S/PV.997 Security Council

Thus far, aIl members of the Security CowlCil, wlth the exception of Venezuela, have taken part in the debate on the item on the agenda. We have also heard the \ representative of Cuba. 1 therefore now propose to [ make a statement as the representative ofVENEZUELA. 2. membres Venezuela, la entendu sion, qualité 3. représentant de le un dans à de Etats interaméricain soire, de des 3. In bis letter dated 8 March 1962 [8/5086J, the representative of Cuba requested that the Security Council should be convened for a twofold purpose: on the one band, in arder ta request the International Court of Justice ta give an advisory opinion on seven questions listed in the letter concerning the resolutions adopted at PWlta deI Este,!! and on the other hand, in order ta take a decision requesting the CO\U1cil of the Organization of American States and the other organs of the inter-American system, as a provisional measure, to suspend the agreements adopted at the Eighth Meeting of Consulta~ionofMinisters of Foreign Affairs of the American States. Ji Eighth Meeting of consultation of Ministers ~f Foreign Affairs of the American States. held at Punta deI Este, Uruguay, from 22 co 31 January 1962. li ti§.rieures 22 5. Having thus analysed the Cuban complaint, let us now examine the nine resolutions adopted at PWlta deI Este, to seewhethertheyreaUysufferfromthe defects imputed to them by the Cuban Government. 6. The full text of aU these resolutions is contained in document S/5075. 1 therefore do not intend to read the complete text of the resolutions, but will merely analyze them in the light of the Cuban charges. 7. Resolution 1 bea'!.'s the title "CommWlist Offensive in America". Its preambular part simply states a fact, namely, tillit an increase hasbeen noted inthe L'1.tensity of the subversive offensive of commWlÎstGovernments, their agents and the organizations which they control, in thevarious cOWltries ofAmerica, an offensive having the purpose of destroying the democratic institutions of America and establishing totalitarian dictatorships at the service ofextra-continentalPowers. Thisstatement was endorsed by nineteen Foreign Ministers of nineteen Latin American republics-tbat is to say, by aH the Foreign Ministers ofthe Latin American republics with the exception of the Cuban ForeignMinister, including therefore the ForeignMinisters ofArgentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Ecuador and Bolivia, ta whom the representative of Cuba had made such frequent references. Then, in the operative part, theresolution proclaims the basic political principles to which the peoples of file American continent adhere. [The speaker read pa.ra~raph4 l!.ta~Of resolution l, contaiDed in the Final Act of the Ei~hth Meetin~ of Consultation of Ministers of Forei~n Affairs of the American States (S/5075).]. 8. SUch are the principles proclaimed inresolutionI. They contain nothing which is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. TheY constitute a simple reaffirmation of the principles of non-intervention, selfdetermination and respect for human rights which are laid down in the Charter, together with an affirmation that the peoples of America wish ta achieve econonûc and social progress lUlder the democratic system and not under the communist system. Sucb a preference ia not, and could not be prohibited by the Charter. 9. Let us now consider resolution Il adopted atPWlta deI Este entitled "Special Cous\Ùtative Committee on Security against the Subversive Action ofInternational Communism". With regard ta this resdution. which supplements the previous one, it may be pointed out that no prOVision of the United Nations Charter pre- 10. Resolution ID is headed "Reiteration of the Principles oiNon-Intervention and Seli-Determination". Its operative part states tbat the Eighth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of ForeignAffairs oftheAmerican States resolves: "1. Ta reiterate Us adherence ta the principles of self-determination and non-intervention as guiding standards of coexistence among the American nations. "2. To urge that the Governments of the member countries of the Organization of American States, bearing in mind the present situation. and complying with the principles and aims set forth inthe Charter of the Organization and the Declaration of Santiago. organize themselves on the basis of free elections tbat express, without restriction. the will of the people." 10. principes Aux consultation des Il. Unies d'autodétermination nements qui il Punta des cés pratique mais contraires Unies. 11. Unless it is maintained that the United Nations Charter is opposed b the principles of non-intervention and self-determination and thatitforbidsGovernments to "organize themselves on the basis of free elections that express. without restriction. the will of the people". it is impossible ta argue that resolution m of Punta deI Este is contrary to the United Nations Charter. The principles contained in tbis resolution may be oontrary to the practioes and doctrines of the Cuban Government, but thatfact does not automaticaUy mean that they are contrary ta the United Nations Charter. 12. d'élections paragraphe 12. Resolution IV is entitled "Holding of Free Elections" . Its single operative paragraph reads as follows: UResolves: "To recommend that the Governments of the American States. whose structure or acts are incompatible with the effective exercise of representative democracy, hold free elections in theirrespective countries, as the most effective means of consulting the sovereign will of their peoples, to guarantee the restoratton of a legal order based on the authority of the law and respect for the rights of the individual." 