title |tems-in-disarmament - chronological files - general · chemical weapons investigation t 1....

UN Secretariat Item Scan - Barcode - Record Title PageDateTime

S-0905-0003-07-00001

3907/06/200611:35:56 AM

Expanded Number S-0905-0003-07-00001

Title |tems-in-Disarmament - chronological files - general

Date Created 02/04/1981

Record Type Archival Item

Container s-0905-0003: Political matters - disarmament 1972-1981

Print Name of Person Submit Image Signature of Person Submit

File: PSCAXRef:

Mr. Viacheslav A. UstinovUnder-Secretary-General forPolitical and Security CouncilAffairs

AKU/JH

9 September 1981

CC ;J„'Martenson

Rafeeuddin AhmedChef oe Cabinet

Chemical Weapons Investigation -

I wish to refer to your nuair.orandum

dated 8 September to the Secretary-General

on the above subject.

I should like to suggest that the

attention of the Chairman of the Group of

Experts is drawn to this material in order

to ascertain the further wishes of the

Group in this matter.

T0.A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

"

U N I T E D N A T I O N S

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

The Secretary-General

N A T I O N S U N I E S

M E M O R A N D U M I N T E R I E U R

DATE: 8 September 1981

REFERENCE:

Viacheslav A. UstinovUnder-Secretary-GeneralPolitical and Security Council Affairs

Chemical Weapons Investigation

t

1. In connexion with a possible on-site investigation onKampuchean territory, inquiries have been made, as instructed,into:

(a) legal aspects of such an investigation, and

(b) the security situation.

2. The following responses were obtained:

(a) a memorandum of 3 September 1981 from the Directorof the Office of the Legal Counsel;

(b) (i) memorandum dated 31 August 1981 fromMr. Jay H. Long, conveying observationsconcerning the present situation in the areaand the experience in this regard with theUnited Nations Programme of Assistance toKampuchean People; and

(ii) memorandum dated 3 September 1981 fromMr. W. Wieczorek, reporting on advice on safetyconditions received from the official in theUnited Nations Security and Safety Service.

3. The memoranda and their attachments are annexed for yourconsideration and eventual decision on the subject matter.

(on file in 3802}

cc: Mr. J. Martenson

Foreword by the Secretary-General

By paragraph 94 of the Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the

General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament, contained in Resolution S-10/2 of

30 June 1D7G, the Secretary-General was requested to carry out, with the

assistance of a group of governmental experts, a study on the relationship

between disarmament and development.

The mandate of the group, contained in document A/S-10/9, sets out the

following main areas of investigation: (a) present-day utilization of resources

for military purposes; (b) economic and social consequences of a continuing

arms race and of implementation of disarmament measures; and (c) conversion and

deployment of resources released from military purposes through disarmament

measures to economic and social development purposes. In resolution 33/71 I,

the General Assembly also requested the Secretary-General to submit to the

group, for its consideration, the proposal to establish an international dis-

armament fund for development, which had been previously submitted by the French

Government to the General' Assembly at its Tenth Special Session.

In pursuance of the request by the General Assembly, a group of twenty-

seven governmental experts was appointed to carry out the study. The group

held ten sessions from September 1978 to August 1981.

The study greatly benefitted from the preparation of forty research reports

commissioned by the group. Of these reports, twenty-one were funded from

voluntary contributions to the Disarmament Project Fund established for this

purpose by the governments of ten States; in addition, nine countries undertook

to finance nationally a total of nineteen projects, either completely or in part.

The Secretary-General has on many occasions pointed out that the continuing

escalation of the arms race constitutes a serious drain on resources that are

desparately needed for socio-economic development. He has repeatedly stressed

that the hope for a peaceful, just and stable world order depends largely on

narrowing the gap between the developed and developing countries. The present

study is an important attempt by the international community to thoroughly investigat'

the proposition that a balanced'-and generally acceptable pattern of

global economic and social development .is inextricably related to disarmament.

The clear and widely shared understanding of this relationship may provide a basis

for the formulation of practical measures by governments that would both promote

disarmament and further development.

The Secretary-General wishes to thank the experts for their report

which is submitted herewith to the General Assemboy for its consideration.

Tt nhould loo not eel that the observations and recommendations contained in

the report are those of the experts. In this connexion the Secretary-General

wishes to point out thab in the complex field of disarmament matters, in

many instances he is not in a position to pass judgement on all aspects of

the work accomplished by the experts.

TO:A:

THROUGH;S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OBJET:



The Secretary General


MEMORANDUM 1NTERIEUR

fa*.DATE: 9 September' 1981

Mr. Viacheslav A. UstinovUnder Secretary-GeneralPolitical and Security Council Affairs

REFERENCE:

Mr. Jan Martenson \Assistant Secretary-General \vV\ UCentre for Disarmament

Study on the Relationship between Disarmament and Deve lopment

1. The Group of 27 governmental experts appointed to assist in thepreparation of the study on the relationship between disarmament and.development have completed their work. Attached is the letter of trans-mittal signed by the Chairman, Mrs. Inga Thorsson. As will be seen fromthat letter, the report has been adopted by consensus with some expertsexpressing reservations on specific paragraphs or chapters. As agreedby the group, the reservations will be annexed to the report.

2. The report is the result of the most ambitious study project in thearea of disarmament so far carried out under the aegis of the UnitedNations. It has taken three years and has involved the commissioning offorty separate research reports, funded in part by voluntary contri-butions totalling $594,187, principally from Sweden, and in part bynational means.

.3. Attached, for your approval, is the draft foreword. Also attachedis Chapter VII, which contains the summary, conclusions and recommenda-tions. No reservations were made in respect of this chapter.

.4. As a further attachment, I am sending herewith a memorandum whichcontains a report on the final session.

5. Since the final session of the group has just been concluded, andgiven the great length of the report, there has not been time to preparea fair copy. The unedited manuscript text is being sent to your officefor perusal.

6. In accordance with the wishes of the General Assembly, the reportalso deals with the French proposal to establish an international dis-armament fund for development.

7. This study is awaited with considerable interest by many MemberStates. It is to be submitted to the 36th regular session of the GeneralAssembly but an in-depth consideration is expected to take place at thesecond special session devoted to disarmament, in 1982. This may resultin a decision to entrust to the Secretariat the follow-up of the conclu-sions and recommendations contained in the report.

FOREWORD BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

By paragraph 94 of the Final Document of the Tenth Special

Session of the General Assembly Sevoted to Disarmament, contained in

Resolution S-lO/2 of 3O June 1978, the Secretary-General was requested

to carry out, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts,

a study on the relationship between disarmament and development. I The

mandate of the group Was contained in document A/S-lO/9, which sets

out the following main areas of investigation: (a) present-days*>

utilization of resources for military purposes; (b) economic and social

consequences of a continuing arms race and of implementation of dis-

armament measures; and (c) conversion and deployment of resources

released from military purposes through disarmament measures to eco-

nomic and social development purposes. In a—sep-a-r-ate resolution 33/71 I

the General Assembly also requested the Secretary-General to submit

to the group, for its consideration, the proposal to establish an

international disarmament fund for development, which had been pre-

viously submitted^to the General Assembly at its Tenth Special Session .

(by the French Government.3

In pursuance of the request by the General Assembly, a group

of twenty-seven governmental experts was appointed to carry out the

study. The group held ten sessions from September 1978 to August 1981.

The study(benefitted/greatly\from the preparation of forty

research reports commissioned by the group. Of these reports, twenty-

one were funded from voluntary contributions to the Disarmament Project

Fund established for this purpose by the governments of ten States;

in addition, nine countries undertook to finance nationally a total of

nineteen projects, either completely or in part.

-2-

The Secretary-General has hatl many occasions -to point out that

the continuing escalation of the arms race constitutes a serious

drain on resources that areNsprtpJy needed for urgent socio-economic

puj?g£>s%s. He has ajts'o repeatedly stressed that the hope for a peace-

ful, just and sustainable world order depends largely on the*" narrowing

of'the gap between the developed and developing countries. The present

study is an important attempt by the international community a±—a- T°

-sy-s£eiftatic investigation pf? the proposition that proposal-s—for a

balanced and generally acceptable pattern of global economic and social

development are inextricably related to disarmament. The clear and

widely shared understanding of this relationship may provide a basis

for the formulation of practical measures by^Sovernments that would

both promote disarmament and further development.

The Secretary-General wishes to thank the experts for their

report which is submitted herewith to the General Assembly for its

consideration. It should be noted that the observations and recommen-

dations contained in the report are those of the experts. In this

connexion the Secretary-General wishes to point out that in the

complex field of disarmament matters, in many instances he is not in

a position to pass judgement on all aspects of the work accomplished

by the experts.

U N I T E D N A T I O N S WJjm N A T I O N S U N I E S

POSTAL ADDRESS ADRESSE POSTALE: UNITED NATIONS, N.Y. 1OOI7

CABLE ADDRESS "ADHESSE TELEGRAPH IQUE: UNATIONS NEWYORK

REFERENCE:3 September 1981

Sir,

I have the honour to submit herewith the Report of the Group of Governmental

Experts on the Relationship betveen Disarmament and Development, which was appointed

by you in pursuance of Paragraphs 9k and 95 of the Final Document of the Tenth

Special Session of the General Assembly contained in resolution S-10/2 of 30 June

1978.

The governmental Experts appointed in accordance with the General Assembly

resolution were the following:

Mr. Ljubivoje ACIMOVIC

Director, Institute of International Politics and Economics,Yugoslavia

H. E. Ambassador Mansur AHMAD

Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United NationsOffice in Geneva

Mr. Tamils BACSKAI

General Manager, National Bank of Hungary

H. E. Ambassador Horst BECKER

Director of the Disarmament Section, Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Federal Republic of Germany

Dr. Luis CABANA

Member of the Advisory Commission for Foreign Affairs,Venezuela

Mr. Antoni CZARKOWSKI

Deputy Director, Department of International OrganizationsMinistry of Foreign Affairs, Poland

-2-

Professor Hendrik de HAM

University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Mr. Sergio de Queiroz DUARTE

Deputy Representative of Brazil to the Committee on Disarmament

H. E. Qmran EL SHAFEI

Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Arab Republic of Egypt

Professor Jose Antonio ENCINAS DEL PANDO

Economic and Social Research Centre, University of Lima, Peru

Professor Klaus ENGELHARDT

Institute for International Politics and Economics,German Democratic Republic

Mr. Daniel GALLIK

Senior Economist, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,United States of America

Mr. Placido GARCIA REYNOSO

Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United NationsOffice in Geneva

Mr. Robert HASELDEN

Economic Adviser, Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom

H. E. Ambassador Anthony HILL

Permanent Representative of Jamaica to the United NationsOffice at Geneva

H. E. Ambassador Masayoshi KAKITSUBO

Japan

Mr. Sten F. LUNDBO

Chief of Research Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Norway

H. E. Ambassador A. C. H. MOHAMED

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sri Lanka

-3-

Mr. Jacques PRADELLE DE LA TOUR DE JEAN

Ministry of External Relations, Prance

Dr. Anire SAGAY

Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Nigeria

Professor Nodari SIMONIA

Head, Institute of Oriental Studies, USSR Academy of Sciences

Mr. K. SUBRAHMANYAM

Director, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, India

Mr. Ibrahima SY

First Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Senegal to theUnited Nations Office in Geneva

Mrs. Inga THORSSON

Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sveden

H. E. Ambassador Leandro I. VERCELES

Director-General for the United Nations Affairs and InternationalOrganizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Philippines

Mr. Constantin VLAD

Director, Institute of Political Sciences and Study of theNational Question, Stefan Gheorghiu Academy, Romania

Mr. Bernard WOOD

Director, North-South Institute, Canada

The report was prepared between September 1978 and August 1981, during which

period the Group held ten sessions: h to 13 September 1978 in Geneva; 15 to 26

January 1979 in Geneva; 2 to 11 May 1979 in Geneva; 17 to 21 September 1979 in

New York; 11 to 18 February 1980 in Geneva; 2 to 12 June 1980 in New York; 15 to 26

September 1980 in Geneva; 19 tfi 30 January 1981 in Geneva; 21 April to 1 May 198!

in Geneva and 17 to 28 August 1981 in Geneva.

