. The mere presence of the United Nations in tbe Dominican Republic is a source of satisfaction to the population there. However, no one would assume that the order of the Security Council for a strict cesse-fire and cessation of hostilities which it issued in its two resolutions on the Dominican situation should be. left without machinery for their implementation. Any assumption contrary to tlnis understanding would make the ceasefire order futile and no more than symbolic. 29. In his report, tbe Secretary-General says that his Representative “bas been provided only with the staff and facilities necessary for the discharge of the mandate set forth in operative paragraph 2 of the Security Council resolution of 14 May 1965. This mandate does not include investigations of complaints. a task which would require a much larger team.. .” [S/6408. para. 61. 1 iülly appreciate this point of view and 1 submit that the task of investigating complaints which are related to violations of the cessation of hostilities should fa11 under the mandate given in Security Council resolutions 203 (1965) snd 205 (1965). 30. However, Mr. Mayobre’s task, whether limited as it is now or expanded as events may warrsnt, could not be undertsken by a one-man mission. The incident of 4 June, on which information was transmitted to the President of the Security Council by the Secretary-General [S/6420], shows clearly how much the inhabitants of Santo Domingo wish to rely on the United Nations presence and how much this presence has to be strengthened if it is to function adequately under such conditions. 31. It therefore becomes an essential requirement to assist Mr. Mayobre with a team of aides and observers to enable him to carry out the tasks of supervising the implementation of the cesse-fire and also of investigating complaints and acts of violence, since these matters are completely related to the ceasefire. The sise of the assisting group Will be decided by the Secretary-General in the light of various requirements and possibilities. We seriously believe that an arrangement along these lines, namely, enlarging the United Nations representation in the Dominican Republic, is the simple&, easiest and mr.st appropriate under the circumstances. 32. There are certainly other suggestions and ideas directed towards enabling the Security Council to assume its principal responsibility in the Dominican sih@ion more effectively. However, for the time being, the Council should better follow a practical 40. We bave before us a statement of the Soviet Government [S/6411]~ in wbich that Government specifically draws tbe attention oftbe Security Council to tbe question of tbe legality of this decision in the lisht of tbe arovfsions of tbe United Nations Charter a& of the seigional agreement. 41. On this concrete gestion. my delegatton considers that the legal considerations which-it set forth at length in order to demonstrate the illegality of the action of the United States In the Dominican Republic are equally relevant with regard to the resolution of 6 May. Nowever, SO tbat this statement may be entirely consistent with the Dne we have taken tbroughout the history of this question-i.e., rigid adherence to principles, wbich, as I have said already, bave always guided Wruguay’s international conduct-Iwish to protide some supplementary explanations which were given by our representative in the OAS in support of his negative vote on the resolution in question. 42. First, tbere ean be no doubt that the OAS, like any of its members, has an obligation to respect the provisions of articles 15 and 17 of il: Charter, which lay duwn :he principles of non-intervention and of the inviolability of the territory of a contrating State. The illegality of intervention, as everyone knows, does not depend on the number of States which intervene or tbe nature of the body intervening. Wbether unilateral or multilateral, perpetrated by one State or by a group of States, orgauically united or otherwise, intervention ami the use of force are always contrary to international legality, unless they are justified by otb@r substantive norms, as in tbe caseof Chapter VII of our Charter-expressly mentioned as an exception to the principle of non-intervention-and as in the case of article 19 of tbe OAS Charter. 43. In the second place, the only legitimate collective actionat is to say, the only collective action based on a+ubstantive legal noî’m-is the action which may be taken in accordance witb the provisions of tbe Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (arttcles 19 and 25 of the OAS Charter), the sole case in whicb force would not be a violation of the principles of non-intervention and of the territorial integrity of States. The Tenth Meeting of Consultation was not convened under the Treaty of RecipA.ocal Assistance, nor did it base its resolution of 6 May on the provisions of that Treaty. No collective measures, in the sense which that term has inlaw, cari therefore 44. Thirdly, without taking a position on the problem of so-called “peace-keeping operations”, on thenature and legality of which. as is well known. there are major differences of opinion among Members of the United Nations and even among members of this Council, my delegltion does not consider that the military intervention in the Dominican Republic cari be included in this category of operation, if only because a prerequisite generally regarded as essential is lacking. namely the consent of the interested party. And if the conclusion to be drawn, after a more careful study of this problem, particularly in its constitutional and legal aspects, were that this action should he or could be regarded as enforcement action within the meaning of the Charter, the only consequences which could follow from its “regionalisation” would he to make applicable the provisions of Article 53 of the United Nations Charter. 