13. répéter Nations nale du œuvre à Gouvernement à Etats mander 13. With reference to tllls resolution we may repeat OUr earlier observation: a regional organization, the Cornerstone of which is observance by the States composing it of the principle of representative democracy as expressed in the holding of free elections i8 not prohibited by the Charter of the United Nations from making a recommendation to its mernber States that they should observe and comply witb tbis principle. If Cuba does not wish to comply" with it. that is Cuba's own affair but it cannot claim to prevant the other American States from seeking toremainfaithful ta this principle and from recommending its observance. 14. le économique 14. Resolution V is entitled "Alliance for Progress". The atm whichithasinviewisthe social and econornic betterment of the peoples of the American continent. 15. Resolution VI of Punta deI Este is hellded "Exclusion of the Present Government of CubafromParticipation in the Inter-American System". My delegation ls unable to understand the CubanGovernment'sarguments with regard to this resolution. In view of the fact that that Government is unwilling to accept the system of representative democracy, that itisunwilling to hold free elections, that it repudiates ail the traditions upon which the inter-American system is based, and that it has explicitlyproclaimeditselfto be a Marxist-Leninist Government, why is it so anxious to remain a member of an organization whose principles it renounces? Moreover, how can it insist on remaining in an organization when it is unwilling to respect that organization's decisions or to accept its basic prin"ciples? How can anyone regard as a violation of a legal princlple the exclusion from an organization of a member which openly proclaims that its system of government is totally different from the one laid down by that organization for its members? Ifwe were ta accept that line of argument, we would also be forced to conclude that if, tomorrow, sorne Statewere to announce openly that its creed is war or the systematic violation of human rights, the exclusion of that Btate from the world Organization would also be contrary to the United Nations Charter. 16. The representative of Cuba maintains that the exclusion of the CubanGovernmentfromtheOrganization of American states is a violationofthe Charter of the United Nations because, according to the Charter, every State has a right ta belong ta an international organization without any discrimination on account of Us political and social system. This is perfectIy true and no one denies it, so far as the warld Organization is concernedj but the situation withrespecttoregional organizations is very different. These, by their very nature, must have their own procedures, which are determined by the special circumstances characteristic of each region. Regional organizations must adapt themselves to these special circumstances, and must be guided by them in establishîng their own rules. Provided that these rules do not violate theprinciples of the Charter of theUnited Nations, they cannat result in any imcompatibility between regionalorganizations and the world Organization. 17. The Charter of the United Nations does not state that its provisions and the provisions governing regional organizations must be identical. The two sets of provisions must not be incompatible, but theyneed not be identical. Ta take any other line wmùd be to deny the possibility of the very existence of regional organizations. The United Nations Charter does not do this, .Y UnitBd Nations. Treaty Series, vol. 119 (1952), l, No. 1609. 18. The pan-Americanism of the Organization of American States is not unconditional; membership entalls acceptance of its principles; similarly. theuniversalîty of the United Nations is not unconditional: membership is open only to states whichareprepared ta aecept the obligations laid down inthe Charter. It is as absurd ta claim that aState which rejects the system of representative democracy is nonetheless entitled ta belong to the OAS as it is ta claim that a State which rejects the principles of the Charter is nonethe1ess entitled to belong ta the United Nations. Neither the Charter of the Organization of American States nor the Charter of the United Nations provides for coexistence at aIl costs, to the detriment and discredit of prmciples. 18. Etats pour il l'Organisation être gations tendre cratie partie qui Unies Charte la à 19. Resolution VII is entitled "Inter-American Defense Board 1T • The Inter-American DefenseBoard was established under resolution 39 of the Third Meeting of ConSlÙtation of"Ministers of ForeignAffairsin 1942 for the purpose of studying and suggesting measures for the defence of the continent. Resolution VII adopted at Punta deI Este simply excludes Cuba from tms Board. It is quite logical that. ifthe Cuban Government has completely identified itseIf with the Sino-Soviet bloc. it can no longer belong to a defensive organ of another system. This wOlÙd be as Ü, for example, the United Kingdom wished ta join the Warsaw Treatyand regarded its non-admission as a violation of the Charter. 