-u-

The Members of the Group of Governmental Experts wish to express their

gratitude for the assistance which they received from members of the Secretariat

of the United Nations and the specialized agencies and other organizations of the

United Nations system. They wish in particular to convey their thanks to

Mr. Jan Martenson, Assistant Secretary-General» *° Mr. Abdelkader Bensmail, who

served as Secretary of the Group and to Mr. Ronald Huisken, Mr. Hugh Mosley, and

Mrs. Swadesh Rana who served as Consultants to the Group.

I have "been requested by the Group of Governmental Experts as its Chairman

to submit to you on its behalf its report. Certain Members submitted reservations

to Chapters II, IV and VI, in whole or in part. These reservations are reproduced

in Annex E to this Report. The rest of the Report, including Chapter VII on

"Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations", was adopted unanimously.

Respectfully yours,

ThorssonChairman

Group of Governmental Expertson the Relationship betweenDisarmament and Development

H. E. Mr. Kurt WALDHEIMSecretary-General of the United NationsNew York

AKU/atk cc: SG File: Disarm. Gen.«-' xRef:

Mr. Jan Martonson 4 Septfe&er^g?/LCC/GMM/AF/MJSAssistant Secretary-GeneralCentre for Disarmament

Mr. Viacheslav A. UstinovUnder-Secretary-General forPolitical and Security Council Affairs

Rafeeuddin Ahmed, Chef cle CabinetOffice of the Secretary-General

Report on the Organization and Financingof a V'Jorld Disamarnent Ca^paicjn^und^erthe auspices of __the United Natignjs

With reference to your iT\era.oranduin dated3 Septeip±>er 1981 on the above mentioned subject,please proceed as proposed.

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OBJET:

Att.report (31 pages) in3802 filing







Mr. Viacheslav A. UstinovUnder-Secretary-General for Politicaland Security Council Affairs

Jan MartensonAssistant Secretary-GenerCentre for Disarmament

Report on the OrganizeCampaign under the auspi

REFERENCE:

id Financing of a World Disarmamentf the United Nations

1. Attached please find for your consideration and approvalthe report entitled "Organization and Financing of a World Dis-armament Campaign under the auspices of the United Nations"prepared by a Group of Experts in pursuance of General Assemblyresolution 35/152 I of 12 December 198O, together with a draftforeword by you.

2. In accordance with the recommendation contained inresolution 35/152 I, the Group of Experts included severalmembers of the Secretariat. The letter of transmittal issigned by Ms. Ingrid Lehmann of the Centre for Disarmament,in her capacity as Chairperson of the Group.

3. After your approval, the report will be submitted tothe thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly.

AKU/atk cc: Sj2 File: Confidence-builg. measures<-/ xRef: Disarmament

T bf: AR/MIvP/X-CC/GMM/AE/MJSilr. Jan Martenson '* pVei erri.'olAssistant Secretary-GeneralCentre for Disarmament


Rafeeuddin Ahmed, Chef de CabinetOffice of the Secretary-General

Report on a Comprehensive Study;on Confidence-building Measures

I wish to rearer to your inenorandum of

2 September 1381 addressed to the Secretary-

General on the above subject.

Attached please find a revised foreword

by the Secretary-General, which I would ask

you to kindly substitute before issuing the report.


The attached study'was prepared by a group of governmental experts,

who were appointed by the Secretary-General to assist him in carrying out

a comprehensive study on confidence-building measures, as requested in

paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 34/87 B of 11 December 1979.

Confidence-building measures aim at strengthening international peace

and security and at fostering a climate of trust and international co-operation

among Stabes in order to facilitate progress in the disarmament field. The

important role of confidence-building measures was recognized in the Final

Document of the First Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to

Disarmament. Paragraph 93 of the Final Document stresses the necessity to

take measures and to pursue policies to strengthen international peace and

security and to build confidence- among States in order to facilitate the

process of disarmament. -••

As the experts point out, the present study represents a first attempt

to clarify and .develop the concept of confidence-building measures in 'the

global context. The experts have expressed the. hope that the report may be of

use to Governments wishing to introduce and implement confidence-building

measures in their respective regions. The report may also help to promote

pjfolic awareness of the fundamental importance of the process of confidence-

building for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance

with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

The Secretary-General wishes to thank the experts for their unanimously

adopted study, which he hereby submits to the-General Assenbly for consideration.

It should be noted that the observations, conclusions and recommendations contained

therein are those of the experts. In this connexion, the Secretary-General

v.ould like to point out that in the highly complex field of disarmament or

disarmament-related matters, in many instances he is not in a position

to pass judgement on all aspects of the work accomplished by experts.

Attached report (63pages) onfile in 3802



The Secretary-GeneralTO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:


MEMORANDUM INTERIEUR


Mr. Viacheslav A. UstinovUnder-Secretary-General for Political

and Security Council Affairs

REFERENCE:

FROM:DE: Jan Martenson

Assistant Secretary-GeneralCentre for Disarmament

SUBJECT:OBJET: Report on a Comprehen !y on Confidence-Building Measures

1. Attached please find for your consideration andapproval the report entitled "Comprehensive Study onConfidence-building Measures" prepared by a Group ofExperts in pursuance of General Assembly resolution34/87 B of 11 December 1979, together with a draft forewordby the Secretary-General.

2. The last paragraph of the draft foreword containsa disclaimer in line with the policy adopted previouslyon similar matters.

3. After your approval, the report will be submittedto the thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly.

t

AKU/atk cc^ySG File: Disarm.xRef: Expert grp.Dis.+ nat.sec.

bf: AR/MKP/LCC/GMM/AF/MJSMr. Jan Martenson 4 September 19B1Assistant Secretary-General ' ' . ' . ' .Centre for 'Disarmament. . ; '

Mr. Viacheslav A, Ustinov^'Under-Secretary-General.-for,-; . . ' 'Political and Security Council Affairs . .. . •Rafeeuddin Ahmed, Chef de CabinetOffice of the Secretary-General . . •:

Group of Experts^ on DJsanaaisenfc and National Security

The Secretary-General received the attached letter

from Carlos.P. Romulo, Minister for Foreign Affairs of

the Philippines -and Chairman of the Group of Experts on

Disarmament-and'International Security, by which he

requests the Secretary-Geiieral to extend the work of the

Gropp of Experts for one more week in order to finalise

the report to the Ganeral Assembly. ;. - . - -- '

- ' I would be grateful if.you'would kindly look,into

this matter to ascertain -whether General Romulo's request

c a n b e acconuuodated* . ' - . ' • . - • ' : ' • • • • • ' ' • • ' . - . • •

] R-QUTINGSLIP FICHE uc TRANSMISSION

] T0:

\ A: Mr. Martenson

FROM:DE: v. A. Ustinov < -x

Room No. — No de bureau

| FOR ACTION

] FOR APPROVAL

| FOR SIGNATURE

I FOR COMMENTS

MAY WE DISCUSS?

YOUR ATTENTION

AS DISCUSSED

AS REQUESTED

NOTE AND RETURN

FOR INFORMATION

Extens ion — Po ste Date

3 Sept. 1981

K POUR SUITE A DONNER

POUR APPROBATION

POUR SIGNATURE

POUR OBSERVATIONS

POURRIONS-NOUS EN PARLER ?

V O T R E ATTENTION

COMME CONVENU

SUITE A VOTRE DEMANDS

NOTER ET RETOURNER

POUR INFORMATION

COM. 6 I2-7BI

m 1 V

iSi

/

-

R E P U B L I C OF THE P H I L I P P I N E S

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRSMANILA

Waldorf Towers, New York City2 September 1981

OFFICE OF THE MINISTER

Your Excellency;

I am enclosing herewith a telegram of Ambassador Paludan,a member of the Group of Experts on Disarmament and InternationalSecurity. I have studied their report so far completed and Isincerely believe that the introduction and conclusion must befinished and to do this it is necessary to extend the Group foranother week.

Since we are to present our report to the 36th GeneralAssembly I earnestly request that we be given this one-weekextension.

Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highestconsideration.

CARLOS P. ROMULOMinister for Foreign Affairs

and Chairman of the Group of Expertson Disarmement and International Security

His ExcellencyKurt Waldheim

Secretary-GeneralUnited Nations

New York, N.Y.

!_"*-- -||J,__,.—'H-l.

asa".SS3

=_.: j : i : V^ a K H O s L••• •- Lsu --:i %.' --: -_: _•T

v- j /JLTi : / !!K=rP l~ fs T: !"::": = : T :"•n n £ i = n i = 10

i: f8 K

.

L/ ii L i1 i TO

1 FILE NO.VM-LETED

p fi V l2 ' P! '-2 ?J T C lls' C rs I1 u C C v D C V i--' f u [ { T y u •' ; f; H 0 T O -iR U l i - L . ,JJ:::-1O!: -_::J- :::v-v::; i\ i. i i\ >.! « : V U\ : : U U L i ^ : ^i

-i 0 O •-'J. V J.

ESS23

f- n -::-'•

O C s ' D f T T u D T D T nC TUC >"Di"-SiD Au C V D C p T C•Ji-'ji'-. C i iii1-. i £• £ :.'i i S i i - U E X ^ l J l tjl i_ t"i 5 i_ tV. i v

^Sa*sgssa { f s i T f C T i EJCf T fiF.IO pjrf . lTCD C-1D p T C D D K 0 r^C?.;"j^?r^ u i i A i w <;•• i ^ t : t A %.* 1 ^ •*.• '-J iL » s i '„. \\ \ \J t\ A." A •«.•: t i •. t :. t i s : C. i

©

S ROOM 2578,

n { r £ r- r r n:- s; •:•• -.-. -. — 5- f- • f A i'. ~ * •: r- ?.-: s~ r- r- & ••• r ~ r. '• r s: r i~ r:: n:~ ;.-: i; ( •'. a5" . r* H -. r- : rr r-: :v ".:•:: : r- : E: : j : ::f i :•„• i T :•! r4 u. -.?-,: r- i J : ; -. r :v r rr r: : ,T ::;•:::: : : -« •— I-!:'-':- i '.•.:::?•_-:•. i i i '_• u. •_ •-• rt i I'. \J : 11_ v; •-•: : U •— tv v: •*- :-• t- :•. t : -~ i: v.:.' : — •— v -

vpppjQpnfip HN T^F INTFPRf'f nTin^sHIP RFT^^ HlSHRMHRFNT HN]}

g IHTERNfiTIONHL SECURITY HhS SUCCEEDED IN FINfiLIZING 6 CHRPTERS

OF H REPORT.e-EB

BK33S

3S25

rsrg

Ss ynu !.= -<; ui en iA;m.; T U O T uc UGUC rua ? I C D V p n n n P D D C T C cno DMt\JH c w U f-; A i— L. ; •" L. --T w J\ t 5 *J r"i £: : : : ; r"*: i— i : t : V i— i ri I.* V i~ :\ I %i V SJ U J^' i'*. : : t t •-? 1 *»-•:'-. t i : •:

$& i : 5 : s\ xr JJ LI *— : i. *J s T t : : :. i.: L. v t i- :» i P i* i- I t l i z - L. ;"i L* 1— L. L. »- : i AT i\ i;t t t w f%

