Working Group I in September this year, the adoption of the draft convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

Statement by the Argentine Representative (Berasategui) to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament: Environmental Modification, September 3, 1976 1

The Argentine delegation wishes to refer to the report of the Working Group on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, and, in particular, to the decision that the Committee will adopt in order to transmit it to the General Assembly.2

The report in question contains, in addition to the comments, dissenting opinions and reservations of a number of delegations, the text of the draft convention considered in the Working Group.

During the negotiations held in the Group, the Argentine delegation sought to contribute to the preparation of a document that would reflect an appropriate balance between the various positions.

The draft convention contained in the report reflects an advance over the original text submitted by the co-sponsors that we consider should be emphasized. In this process designed to improve the draft, my delegation submitted specific proposals which commanded the support of other delegations, and we wish to thank them for their valuable co-operation.

The preamble to the draft convention now reflects more appropriately the objectives being pursued. Article III is certainly better than the original formulation and, although not entirely satisfactory, it is the result of a compromise reached after arduous negotiations. The first part of paragraph 2 of that article is especially important, in as much as it envisages, without room for any doubt, the effective exchange of information between the parties. Article V and the annex thereto were the subject of special attention by my delegation, as was article VIII concerning review conferences, a question which my country had already raised at the last session of the General Assembly.

In all these cases, the Argentine delegation acted flexibly, seeking at all times to harmonize its suggestions with those of other delegations.

Unfortunately, this process of harmonization of positions was not repeated in the case of articles I and II and their respective understandings. The text of article I has remained intact and only an imprecise understanding that does not dispel existing doubts regarding the scope of the prohibition has been added to it. The same may be said

1CCD/PV.727, pp. 10–11.

2 Ante, pp. 577-588.

"For original text, see Documents on Disarmament, 1975, pp. 385–388.

of article II and its understanding, the essential elements of which have not been changed, and in which a list of examples that, although illustrative, is nevertheless incomplete has been retained. In short, the two articles have not altered the original meaning of the texts of the Co-Chairmen.

No one can doubt that the question of the scope of the prohibition is the most important and, we would even go so far as to say the essential aspect of any agreement in the field of disarmament. Indeed, it is this question which determines whether the prohibition will be complete or partial, what the obligations of the States parties will be, and also what the verification requirements will be.

My delegation repeatedly indicated its objections to the texts included in the original draft. Both in the plenary Committee and in the Working Group, we explained in detail the serious shortcomings of those articles.*

However, we do not in this case find the same spirit of compromise which made it possible to reach agreement on other articles. In our opinion, this is the determining factor in tthe Committee's failure to reach a consensus on the draft.

For the reasons that I have given, the Argentine delegation cannot agree to the draft convention contained in paragraph 5 of the report of the Working Group.

Statement by the United States Representative (Martin) to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, September 3, 19761

As the CCD concludes its 1976 session, the United States delegation sees considerable reason to be gratified by the results. Especially during the summer, the Committee displayed an energetic and committed approach to its work that resulted in a number of creditable accomplishments. The image of the CCD as a sterile debating society is clearly obsolete.

Without doubt, the Committee's most substantial achievement in 1976 was completion of a broadly agreed draft text of a convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. This text was negotiated on the basis of identical drafts tabled by the United States and Soviet Union in August 1975, and embodies a number of changes proposed by other delegations.2

My delegation is, of course, aware that the modified text is not ideal from all points of view, including ours. It is the product of compromise and accommodation of views inherent in the multilateral negotiating process. It is our firm view, however, that the text worked out in the environmental modification Working Group this summer meets the basic goal set by the preamble of the draft convention. We remain

Ante, pp. 103-110.

1 CCD/PV. 727, pp. 16–20.

2 The draft convention appears ante, pp. 577–588.

convinced that the convention will effectively eliminate whatever serious dangers might be posed by military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

I might add that we do not regard the treaty, as one delegation has suggested, as providing a license for hostile use of techniques having effects below the threshold levels, although the existence of the threshold obviously means that such use would not be illegal. In fact, as I have said before, we think that the threshold, as interpreted in the agreed Committee understanding, raises a very strong practical inhibition against the hostile use of environmental modification techniques having, or that would be expected to have, effects anywhere near the threshold criteria. Given the lack of precise control over such techniques, it is highly unlikely that any party would attempt to use them to cause subthreshold effects because of the risk of producing destruction, damage or injury above the threshold.

I also would like to correct another apparent misconception that seems to have arisen. This concerns the interpretation of the illustrative list of environmental phenomena mentioned in the agreed Committee understanding relating to article II. There is no element of permissiveness in the treaty with respect to the use of environmental modification techniques to produce any of the phenomena listed in that understanding. On the contrary, as is noted in its second paragraph, the hostile use of such techniques to produce any of the phenomena listed would be a violation of the undertaking in article I. The understanding assumes that any such hostile use would, per se, be intended to cause destruction, damage or injury above the threshold.