19. américain défense de des et continent. seul Gouvernement bloc ne d'un exemple, de une 1 l 1l 1 1 i 1 20. Resolution VIII, entitled "Economie Relations", is the only one in which certain measures are taken against the Cuban Government. In it the Meeting resolves: 20. miques", dirigées en 111. Ta suspend immediately trade with Cuba in arms and implements of war of every kind. "2. Ta charge the COUIlcil of the Organization of American States, in accordance with the circumstances and with due consideration for the constitutionaI or legal limitations of each and every one of the member States, with studying the feasibility and desirability of extending the suspension of trade to other items, with special attention to items of strategie importance." 21. These measures were taken under the provisions of article 6 of the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro,.2I not simply because of the communist régime prevailing in Cuba but because of interference by this régime in the domestic affairs of the othar American republîcs, interference which has already fOrced thirteen Latin American republics, inclUding Argentina, Colombia, Petu and venezuela, ta break off diplomatic relations with the Cuban Government. 21. l'article ont cubain régime bliques 13 la leurs cubain. 22. qU'il prévoit 22. It is only in cOlmexion with tills resolution that we have to decide whether the action EfPvisaged can be regarded as enforcement action within the meaning of li United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 21 (1948), l, No. 324.!!. "As far as the Government of Venezuela la ooncerned. the decision of the Organization ofAmerican States la wholly in keeping with the principles of inter-American law. which are in essence the principles which govern the United Nations, and that decision is complete in itselfand requires, tovalidate it, no subsequent authorization of the Security COWlcil. "The nature and scope of the measures provided for in resolution 1 adopted at San Josê do not,in my Government's opinion, faU within the concept of enforcement action referred to in Article 53 of the United Nations Charter. "It lS the Venezuelan Government's view that the authorization of the Security COWlcil would be required only in the case of decisions of regional agenaies the implementation of which would involve the use of force. which is notthe case with this resolution of the American States," [893rd meeting, paras. 75-77.J 24. Later on the same occasion, in referring ta the draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union which, at the request of its sponsor. wasnotput ta the vote, 1 repeated Venezuela's opÎlÛon in the following terms: "With regard to the draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Vnion, we are naturally pleased that part of this draftwould have theworld Organization recognize the justice and appropriateness ofthemeasures taken by the Organization ofAmerican States against the Dominican Republic because of its aggressive acts against Venezuela. "However, the specific reference made in that draft to Article 53 of theCharterwould. in our view. create very serious obstacles ta the efficient func": tioning ofregional organizations, since itwould imply recognition of the need for authorization by the Security COWlcil in arder to complete decieions which, as in the present case, are vaUd and complete in themselves." [!!lli!., paras. 79 and 80.) 25. If this was our opinion of a resolution calling for the breaking of diplomatic relations and for economic sanctions, there is even more reasonforus to take the same view of the Punta deI Este resolutioDs, which are much more restri.3ted in scope. 26, The main reason for my cOWltry'S views on the interpretation of Article 53 of the United Nations Charter is that any provisionwhichconfersaprivilege 27. The last Punta deI Este resolution, resolution IX, concerns the "Revision of the Statute of the Inter- American Commission onHuman Rightsrl • Its operative part reads: 27. Punta statut de llResolves: "Ta recommend to the Council of theOrganization of American States thatit revise the Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. broadening and strengthening the Commission's attributes and faculties to such an extent as to permit it effectively to further respect for these rights in the countries of the hemisphere.ll Faire voilà Unies, nement est To further respect for human rights is not contrary ta the Charter. nor is it a measure dlrected against Cuba. unless the Cuban Government itself considers its system to be incompatible with respect for human rights. 28. For aU the above reasons. Venezuela which at Pwlta deI Este approved the nine resolutions which 1 have discussed and therefore has no doubt of their legality, cannot aUow anyone. for purposes clearly contrary to the principles which constitute the very basis of our American law, to cast a shadow of doubt on the absolute legality of these resolutions, by making a request for an advisory opinion ta the International Court of Justice, a request drafted in tendentiousterms hostile ta the Organization of American States in general and ta the Pilllta deI Este decisions in particular. 28. Punta nous n'éprouve admettre contraires américain, ces de en sation les 29. est . absolulllent 29. My delegation considers this request completely unnecessary from the legal point of view and entirely unacceptable from the political point of view. 30. ma à Punta 3!. à légales, au du nent, qui américain. 30. For the ·same reasons, and with even greater justification, my delegation is opposed to aoy re'!Uest for the provisional suspension of the agreements adopted at Punta deI Este. 31. Venezuela believes thatthePillltadel Esteresolutions are not only perfectly in accordance with law, but are absolutely necessary ta the stabUity, peace and security of the American continent and ta the defence in that continent of the wholecomplexof principles and institutions whichformthebasis and fOillldation of the inter-American system.