?|j p r f i K T H i S T f i f c i . EHT T M P T TUPCP Tpvie H f i f i P W f > T QO PP.P SPPMic-if^St i * '-* '-• * n '-* * <-* ^ — '•* i '• f i.' L: t t ( 11 t t t I« t - w *- t v- i \ t w » 111 v L. t s i-- t v %.* t t s i'. *.- w. u. i^

f: :J i"*. L- i-, ir Li t :J is. *

iss.-wj^wiegjM=»aE*na»3

F ynii! Ti POP NV PPPT ~ U \ m TT cvTSCsCi V T&PQRTP.MT TMfiT &tiL M'. 'ut— i? : *-•;•. ii» i s it-, i i : •. A it :*. « > i-s\ ; i*. t- :: t- u- : ASH w tx : i: E? : t : i ; : i i::-:

» r* ?- i— ,-i r; T- f ,-, i j .-, r- r- -r ,•"- T-. .—. r i :,-. ,-. T. ,*-. i .* rr »-. ,-i.-. ic.—. f r- T- r* .—. f~ r» A Pi "f" T t s i"-1 t: *"• r 4 ; i™*fet*3 hi"s ^=h 1 i b p H • • = * ! U ^K1 f-b hÛLl l H L-Uu£""Lt. i L KbPUK i i N L L U - • I f-bIffip

\*g^t fiinor h i c c T T = ( ^ nc TUC" n c = n s i p n^1 o nnps jTTsu? nr f - f u V T i : i i ; M nK?c urct-'jftgp ii'JiM. i S t - i - l i H U O- • : • • _ U : • =J U T 1=: i: I'll?.: • i i W •== Vi ::: •:": A :: ij i I W:î- ri :- •- i\ s

^ gyru ^ j v i p F T T ^ Q i40yi_]j fi i_gn QPfE[o B N O T H E R O P P O R T U N I T Y FOR§j^ O n D C C M C k i T HM T;.m DuDjJÔQDuC T i! Tj^C CTV r U D O T C D C U U T r S j GDCC I i !^ :*'. i—L. i : L. i5. t V in i ^ :J t t : ('•- i i U i'-. i: i i : w ii5 i i t i — -J A j"l vi!!;i i i*. I'. V r". i : i L'i i i : •"•- L-

.

" sS

TC T U T C CCCfiDT TC MnJ M O n C T C-*s J I C p V M H r L i j j C D u T H TLiS]' C-a -; i i-- : i-; i Ur-. ; ^v ;?v i ii:ii. :u 1 ; ; ;• vuH. ; ;iu-_•;•: ;;; r - . i - A w i i - i ; E a

i i l i ^ U C D HC CVDCDTC !.[ T i ! CCC! TUOT fiT 5 TOCT TUC pDDCT mMTi H<J t U i i i = U i \ --JI Ui"ii l_i-. ix? rHi i -U i i_S_U i i i S i ! Hi i .L. i :wi i i i i- i.: i\ i i i i i.-1-: i ?:_••_ U •

.•::.-.-: i i: T, T. .— .-. T-. ri,— r-. -r.". -5-1 .• r- p..—.—• >"•.—. f r * -• 7" t: r- T /-. i .•.-, »«• r" /%"« L{ i : a j: E : L; i- :J : i :: t. j: r \ i ! H r* V r- r**: : h" 3 5 T'J : !r-: r : h' :f2 r-: :JJ r- X

ji w :c.

r UnPP vnn M i l ! f iTUP p u C T T I H P pnf.= C T p r p f i T | n W TO THFîP T f i P f i Qb *:*-•! ^. £ •«• u ri I L, L. w — V i— I O w ~ f i V s— v." v i < v>- i i: fc- i -. J t £ .* w r •: t w i i i u, v.- s^. j, X* t^ t •• w *

»•? t: .t •?- :.' r~ .—, t»- - j— r™ r t; ..••. *".?" T s .* i* .*". r*. ."• i -• r*. i;.—. t :; r*. .••. r~ .—. ,••, i; f. .*•. r* .~. i ,•*. .•". f*. r*. ,*•. r ; f r*. .*- r* t~ f*«Hh = = ! " t K i ^ i z ^ " ! l N : ' ^h ! "c U ^ U U ^ « ^ U L = = U"" =-U{jKbt i r ' ^ U : » U ^ i i l h : ! ;&

Mr T^P PyjPF[=iP P! PP.^.IiPF HP M P P T I f J u vu? ' H^PP f i f i f i lwi : L. I t '. i- :_ : : I :•.-_:: t. : i^ i_ : : u;; -. i_ •«• t i : ~ s- ; ^ ! i '«: i C- u V ; t •-• i_ 11 U 3 : .1 i a

V p f i D C C T K i r C D C i Vt •-' U =\ w v i i S =-• L- I': l~ U 1

flHBHSSHnuR,

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:






DATE:

V. Ustinov, Under-Secretary-General forPolitical and Security Council Affairs

J. Martenson, Assistant Secretary-GeneralCentre for Disarmament

3 September 1981

SUBJECT: Group of Consultant Experts on the Economic and SocialOBJET: Consequences of the Arms Race and of Military Expenditures

1. The Group of Experts, appointed by you pursuant to Resolution35/141 of 12 December 198O to assist you in the updating of theReport entitled "Economic and Social Consequences of the Arms Raceand of Military Expenditures", held its first session from2O to 31 July 1981 in New York. Thirteen member states wereinvited to nominate Experts to serve on the Group. Kuwait declinedthe invitation; Liberia accepted the invitation but did not senda nomination. Experts from the following eleven countriesparticipated in the first session: Austria, Bangladesh,Czechoslovakia, France, Japan, Romania, Mexico, The Netherlands,USSR, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.

2. The Group unanimously decided that Ambassador Ene of Romaniawould be its Chairman.

3. After a general exchange of views, the Group adopted atentative outline of the report which is herewith attached,

4. In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 ofresolution 35/141, the Group decided to request Governments,United Nations Specialized Agencies, Non-Governmental Organizationsand various research institutions to supply them with quantitativeand qualitative information relative to its work. The Group alsoapproved the text of the draft letters to be sent for this purpose.

5. The next session of the Group will be held in New York from18 to 29 January 1982.

Tentative Outline for ZSCA3 III

(based upon first round of discussions en 2SCAS II)

Retain the structure, i.e.

1. Si.m?r,ary of rosin conclusions of ESCA3 II.

2. The politicc-econoaic and the military-strategic "backgroundin vhich*the present updating exercise is being conducted:

(a) an increase in international tensions affecting thepolitical climate;

(b) a vorsening of global economic environment affectingboth the developed and developing countries;

(c) an added technological sonentua in the ams race.

(d) recent trends in the politico-military doctrines.

(e) stalemate in disarmament negotiations.

3. Franevcrk of analysis: relevance of various United Nationsstudies and the sajor decisions of the First Special Sessionon Disarraanent.

It. A thematic content synopsis of the SSCAR III chapters.

Chapter I: Dynanics of the Arms Race

(l) Retain the approach and the underlying philosophy of the amsrace dynamics: particularly the centrality of the nuclearthreat.

(2} Highlight soize of the :aain features by retaining some of thenajor thene paragraphs.

(3) Introduce the element of the escalatory effects of the globalarns race on regional situations.

-2-

(^) Update the sections on nev technological developments, and theirimplications for:

(a) national and international security

(b) the disarmament negotiation process

(c) the costs of arms race.

Chapter II: Resources and the Arms Bace

Revrite this chapter to incorporate other relevant studies bothvithin and outside the United Nations along the folloving lines :•

(1) Give some explanation about the inadequacy of financial data toportray the magnitude of resources consumed for military purposesand the problems of measuring the real costs 'of military spendingon the basis of non-comparable data.

(2) Elaborate the concept of real resources - human, material andnatural-consumed by the vorldvide military sector and provide acomprehensive summary of the global aggregates estimated by thedisarmament/development report.

(3) Contrast the above vith the existing and perceived requirementsof the basic unmet socio-economic needs.

(U) Analyse the emerging resource constraints and the physical limitsof natural resources.

(5) Indicate the tendencies to portray the need for an unimpededaccess to strategic resources becoming a -factor in internationalpolitico-military situation.

Chapter III: The Arms Race and Development.

Revrite this chapter vith a viev to provide a continuity ofanalysis in relation to the SSCA5 II and ZSCAR III.

(l) Introduce the chapter vith seme explanation of the methodologicaland conceptual problems about the opportunity costs of nationalmilitary expenditures and the vorldvide arms race.

-3-

(2) Maie use of the available analyses to demonstrate:

(s) the negative impact of military spending on inflation,employment, balance of payments as proportionate to themagnitude of military outlays.

(b) the impeding effect of military spending on economicgrovth for economies at all levels of development.

(c) The "unequal "burden placed by the arms race on the lessdeveloped economies.

(3) Elaborate clearly the close link betveen the economic and socialconsequences. Inflation and unemployment in combination, forexs-mple, vorsening th-3 social climate.

(k) While recognizing the role of internal mobilization ofresources in the developmental process, emphasize the need forglobal responsibility and distributive justice.

Chapter 17: The International Consequences of the Arms Race

Revrite this chapter vita e. viev to:

(a) establish the mutually reinforcing effect of thepolitico-military and socio-economic consequences ofthe arms race.

(b) introduce the concept of universality of concern basedon mutuality of interests.

(c) emphasise the central role of the United nations ininforming the vorld opinion and articulating it at apoint vhere it becomes a factor in disarmamentnegotiations.

1. The elements mentioned above can be grouped together under tvosub-sections in this chapter:

(a) Arms Race and International Security.

(b) Arms Race and International Economic Relations.

2. Arms Race and International Security

(a) underline the dangers of the nev strategic concepts.

(b) demonstrate the effects of aras race on internationalsecurity and detente.

(c) portray the arms race as both a cause and consequenceof international conflicts.

(d) analyze the phenomenon of arms transfers as an instrumentof the global effects of an expanding military-industrialcomplex and its implications.

3. Arms Race and the International Economic Relations

1. Elaborate the these of economic interdependence amongnations

2, Demonstrate the distorting effect of arms race on

(a) the N I E 0

(b) global economic relations.

U. Universality of Concern

1. Combine the effects of an accelerated arms race and a sievingdovn of the natural evolution of international economicrelations to stress the need for restoring political detenteand complementing it vith a military detente.

2. Elaborate the emergence of non-military threats tosecurity viz. energy, ecology and under-development orrial-development.

Chapter V: Conclusions and Reconrmendations

Retain the structure

1. Main findings and conclusions

2. Support for on-going United Nations activities

3. Nev areas of inquiry

k. Specific recommendations.

U N I T E D N A T I O N S f t & E f t N A T I O N S U N I E So

2 September 1981

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ~~ *~ MEMORANDUM INTERIEUR ^ W/J '~-*tQ

mu o ^- L.The Secretary-Genejca

Mr. ViacheslaV A. Ustinov REFERENCE:: under-Secretary-General for / / / X"

Political and Security Council Affairs V / 5 /U*-YFROM: Jan MartensonDE: Assistant Secretary-General-A (/V \\ \ C .

Centre for Disarmament / ' ^SUBJECT: ^_^osjET: Group of Experts on the Relationship Between

Disarmament and International Security

1. The Study Group on the Interrelationship between Disarmamentand International Security has finished its last session (17-28August) at which it approved by consensus six substantivechapters of the report.

2. Due to serious differences in opinion which arose inconnexion with several paragraphs of the report dealing withthe concept of the report as well as some current problemsin international relations, the Group did not have enough timeto finalize its work dm the Introduction and on Conclusionsand Recommendations.

3. The views of the Experts as to how to proceed under thecircumstances are divided. Some of them consider that thereport is, in fact, completed, whereas several others stronglyfeel that the group should be given the opportunity to adoptthe remaining two parts of the report - Introduction andConclusions and Recommendations.

4. The Chairman of the Group, General Carlos P. Romulo whowas unable to attend this meeting, but is presently in New York,has been informed of the situation. He was also given to understandthat the funds allocated for this study group have been fullyutilized and that any additional funds would have to be approved.Furthermore, the original two years mandate of the group wasalready extended by one year at the 35th session of the GeneralAssembly.

