F-9614

Speaker 1 01:46
In particular, let those who know what the United Nations has done and is doing in the Congo. And those who are not pursuing games proper to themselves, pass judgment on our actions then let the countries who have liberated themselves in the last 15 years speak for themselves. I regret that intervention to which I found it necessary to reply, as again tended to personalize an issue which as I've said, in my view is not the question of a man but of an institution. The man does not count. The institution does. A weak or non existent executive would mean that United Nations will no longer be able to serve as an effective instrument for active protection of the interests of those many members who needs our protection. The man holding the responsibility as chief executive should leave if we inspect Secretary he should stay if this is necessary for its maintenance. These gentlemen and only this seems to me to be the substantive criterion that has to be applied.

Speaker 2 04:50 Nikita Krushchev
Indeed, if the Secretariat and the Security Council had been differently constituted, not particularly tense events would have happened in the Congo. In the first instance, the colonialists would not have dared seize power again. While if they have done so, the troops of the United Nations would not only have expelled, but would also have created conditions for the normal work of the government and parliament legally elected by the Congolese people. When the colonialists granted independence of the Congo, they expected that this independence would be fictitious. But the Congolese government decided to defend in all seriousness, its political and economic rights just infuriated the colonialist and they resorted to a military gamble. They decided to impose what in actual fact was the old colonial regime upon the people of the Congo under the guise of fictitious independent that? I repeat, the Congolese people unfortunately have failed to find the defender of their interest in the United Nations. What kind of implementation of United Nations objectives and purposes is this? Yep. Short has used the United Nations allied forces in support of the legitimate parliament in the government of the Congo at whose request troops were sent in, but in support of the colonialist forces, which were and are fighting against the Congolese Parliament, and the legitimate government in order to impose a new yoke on the Congo. He has used United Nations troops to interfere in the internal affairs of the young state. No one can no longer tolerate such arbitrariness and lawlessness as the use of the United Nations not to help the Congolese people but against them as the defense by the United Nations of the interests of the colonialist quarters. All of this was justly and happily discussed by the heads of the delegations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ghana, the United Arab Republic, Cuba, Indonesia, and others. To avoid Listen, misinterpretation, I want to reaffirm that we do not trust Mr. Hammer showed and cannot trust him. If he himself does not muster up enough courage to resign, so to say in a chivalrous manner, then we shall draw the necessary conclusions from the situation that obtains. It is not proper for a man who has flouted elementary justice, to hold such an important post as that of the Secretary General.