text: 234. The representative of the Soviet Union , explaining his negative vote on the report of the Drafting Committee , said that the conclusions and recommendations contained therein neither reflected the real situation in the Trust Territory nor gave a true evaluation and analysis of what the Administering Authority had done there. They were not objective, although the authors had tried to persuade an uninformed reader that they were made on the basis of the discussions in the Council. The conclusions and recommendations only served the purpose of covering up and justifying the policy of the Administering Authority aimed at annexation of Micronesia. 235. For example, in the section dealing with the political advancement of the Territory,, the conclusions and recommendations, although reaffirming the inalienable right of the people of Micronesia to self-determination, including the right to independence, stated that so-called free association was an option entirely compatible with the Trusteeship Agreement, provided the population concerned had freely accepted it. 236. An objective analysis would, show that the Micronesian people had not been, given an opportunity to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence because of their complete economic and political, dependence on the Administering Authority. Under such conditions, there could.be no question of a genuine voluntary choice >by the Microneaian people of. their 'political status. On the contrary, the Administering Authority had done everything possible to imwse on the Trust Territory an unequal agreement of free association which was a cover-up for de facto annexation of the Territory. Furthe’rmore, the political section Of the report attempted to convince the reader that even military agreements that handed Micronesia’over to the Pentagon were compatible with the self-qoverning status of the Territory. -33- 237. The report was clearly oriented towards reaffirming the political and military interests of the United States at the expense of the Micronesians and showed that 
analysis: The text appears to be a political statement or criticism of a report related to the Trust Territory of Micronesia, discussing issues of self-determination, annexation, and the relationship between the Administering Authority (the United States) and the Micronesian people. It seems to be more focused on the political and international aspects of the situation rather than specific economic or social issues.