agents not usually considered supertoxic, such as hydrogen cyanide. Furthermore, it is important to remember that in some regions the possession of less toxic agents--and not supertoxic agents-represents the real threat." Study of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones At the request of the 29th General Assembly, the CCD established an ad hoc group of qualified governmental experts to carry out a comprehensive study of the question of nuclear-weapon-free zones in all its aspects. The CCD decided to invite 21 governments to designate experts for the study, including 16 members of the CCD (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, India, Iran, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Sweden, U.S.S.R., United Kingdom, United States, and Zaire) and 5 other states (Australia, Belgium, Ecuador, Finland, and Ghana). The U.S. Representative to the CCD was nominated as the U.S. expert. The group chose the Finnish expert as chairman. The study, transmitted on August 28, 1975, to the General Assembly as a special report of the CCD, recorded a consensus among the experts on certain general principles that should be taken into account in establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones. Thus the experts concluded that the initiative for such a zone should come from states within the region, participation should be voluntary, and the zone arrangements should ensure the effective absence of all nuclear weapons. On most issues, however, the experts failed to reach agreement. Opinions were divided, for example, on the question whether a nuclear-weapon-free zone could be effective without formal guarantees from nuclearweapon states not to use nuclear weapons against members of the zone. There was also disagreement over the relationship of nuclear-weapon-free zones to existing security arrangements; over the proposition that zone members should undertake not to acquire nuclear explosive devices for peaceful purposes; over the question whether the zone should include areas of the high seas or affect maritime transit; and whether zone treaties should, or should not, prohibit the transit of nuclear weapons through the territories of zone members. that: Commenting on the study, Ambassador Martin said the presentation by the experts of their divergent views on many difficult questions contributes to a better understanding of the (See p. 63 for General Assembly consideration.) Military Expenditures On July 24, 1975, the United States submitted a working paper on international standards of comparison for military expenditures. In presenting the paper, Ambassador Martin observed: Under certain conditions, agreed expenditure limitations, either as supplements to physical limitations or as independent measures, might make a valuable contribution to arms control efforts. But before their potential can be seriously evaluated, a number of basic questions must be answered. Many of these questions involve conceptual and technical problems that have not yet been resolved. In fact, until recently many of them had not even been clearly identified and their existence was not widely recognized, at least in international bodies concerned with arms control and disarmament." The U.S. working paper suggested that as a first step for solving these problems a group of experts should study (1) the definition of military expenditures, (2) the valuation of resources in the military sector, (3) the question of deflating current price data for purposes of comparison, and (4) the means of making international value comparisons. Such a study would, the paper noted, provide a common understanding of basic concepts. Conventional Weapons The United States continued, as in previous years, to believe that the CCD should discuss ways to control conventional weapons. On April 10 Ambassador Martin urged the CCD to consider both global and regional approaches. He suggested consideration of the following general principles for conduct in the conventional arms field: (1) governments should assume responsi bility for making the judgment that the arms they transfer or acquire will not have adverse effects on regional or international security; (2) consultations among interested states regarding particular acquisitions could help prevent or alleviate regional and international tensions; (3) governments should limit their arms acquisitions to those deemed indispensable to their security, to avoid unnecessary diversion of resources from economic and social development; and (4) exports of technical data and equipment for arms manufacture should be controlled as effectively as exports themselves. However, most CCD members continued to believe that the dangers presented by conventional weapons were much less urgent than those by weapons of mass destruction, and there was little further discussion. GENERAL ASSEMBLY There were 19 items relating to disarmament on the agenda of the General Assembly at its 30th session; 16 were there as the result of Assembly resolutions in earlier years, and 3 were added at the beginning of the 30th session. Fiji and New Zealand initiated the first new item--"Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in the South Pacific"--and the U.S.S.R. initiated the other two--"Conclusion of a treaty on the complete and general prohibition of nuclear-weapon tests" and "Prohibition of the development and manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons." From October 30 to November 21 the First Committee held a general debate on all