45. Finally. if we leave the sphere of treaties, there is a general principle of law, reaffirmed bythe International Court of Justice on many occasions, which is contained in the codes of a11 civilised nations. It is that expressed in the maxim ex injuria jus non oritur, according to which rights cannot derive from injustice nor legality from illegality. If the original presence of military forces on Dominican soi1 was illegal, the situation is in no way changed by adding other forces to these forces: the situation is in no way altered either by a change of flag, because the only ilag which could lawfully work the miracle is precisely the flao; whioh is not at pl’osent flying there. 46. 1 wanted to refer quite specifically to the question raised in document S/6411, regarding the 6 May resolïtion. 1 do net need to repeat what 1 have already said several times-that there are many fields in which action by the regional organisation is still legitimate, in which it has proved effective, and from which we Will continue to obtain important and encouraging results. The American regional organlsatien is not a new or improvised organisation nor is it the first time. that it has been faced with intricate and difficult problems. It haa experience behind it; it knows better than anyone the milieu in which it operates and the ideals inspiring it are ideals common to a11 the American peoples. The divergencies whloh may be evident among its members today. and whlch are easy to understand when it is borne in mind that the situation which has arisen ha6 no precedent, Will constitute the most solid basis for future agreement. From tbis crisis, as from every crisis-which means a new experience-it Will undoubtedly emerge strengthened. 47. Mr. President, 1 should like now to be allowed to make some brief comment6 regarding certain 48. I wish to draw attention. first, to the enormous extension which has been given within a very short time to the interventionist doctrine which we have ôlready had occasion to criticize in tbis Council. If, as we said at that time, no reasonable interpretation could lead to the conclusion that the inter-American system. with its present structure, authorizes military intervention in a country on the pretext of pseventing the establisbment of a govemment of a communist type, it seems still less acceptable to us e that this type of intervention maybe directed gavernments wbich, with deliberak va@eness. bave been cbaracterized as governments of “extremistsR of right or Peft. 49. sageons République l’adoption le couvert impr&is, tifier d’Amérique des Nations de notre l’objet que celles droit ment les devoirs et l’article reconnu dans 19612. 49. It is wlth real concern that we view tbe possibility that tbis unforhmate episode in the Dominican Republic may serve as a pretezt for the adoption of political formulae whicb, sheltering behiud an equally e and imprecise multilateralism, might be used in the future to justify intervention in some other Latin American country. Tbe concept of the selfdetermination of peoples. enshrined in the United Nations Charter. and also a corner-stone of our inter-American system, cannot allow of otber restrictions or qualifications tban those specifically authorized by international law. as isexpressly stated in article 3 of tbe Montevideo Convention on Rigbts and Duties of States of 1933 and article 9 of the OAS Charter, and as President John P. Kennedy also fraakly acknowledged in a statement on 25 November P961.y 50. This new doctrine whioh, as Uruguay pointed out in tbe OAS, is also a doctrine of preventive action -a fact which considerably increases its dangerous character-does not even attempt to distinguish-and this should be ffindamentab-between cases in which the establishment of such r6gimes is the result of illegal action from outside and those other perfectly legitimate cases in which it represents the culmination of an authentic national revolution. In a continent like Latin America, where the lot which still falls to the majority is that of poverty, oppression andignorance, the reality, the harsh reality, as President Kennedy also said-and as was recalled a few days ago in the Senate of bis country by tbe man who may he considered bis most faithful interpreter-the harsh reality, I repeat, cannot be resolved simply by putting the blame on communism, the generals OP nationalism. Any interventionist doctrine such as that which is apparently being developed will inevitably, by force of circumstances, help the cause of reaction, and 1 greatly fear that it Will only serve to destroy for ever the hopes of our peoples. 50. l’Uruguay tere d’une action pr6ventive plus dangereuse une distinction cas où l’établissement action ment processus continent sort l’oppression problemes comme le rappelait, pays, une personnalité pète, le blâme nationalisme”. type peuples. 3 Sec Officia1 Records of rhe General Assembly, Sixteenrh Session, Plenasy Meetings. 1013th meeting. session. 52. It 1s also a matter of concern to us. at this date in hlstory, agaln to hear talk of a system of ‘international policing” by certain national Powers. 1 do not know whether those who talk of this have realized the fatal consequences of this old myth of a wmanlfest destiny”. Ideas, alas, have an iron legic. Any kind of national Messianism, since many may be tempted by the idea, would inevitably bring world society back to the state of anarchy which existed at the time when the prevailing theory was that of the balance of power, and would presuppose the division of the world lnto spheres of influence, in each of which one of the “national Powers” would exercise its policing authority, without conditions or limitations. If there really is a desire to destroy the very foundations of the United Nations, 1 do not think that any better way could be found of doing SO. 53. It is essential, therefore, that thls debate should lead to an uuequivocal reaffirmation of the principle that the only international police powers are the powers of the international community, or of the regional community where appropriate. exercised in the circumstances and in accordance with the requirements laid down by international law and for the purposes expressly stated by the Charter. Until machinery is established to allow the effective exercise of this police power by the international community, we must also reaffirm those long-standing principles which are still valid and which still constitute the only protection for the weak. Non-intervention is not, obviously, an end in itself. However, and 1 shall quote what was stated by Uruguay at the Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Mini&ers of Poreign Affairs which took place at Santiago, Chile, in 1959: “It was and is a means of safeguarding the independence of peoples and their right to self- 6/ Quored in English by the speaker. 