S/PV.1222 Security Council

In accordance withtheCouncil% prevlous decision, 1 propose to invite the representative of Cuba to take a seat at the Council table. At fhe invffafion of fbe Presideaf. nfr. Miguel J. AWO~SO (Cuba) fook a place af the Couacil fable.

At the end of my statement the day before yesterday [1221st meeting] 1 said that if the means FW available to Mr. Mayobre did not enable him to perform his task efficiently, it would be our duty to ensure that the Secretary-General was able toplace the necessary facilities at his disposal. 3. It is possible that the highly competent staff assigned to the Secretary-General% representative is in every way adsquate to enable him to carry out his functions as observer. There is, however, gond reason to wonder whether this same staff would be adequate for certain inquiries that he may be called UPOn to undertake under the terms of bis mandate. 1 am thinking of acts of violence and deeds such as improper arrest and detention wbich cari only bave been perpetrated in consequence of the fighting which we bave asked to be stopped. 1s it reasonable to say that the implementation of the cesse-fire cari be dissociated from the termination of arbitrary measures which oi.iglnate in armed conflict without on that aCCOunt being justified? In rny delegation’s view, thls 4. 1 should be happy if the Secretary-General, when he deems it possible, could let us know his opinion on the point which 1 bave just raised.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of the United Kingdom, but if he does net abject 1 would prefer flrst to give the floor to the Secretary-General, who has asked to answer the point raised by the representative of France.

The representative of France has just raised a question involting certain aspects of the mandate entNsted by the Council to my Special Representative, Mr. Mayobre. I shall certainly study his observations very carefully and 1 shall submit my comments on his observations as soon as possible, perhaps at the next meeting of the Security Council. ‘7. Mr. HOPE (United Kingdom): 1 have listened with careful interest to the views put forward by members of this Council, both concerning the violation of human rights in the Dominican Republic and the breaches of the present cesse-fire in Santo Domingo itself. 8. The Council, of course, has responsibility for international peace and security everywhere, but my delegation is not satisfied that the alleged breaches of the cesse-fire in Santo Domingo constitute a threat to the peace-and we should remember that in this context we are talking about international peace-still less that the alleged violations of human rights fall within the purview of the Council’s responsibility. 9. However that may be, my delegation’s belief is that members of this Council Will be more concerned with securing effective action on the ground than with protracted arguments in the Council Chamber about points of principle. In practice, the risk of cutting across action which is already in train, or may be put in train, by those concerned with human rights questions is obvious. This consideration applies equally to investigations of breaches of the cesse-fire. It does not appear to my delegation that it would be helpful in practice if there were two sets of investigators on the spot. 10. The Organization of American States has already sent the President of the Inter-AmericanCommission on Huma” Rights to the Dominican Republic with the specific task of investigating all and every kind of violation of human rights. Moreover, Mr. Mayobre has been sent by this Council as the representative of the Secretary-General to report on the present situation. It seems to us, therefore, that the best 11. For these reasons, my delegation would wish to give very careful thought to any proposai that the Security Council should enlarge the mandate or increase the staff of the Secretary-General% representative in the Dominican Republic. 1 myself would certainly wish to consult my Government before commenting further on any such pmposal. 12. On the other hand, my delegation notes wlth interest the more restricted suggestion made by your distinguished predecessor, as President of the Council, as noted in paragraph 6of the Secretsry-General% report [S/6408],1/ namely, that Mi-. Mayobre migbt be requested to keep a “watchful eye” on the Dominican situation. For our part, we see merit in the suggestion. We assume that Mat is meant is that Mr. Mayobre should bave, in fact, a watching brief, that is to say, that he should be willing to receive or listen to complaints made to him. He would also, no doubt, continue to keep in close touchwith offioials of the Organisation of American States who are already engaged in investigations. We should, of course, like to see Mr. Mayobre continue to exercise the functions given to him under paragraph 2 of the Security Council resolution 203 (1965) of 14 May. And from the reports which Mr. Mayobre has sent us there cari be no doubt that he is dischargiig his duties competently and has maintained excellent relations in the Dominican Republic. 13. Before closing, 1 should like towishMr. Mayobre a successful outcome to his present efforts.

We bave spent many heurs here in ths Security Council arguing about the legal status of the Organisation of American States and about the respective responsibilities of the OAS and of the United Nations. 1 do net wish to prolong these arguments, but 1 cannot ignore the fact that, at our 1221st meeting, the debate was reopened. 15. The attack of the representative of Cuba on the Organisation of American States was distinguishable fmm a11 the preceding verbal violence from that quarter only by its venom and abusiveness. The Cuban r8gime CUt itself off from the inter-American community some years ago by, first, adopting an alien and autocratie doctrine and, then, by attempting to spread that doctrine among its neighbours by the famillar overt and oovert methods, includingviolence. The Cuban response, as usual, is to assail and denomme the OAS and the determination of that hemispheric organization to stop the fighting and bloodsned, 16. Perhaps a more honest and straightforws,rd explanation of Cuba% role in thls crisis-an explanation about which they bave been silent in the Security Council-is found in the statement broadcast by the Cuban radio on 25 May to tbe effect that in Santa Domingo at this moment, when the majority of people are constitutionalists, the Communists are helping them to get int0 power, beCaUse it is through suoh a means that the interests of the people cari best be served at this time. 16. honnête crise cubaine dans 25 moment, compos8e munistes donn6 que vis. 17. This admission of the communist role in the Dominican events is in contrast to the saroastic denials and the ridicule that we bave heard here and makes clear that the communist support for constitutionalism is the usual strategy employed to lead to a communist take-over. In fact, the radio went on to point out how this strategy had already been successful elsewhere. 17. dans Dominicaine et les a l’évidence nalisme aboutir En cette 18. Other speakers at our last meeting, however, expressed honest differences of opinion in regard to the respective roles of the regional and the world communities in relation to peace-keeping and 1 should like to comment briefly on their views. cependant foi 19. While the Charter of the United Nations prescribes that the Security Council has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”, there is no requirement in the Charter that the Security Council and only the Security Council cari act when tbreats to peace occur. On the contrary, as we bave repeatedly pointed out, the Charter itself prescribes [Article 331 that “parties to any dispute . . . shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation. enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choiceA. 