Molotov

The present conflict in Vietnam remains a volatile and unfortunate one - yet one where the battle for liberty and self-determination can brook no defeat, and can withstand no reversals. The fighting that presently engulfs Vietnam has, over the course of this struggle, shown signs of further intensification, and threatens each and every day to overspill its bounds ever more, and open an even greater number of innocent lives to the brutality of war.

It is therefore extremely concerning that far-flung nations, whose concerns are distant and removed from the Vietnam conflict, should deem it appropriate to risk the much more rapid escalation of this conflict beyond a national conflict to a regional or even global one. That such total disregard for the United Nations Charter, and the future of peaceful relations between nations could be demonstrated by any nation is astounding. We therefore invite the members of the UN to support this measure and voice their support in conjunction with the Security Council for this proposed resolution.

The Security Council,

Having considered the complaints of various nations in the region,

Observing that actions of this nature jeopardise international peace and security,

Recalling Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Charter of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned at the serious risk of escalation of the Vietnam conflict as a result of the recklessness and disregard exhibited by the United Arab Republic,

Grieved at the loss of life and all damage resulting from this escalation,


1. Condemns the actions of the United Arab Republic as incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

2. Deeply deplores their involvement in the Vietnam conflict as risking the opening of the conflict to a much broader, more dangerous level.

3. Calls upon the United Arab Republic to desist immediately from such actions as risk the wider escalation of this conflict.

4. Calls upon all uninvolved States to refrain from any action that might exacerbate the situation or contribute to the broadening of hostilities.

5. Solemnly warns the UAR authorities that if such acts were to be repeated in future, the Council would have to seriously consider further steps to give effect to this decision.

The Soviet Union does agree that there is a troubling Foreign intervention into the conflict of Vietnam. However, we believe that there should be proportionality in condemning the level of intervention. The USA is currently carrying out a process of "carpet bombing", which is the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Such actions are borderline war crimes and are doing nothing to bring peace or an end to the conflict.

Yet America is blind to its own hypocrisy in asking us to condemn the United Arab Republic for the appearance of one pilot. How many US pilots have intervened in Vietnamese airspace? But the security council is being asked to debate one brave individual who decided to take up arms to defend a foreign population in the face of a massacre. Stop waiting our time, Mr Goldberg.

The United States is presently engaged in assisting the defence of the Republic of Vietnam, as sanctioned under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty. Or has the Soviet Union conveniently forgotten the importance of such legal instruments in securing peaceful relations between governments? Our involvement is directly as a result of our agreements with nations in the region - commitments we made long prior to the eruption of the Second Indochina War, Mr. Malik. We are not opportunists involving ourselves in a far-flung conflict which does not concern us, sir.

And frankly, we find it troubling that the Soviet Union refuses to condemn what amounts to an act of war committed against the United States and the Republic of Vietnam. Indeed, that you would praise such actions as bravery speaks to a deep rot at the heart of Soviet foreign policy. Has the Politburo so easily forgotten the danger implicit in these actions you praise, or does some sense yet remain there? I will console myself with the hope that the guidance you have received from Moscow is merely misguided, rather than totally contrary to the founding principles of this organisation.

Even if the USA's decision to intervene is "legal", the slaughter of civilians is illegal and immoral. The Hague conventions have clearly laid out the rights and protections of civilians during times of war. Such sentiment shows that the USA's behavior is barbaric and immoral. We call upon the United States of America to immediately cease such actions.

The Egyptian individual may or may not be the operative of his own government. If he is the operative we condemn Arab involvement in the war. It is an unneeded escalation that will only work to create more complexity in an already vexing situation of Western aggression. However, if this is a private individual operating out of sympathy with other oppressed people in the world, we whole heartily praise him.

As the permanent representative of the United States, allow me to assure you, Mr. Malik - the individual in question is a pilot in the employ of the Egyptian Air Force. As an operative of his government and an officer in their military, under international law the UAR government is directly responsible for his actions - whether taken with or without state sanction. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, founded in the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, particularly Hague IV, "Laws and Customs of War on Land", and upheld throughout modern international jurisprudence - including the Nuremberg Tribunals, I might add - the military and by extent government of the United Arab Republic is responsible here.

Given this, and the Soviet willingness to condemn Arab involvement in the Vietnam conflict, we wholeheartedly welcome them in voting in the affirmative.

As for USAF tactics in the Vietnam conflict - particularly tactics which have been ongoing for some years now - we are not presently gathered to debate such measures. We invite Mr. Malik to table a further debate before the Council or the General Assembly at his convenience. As to the accusations of violations of the Hague Conventions, we will gladly direct Mr. Mailk and his compatriots to to Hague IV and IX, 1907 - which provide for the present international law pertaining to your accusations. Unfortunate though it may be, the military necessity behind the present USAF actions places it beyond the bounds you presently seek to impose.

While the usual candor of Mr. Malik has provided a refreshing reminder of the Soviet position on American involvement in the woes of Indochina -a view that I might add is, while lacking in nuance, not entirely different from our own- this is neither the time or place to debate that particular matter. Such diplomatic channels are already open, and any enlightenment he can spare in his undoubtedly-busy schedule would be duly appreciated in those venues.

Until such a time, however, I must ask my Ukrainian desist in derailing the discussion from its original intent. The United States is quite correct in mentioning the Hague Conventions and the Nuremberg Trials: the latter of which derives its basis from two charters I can only assume Mr. Malik is familiar with, as an employee of Narkomindel during the time in which they were enacted. Accordingly, just as it is not the place to discuss the legality of American participation in the Vietnam conflict, we are in an inappropriate position to debate morality. This is a legal issue first and foremost, and Egyptian escalation of the conflict is a clear violation of the principles of our organization.

We support the American motion, wholeheartedly.

In the face of this unwarranted escalation of the Vietnam conflict, we stand wholeheartedly with the free people of Vietnam in the face of aggression from the northern puppets, who now seek to bring foreign troops from far flung nations into their war. Such a reckless act risks the very principles of the UN Charter, and as guardians of international peace and stability, the Council cannot allow such actions to go unpunished. We vote in favor of the measure.