5. It is likely that General Romulo may wish to discuss thequestion of the finalization of the report directly with you.

OFFICE DES NATIONS UNIES A GENEVE

t - " lUNITED NATIONS OFFICE ATjLElfgVA

— 'Vj

TelSgrammes: UNATIONS, GENEVETelex: 289696Telephone: 346011 310211

REF. N°:(ct rappeler dans la rfponse)

Palais des Nations

CH-1211 GENEVE 10

27 August 1981

PERSONAL AMD CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

The Committee on Disarmament (CD) ended its annual sessionon the 21st of August. Its report to the General Assembly thisyear gives fuller coverage to divergent views, identifying themobliquely, so that the uninitiated reader may discover why therehas been so little progress and who are responsible for it.

The absence of political will in certain powers to stop thearms race is given as the stock reason for lack of progress.Probing further one finds two chief reasons underlying the absenceof political will. Firstly, the unfavorable international climateexemplified by adverse trends in Afghanistan, Kampuchea, etc.Secondly, the very limited role envisaged by the USA and othersfor the CD in the field of negotiations.

In regard to nuclear weapons questions in particular, USAand UK do not regard the CD as the appropriate forum for negotiations,which in their view are best conducted directly between them andthe USSR. Even where talks between them are in suspension, e.g.nuclear test ban and chemical weapons, the CD should not embarkon any kind of negotiation, according to them, although it mayhold discussions.

As a consequence, the CD has been reduced to dealing withless urgent questions, such as banning the non-existent radiologicalweapon by excluding the nuclear weapon from its definition, orproviding conditional rather than the categorical assurancessought by non-nuclear States against nuclear weapon attacks. Thisrestricted role for the CD is regarded by the majority as quiteunacceptable.

• » # / •

H.E. Dr. Kurt WaldheimSecretary-General of the United NationsUnited Nations HeadquartersNew York N.Y. 10017

Office des Nations Unies a Geneve >^ ' United Nations Office at Geneva Page.

Additional frustration is caused by growing awareness of thedanger of nuclear war and of the inability of most countries eitherto prevent it or to safeguard their own survival. The fact thatdecisions in these matters are in the hands of only one or two powershas been a source of agonising re-appraisal of the relevance of the CD,or indeed of the UN. This feeling of impotence is not lessened by thewillingness of the socialist group to use the CD as a negotiating body.Nor by the USA's review of its arms control policy, as no hopes havebeen held out.

In these circumstances, the comprehensive programme of disarmament,on which work has already commenced in the CD, is unlikely to emergeeither as comprehensive or as a programme. There is no consensus for aprogramme of concrete and well-defined measures leading in stages andwithin a time-frame towards specific disarmament goals. Nor is thereagreement on the nature of obligations flowing from the programme.

In the view of a substantial minority, it is difficult in thepresent situation to see far into the future and therefore one shouldinclude in the first stage no more than the issues currently undernegotiation. Thereafter in the light of such progress as may be made,one could make plans for the second stage. This depressing westernassessment may be realistic but it is not widely shared.

The expectations of the second special session on disarmament arehigh among the non-aligned members and non-governmental organisations.If the international climate does not improve by then, the specialsession may turn out to be a resounding failure. Disarmament may wellfollow the course of the history of the New International Economic Orderfrom one special session to another into relative obscurity.

Salvation can come - not from non-aligned countries which aredivided, dependent and devoid of leadership - but from the realisationof the two super powers that it is their duty and destiny to savemankind from a nuclear holocaust and to lead the world into pathsof peace.

Warm regards and best wishes for the future,

Yours sincerely,

Rikhi Jaipal

AKU/atk cc: £& File: Disarm. Israeli Nuc.Act.xRef:

bf: AR/MKP/LCC/GMM/AF/MJS

Mr. Ben Sanders, Officer-in-charge 25 Au<3ust ±3S1

Centre for Disarmament

Mr. ViacheSlav A. UstinovUnder-Secretary-General forPolitical and Security Council Affairs

Rafeeuddin Ahmed, Chef de CabinetOffice of the Seceetary-General

Study on Israeli Kuclear Armament:.

I wish to refer to yjfour memorandum dated14 August on the above subject. Attached please finda revised forev/ord by the Secretary-General to thereport.

While not wishing to discuss the report in substance,I should like to liKkez your attention to footnote 49 onpage 22 in which the report of the Secretary-General isciteed to support a particular point of view. Since thisreport was inde&d compiled by experts and contained adisclaimer by the Secretary-General as to the contents,it might be isore appropriate to indicate that thestatement reflects the view of the experts,


At its 34th session, the General Assembly adopted resolution 34/89,

entitled "Israeli nuclear armament", in which, inter alia, it expressed

its conviction that the development of nuclear capability by Israel would

further aggravate the already dangerous situation in the region and further

threaten international peace and security, and requested the Secretary-General,

with the assistance of qualified experts, to prepare a study on Israeli nuclear

armament.

In pursuance of the resolution, the Secretary-General appointed a group of

experts and submitted a progress report on the group's work (A/35/458) to the

Assembly at its 35th session. At that session, the Assembly adopted resolution

35/157 in which it took note of the progress report and requested the Secretary-

General to pursue his efforts in that regard and to submit his report to the

Assembly at its 36th session.

The group of experts has now completed its study, which is herewith sub-

mitted to the General Assembly for its consideration.

The possible introduction of nuclear weapons into the Middle East has*t-^.

been a long-standing concern of the United Nations. That concern is reflected

in the series of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly since 1974 on the

question of establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, tost

recently, the Assembly adopted resolution 35/147, in which it, inter alia,

urged all parties concerned to consider taking practical steps for the

establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the area and invited them to

adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The danger of nuclear proliferation, especially in areas of tension, is one

of the world's foremost preoccupations. The establishment of arrangements by which

all nuclear activities in such areas are submitted to effective and reliable

international safeguards is urgently required if that problem is to be brought

under control. It is to be hoped that the present report, by contributing to the

World community's awareness of the urgency of this issue will help to further

that goal.

The Secretary-General wishes to thank the experts for their unanimously

adopted study. It should be noted that the observations and recommendations

contained therein are those of the experts. In this connexion, the Secretary-

General would like to point out that in the complex field of disarmament matters,

in many instances he is not in a position to pass judgement on all aspects of

the work accomplished by experts.

TO:A:

end. study on file in 3802




THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OBJET:



14 August 19B1


Ben Sanders, Officer-in-CharCentre for Disarmament

REFERENCE:

Study on Israeli Nuclear Armament

1. The group of experts appointed to assist in the preparation ofa study of Israeli nuclear armaments have completed and unanimouslyapproved the study, which is herewith forwarded together with aletter of transmittal from the group of experts and a draft foreword.

2. It will be recalled that the initiative in requesting the studycame originally from Iraq, and that the General Assembly resolutioncalling for the study (34/89) was adopted by a vote of 97 to 1O with38 abstentions. The negative votes were cast by Belgium, Denmark,Guatemala, Honduras, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, Netherlands,Norway and the United States. A degree of controversy thus attachesto the study, which obviously raises sensitive political issues.The draft foreword has been prepared with this in mind. Attentionis drawn in particular to the disclaimer at the end of the foreword,which takes account of the special circumstances of the case.

3. General Assembly resolution 34/89 requested that the study besubmitted to the Assembly at its 36th session. The Secretary-General'sreport transmitting the study will therefore be issued as a GeneralAssembly document at the forthcoming session.

4. The Secretary-General's concurrence to proceed accordingly isrequested.

AKU/atk c£c-*--SG* File: KampucheaxRef: Disarm.Chem.Weapdms


Mr. Ben Sanders, Officer-ih-charge 21 August 1581Centre for Disarmament

Mr. Viacheslav A. UstinovUnder-Secretary-General forPolitical ana Security Council Affairs

Rafeeuddin Ahmed, Chef de CabinetOffice of the Secretary-General

Group of Experts to Investigate Reportson the Alleged Use of Cheffiical Weapons

Kindly refer to your memorandum of 17 August 1981to Mr. Rohan regarding the feasibility of a visit bythe Group of Experts to Democratic Kampuchea.

As regards the eqestion raised by you of whetherthe safety of the experts can be guaranteed, I wouldsuggest that you contact the designated security officialfor Thailand and the Office of the Co-ordinator forUnited Nations Humanitarian Operations in Kampuchea,and proceed on the basis of the advice rendered by them.

AR/ipb bf: RA/MKP/LCC/GMM/AKU/AF/HJS File:

XRef:

Mr. Ben Sanders H August 1931Officer-in-ChargeCentre f6r Disarmament

Hr. Viacheslav A. UstinovUnder-Secretary-General forPolitical and. Security Council Affairs

Albert RohanDirector

Group of Experts to Investigate Reports on the

Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons

With reference to your memorandum of 3 August kindly

proceed as proposed.

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OB JET:




N A T I O N S U N f E S


DATE: 3 August 1981

CONFIDENTIALMr. Viacheslav A. UstinovUnder-Secretary-General forPolitical and Security Council Affairs

Ben SandersOfficer-in-ChargeCentre for Disarmament \

Group of Experts to Investigate Reports on the Alleged

Use of Chemical Weapons

1. The Group of Experts to investigate reports on the allegeduse of chemical weapons has just completed its second session.Whereas initially only experts from Egyjgt and Kenya had beenavailable, assisted by a consultant from Prance, this time expertsfrom Peru and the Philippines also participated.

2. The Group's session was concluded by the adoption of asummary of its proceedings of which a copy is attached. The Groupresolved the question, unanswered in resolution 35/144 C., withregard particularly to the time-frame of the investigation, byconcentrating on the replies from Governments to the Secretary-General's note verbale of 26 January 1981. It furthermore tooknote of documents of the 35th and 36th session of the GeneralAssembly, communications received from the Red Cross and the WorldHealth Organization, and information from Canada and the UnitedStates in response to a questionnaire it had drawn up at its firstsession.

3. The Group carefully analyzed, case by case, the reportsbefore it. It observed, inter alia, that in most cases it wasdifficult to point to any chemical agent as being the probablecause of alleged signs and symptoms mentioned? although, in afew cases, the Group felt that there was some reason to considerwhether, perhaps, the use of some sort of blistering or nerveagent might have been involved, it did not find conclusive evidenceto this effect and therefore considered that further evidencewas needed.

4. Accordingly, the Group expressed its wish to carry outon-site investigations in Afghanistan, Democratic Kampuchea,Laos^ Pakistan and Thailand. The Group had also taken note ofcompTaints by Viet Nam concerning the alleged use of chemicalweapons by the United States on its territory and in Laos andin Kampuchea. Since, however, Viet Nam, in its reply to the

-2-

Secretary-General's note verbale, has stated its refusal toengage in any activities in the framework of resolution 35/144 Cthe Group felt that it would be unable to undertake anyinvestigation of those allegations.

5. In accordance with the recommendations made in thememorandum dated 4 June 1981 from the Assistant Secretary-General, Centre for Disarmament, the Group was asked toelaborate the arrangements it considered necessary to conducton-site investigations in the countries mentioned above. Ithas been suggested that the Officer-in-Charge of the Centrefor Disarmament should write accordingly to the PermanentMisslons nf Knve'rnnie»pH-s concerned. I attach a draft letterto the Mission of Afghanistan? similar letters would beaddressed to the other authorities concerned. Informalcontacts have been made with the respective representatives,alerting them that they could expect a formal approach.Pakistan has intimated that, while "not enthusiastic" it wouldnot object to on-site investigations if recommended by theGroup.

6. The information available about the situation inKampuchea raises the question of the risks that might beinyolvect_it the Group were to visit tnat area and hence thefeasibility of such a visit would seem questionable.

7. Should all the answers be positive, a visit of up tothree weeks to all the areas in question would involve a totalcost of approximately $29,OOP, excluding local travel andunforeseen expenses.