With your permission. Mr. President, 1 shan begin by replying to what you have just said in your capacity as representative of Venezuela. 32. l'espagnol]: Président, venez 33. de ment nisation mais naissons de et 33. You speak of freedom, democracy and human rights. principles which, in your opinion, are fully applied by aIl Governments. ta the Organization of American states, including your own, but excluding ours. In your opinion, we reject thes-e principles. Yet we too speak of freedom, democracy and human rights, and we maintain that our Government does not reject these principles but, on the contrary, guarantees them 35. Your reading of the PWlta deI Este resolutions has served a very useful purpose, because, contrary to the prînciples of the United Nations, these resolutians are the very essence of intolerance and also because, the majority of llieir siguatories being among the most persistent violators of the principles they proclaim on paper, they show tbat cynicismbas become firnùy entrenched in the regional life of our hemisphere. You confuse military alliances with regional agencies. This is not surprising, because, sincePunta deI Este,. the Organization of Arnerican States itself has been yet another rnilitary alliance controlledbythe Government of the United States. 36. OUr statement last Friday [994th meeting] provoked an angry reaction from the representative of the United States in tbis Council. This is how we explain the attitude oftheUnitedStatesrepresentative: to adopt an attitude ofindignationisoneway of evading the substantive issues which have been raised and, since the United States delegation has no arguments with wbich ta oppose ours, it is logical for it to act in tbis way. Nor bas the United States representative any true facts with wbiüh ta refute our charges, and he must find tbis particularly embarrassing in view of the part he was called uponta play in bis Government' s real and undisputed military aggression against Cuba in April 1961. Thus, the United States representative, echoing an idea which had been put forward in bis country' s press, alleged that the letter we addressed to the COUDCU requesting tbis meeting was not really our own. This does not disturb us, because this statement by the United States representative is again not in accordance with the truth. Everyone knows that, wlth the triumph of its revolution, Cuba has regained Hs sovereignty for once and for all, has regained it from United States neo-colonialism, which bas suoh powerful influence in the area, and has done sa in spite of desires to restore the past and plans for aggression. The United States representative' s assertion that we address to the COW1cilletterswhichhavebeendictated by a friendly Power, therefore nillkes us smile, just as the true facts which we bring forward here put him out of countenance. 37. 1 should also like ta refer ta that representative's assurances that bis Government does notintend to commit aggression against our country, and to point out that such assurances were given once before. Furthermore, in making its new plans, the United States is now trying to save appearances. 1t is preparing its alibi. We all know of the disturbances from 38. There is accordingly a plan for the organization of self-provocation in some ofthese countries inorder ta fabricate cOlÛirmation of the repeated statements by the United States and by some Governments in the area that Cuba is conspiring against what are alleged ta be their established institutions. Thepurposeofthis self-provocation is to enable suchGovernments to calI on their great ally, the United States, to intervene in their countries on the ground that this is the only way they can maintaln themselves in poweragainstthewill of their peoples, the United States Government being permitted in exchange ta use regular forces and mercenaries noW stationed at various points in the area as weIl as its own regular forces in a major attack on our cOill1try. Whatwe are saylng here is being said privately by many representatives in the United Nations and by those in diplomatie and official ciroles at Washington. 38. dans confirmation et lesquelles établies; gouvernements nord-américain pays voir partie, utiliser qui zone, eux-mêmes, patrie. sadeurs Nations également de 39. In any meetings this Cauncil may hold ta diseuss these violations of international peace and security, the United States representatives will repeat ad nau- ~ what he has already saidsomanytimes, namely, that the United States has not intervened in Cuba, and that 1t is powerful Cuba, warlike Cuba, revolutionexporting Cuba that has intervened in the domestic affairs of the weak allies oftheUnited8tates, compel- Jing the latter to take the paternalistic and defensive step of attacking Cuba in order ta prevent Cuban intervention from threatening first, the securityofthe United States and, secondly, the security of the Latin American COWltries and even of aU the cOWltries belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 39. de et Etats-Unis de Cuba; pays dans Etats-Unis, liste d'une la pays de de 40. seulement ce note commises militaire l'intermédiaire que en troupes, de de une 40. And such acts of self-provocation do not involve oilly certain Governments in the area; the Cuban Government has just lodged a note of protest against the latest acts of provocation by the United states at the naval and military base ofGuantânamo. TheUnited States is teUing the world through its Press that we intend to attack the base and, simultaneously withthis campaign, is ordering its troops, who are illegally on Cuban sOil, to commit a whole series of aggressive and provocative acts against the country in which the base forms an enclave. 