African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Resolutions on the denuclearization of Africa were adopted by the General Assembly in 1961 and 1965, and a declaration on this subject was issued by the OAU in 1964. On December 3, 1975, Nigeria introduced in the First Committee a draft resolution sponsored by 34 African states which, inter alia, (1) reaffirmed the Assembly's call on all states to respect the continent of Africa (including islands surrounding Africa) as a nuclear-weapon-free zone; (2) called upon states "to refrain from testing, manufacturing, deploying, transporting, storing, using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons on the African continent"; and (3) requested the Secretary General to render assistance to the OAU toward realization of an international treaty in which African states would undertake "not to manufacture or acquire control of nuclear weapons." The First Committee approved the resolution on December 4 by a recorded vote of 114 (U.S.) to 0, and the Assembly adopted it on December 11 by a recorded vote of 131 (U.S.) to 0. In explaining the U.S. vote in the First Committee, Ambassador Martin noted the U.S. understanding that the resolution did not impose commitments on states in advance of the negotiation of an arrangement establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Africa. Study of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones Pursuant to a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1974, a group of governmental experts under the auspices of the CCD prepared during 1975 a comprehensive study of the question of nuclear-weapon-free zones in all its aspects. The study reflected agreement on some major issues but differences on others (see above, p. 43). On The general question of such zones was the subject of two resolutions at the 30th General Assembly. November 28 Finland introduced in the First Committee a draft resolution which, inter alia, invited governments, the IAEA, and other international organizations concerned to comment on the CCD report by June 30, 1976, and recommended that the report be given widespread distribution. The Committee approved the draft on December 5 by a vote of 111 (U.S.) to 0, and the General Assembly adopted the resolution on December 11 by a recorded vote of 126 (U.S.) to 0, with 2 abstentions. The other resolution on this subject sought to draw "certain incontrovertible conclusions" from the experts study. Introduced by Mexico on November 25, the resolution in its final form was sponsored by seven states. In the resolution the General Assembly "solemnly adopts" a declaration setting forth a definition of the concept of a nuclear-weapon-free zone and of the "principal obligations" of nuclear-weapon states toward such zones. The first definition asserts that a nuclear-weaponfree zone is any zone "recognized as such by the General Assembly" which establishes (1) a statute of total absence of nuclear weapons and a procedure for delimiting the zone, and (2) an international system of verification and control to guarantee compliance. The second definition asserts that when a zone is recognized by the Assembly, nuclear-weapon states "shall undertake or reaffirm" in a legally binding instrument obligations (1) to respect the zone's basic statute, (2) to refrain from contributing to violations of the statute in territory forming part of the zone, and (3) to refrain from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against zone parties. The resolution inspired considerable debate between November 25 and December 5. In explaining the U.S. position, Ambassador Martin noted on November 26 that the resolution omitted from the definition certain key issues, including the question of nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes. He questioned the need for such a resolution before states had been given an opportunity to present their views on issues raised in the comprehensive study. He also indicated that the United States would not commit itself to a particular set of obligations toward a nuclear-weapon-free zone in advance of negotiation of specific arrangements for the zone. However, the strongest U.S. objections focused on the competence of the General Assembly to create binding definitions and obligations by resolution. this issue Ambassador Martin stated: On the General Assembly does not have the authority to impose obligations either on parties to a nuclear-weapon-free zone arrangement or on outside states. . . . The General Assembly can make an important contribution . . . by providing a forum for consultations and by adopting resolutions that encourage states to work towards specific arrangements. However, there is no justification in the United Nations Charter or international law for arguing that 'endorsement' or 'recognition' by the General Assembly can be either a necessary or a sufficient condition for entry into force of a nuclear-weapon-free zone or for the assumption of obligations toward the zone by states not located in the region." On December 5 the First Committee approved the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 63 (P.R.C.) to 10 (France, U.K., U.S.), with 30 abstentions (U.S.S.R.). The General Assembly adopted the resolution on December 11 by a recorded vote of 82 (P. R.C.) to 10 (France, Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone In 1974 the General Assembly had adopted a resolution commending the idea of the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and asking the Secretary General to ascertain the views of states in the region on the implementation of the resolution. Responses to the Secretary General's inquiry indicated a wide divergence of views on acceptable procedures for the establishment of the proposed zone. On December 1 Iran introduced a draft resolution, cosponsored by Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, and Tunisia, whose main operative paragraph recommended that, pending the establishment of a zone, the states of the Middle East (1) proclaim their intention