8. It is suggested that, before a final decision,regardingthe actual execution of the on-site investigations J.s taken,the replies to tne centre's letters be carefully evaluated^

9. The Group of Experts has also requested the Secretariatto make further approaches to the International Committee of theRed Cross and the UNHCR with a view to seeking assistancefrom them in fulfilling the Group's mandate.

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:




Mr. Mikhail D. Sytenko


MEMORANDUM INTERIEUF

SUBJECT: .- --osjET: of Chemical

4 June 1981

REFERENCE:Under-Secretary-GeneraPolitical and Securi

Jan MartensonAssistant SecreCentre for Dfsar&ament

Group of Experts \bo Investigate Reports on the Alleged Use

1. In my memorandum of 3O April 1981, I reported to you on theoutcome of the work of the Group of Experts to Investigate Reportson the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons, established by the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 35/144 C, which heldits first session from 2O-24 April 1981.

2. In that memorandum, I had stated that my final recommendationto you concerning the questionnaire and the on-site investigationssuggested by the Group, """would be contingent upon the receipt an3evaluation of written comments concerning any aspect of the summaryof the proceedings, to be submitted by the remaining members of theGroup, to be appointed subsequently. However, since some of thedifficulties attending the completion of the Group still persist,and because of the approaching deadlines involved, I feel that itis now necessary to take further action on those matters.

3. The Group concluded its first session by adopting a summaryof the proceedings of the session, a copy of which was attachedto the above memorandum, and which, inter alia, included thesuggestion of jthe Group that a questionnaire (see Annex I) shouldbejjddrjasjsed S tjieJ Secretary-Genera l jbg the_Governments who had

^ ~ ~ t o h i s note~verbale requestingtHem to furnish furjbher details~which^ might clarify areasj of

the incidents where alleged use ofT chemical_ ^agents are mentioned . It is my recommendation that the questionnaireshould~be transmitted, undejr_a_covefing letter from me, to^be sentinitially^ to Canada and the~United Statesj the two countries whichhave ro -ded substantive information. If the Group, at its nextsession, should recommend to transmit the questionnaire to otherStates, I will advise you accordingly at that stage.

4 . The Group also felt jbhat "itjvould request Ljthe Secretariatto make~arrangements^ as soon as feasible, with the^uthoritiesof Afghanistan, Democratic Kampuchea, Laos, Paki start and Thai land which would permit an investigation to be made in the respectiveareas, 'immediately prior to the final session of the Group and inaccordance with certain procedures outlined by the Group (seeAnnex II). Since resolution 35/144 C requests the Secretary-General,

2.

with the assistance of the Expert Group, to collect and examineevidence, including on-site with the consent of the countriesconcerned, and since the Expert Group has pronounced itself onthis matter, it is necessary that the Secretariat take theappropriate steps in this regard. In this respect, it should benoted that it would not be sufficient to merely obtain the consentof the authorities involved to conduct on-site investigation inthe respective areas. It would also be necessary to secure theirco-operation in providing for wider arrangements, such as facilitiesfor accommodation, travel and security of members of the visitingmission and the necessary help in visiting particular sites,examining evidence and interviewing people, etc. Accordingly, Irecommend that the Group itself be asked to elaborate further, jitits next session,on the type of arrangements that might benecessary and whichJcould then be communicated to the respectiveauthorities, including those ot Democratic Kampuchea. in_ themeantime Tt is my intention to request the Secretary of the Groupt6~tak€r informal contacts with the representatives of the~~authgritiesconcerned, with a view to alerting them to the fact that, based~~bnthe recommendation of the Expert Group, the Secretary-General might,at an appropriate stage, make an official representation in this''regard.

5. Peru has now officially^gonfirmed the designation of Dr.Humbefto~Guerra-Allison as an~expert and it is hoped that he wilbe^in a position to attend the next session of the Expert Groupto be held in June/July 1981. We are still continuing our effortsto complete the composition of the Group which, according to thefinancial implications, should consist of five members.

AMEX I

Draft Questionnaire

I. If you have personally witnessed the use of chemical weapons:

1. (a) Can you specify whether it was by means of air delivery, "bombs,

cannisters or sprays, artillery ammunitions, air bursts or impacts?

(b) What were the features of the attack with the chemical agent

with respect to the color, if any, and the prevailing weather

conditions?

(c) If there were clouds of gas, how long did they last before

complete dissipation?

(d) Were you in the open air or under cover?

2. (a) If you were exposed to the attack, what was the distance

between you and the site of detonation?

(b) What was your immediate reaction?

(c) After how long a period of time did the first symptoms begin

to appear, what was the sequence of the various symptoms and how

long did they last?

(d) Did you receive any medical treatment and if so, where and

how soon was it given?

(e) What was the nature of the treatment and how long did it take

before you completely recovered?

3. (a) If there vrere other casualties, how far from the site of

detonation were they located?

(b) What signs and symptoms did you observe in such cases and what

was the sequence in which they occured?

(c) Did you witness any fatalities and, if so, how many?

2.

(d) Did you notice any correlation between the age, sex and general

health of the victims and the intensity of the symptoms involved?

(e) Hov long vere the victims exposed to the chemical agent?

ff) Was any treatment administered?

(g) Eov long did it take for the victim to recover?

(h ) Have you spoken to any of the attending medical staff and vhat

vere their comments?

II. If the information that you have reported was of a hear-say nature, can

you identify your sources and indicate their reliability?

ANNEX II

I. Places to be visited

1. Sites vhere alleged use of chemical veapons was mentioned.

2. Hospitals vhere alleged casualities were treated.

3. Camps vhere refugees were either eye-vitnesses to or casualities

of alleged chemical attack.

—II. Things to be seen and examined

1. Medical records of the alleged casualities.

2. Any ammunition or parts thereof which were claimed to be chemical.

3. Any records of laboratory tests conducted on alleged contaminated

soil, food or water.

U. Films or pictures of alleged chemical attack, amunitions or

casualities..

5. Autopsy records of alleged casualities.

III. People to be Questioned

1. Persons who were allegedly exposed to chemical attack.

2. Persons vho witnessed the alleged chemical attack.

3. Medical staff who treated the alleged casualities of chemical

attack or who conducted autopsy on such casualities.

h. Local authorities, social workers and others who handled such

casualities immediately after the alleged exposure to chemical

attack.

2 4-

.OFFICE DES NATIONS UNIES A GENEVE UNITED NATIONS OFFIC GENEVA

TelSgrammes: UNATIONS, GENEVET6lex: 269696Telephone: 346011 310211

REF. N°:(4 rappslerdans la rtponse)

Palais des Nations

CH-1211 GENEVE 10

17 August 1981

PERSONAL AND COETFIDMTIAL

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

In this letter I shall explain briefly the work of theCommittee on Disarmament on nuclear issues. Although theCommittee's agenda gives these matters top priority i.e.nuclear test "ban, cessation of the nuclear arms race andnuclear disarmament, its role has been limited so far toonly discussing some aspects of the question rather thannegotiating measures of nuclear disarmament. This is tosome extent inevitable, because hitherto negotiations inthis field had been bilateral (US-USSR on SALT) or trilateral(USA,UK & USSR) on a nuclear test ban, and the negotiatorsfelt that it would be difficult at this point to open thenegotiations to the entire membership of the Committee. Itwas a good enough argument as long as those negotiations werein progress and the results were reported to the Committee.But the negotiations have been in suspense now for over ayear and there are no plans yet for their resumption.

In these circumstances the Group of 21 pressed againfor the setting up of a working group for negotiating atest ban treaty, taking into account the progress alreadymade by the tripartite negotiators, to whom several questionswere addressed in that connection. It was argued that if thetreaty is to have universal adherence, all Member States andespecially all nuclear-weapon States should participate in itsnegotiation. Unfortunately the proposal for the creation of aworking group failed to obtain the Committee's consensus.

USA opposed it on the ground that its review of armscontrol policies, including nuclear testing and a test ban,had not yet been completed and it could not therefore agreeto the idea of a working group. UK took the position thatthe best thing to do would be to pursue the treaty furtherthrough the means of trilateral talks. Other West Europeansfavoured for the present detailed examination of verificationmeasures through an international system for the exchange ofseismic data. The Socialists, China and Prance did not jointhe opposition to the proposal of the Group of 21.

United Nations Office at Geneva - Office des Nations U.nies a Geneve Page ...2..

As regards the related item "Cessation of the nuclear armsrace and nuclear disarmament", here too the proposal of the Groupof 21 for a working group was turned down, even though its limitedpurpose was defined as identification of substantive issues forsubsequent negotiation. USA pointed out that this item embraceda broad spectrum of issues and measures, any one of which posedenormously complex negotiating problems. In any case, someaspects of the problems were already being considered in twoworking groups, one on security assurances and the other on acomprehensive programme of disarmament, and USA could not agreeto a separate working group for nuclear questions. West Europeanswere of the view that questions concerning nuclear disarmament wereprimarily matters of a bilateral or regional character andnegotiations in the first instance really ought to be undertakenby the directly concerned: States.

These negative attitudes have caused profound dissatisfactionamong members of the Group of 21, who had received support for theirproposal from the Socialists. However, the Committee held severalinformal:meetings at which views were exchanged frankly and freelyon a numbe.r of questions, such as doctrines of nuclear deterrence,right of self-defence with nuclear weapons, the prevention ofnuclear war, etc. These informal discussions may have contributedto the removal of some misconceptions and to a broader understandingof Bothers' views, though not their acceptance. The Committee hasyet to carve out a role for itself in the field of nuclear disarmamentnegotiations.

i, o • :; - Warm regards, ,

Yours sincerely,

Rikhi Jaipal

H.E. Dr. Kurt WaldheimSecretary-General of the United NationsUnited Nations HeadquartersHew York N.T. 1001?

AKU/jb - cc: 'Stf cc: Mr. SandersMr.Ustinov

bf: AF

File: Misc.orgs.XRef: Disarmament-gen.

13 August 1981

Dear Dr. Chivian,

On behalf and in the absence cf the Secretary-Generaloverseas, I wish to acknowledge your letter of 6 July liGlwhich you addressed to him on behalf of the InternationalPhysicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

The Secretary-General took note of your letter andthe enclosures before his departure. In this connexion, Ishould Ii3:e to tell you that he has followed the activitiescf your organisation with great interest and that he wasfully informed about the results of your First Congress which,as you will recall, was attended by a staff 'member from theUnited Kations Centre for Disarmament. Non-governmentalorganizations have an important role to play in increasing theawareness of the consequences of nuclear war and shapingpublic opinion in favour of nuclear disarmament. The Organ-ization welcomes and appreciates your support of its endeavoursin this field.

With regard to your request to discuss your concerns withthe United 1-Iations, I should like to suggest that you meet withthe Under-Secretary-General of -die Department of Political andSecurity Council Affairs, Mr. V.A. Ustinov, as Well as seniorofficials frora the Centre for Disarmament and, possibly, theDepartment cf Public Information, Cur office will be ylad tomake the necessary arrangements as soon as we receive thedetails of the proposed visit.

Yours sincerely,

Albert RohanDirector

Dr. £.'ric ChivianTreasurerInternational Physicians for thePrevention of Nuclear War, Inc.

Loston, Massachusetts

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Inc.