54. In the present situation, no solution is possible t0 the problem of the Dominican Republic other than one âeely decided upon by the Dominicans themselves. We a11 realize that this sister Republic Will, for a long time, require United Nations assistance and regional assistance. Mr. Mayobre’s report [S/6408] is cloquent on tbat point. Rut any assistance, any aid. any guarantees which may he given, must be spontaneously requested by the representatives of the Dominican people. The Council would do well to be guided exclusively by this principle and to help in ensuring such action at an early date. 55. Meanwhile, in the light of what the Secretary- General has told us, my delegation believes that his representative should be given all the means necessary $0 Carry out fully the task entrusted to him by operative paragraph 2 of resolution 203 (1965) adopted unanimously by the Council on 14 May 1965. 56. This mandate is sufficiently broad to allow Mr. Mayobre to feel autboriaed also to verify whetber the cesse-fire ordered by the Council is being complied With and to examine the complaints which he has received. It LS obvlous that the duty to report presupposes the power to imestigate, since the investigation called for relates to aspects of the situation in the Dominican Republic, which is precisely the subject on which he is asked to report. Everyone is familiar with the doctrine of Vmplied powers”, to which United States legal thinking has made suoh a notable contribution, and 1 do not think it necessary for me to embark on a discussion of that point. 58. Mr, SEYDOUX (France) (translatedfrom French): It is with sincere joy that the Frenchdelegation associates itself with the congratulations that our President and the preceding speakers have just addressed to the United States representative on the occasion of the space flight by astronauts McDivitt and White. Those who conceived this exploit, those who prepared it, and also and above a11 those who for four days have given proof of such great ski11 and courage deserve our admiration and our gratitude. The American Government and people of the United States cari take great and legitimate pride in an achievement which is SO remarkable in every way. 59. At its 1220th meeting on 3 June, the Security Council heard the representative of the SovieZ Union communicate an important statement from his Government following which the United States representative gave a detailed refutation of the points made in that statement. The members of the Council could net fail to note that that was no empty controversy, but was, on the contrary. a debate with very wide implications, not only because it concerned the destiny of the Dominican Republic but also because the precedent which might be created at Santa Domingo concerned the international community as a whole. It is therefore desirable that each delegation should take a clear stand. My delegation, for its part, deems it necessary, in this new phase of the matter before the Council, to state once again the principles on which its judgement is based, and to make certain suggestions i,mpired by the latest developments in that situation. 60. From the very beginning, the FrenchGovernment could net but disapprove of the action of the United States troops in Santa Domingo. We disapprove of fore@ military intervention in any State, and of all interference in the interna1 affairs of any State. This applies to action undertaken by a single country. but it also applies to action undertaken by several countries, even under the caver of a multilateral organization, for it is still intervention, and that is what we cannot accept, particularly in the absence of any support or agreement by the local government. as is the case in Santo Domingo. 61. Indeed, as everyone knows, the Dominican Republic has been without a government for six weeks and in the absence of a central authority one cari deal only with factions. Al1 those who seek a solution to the crisis should make it a rule not to impede the 62. It is a fact that serious humanitarian problems exist at the present time. Mr. Cury’s messages bave brougbt some of them to OUI attention, and the Press reveakd others this morning. Everybody recognises that acts of violence and serious abuses are being oommitted. In order to remedy the situation, we must act quickly. Provided that political considerations are set aside, ail sincere efforts to obtain the desired results will naturally be welcomed, includiig the humanitarian action thi+. cari be undertaken by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. But tbe representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Mayobre, wbo is performing bis difficult task with a tact, a spirit of initiative and an impartiality that are particularly praiseworthy, must be in a position to report to the COI ncil on this aspect of the crisis. My delegation considers that if the means now available to him do net enable him to perform that task effectively-wbich would appear to be the case, judging by the report of 3 June [S/6408]-the Security Council should autborize the Secretary-General to supply him witb any additions3 staff and equipment that he may deem neoessary.

