IO Files: US/A/2208
United States Delegation Position Paper
Regulation and Reduction of Conventional Armaments and Armed Forces: Report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee (A/1151)1
1. United States Position
In accordance with Position Paper US/A/AC.31/8,2 the United States should vote in favor of the Resolution approved by the Ad Hoc [Page 229] Political Committee entitled, “Regulation and Reduction of Conventional Armaments and Armed Forces.”
The United States should vote against the Soviet draft resolution (A/1169) which was rejected by the Committee and has been reintroduced for consideration by the Plenary Session.
In order to make clear that Soviet intransigence alone is responsible for the inability of the Security Council to recommend that the census and verification proposals made by the Commission for Conventional Armaments be put into effect, the United States should make a statement in the Plenary Session.
2. History in the Committee
Two draft resolutions were presented to the Ad Hoc Political Committee. The first of these co-sponsored by France and Norway, was, without alteration, approved by the Committee by a vote of 42 to 5 (Soviet bloc), with 5 abstentions, and is the Resolution now pending before the General Assembly in Plenary Session. The second draft resolution was introduced by the Soviet Union and merely provided that “The General Assembly deems it essential that the States should submit both information on armed forces and conventional armaments and information on atomic weapons.” This draft resolution was rejected by a vote of 6 for (Soviet bloc and Egypt) and 30 against, with 14 abstentions. (A practically identical resolution had been introduced by the Soviet Union in the Security Council where it failed of acceptance by a vote of 3 in favor (U.S.S.R., Ukraine and Egypt), 1 against (China) and 7 abstentions.) In the debate on the two draft resolutions, principal statements in support of the French-Norwegian draft resolution, and in opposition to the Soviet draft resolution, were made by the representatives of France, Norway, U.K., Australia and U.S., with Canada and China submitting brief supporting statements. The five States in the Soviet bloc spoke at length in opposition to the French-Norwegian draft resolution and in support of the Soviet draft resolution. Lengthy statements were also made by Egypt, Yugoslavia, Colombia, Chile, Venezuela, and Uruguay, principally in the vein of disappointment at the inability of the larger powers to resolve their differences. Brief statements rebutting Soviet charges of U.S. influence and domination were made by Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Greece Turkey, and the Philippines.
3. Possible Developments in Plenary
It is anticipated that the Resolution approved by the Ad Hoc Political Committee will receive a substantial majority in the Plenary and that the Soviet resolution will be rejected. The United States [Page 230] should vote against the Soviet resolution on the two grounds noted by its spokesmen in the Security Council and the Ad Hoc Political Committee, viz. (1) Failure to provide for adequate verification of data submitted, and (2) Attempt to merge problems relating to conventional armaments and armed forces with those relating to atomic energy and atomic weapons.
It is possible that a question will arise in Plenary concerning the title of the pending Resolution, as well as the title or heading to be used in the future with reference to matters concerning conventional armaments and armed forces. The agenda item dealing with these matters in the Fourth General Assembly bears the title, “Prohibition of the Atomic Weapon and Reduction by One-Third of the Armaments and Armed Forces of the Permanent Members of the Security Council.” This is also the principal heading on the Report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee (A/1151). This title is a carry-over from the Third General Assembly, where it first appeared as the title of a draft resolution introduced by the Soviet Union, and where it was thereafter used as the title of the agenda item dealing with matters relating to conventional armaments and armed forces. Despite the fact that the Soviet Resolution was overwhelmingly rejected by the Third General Assembly, which adopted in its place the Resolution of November 19, 1948, calling for the formulation of the census and verification proposals discussed above, the title of the Soviet Resolution (as the title of the agenda item) continued to be used and was actually carried over as the designation of the corresponding item on the agenda of the Fourth General Assembly. The ineptitude of the title was pointed out in the Ad Hoc Political Committee, where the President ruled that, since it was a part of the approved agenda, it would have to continue to be used, but that in the event the Resolution approved by the Committee were also approved by the General Assembly in Plenary, it was assumed that it would be replaced by the title of the Resolution, viz. “Regulation and Reduction of Conventional Armaments and Armed Forces.”
In the plenary, a proposal may be made—as the Chair may rule—that the permanent record should carry the title of the resolution rather than that of the agenda item. Reference to this point should be made in the speech of the United States Representative. In addition, following the precedent established in the voting on the resolution entitled “Essentials of Peace”, the Delegation should arrange to have a separate vote requested on the title of the French-Norwegian resolution, to ensure beyond any doubt that it will be carried in the permanent record.
- The Ad Hoc Political Committee considered the resolutions of the Security Council on regulation of conventional armaments (see editorial note, p. 189) at its 38th–43rd Meetings, November 15–24. At the 38th Meeting, November 15, the French Representative introduced a French-Norwegian draft resolution, A/AC.31/L.33/Rev. 1, which was adopted at the 42nd Meeting, November 19. For the report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee on this item, A/1151, see GA (IV), Annex, p. 75. For the text of the resolution contained in the report, see General Assembly Resolution 300 (IV), p. 242.↩
- Of September 24, p. 172.↩