"He shall require a substantially licit' manner oftliiiiking if mankind is to suri'iiv" A L H L U T EINSTEIN

July 6, 1981

P.O. Box 1057 - G.M.F.Boston, MA 02205(617) 738-9404

President:Bernard Lown MDProfessor of Cardiology.Harvard School ofPublic Health

I i'rc President:Herbert L. Abrams MDPhilip H. CookProfessor of Radiology,Harvard Medical School

Secretary:James E. Mullcr MDAbbiitam Professoroi Medicine,Harvard Medical School

Tri;isiircr:Eric Chivian MDStaff PsychiatristMassachusettsInst i tu te of Technology

affiliations furpurposes only

Secretary General Kurt WaldheimUnited NationsNew York, NY 10017

Dear Mr. Secretary General:

I have spoken to Mr. Stadjuhar and to Mr. Martinson'soffice about our request to have a formal meeting with youto present our letter td': the UN, drafted by the 1st Congressof the International Physicians for the Prevention of NuclearWar. We are interested in sharing with you our increasingconcern about the dangers of nuclear war, and in working withthe international community towards developing effectivemeans for its prevention. Physicians have an important roleto play in this regard, as stated by Professor Bernard Feld ,the Editor-in-Chief of the prestigious Bulletin of the AtomicScientists. (Enclosure

Enclosed please find the Summary Proceedings of our 1stCongress (Enc. #2) , which represents the conclusions of over70 leading physicians from 12 countries. On Page 8 is aletter to the "Heads of All Governments and to the UnitedNations" (which will also be sent to each delegation at theUN) . The 1st Congress was extensively reported by theelectronic and written media in the U.S. and abroad, a smallsample of which is enclosed, (Enc. #3) and received strongendorsements from, the Mormon Church (Enc. £4) and the Pope.(Enc. #5) The W.H.O., which sent observers to the meetings,passed WHA 34.38, "The role of physicians and other healthworkers in the preservation and promotion of peace as themost significant factor for the attainment of health for all",at the 34th World Health Assembly. (Enc. £6)

In the U.S., we have been active in the U.S. Senate, wherewe recently held a Senate Briefing sponsored by SenatorsTsongas and Mathias (Enc. #7); in the House of Representa-tives, where we assisted in Congressman Hamilton Fish'sconcurrent Resolution 151 (Enc. £8); and at the AmericanMedical Association. (Enc. #9)

^Sfeg - &**»*•»>.#•••'** fa*

OFFICE DES NATIONS UNIES A GENEVE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA

T§legrammes: UNATIONS, GENEVET6lex:289696Telephone: 346011 310211

REF. N°:(4 rappelerdans lartponse)

Palais des Nations

CH -1211 GENEVE 10

12 August 1981

PERSONAL AID CONFIDENTIAL

Bear Mr. Secretary-General,

I shall try to sum up in this letter the work done by thefour ad hoc working groups of the Committee on Disarmament duringthe current year.

Badiological Weapons.- As you know, a draft treaty banningradiological weapons was tabled last year jointly by the USA andUSSR. It was subjected to very critical analysis, and as a resultit has now been withdrawn and replaced by the Chairman's text,which has taken into account both criticisms and constructivesuggestions. Even so, the Chairman's draft is far from the goalof consensus; fundamental differences still remain over definition,scope of prohibition, verification procedures, etc. Yet anothercomplicating factor is that this is a non-existent weapon, and itsdevelopment and manufacture as a weapon of mass destruction isconsidered as only a very remote possibility.

Several efforts have been made to define it precisely butevery formulation says in effect that it is a weapon that killsthrough radioactivity, other than that caused by a nuclear weapon.In the opinion of many, such an exception would imply legitimisationof the use of nuclear weapons and they are therefore opposed to it.They regard it as far more important to prohibit radiological warfareas such and especially to ban military attacks on nuclear reactors,since that may cause leakage of lethal radioactivity into theneighbourhood endangering human, animal and plant life. The socialistcountries seem quite keen to finalise this treaty before the secondspecial session on disarmament, but their enthusiasm for it is notshared by all the others.

: Chemical Weapons.- Here negotiations on the actual text of atreaty have not yet begun. Current discussions have been only onsubstantive issues to be dealt with in the negotiation of a Convention.While there has emerged convergence of views on identifying many suchissues, some considerable differences still exist on matters, likewhether the Convention should include a specific prohibition of use,even though the 1925 Geneva Protocol contains such a prohibition,whether the scope of prohibition should inter alia include herbicides,and whether planning, organisation and training in the use of chemicalweapons should be prohibited.

• • • / •

United Nations Office at Geneva - Office des Nations Unies a Geneve Page ..

It seems to be generally agreed that super-toxic lethal, otherlethal or other harmful chemicals should be banned, and with the helpof experts, toxicity levels and lethal dosages are being determined.However, there are divergent views on "precursors, binaries, toxins",etc., and there is also some ambiguity about the definition and thedetails of the verification system e.g. near-site and off-siteinspection methods, etc.

One cannot really expect any substantial progress towards aConvention as long as the bilateral talks between USA and USSR arein a state of suspension. They are obviously keeping their optionsopen and there are rumours of a race in chemical armaments. TheRussians are reported to be ahead quantitatively and so the Americansare said to be moving forward qualitatively. According to .press reports,a factory for producing binary nerve gas munitions is about to beconstructed after the clearance vote in the US Senate of 21 May. Althoughallegations concerning use of chemical weapons in no less than 8 differentconflicts have been denied by the authorities concerned, they continueto persist and underline the anxiety of those who think that the 1925Protocol's regime is crumbling and should be strengthened in theConvention to be negotiated.

; .; Security Assurances.- This working group has before it fivedifferent declarations by China, Prance, USSR, UK and USA seeking toprovide assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threatof use of nuclear weapons. These assurances are obviously directly

• related to the entirely different security requirements of the five Powers.With the exception of China's assurance, which is unconditional, the othersare riddled with conditions, such as the Russian requirement that the non-nuclear State should renounce the acquisition of nuclear weapons andshould not have them on its territory; or the French requirement that theState should be part of a nuclear weapon free zone; or the American andBritish requirement that the concerned State should have signed the NPTand should not attack them either in alliance or association with anothernuclear-weapon State.

Attempts to marry these incompatible elements within the frameworkof a common commitment embodied in an international instrument havefailed so far. What began as a simple request from non-aligned andneutral countries for unconditional assurances that nuclear weaponswould not be used against them has now been turned around into anexercise for providing conditional assurances to the non-nuclear alliesof USSR and USA. I do not therefore see a bright future for the non-aligned and neutral States in the efforts of this working group.

Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament.- The work of this groupdeserves a separate letter, which will follow shortly.

With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

. . . Rikhi Jaipal

H.E. Dr. Kurt WaldheimSecretary-General of the United NationsUnited Nations HeadquartersFew; York'H.Y. 10017

cc : hs .banaers , i ^ . b . o il}\ S

Originator:Don Gilbert

Caravan Director'Al Creech

Caravan Coordinators:Eric Cox. Miami lo DCHugh Slier. DC to NYLarry Abbott. New EnglandCarolyn Bemslein. MidwestMichael Andregg. MidwestTim Barrier. PittsburghJ:m Slark. Canada

Caravan intefnsCarol BradleyLarry LaVercombe

Campus Coordinators:Armando Rodnguez. U- of MiamiFtarence McNutt. Fla. Int. U.Jack Ahlers. F.S.U.George Barker. F.S.U.John Buckley, F.S.U.Terry Farley, F.S.U.Ed Green, F.S.U.Fioger Peace, Tallahassee Peace

CoalitionSue Peterson, Tallahassee Peace

CoalitionJohn Rick. Dade County Community

CollegeRichard Adamson, Fla. Atlantic U.Cory Amsler. U. of Southern Fla.Cindy Bear. U. of Fla.Rhonda Bergman, U. of Fla.Bill Lazer, U. of Fla.Gary Moore. U of Fla.Michael Collins. U. of Ga.Jack Harrison. U. of Ga.Moliie Hyrr.an. U. of Ga.Chris Mallet, U. of Ga.Missy Morris. U. of Ga.Jan Ruzicka. U of Ga.Cyd Wells. U. of Ga.John Walsh. G.S.U.Larry & LinOa Alcoff.

Southern Student ActivistsNetwork

John Setzler. Newberry CollegeMichael Goodmg, U. of S.C.Elton & Lynn Manzionie, GROWSue Bowman, GROWBrad Torgan, Duke U.Forresl Bitmer, Duke U.Precious Slone, Duke U.Stan Gallagher, N.C.S.U.Lisa Hirsch, N.C.S.U.Polly Purgason. Un. of N.C.Scon Norberg. U. ol N.C.Al Perry, U. ol N.C.Andy Cohen. U. of Va.Earl Lewis. U. of Va.John Liss. U. of Va.Nancy Kupeck, George Mason U.John Fecile, Villanova U.Maryanne Moon. Villanova U.Jeff Bendremer, U. of Conn.Jennifer Davis, U of Conn.Nick Adams. MITDavid Brown. MITBob Cohen. S.U.N.Y.Mohammad Khan, S.U.N.Y.Jamie Adams. U. of SyracuseMary Reisdorl. Center for JusticeLarry LaVercombe, U. of MlJohn Marbes, U. of ChicagoCarolyn Bernstein. Northwestern U.Carol Bradley. Northwestern U.M,chael Bachhuber. U. of WlBeli Wmdels, U. ol WlMichael Andregg. U. of MN

T»-l

•

1011 Arlington Boulevard • Suite W219 Arlington, Virginia 22209 • (703)524-2141

Please reply to: 600 Valley Road, Wayne, N.J. 074;70-r,r....,„;., ~—T

(201) 694-6333

August 12, 1981

REGISTRY OEUIft 1 J f 4 -1 • f; •Abo 1 / !Vi

.A :\ n., ; '0:

The Hon. Kurt Waldheim, Secretary GeneralThe United NationsU.N. PlazaNew York, New York 10017

Dear Mr. Secretary General: './!, .-•

We are pleased to inform you that the World FederalistsAssociation, The Campaign for U.N. Reform andhave originated a Caravan for Human Survival to lend support tothe Special Session, on .Disarmament 'at the United Nations thatwill take place in 1982. Our Caravan will culminate on UnitedNations Day, October 24, 1981, with the presentation to youroffice of thousands of signatures collected in communities andon college campuses from Miami to New York, the Midwest, andNew England, calling for disarmament in accordance with theMcCloy-Zorin Agreed Principles , including InternationalVerification Procedures.

We are enclosing a brochure and page from our latest News-letter which give detailed information on the Caravan. The NewYork ceremonies for presentation of the petitions will be heldat the Dag Hammarskjold Plaza on Saturday, October 24th between12:00 noon and 4:00 p.m. We would very much like to have youaddress those assembled and accept the petitions on behalf of theUnited Nations. We would be happy to schedule you any time betweennoon and 3:30 depending on your time available. We will notfinalize our time sequence for the October 24th ceremonies untilwe hear from you so that we can make yours the featured appearance.

Please let us know by August 24th whether you can participate.We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

.-. Walter F. Hoffmacm, National Co-ChairmanWFH/dk Campaign for U.N. ReformEnclosurecc: Donald Keys

Bill Wickersham

The Caravan for Human Survival is promoting the Human Manifesto and a nuclear arms freeze. It issponsored by Campaign for U.N. Reform, World Federalists Association, and Planetary Citizens and is f)endorsed by the U.S. Student Association. v

bf: RA/AR/GMM

Note for the File

The Centre for Disarmament informedme that "The caravan for human survival"has been very supportive of UnitedNations activities in the past and theyare therefore pleased to give recognitionto their effort on 24 October.

The Centre does not recommend thatthe Sec. Gen. - or in his placeMr. Martenson - meets with this groupas it should be handled on a much morejunior level.

In view of the deadline (Aug. 24)the Centre has telephoned the organi-zation to discuss all further arrange-ments with them.

