The Congo Crisis

[Shadows]

Nathan Barnes
Permanent Representative of Liberia to the United Nations

Honored representatives,

I stand before you today to bring attention to a growing crisis in Africa, the devolving situation in the Congo.

It is my heart felt opinion, and the opinion of my government, that the path of the Congo be left up to the people of the Congo, without the interference of European colonial interests. I call on the UN to hold refernedums in the four separate regions of the Congo vying for independence, and ser what path the people wish to take.

I also call on the European powers to cease interfering in the affairs of the Congo, and Africa as a whole. The age of colonialism is over. Attempts to bring on a new wave of neo-colonialism, led by states who only consider Africa a place to gain resources, must stop. We deserve the right to govern ourselves. Our peoples have suffered enough under the thumb of so called rulers who live thousands of miles away.

I must also whole heartedly object to the United States deployment of such a substantial military force, without mandate by the United Nations. This is an internal affair, and must not be allowed to turn into a proxy war between the US and Soviet Union as the conflict in Korea was. I also call on the Soviet Union to cease these alleged transfers of armaments to the forces in Stanleyville, until such a time as the will of the people is known.

We stand on the brink of conflict that could bring about the deaths of tens of thousands of Africans. I implore the nations gathered here to help stop this crisis from exploding, to save lives, and to allow the people of the Congo to decide their own paths.

[Shadows]

Alex Quaison-Sackey
Permanent Representative of Ghana to the United Nations

Honored representatives,

I echo the sentiments of Mr. Barnes of Liberia–this situation must not deteriorate further. The United Nations must act in the interest of the civilians of the Congo, and protect international stability.

With this in mind, I call for an official Emergency Special Session to discuss the growing Congo Crisis. I demand an immediate investigation led by the United Nations peace keepers in the country into both the death of former Prime Minister Lumumba and the explosion at the Leopoldville air port. These two acts of barbarism must not be allowed to throw a country with such potential and hope into chaos. I must also demand that the government in Leopoldville, whose rise to power is questionable at best, not be in charge or take any part in the investigation of the aforementioned incidents. They must not be allowed to taint evidence, or hide wrong doings.

The representatives of Guinea, the United Arab Emirates, Mali, Ceylon, and the entirety of the Eastern Bloc delegations voice their support.

[Kane]

Agda Rossel
Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Sweden to the United Nations

Honored representatives,

On behalf of the Kingdom of Sweden, we wish to express our deepest concern and solidarity in the face of the worsening tragedy unfolding in the Republic of the Congo.

You have all received the letter from Mr. Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General of this honorable organization. His words resonate not only as a warning but as a moral call to action.

This crisis now rests upon two increasingly dangerous pillars:

• The escalating violence across the interior of the Congo, which today includes confirmed reports of a brutal attack on a training facility in the Stanleyville region, with nearly 150 casualties.
• And the unregulated involvement of external powers supplying men and arms to various factions in the conflict — actions that threaten to engulf the Congo in a full-scale civil war. As Mr. Hammarskjöld wrote, we are on the verge of “another Vietnam.”

Time is not on our side. Lives are being lost by the day. The longer we deliberate, the more we risk losing control of the situation entirely.

We welcome and support the call for an Emergency Special Session. Furthermore, do not wait until that session… we have the tools and the will to vote here, today. With this in mind, Sweden wishes to reaffirm and reintroduce the central questions and proposals made by Mr. Hammarskjöld:

To the representative of the United States:

• Will the USS Independence and its battlegroup operate under the exclusive authority of the United Nations while off the coast of the Congo?

To the representative of the Soviet Union:

• If a neutral and universal standard is applied to identifying and removing unauthorized foreign operatives from Congolese territory, will the USSR commit to ending all personnel and weapons transfers to the region, without preconditions?

Let us not avoid these questions. Let us answer them with clarity.

Additionally, the Kingdom of Sweden officially proposes the following urgent measures:

1. That the airspace of the Republic of the Congo be immediately restricted to UN-authorized flights, domestic registered routes, and international commercial traffic only.

2. That any unauthorized incursion into this airspace be deemed a violation of international peace. Sweden is currently deploying its F.22 Squadron and expects full operational capacity within weeks. We are prepared to support enforcement of this policy and call on other contributing nations to do likewise — through aircraft, surveillance, logistics, or personnel.

3. That any foreign individual found within Congolese territory outside authorized ports of entry be designated an unlawful combatant, subject to detention, international investigation, and, where applicable, prosecution under international humanitarian law.

Investigations into the assassination of Prime Minister Lumumba and the terrorist attack on the Leopoldville airport are already underway by UN forces, including Ghana and others. Sweden guarantees that these investigations will be shared with this Assembly, and that they will be conducted in full impartiality and transparency.

Ladies and gentlemen:

The ONUC mission is ready to implement these measures the moment this chamber gives its mandate. We are not here to speak for prestige or to grandstand. We are here to protect lives and to prevent this conflict from becoming the next Sarajevo of our century.

Let us not wait for history to judge our hesitation.

Let us act now.