The Security Council is now beginning its second month of debate on the serious situation in the Dominican Republic, a situation which has resulted from the criminal and illegal intervention of United States armed forces in the interna1 affairs of a sovereign State. During the Council’s recess, the events taking place in the Dominican Republic lost none of their tragic tension; on the contrary, the situation has assumed increasing seriousness and urgency witb every passing day, confirming one by one the charges made by my delegation in this chamber and underlining the extremely grave threat to international Peace and security posed by ihs United States military occupation of that small country. 64. The events of the last few days have served, in the first place, to reaffirm the perverse and brutal cbaracter of the gang of wgorillasn headed by the so-called General Imbert and the latter% despicable roule as the mere creature of United States imperialism. Secondly. they have confirmed the shameful role played by tbat embodiment of Stevensonianism that answers to the name of the Organisation of American Smtes. Ffnall~, they have stablished the growing urgency of the need for action by the Council on the fundamental problem before it, which is nothing other than the sot of aggression committed by the United States. a permanent bmember of this Council, against 66. The Constitutionalist Government headed by Colonel Caamafio has charged that the group of officers supporting the current puppet in the Dominican Republic, having lest a11 hope of winning any popular Support, is practising genocide and destruction in one part of the City of Santa Domingo. The henchman of United States imperialism has startecl using openly the methods he learned from his political master and mentor, Rafael LeBnidas Trujillo, whose name was anathema throughout America. 67. The communication of 30 May also refers to the junta’s criminal repression of thousands of Dominicaris demonstrating in faveur of the Constimtionalist Government in the City of San Francisco de Macorfs, an action during which the hired hutchers in charge of the punitive troops ordered them to open fire on the church of Santa Ana when the people sought refuge there. The international Press has also reported the specific case of the priest Vicente Rodi+@ez, who was murdered by Imbert’s soldiers. 68. These brutal acts have a11 been condemnedbefore the Council and world public opinion, not onlybecause they constitute a direct violation of the human rights guaranteed by the Dominican Constitution, but also because they are an open affront to the religlous feelings of the Dominican people. 69. The facts placed before the Council must be kept in proper perspective. They cari he considered only as a logical consequence of the fundamental problem with which we are faced: the excesses committed by the junta stem directly from the United States presence in Santo Domingo. The most serious aspect of these manifestations of barharism is that they are being carried out with the active complicity of the United States occupation troops. 70. From the outset we have denounced the umbilical tord linking the gorilla gang of Wessin, Benoit and Imbert to the United States Embassy and the invading marines. After the United States Secretary of State’S 71. Tbe.United States Government-eitherdirectlyor tbx h its Dominican amanuenses-has used a wide oariety of means to break the figbting spirit of the Daminican people: genooide, murder, torture, bribery, tbreats, and tbe promise of a %epresentative democraCy” stamped witb tbe well-known trademark “Made in U.S.A.‘. 72. In its forthright denunciation of 25 May 1965. the Dominican Congress proclaimed: “It is no longer a secret in the Dominican Republic that the Government of the United States of America. by the use of delaying and obstructionist tactics which in fact amount to coercion. has bsen bringing strong pressure to bear on responsible persons and bodies within and witbout Santa Domingo, with the clear intention of imposing solutions openly contrary to the democratic interests of the Dominican people.” It went on to protest strongly agaiust “this new attempt by the Government of the United States to frustrate the Dominican people’s right of self-determination”. 73. But we are confident that none of thesepressures Will break the fighting spirit or resistance of the Dominican people. That resistance Will undoubtedly grow SO long as any Dominican soi1 remains under the foreign heel, as is proved by the impressive mass demonstrations in faveur of the Constitutionalist Government which took place last week-end in the Dominican capital. With every day that passes, the military occupation of their country provides a new lesson to the Dominican people, as it does to a11 the peoples of Latin America and of the world. 74. The staie pretext used by President Johnson in his attempt to justify the dispatch of tensof thousands of marines and paratroopers to the land of Duarte and Maxima Gbmes was the need to evacuate United States citisens and protect UnitedStates interests. The United States civilians bave now been evacuated, but United States interests are still there and SO are the invading troops, although in the new act of this tragic farce they now wear the arm band of the OAS. 76. History repeats itself. Faced with the preseut events, tbe Dominioan people recall the last Yankee occupation, which lasted from 1916 to 1924. Yesterday. the political inheritance was the Trujillodictatorship. Today the attempt is being made to revive this inheritance with the ignominious régime of the gorilla Imbert. 