20. Now, in the Western hemisphere the OAS has essentially the same goal as the United Nations has on a global ha&: the settlement of disputes, the maintenance of peace, the promotion of peaceful change, and economic and social co-operation. Its mission is net competitive with the United Nations, but complementary to it. Their roles are net mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing. Such a relationship was explicitly foreseen by the framers of the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter is perfectly clear, in Article 52, that the United Nations Members may form regional organisations and ‘1. . . shah make every effort to achieve pacifie settlement of local disputes through such regional 21. The operative word is “before”. Enforcement action, v,dthin the meanlng of Chapter VII of the Charter, remains the prerogative of the United Nations and of the Security Coumil, but, as we bave repeatedly pointed out in tbls prolonged debate, the action being taken by the Organisation of American States in the Dominican Republlc is most certainly not enforcement action, any more than the action taken by the Unlted Nations in Cyprus, the Congo or the Middle East was enforcement action.- AS my colIeague Mr. Yost pointed out at the 1229th meeting, the OAS is net engaged in an enforcement action against the Dominican Republic ûr in any form of action against the Domlnlcan Republic or its people, or any pclitical faction. If the OAS has acted against anythlng, it has acted against civil dlsorder, political chaos, bloodshed and lnternecine war. 22. Within the terms of Article 52 of the Unlted Nations Charter, the American States, thrcugh the Rio Treaty and the OAS charter have banded together to protect this hemisphere against aggression and subversion. SO there is no question of the competence or the jurisdlction of the OAS tc deal, for example, wlth the current crisis in the Dominican Republic. as long as its actions are consistent wlththe Charter. Thls was the view expressed by tbe thlrteen American States ln the letter whlch they dlspatchedtc the President of the Security Cou&l on 25 May [S/6409].3 They pclnted out tbat: “First: the organisation of American States, in, its capacity as a regional agency, should continue tc exercise the responsibllity for the maintenance of peace and security in the hemisphere whlch is conferred on it by the charter of OAS and recognlsed by the Charter of the United Nations. “Second: hi accordance with Article 52, parr.- graph 3, of the Charter of the Unlted Nations, which Member States are bound to uphold, every effort should be made to encourage action by regional agencies for the pacifie settlement of local disputes. “Third: the foregoing does net preclude coordination of the action of the United Nations and of OAS for the maintenance of peace and security as an appropriate procedure for the fulfilment of the hlgh purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and of the charter of the Organisation of American States.” 23. What are tbe purposes of the OAS? Let me quote frcm article 4 of its charter which reads as follows: “The Organisation of American States, in order to Put into praCtiCe the principles on whlch it is fcunded and to fulfill its regional obligations under “(9 TO prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacifie settlement of disputes that may arise among the Men&er States; ‘1. . . “(d) TO seek the solution of political, juridical and economic problems that may arise . . . II.~/ 24. These aeveral articles bath make clear the basic purpose and approach of the OAS to the settlement of regional problems, as well as its integral relationship to the United Nations itself, imIicd.ing how the OAS charter tics into Articie 52 of the United Nations Charter. 25. TO deprecat.e the accomplishments of the OAS or to obstruct in any way the achievement of its mission reflects no credit on this Council, nor does it assist in the important and heavy task which the regional organisation has undertaken. Indeed, it would seem obvious that what this Council should be doing is aidlng, encouraging and assisting its regional agency, instead of acting, or sounding, or even implying that it is jealous, resentful or suspicious of the OAS. If the Security Council is discontented with the performance of the OAS, if it is dissatisfied with its work, why does the Council not say SO? Al1 1 hear is the monotonous communist vocabulary of insults and epithets from Cuba and imprecise suggestions from others that somehow the United Nations should be doing more to preserve its franchise in the peace-keeping business. It seems to me to be neither consistent with the dignity of the Unlted Nations, nor in the interest of peace and security for which this CounciI was created, to glve animpression that the United Nations is competing with its regional agency-the OAS-or that it feels challenged by it, or that it doubts the intentions and the competence of the OAS, or that it is loath to acknowledge its accomplishments. Yet, we have seen Members making determined efforts, both to delete references to the OAS from draft resolutions put before this Council, as though it was somehow a threat to the prestige of the United Nations even to recognise the existence of the OAS. We have also seen draft resolutions put before the Council from which mention of the OAS was rigorously and designedly excluded. 26. 1s this not a little childish? Surely this great world Organisation is not threatened by a regional organisation-in this case the OAS. They are a11 members of the United Nations. They have solemnly put their primary faith and hope in this great world Organization and, surely, this Organization is net SO insecure and SO sensitive that it dare not even recognize its own subordinate organisation. ?/ Unmd kations, l’reaty Series. vol. 119 (19X2), No. 1609. 28. What is the work which the Organization of American States is actually performing in the Dominican Republic at this time? 1 need hardly recall that it is represented there by ils SecretaFr General, supported by a competent staff; by a committee of three representatives of the Council of the OAS; also by the Inter-American Peace Fcrce; and finaIly by the Chairman and the Executive Secretary of the Inter-4tierican Human Rights Commission. 29. It may be well to note agaio, however, the terms of reference of this new OAS three-man committee and of the Inter-Amer;can Peace Force. Thc committee bas two chiei functions: (a) to proceed ~iith the work begun by the Special Commission and now heing continued by the Secretary Genezal of making ils gond offices available to al: of the parties, with a -Jiew to creating an atmosphere of peace and conciliation which Will enable the democratio institutions in the Dominican Republic to operate and make possible its economic and social recovery; and (bJ to transmit to the Inter-American Force, througn its commander, the instructions necessary for the effective accomplishment of the sole purpose of the said Force, as defined in paragraph 2 of the resolution adopted by the Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Forr‘ign Affairs of the American States, on 6 May 1965 \S/6333/Rev.l].g 30. The most important function of the Inter- American Peace Force is set forth in paragraph 2 of the OAS resolution of 6 May, to which 1 have just referred. It says: “That this force will have as its sole purpose, in a spirit of democratic impartial@, that of cooperating in the restoration of normal conditions in the Dominican Republic, in maintaining the security of its inhabitants and the inviolability of human rights, and in the establishment of an atmosphere of peace and conciliation that Will permit the functioning of democratic institutions.” 31. NO one would claim that the OAS has solved the problem in the Dominican Republic, But likewise, 1 dare say no one Will argue that it is net doing everything which a powerful and disinterested international organisation could do under the circumstances to deal with the problem and to bring about a solution which Will safeguard peace, damocratic institutions and economic welfare. 4/ Incoryxated in thr: record of the 1202nd meeting, para. 36. E z : c < t e, and formina: for a permanent cessation of Iwstilities. f cutive Seme- C0tUOiSSiOQ violation of ameliorate I ( 34. It is net only because of the r ravisions of tbe Uaitsù Nations and tke OAS , but also because these practiccal ami effective measures are ad.~ b-eing taken on tke spat tkat 1 said earlier tbe mission d ~~~~t~~~~e~~~ inehe Ea2mican Republic sbauld be mmplementary to tbat of the OAS and net competitive with it. 1 believe tbat that is the wise course for the Security Council to follow. 