And let us also remember: the mandate of ONUC is not to take sides in a civil conflict, nor to install governments by force.
It is to preserve peace, protect civilians, and support the territorial integrity and political independence of the Congo — without prejudice, without partisanship, and without submission to competing spheres of influence.

We are bound morally and by our commitment to this chamber to honor that mandate. And quoting one more time: not with fleets and finger-pointing, but with reason, restraint, and resolve.

Thank you.

[Zealous]

Statement by the Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Valerian Zorin
United Nations General Assembly – May 1961

Esteemed delegates,

We have heard many speeches in this chamber over the years, but few so well-intentioned in tone—yet so alarming in implication—as that delivered by the representative of Sweden.

Let us begin with what is not in dispute. The situation in the Congo is dire. The murder of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba remains a crime that casts a long shadow. Blood continues to spill from Katanga to Stanleyville. And the question of foreign interference grows more grave by the hour.

In this, the Soviet Union agrees: time is not on our side.

But if time is short, let us not use it to build illusions.

First—we are astonished that not a single word was spoken in this chamber today regarding the clear, concrete, and reasonable proposals submitted earlier this week by the honorable representatives of Liberia and Ghana—two African nations who have borne the burden of this crisis on their soil, with their people, and not from a comfortable distance.

Why were those proposals ignored? Why are African voices consistently the first to be praised, but the last to be heard when real decisions are being made?

Second—while we hear a great deal today about unauthorized deployments and violations of international norms, the Soviet delegation must express its deep concern and disappointment at what can only be called an extraordinary act of escalation by the Kingdom of Sweden itself.

It is not often that a nation calls for neutral peacekeeping while simultaneously announcing the unilateral deployment of jet fighter squadrons into a sovereign state, without a mandate from this Assembly, and without approval from the Congolese people.

Let us not be coy: this is not neutrality. It is brinkmanship under the banner of humanitarianism.

And as for the carrier group steaming toward the coast of Africa under the flag of the United States—it seems, rather conveniently, that Sweden’s proposals today would simply retroactively legalize what Washington has already done.

The Soviet Union does not confuse a press conference with a Security Council vote. Nor do we believe that the UN should serve as a rubber stamp for decisions already made in the corridors of the Pentagon.

Let us be clear on our position.

The Soviet Union supports a full, impartial investigation into the events in the Congo—from the illegal dismissal of Prime Minister Lumumba and the rise of mercenary violence, to the most recent tragedies in Léopoldville and Stanleyville. All parties within the Congo—Stanleyville, Leopoldville, and others—must be treated with equal respect until such an investigation is complete.

We will support, and indeed urge, that such an investigation examine foreign interference in the Congo from the beginning of 1960 to the present day, by all parties and powers.

But we reject, absolutely, any attempt to use “investigations” as camouflage for foreign intervention.

Until such time as this chamber commits itself to a truly neutral arbitration process, the Soviet Union cannot support proposals that would legitimize unauthorized deployments, nor can we accept security frameworks designed to consolidate one bloc’s influence over Congolese airspace and territory.

We propose instead:

1. That all foreign forces deployed to the Congo without prior approval by this Assembly—including newly arrived aircraft and naval assets—be withdrawn immediately.

2. That the ONUC mission be returned to its original authorized size and mandate, as voted by this chamber, and not expanded through backdoor deals or unilateral “coalitions of the willing.”

3. That this body reaffirm its commitment to African self-determination, by moving toward a nationwide referendum, administered by neutral observers, to allow the Congolese people to freely determine their government and future.

Let us not forget who this mission is for.

It is not for Stockholm.
It is not for Washington.
And it is not for Moscow.
It is for the Congolese people—who have been treated not as subjects of sovereignty, but as spectators to their own fate.

The Soviet Union is prepared to support peace.
But peace cannot be imposed by jet engines and naval guns.
Peace must begin with respect. And respect must begin with withdrawal.

Let us put away the charade.
Let us return to the mandate.
And let us remember that diplomacy is not a stage for performance—but a tool for liberation.

Thank you.

[Kane]

Agda Rossel
Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Sweden to the United Nations

Honored representatives,

We have listened attentively to the interventions delivered in this chamber. None more impassioned, perhaps, than that of the distinguished representative of the Soviet Union. But while passion may stir the room, it is facts that must guide this Assembly.

Let us begin by grounding ourselves in the legal framework we are meant to uphold.

Resolution 143 (1960) empowered the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the Congolese government, to restore peace and assist in security.
Resolution 145 (1960) expressly demanded that all states refrain from any action that might impede the restoration of law and order, or undermine the political independence of the Republic of the Congo.

And yet:

• Soviet-marked aircraft have landed in Stanleyville.
• Arms and advisors have reportedly been delivered to pro-Soviet forces.

This is not Swedish intelligence, it is based directly on the words of President John F. Kennedy, who publicly declared in his press conference, and I quote:

“The Soviets have been infiltrating the Congo in all its major centres – Leopoldville, Stanleyville, and Elizabethville. The reports include that Soviet-marked aircraft had arrived in Stanleyville, delivering weapons and advisors to pro-Soviet Gizenga forces.”

These are not allegations made in private, but facts placed on record by one of the founders of this organization and permanent member of the UNSC.

