text: to the Security Council 252. At its 1598th meeting, on 11 July 1985, the Trusteeship Council considered its report to the Security Council and adopted it by a vote of 3 to 1. 253. The representative of the Soviet Union, in explanation of his vote, said that his delegation had expressed its objections to the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the majority of the members of the Trusteeship Council at past meetings of the session. It had emphasized that those conclusions and recommendations did not reflect the opinions of the Soviet delegation and were aimed at supporting the annexationist policy of the Administering Authority in Micronesia, a policy that was contrary to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the Charter and the vital interests of the people of Micronesia. -35- 254. Since the last meeting of the Trusteeship Council, the press had reported on the tense situation prevailing in Palau and the discontent in other parts of Micronesia over the compacts now under consideration in the United’ States Congress, where new attempts were being made to infringe even more on the legitimate rights of the people of Micronesia. 255. The Soviet Union representative stated that the United States was trying to impose a neo-colonialist rdgime on the Micronesian people. Yet the conclusions and recommendations, which should be the most important part of the Trusteeship Council’s report, simply ignored that fact. For that reason# the Soviet delegation had voted against the conclusions and recommendations and the report as a whole. 256. The United States delegation saw no need to respond further to the soviet allegations regarding neo-colonialism and annexation in the Territory to which it had repeatedly responded throughout the fifty-second session of the Trusteeship Council. 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the political situation in Micronesia and the actions of the United States and the Soviet Union regarding the territory. The Soviet Union representative is objecting to the conclusions and recommendations of the Trusteeship Council, citing concerns about neo-colonialism and annexation. This suggests that the text is related to international relations and politics, rather than economic or social development.