36. Tke tvm resoluticms that we kave adopted [resolutions 203 (1965) and 206 (1965)] are limited to calling, in the one case, for a strict cesse-ffre, and, in tke other c5se, for 5 permanent cesse-fire; to inviting the Secretary-General to send a representative to the Eaminican Republic for the purpose of reportirg to the Seourity Cotmcil on the present situation: to calaing upon ail concerned in tbe Dominican Republic for the purpose of reporting to the Seeurity Coumil on the present situation; to callfng upon alp concerned in the Domiuican Republic to co-operate with tbe representative of the Secretary- General in the carrying out of tbis task and-in connexion tith tke second resolution-to inviting the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the cease-fire. 36. It would appear to us tbat these resolutions have been, up to tbis point, substantially complied with. Despite minor violations by both sides, a cesse-fire is being observed, sud it seems areasonableprospect that it will become a permanent cesse-fire. The Secretary-General% representative. with a staff of five, has been in tbe Dominican Republic for more tkan tkree weeks, and bas submitted to us numerous and comm-ekensive reports thmugb the Secretary- General. He kas recently been bere in New York and reported in person. Lt is our impression-as it is the impression of my colleaguefromtbe UnitedKingdomthat Ire is dofng exceUer.t and effective work and that he is not negleccng in bis *.~porting any important matters relevant to bis mandate under the Security 37. We believe that the Secretary-General has aPPropriately fixed the sire of Mr. Mayobre’s staff in relation to the responsibilities assigned to it andthat, in the absence of new evidence to the contrary, there is little reason for any enlargement of his staff. In connexion with suggestions which were put forward at our meeting here on Monday for such an enlargement-and which have been suggested again todaywe did not hear any concrete description of why a larger staff is required or indeed what it would do. It would, of course, be possible for the Security Council to decide to enlarge its mandate. It would be possible for it to enter directly into some or ail of the numerms responsibilities which the OAS is discharging. Such enlarged responsibilities wculd no doubt require a much larger staff and much heavier expense. It is our vlew, however, that any such enlargement of the mandate in the Dominican Republic at this time would be a duplication, and unwise. It would establish international machinery which would duplicate the work already being honestly and effectively performed, and it would give the contending factions a further opportunity to play off one international institution and its representatives against another, and in this way to deIay rather than to accelerate a generally acceptablepolitical settlement. 38. It is our vïew, therefore, that the Security Council should at this time limit itself to congrattdating the Secretary-General for the exemplary fashion in which he and his representatives are carrying on the mission assigned to them and should refrain from attempting to enlarge that mission unless and until a real need for doing SO emerges. 1 would add that, in our opinion, the United Nations is old enough, big enough, strong enough, to be able to acknowledge the existence and the work of a regional organisation recognized by our Charter.

At the Security Council meeting of 3 June 1965 [122Oth meeting], as you Will recall, the Soviet delegation made an important statement on behalf of the Soviet Government regarding the armed intervention by the Unlted States of America in the interna1 affairs of the Dominican Republic and the illegal establishment of the so-called Inter-American Force. In that statement, the Soviet Govesnment drew the attention of the members of the Security Council to the serious consequences which might result from the United States actions, in particular the actions taken under caver of the Organieation of American States in violation of the United Uuited Nations itse ries of Africa and Asi: with considerable ity, also pointed out statement of the Union justtftably ur members of the Security ~ouncil and ail States Members of the Umted Nations to give serious consideration to situatious such as tbe one wltb wbich Ste Council is dealing. $1 Tbe Jordanian representative also supported idity of tbe Soviet statement regardtng ity cd tbe actions by tbe United States and has mustered in the Organization of American States. We should lihe to draw attention ta ents in the statement made bY e representative of Uruguay, in bis of the Soviet Union% position ofprinciple. 42. At the last meeting of the Security Couucil we also heard a statement by Mr. Alfonso, the representative of au~ther Latin American country, the Republic of Cuba. Be spoke with ardourandconviction in defence of the right of peoples to independence and agahmt foreign interference in tbe internal affairs of States in whatever formaudunder wbateverpretext. In this connexion we did not gatber the impressionas did one of the members of the Security Counctl, a former >rofessor of a Bolivian University-that ?he language and toue of the Cubanrepresentative’s statement were net justified and to the point. 43. Mr. Alfonso’s speech had a very convincing and forcefùl ring, and apparently this was not at ail to the likiug of the Untted States representative, who today complained of the criticisms by the representative of Cuba. Nowever, the speech waa particularly convincing because the Cuban representative called tbings by their right name, without hiding behind a hase of false phraseology and so-called quasidiplomacy. 44. Indignation is called for, not at the pronunciation or articulation of the Cuban representative, but at the act of international brigandage whioh bas been carried out by the forces of North American militarism, 46. First of all, the unequivocal condemnation of the United States armed intervention in the Doniinican Republic must be noted. We believe that the Jordanian representative clearly characterised the actions of the United States by pointing out that the United Nations Charter does not permit a military action of the type which took place in the Dominican Republio, whether this action was unilateral or was made in a regionsl form. The representative of France recalled that: “From the very beginning, the French Government 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 a11 interference in the internai affairs of any State. This applies to action undertaken by a single country. but it also applies to action undertsken by several oountries, even under the caver of a multiratera1 organisation.” [1221st meeting, para. 60.1 47. The illegality of the United States military intervention was demonstrated quite olearly and categorically by the representative of Uruguay, Mr. Velasques. 48. The facts show that the United States armed intervention in the Dominican Republic is condemned in the Seourity Council by ail who are sincerely concerned with the fate of the Dominican people, as well as the fate of the world and of the United Nations as a whole. Clear expression has bsen given inthe Council to the serious concern being felt over the acts of piracy by the United States which defiantly continues its interference in the internai affairs of States through the use of armed force in order to impose on them decisions which suit United States imperialism. The representative of Uruguay pointed out in particular, and 1 quote: “It is with real concern that we view the possibility that this unfortunate episode in the Dominican Republic may serve as a pretext for the adoption of political formula which, sheltering behind an equally vague and imprecise multilateralism, might be used in the future to justify intervention in some other Latin American country. w [w., para. 49.1 49. Speaking of the United States plans for the esrablisbment of an international police force, completely passing over the United Nations Charter, Mr. Velasques emphasised, and again 1 quote: “If there really is a desire to destroy the very foundations 1221st meeting of the Cou&l, instead of justified protests and anger attbeflagrant of tbe United Nations Charter and every principle of international law, sud instead of speaking on tbe substance of tbe crime whpch bas been carried out by the ruling circles in Washington, the representative of tk United States pretended to be completely innocent and tried to divert the discussion tien that some insnrgents and rebels to shoot at United States armedforces 52. But tbe question wbich arises is what attitude cari a people, moved by feelings of patriotism and love of country, bave towards the occupiers andinterventionists, towards the North American aggressors who bave invaded tbis small country by brute force and cccupied it and whc are attempting to suppress