text: that time acting aa head of the United States Hfssion. That communication informed us that the United States was applyinq blockade measures and alleged that it wasa . doing ao under Article 51 of the Charter and Security Council resolution 661 (1990). I have already said that n-here does that resolution authorize anyone or ask anycne - the United States or any other State - to implement the resolution by military means. *p/fat S/PV.2937 31 (me. Alarcon de Quosarla, Cuti) Article 51 is undoubtedly known to any *first-wader’ in the Untted Nations system. It refers to a very old principle of mankind - the riqht to self-defence. But it is also crystal clear in recoqnisinq the riqht to self-defence “until the Securitv Council ha5 taken masuree necessary to maintain international peace and SeCWitV”. What we are witnessinq now is a new and intezestinq ohemnon, which should brannt the Council to take very clear decisions. The Charter is beinq amended. We see a twistinq of the tetmqi of the oriqinal concept of the Charter with reqard to self-aQfeIICQ8 the Charter is beins u8edr deceitfullv, as somethinq to be imolemented unilaterally by one State after the Security Council has taken the decisions it deems appropriate. Does that mean that the United States is not really in aqreament with resolution 661 (19901, which it promoted? Dow it believe that the Security Council hae not taken the 6teP.9 it 5hould3 Or, contrary to Article 51, does it feel that it has the riqht to infrinqe the authority and reeWnsibility of the Security Counoil? It has been allsqed on other occasions, because the United States dsleqation has used a variety of arquments, that the United States is implementinq resolution 661 (19901, which clearly ia hased on Article 41 of the Charter, and that Article 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic communication discussing the implementation of economic sanctions by the United States, specifically in relation to the Gulf War. The language used is formal and legalistic, with references to international law and the United Nations Charter. The tone is critical and accusatory, suggesting that the speaker is objecting to the unilateral action taken by the United States.