135. Telegram 2490 From the Mission in Geneva to the Department of State1
2490. Disto. Subject: CCD: Review of Spring Session.
1. During the spring session, which concluded on April 10, the CCD did not engage in any concrete arms control negotiations but it was the forum for several significant policy statements. The committee also laid the groundwork for a very active summer session and for the ad hoc study group on nuclear-free zones.
2. An unusually large number of informal meetings were held during this session to deal with a variety of procedural matters. The informal meetings proved to be a rather unwieldly means for reaching decisions and had to be supplemented by intensive corridor consultations, but this type of meeting has a growing attraction for many members of the committee. Part of this attraction is no doubt due to the fact that the informal meetings were often the scene of very lively and active exchanges in contrast with the relatively unstimulating plenary sessions.
3. The spring session was also notable for the attention given to the CCD’s work methods. The large number of 1974 General Assembly arms control resolutions, which referred a number of new issues to the CCD, prompted several delegations (mostly the Canadians and Romanians) to urge that the committee adopt a more systematic approach to its work in order to ensure that all matters before it were dealt with adequately. These views were received sympathetically by many members of the committee, particularly by the rather large number of delegation heads who were making their first appearance at the CCD. Several of these new representatives, including the UK Ambassador, were clearly dissatisfied with the committee’s lack of a detailed, fixed agenda. In addition, the absence of concrete treaty negotiations [Page 448] naturally gave delegations more time and reason for considering organizational and procedural improvements. Despite these widespread desires for procedural changes, only one formal proposal was put forward (by Romania) and it was modest in scope. There was no efforts made to eliminate the co-chairmanship. The new provisions covering work methods that were eventually adopted at the April 10 plenary (Geneva 2472) were largely aimed at providing a more predictable schedule for the committee’s annual sessions. Even on this point, a new provision pertaining to future examination of the committee’s work program was expressed in vague and general terms. Nonetheless, many delegations probably share the hope expressed by the Mexican representative that these changes will lead to more substantial modifications in the committee’s procedures and organization.
4. The formal statements that were made during plenary meetings on substantive issues broke little new ground and tended to be wide-ranging and rather generalized. No new formal proposals or initiatives were put forward. Several delegations, however, addressed the committee for the first time as new members of the CCD, and among these the representatives of Iran and the Federal Republic of Germany made notable statements of their government’s attitude towards a variety of arms control issues. The U.S. Rep also made a lengthy statement on the question of possible restraints on conventional arms. Otherwise, plenary statements tended to be repetitive and often indicated that members of the committee were marking time and waiting for initiatives from the U.S. and/or Soviet Union on a number of major issues before the CCD.
5. The impatience of other delegates for such initiatives was particularly evident in the case of chemical weapons. Soviet bloc, non-aligned and Western delegations referred repeatedly to the fact that they were waiting for the joint U.S./Soviet initiative on chemical weapons referred to in the 1974 Moscow Summit communiqué. Japanese Ambassador Nisibori, still disgruntled because this reference in the communiqué had overshadowed his delegation’s draft CW convention, was particularly insistent in his queries about the joint initiative. The Soviets amplified their pressuring in bilateral contacts with us and it was apparently only with some difficulty that the Soviets restrained themselves from being more pointed in their plenary statement of the closing day regarding the U.S. posture on the CW issue. USDel thus found itself in a very awkward position regarding CW during the spring session, though matters were helped somewhat by the fact that U.S. had now ratified the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the BW Convention.
6. Many delegations also made it clear that they were awaiting further steps by the co-chairmen with regard to the committee’s deliberations on environmental modification restraints. Virtually all delega [Page 449] tions seem to feel the need to become better informed about this new area of work and they look toward the U.S. and USSR as the only sources of expertise. These sentiments were reflected in the Swedish delegation’s proposal for an informal meeting on the subject and this has now been scheduled for the summer session. In addition, our allies have made it clear that they feel it would be highly desirable for the U.S. to put forward a draft EnMod convention at the summer session to counter the troublesome and unacceptable text. USDel shares allies’ view.
7. Discussion of nuclear arms control issues during the spring session was rather cursory but many Western, non-aligned and Soviet bloc delegations expressed their concerns about the need for strengthening the NPT regime. In this connection a number of delegations called for nuclear disarmament measures by the U.S. and the Soviet Union. They reiterated comments expressed last session about the inadequacies of the TTB and were only slightly more positive in their comments on the Vladivostok Summit agreements regarding SALT. The U.S. statement at the opening of the spring session, however, probably helped moderate some of the critical views and skepticism of other delegations about these agreements.
8. Indian Rep was obliged on several occasions to defend India’s 1974 nuclear test, particularly in connection with a proposal pushed by the Japanese regarding the committee’s discussion of the arms control implications of PNEs. The Indian Delegation’s defensiveness on the PNE issue obviously influenced its approach to a number of procedural matters that the committee discussed and led the Indians to engage in diversionary and obstructionist tactics to counter arrangements that they apparently felt might weaken their position at the committee. Ultimately, however, the CCD was able to reach a compromise on scheduling an informal meeting on PNEs for the summer.
9. Throughout the spring session our working relationship with the Soviet Union Delegation remained good despite the problems posed by the CW issue cited above. Statements by the Soviets and their allies were restrained as far as treatment of the U.S. was concerned and our personal contacts with Soviet Bloc diplomats remained friendly and businesslike. Among the Western allies, coordination was reasonably good. The Canadians were helpful and cooperative but as usual were uninhibited about speaking out regarding issues on which they had policy differences with the U.S. The new FRG Delegate adopted a cautious and cooperative approach. Italians were largely inactive. Dutch were very helpful in setting up NFZ group. The British Delegation, under a new Ambassador, operated rather unsteadily. The Japanese Delegation maintained its free-wheeling style of recent years under Ambassador Nisibori and, as noted above, remained hypersensitive on the CW issue.
[Page 450]10. During the final week of the spring session, the ad hoc group of experts to study nuclear free zones held its first organizational meetings. The selection of participants in this group had involved protracted consultations and negotiations at the CCD and preoccupied the committee’s members during the first half of the spring session. The participation issue was ultimately resolved, however, on a basis that was satisfactory to all members of the committee and the successful launching of the group had a positive effect on the atmosphere at the CCD itself. Mindful of existing difficulties and problems in the way of concrete negotiations in other arms control areas, many members of the committee regarded the nuclear free zone study as possibly the most productive endeavor with which the CCD will be associated during this year.
-
Summary: The mission reported on the spring session of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, noting that the conference had served as a “forum for several significant policy statements.”
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D750126–0857. Confidential. Repeated for information to Belgrade, Berlin, Bonn, Brasilia, Bucharest, Buenos Aires, The Hague, Islamabad, Kinshasa, Lagos, Lima, London, Mexico City, Moscow, New Delhi, Oslo, Ottawa, Paris, Prague, Rangoon, Rome, Sofia, Stockholm, Tehran, Tokyo, Warsaw, the Mission to NATO, USUN, the Mission to the IAEA at Vienna, the U.S. delegation to the MBFR talks in Vienna, ERDA, and the U.S. delegation to the SALT II talks in Geneva. For Martin’s April 10 statement on restraints on conventional arms transfers, see the Department of State Bulletin, May 26, 1975, pp. 698–702. Telegram 2472 from Geneva is dated April 10. (National Archives, RG 59, D750125–0971) For the U.S. statement at the spring session see Document 41.
↩