the people who bave risen up and to force on them its own ideas and form of government?When, we ask, Will the officiai representatives of the United States finally realise how bypocritical and cynical their excuses are? 53. Unfortunately, even today’s statement by the United States representative differed little from its predecessors. Today, he compared thesecurity Council to a pendant actress and spcke of jealousy snd sfmilar emotions, but he himself, without realizing it, was playing the role of anunsuccessful stage actor. Pie was clearly portraying a false situation in trying to justify tbe crime of the United States occupation forces, in attempting once again to depict the actions of the United States occupiers as innocent, and in taking particular tare, as he has done in the past, to dwell on the so-called Inter-Amerioan Force and the nobility of the actions carriedout nnder the banner of tbe OAS. 54. Alas, Mr. Stevenson tcday again spoke of everytbing except the fact that the actions of the so-called Organisation of American States are a most flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter, an intolerable challenge to the Security Councdl, and a threat to international peace and security. This is tbe heart of the matter, and hIr. Stevenson is hardly likely to succeed in diverting attention from this principal issue before the Security Council. 55. It is worthy of note that the representative of Uruguay, in his statement [1221st meeting], used irrefutable arguments to show that there is no founda- Of the United States tmops into some kind of “Inter- American Forcea. The representative of Uruguay stressed, as we all recall, that the dispatchof foreign troOp6 to the Dominlcan Republic by one or more States, even in the form of troops of an intergovernmental organisation, is illegal both from the standpoint of international law in general and the United Nations Charter, and from the standpoint of the charter of the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. 56. Tte arguments put forward by Mr. Velasques are a11 the more convincing as he is the representetive of a country which belongs to the Organisation of American States. and which upholds in that Organization a basic principle of international law: the principle of non-interference in the interna1 affairs of States. 57. With regard to the statement of the United Kingdom representative, we are bound to point out that the Constitutional Government of the Dominican Republic has repeatedly requested the United Nations to carry out an investigation into the atrocities which the Imbert junta has committed and is still committing, despite the fact that the Organisation of American States is carrying out certain measures of its own. Consequently, those measures of the Organisation of American States are clearly inadequate, to say the least, even assuming tbat we do not examine their indirection or ponder their impossible consequences. For this reason. the United Nations cannot view seriously the considerations put forward. in particular, by the United Kingdom representative: it cannot remain aloof from what is happening in the Dominican Republic. a Member of our Organisation. Al1 the arguments about alleged duplication are untenable: they cannot he used as a pretext for the Security Council to remain inactive before the crimes of the junta which is encouraged by the North American occupiers. 58. We should now like to deal with the letter of 25 May 1965 from the representatives of thirteen Latin American countries [8/64091. The obvious purpose of this document is to prove the legality of the actions of the Organisation of American States and to justify the armed intervention by the United States in the Dominican Republic under the flag of this inter-American organisation. It is difficult to imagine a more thankless and unseemly task. It is quite impossible to justify such a flagrant violation by the United States of the United Nations Charter and other international obligations. It is ludicrous and absurd to argue against obvious facts, which speak for themselves and are glaringly apparent. 59. In the apt words of the well-known Ameriuan, Al Smith: “No matter how thin you slice it. it’s Still baloney.” 60. The letter contains a reference to Article 52, paragraph 3 of the United Nations Charter, which 61. The futility of the efforts by the authors of the letter to whitewash United States imperialism is also apparent from the fact that having said “a”, they fail to say “b”, and this is in no way the result. we might say. of any educational failing. 62. Having referred to Article 52 of the United Nations Charter, they somehow or other forgot about Article 53, and this was further demonstrated by the representative of the United States, Mr. Stevenson, in the statement which he made today. They forgot about Article 53. contained in the very same Chapter VIII dealing with “Regional arrangements”. and this forgetfulness was by no means ac-ddental. Article 53. as we a11 know. provides that “no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regionalagencieswithout the authorization of the Security Council . . .“. 63. it is t,his Article, wbich prohibits any unilateral action without the authorization of the Security Council, that bas been blatantly violated by the United States and the majority it bas managed to muster in the Organisation of AmericanStates. This indisputable fact cannot be retüted by any number of letters or messages sent to the Security Council by those participating in this flagrant outrage against the United Nations Charter. 64. The representative of the United States, Mr. Stevenson, was also, of course, unable to refute this fact in his statement today, when he tried in every possible way to represent the North American aggression against the Dominican Republic as something carried out by an inter-American organisation. 65. These attempts corne far too late. The whole world witnessed how United States armed intervention in the Dominican Republic was carried out unilaterally by Washington. Nothing was then being said about inter-American organisations. The talk from the White House at that time was about the humanitarian mission being carried out in the Do- 67. The Press in the United States has openly described the details of how the Untted States Ambassador at Santa Domingo was haunted by phantoms of a well-known origin and began to suffer from imaginary fears and to he afflicted with that same mental disease which also afflicts many in Washington, and how he then asked that armed forces he sent to the Dominican Republic to suppress the popular uprising. These forces, in the form of the United States Marines, invaded the Dominican Republic, and violated its sovereignty, national independence and freedom. 68. Why, then, do United States officia1 representatives. long after the event, put themselves again and again in an absurd and ridiculous position? Why do they attempt to misinform and confuse the peoples of the world and to delude the Security Council? Do they not understand how ridiculous their role is in a11 this? Do they net yet realize that they Will not succeed in deluding anyone, and above a11 that they Will net succeed in deluding the Security Council? 69. It is especially imperative to dwell on the attempts to oonceal the United States armed intervention in the Dominican Republic behind the fig-leaf of collective action by the inter;American organization, behind arguments about so-calïed peace-keeping operations. 70. We take the liberty of dwelling on this question also because, as we know, these attempts have been firmly rebuffed in particular by the representative of Uruguay, who rightly pointed out that the unlawful character of the actions committed by the United States applies equally to the actions of the Organization of American States. Mr. Velasques correctly observed that intervention and the use of brute force in violation of the United Nations Charter areunlawful in any circumstances and that it makes no difference how many States have embarked on such a course of action. The representative of Uruguay accordingly had every justification for severely criticizing the false argument advanced by the United States that the action in the Dominican Republic consists of “peacekeeping operations”. 71. There is no need to describe in detail how the piratical action of the United States of America in the Dominican Republic, which Washington would now 72. !