77. When the clumsy and inadmissible pretext of protecting Unitëd States lives and property proved insufficient, the Washington hierarchs resorted to the familiar pretext of communism. But although the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) redoubled its efforts, it was only able to corne up wih a pathetically short list of some two dozen ‘%ommunist agents” which included the names of many persons who were either dead or in exile. It is now common knowledge that the fantasies of Messrs. McCone and Radborne were a decisive factor in the dispatch of the marines to Santa Domingo. Long before this information leaked out of Washington, our delegation hadoccasiontopoint out the infamous part played by the CIA in the repression of the Dominican revolution. But net content with that, a few days later Mr. Johnson sent a mission of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to Santa Domingo to inform him of the extent of the alleged communist influence in the events taking place in the Dominican Republic, as though that country were another state of the Union, like Georgia or Alabama. M&ers went SO far that there was public discussion of a possible conflict of jurisdiction between these two agencies of the United States Government, both claiming for themselves the dubious role of Dominican McCarthys. Clearly, shamelessness knows no bounds, and insolence cari assume odious proportions: 78. When they finally realized that the physical elimination of the constitutlonalist movement could be achieved only at the expense of a new river of blood, with political consequences in Latin America which were difficult to assess, the gentlemen of the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House fell back on their favourite instrument and called their Ministry of Colonies, the Organization of American States, to the rescue, having ignored it in Olympian fashion wben they decreed unilateral intervention. 79. It was our delegation’s inescapable duty to point out to the Council, at the very outset, the role that was to be played by our old friend the OAS in the United States plans, and we stressed the necessity oi forestalling any attempts to flout the rules of international iaw governing relations between regional organieations and the United Nations. It cari now be seen that a11 our anticipations have been fully borne out by the facts and by the measures adopted by the inter-American organisation. Every action it has taken in the Dominican affairs confirms the illegality of the resolutions it has adopted and abundantly proves 80. Net content with tbeir guilty silence in tbe face ressioncommittedbythe United States. tbe gentlemen of the OAS tried to cloak tbat aggression by setting up a so-called inter-American peace-keeping force. Tbe transparent intrigue to camouflage the United States occupation forces as a joint operation by means of a nominal transfer of command and the dispatch of a few miserable contingents from other countràes was completely destroyed by the autspoken words of General Palmer, the Commander-in-Chief of the invadmg soldiery, to which tbe Soviet representative referred at tbe CounciP’s 1220th meeting. In no more tban two sentences, tbis United States officer destroyed tbe plot hatched in the Pan Americau Union and gave the lie to the false tbesis-wbich had been SO carefully elaboratedof a so-called inter-continental force. It goes without saying that the ineffable gentlemen of the OAS bave denied and will continue to deny a11 knowledge of tbis fact. 81. As if tbat were uot enough, Presid@nt Johnson bas issued a warning to the whole of Latin America: Lt uo country raise its voice or it may suffer tbe same fate as the Dominican Republic! The sa-caRed inter-American peace force is thus a fundameutal part of tbe %Johnson doctrine”. which in practice=-as bas been stated today here in the Council-amounts to the suppression of the sovereignty and self-determinatfon of the peoples of the world and in particular of the peoples of Latin America. 82. The bloody drama of the Domlnican Republic Will bave brought the United States-apart from a total loss of prestige-tbe establishment of this subservient inter-American force, with whicb it intends to intervene in other countries and hatch a new undercover multilateral conspiracy for a possible intervention in CUba. But the whole world knows-and let Mr. Stevenson mark il well-that Cuba is not Santa Domingo. The consequences for the invaders and the price they would have to pay would be very different. 83. The mechanical OAS majority. in placing its rubber stamp (now bearing the initials LBJ) on the latest instructions from Washington on the orgauizatiOn of the so-called inter-American peace forces, overlooked one small detail: to amend article 3 of the Treaty of Rio, the corrected text of which might read as follows: The Bigh Contracting Parties agree that any act of popular rebellion in a Latin American State shall automatically be considered as an attack against Untted States imperialism, and. consequently, the Government of tha United States. in order toprotect As a symbol of the solidarity existing between master and vassals, the invading United States forces, once the Wnited States pro-peace” operation has been completed, may cal1 for the presence of fifteen policemen from Costa Rica, twenty-five soldiers from Honduras and as many more from Paraguay. The costs arising from the invasion, including the destruction of cities and compensation for the victims of humanitarian genocide, shall be met by a11 the States members of the OAS. 84. The persistence of the OAS in its illegal conduct becomes more barefaced as the United States Government bandies about its plans for the future of its island member State. The Secretary General of the OAS has already taken the first steps in Santa Domingo to install a de facto trusteeship in the Dominican Republic, thus once again trampling under foot the right of the Dominican people and nation to selfdetermination and sove;eignty. Last week an attempt was made by Mr. Mora to pay the salaries of Dominican civil servants-with United States money, of course-thus usurping, in the name of the OAS, functions belonging exclusively to a duly constituted government. This plan met with immediate rejection by the Constitutionalist Government, which flatly refused to accept a single cent from the foreign Power which is violating its sovereignty. but was agreed to and welcomed by General Imbert’s junta. