The resolution was adopted by the General Assembly on December 11 by a recorded vote of 106 (India) to 2 (P.R.C.), with 24 abstentions (France, U.S.S.R., U.K., U.S.).

Indian Ocean Peace Zone

An

In 1971 the General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring the Indian Ocean to be a "zone of peace." item entitled "Implementation of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace" has been on the Assembly's agenda annually since 1972 when the Assembly established an Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean to seek ways to implement the resolution.

The 30th General Assembly had before it the report of the Ad Hoc Committee, which dealt almost exclusively with the views of Committee members on specific aspects of convening a conference of littoral and hinterland states of the Indian Ocean: purposes of such a conference, date and duration, site, provisional agenda, and extent and level of participation.

On November 26 Sri Lanka introduced a draft resolution in the First Committee on behalf of all members of the Ad Hoc Committee. Reflecting the Committee's report, the resolution noted that agreement in principle on convening a conference on the Indian Ocean had emerged among the littoral and hinterland states of the Indian Ocean, requested those states to continue their consultations on the specific details of the conference, and once again invited the great powers and other major maritime users of the Indian Ocean to cooperate with the Ad Hoc Committee in a practical manner.

On November 28 the First Committee approved the draft resolution by a vote of. 84 to 0, with 26 abstentions (U.S.), and the General Assembly in plenary session adopted it on December 11 by a recorded vote of 106 (P.R.C.) to 0, with 25 abstentions (France, U.S.S.R., U.K., U.S.).

The U.S. abstention reflected the position the United States has held on this issue since 1971. While sharing the widespread desire to promote peace and tranquility in the Indian Ocean region, the United States does not believe that the approach of declaring a "zone of peace" can adequately resolve complex ques

9/The 18 members in 1975 were Australia, Bangladesh, P.R.C., India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kenya, Malagasy Republic, Malaysia, Mauritius, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Yemen (Sana), and Zambia.

tions involving significant arms control and law of the sea considerations. In particular, the United States does not accept the premise that a regional group of states can establish a special legal regime governing a portion of the high seas.

World Disarmament Conference

The question of convening a world disarmament conference has been on the agenda of the General Assembly since 1971, when the Soviet Union introduced the subject. In December 1974 the 29th Assembly adopted a resolution inviting all states to submit their comments on the main objectives of such a conference, and requesting the Ad Hoc Committee on the World Disarmament Conference--established by the 28th Assembly in 1973-to submit to the 30th Assembly, on the basis of consensus, an analytical report concerning the comments received and to maintain contact with representatives of the nuclear-weapon states.

The Ad Hoc Committee, composed of 40 nonnuclearweapon states, met 12 times in New York between April 1 and August 27. In addition, a smaller working group met 16 times between June 4 and July 18, primarily to draft the Committee's report to the General Assembly. The report summarized the views of the 44 countries that submitted comments and noted that a variety of objectives for a world disarmament conference had been proposed. Although the report concluded that a large majority of those commenting believed such a conference should be adequately prepared and have universal participation, including especially the nuclear-weapon and militarily significant states, it also noted a continuing basic divergence of opinion among nuclear-weapon states on many aspects of such a conference.

The United States had in previous years set forth its position that such a world conference, while it might be useful at an appropriate stage in the future, would at the present time be more harmful than helpful to real progress on disarmament. The U.S. submission, therefore, merely recalled that the U.S. position on a world disarmament conference remained unchanged and the United States had no comments on the possible objectives of such a conference.

On December 4 Argentina introduced a draft resolution, ultimately sponsored by 25 states, which reaffirmed the resolution adopted the previous year, renewed the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee, and requested it to include in its report to the next Assembly an analytical study of the conclusions contained in its current report as well as any appropriate observations and recommendations relating to its mandate.

The First Committee approved the resolution without a vote on December 5, and the General Assembly adopted it without a vote on December 11.

The United States was able to accept this resolution since basically it continued the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee to analyze the material contained in its 1975 report and did not call for taking any decision on preparing for or convening a world disarmament conference. Moreover, since the previous year's resolution was reaffirmed in its entirety, the Committee would continue to work on the basis of consensus.

General and Complete Disarmament

Under its agenda item "General and complete disarmament" the 30th General Assembly adopted five resolutions concerning (1) PNE's, (2) review of the UN role in the field of disarmament, (3) strategic arms limitation talks (SALT), (4) strengthening the UN Secretariat's Disarmament Affairs Division, and (5) a review conference on the 1971 Seabed Arms Control Treaty

Nuclear Explosions for Peaceful Purposes

The continuing interest of the General Assembly in the question of PNE's was reflected in a draft resolution introduced in the First Committee on November 13 by the Netherlands and ultimately sponsored by 15 states. In its original form the resolution was acceptable to the United States, but during the debate a number of amendments were incorporated that led the United States to abstain in the final vote.

