Molotov

Months ago, the United States condemned foreign intervention in Southern Africa and into Portuguese territory. It has now come to the international communities attention that the United States is supporting rebel movements in Angola. How can the United States justify this hypocrisy? Do they believe that the United States can hold other countries to one standard of nonintervention, and than intervene themselves? The point of the United Nations is to show that all countries are equal in conduct. Can there be any explanation of this hypocrisy except for the USA's belief in its superiority?

Perhaps the United States is an opponent of the Portuguese Empire, but has been hesitant to express this concern. We give the United States an opportunity to condemn Portuguese imperialism. The Soviet Union has stood by its African comrades in condemning colonialism in all forms. We would welcome the diplomatic support of the United States in this regard. If the United States has changed its position on Portugal, to be on the right side of history then the contradictions of its words and actions can be forgiven and we will remove this motion.

For now, however, we introduce a measure to condemn America's hypocrisy.

The General Assembly,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Deeply concerned by recent events in the Portuguese colony of Angola,

1. Deeply deplores the Loss of Life caused by covert American Actions

2. Condemns the USA's hypocritical stances on interventions in South Africa

3. Calls upon the USA to cease interference into the Affairs of the people of Angola

4. Calls upon the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to investigate covert actions taking place in its territory

It seems my predecessor in this role, Mr. Goldman, was accurate in his summation to me of Mr. Malik's awareness of international ongoings being somewhat lacklustre. As such, we will handily provide a brief summary for him.

It has been the policy of the United States government since the Kennedy Administration that self-determination and independence is the best policy for Africa generally, and for the Portuguese colonies specifically. To this end, my colleague Mr. Charles Elbrick, who held the position of US Ambassador in Lisbon at the time, informed the Portuguese government of our present national policy and strongly encouraged the adoption of reforms to this end. Further, in March of that year the US voted publicly in favour of a Security Council resolution condemning Portuguese colonialism.

So you see, Mr. Malik, American opposition to colonialism is not nearly as new as Soviet awareness of such opposition.

As for the present events in Angola, it is the present opinion of the State Department that the individual in question was a civilian operating legally within the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The overseas wanderings of citizens can hardly be attributed to State actors.

In any case, having educated the Soviet delegation, we look forward to the promised withdrawal of this motion.

The Ambassador of the Soviet Union does not need a lecture on international relations. It is true that the USA voted for several security council resolutions opposing the Portuguese empire during the early 1960's. However, the USA failed to support the UNSC Resolution 218, the most recent security council vote on the Portuguese Empire, which reiterated the requests of previous security council votes on Portugal, which that country has ignored. Excuse us if such actions leads us to believe the USA's stance on Portugal has shifted or weakened. President Johnson is not as steadfast in following in the footsteps of his predecessor in opposing Portuguese colonialism?

Nonetheless it is refreshing to hear the United States reiterate its opposition to Portuguese colonialism.

US opposition to colonialism, as we have said, is nothing new, Mr. Malik - however much the Soviet Union may wish it were otherwise.

As for Resolution 218, Mr. Malik will note that the resolution passed. The USA, UK, and French representatives all chose to abstain, rather than vote down a resolution with which we fundamentally agreed, but whose precise wording and objectives we could not align ourselves with. Resolution 218 sought the withdrawal of Portuguese troops from their colonies in too broadly a constructed fashion, one which we believe threatens the long-term stability of Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau. We also believe that requests to limit assistance to these regions to carried the risk that aid and goods required to ensure that the people of these regions are not subjected to undue suffering and tribulations would also be denied. Nonetheless, we agreed with the spirit and general aims of the resolution, and did not hinder its passage.

Further, as my colleagues in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office will no doubt report, we believe now that a change of approach - of negotiating directly with the Portuguese government in order to secure these reforms - will yield stronger results than the condemnations presently offered by this Council. The role of the United Nations in this dispute ought rightfully to devolve to the General Assembly, where the weight of international opinion can be brought on the issue, rather than the resolutions adopted by a select few here in this chamber.