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Constitutional Government said in his letter of 30 May to the subservient Mors, that decision “constitutes a de facto abrogation by the OAS of functions proper to the Dominican Government, which thus takes yet another step forward in its design to abolish everything that goes to make up our national sovereignty”. 85. In addition to a11 this, the Council has been informed [S/6401]11 that on 2 June the OAS appointed an ad hoc Commission to try, like the earlier and now defunct Commission, to “create an atmosphere of peace and conciliation which Will enable the democratic institutions in the Dominican Republic to operate”. It sbould be noted, however, that unlike the earlier one, this new Commission is also to strive for the “economic and social recovery” of that unfortunate country, It is doubtless thought that this will smooth the way towards the installation of trusteeship over the sister country. 1/ Officia1 Records of the SecurRy Council. Dwntieth Year. Supplement for April. May and J”“e 1965. 87. Cm the Security CoUnCil remain Silent in the face of this systematic and progressive strangulation of the sovereign powers of a Member State of the United Nations by a regional agency which aCts 0n1Y at tbe dictates of an imperialist great Power, a Power whicb, moreover, is guilty of aggression against that Skate? In our view. silence in tbese circumstances is impossible. 87. alors Ir une grande matiquement rains lorsque dkgression reilles 66. sert il etait Rgpublique suppl8mentaire Bgald. nous gouvernement réunion année, clairs. devraient que cette organisation statuts, dangereuse, vention ment B porter 88. For those of us who are well aware of the Interests whicb are servedbythe so-ealledOrganization of American States it was easy to foresee that ils presence in the Dominican Republic would be nomore than an additional factor aggravating tension. Particularly enligbtening in this connexion are some passages, which 1 shall quote, of tbe letter which. accordlng to report. the Constitutionalist Government sent to the Chairman of tbe Meeting of Consultation on 39 May of this year. The letter states tbat Rthe activities of the 0.4% which should be consistent with the high principles by wbich, according to itscharter, the organisation should be inspired, have hitherto shown a dangerous tendency, one which is at variante with the principles of non-intervention and the selfdetermination of peoples. . . . Its actions are clearly directed towards undermining the sovereignty of ouï country”. 89. TO no one% surprise. tbe Constitutionalist Government accuses tbe Secretary General of the OAS of “obvious partiality for the interventionists and for the so-called government of national reconstruction”. adding that “the Organization of American States, through its Secretary General, has set itselfup against the Dominican peop..e 1 “. It goes on to state that “the Constitutional Government considers the presence of the C%iter-American force prejudicial to our sovereignty.* and “expresses its earnest desire for the force’s earliest possible departure. The Dominican Republic will acbieve its institxtional and democratic recovery net through the OAS but by its ov;n efforts*. l-OEA faveur peuple taire a la souverainet 90. We see no need to add anything fdrther to these words. It is impossible to believe that anorganization wbicb has earaed such criticisms from one of the parties to a conflict could, at a future date, lay the foundations for the settlement of that conflict. We take this opportunity to repeat that the inter-American regional agency is legally, morally and factually incompetent to settle the Dominicanquestion. Legally, because its resolutions on tbe Dominican question are a violation of bath its own charter and the United Nations Charter, and particularly of the provisions of tbe latter which relate to the powers of the Security Coumil. Morally, hecause of its role as a cloak for Umted States aggression and because of the partial attitude it bas up to the present displayed. Finally, the obvious hegemony and predominance over it of the aggressor nation nullifies it as a factor for conciliation. 92. Incidentally-and although we are sure that the point Will bave been noted by our listeners-it is worth pointing out the high level of “democracy” whieh characterizes the signatory Governments. Over half the signatures obtained are those of the most “representative” military cliques of the hemisphere. Even more important are the signatures which do net appear on this letter. in Lpite of the prolonged lobbying which took place to secure them. 93. The thirteen signatories declare themselves to be “concerned that our regional agency should fulfil the purposes assigned to it by its charter and by the Charter of the United Nations”. We bave examined the text of the document and in the absence of specific reference to nny of these purposes. we assume that whnt they bave in mind is 1~0th theprinciples referred to in chapter II nnd the fundamental rights and duties of States listed in chapter III of the OAS charter, and the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, which are cleürly defiued in Chapter 1 of the Charter of our Organization. These provisions, as we a11 know, estahlish the principles of non-intervention, rejection of thc unilateral use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, and self-determination. and the principle that aggression agaiust ouy American State constitutes aggression against a11 the other States of the hemisphere. Since one of the signatories of the document in question also happens to be a member of the Council, we cal1 upon him to explain to us whether these are the principles to which the document refers. and if SO, how it is possible to “reaffirm the significance of OAS as an instrument for the preservationof peace and security on the American continent” when it is a matter of public knowledge that each and every one of the purposes of both Charters has been violated by the United States without the regional agencies even taking cognizance of the aggression committed. We are sure that it Will be extremely instructive for the Council to hear the attempted explanation of this blatant contradiction. 