&a is why we say that it is impossible net to be amazed at tbe cynicism wltb wbich the United States representatives in tbe Security Council try to maintain tbat tbe United States troops are in the Dominlcan Republic on a “peace mission”. ‘in the inter of tbe Dominican peoplev. 13. t kind of vpeace mission” eau tbls be wben from tbe v&y beg$nning of tbeir plratical incursion into tire Dominican Republic the United States interventionists bave used arms agalnst the population of tire country. wben the lawful representatives of tbe Dominican people. namely tbe National Congress of the Republic and tire Constitutional Government. are insistently demanding tbe immedlate witbdrawal of fore@ troops from tbe territory of the country? It is tbey who by a mandate from the people bave been given the rigbt to expel tbe North American occupation tr00ps from tbe Dominican Republic. 74. Wasbington’s understanding of tbe interests of tbe Dominican people is revealed by the fact that the United States Government bas usurped the sovereign rigbts of the Dominican people and already for some weeks bas been trying to impose on tbat people a Government of its own choice, ever since the frightened United States Ambassador asked for tbe dispatch of United States armed forces wbile he hhnself bld under the de& in bis office. But who gave such rights to the Unlted States Government? Who gave it permission to decide for the Dominican people what kind of constitution they sbould bave. when elections should be beld and under whose control? The Unlted States Government has taken thls right upon itself under tbe law of tbe jungle, under the rules of imperialistlc piracy. by forcibly depriving the Dominican people of the right to determine their own fate. 75. The United States is attempting to force the Dominican people to bow to tbe dictates of the White Rouse. But the world cari hear the voice of the Dominican people which does net wish to be forced t0 its knees. And neither the world nor our Organisation cari remain indifferent to the monstrous .-: of violence committed byNorthAmericanimperialis,.. against the people of a small Latin Americancountry. 76. At the Security Council meeting on 3 June II22Oth meeting], we drew the attention of Council members to the appeal by the National Congress of the Domincan Republic to the Parliaments of other countries and to the Security Council. 1 should llke to read out the statement made by the Committee of the Parliamentary Group of the USSR in answer to tbat appeal from the lawfully elected representatives 0f the Dominican people: “The Soviet people share the legitimate indignation of the Dominican people over the aggressive actions of the United States Government, which has sent its armed f0rcc.s against a State whose people are trying to defend their national dignity and fndependence. “These feelings halye been expressed at many meetings and in the statements of public organizations and individual citizens and have taken the form of a resolute demand that the United States intervention in the Dominican Republic should cesse, that foreign troops should be withdrawn from its territory and that the Dominican people should be given the right to decide for themselves the future of their own country. “It was, as everyone is avare, the Government of the USSR, expressing the Will of the whole Soviet people. which, in view of this aggressive action of the United States, requested a meeting of the United Nations Security Council in order to consider urgently the question of the armed intervention by the United States in the interna1 affairs of the Dominican Republio and which introduced a proposa1 calling for the immediate cessation of United States aggression and the withdrawal of United States troops from the territory of the Dominican Republic. The USSR Government acted in this way because it considered that the direct act of aggression committed by the United States of America against the Dominican Republic, in an attempt to maintain in power in that country a reactionary, dictatorial régime inimical to the interests of the people but acceptable to the UnitedStatesof America. was a cynical violation of the elementary norms of international law, and, in particular, of the Charter of the United Nations, which forbids in international relations the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. “The ciroles that determine United Statea fore@ policy have, by this armed intervention of the United States of America in the affairs of the Dominican Republic. revealed themselves to the whole world once again as suppressors of freedom and national independence. “Everyone cari now see what value should be placed on the attempts of the United States imperialists to justify their shameful actions by references to the ‘defence of United Statt,s citisens’ in the territory of the Dominican Republic. and their attempts to use the Organisation of AmericanStates as a screen to caver up the arbitrary behaviour of the United States militarists. No false allegations cari conceal the fact that the United States interventionists are, by force of arms, seeking in every “These actions bave been uSIder@.ken in direct violation of the Charter of tbe United Nations, Article 53 of which states that no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies witbont tbe autborisation of the Security Council. vThe anger of tbe Dominican people and their vigorous protests against United States aggression and the attempts by the United States to deprive them of their inalienable right to freedom and independence and to impose upon tbem decisions alien to their national interests are fully justiiied sud are understood hy the peoples of tbe whole world. vThe parliamentary representatives of the WSSR, who consistently defend the national sovereignty of a11 countries and respect for the sacred right of a11 nations, large and small, to determine their owu fate, express their solidarity with and support for the parliamentary representatives of the Dominican Republic and demand that the armed intervention by the United Si%tes of America in the Dominican Republic should cesse, that foreign troops should be withdrawu from its territory and that there should be an end to interference in the. interna1 affairs of the Dominicau peop1e.v That is the text of the reply by the parliamentary representatives of the USSR. Tel sovi&iques. 77. As we know, those memhers of the Security Couueil who spoke at the Council’s 1221st meeting shared the feelmg of deep concern over the contmuiug violence committed against the peaceful population of the Domiuicau Republic under the flag of the inter-American organisation and with the direct participation of the occupation troops of the United States of America. 77. de s5curit5 tes population sous couvert pes d’occupation 78. The representative of France spoke of notorious acts of violence and lawlessness, and the representative of Jordan expressed very grave concern over the continuing murders and acts of violence being oommitted against the peaceful population and over tbe other tragic events in the Dominican Republic. admis qui ont lieu en République 79. On 5 June 1965, as we know, Mr. Cury. the Minister for Foreign .4ffairs of the Constitutional Government of the Dominican Republic, in a table addressed t0 the President of the Security Council, denounced the Persistent military actions of the North American troops stationed in the eastern sector of Santa Domingo. He stated that on 4 June 1965, mortar fire from this area was directed against the civilian 81. In that Gable, the Constimtional Government asked the Security Council to put an end to the hostile actions of the United States troops against the Dominican oivilian population. In a cahle dated 6 June 1965. Mr. Cury protested against attempts by the North American troops to establish militarypositions in the zone occupied by the Constitutional Government. He said that these actions by the United States interventionists were a further provocation and might lead to serious consequences. 