26 August 1981

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OB JET:



The Secretary-Ge



DATE:

Mr. V. UstinovUnder-Secretary-General forPolitical and Security Council Affairs

Ben SandersOfficer-in-ChargeCentre for Disarmament

Nuclear Safeguards in Argentina

REFERENCE:

1. Under the heading "Argentina Says Its Nuclear Plants WillNot Comply With Safeguards" the New York Times of 25 July JL981reports, inter alia, that this State would "not put j.ts__nuclearinstallations under internationaj _ga£eguards."" This is a mis-le~adTng formuTationT

2. A cheek with the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmsthat aj.1 nuclear installations existing in Argentina are coveredby that organisation'' s safeguards. Moreover, all the facilitiesnbvTlmder construction are affected by agreements which requiresafeguards. It is correct that Argentina_jLsjjppgse d to the NPTand has sp^_far Defused to submit to L_l

r£uli-scope" safeguardsagreement, which would automatically cover any plant to be con-structed in the future. United States legislation adopted underthe Carter administration requires recipients of US nuclear exportsto submit to such safeguards, pursuant to the Non-Proliferation orthe Tlatelolco Treaty or unilaterally. The endorsement by PresidentReagan of that approach has apparently evoked a negative reactionfrom Argentina.

3. Several years ago Argentina announced it would ratify theTlatelolcg_Treaty if a satis'ractory safeguards agreement could benegotiated with the IAEAIThat organisation interprets the Treatyas prohibiting the manufacture of all^huclear explosive devices,including ''peaceful" ones and its safeguards agreements~contain theundertaking not to produce any nuclear explosive. Argentina dis-agr^e^_with_thatinterpretation and the negotiations have~nbt~yetbeen conclusive^



TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OBJET:



The Secretary-General"



REFERENCE:

to B.Sandersfor Action/29.7.

1981

Ben SandersOfficer-in-ChargeCentre for Disarmament

-d -* "~"[ '

Visit by Representatives of the International Physiciansfor the Prevention of Nuclear War

1. The International Physicians for the Prevention ofNuclear War, a high level private group comprising, inter alia.medical doctors from twelve countries including the USSR, theUSA, a number of Western European countries, Sierra Leone andJapan, has expressed the wish to meet formally with theSecretary-General to present a letter drafted by its firstcongress. The main themes in the Physicians' approach arethat nuclear war must be prevented, is not inevitable, cannotbe used to resolve political differences and cannot be foughton a limited scale.

2. It would seem appropriate to receive the representativesof the group at United Nations Headquarters and it isrecommended that the Under-Secretary-General for Politicaland Security Council Affairs should do so, on behalf of theSecretary-General. The opportunity might be taken to havean exchange of views with a number of Secretariat staff,including senior persons from the Centre for Disarmament andpossibly the Department of Public Information.

3. A draft reply to the Physicians' letter is attached forapproval.

23 July 198I/DRAFT

Dear Dr. Chivian,

The Secretary-General of the United Nations,

Dr. Kurt Waldheim, has read your letter dated 6 July 1981

with great appreciation for the efforts of the International

Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. The Secretary-

General, himself, has stated on a number of occasions that

the prevention of nuclear war is a primary postulate for

humanity and an essential concern of the United Nations.

In this light, Dr. Waldheim has directed me to respond

to your letter and to act in his behalf by receiving your

delegation at a time convenient to you. It is suggested that

that occasion might be used also to have an exchange of views

with, inter alia, senior staff from the Centre for Disarmament

and possibly the Department of Public information.

Please let me know when you would wish to call on me

so that the necessary arrangements may be made.

Yours sincerely,

Viacheslav A. UstinovUnder-Secretary-General

Department of Political and Security Council Affairs

Dr. Eric ChivianInternational Physicians forthe Prevention of Nuclear War

P.O. Box 1G57, G.M.E.Boston, Massachusetts O2205

V"*i~

AKU/atk cc: £G File: DisarmamentxRef:

b f: RA/MKP/LCC/GMM/AF/MJS

Mr. Ben Sanders, Of f icer~in-charge 24 July 1981Centre for Disarmament


Albert Rohan/ DirectorOffice of the Secretary-General

Study on the Establishment of an InternationalSatellite Monitoring Agency

I wish to .refer to Mr. Csillag's memorandumof 10 July 1981 to the Secretary-General on theabove subject.

Regarding the Secretary-General's forewordI should like to ask you to kindly substitutethe last paragraph with the amended text whichis attached to this memorandum.

-,-. -•(..- .-• -.j: t.f i-


At the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament,

held in the spring of 1978, the delegation of France submitted a memorandum

in which it proposed the establishment of an international satellite monitoring

agency by means of which the use of observation satellites vithin the frame-

work of disarmament would be placed at the service of the international)

community. The General Assembly noted the proposal in paragraph 125 (d) of

the Final Document adopted at the end of its special session and at its 33rdin

regular session it adopted resolution 33/71 J/which, inter alia, it requested

to undertake, with the assistance of qualified governmental experts, a study

on the technical, legal and financial implications of establishing an inter-

national satellite monitoring agency.

In pursuance of this resolution the Secretary-General appointed a

group of experts, who reached preliminary conclusions that were submitted to

the 3^th session of the General Assembly. Following the recommendations of

the group, the General Assembly adopted resolution A/3^/83 E^in which it

requested the Secretary-General to carry out an in-depth study with the

assistance of the group of experts previously constituted,and to submit a

comprehensive report on the subject in time for the General Assembly to take

a decision at its special session devoted to disarmament in 1982.

The resolution also drew attention to the fact that, accordingly, the study

should be submitted no later than June 1981 to the Preparatory Committee

for the second special session.

As the result of sustained and intensive efforts the group of experts

have been able to adopt a unanimous report covering all aspects of the area

under consideration.

- 2 -

The Secretary-General wishes to thank the experts for

their unanimous report, which in pursuance of resolution 34/83 E

he hereby submits to the General Assembly for its consideration.

It should be noted that the observations and recommendations

contained in the report are those of the experts. In this

connexion, the Secretary-General would like to point out that

in the complex field of disarmament matters, in many instances

he is not in a position to pass judgment on all aspects of the

work accomplished by experts.

U N I T E D N A T I O N S | ^ | N A T I O N S U N I E S

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ~" ~ MEMORANDUM INTERIEUR

T0: The Secretary-General DATE. 1O July 1981A: '

REFERENCE:

THROUGH: ^• Viacheslav A. Ustinovs/c DE: Under-Secretary-General for

Political and Security Council AffairsS~~\FROM: pal Csinagj officer-in-Charge, ( ^ / .

Centre for Disarmament V "" U-«—i

SUBJECT- Study on the Establishment of an InternationalOBJET: Satellite Monitoring Agency

1. The group of qualified experts appointed to assist in thestudy on the technical, legal and financial implications of estab-lishing an international satellite monitoring agency have unanimouslyadopted their report. The report is attached under cover of a letterfrom the Chairman.

2. It will be recalled that the Assembly's request for theexecution for this study followed a French initiative at the firstspecial session devoted to disarmament. The proposal is closelyconnected both with the question of international verification ofdisarmament measures and with that of institutional arrangements fordisarmament and this raises obviously sensitive matters. When theproposal was discussed in the Assembly both major Powers expressedmisgivings - the USSR, inter alia, questioned whether a universalinstrument for monitoring should be sought or was possible. TheUnited States stated among other things that the project envisagedwas not feasible, necessary or desirable in the foreseeable futureand that its cost would be enormous. Both Powers abstained in thevotes on the relevant draft resolution, at the 33rd and 34th regularsessions and neither participated in the work of the expert group.That group was made up of generally high level specialists in thevarious related fields from Austria, Argentina, Colombia, Egypt,India, Indonesia, Italy, Prance, Romania, Sweden, Tunisia, UpperVolta and Yugoslavia.

3. Attached is a draft foreword. Attention is drawn in particularto the disclaimer at the end thereof, which takes account of thespecial circumstances of the case.

4. The Assembly's resolution 34/83 E requested the report to besBbtoitted in time for it to take a decision at its second specialsession devoted to disarmament, in 1982 and drew attention to the factthat, accordingly, the study should be submitted to the preparatorycommittee for that session. In accordance with the provision ofoperative paragraph 3 of resolution 34/83 E, the report will be issuedas an official document of the Preparatory Committee for the secondspecial session which will meet from 5 to 16 October 1981.

5. The Secretary-General's concurrence to go ahead accordinglyis requested.

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:






Ben SandersOfficer-in-Charge ^Centre for Disarmament

SUBJECT:OBJET: US Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy



DATE- 22 July 198.

1. According to recent reports in the American press, theUS Administration has announced the policy it will follow inregard to the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons. ThePresident has now affirmed that the prevention of nuclearproliferation remains a "fundamental national security andforeign policy objective". According to guidelines made publicby the White House on 16 July — the timing is said to have beenchosen in connexion with the Western summit meeting in Canada —the US will on the one hand strive to "reduce the motivation foracquiring nuclear explosives" by improving regional and globalstability and helping to strengthen the safeguards of the IAEA andon the other hand will attempt to promote international peacefulnuclear cooperation and become a "predictable and reliable partner"therein.

2. The approach of the Reagan Administration is thought bycommentators to have been formulated to further American industrialinterests more than hitherto and foresees wider internationalnuclear cooperation that might include activities which theprevious Administration wished to avoid as being "proliferationprone". The emphasis on stronger international safeguards is inline with this approach. It may be noted that just before therecent announcements, the Controller-General of the US had alreadyreported to the Congress his view that the Nuclear Non-ProliferationAct of 1978 should be "selectively modified" particularly tofacilitate exports.

3. While the statement recognizes the security considerationsthat might motivate the recourse to the manufacture of nuclearweapons by hitherto non-nuclear-weapon States, it is strikingthat it does not mention nuclear disarmament by the great powers.The latter had been a subject of controversy during the SecondReview Conference of the NPT that was held in Geneva last summer.

A.-

-2-

The statement does not clarify what restrictions and/orconditions the US Government may impose on nuclear exportsto States it considers as a possible proliferation risk.This is a topic that will play a role in discussions at theUnited Nations Conference for the Promotion of InternationalCooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy to be heldin 1983.

4. Information from Washington indicates that theAdministration's announcement has been hastened by theintensification of the discussions on nuclear proliferationthat has followed the raid by Israel on an Iraqi reactor.

AKU/atk cc/ SG

Hr. Ben SandersOff icer-in-charcjeCentre for Disarmament

File: Disarm.xRef:

bf: RA/MKP/LCC/GMM/AF/MJS

22 July 1981


Albert Rohan, DirectorOffice of the Secretary-General

Report^ of the^ j3roup g £ Go verixmental Expert sto Stadthe Institu tinal^

latinq to the Process of Disarisament

With reference to Mr. Csillag's memorandumof 14 July 19 81 to the Secretary-General on theabove subject, please proceed as

However, in view of the nature of thesubject under consideration by the experts,kindly delete the last paragraph of theSecretary-General l s f oreword »

TO:A:

Mr. Viacheslav A. UstinovTHROUGH: Under-Secretary-General for Political


U N I T E D N A T I O N S |||p N A T I O N S U N I E S

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUBL_~^~ MEMORANDUM INTERIEUR

The Secretary-Generfl / OATE: 14 Julv 1981

/FROM: pal Csillag, Officer-in-Charge


SUBJECT: Report of the Group of Governmental Experts! to Study°BJET: the Institutional Arrangements relating to the Process

of Disarmament

1. The Group of Governmental Experts which was established inpursuance of General Assembly resolution 34/87 E dated 11 December 1979had completed its work on 2 July 1981 and endorsed its report byconsensus. (The report and the Letter of Transmittal are attached).

2. The report deals mainly with the structure and functions of theSecretariat, particularly the Centre for Disarmament, in view of itsresponsibilities in supporting the process of disarmament within theUnited Nations framework. In assessing the current requirements andfuture estimated needs in the United Nations management of disarmamentaffairs, the experts expressed various views. The Group recognizedthat at present the Centre for Disarmament was performing its functionsin_ a highly satisfactory way. Some experts were of the opinion that,consequently, there was no need for structural changes."especially" inthe absence of actual disarmament measures or prospect forprogregs -in that fielcHOther experts, however, felt that in view~of~thegreater importance which presumably will be given to disarmamentissues in the nineteen-eighties. the ensuing increased institutionalneeds should be met,_either by changing the Centre into a departmentfor disarmament affairs headed by an Under-Secretary-General or~byestablishing a World Disarmament Agency within the United Nationsstem. These various viewpoints and proposals were discussed" bute Group did not take a position of its own on them.