94. According to the document, the OAS ” . . . should continue to exercise the responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the hemisphere which is conferred on it by the charter ofthe OAS and recognized by the Charter of the United Nations”. This seems to be an attempt to insinuate that the intervention of the regional agency is a bar or a limitation on the powers of the Security Council to take such measures as it deems appropriate. If this is the case, we again refer the signatories to Articles 34, 35, 36 and 53 of the United Nations Charter, whichunequivocally establish the subordination of a11 other bodies to the Security Council in the matter of responsibility 95. La&&=, the authors of tbe document invoke Article 52, pamgraph 3, of our Charter and emphasize tbe recognition granted by tbis paragraph to ionaI agencies. Two questions arise in this connexion: bave the signatories any special reason for not also citing paragraph 4 of the same Article. the effect of whicb is to ratii the jurisdiction of the Council in cases of the kind in question and the right of any State Member of the United Nations to bring to its notice any situation of the type with wbich we are concerned? And do the authors of the document consider that this “action by regional agencies for the pacifie settbment of local dispute@ may exceed the powers vested in tbe agencies by tbeis own constitutions or tbat it conflict witb the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations Charter? 96. With every day that passes, it becomes increasingly clear tbat the mission of the OAS in Santa Domingo is to act as judge, prosecutor and executioner of the Dominican people. The thirteen-Power document shonld be interpreted as a manœuvre, as cunning as it is useless, to undermine the prerogatives of the Security Cou&l, and is nothing but a desperate attempt to inject oxygen into a corpse. May the most notorious of international procuresses rest in peace. and let us try to scatter her ashes in the wind SO that they may not harm the soi1 in which the truc pan-Americanism of Bolivar-which is as much as to say brotherhood among equals-is about to germinate. 97. We have said and maintained that what the Council should bave been dealing with, and should now be dealing with, is the aggression committed against the Dominican people. What started as no more than a problem between Dominicans. which the Dominicans should bave settled by themselves-as they were, in fact, on the way to doing-was transformed by and thanks to the Yankee expeditionary troops into a flagrant negation of the basic standards and principles of the United Nations Charter. The Council cannot evade the fundamental problem, the consequences of wbich are before us today and Will continue to corne before us. perhaps in more serious form, week after week. 96. The efforts SO far made by the Council and by the Secretary-General through his representative in the island are worthy of consideration in SO far as they represent a reaffirmation of the powers of the Council and of its supreme responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The eyes of a11 Latin America are fiied on Mr. Jo& Antonio Mayobre, demanding and hoping to see manifested in his presence and actions in Santo Domingo a genuine devotion to the interests of Latin American peoples and an undeviating sense of justice. 100. This world Organisation has its rules. and they have a11 been violated in the Dominican Republic. It is to be hoped that the importance of the etatement of the Soviet Government [S/6411] Will be appreciated, with a11 its implications, both by the members of the Council and by a11 Members of the United Nations. It is encouraging that several members of the Council have referred to this statement this afternoon. 101. The circumstances surrounding the Dominican case further emphasize the urgent necessityofputting a stop to violations of international order and of confirming once again the primacy of this Organisation and of the Council over the regional agency. It is clear that, because of the presence of our Organization in Santa Domingo, the OAS bas been saddled with an unwelcome witness of its clumsy manoeuvres. 102. We cannot conclude without saying that our delegation has duly noted the justifiable concern of the Secretary-General over the raising of these alleged conflicts of jurisdiction between the United Nations and the regional agencies, and that it particularly values his remarks to the non-governmental organisations on 27 May. The Permanent Representative of my country said in one of his statements to the Council that if the basic principles of the United Nations could be violated at Will by an imperialist great Power this Organisation would lose its raison d’être and would perish ingloriously like its predecessor, the League of Nations. The Council has the power to prevent the continuation of aggression and should prove itself equal to its responsibilities. Only if it does shall we be able to feel confident of the future of the United Nations.