82. That is the truc state of affairs. Meanwhile, the United States representative in the Security Council has been trying to make it appear that the occupation troops in Santa Domingo, in fulfilment of what he calls their noble role. are merelylookingafterthe interests of the local population, generously sharing United States rations with them and sparing no expense on Coca-Cola. 83. Fresh reports continue to corne in about the atrocities being committed against the peaceful population by the so-called junta, under caver of the United States troops. There is considerable evidence to confirm this. According to a report dated 5 June 1965 from the correspondeñt of Thë New York Times at Santo Dominso. hundreds of inhabitants of the aro- - vincial towns of Moca, La Vega and San Fran&co de Macoris are witnesses to the fact tbat the junta’s police are breaking into houses, arresting hundreds of people and beating them unmercifully, solely because they are suspected of sympathismg with the Constitutional Government. According to another report from the same correspondent, the junta’s police arrested thirteen children, members of the Boy Scouts organisation, whose only crime, according to their leader, a member of the United States Peace Corps, was that they had reozhed the age of fifteen. These flagrant examples of the régime of terror and violence established by the junta under the caver of the North American troops are only a few of the many that could be cited. 84. In spite of a11 these ohvious facts. the United States. without any proof whatsoever, is trying to fabricate charges against the Constitutional Government of the Dominican Republic. If we follow the logic of Mr. Stevenson, then we might as well go SO far as to accuse the Constitutional Go‘Jernment of the Dominican Republic of “armed agression” against the United States Marines and the 62nd Airhorne Division. 85. It seems that the United States is defending the Dominican Republic from the Dominicans themselves. However, the officia1 representatives of the United States in the Security Council prefer to remain silent R?. Tbe vain attempts at justification made by tbe Uniteù Ststes delegaticn cannot relieve the United States of responsibility for the crimes committed by United States imperialism in tbe Dominican Republic. The USSR delegation considers tbat it is tbe dxaty of the Securi& Comcil to stop tbe very grave crimes being committed against tbe Dominicenpeople snd to put an end to foreign armed intervention in tbe Domiaican Rep&li~. 88. At tbe 1221st meeting, tbe representatives of Jordan. France and Uruguay made certain observations. Concrete proposais were also introduced, wbicb. in the opinion of tbe USSR delegation, are in tbe interests of the matter undes discussion and deserve tbe support of the Security Council. 89. We support, for example, tbe proposal that tbe representative of the Seoretary-General in tbe Dominican Republic, Mr. Mayobre, should conduct an investigation into the question of atrocities committed by General Imbert’s junta and tbat a report on tbe subject sbould be submitted to tbe Security Council. 90. We listened with great attention to the statement by the Secretary-General at today’s meeting in connexion with the specfic observations made by the representative of France, also at today’s meeting. We also take a favourable view of tlie suggestion tbat the representative of the Secretary-General in tbe Dominican RepubIic should continue to keep the cesse-fire under observation. The USSR delegation likewise agrees that the membersbip of the group headed by Mr. Mayobre sbould be enlarged in order to enable it to carry out effectively tbe tasks entrusteù to it by the Security Council. 91. In conclusion, we sboold like to express the belief tbat tbe Security Couac!1 Will continue to consider tbe questions arising out of the statement of tbe WSSR Government. The fore@ armed inter- VentiOn in the internai affairs of the Dominican Republic must corne to an end. That is the crux of the Rroblem; that is what tbe Dominican people expect. 92. As Mr. Scydoux, the representative of France. rightly pointed out, continued interference from outsido, and 1 use bis words. %xn only delay the time when tbe Dominicans Will be free to make their own deCiSi0Bs” [122lSt meetiug, para. 611. We are also in full agreement with tile view expressed by Mr. Velazquez, the representative of Uruguay. tbat the solution to the problem of the Dominican Republic must be a solution freely decided upon by the Do.= minicans themselves. 93. In view of tbe lack of time, we shall not lnsist on tbe consecutive interpretation of OUI statement. 95. When my delegation intervened in this debate on 6 May [1202nd meeting], 1 stated that my Government was committed to the effective use of regional procedures in reglonal disputes, SO far as they may be possible and SO far as they are consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter. It should be obvious that with the exception, perhaps, of te question of global war and peace, the whole gamut of national policies is primarily based on national interests. These interests, being moreclosely related to, and more easily identifiable in. their true dimensions in a regional conte& lend themselves, where an infraction occurs, to easier and more prompt solutions within the region concerned and without involving States more remote from the source of the trouble. It would also be prudent to underpin any international system with regional arrangements on the admitted premise that States generally are less interested and less capable of influencing the course of events in some parts of the world than in others-at a11 events, in parts of the world far from their own. If this thesis was accepted in 1945 a fortiori it must be accepted now, when the membership United Nations has more than doubled between then and now. 96. It is patent that the Charter has given a significant place to regional organizations without treating them as irrelevant excrescences. It has therefore carefully declared their rights and delimited their functions, as an essential part of the peace-keeping scheme of the Charter. 1 should therefore like to occupy your time a little, if 1 may, by examining the areas of these functions and tracing the boundaries of these rights. 97. The relation of the inter-American system to the United Nations Charter has been. lf 1 may say SO with respect, perennlally in debate-1 should perhaps say more accurately persistently brought into debateindeed from before the birth of the Charter. Learned writers, of whom there are many.havetakenpositions 98. Cne therefore naturally approaches a consideratien of this problem with a great deal of deliberate diffidence. not onIy because almost everytbingbearing on it has been said in the recent as well as the remote past, but aIso, comiug as the representative of a State situated quite halfway round on the other side of the world, 1 am most anxious to avoid giving the impression of inclulging in an act of supererogation. But, as a member of tbe Council, Malaysia has a duty to speuk-sud I overcome my persona1 hesitations in the comforting knowledge that 1 walk on ground where angels bave net feared to tread. 99. 1 should like to say at the outset a few words on the historical background to the Articles in the Charter regarding regional arrangements. The Dumbarton .Oaks proposals contained this draft in chapter VIII, section C: Wegional arrangements “(1) Nothing in the Charter should preclude the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with SUC~ matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided su& arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the Organisation. The Security Council should encourage settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies. either on the initiative of the States concerned or by reference from the Security Council. “(2) The Security Council should, where appropriate, utilise such arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority, but no enforcement action should be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorisation of the Security Council. “(3) The Security Council should at a11 times be kept fully informed of the activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements or by regional agencies for the maintenance of international peace and security.” 