The United States supports in its entirety the draft text that the Committee is forwarding to the General Assembly of the United Nations. This is so although the text reflects significant accommodation of the positions of the cosponsors of the identical earlier drafts to views stated by other delegations, both in the plenary and in the environmental modification Working Group. That was to be expected in any genuine multilateral negotiating process. And therefore my delegation considers that all who participated in the work of the Committee and the Working Group deserve to feel considerable gratification over our success in producing a complete text. In this connexion, it would be remiss of me not to mention the invaluable contribution of the distinguished representative of India. Without Ambassador Mishra's resourceful and steadfast leadership in seeking solutions to several very complex problems, I doubt that we could have finished our work this summer. We now hope that most delegations at the General Assembly will join us in the conclusion that the modified draft is a document worthy of endorsement.

There is another aspect to our successful completion of the draft convention. The text is the product of an innovative approach to the CCD's work which clearly has brought substantial rewards. I

refer, of course, to the Committee's decision to set up a Working Group on the environmental modification treaty. Establishment of the Working Group was instrumental to our progress. It allowed delegations to focus closely and intensively on the specific project of working out the treaty text, taking into account modifications proposed by various delegations to the original drafts. And the Working Group certainly lived up to its name. Delegations became deeply engaged in the project, and the Committee itself gained a new sense of purpose and direction. My delegation considers the Working Group a highly successful procedural innovation, one that shows that the CCD has developed a new flexibility in adapting itself to the task at hand.

In this connexion, delegations will recall that, at the beginning of our spring session, the United States proposed that the Committee undertake a comprehensive review of its procedures. For a number of reasons, primarily because of problems concerning organization of work for 1976, such a review was not carried out this year. If there is interest in doing so, my delegation stands ready to take up the question of a comprehensive review during the 1977 session. A starting point might be consideration whether decisions taken for 1976, respecting the preparation of the report to the United Nations General Assembly and the communiqué of plenary meetings, should be adopted on a permanent basis.

Let me now return to substantive matters. The CCD this summer achieved significant progress in the important area of chemical weapons. The informal meetings with experts, convened on the basis of a proposal by the Federal Republic of Germany, contributed in a major way to increased awareness of the problems of verification involved in considering CW limitations. We sense broadening agreement in the Committee that, in light of these problems, a phased approach to an eventual comprehensive agreement would be the best course to pursue. We are gratified that suggestions made by the United States delegation in April regarding possible alternatives in taking such an approach seem to have assisted in the CCD's subsequent deliberations.

A major event-one that I have acknowledged previously-was the tabling of a draft CW convention on 12 August by the United Kingdom. As Ambassador Allen observed when tabling the draft, the action came too late in the 1976 session to permit considered comments before our adjournment. But we hope to join other delegations in offering such comment early in the spring session next year. In any event, we are confident that the United Kingdom's initiative will make a very large contribution to our future work in the CW field.

Also related to that work were the technical consultations between the United States and Soviet experts that recently took place here in Geneva. These talks were held pursuant to the 1974 Summit Agreement to consider further issues related to a possible joint CW initiative in the CCD. They concentrated on questions of defining the scope of prohibition and of verification. Both sides considered the consultations useful and agreed that they should continue at a future date to be determined. I wish to state that my delegation's view remains that continuation of such consultation should not in any way inhibit the CCD's ongoing work in this very important arms control

area.

Before leaving this subject I would like to refer briefly to the suggestion by the delegation of Sweden in CCD/PV.712 concerning a compilation of appropriate material from working papers and statements on CW presented to the Committee.1o In the view of my delegation, this project could indeed be useful. However, we believe it would most appropriately be undertaken by the United Nations Secretariat, perhaps with the assistance of expert consultants. The United States would, of course, be prepared to co-operate in such a project as might be indicated.

In addition, we think the Japanese working paper CCD/515 on a toxicity spectrum presents a worthwhile subject for our consideration." Here too, the Secretariat could take the lead, possibly assisted by specialized international organizations.

Besides environmental modification and chemical weapons, the Committee did significant work in other substantive arms control areas as well. Notably, it has assumed sponsorship of a Group of Experts to examine the ability of a proposed seismological network to detect and identify seismic events.12 The work of the experts should lead to new insights into problems of verification central to consideration of restraints on nuclear testing. The experts' organizational meeting proceeded satisfactorily. We regret that differing views regarding the appropriate time and place occasioned a delay in the Group's next meeting. However, the CCD's endorsement in principle of the experts' proposed overall schedule should be of help in the planning of their substantive work. My delegation wishes the experts success, and shares the view expressed by others that participation by experts from regions of the world now unrepresented, or thinly represented, on the panel would make an especially valuable contribution to the project. In conclusion, let me reiterate the encouragement felt by my delegation over the way the CCD functioned this year. We can all look back with gratification on a 1976 session marked by hard work and real results. If our renewed sense of dedication to the cause of rational

8 Ante, p. 576.

For the 1974 agreement, see Documents on Disarmament, 1974, p. 236.

Op. cit., p. 16.

11 Ante, pp. 550-553.

13

Ante, pp. 526–529.