May 1 express again our thanks to those who have taken note of the two-man space flight which moves a step further to the conquest of outer space. We are deeply grateful for their expressions of good will and congratulations. 105. tun que le Conseil discussion simplement est le seul b communiquer ment fondees, sieurs feu provenant par enregistr6 tuent forces tges n’ont cet Qtat de choses. coup plus f&quentes, ment signalées, Etats 105. Pending the completion of the investigations, I would feel that discussion of this matter ln the Couneil would net only be inadvisable but misleading and quite unrewarding. 1 might mention, however. that while it is only the Caamaïio group which repeatedly *ubmits unsubstantiated charges directly to the Security Council, the inter-American force is, in fa&, subjected to unprovoked fire from the Caamafioheld area of tbe City several times each twenty-four hours. Indeed, tbere have been 803 recordedprovocations by shootlng of the cesse-fire by the Caamaùo forces since 7 May. Repeated protests have unfortunately net ended these violations of the cesse-flre. Yet these far more frequent violations are net reported to tbe President of the Security Couucil alone. but to the Organization of American States, as they shouldbe. 106. As to the proposa1 submitted by the representative of Jordan for the enlargement of the staff of the representative of the Secretary-General in Santa Domingo, 1 should like to give it further study before commenting definitively. It is not apparent that it is eitber neeessary or even desired by Mr. Mayobre. accroissement merais 107. 1 might. however, make one preliminary point nt this time. As a purely practical matter. violations of tbe cesse-fire and related acts of violence are already, as 1 say, being promptly and fairly investigated by the representatives of the Organisation of American States and by the inter-american force. 105. It is far from clear that the expansion of the staff of the Secretary-Genernl’s representative into ‘another htdependent investigative body would in fact serve to preserve the cesse-fire rather than to offer the various factions an opportunity to play one investigator off against another. The same considerations would seem to apply to the suggestions of the representative of France that Mr. Mayobre might also concern himself with the questionof human rights, whicb of course does not lie within his present mandate and would again duplicate the work being performed at the request of both parties by the Human Rights Commission of the Organisation of American States. 109. However, 1 may wish to comment more fully on these suggestions at a further meeting of the Coun- CH. In the meantime, 1 have nothing further to say and I am happy to waive the consecutive interpretation of my remarks. IlO. The PRESIDENT: 1 have no other speakers on w list at present. If no one wishes to speak now, our only task remaining is to assign the time of our next

1 regret that owing to other duties at the Conference on Transit Trade of Land-Locked Countries 1 arrived late for this meeting: but 1 am glad to have arrived in time to hear the very harsh and unusual language used in this Council by the representative of Cuba. 112. 1 remember from my days as a university teacher a dictum of the classical writer Seneca that men’s words are always the mirror of their SOU~S. Neither for the representative of Cuba nor for any other representative do 1 intend to engage in verbal asperities which imply a lack of respect for the Security Council. 1 wish only to make an immediate protest against this kind of language, leaving it to a later occasion to deal in greater detail and at greater length with the ideas expressed by the representative of Cuba.

If there is no objection. the meeting is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10.30 a.m. The meeting rose at 5.30 p.m. United Notions publications may be obtained distributors throughout the world. Write to: United Nations, Sales ENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATION§ les publications des Nations Unies sont agences dépositaires du monde entier. Informer-vous ou adressez-vous à: Nations Unies, Section C CONSEGUIR ~~5LlCAClON~S las caciones da las Naciones Unidas casas distribuidoras en todas partes diriiase a: Naciones Unidas, Section Pfice: $LIS. 1.OiJ (os equivaknt in oehes cwencies)