100. Paragraph 1 of those proposals became Article 52 of the Charter; paragraph 2 of that draft became Article 53; and paragraph 3 became Article 54. One has only to look at them side by sidethe draft and the finished product as found in the 101. It is a matter of history that the Latin American ùelegates to the San Francisco Conference did not like paragraph 2 of the draft-particularly the phrase imposing prier authorisation of “enforcement actions” by the Security Council. They felt that the draft denigrated the inter-American system to the extent of hampering its usefulness as well as its effectiveness. They felt also that national interest and national capacity to exercise power effectively were, to avery large and important extent, determined-even in the days of Swift communications and transport-by geographical locations and natural barriers. They did net disguise from anyone the fact that they had corne to San Francisco determined to uphold the inter- American system as the basis of security enforcement in the Western hemisphere. They felt also that the major Powers were living too much and too close to the events in Europe. and were too concerned with seeking protection for their own rights of unilateral action to prevent the resurgence of aggression in Europe. And of course they were very vocal. 102. The Third Committee grappled with this problem, and was faced with a multiplicity of amendments which threatened the provisions of the draft with becoming a shapeless shambles. Finally, compromise was effected. The broad purpose of this compromise was to preserve the over-a11 supremacy of the world organ and the primacy of the Security Council; to mesh into its mechanism of peace-keeping the usefulness of the Organisation of American States within its sphere, but at the same time very clearly subordinating the OAS in the region of enforcement action involving the use of military power to the superior authority of the Security Council. 103. The draft proposals relating to the competence of the Security Council regarding the pacifie settlement of disputes were amended by the inclusion of regional arrangements as one of the procedures available to States. Regional organizations weregiven the initial obligation to help in the pacifie settlement of disputes before they were referred to the Security Council. The use of force by regional organisations was restricted to actions of collective self-defence and authorised, in terms of time, only until the Security Council assumed its responsibilities and took the necessary measures. We might note, in passing, that, in SO far as States in general are concerned, a list of peaceful procedures is set out in Article 33 without indicating any priority, while per contra, with States belonging to regional organisations, recourse to the regional agency gets pride of place as the first and exclusive duty under paragraph 2 of Article 52. 105. Tbis, in broad outliae. is the scbeme of tbe Charter aad bow it came about. Rut it is in the practical application of this scheme. or the application of this well-defined principle to particular situations that one finds the road ahead invested witb a plenitude of pitfalls. Tbe charge in tbe present debate is that Article 53 bas been SO obviously and patently violated that the Secority Council should do somethlng about it. The admitted facts are, it is said. that OAS troops are in Santo Domingo. This is the employmeat of force; it is incapable of rebuttal or argument as long as they are there. The Security Council cannot Cook on and see its own functions filched and its autbority flouted in SUC~ barefaced fashion. That, in summary form, is tbe gravamen of the charge. 106. 1 am bound to admit that if the facts fit that description there is notbing to be saidforthe OAS and for ils presence with its troops in Santo Domingo. Rut what are the facts? Are we certain and satisfled in our own minds that Article 53 has been violated? In effect, are we certain that the action that is being carried out by the OAS in the Dominican Republic is eaforcement action? If we are. and if it is enforcement action, I repeat, there is nothing more to be said, and Article 53 has indeed been plainly violated. 167. The phrase “enforcement action” occurs only in Article 53. It occurs there twice. It does not occur in Chapter VI, which is headed “Pacifie settlement of disputev?, and one would not expect tofind it there. But in Chapter VII one would expect to find it. It is net there, either. It is not part even of the title of the Charter, which reads only “Action wtth respect to tbreats to the peace, breaches of tbepeace, and acts of a ession”. Even Article 42 in that Chapter, wbichis at the tore of the Security Council’s authority to use force, even there, the language carefully connotes the phrase but just as carefully seems to avoid its use. Purely, therefore, as a matter of interpretation, one must give tbe phrase its ordinary meaning, takinginto consideration the context in which it occurs. The expression “enforcementv presupposes the existence of something to bs enforced. Under Article 39, the Securlty CounciI, having determined the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression, has to do one of two things: it shall make recommendations or it 108. If we now look at the contetics of Articles 41 and 42, it is made clear that tbe Security Council is not called upon, in the circumstances obtaining in the Dominican Republic today and in the face of a11 tbe evidence we have of what the OAS is doing there, to decide to take any measures under either Article 41 or 42-unless, of course, the Security Council was minded to add immeatdrably to the miseries and privations of the long-suffering peoples of that island. 109. The OAS is carrying out a conciliatoryfunction. Its troops bave not gone there in support of any claim against the State, or to carve out for itself a piece of its territory. Its objectives are clearly set out in the resolution of the Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Mini&ers of Foreign Affairs, and they are contained in operative paragraph 2 of the resolution. which states: “That this force Will have as its sole purpose. in a spirit of democratic impartiality. that of cooperating in the restoration of normal conditions in the Dominican Republic, in maintaining the security of its inhabitants and the inviolability of human rights, and in the establishment of an atmosphere of peace and conciliation that Will permit the functioning of democratic institutions.” 110. Under Article 52 of the Charter, this function of pacifie settlement is the duty of the OAS, as indeed it is ours to encourage it to play its pacifie role. One must therefore corne to the inevitable conclusion that the present OAS activity in the island-1 limit my observations to that phrase, “the present activity of the OAS in the island”, and 1 am saying nothing about the original landing of troops on 28 April, which 1 thought the Security Council had disposed of some time ago-that activity is not and cannot be “caught” by the phrase “enforcement action”. 111. If 1 may say SO with the utmost deference to colleagues who bave thought differently, the fallacy of the whole argument has been to misreadthe phrase “enforcement action” as meaning “any action accornpanied by force”. This, 1 bave endeavoured to show, is a meaning which the phrase cannot bear in the context in which it occurs. It may well be asked: why, then, has the OAS found the neecl to land forces on that island? The answer is to be found in the conditions that arose in the special circumstances. Indeed, it may not be too difficult for us to contemplate that even an operation undertaken for the pncific settlement of a dispute may conceivably involve a minimum amount of the use of force: it may even be inevitable in particular cases. But that would not, in our judgement, make it an “enforcement action” within the meaning of Article 53. dom. 113. Fortunately. too, by the unanimous wish of this Council there is a United Nations presence there. Mr. Mayobre deserves the highest praise, if only for his having earned the confidence of a11 factions in that unfortnnate island. He has net only meant hope on their bleak horizon, but also an effective deterrent against excesses. He has kept the United Nations flag flying there. Let ns look for ways of strengthening his hand, not, however unintentionally. weakening it. 114. 1 bave listened with the greatest attention to the suggestions made by my colleagues from Jordan, Uruguay and France. It is a thousnnd pities that these incidents of occasional shooting and sniping continue to occur. One of the factions has also complained of atrocities. Civil war is the worst of a11 forms of hnman strife, and lays a trail of bitterness and hate and all the myriad n-dseries that follow in their wake. 1 venture to suggest that the periodic airing of these complaints is bad enoughin theprevailingatmosphere. They naturally and predictably inflame feelings withln this Council and in that hapless island. The surest way to put an end to them is net to keep stirring the embers of controversy as the flames die down. but to help in the earliest creation of an atmosphere of calm, stability and security in the island. Investigating these incidents with a view to verlfying their validity and apportioning blame Will serve only to retard the return to normalcy. 