In contrast, let us examine the supposed “escalation” by Sweden:

• Only one aircraft, a J29B fighter, has been deployed. It remains on the ground at all times, awaiting formal authorization from the Secretary-General.
• The only accompanying forces to this fighter are maintenance and security personnel, limited strictly to airbase operations.
• No new combat battalions have been deployed. None.
• However, additional units are being prepared in Sweden, should the United Nations mandate them.
• We were the first deployed nation to lose soldiers, sons and husbands, in this conflict.

This is not escalation. This is responsibility.

And let me be perfectly clear:

Should the Secretary-General deny approval for their deployment, we will not proceed. That is the line we will not cross, because we respect the rule of international law, not merely when it suits us, but always.

We are not asking for special permission. We are asking for accountability.

But we must also be clear. The Soviet Union, in supporting Stanleyville militarily while calling for peace politically, is asking this Assembly to ignore its own charter. It is, to use their own words, a “charade”, not by Sweden, but by those who speak neutrality while fueling the fire.

Therefore, the Kingdom of Sweden formally requests the Secretary-General, under the powers conferred by Resolutions 143 and 145, to take the following measures:

1. The establishment of a Congolese No-Fly Zone, permitting only UN-authorized, registered domestic flights and international commercial routes.
2. An immediate arms embargo on all Congolese factions not explicitly approved by the United Nations Security Council. Proposed originally by India and supported by Sweden.
3. International access controls to identify and register every foreign operative within Congolese territory. Proposed originally by India and supported by Sweden.
4. Deployment of international police advisors to assist, train, and modernize Congo’s national security forces. Proposed originally by India and supported by Sweden.
5. Legal accountability for unlawful actors:
   Any foreign individual within Congolese territory who entered without proper authorization shall be detained and, if deemed necessary, tried under international humanitarian law.
6. Approval of the following force deployments:

• The Swedish F.22 Air Squadron.
• A third Swedish Infantry Battalion.
• The Special Reconnaissance Unit “Black Lancers” proposed by the Republic of India.

Let us remember the mission we were sent here to carry out. The objective of ONUC is not to serve one capital or another. Its objectives are clear:

• To maintain peace and prevent civil war.
• To protect the civilian population.
• To uphold the territorial integrity of the Republic of the Congo.
• To prevent external intervention in African self-determination.

These are not Swedish objectives.

They are United Nations objectives.

And we will defend them, not with threat, not with theater, but with restraint, resolve, and responsibility.

Let those who wish to subvert these goals with covert landings, secret deals, or inflammatory speeches take note, again:

We do not need an African Sarajevo.

Let us not forget how the First World War began: with one death, in one city, because diplomacy failed. Let that history not repeat itself on this continent.

Finally, let us recall the words of Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld:

“The United Nations was not created in order to bring us to heaven, but in order to save us from hell.”

Let us act accordingly. Let us not allow ideology to drown principle. Let us protect the peace, before peace is no longer possible to protect.

Thank you.

[Zealous]

Valerian Zorin
Permanent Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United Nations
Reply to the Statement by the Representative of the Kingdom of Sweden

Mr. President, esteemed delegates,

Once again, we hear the voice of the Kingdom of Sweden raised in this chamber with clarity and conviction. And again, we find ourselves in measured agreement with the intentions expressed, even if not with the assumptions made.

Let us begin where common ground is strongest.

The Soviet Union shares Sweden’s concern for the safety of the Congolese people. We support the idea that the United Nations must act to prevent civil war, protect territorial integrity, and uphold the Charter which binds this institution. On this, there is no disagreement.

We also recognize that Resolution 143 empowered this body to act in defence of peace, and that Resolution 145 reaffirmed the call to all nations to respect the sovereignty of the Congo. These foundations we do not contest—we helped to build them.

Indeed, it is precisely for that reason that the Soviet Union was the first and only permanent member of this Council to submit a comprehensive proposal, Resolution 161, which enshrines many of the same principles Sweden now articulates: the prevention of further militarization, the withdrawal of unauthorized forces, the need for investigations free from partisanship, and the centrality of ONUC’s original mandate.

Where we must diverge—respectfully—is on the matter of how legality is applied, and by whom.

We are told that one aircraft has landed. That it is grounded. That it awaits authorization. Yet that aircraft did not arrive with prior consent from this chamber, nor under any collective mandate of this Council. And now, Sweden asks us not only to accept it, but to legitimize it after the fact.

This, comrades, is a bridge too far.

If the principle is that all military deployments to the Congo must come with UN approval, then we cannot simultaneously reward those who bypassed procedure. We do not object to Sweden offering its aircraft, nor to others offering assistance. But let it be done legally, transparently, and with the same respect for due process that Sweden claims to uphold.

Let us not turn this chamber into a notary for afterthoughts. Let us ask instead: Who else is prepared to offer alternatives within the framework of the United Nations Charter? If air patrols are needed, let neutral nations step forward before deployment, not after. If troops are required, let them be requested, not announced.