Even as amended the resolution contained a number of constructive elements. It noted with appreciation the consideration of various aspects of the PNE question at the IAEA, the CCD, and the NPT Review Conference. Other paragraphs requested the CCD to keep under review the arms control implications of PNE's and asked the IAEA to continue its examination of other aspects of PNE's, which include utility, feasibility, and legal, health, and safety aspects. The resolution also stressed the need to ensure, particularly in the context of a comprehensive test ban, that any testing or application of PNE's does not contribute to the testing or refinement of nuclear weapons by states already possessing them or to the acquisition of a nuclear explosive capability by other states.

10/Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof.

At the same time, however, the revised resolution noted that statements by the United States and the U.S.S.R. at the NPT Review Conference indicated that "no consultations have yet taken place for the conclusion of the special basic international agreement on nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes as envisaged in Article V" of the NPT, and invited the two governments to inform the Assembly of any such consultations that they might have entered into or intended to enter into.

In explaining the U.S. abstention, Ambassador Martin on December 5 took issue with these elements of the resolution. He said they were misleading in their implication that the United States and the Soviet Union had failed to carry out a commitment to enter into consultations toward a special basic agreement for the provision of PNE services to nonnuclear-weapon states party to the NPT. He pointed out that international activity was well under way on the legal and procedural framework required to implement an international service for the provision of PNE benefits and cited U.S. support for this activity in the NPT Review Conference and the IAEA. Ambassador Martin said the United States saw no reason to report on consultations concerning implementation of Article V of the NPT, since the United States fully expected "that any activity on the special agreement or agreements in the coming year will appropriately take place in the IAEA context." He emphasized that the United States regarded the IAEA, and particularly its newly established Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Nuclear Explosions for Peaceful Purposes, as "the appropriate focus of current international efforts" on this question. (See also p. 269.)

On December 5 the First Committee approved the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 84 (U.K.) to 4 (P. R. C., India), with 30 abstentions (France, U.S.S.R., U.S.). The General Assembly adopted the resolution on December 12 by a recorded vote of 97 (U.K.) to 5 (P. R. C., India), with 24 abstentions (France, U.S.S.R., U.S.).

UN Role in Disarmament Field

On November 26 Sweden introduced a draft resolution, ultimately sponsored by nine states, calling for a review of the role of the United Nations in the field of disarmament. The draft resolution (1) invited all states to transmit to the Secretary General by May 1, 1976, their views and suggestions on strengthening the UN role in disarmament; (2) decided to establish an ad hoc committee open to all member states to carry out a basic review of the UN role in this field; (3) decided that the review should, inter alia, focus on (a) more

effective procedures and organization of work, (b) ways to improve UN facilities for collection, compilation, and dissemination of information on disarmament, and (c) ways for the UN Secretariat to assist in ensuring the effective functioning of multilateral disarmament agreements; and (4) requested the ad hoc committee to complete its work and report to the next General Assembly.

The draft resolution was approved by the First Committee on December 5 by a vote of 101 to 0, with 17 abstentions (U.S.). The U.S. Representative explained that the United States was fully prepared to consider in a constructive spirit means to improve existing multilateral machinery for disarmament, but questioned whether organizational and procedural changes, particularly under present circumstances,

would make a genuine contribution to the solution of the real problems that must be solved in reaching agreement on further measures of arms control and disarmament. Focusing on organizational questions could in fact divert attention from those problems and even create false expectations, with the possible effect of undermining rather than strengthening the efforts under way in existing bodies.

"Thus, in our view, the establishment of a new ad hoc committee envisaged in this draft resolution offers little potential for improving prospects for concrete achievements in multilateral disarmament negotiations."

The resolution was adopted by the General Assembly on December 12 by a recorded vote of 108 (France) to 2 (Poland, U.S.S.R.), with 14 abstentions (U.K., U.S.); the P.R.C. did not participate in the vote. Poland and the Soviet Union later explained that they had meant to abstain.

Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

In

The resolution concerning SALT, sponsored by seven countries, was introduced on December 3 by Mexico. its operative paragraphs the draft (1) regretted the "absence of positive results during the last two years" in the SALT negotiations; (2) expressed concern at "the very high ceilings of nuclear arms" set by the SALT agreements, at the "total absence of qualitative limitations, ་་ and at the "protracted timetable" contemplated for future negotiations; (3) urged the U.S.S.R. and the United States to broaden the scope and accelerate the pace of their talks; and (4) reiterated the Assembly's previous invitation to both governments to keep it informed of the progress and results of the negotiations.