to "refrain, on a reciprocal basis, from producing, acquiring, or in any other way possessing nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices, and from permitting the stationing of nuclear weapons, in their territory or the territory under their control, by any third party"; and (2) refrain reciprocally from action detrimental to the establishment of a zone under an effective system of safeguards. In other paragraphs the resolution urged the parties directly concerned to adhere to the NPT as a means of promoting the nuclearweapon-free zone objective and recommended that nuclearweapon states refrain from any action contrary to the objective of establishing the zone and extend cooperation to the states in the region to promote the objective. Following separate votes on paragraphs referring to the NPT and on the reference to "nuclear explosive devices," the First Committee approved the resolution as a whole on December 4 by a recorded vote of 111 (U.S.) to 0, with 3 abstentions (Cameroon, Israel, Zaire). The General Assembly adopted the resolution on December 11 by a recorded vote of 125 (U.S.) to 0, with 2 abstentions (Cameroon, Israel). In explaining the U.S. vote, Ambassador Martin said in the First Committee that "The United States supports the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East although we question the approach of asking states to undertake commitments in advance of the negotiations of a zone arrangement." South Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone In 1974 Pakistan had introduced a draft resolution that, inter alia, endorsed in principle the concept of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia and requested 77-838 - 76-6 the Secretary General to convene a meeting to initiate consultations among interested states with a view to establishing such a zone. The Pakistani resolution was adopted, but the Assembly also adopted a resolution proposed by India stating that the initiative for creation of such a zone "in the appropriate region of Asia" should come from the states of the region concerned. After contacting the states of the South Asian region, the Secretary General informed the General Assembly on October 31, 1975, that, since differences existed in the approach to the question, the meeting envisaged by the Pakistani resolution was not convened. Following the failure of efforts to reach agreement on a common approach, India and Pakistan introduced separate draft resolutions in the First Committee on December 2. In the sole operative paragraph of the Indian draft, the General Assembly decided to "give due consideration to any proposal for the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in an appropriate region of Asia, after it has been developed and matured among the interested states within the region concerned." The Pakistani draft, inter alia, urged the South Asian states to continue their efforts to establish a nuclearweapon-free zone and to "refrain from any action" contrary to this objective. At the suggestion of Mexico and Nigeria, India and Pakistan agreed to a procedure whereby the First Committee approved both resolutions simultaneously without a vote on December 4. After the resolutions were approved, Ambassador Martin said that the United States would have abstained on both resolutions had they been brought to a vote because in its view Assembly action on two resolutions embodying different approaches to the question would not advance the prospects for achieving a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia. added that an important consideration in determining the attitude of the United States toward a particular zone arrangement was whether it "effectively prohibits the indigenous development of any nuclear explosive capability for whatsoever purpose." The General Assembly adopted both resolutions without a vote on December 11. South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone He In July 1975 the South Pacific Forum, an organization of independent or self-governing states in the South Pacific, commended the idea of creating a nuclearweapon-free zone in that region as a means of keeping the South Pacific free from the risk of nuclear contamination and of involvement in a nuclear conflict. New Zealand and Fiji, subsequently joined by seven other states, brought the initiative before the 30th Assembly in a draft resolution introduced on October 31. The resolution provided General Assembly endorsement of the idea of establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the South Pacific, invited the countries concerned to consult about ways and means of realizing this objective, and expressed the hope that the nuclear-weapon states would cooperate fully in achieving the zone. There was considerable interest in the proposal, as indicated by the fact that 24 states spoke on it during the First Committee's debate. On November 28 the Committee approved the draft resolution by a rollcall vote of 94 (P.R.C.) to 0, with 18 abstentions (France, U.K., U.S.S.R., U.S.). The General Assembly adopted it on December 11 by a recorded vote of 110 (P.R.C.) to 0, with 20 abstentions (France, U.K., U.S.S.R., U.S.). In explaining the U.S. abstention, Ambassador Martin said that the United States shared the desire of the sponsors to find additional ways to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to strengthen the security of the South Pacific region. The United States was prepared to support a resolution welcoming the initiative and calling for consultations among the states concerned without implying an advance commitment to the establishment of such a zone. He noted that the sponsors of the zone had indicated their intention to seek its extension eventually to include areas of the high seas. In these circumstances, the United States abstained because it could not "endorse a proposal that contemplates restrictions on internationally recognized rights of navigation and overflight of maritime areas, including the rights of innocent passage through territorial seas." |