On the other points Sweden raises—the proposed arms embargo, registration of foreign operatives, the training of a national Congolese security force—we are open to discussion, so long as they occur within the bounds of Resolution 161, and so long as they are applied equally, without prejudice or political exception.

But what must not be forgotten—what must be at the heart of all we do—is the principle so clearly articulated by the delegates of Ghana and Liberia, and supported by a broad coalition of voices across Africa and beyond.

This mission, this debate, this very presence in the Congo, must not be to impose order, but to protect the right of the Congolese people to choose their own path—free from foreign interference, free from economic coercion, free from aircraft carriers, and free from assumptions made in distant capitals.

A referendum, supervised by this body. A future chosen by the people of the Congo, not by the shareholders of any company, nor the interests of any bloc. That, we believe, is the highest expression of self-determination.

Mr. President,

We do not speak here to cast aspersions. We speak here to preserve a principle. And if there are delegates in this chamber who wish to stand for peace, we welcome them. But let us not confuse the performance of virtue with the work of building law. That work requires more than statements. It requires action.

The Soviet Union has taken that action. The question before us now is: who else will?

Thank you.

[Kane]

Agda Rossel
Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Sweden to the United Nations

Honored representatives,

I thank the representative of the Soviet Union for his remarks and for acknowledging that Sweden has spoken with clarity and conviction. I hope to reciprocate in kind.

Let me begin with what must be said plainly: we accept full responsibility for the early deployment of a single Swedish J29B aircraft to the Congo. This deployment was the result of an internal miscalculation in timing and authorizations. An error, not an intention to bypass this chamber.

We have never hidden this fact. Quite the contrary: we openly declared the presence of the aircraft before it even touched Congolese skies. Since its arrival, it has remained grounded, unarmed, and inactive, precisely because we are committed to transparency, legality, and international cooperation.

We apologize for the error. But let no one here mistake transparency for manipulation, nor honesty for impropriety. We have acted in the open, precisely because we will not participate in the dangerous logic of facts on the ground.

This cannot be said, unfortunately, for all parties involved.

We have heard impassioned references to UN Resolution 145 of which the Soviet Union claims proud authorship. Yet this same resolution calls upon all states to refrain from actions that might undermine the political independence and territorial integrity of the Congo.

And what have we witnessed?

Foreign-marked aircraft landing in Stanleyville. A faction not recognized by this chamber receiving weapons, training, and operatives. A training facility razed to the ground, with 150 dead and at least 15 foreign corpses pulled from the ruins. An airport bombing with 200 casualties.

How many more deaths must there be before decisions are taken to prevent further misfortunes? There is an article, Article 143, which allows this type of decision to be taken within the legality and protection of this chamber.

Let me recall what I mentioned in my previous intervention, the words of President Kennedy:

“The reports include that Soviet-marked aircraft had arrived in Stanleyville, delivering weapons and advisors to pro-Soviet Gizenga forces in Eastern Congo-Leopoldville.”

Where is the authorization for that? Where is the neutrality in that? Where is Resolution 145 in that?

And yet we are told that our single aircraft is the gravest breach of international order?

Dear representatives, colleagues:

The Soviet Union accuses us of asking this chamber to retroactively legalize our actions. We are doing no such thing. We have formally submitted our proposals to the Secretary-General under Resolutions 143 and 145, which empower the Secretary-General to act in consultation with the Congolese government to provide the support necessary for restoring peace and order.

The Soviet resolution 161 is a proposal. Ours is a request for immediate operational authority from the very institution tasked with ensuring peace: the Secretariat. The resolution will be debated, voted upon, and perhaps passed. But people are dying now.

Let us not confuse paperwork with peacekeeping.

And yes, we acknowledge and support the broader goals of Resolution 161. Many of its components mirror what we ourselves have proposed: a neutral investigation into Lumumba’s assassination, restrictions on foreign military support, a referendum for self-determination.

These are valuable measures. And we thank the Soviet Union for joining this conversation seriously. But let us not pretend that action must wait for perfect consensus. We urge the Secretary-General to act on our formal request, not as a favor to Sweden, but as a defense of every peacekeeper and every civilian caught in this crisis.

Our sons and daughters are in the Congo. India, Ghana, Ireland, Egypt, Canada, Indonesia, Italy, Malaya, and Sweden have men and women in harm’s way, under the blue flag. And above them, millions of Congolese who did not ask to become a battleground for someone else’s ideology.

We support the message of Ghana and Liberia. It is an urgent call to democratization and self-determination, and we should take it seriously. But invoking their wisdom to delay immediate action, to use their words as a pretext for inaction, is to turn their courage into a footnote. And it is important to emphasize that the deployed nations have no colonial interest in the Congo or surrounding nations. We are all there because we all seek a single goal… peace.

Sweden supports a referendum.
We support a free, sovereign Congo.
But before the Congolese people can vote, they must live.

Dear representatives, let us not pretend we stand on different sides of history. We stand on different timelines.

The Soviet Union has made a proposal.
Sweden has made a request.
Let both proceed. Let none obstruct.

Thank you.