41. des hors toujours d'agression recours 41. Those who 8tooy the history of United states intervention inside and outside the area, which is a very shameful sto1'Y, will .notice at once that the Government of that eOWltry has always pursued a policy of seeking pretexts to jùstifyitsactsof aggression and war. Cuba repeats he1'e that it will take the steps legalIy open ta it ta reclaim a portion of its "We repeat on this occasion thatpeoples, too,have ways of expressing themselves and that one ofthese la the method of revolutionary change. Cuba has DO fundamental objection to the institution of eleot1008. What it objects to 18 a proposaI allch as this, which refera only to elections and makes no specifie mention of the economic and social conditions whichare essential if elections at auy given Ume are to be a true expressio:.l of the will of the people." 43. These words used by the President of Oubaa few months aga at PW1ta deI Este caobe confirmed simply by reading the>:-eports of LatinAmerican events and of elections in the week's Press. In Guatemala when a pro-Unüed states Government staged "iree eleptio08". the pe~?le. the students and workers, rose up in protest against this electoral fraud at the risk of their liVes. In Argentina, the pro-United States ntilitary clique, which forced the rupture of relations withCuba, did not find the election results to its liking and intervened with military force in aU provinces where candidates not acceptable to the military were elected by popular vote. Such conduct is becoming a general rule in Latin America, and it is familiar both ta those who ,1 maintain himself in power. siner ! 45. When we addressed ~he Council a few days aga, 45. 1 we said that if international dellberations were motiadressés vated by good faith, it was ta be hoped that aIl memsi ! bers would support the Cuban plea that the Council· foi, should request an advisory.opinion from the hterpar national Court of Justice on strictly legal matters. tatif questions l'unanimité. ' l 46. ainsi. deux gional cisions la et peuvent tibles il que coercitives Conseil. ne de ciaire ainsi Cour, sur principes sont social Conseil 46. That should have been the case as a matter of elementary justice. As a Member State, Cuba appealed ta thIs COlUlcil for two reasons: because on the one hand, a regional organization had taken measures against it, and reached decisions which violate the United Natil!lns Charter, the Charter of the Organization of American States and the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro, decisions which may not be adopted because they are incompatible with the principles oftheUnited Nations, as stated in Article 52 of the Charter; and on the other band, because it regarded those decisions as enforcement action for which the approval of the Security Council was required. As the spokesman for our Government, 1 did not ask the Security Conncil ta endorse the Cuban position; on the èontrary. my Government asked that an advisory opinion should be requested from the chief judicial organ of the United Nations. for which constitutional provision has been made both in the Charter and the S1;atute of the Court, so that the Court might advise the Council concerning Cubais grounds for upholding sllch legitimate and important principles as the right of every State to its own social system and the competence of this COlUlcil as the highest authority in the matter of enforcement sanctions. 1: 47. choses ennemi, serait réaction féré que soviétique vernements membres africains. 47. That was what we hoped, and takïnga conciliatory attitude towards the Governmentwhichhasbecomeour great enemy, we said we trustedthatadecision to that effect would be adopted unanimously. -However, what has been the reaction of that Government? Merely to brîng new charges against us that we were attempting to extend the veto of the Soviet Union to the OAS and that we were, by our activities, threateningsuchgreat friends of Cuba'as the COlUltries of the League of Arab States and the African nations. 48. nement fondant sont exceptionnelles mesures Etat, Conseil, et, Nations de ter 48. Cuba does not se!