states to give serious consideration to the implications of noncompliance. The resolution appealed to states to support efforts to resolve questions of noncompliance in order to maintain the integrity of arms control agreements and requested the Secretary General to assist member states in this regard. It welcomed efforts by states parties to develop additional cooperative measures to increase confidence in compliance with arms control and disarmament agreements and to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Finally, it noted the contribution that verification experiments can make in confirming and perfecting verification procedures in arms limitation and disarmament agreements under negotiation.

On November 17 the Chairman stated that he had taken the initiative of preparing a new text, in which he had included some changes intended to reflect more appropriately the debate that had taken place in the Committee. As a result of that initiative, the United States agreed not to insist that the Committee take action on its original draft resolution (L.54). That day, the Chairman submitted, under the same subject, a "Draft resolution proposed by the Chairman" (L.67). The draft, which contained all the essential points in the original U.S. draft, L.54, was adopted without a vote the same day, and was approved by the plenary without a vote on December 15. (Resolution 44/122.)

PREVENTION OF AN ARMS RACE IN OUTER SPACE

At the 44th General Assembly, Egypt and Sri Lanka, on behalf of 15 nonaligned states, submitted the traditional non-aligned draft resolution on "Prevention of an arms race in outer space."

Drafted along lines similar to the corresponding text of the 1989 resolution 43/70, the Egyptian-Sri Lankan resolution once again requested the Conference on Disarmament to establish an ad hoc committee at its 1990 session "with a view to undertaking negotiations for the conclusion of an agreement or agreements. .. to prevent an arms race in outer space" (operative paragraph eight). Because of the controversial nature of the draft, a number of states requested votes on separate paragraphs. Preambular paragraph 11, which expressed "grave concern" at the "danger posed to all mankind by an arms race in outer space and, in particular, by developments that could further undermine international peace and security and retard the pursuit of general and complete disarmament," was approved by a vote of 119 to 1 (U.S.), with 13 abstentions. Preambular paragraph 18, which recognized that U.S.-Soviet bilateral negotiations could facilitate multilateral negotiations for the prevention of an arms race in outer space in accordance with paragraph 27 of the final document of the 10th special session of the General Assembly, was approved by a vote of 117 to 1 (U.S.), with 13 abstentions. Operative paragraph one, reaffirming that general and complete disarmament under effective international control warrants that outer space shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and that it shall not become an arena for an arms race, was approved by a vote of 119 to 1 (U.S.), with 13 abstentions.

Operative paragraph three, emphasizing that further measures with appropriate and effective provisions for verification to prevent an arms race in outer space should be adopted by the international community, was approved by the same vote. Operative paragraph eight, requesting the Conference on Disarmament to reestablish an ad hoc committee with an adequate mandate at the beginning of its 1990 session, with a view to undertaking negotiations for the conclusion of an agreement or agreements, as appropriate to prevent an arms race in outer space in all its aspects, was approved by a vote of 118 to 1 (U.S.), with 13 abstentions. The resolution as a whole was approved by the First Committee November 17 (the same date all paragraph votes were taken) by a vote of 132 to 1 (U.S.), with no abstentions. It was adopted in plenary on December 15 by a vote of 153 to 1 (U.S.), with no abstentions. Plenary votes on preambular paragraph 11, operative paragraphs 3 and 8 were 139 to 1 (U.S.), with 13 abstentions. Preambular paragraph 18 was approved in the plenary by a vote of 137 to 1 (U.S.), with 13 abstentions, and operative paragraph 1 was approved by a vote of 136 to 1 (U.S.), with 13 abstentions. (Resolution 44/112.)