[Rezim]

Adlai Stevenson II
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
United States of America

Members of this distinguished assembly,

The United States is in agreement with much of the sentiment that has been shared in these chambers. The United States agrees with our Liberian counterparts that colonialism is over - it is time for Africa to have its place with the rest of the nations of the world. I also share the sentiment of Representative Rossel of Sweden, that the situation is at the precipice of a major escalation, and one that become evermore dangerous than it already is. The United States unequivocally condemns the bombings in Leopoldville and Stanleyville, as well as the attacks upon UN Peacekeepers in Elizabethville. Wearing the blue of the United Nations shows a commitment to the end of a crisis, an effort by the international community to diffuse and resolve such troubling situations.

I admit, the Soviet representative makes a compelling point - foreign interference in the Congo must end. Foreign interference that attempts to put a finger on the scale to favour a particular outcome must end. So it begs the question, why is the Soviet Union acting against the government of the Republic of The Congo? Why is it acting in such a way to damage the UN mission in the Republic of The Congo - both reputationally and materially? The recent reports, which confirmed American intelligence reports, show the Soviets now withdrawing from Eastern Congo. Such foreign interference that is so blatant is the real threat to the situation, not the UN Mission. Not the USS Independence Battlegroup. As stated by both the White House and confirmed in the international news - the United States deployment is one that is there to monitor the situation closely, provide additional aid should the Congolese or United Nations mission request it, and further - is 20 kilometres off the coast of the Republic of The Congo, in international waters.

I am fully aware of the Soviet proposal resolution in the chambers of the Security Council. I am also aware of the wishes to see a new resolution for Congo-Leopoldville within these chambers. It is with that understanding that the United States will be proposing a resolution that will address the concerns raised by nations such as Sweden, India and Liberia, as well as those raised in the Soviet draft resolution. Specifically, the United States will seek to include language regarding an immediate restriction to unauthorized flights and travel by sea to the Republic of The Congo. This can be achieved in a resolution that would authorize a No Fly Zone, and an immediate Arms Embargo with a naval quarantine of the country to ensure that only the flow of pre-determined goods and humanitarian goods can arrive at ports of entry to the country.

Further to this, Ambassador Rossel, I will answer your question. Should a resolution pass that includes language including an arms embargo and no fly zone, the USS Independence Carrier Battlegroup will participate in the UN Mission to ensure a quarantine and no fly zone in Congo-Leopoldville.

[Zealous]

Valerian Zorin
Permanent Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United Nations
Statement on the Republic of the Congo and the Role of the United Nations

Mr. President, distinguished delegates,

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics rises today to deliver its view not in fragments, but in full—to address this chamber, not with abstractions or aspersions, but with the clarity that such a grave and global matter demands.

Let us begin with what is now self-evident: the Congolese people are not unified behind the Leopoldville ministry. Across Katanga, Stanleyville, and other provinces, entire populations have withdrawn their support, seeking alternative structures of governance—through conviction, not coercion.

The United Nations must not pretend this political plurality does not exist, nor must it seek to dissolve it from afar. The mission of this body is not to enforce unity through external means, but to create conditions where the Congolese people can determine their future through democratic and peaceful processes—free of threats, coercion, or foreign interference.

It is for that reason that the Soviet Union has supported the United Nations Operation in the Congo—ONUC—from the start. We remain committed to its original mandate: to prevent civil war, uphold sovereignty, and protect the Congo from external manipulation.

We are willing to support proposals, including those introduced by the delegation of Sweden, which would strengthen ONUC’s ability to act as a stabilizing, neutral force—particularly through the increased deployment of peacekeeping personnel. We share Sweden’s concern that the situation may spiral further without restraint, and we affirm our readiness to support any measure that genuinely safeguards peace without partisan aim.

Now, we must address with absolute clarity a matter of strategic significance.

We have been informed that the USS Independence carrier battlegroup, already deployed, will be offered as a tool of peacekeeping—pending a resolution. We must reject this, categorically and unambiguously.

A carrier battlegroup is not a peacekeeping force. It is the most sophisticated delivery system of conventional warfare in existence. To bring such a formation under UN command is not to support ONUC—it is to redefine the very meaning of peace.

Should this chamber endorse that logic, what then will prevent future peacekeeping missions from being accompanied by strategic bombers, by missile cruisers, by divisions of airborne troops? At what point does peacekeeping become power projection under another name?

The Soviet Union affirms: we will support increased deployment of neutral, multinational ground forces under the ONUC mandate. We are prepared to cooperate on arms limitations, border monitoring, and even referenda oversight—so long as these are carried out by actors who are not the very source of military pressure.

As for the presence of Soviet personnel in the Congo, we again state plainly:

Soviet citizens were present solely in an advisory capacity, and only at the formal request of government officers acting within the legal authority of the Republic of the Congo—first under Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, and later under Prime Minister Antoine Gizenga, while he held constitutional office. The moment Mr. Gizenga resigned from that government and declared a separate administration, the legal basis for Soviet advisory activity ended, and our personnel began immediate withdrawal. We required no pressure. We required no permission. We acted as a lawful power should.

It is now the role of this chamber to do the same.

Let the United Nations not act to impose a singular outcome on the people of the Congo, but instead to ensure their right to choose—freely, peacefully, and without fear.