* toblock regional agreements; what Cuba is claiming, in interpreting two Articles as unequivocal as Articles 52 and 53 of the Charter, is that exceptional and extraordinary measures sllch as enforcement action, and inter alia, the exclusion of a State, should notbe takenwithout the Council's approval or in violation of regional instrwnents and, specifica11y, of principles of the United Nations Charter. On the other hand, Cuba, which is sure that its position is legally sOWld, does not w~sh ~he COUncil ta prejudge the issue either in favour of its own contentions or in favour of those of its opponent: it merely wishes the 49. Furthermore, as we have already said, theargument that we are raising political and not legal questions is not in keepingwiththefactsand its acceptance would render Article 96 of the United Nations Charter virtually inoperative: aState concerned in a casewould oruy have to assert that polïtical questions were involved for the International Court ofJusticeto be precluded from giving an opinion. AU of us who sit in the General Assembly and those who sit around fuis table as members of the Security Council are politicians; why should we not let the Court answer the legal issues we l'aise? ls itbeoause wehave doubts about the COurt? Or do we not want an advisory opinion because the legal arguments are on the side of a sman Member State in the war which another powerful Member State has launched against it? 50. It turns out that the very peoplewhoare accusing us of putting political questions to the Court are politicians using political arguments to oppose such consultation. A paradoxical situation is thus created in whicIr legal questions raised by a Member State Concerning important Articles of the Charter are being withheld from the Court by politicians, using political arguments, on the pretext that such questions have concealed political purpose. 51. We seem to haveheard sorne member ofthe COUDcil objeot to the questions weraisedonthe ground that they are not "purely legal" and are not prompted by desire for "legalknowledgell , as ifthereasons moti'lïating aState. in requesting an advisory opinion aiso had to be legal and as if the International Court of Justice, that modern academy of international law, existed solely to dispel the scientific doubts ofthosewho bring before it legal questions which are "chemicallypure"; as if every one of us, every time we came ta this COUDcil orengaged in auy activity in this house, were not doing so in response to political necessity. If the questions put ta the Court are framed in legal terms, objectively legal terms, that should be sufficient and we should refrain from any consideration of tOOir motivation. Our questions have been put in formally legal terms. 52. Would that my distinguished friend, the representative of Chile, were right in saying that all States are equal before the law! That is what we should fight for, that is the ideal; the same is true of the right of non-intervention and the right of self-determination and eaoh and every one of the principles we have 1llvoked, principles which are written into the Charter but which unfortwlately cease to operate when a small Member State is pitted against a powerful colonialist State. Obviously, this situation l'aises a crucialissue of i,, 53. If States were equal befare the law, the State which committed aggression against Cuba in April 1961 sMuld have beeu condenmed at Pilllta deI Este; yet, ta the shame and disgrace of those who voted sanctions against Cuba, the victim of aggression was condemned. 54. There are situations which cannot be changed by roechanical majorities in international organs. Cuba was the victim ofreal and actual aggression coromitted by the Government of the United states in the form of an invasion of Cuban territory, prepared and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency. 1, 1! 1 1 55. Further cOlÛirmation of that real and tangible aggression has been given us by no less a person than Mr. Richard Nixon, the last Vice-President of the United states and the former candidate oftheRepublican Party for the Presidency. We assume that every member of this C01.Ulcil appreciates that it is logical to give weight ,to the admission of a man who cannot be regarded as a friend of Cuba, who held the second most important office in bis country' s Government, is a very important political figure in the United states and was called upon to play a political role during the period immediately preceding the attack on Cuba organized by the Central Intelligence Agency, The issue of The New York Times of Tuesday, 20 March contains a report on a book published by Mr. Nixon entitled Six Crises in which the following statementis made: "Six months later. however, Mr, Kennedy, then President of the United States, ordered the invasion of Cuba wlrieh Mr. Eisenhower had prepared." Mr. Nixon, who was Vice-President in the EisenhowerGovernment and Mr, Kennedy' s rival in the last eleetions. has good reason ta have reliable information on these matters. 1 1i il 1 1 1, ; 56, Of course, Mr, Nixon said nothing new, nothing whieh Mr, Ke1Uledy had not previously admitted when he assumed responsibility for the events of April, and nothing which we here had not known for sorne Ume. But it is interesting that thîs new statement should have been made precisely at a time when Cuba, a amalI state, is being charged with alleged acts of aggression, imaginary aggression committed on the radio and in the Press, twoinventionswhichhave contributed sa mueh to world freedomandwhiehmake the so-ealled defenders of "democracy" tremblewhenthey are used by a workers' state. 1,, 11 1, • 1 1,, 57. Cuba is being aceused of committing imaginary acts of aggression al! over America, where men are struggling for a better future against exploitation and slavery. The acts of aggression against Cuba areaets of aggression committed by a great Power, the second greatest military Power lnthe world, with the complicity of some of the Governments in the region. Yet at Punta deI Este the Foreign Ministers met and said nothing about the acts of aggression committed by that powerful State against the Cuban people; instead as a result of the strong pressure brought to bear by the 1, i 58. Decisions were imposed on Cuba which violated the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the OAS and the Treaty ofRiodeJaneiro. Those violations were fully explained in our opening statement andnone of our accusera here have beeu able ta provide any legal refutation. 