IO Files: US(P)/A/253
United States Delegation Memorandum
Report and Recommendation of the First Committee Resulting From Consideration of the Soviet Proposal for a One-Third Arms Reduction1
1. United States Position
The United States Delegation should vote in favor of the French Resolution as amended by the Belgians, with the changes later introduced by a further French amendment.2 This is the resolution which [Page 501] was approved in Committee 1 by an affirmative vote of 40 in favor, 6 against, and 1 abstention. If the Soviet resolution calling for a one-third reduction of arms among the Big Five3 is introduced, or the similar Polish resolution4 introduced, the United States should vote against them, and if they are voted on paragraph by paragraph, the United States should vote against each paragraph on the ground that they are a part of an unacceptable resolution, or else that they are specifically irrelevant (as is the paragraph dealing with atomic energy) or in themselves unacceptable.
The necessity for the United States Delegation to make a general statement on this subject will be determined by the length and trend of the debate. The opening statement should in any event be made by Belgium or France, whose resolution it is. A short statement by the United States has been prepared for use if necessary.
If Vishinsky makes a violent propaganda speech, some other reply may be indicated, though on present information it would seem best to ignore him in the Plenary.
2. History in Committee
It was not expected that the subject of disarmament would be raised in this General Assembly. However, at the start of the Assembly Vishinsky introduced the surprise Soviet resolution demanding the prohibition of atomic arms and the one-third reduction of arms of the five big powers. It was early agreed among the other nations that the Vishinsky proposal was pure propaganda and should be voted down in its entirety, and a new resolution prepared to take its place, which resolution would instruct the Commission on Conventional Armaments to continue its work. The United Kingdom Delegation prepared such a resolution5 and the United States would have been willing to back it. It was, however, unacceptable to the French and Belgian Delegations because it was critical of the Soviet Union and was not in their opinion constructive. The French prepared and presented a resolution which appeared to propose the formulation of new plans outside of the Commission for Conventional Armaments. After prolonged conversations, the Belgians presented an amendment to the French [Page 502] resolution, keeping the work in the CCA, in the framework of the Security Council, and providing that the first effort should be to develop plans for and actually to set up an international organ which would receive, verify and publish figures on armies and armaments. This amendment was whipped into shape and accepted by the French. It was adopted by the Sub-Committee and sent to Committee 1. In Committee 1 minor changes were made in the text by amendments proposed by the French and Australians, and the final text was adopted and recommended to the Plenary. The original Soviet resolution was also voted on in Committee 1, and was rejected by a vote of 41 to 6, with one abstention.
3. Possible Developments in the Plenary Meeting
The Franco-Belgian text will be submitted for vote in the Plenary with strong support by Belgium, France, the United States and other nations. There is no doubt that it will have almost the unanimous support of the Assembly, except for the 6 Soviet votes. There is little likelihood of its amendment. Any amendments which would provide for the publication of any information prior to verification by the inspection of an international organ should be vigorously rejected.
The Soviet will undoubtedly insist on a vote being taken on their original resolution, paragraph by paragraph, and as a whole. We should vote resolutely against every paragraph as well as against the resolution as a whole. We cannot afford any chance that some paragraphs might be accepted by a small majority due to abstentions. It is also likely that Katz-Suchy6 will introduce the Polish resolution, in general similar to that of the Soviet. This resolution and each of its paragraphs is, however, more certain of complete repudiation.
- At its 194th and 196th to 199th Meetings, November 11–13, the First Committee considered the report of Subcommittee 12 (A/C.1/356/Rev. 1), which is described in footnote 1, p. 492. Osborn delivered an important expression of United States policy at the 196th Meeting, November 12; for text, see Department of State Bulletin, November 21, 1948, pp. 630–633, 641 (date of the statement incorrectly stated as November 11), or Documents on Disarmament 1945–1959, vol. i, pp. 179–187. The First Committee concluded its consideration of the question by adopting a report to the General Assembly, document A/722; for text, see GA (III/1), Annexes, pp. 367–372.↩
- The First Committee adopted the Belgian draft resolution, paragraph 17 of Subcommittee 12’s report (A/C.1/356/Rev. 1), after accepting two amendments to it These amendments, presented by Syria (A/C.1/390) and France (A/C.1/392), respectively invited the Commission for Conventional Armaments to proceed with its work as soon as possible, and proposed that the international organ of control be established within the Security Council. For information on the draft resolution as approved by Subcommittee 12, see footnote 1, p. 492. The texts of the Syrian and French amendments adopted are contained in the record of the 199th Meeting of the First Committee, November 13, at which time the amended draft resolution was approved. For the record of that meeting, see GA (III/1), First Committee, pp. 612–630. For the resolution adopted by the First Committee and subsequently approved by the General Assembly, see p. 503.↩
- The Soviet resolution, document A/658 as amended by document A/C.1/SC.12/3, is described in footnote 1, p. 492.↩
- The Polish proposal, document A/C.1/SC.12/4, is printed in paragraph 18 of Subcommittee 12 report A/C.1/356/Rev. 1; for text, see GA (III/1), First Committee, Annexes, p. 39.↩
- For information on the British resolution, A/C.1/319, see footnote 7, p. 461.↩
- Juliusz Katz-Suchy, Member of the Polish Delegation; Permanent Polish Representative to the United Nations.↩