Let us not redefine peace to accommodate power.

Let us preserve peace by defending principle.

Thank you.

[C.D.Phil]

Ambassador Pieter W. Botha
Permanent Representative of the Republic of South Africa to the United Nations
Response to the Statement of the Soviet Representative, Mr. Gromyko

---

Mr. President, esteemed colleagues,

The delegate of the Soviet Union has stood before this chamber cloaked in the language of peace, yet wielding the instruments of subversion. Let us not be seduced by rhetorical grandstanding. Let us call things by their true names.

What the Soviet Union terms “plurality” in the Congo is in fact fracture—fueled not by the will of the people, but by the subversive hand of foreign ideologues who have no stake in African liberty, only in African instability. Moscow’s talk of “conviction” and “democratic process” is a cruel mockery when spoken by those who have extinguished democracy within their own borders for nearly half a century.

Mr. Gromyko speaks of Katanga, Stanleyville, and other provinces “withdrawing support.” Let me ask plainly: who equipped these breakaway movements? Who dispatched military advisors under the guise of “legal requests”? Who ignited a firestorm in a young African nation struggling to find its footing?

The answer is clear—and it does not lie in Washington, nor in Brussels. It lies in the Kremlin.

South Africa will not sit idly by while communist interference is rebranded as multilateral peacekeeping. The Soviet Union’s sudden concern for sovereignty is as disingenuous as its crocodile tears over the use of carrier groups. For decades, the USSR has stationed submarines, missile sites, and nuclear arsenals from the Baltic to the Pacific—and now they lecture this body on restraint?

Let us be absolutely clear:

• A UN-commanded carrier group is not an act of war; it is a shield to defend legitimate governments from being overrun by Marxist proxies.
• Soviet “advisors” did not simply withdraw from the Congo out of legal nicety—they were expelled by reality, because their chosen puppet lost all claim to legitimacy.
• Peacekeeping is not power projection—ideological infiltration is.

We reject the Soviet effort to poison this body’s deliberations with false equivalence. There is no parity between Western nations seeking order and communist regimes sowing chaos.

Mr. President, South Africa supports the use of United Nations peacekeeping forces—yes—but only if those forces are neutral in action, not just in name. We will not allow this chamber to become a staging ground for the slow, corrosive erosion of African nations into Soviet satellites.

To our colleagues here assembled, particularly those newly freed from the yoke of colonialism: beware of the new yoke being offered in the red velvet of revolutionary language. It is no lighter. It is no freer. It merely exchanges one master for another, cloaked in slogans and sharpened in Moscow.

South Africa calls upon this body to reaffirm what peace actually is: order, stability, law, and the protection of legitimate government. Let those who undermine these principles not be treated as peacemakers—but as perpetrators.

Thank you.

[Rezim]

Adlai Stevenson II
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
United States of America

Esteemed delegates,

I do find it quite ironic that the Soviet delegation is trying to persuade this assembly to believe that the Congolese people are being coerced to follow a government not of their choice. I ask the Soviet ambassador, what happened to the choice of the people of Eastern Germany in 1945? Or the Hungarian people who rose up in 1956? Mr. Zorin, you don’t need to wait for the translation to understand what I am talking about, I know that you are an intelligent enough man to understand this. The Soviet Union and its proxies are involved in upending the Congolese state and its government. There is no commitment to the mandate, here, only the forcing of one’s ideological goals upon a young nation who has only recently received its independence.

In addition to what I have stated plainly, previously - the USS Independence Carrier Battlegroup is prepared to join the UN mission to act as the quarantine for an arms embargo and no fly zone - both of which have been requested by multiple members of the ONUC mission. Later today, I will be presenting a resolution to the Security Council that will address some of the previous concerns, as well as the introduction of an arms embargo and no fly zone over the Republic of The Congo.

If peace and freedom are to have a chance, it cannot be suffocated by the grandstanding of a nation which attempted to tip the scales in favour of their inside man. Peace and stability will not come from the country who so crudely invades their “allies” to enforce a strict ideological hold against the will of the people.

[Zealous]

Valerian Zorin
Permanent Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United Nations

Response to the Statements of the United States and South Africa

Mr. President, esteemed delegates,

We have listened carefully to our colleagues from the United States and the Republic of South Africa—though at moments, I must confess, one might have mistaken their remarks for the opening statements of a courtroom drama rather than a diplomatic discussion.

Let us begin where our South African colleague concluded—with a vigorous denunciation of socialist ideology as inherently incompatible with peacekeeping. It is a peculiar position, I must say, for a representative of a state which administers its domestic affairs with a brutality so widely recognized that it is only rivalled by its discomfort at being questioned.

To declare that peacekeeping can only be conducted by governments of a particular ideological persuasion is not only an insult to the neutrality of the United Nations—it is a direct attack on its founding principles. The Charter, I remind this chamber, makes no mention of a global litmus test for acceptable ideology. Socialist states are as legitimate under this body as capitalist ones, and this forum does not exist to sanctify the preferences of Pretoria.