59. The representative of France wisely said that he would prefer not ta discuss that part of our statement which refera ta the violation of regional instruments. If he had studied these instruments, he would have found very good reasous ta change bis argument. Binee he did not consider .hase instruments or did so very superficiaIly, he made the mistake of saying that aIl States except Cuba had voted for the convoking of the conference. The situation was not at aH as that representative described it, sinee fourteen States voted in favour of convoking the conference, two voted against and five abstained. 60. This is well worth repeating. The PWlta deI Este decisions are illegal not only beeause they constîtute enforeement action taken without the approval of this Council; in violation of Article 53 of the Charter, but because their adoption violated fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter andwas therefore invaUd under Article ,52. 61. It has been said here that Cuba was not excluded from the inter-American system because of its social system. Let us see what resolution VI of PW1ta deI Este says in the fourth preambular paragraph: "The present Government of Cuba has identified itself with the principles of Marxist-Leninist ideology. has established a political, econorrùo and social system based on that doctrine, and accepts military assistance from extracontinental cotnmW1ist Powers, including even the threat of military intervention in America on the part of the Soviet Union." 1 should like ta point out thatthe military aid referred to in this paragraph would be given only if the United States Government comrrùtted aggression against Cuba. 62. 1 shall alsoquotetheoperativepartofthis resolution, which reads: "Resolves: -1. That adherencebyanymemberoftheOrganization of American States to Marxism-Leninismisincompatible with the inter-American system and the alignment of such a governmentwith the commwlÎst bloc breaks the unitY and solidarity of the hemisphere. "2. That thepresentGovernmentofCuba, whichhas officially identified itself as a Marxist-Leninist government, is incompatible with the principles and objectives of the inter-American system. "3. That this incompltibility excludes the present Government of Cuba from participation in the inter- American system. 63. Tbis inalienable right of every peopletoadoptthe social system it prefers withaut being subjected to interference on that account is a principle of international law recognized in several Articles of the United Nations Charter and the Charter of the OAS, from wlùch we have quoted; Tbis rightwas very clearly set forth in the Declaration issued by the Conference of the Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries held at Belgrade in September 1961, from which 1 shaH quote the foHowing paragraphs: iU [ "The participants in the Conferencereaffirmtheir conviction that: "@) AH nations have the right ofunity, se1f-determination, and independence by virtue of which right they can determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development without intimidation or bindrance," The signatory countries of the Declaration ofBelgrade had good reason for expressing the following determination: " •. , The participating countries believe that the right of Cuba as that of any other nation ta freely choose their political and social systems inaccordance with their own conditions, needs and possibilities sMuld be respected. "The participating oountries express their determination that no intimidation, Interference orintervention should be brought to bear in the exercise of the right of se1f-determination of peoples, including theiI' right to pursue constructive and independent policies for the attainment and preservation oftheir sovereignty." 64, We have beentold that enforcement action consists only of the use of armed force. Although the Se.curity COWlcil can decide on such action, it cannot decide to suspend or expel a Member State without the support of a large majority of the General Assembly. Clearly, the United Nations Charter envisages two kinds of measures: provistonal measures which, according to Article 40, "shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims. or position of the parties concerned", fui.d enforcement action, which, as Hs name implies, involves mobilizing the coercive machinery ofthe international Organization ta enforce its decisions on matters of international security. There are different degrees of emoI'cement action, suoh as complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other m~ans of communications, the severance ofdiplomatie relations, the use of armed force and, ln the last resort, after aIl the provision measures have been taken. the gravest sanctions which the Charter recognizes: suspension and expulsion. t 66. We bave explained our views on questions which are of great importance to us, and which are, in general, of great importance to an smallStatesand ta the very existence of internationallaw. At Punta deI Este this law \Vas patently violated for aggressive purposes. 