Text of the Speech made by Mr. Fedorenko (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No 1247 held on 5 October 1965
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Fedorenko (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No 1247 held on 5 October 1965
The Soviet delegation has already stated today quite unequivocally-its position on the resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the existing procedures for sending United Nations military observers to India and Pakistan. We should like to reaffirm that position.
As for the views just expressed by the United States representative, they cannot be regarded as convincing, nor do they in any way justify the actions we referred to previously, despite the fact that he spoke most resoundingly. We did not consider it appropriate to offer an interpretation of the resolutions adopted by the Security Council. How ever, since this question has been raised in the Security Council we feel obliged to express our views on it.
What are in fact the provisions of Security Council resolutions 210 (1965) and 211 (1965) ? Resolution 210 (1965) refers to measures to strengthen the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan. We are choosing our words with care and wish to stress the phrase "strengthen the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan". In resolution 211 (1965), the Security Council requested the Secretary-General "to provide the necessary assistance to ensure supervision of the cease-fire and the withdrawal of all armed personnel". These are the provisions of the Security Council resolutions that contain nothing else.
resolutions and in our view they are sufficiently clear. These What in reality is taking place? It is common knowledge that in fact measures are being taken not to "strengthen the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan" but to expand it considerably. This is a substantially new departure. In addition, we note that a completely new body is being set up a mission of United Nations military observers. But is any mention made of this in the resolutions we have adopted? There is not a single word about it in the Security Council's decisions. If the Council had really intended to set up this new group, then obviously-in fact necessarily-it would have taken a clear decision to that effect. Why, merely to "strengthen the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan" a special provision was included in the Security Council resolution. How is it possible to depart so far from adopted decisions when carrying them out ?
Thus a large number of military observers is being sent to India and Pakistan to be precise, four times more than the original number of the existing group. A new military observation mission is being set up, and the posts of command are being assigned mainly to senior NATO officers. Considerable expenditure is being planned for the maintenance of these military observers, and the representative of France has rightly and with a sense of responsibility stressed this fact. And all this is being done in circumvention of the Security Council.
However the representative of the United States may interpret the resolutions of the Security Council, this cannot alter the obvious fact that they provide no justification for the actions taken with a view to carrying out the resolutions. To this I must add the fact that the United States representative tried to present the matter as though he were hearing the position of the Soviet delegation on the subject for the first time.
May I remind the United States representative-although we discussed the matter with him earlier that we drew the attention of the United States at the proper time, after the publication of the Secretary-General's first report, to the impropriety of the steps tal This was done by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union and also by the Permanent Representative of the USSR to the United Nations.
We should further like to recall that we drew this to the attention of the President of the Security Council in September, when that responsible office was held by the United States representative. We will remember-and we hope that Mr. Goldberg also remembers this clearly-that, as President of the Security Council, he agreed in the course of our discussion that these matters fell within the competence of the Security Council and should be considered by it. Nevertheless, this oral admission was not followed by any practical measures on the part of the President of the Security Council.
We should like to draw the attention of the United States representative to the fact that, in Security Council resolution 214 (1965), to which he referred, the Council did not in any way take note of the Secretary-General's reports which refer to military observers, but of reports containing information the observance of the cease-fire (S/6710 and Add. 1 and 2).
May we also recall that our position on this subject was presented in detail in the course of consultations-informal consultations-among members of the Security Council. All these are simple facts-facts which are not new to you, Mr. Goldberg, but which are known to everyone and of which you must have been aware. Therefore your references and your attempts to depict the situation as you did are not confirmed by the actual state of affairs. We pointed out the discrepancy between the actions taken and the provisions of the United Nations Charter, and drew attention to the exclusive competence of the Security Council-the highest body of our Organisation. We pointed out the need to consider and adopt decisions on this matter in the Security Council. In so doing, we believed that the adoption of suitable decisions would help the Secretary-General to take positive action in carrying out the resolutions. And our explanations today are intended to achieve precisely this end, and no other which might give someone grounds to speak from a different position in defence of something that requires no defence. In fact, Mr. Goldberg, you are defending yourself.
For this reason we again venture to point out the need to comply strictly with the provisions of the Charter and not to depart from them, and the need also to show respect for the competence of the Security Council, whose task it is to decide such matters.
Since you have all understood what I have said and as it is already late, I shall not insist on the consecutive interpretation of my statement.