As for the United States, we must commend Ambassador Stevenson’s dramatic flair—though we respectfully suggest that a theater in midtown Manhattan might be a more appropriate venue. His performance was well-rehearsed, even if the plot is becoming tiresomely familiar: the Soviet Union as puppeteer, the Congo as passive victim, and the United States, sword of righteousness in one hand, aircraft carrier in the other.

Yes, the USS Independence—that floating fortress of diplomacy. Never before has the world seen such a bold attempt to redefine “peacekeeping” as something that arrives flanked by strike aircraft and a radar signature visible from orbit. If that is peace, one shudders to imagine what war might look like.

And of course, there is the matter of coups—those remarkably timed, entirely spontaneous, and we must say, convenient uprisings, which seem to occur almost exclusively in nations with either extensive fruit plantations or inconvenient political alignments. Naturally, these events have nothing whatsoever to do with global interests, strategic positioning, or the bottom lines of companies headquartered north of the Rio Grande. We wouldn’t dream of suggesting such a thing.

Now, let us return to what the Soviet Union has said—not what others would like us to have said.

Soviet personnel were present in the Congo only at the legal request of legitimate governmental officers—first under Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, and later under Prime Minister Antoine Gizenga. These advisors were solely in an advisory capacity, helping a newly independent state develop its institutions—no different, in principle, than what many other countries have offered elsewhere.

When Mr. Gizenga resigned from the national government and declared a separate authority, the USSR recognized that the legal clarity had dissolved. Our advisors began a full and immediate withdrawal, because we act, unlike others, not by expedience, but by legality.

We have supported the United Nations Operation in the Congo—ONUC—from its inception. We continue to support it today. And we are willing to support an increase in neutral, multinational peacekeeping forces as proposed—so long as this force is not corrupted by the inclusion of carrier battlegroups or any attempt to pass off strategic intimidation as impartial oversight.

Let us be clear: we cannot support any resolution that seeks to retroactively legitimize the deployment of such formations. The logic of “act first, legalize later” is not diplomacy—it is choreography.

And so, we say this now not only to our colleagues in the Security Council, but to the wider General Assembly: we must not allow this chamber to become a stage for political point-scoring on one hand, and the formal ratification of unilateral military posturing on the other.

We call upon all delegates to reject the theatrics, to reject the pressure, and to support the neutral, focused, and balanced proposals put forward by Ghana, Liberia, and Sweden, to Resolution 161 which takes those very proposals and enshrines them in a proposed resolution of the Security Council to enable them. These are the proposals that centre peace, not prestige. These are the efforts that deserve the support of a body that still wishes to call itself united.

Thank you.

[AllenKalashnikov]

Statement by the Representative of India to the United Nations General Assembly – 1961

"Mr. President,
India wishes to reaffirm its unwavering support for the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, particularly those relating to the sovereignty of nations and the collective responsibility of this Assembly in matters of international peace and security.

It has come to the attention of this body that certain military deployments in the Congo, including the arrival of Swedish aircraft, were not authorized through the proper channels prior to their participation in United Nations operations. While India recognizes the professionalism and commitment of our Swedish colleagues, we must underscore that such unilateral deployments—however well-intentioned—set a troubling precedent.

Similarly, the recent deployment of a United States battlegroup raises serious concerns. This deployment, made without prior coordination with or authorization from the United Nations, represents a clear case of a controlling nation seeking to legitimize its actions retroactively. Such conduct undermines the legitimacy and cohesion of the UN mission and risks fracturing the very mandate we are collectively entrusted to uphold.

Turning to the actions of the Soviet Union, and assuming for a moment the accuracy of the timeline presented, the Indian delegation must express its regret that the abrupt withdrawal of Soviet forces—coupled with the commencement of an uncoordinated humanitarian initiative—has contributed to greater instability on the ground. A phased and properly coordinated withdrawal, undertaken in consultation with the United Nations, could have avoided exacerbating the humanitarian crisis now unfolding.

At this juncture, India calls upon all nations to withdraw any and all military forces currently operating in the Congo that are not explicitly under United Nations command. Furthermore, we strongly urge that any future deployments—military or otherwise—be subjected to proper authorization through the appropriate United Nations mechanisms.

India acknowledges that in rare and extreme situations, immediate action may be required to protect lives or restore order. However, even in such cases, clear and prompt communication with the mission commander on the ground must be established before the arrival of any external forces.

Let us not forget that the strength of this institution lies in our ability to act together. Let us not weaken that strength through unilateralism cloaked in urgency. The Congolese people deserve stability, not a battlefield of foreign interests."

[C.D.Phil]

Ambassador Pieter W. Botha
Permanent Representative of the Republic of South Africa to the United Nations
Response to Ambassador Zorin’s Statement

---

Mr. President, fellow delegates,

Let’s not waste time dressing this up. The Soviet delegate accuses others of theatre while delivering a monologue straight out of the Kremlin’s propaganda department.

He says South Africa has no right to speak on peace. I say the Soviet Union has no right to speak on truth.

Let’s call this what it is: the USSR backs chaos—because a stable, united Congo doesn’t serve Moscow’s goals. They don’t want peace. They want pawns.