U.S. Representative Robert Levine explained the U.S. vote in the following

terms:

There should be no doubt of the firm U.S. commitment to arms control in this area; the continuing bilateral nuclear and space talks between the United States and the Soviet Union are visible evidence of it. The United States would like nothing better than to be able to affirm this well-known commitment in this forum. Unfortunately, L. 10 does not permit us to do this. The text of L. 10 takes no notice of the more positive international climate that has developed from improving relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Indeed, by submitting virtually the same resolution this year as the one voted on in earlier years, despite the steadily improving international environment, this text is actually worse than the equivalent resolutions of earlier years. It bears less and less relationship to the realities of the international environment and simply becomes irrelevant—a collection of rhetoric to be ignored. It consists of a repository of exaggerated and hostile rhetoric with elements that are deliberately aimed at, and critical of, fundamental elements of U.S. policy.

ANTARCTICA

In resolution 38/77 of December 15, 1983, the General Assembly requested the Secretary General to prepare a study on all aspects of Antarctica, taking into account the Antarctic Treaty system and other relevant factors. He was also to seek the views of member states and of those conducting scientific research in Antarctica, and to request assistance from other interested states and specialized agencies, as well as from organizations with scientific or technical information on Antarctica. The resulting report, which was submitted to the General Assembly in October 1984, reviewed a range of activities related to Antarctica without making any major recommendations. On December 17, 1984, General Assembly resolution 39/152 expressed appreciation to the Secretary General for the study, and placed Antarctica on the provisional agenda of the 40th session.

Consideration of Antarctica by the General Assembly at its 40th session led to a regrettable polarization of views on the issue, with a number of non

Antarctic Treaty members pressing for fundamental changes in the Antarctic Treaty system, and treaty parties rejecting the alleged need for significant alterations in the system. Debate in the First Committee resulted in the adoption of three resolutions by vote for the first time, contrary to the previous consideration of Antarctica under the rule of consensus. Beyond these, Malaysia and other developing states also proposed the establishment of a UN ad hoc committee to consider Antarctic issues, but did not press for a vote on this issue.

Prior to the Antarctica votes at the 40th session, Australia announced on behalf of the United States and the other Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties that they viewed with regret the breaking of consensus which had formed the basis for past cooperation by the parties with nonmember states and with the United Nations. Since the Consultative Parties were not prepared to accept attempts to undermine the Antarctic Treaty system, the parties declared they would not participate in voting on Antarctica resolutions in either the First Committee or the General Assembly plenary until consensus, the only realistic basis for UN consideration of the matter, was restored. Australia further stated on behalf of the parties that they would suspend their cooperation with the United Nations on Antarctic matters until consensus was achieved again. This course of action continued in the 41st through the 44th sessions.

The solidarity of countries supporting the position articulated by Australia was maintained at the 1989 session, although some Antarctic Treaty countries supported the resolution that called for the exclusion of South Africa from the Antarctic Treaty, as described below.

Two resolutions on Antarctica were adopted by the 44th General Assembly. The first called upon the Consultative Parties to exclude South Africa from their meetings because of its policy of apartheid. This resolution was adopted in the First Committee on November 22 by a vote of 94 to 0, with 6 abstentions and 34 (U.S.) not participating. It was approved by the plenary on December 15 by a vote of 114 to 0 with 7 abstentions and 31 (U.S.) not participating. (Resolution 44/124 A.)

The second resolution expressed the conviction that any minerals regime in Antarctica should be negotiated with the "full participation of all members of the international community" (and not just of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties themselves). In addition, it reiterated the call upon the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to invite the Secretary General or his representatives to meetings, and requested the Secretary General to submit a report of his evaluations of these meetings at the 45th General Assemtly. This resolution was adopted in the First Committee on November 22 by a vote of 85 to 0, with 7 abstentions and 42 (U.S.) not participating in the vote. The General Assembly plenary adopted the resolution on December 15 by a vote of 101 to 0, with 6 abstentions and 44 states (U.S.) not participating. (Resolution 44/124 B.)