67. In our opinion, this has already been established, but we have made a very moderate request to the COlUlCil in our drait resolution. We bave askedfor the opinion of a legal organ of.the United Nations on legal questions, but not because we are unsure or uncon":' vinced of our own views. Onthe contrary, we have done sa because we are convinced of our own views and seek ta convince members of the Council with something more than our arguments and our wordsj we seek ta convince them with the opinion of the highest body of judges in the world, becausewe are sure that the application of rules js the best guarantee of international peace and the best safeguardforthoseofus who do not have large fleets or military bases anywhere. What matters is ta feel that one is in the right, and we lmow that we are. What matters is that the peoples of the world should know this; and there is clear evidence that the peoples of the world, particularly the peoples of America, are daily hecoming more andmoreaware of the justice of CubaIs requests. 68. The Council has heard Our views and those of our opponents: our reasonable request and the opposition to whioh it bas given rise. 69. We b,::l1ieve in world progress, peace andhistory, and we are sure that the judgement of future generatians and of history will condemn those who, at Punta deI Este, tried to legalize aggression against a Member State because it had carried out a social revolution. The meeting TOSe at 1 p.m. ,'Ij :~:~~~;~I~=:I~~D~ PEUPLE AFRICAIN .: la Géra"te, B. P. 1197, Yaoundé. ETHIOPIA/ÉTHIOPIE: INTERNATIONAL '1 PRESS AGENCY, P. O. Bo~ 120, Addis Ababa. GHANA: UNIVERSITY BOOKS HOP BELGIUM/BELGIQUE: ET MESSAGERIES DE 14·22, rue du Persil, Bruxelles. CZECHOSLOVAKIA/TCHÊCOSLOVAQUIE: éESKOSLOVENSKY SPISQVATEL Narodni Trlda 9, Praha DENMARK/DA.NEMARK: EJNAR MUNKSGAARD,.LTO. Nl'lrregade 6. Kl'lbenhavn, FINLAND/FINLANDEl AKATEEMINEN KIRJAKAUPPA 2 Keskuskatu, Helsinki. FRANCE: Ë:DITIONS 13, rue Sou1!lot, Paris GERMANY (FEDERAL ALLEMAGNE (REPUBLIQUE R. EISENSCHMfDT Schwanthaler Str. 69, ELWERT UNO MEURER Hauptstrasse 101, Berlin·Schëneberg. ALEXANDER HORN Spiegelgasse 9, Wiesbaden. W. E. SAARBACH Gertrudenstrasse 30, GREECEjGRtCE: LIBRAIRIE KAUFFMAN~ 2B. rue du Stade, Athènes. IC.ELAND/ISLANDE: BOKAVERZLUN SIGFUSAR EYMUNDSSONAR H. Austurstraeti lB, Reykjavik. IRELAND/IRLANDE: Dublin, ITALYfITALIE: LIBRERIA COMMISSIONARIA Via Gino Capponi 26. Firenze, & Via D. A. Azuni 15/10., LUXEMBOURG: LIBRAIRIE SCHUMMER Place du Théâtre. Lu~embourg. NETHERLAN DS/PAY$.BAS: N. V. MARTINUS NIJHOFF Lange Voorhout 9, 's.Gravenhage. NORWAY/NORVÈGE: JOHAN GRUNDT TANUM Karl Johansgate, 41, Oslo. PORTUGAL: LlVRARIA 186 Rua Aurea, Lisboa. SPAIN/ESPAGNE: LIBRERIA BOSCH 11 Ronda Universidad. L1BRERIA MUNOI·PRENSA Castel lé 37, Madrid. SWEDEN/SUÈDE: C. KUNGL. HOVBOKHANDEL Fredsgatan 2, Stockholm. SWITZERLANO/SUISSE, LIBRAIRIE: PAVOT, S, . Lausanne, Genève. HANS RAUNHARDT Kirchgasse 17, Zurich TURKEY/TURQUIE: LIBRAIRIE HACHETTE 469 istiklal Caddesi, Beyoglu, UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALlST UNIO.N DES REPUBLIQUES SOVIETIQUES: MEZHDUNARODNAYA KNYIGA, Smolenskaya UNITED KINGDOMjROYAUME·UNI: H. M. STATIONERY OFFICE P, O. Box 569, London, (and HMSO branches'in Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, YUGOSLAVIA/YOUGQSLA CANKARJEVA ZALOZBA Ljubljana.Slovenia, ORZAVNO PREDUZECE: Jugoslovenska Knjiga, Beograd. PROSVJETA 5, Trg Bratstva i Jedinstva. PROSVETA PUBLISHING Import-Export Division, Terazije 16/1. Beograd. ',i University Colleg" of Ghana, Legon, Accra. MOROCCO/MAROC: CENTRE DE DIFFUSION DOCUMENTAIRE DU B.E.P.I" B, rue Michaux.Bellaire, Rabat. SOUTH ArRICA/AFRIQUE DU SUD: VAN SCHAIK'S BOOK STORE (PTY.), LTD. Chu.ch Street, 80x 724. Pretoria. UNITED ARAB REPUBLlC/ RÉPUBLIQUE ARABE UNIE: LIBRAIRIE "LA RENAISSANCE O'ËGYPTE" 9 Sn. Adry Pasha. Cairo. i [ i -1 1 j ASIA/ASIE CJ j .'" ~ BURMA/BIRMANIE: CURATOR. GOVT. BOOK DEPOT. Rangoon. CAMBODIA/CAMBODGE: ENTREPRISE KHMtRE DE LIBRAIRIE Imprimerie & Papeterie, S. il R. L., PllIlom.Penh. CEYlON/CEYLAN: LAKE HOUSE BOOKS HOP Assoe. Newspapers 01 Ceylon, P. O. Box 244. Colombo. J CHINA/CHINE: THE WORLD BOOK COMPANY. LTD. 99 Chung King Road. ht Section. Taipeh. Taiwan. THE COMMERCIAL PRESS. LTD, 211 Honan Road. Shanghai. .. 1 -'1, i,, HONG KONG/HONG.KONG: THE SWINDON BOOK COMPANY 25 Nathan Road. Kowloon. INDIA/INDE: ORIENT LONGMANS Bombay, Calcutta. Hyderabad. Madras & New Delhi. OXFORD BOOK & STATIONERY COMPANY Calcutta & New Delhl. P. VARADACHARY & COMPANY Madras. INDONESIA/INDONÉSIE: PEMBANGUNAN. LTD, Gunung Sahari 84, Djakarta. JAPAN/JAPON: MARUZEN COMPANY, LTD. 6 Tori.Nichome, Nihonbashi, Tokyo. KOREA (REP. OFl/CORÉE (RÉP. DE): EUL·YOO PUBLISHING Co... LTD. 5. 2·KA, Chongno. Seoul. PAKISTAN: THE PAKISTAN CO-OPERATIVE BOOK SOCIETY Dacea, East Pakistan. PU8LISHERS UNITED, LTD, Lahore. THOMAS & THOMAS Karachi. PHILIPPINES: ALEMAR'S 769, Rizal Avenue. Manila. BOOK STORE SI NGAPORE/SI NGAPOU R: THE CITY BOOK STORE. LTO.• Collyer Quay. THAILAND/THAïLANDE: PRAMUAN MIT, LTD. 55 Chakrawat Road, Wat Tuk. Bangkok. VIET·NAM (REP. OF/RÉP. DU): LIBRAIRIE-PAPETERIE XUÂN THU 185, rue Tu-do, B. P. 283, Saigon. EUROPE AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE: GEROLD & COMPANY Graben 31, Wien, L 8. WÜLLERSTORFF Markus Siltikusstrasse 10. Salzburg, Orders and inquiries Irom countries where saies agendes have not yet been or to Sales Sedion, United Nations, Palais Les çommandes el demandes de renseignements émanant de pays où iJ n'existe ONU. New York (É..U.), ou " ia Section des ventes, Price: $U.S. 0.35 (or equivalent Litho in UN,