Zorin mocks the USS Independence as a symbol of aggression. But at least it flies its flag openly. Soviet “advisors” sneak in under cover of darkness and whisper in generals’ ears. You call that diplomacy? We call it what it is: subversion.

You talk about neutrality. The Soviet Union hasn’t been neutral since Lenin walked off a train in Petrograd.

And as for lectures on “brutality”—save it. Coming from a regime that starves its own people, shoots protestors, and jails poets, we’ll take no lessons from Moscow on human rights.

We support Resolution 161. We support real peacekeeping—not Soviet puppets playing dress-up in army fatigues.

And if you don’t like our tone, Mr. Zorin, here’s some advice: stop acting like you’re the only adult in the room, when you’re the one lighting fires and calling it warmth.

Thank you.

[Primus]

** Lawerence Arnott

Mr. President, fellow delegates, no, fellow humans,

Let us take a moment and remember who we are at our core. We are reach a human being who cares and wishes to grow and thrive under the umbrella that our freedom provides. That is what the people of the Congo want. They want to live their lives free of interdiction from outside powers whose greed guides them. The people of the Congo wish to join us at the table. They wish to learn, to grow and to thrive and most importantly, they will not accept the interdiction of the Soviet Bloc into their country!

I for one, speak with the heart of my people, the Commonwealth of Australia, in taking a stand against unchecked aggression against people who simply wish to decide for themselves the life they wish to live. To borrow a phrase from Amercian history, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” I believe this phrase directly contradicts the attitude brought to the table by the Soviet Bloc in how they handled the Congon crisis. We have no right, as the leaders in the global community at large, to dictate against the will of the people.

I, Lawerence Abbott, with the backing of the Honorable Robert Menzies, and the rest of the government of the Commonwealth of Australia, extend a hand of support, sympathy, and a ready desire to see the people of the Congo truly be free. Regardless of what our personal desires may be in relation to what the people of the Congo decide, they deserve the right and the chance to do so because they are human beings! They have as much right to exist, and to pursue their own desired form of government. And our job as stewards of the world should be to guide and offer them all options.

In conclusion, my fellow humans, my fellow delegates, and to all those who cannot speak for themselves here today, the people of Australia stands with each and every one of you in the pursuit of peace, happiness, and the right to choose how you are governed as a people. If my words are harsh, or touched on too many difficult subjects, I will not apologize nor will I relent in my position, and nor will my government.

Thank you.

[Gabriel]

Dag Hammarskjöld
Secretary-General of the United Nations

Esteemed representatives, ambassadors, and delegates,

I address this matter today not to offer judgment upon the broader circumstances unfolding in the Republic of the Congo a matter of great complexity and sensitivity that continues to engage the full concern of this Organization but rather to clarify a more specific issue currently under discussion in this chamber: the recent deployment of Swedish combat aircraft to reinforce the Swedish contingent of the United Nations Operation in the Congo (ONUC).

Let me be clear from the outset: it is both the prerogative and the responsibility of Member States contributing to peacekeeping operations to ensure the security and effectiveness of their personnel in the field, and to adapt their deployments as required within the bounds of their mandate. It is also incumbent upon all such states to coordinate these matters through appropriate UN channels to preserve the integrity and neutrality of our operations.

In the case at hand, the Swedish Government has indeed deployed a small number of combat-capable aircraft to the Congo. These aircraft, as I have been advised, are intended solely to augment the protection and operational readiness of the existing Swedish contingent, already serving under ONUC command with distinction. They are not intended for independent operations, nor do they signify a change in the nature of Sweden’s participation.

It would have been preferable, and indeed more in line with the spirit of UN coordination, had this augmentation been the subject of more comprehensive prior consultation with the Secretariat. I have conveyed as much to the Swedish Government, and they have expressed their understanding on this point.

That said, I must emphasize the following: under the terms of Security Council resolution S/4387, the Secretary-General is authorized “to take the necessary steps, in consultation with the Government of the Republic of the Congo, to provide the Government with such military assistance as may be necessary.” The Security Council, in issuing this resolution, has thus conferred upon the Secretary-General the authority and by virtue, indeed the responsibility to interpret the scope of actions taken in pursuit of that mandate.

Accordingly, it is my considered opinion that this Swedish deployment does not, in either its substance or its scope, constitute a violation of the Security Council’s mandate for ONUC. The aircraft in question have been placed under the operational control of the United Nations Force Commander, and their presence does not alter Sweden’s adherence to the principles of impartiality, non-aggression except in self-defense or in defense of the mandate, and the international character of the United Nations operation.

The role of the Secretary-General is not to assign political motives nor to interfere with the sovereign decisions of Member States, so long as those decisions are in harmony with the legal framework established by this Organization. It is on this basis and this basis alone that I affirm Sweden has not exceeded the scope of its responsibilities under the United Nations mandate.

Let us not lose sight, in our deliberations, of the immense burdens borne by those nations who have chosen to shoulder the responsibilities of peace in the Congo. Nor should we, amidst the inevitable frictions of international cooperation, allow ourselves to be diverted from our primary aim: to restore order, preserve life, and uphold the Charter in a land torn by strife.