Prior to the November 22 vote on resolution 44/124 B in the First Committee, Australia, speaking on behalf of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative and Non

Consultative Parties, expressed the parties' misgivings about the value of debates in the United Nations on the Antarctic Treaty system. Australia rejected criticisms of the treaty and highlighted the accomplishments of the treaty system. The parties found it unfortunate and regrettable that the General Assembly's consideration of Antarctica had departed from the pattern of consensus in recent years. Australia concluded by stating that the Treaty Parties remain willing to display flexibility and to negotiate a return to consensus in the UN's consideration of Antarctica, but not at what the Treaty Parties regard as the cost of the possible erosion of the successful functioning of the Antarctic Treaty system.

OUTER SPACE

UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

The 53-member UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), its Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and its Legal Subcommittee all met during 1989. For several decades after its inception in 1958, the Committee worked successfully in the exchange of scientific information and negotiated four widely accepted conventions that form the basis of international space law. However, the scientific and legal work of the Committee has deteriorated seriously in recent years with debates becoming increasingly political. There has been a tendency to try to involve the Committee in disarmament and other matters that the United States and other Western states believe are fundamentally at odds with the Committee's mandate and with the consensus procedure that governs its work.

The 32nd session of COPUOS took place in June, and the West continued to call for the adoption of measures to make the work of COPUOS and its subcommittees more relevant to the present state of space exploration for the benefit of all countries. Western proposals along these lines continued to be opposed by the East, which chose instead to introduce extraneous political issues. At the June 1989 session, member states exchanged views on an item concerning the secondary application of space technology for addressing problems on earth. This topic was first proposed by the United States at the 31st session of COPUOS. On the basis of a Joint Resolution of Congress in 1986, which was endorsed by President Reagan, international scientific organizations and national space agencies will celebrate 1992 as the International Space Year. Member states agreed that, based on U.S. ideas, COPUOS could play a meaningful role in the International Space Year without any impact on the regular budget of the United Nations through the training and education capabilities of the UN Program on Space Applications.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE

In February the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee considered a full agenda of topics dealing with a wide range of questions on the use and

exploration of outer space, including space science, astronomy, planetary exploration, practical applications of remote sensing and satellite communications technology and the use of nuclear power sources in space. The subcommittee paid particular attention to the use of space technology for combating environmental problems, and decided to focus in 1990 on the use of space technology for terrestrial search and rescue and disaster relief activities. Western delegations supplemented the formal discussions with special presentations by eminent researchers in these areas. These measures have proven to be useful toward strengthening the scientific content of the subcommittee's work, facilitating contacts among space scientists and keeping member states abreast of knowledge gained in space exploration.

LEGAL SUBCOMMITTEE

The 28th session of the Legal Subcommittee was convened in March. The agenda included the definition and delimitation of outer space, the rational and equitable use of the geostationary orbit and principles governing the use of nuclear power sources in space. The subcommittee considered for the first time a new agenda item on dealing with the application of the principle that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all countries, taking into particular account the needs of developing countries. The United States achieved a certain level of success in the debate on nuclear power source principles by insisting on provisions for the safe use of nuclear power in space which reflect current U.S. policy and practice. These proposals received broad support from Western and G-77 delegations. However, the East demurred. The United States and seven other Western countries introduced a comprehensive plan to revamp the subcommittee's organization of work with the view to redressing that body's perennial underutilization of conference resources. The proposal was dismissed by the East, which continued to resist any efforts to improve the working methods of the subcommittee.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERATION

The 44th General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, adopted without a vote an omnibus resolution dealing with "International Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space." (Resolution 44/46.) The resolution, as previous resolutions on the same item have done each year, renews COPUOS and sets the agenda for the Committee and its subcomittees. Of particular note was the General Assembly's decision to endorse the efforts of international scientific organizations to designate 1992 as International Space Year.

Thomas Snook, U.S. Representative to the Special Political Committee, outlined U.S. views on the work of COPUOS as follows:

we believe the results of the 32nd session held in June were generally positive. For the first time, the Committee initiated an important new discussion concerning current developments on spin-offs from outer space programs....