115. Most important of all, we should hesitate a long time before placing Mr. Mayobre in the middle of this. for the moment, wordy battle between the factions. Today he holds the confidence of factions and of a11 the people. Let us beware of rendering him unacceptable to one side or the other because of his findings against one or another faction, which will inevitably result if he should investigate complaints. There, it seems to me, lies the greatest danger of all-either to enlarge his mandate or, within his exlsting mandate, give him the infinitelymoreburdensome task of looking into thecomplaintswltha view to investigating them. He is keeping a watchful eye on these incidents-as, indeed, is called for by his mandateand on the number, speed and frequency with which these incidents occur, and continue to OCCUI; he Will report his findings to us and will enable the Security 116. For the present, it is of vital necessity that he should net be put in a position where he may become the target of criticism of bias and worse, in the island itself. His acceptability and usefulness .to a11 sides as the representative of the United Nations is far more valuable to a11 concerned in the long run, including the United Nations and the Seourity Council, than his determining the guilt of a few in the immediate preSent, even if, in practical terms, it is possible for him to do SO. 117. Mr. RIFA’I (Jordan): 1 listened with special attention to the important statement made this mornmg by the representative of the United States. For the present, 1 feel that 1 should make a few comments with regard to certain points in it which have some bearing on the position of my Government in the present debate. 118. As to the attitude of Jordan towards the Organization of American States, 1 have always shown every courtesy and respect to that organisation. In my statement on 7 June. 1 said: “As far as the OAS is concerned, in its capacity as a regional and Latin American organisation it is highly regarded and duly recognised. We also admit that the OAS, like other regional organisations. cari always be a useful instrument for assisting in the cause of peace. The question is, however, whether, in this particular problem of the Dominican Republic, the OAS has acted in conformity with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. . . .” [lZZlst meeting, para. 23.1 119. The representative of the United States indicated that there was a deliberate avoidance of mention of the OAS in our resolutions and draft resolutions. The ‘records show that the only draft resolution which oontained reference to the OAS and was put to the vote was that sponsored by the representative of Uruguay, and, in the voting, that draft resolution was supported by five members around this table, namely. France, the Ivory Coast, Malaysia, Uruguay and Jordan: it was not supported by the rest. Something was said this morning regarding the feelings of jealousy and competition entertained by some members of the Security Council for the OAS. Facts known to everyone show that expressions of challenge originated in the deliberations of the OAS against the competence of the Security Council and not the reverse. 120. NO~, 1 bave one other thing to say on the question of the enlargement of Mr. Mayobre’s mission. The ides of enlarging the staff of the United Nations representative in Santa Domingo, whioh was also suggested by the representatives of France and Uruguay and this morning supported by the representative of the Soviet Union, was meant to serve the %fembers of the United Nations team were requested by the Caamaiïo group to stay overnight in their sector to observe incidents of firing from across tbe Ozama River lnto the Caamailo sect0r.v These are the kiids of duties which we envisage that the representative of the Secretary-General would meet in the course of carrying out his tasks under the present mandate. Whether or not Mr. Mayobre is sufficiently provided with staff sud facilities to enable him to look lnto such violations of cesse-fire and acts of violence related to them, wherever they may take place in the Dominican Republlc. cari be judged by tbe Secretsry-General in the light of Mr. hiayobre’s requirements. 122. Anotber objection against the enlargement of tbe work of the Secretary-General’s representative is that such an enlargement might dupllcate activities of the OAS. 1 fall to see how such a duplication could corne about; tbe OAS is involved in military operations in the Dominican Repnblic, the United Nations is net. The representative of the Secretary-General is net at all entrusted wlth any military responsibiity. Therefore, in this area there cannot in anyway be a duplication by the representative of the Secretary-Generalof activities of tbe ;fepresentatives of the OAS. 123. In the political field the same situation applies. Tbe OAS has undertaken a political role. the United Nations has net: nor does the representative of the Secretary-General have a mandate to conduct any political talks in the Dominican Republic. Bere again we find no reason for duplication of activities. 124. The only area in which there seems to be some sort of duplication is that of the observance of the implementation of the cesse-fire; but here again there is a great degree of distinction in the sense that. while the OAS representatives observed the cesse-fire between the two opposing factions in the Dominican Republic, the concept of the cesse-fire from the United Nations point of view covers the military situation in the Domlnican Republic as a whole. 125. In the ligbt of the aforementionedclarifications, we find that some sort of administrative arrangement could be made to enlarge the mission of the representative of the Secretary-General; this could he done on an administrative level, as is within the competence of the Secretary-General.

In view of the lateness of the heur, 1 shall, out of consideration for the members of the Coÿncil, be very brief. 128. We believe that the results achieved by the Organization of American States in the Dominican Republic-beginning with the signing of the Act of Santa Domingo9 and continuing, with dignity and sacrifice, to the cesse-fire, which is fortunately still in force and seems likely to become permanentare the most convincing proof of the ability of our regional organisation to assume full responsibility for solving the problem. 129. My delegation also wishes to commend and express its most sincere appreciation of the excellent work done in the Dominican Republic byiMr. Mayobre, the representative of the Secretary-General. On the other hand, for the reasons firmly and clearly stated at this meeting by the representative of Malaysia, we cannot agree that Mr. Mayobre’s mandate should be enlarged. Tbe efforts of a11 of us must be directed towards enabling the Secretary-General’s representative, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, the Chairman of thebiter-American Commission on Human Rights and a11 those who are acting in this difficult emergency to corne into increasingly closer contact SO that the true answer. which, eschewing a11 emotion, it 1s our duty to seek. Will eventually be four& the achievement of peace in the Dominican Republic, enabling -its people to resume a democratic way of life and regain their sovereign dignity.

There are no other speakers who wish to take the floor at this moment. We could perhaps bave ended our debate this morning, except that the representative of France has put a question LO the Secretary-General, and the Secretary-General, has expressed the wish to glve his reply at the next meeting of the Council, for which he may probably need some time. 131. 1 would, therefore, suggest-unless there are other suggestions-that the Council meet again on Friday morning to hear the statement of the Secretary- General and, then, perhaps. round up our debate on this subject this week in order that we cari begin another subject next week, because 1 should like to inform the members mat, if the Council agrees, it is my intention to take up the question of the renewal -- Y Officia1 Records of the Securny Council, ?VtI\venticth Year. Supplement for Aprll. lvlay B”d J”“e ,965. docume”t S/6364. The meeting rose at 1.05 p.m. Price: $US. 1.00 (or equivalenf