22061962 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Morozov (Union of Soviet Secialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1016 held on 22 June 1962

 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Morozov (Union of Soviet Secialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1016 held on 22 June 1962

In its statement opposing the draft resolution the Soviet delegation explained in some detail the basic principles which led it to the conclusion that it would have to object to this resolution. Until the very last moment we had hoped that good sense and awareness of the need for objectivity would prevent the submission to this Council of a document which, as is now clear from all that has happened-and, if anyone had any doubts about it, was made quite clear by the statement of the United States representative-was inspired and prepared by the United States of America for purposes which have nothing in common with the tasks of maintaining tranquillity creating friendly relations and strengthening peace in the Kashmir region.

It is also now completely obvious-from the fact that Mr. Stevenson used a text worked out and prepared in such detail and having nothing to do with the subject under discussion that this whole "production" was well rehearsed and took place, so to speak, under the over-all stage-management of the United States of America..

Since I intend to confine myself to an explanation of the reasons why the Soviet delegation voted against this draft resolution, I shall refrain from assessing the political significance of this whole venture. However, the whole world can see that all this, including of course this draft which was presented to us here with pious words-all this is directed towards aggravating to the utmost the relations between the two Asian countries. I have already had the honour to tell the Council who it is who stands to gain by thus setting the two countries against one another-when I pointed out that what had been put to work here and was continuing to work at full speed was the ancient formula "divide and rule"-and drawing the corresponding political advantages from this division. I do not think I need to expound in detail who is doing this and for what purposes.

That is why we were deeply convinced that the adoption of such a decision would merely add fuel to the flames, merely heighten the tension prevailing in the region we are now discussing, merely aggravate the situation which has arisen there and about which both the Indian and the Pakistan Governments have fortunately declared that neither one of them would take the first step towards resolving this problem by force.

That is why we considered that all attempts preceding the submission of the draft, which originated in such peculiar circumstances, circumstances characterised by delays, postponements, and pressures first by the group of five which was working on it then by the group of three, then by two, then finally by one or two delegations (I directly assert that the United States Delegation intended to submit this draft today and removed its name from it at the last moment)-this whole operation, this exceedingly malodorous operation, could not of course lead the Soviet delegation to support such a draft.

This is my first observation, and I would confine myself to it, if I did not have a few words to say about the statement of the United States representative. What is that American magazine called Reader's Digest, in which one can find a ten page synopsis of Anna Karenina in which Leo Tolstoy's style is supposed to be preserved ? It was that kind of compilation, containing the complete works of Mr. Lodge from 1952 until the moment he left his post, that Mr. Stevenson unfortunately presented in this American type of condensed version. Mr. Stevenson had reasons which, of course, had nothing to do with the question under discussion and which cannot help to create a businesslike atmosphere in the Security Council.

I have, in one capacity or another, taken part in, or sat in at, most of the meetings of the Security Council at which the Soviet delegation used this Soviet veto, including fifty-one cases where it was used in connection with the admission of new Members to the Organisation. Let us begin with these fifty one votes, so that we can clear them out of the way.

It is obvious to every impartial observer that these negative votes by the Soviet Union were provoked by the refusal of the United States and its military allies, for reasons of favouritism and without any arguments or grounds whatever which might have found support in the Charter, to admit a number of States which, being responsible and qualified, were also eligible for membership in the United Nations.

Many of these countries are now fortunately represented in the United Nations and some in the Security Council as well. The United States and its allies had sufficient wisdom in the end, after many years (seven, eight, ten and more, and in the case of the Mongolian People's Republic, almost sixteen), and enough courage to vote for the admission of these States to the United Nations, and the impasse which had been created by the United States of America was immediately overcome.

I was a member of the Soviet delegation when these fourteen new Member States were admitted to the United Nations, and I must say that as soon as the United States removed its veto-the veto with which it had barred the admission of a number of new States without any justification -the whole matter was settled literally within the space of half an hour, both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly.

We all witnessed the final repercussions of this affair last year, when the question of the admission of the Mongolian People's Republic was settled and that country at last took its rightful place in the United Nations family after sixteen years of fruitless efforts-efforts which had been constantly frustrated by the political resistance and sabotage of the United States of America.

The right of veto in the Security Council is a sagacious provision, the cornerstone of the United Nations Charter. Without the right of veto it is not difficult to imagine what would have been the shape of many of the Security Council's resolutions, which would have meant success for the United States in its attempts to rule the whole world. But the real balance of power in the world is not such as to allow the United States to rule the world or to impose its will on other at least, on many of the States on this earth the United States tries to compensate for this lack of real power, such as would allow it to impose its dominion on the world, by making violent attacks here in the United Nations against the so-called right of veto.

We are of the occasions on which we use this veto in the interests of universal peace and security-on such occasions, many of which were recalled by Mr. Stevenson, as when we rightly supported India's position in the question of which was also accounted one of our sins by the

United States representative, or when we prevented or tried to prevent the policy of imperialist aggression in the Congo, and on many other occasions enumerated here.

I do not intend to go over this whole keyboard of Mr. Lodge's on which Mr. Stevenson gave us such a fine recital today-nor, indeed, is there any need for me to do so. There is no need to go over it in order to say that we have supported the principle of the Charter and the strengthening of the United Nations, and intend to go on doing so. We intend to vote in the Security Council only for decisions likely to promote the maintenance of international peace and security.

We are prepared neither to participate in nor to be passive witnesses of this completely unambiguous political game which has been played out here, at this meeting and at earlier meetings of the Council, in which the Kashmir question has been used to increase tension in the relations between two Asian countries and thereby to undermine international peace and security. We have never taken part and never will take part in operations of this kind.

I believe that neither Mr. Stevenson nor the United States Government has the right to pass judgement on the policy of the Soviet Union. This policy is well known to the peoples of Asia and Africa. However, we do not expect the approval of those who attempt to impose their own will or their colonial policy in such question as Goa, the Congo, etc., etc.

Permit me to conclude with that, and to say that when this meeting of the Council is over we shall nonetheless go away satisfied despite the strained atmosphere which was created in the closing stages of the debate deliberately and for definite political purposes.

We shall go hence with satisfaction, for we have heard the Indian representative declare that his Government will not be the first to resort to armed force in the Kashmir question; we have also heard, although not quite so clearly worded, a statement to the same effect by the representative of the Pakistan Government. We have heard, moreover, that neither side rejects the possibility of talks on this matter, and if such talks take place without the interference of third parties, in a business-life and harmonious atmosphere, we are confident that the maintenance of international peace and security in this area will be assured.