these items in which 79 member states took part. The subsequent 2 weeks were devoted to consideration and approval of draft resolutions. A total of 25 resolutions were approved by the Committee and adopted by the Assembly on December 11 and 12. The United States voted in favor or joined in the adoption by consensus of 13 of the resolutions, voted against 2, and abstained on 10. The 25 resolutions adopted in 1975 compared to 21 in 1974 and 12 in 1973, reflecting to a large extent enhanced interest in nuclear-weapon-free zones, which were the subject of 9 resolutions. Economic and Social Consequences of the Armaments Race On November 24 Romania introduced in the First Committee a draft resolution, ultimately sponsored by 15 states, which requested the Secretary General, with the assistance of qualified consultant experts, to update his 1971 report entitled Economic and Social Consequences of the Arms Race and of Military Expenditures. The resolution also called again upon all states to "place at the center of their preoccupations" the adoption of effective measures for the cessation of the arms race, especially in the nuclear field, and for the reduction of military budgets. The First Committee approved the draft resolution on November 28 without a vote. In a subsequent statement, the U.S. Representative, Ambassador Joseph Martin, Jr., said that out of sympathy for the motives of the sponsors the United States had not objected to adoption. of the draft resolution; however, if there had been a vote the United States would have abstained. The United States had no objection to updating the Secretary General's study on the economic and social consequences of the arms race, but it did not agree that updating the report, which remained valid in all essential aspects, required the establishment of a group of consultant experts. The General Assembly adopted the resolution without a vote on December 11. Reduction of Military Budgets In 1973 the General Assembly had adopted a Soviet resolution recommending a reduction of the military budgets of the permanent members of the Security Council by 10% and the allocation of part of the funds saved to provide assistance to developing countries. The same Assembly session also adopted a Mexican resolution calling for an experts' study of all aspects of reducing military budgets. The resulting study, issued in 1974, considered in general terms such questions as the measurement of military expenditures, the reduction of such expenditures as a disarmament measure, and the use of released resources for development assistance. In 1974 the Assembly asked states to convey their views on the study to the Secretary General. In July 1975 the United States suggested at the CCD that further efforts to define military expenditures and devise means of international comparisons could, if successful, provide the basis for serious consideration of agreements to limit military expenditures (see p. 44). On November 26 Mexico introduced in the First Committee a draft resolution, cosponsored by Sweden, which called for an experts' study of the technical issues involved in military expenditure limitations, to be submitted to the Assembly in 1976. The focus and terms of reference for the study were substantially the same as those of the U.S. initiative in the CCD. Another paragraph of the resolution, however, urged "the two states with the highest levels of military expenditure, in absolute terms," to reduce their military budgets pending international agreements on the subject. On December 5 the Committee approved the draft resolution by a vote of 91 to 2, with 20 abstentions (U.S.). Ambassador Martin explained in the First Committee that the United States agreed with the central purpose of the resolution and was prepared to participate fully in the study. It abstained because the resolution singled out two states and urged them to reduce their military expenditures in advance of the achievement of effective agreements. The U.S.S.R. abstained because it considered the approach taken by the resolution constituted a diversion from the implementation of its 1973 proposal for a reduction of military budgets. The General Assembly adopted the resolution on December 11 by a recorded vote of 108 to 2 (Albania, P.R.C.), with 21 abstentions (France, U.S.S.R., U.K., U.S.). Napalm and Other Incendiary Weapons Pursuant to two resolutions adopted by the 29th General Assembly, the Secretary General submitted two reports to the 30th Assembly. One contained a compilation of responses from 17 governments and 2 international organizations on the question of the use of napalm and other incendiary weapons in armed conflicts. The other summarized the consideration of this subject by the second session of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts. (See also p. 329). The latter document reported that an Ad Hoc Committee of the Diplomatic Conference had held 14 meetings between February 12 and April 15, 1975, to discuss specific questions and various proposals concerning prohibitions or restrictions on the use of various categories of conventional weapons, including incendiary weapons, small-caliber projectiles, blast and fragmentation weapons, and delayed action and treacherous weapons. The Ad Hoc Committee agreed that a second Conference of Government Experts should be held under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross at Lugano, Switzerland from January 28 to February 26, 1976, to continue consideration of these questions and proposals. |