3. In their agreed recommendations, inter alia, they:

stressed the need for the improvement of the co-ordinationof the disarmament activities of various bodies within theUnited Nations system;

requested information about this effort in the Annual Reportof the Secretary-General to the General Assembly;

A..

-2-

- proposed the consideration by the Secretary-General ofthe possibility of strengthening the Centre for Disarmamentwith an appropriate number of additional staff, within theexisting over-all resources;

- called for encouragement to be given to the Advisory Boardof the Secretary-General on Disarmament Studies to improvemethods of co-ordination in the sphere of disarmament studies;

- suggested considerations to be taken into account whenproposals for particular United Nations disarmament studies wereinitiated;

requested the Secretary-General to put forward, at the SecondSpecial Session devoted to Disarmament,any proposals whichmay be appropriate on the possible institutional implicationswith regard to the relationship between disarmament anddevelopment, taking into account the study to be presented bythe Group of Experts on Disarmament and Development at thethirty-sixth session of the General Assembly.

The Group also recommended that the role of United Nations inthe area of implementation and verification of international disarmamentagreements should be examined if at some future time there wereagreements according verification functions to the United Nations.

4. In line with customary procedure, it is suggested that thereport should be submitted to the General Assembly with a forewordby the Secretary-General. A draft for your consideration and approvalis also attached. The draft contains, as usual, a paragraph allowingthe Secretary-General to keep a distance from the contents of thestudy.

5. Informal consultations indicate that the thirty-sixth session ofthe General Assembly would not discuss the substance of the report.It is anticipated that the initiators of the study would sponsor adraft resolution of procedural nature by which its contents would bereferred for consideration to the Second Special Session devoted toDisarmament.

Draft


By its resolution 34/87E of 11 December 1979, the GeneralAssembly requested the Secretary-General, with the assistanceof qualified governmental experts, to carry out a comprehensivestudy assessing current institutional requirements and futureestimated needs in the United Nations management of disarmamentaffairs and outlining possible functions, structure and institu-tional framework that could meet those requirements and needs,including legal and financial implications, and formulatingrecommendations for possible later decisions on the matter.The Assembly, furthermore, recommended that the Secretary-General,in carrying out the study, should seek the views of Member States,for the benefit of the experts, on some key issues such asdesirable functions, structure and institutional framework ofUnited Nations management of disarmament affairs and invitedall Governments to co-operate with the Secretary-General sothat the objectives of the study may be achieved.

In pursuance of the resolution, the Group of GovernmentalExperts to Study the Institutional Arrangements relating to theProcess of Disarmament, was appointed by the Secretary-Generalin consultation with Member States. The Secretary-General,shortly thereafter, sought the views of Member States, forthe benefit of the experts, on certain issues relating tothe study.

In carrying out its work, the Group of Governmental Expertsheld four sessions between January 1980 and June/July 1981 duringwhich time it undertook a comprehensive examination of the subjectmatter under study.

The Secretary-General wishes to thank the experts for thereport which was endorsed by consensus and which he herebysubmits to the General Assembly at its thirty-sixth sessionfor consideration.

The Secretary-General takes Mote of the fact that in- assessingcurrent institutional retirements and futuresestimated^needs inthe United Nations management/of disarmament affairs the expertsexpressed various views and\aavanced a number or\sjsrecific proposalson which, however, the Groupxlid not take a position of its own.In this connexion he would likeNto point out tjrat rn the complexfield of disarmament matters in many instances he is\ ot in aposition to pass judgement on all aspects 91 the work accomplishedby the experts. /

U N I T E D N A T I O N S N A T I O N S U N I E S

POSTAL ADDRESS ADRES5E POSTALE: UNITED NATIONS,. N . Y. 10OI7

REFERENCE: 2 July 1981

Sir,

I have the honour to submit herewith the study prepared bythe Group of Governmental Experts to Study the InstitutionalArrangements relating to the Process of Disarmament which wasappointed by you in pursuance of paragraph 1 of General Assemblyresolution 34/87 E of 11 December 1979.

The Experts appointed by you were the following:

Argentina

China

Cuba

France

Ambassador Carlos Ortiz de RozasAmbassador of Argentina to the United KingdomLondon

Mr. Yang HushanCounsellorPermanent Mission of the People's Republicof China to the United Nations

New York

Ambassador Carlos Lechuga-HeviaDirector of International OrganizationsMinistry of External RelationsVedado-Havana

Mr. Benoit d'AbovilleHead of Disarmament DepartmentMinistry of Foreign AffairsParis

German Democratic Ambassador Ferdinand ThunRepublic Ministry For Foreign Affairs

Berlin

India

Japan

Mr. Sushi 1 DubeyDirectorMinistry of External AffairsNew Delhi

Mr. Tsutomu IshiguriDisarmament Division of the United Nations BureauMinistry of Foreign AffairsTokyo

His ExcellencyMr. Kurt WaldheimSecretary-General of theUnited Nations


Kenya

Mexico

Morocco

Netherlands

Nigeria

Poland

Senegal

Sri Lanka

Sweden

Ambassador Charles Gatere MainaPermanent Representative of the Republic of Kenyato the United Nations

New York

Miss Alicia CabreraMinister CounsellorDeputy Permanent Delegate of Mexico to UNESCOParis

Mr. Sidi Mohamed RahhaliCounsellorPermanent Mission of the Kingdom of Moroccoto the United Nations

New York

Mr. P. H. KooijmansProfessor of International LawState University of LeydenLeyden

Mr. B. A. AdeyemiMinisterPermanent Mission of Nigeria to the United NationsNew York

Mr. Henryk PacAdviser to the Minister for Foreign AffairsMinistry for Foreign AffairsDepartment of International Organizations, Warsaw

Mr. Ibrahima SyCounsellorPermanent Mission of the Republic of Senegalto the United Nations

Geneva

Ambassador A.C.H. MohamedMinistry for Foreign AffairsColombo

Mr. Rolf BjornerstedtChairman of the Governing BoardStockholm International Peace Research InstituteStockholm


-3-

USSR

United Kingdom

Mr. Vladimir ShustovEnvoy Extraordinary and Minister PlenipotentiaryDeputy Permanent Representative of the Union ofSoviet Socialist Republics to the United Nations

New York

Mr. Roy DeanDirectorArms Control and Disarmament Research UnitForeign and Commonwealth OfficeLondon

USA Mr. Robert B. RosenstockAdviserUnited States Mission to the United NationsNew York

Yugoslavia Mr. Darko SilovicMinister CounsellorDeputy Permanent Representative of the SocialistFederal Republic of Yugoslavia to the UnitedNations

New York

From the first to the third session Mr. Fan Ta-chun,First Secretary, Permanent Mission of the People's Republic ofChina to the United Nations, New York, participated as an expertfrom China; at the first and second sessions, Mr. Tadayuki Nonoyama,Counsellor and Deputy Representative, Delegation of Japan to theCommittee on Disarmament, Geneva, participated as an expert fromJapan; at the first session Mr. Simon W.J. Fuller, First Secretary,Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland to the United Nations, New York, participatedas an expert from the United Kingdom, and, Mr. Miljenko Vukovic,Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Socialist Federal Republicof Yugoslavia to the United Nations, New York, participated as anexpert from Yugoslavia at the first and second sessions.

The study was prepared between April 198O and July 1981,during which period the Group held four sessions: from 8 to 11April 198O; 3O June to 3 July 1980; 19 to 29 January 1981 and 22 Juneto 2 July 1981 at United Nations Headquarters in New York.

The members of the Group of Governmental Experts wishto express their appreciation for the assistance which theyreceived from members-of the Secretariat of the United Nations.They wish, in particular, to convey their thanks toMr. Jan Martenson, Assistant Secretary-General, head of the


-4-

United Nations Centre for Disarmament and to Mr. Pal CsillagDirector and Chief of the Committee and Conference ServicesSection of the Centre for Disarmament, who served as Secretaryof the Group.

I have been requested by the Group of Governmental Experts,as its Chairman, to submit to you on its behalf this study,which was endorsed by consensus.

Yourls respectfully,

Carlos Ortiz de RozasChairman of the

Group of Governmental Expertsto Study the Institutional Arrangementsrelating to the Process of Disarmament

NOTE FOR THE SEttRSffARY-GENE

7The attached stud^f on the establish-

ment of an International Satellite

Monitoring Agency was prepared by a

group of experts appointed by you.

The study is based on a French

initiative. It contains a technical

assessment regarding the establishment,

operation and cost estimates for such

an agency. The report will be studied

by the Preparatory Committee for the

Second Special Session on Disarmament

which will then submit this proposal

with a recommendation to the Special

Session for consideration.

A summary of the report is enclosed.

Angela Knippenberg-Uther27 July 1981

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OBJET:



The Secretary-Gen*



R E C E I V E D

iJUL 2 21§81

DATE:



Ben SandersOf f icer-in-ChargeCentre for Disarmament

Study on the Establishment of an International SatelliteMonitoring Agency (Memorandum of 1O July 1981 from Mr. P. Csillaq)

1. The study on the establishment of an international satellitemonitoring agency was made by a group comprising technicalexperts, several diplomats and a lawyer. It also consultedspecialists from various research institutes. The resultingreport covers technical and legal aspects of the question andgives estimates of the costs of various approaches.

1 •—-.

2. The experts' main conclusion is that it__is technicallypossible to use satellites to gather information on compliancewrgh certain"arms control and disarmament agreements and tomonitor the development of international crises.Oh the basisof its review of available information (it is noted that the twopowers principally engaged with satellite monitoring - the USSRand the USA - did not participate), the group distinguishedthree possible stages in an international approach to satellitemonitoring:

—Phase I, in which the international agency would limititself to processing and interpreting data that wouldbe made available to it by governments;

—Phase II, in which the agency would have its ownstations to receive data from satellites operated byStates? and ~~

—Phase III, in which the agency would run its ownspace activities, including a number of satellites.

3. The group came to the conclusion that international law wouldnot prohibit an intergovernmental agency from carrying outmonitoring activities by satellites.

4. Since a number of technical options exist, cost estimatesvary. The group estimated that Phase I would cost approximately$8 million dollars for investment in various processing andanalyses systems and would cost $25-3O million dollars a yearto operate. Phase II might involve investments of $6Q-8'CrTnillionddTlars for ten receiving stations, which would cost~abo\rE~ 2Qmillion dollars a year to operate. The cost of Phase ITJCjmightrange from several hundred million__tg well over one billion~dollars.

-2-

5. The group examined a number of options for the statusof an international satellite monitoring agency and came tothe conclusion that if this is created it should be anindependent body, based on a treaty or convention, closelylinked with the United Nations and established through theGeneral Assembly.

6. The report outlines the steps that might be taken to giveeffect to various possibilities, without, however, makingspecific recommendations. It may be expected that the report,which has followed from a French initiative at the firstspecial session devoted to disarmament, will be the subjectof discussion and of further proposals at the second specialsession.

U N I T E D N A T I O N S ^jjgpj N A T I O N S U N I E S

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ~^~ MEMORANDUM INTERIEURn?/7

T0. The Secretary-General DATE. 14 July 1981A:

Mr. Viacheslav A. Ustinov *««*,>„•=TIEr E.RENC E:

THROUGH:

T JhUnder-Secretary-General for •/' . f ) «

S"C""DE": political and Security Council Affairs

Pal Csillag f ~\\FROM: officer-in-Charge I ^ .

Centre for Disarmament X -/~U

SUBJECT: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on ttie World Disarmament°BJET: Conference (Implementation of the Resolution 35/151)

1- The Ad Hoc Committee on the World Disarmament Conferenceheld its second session for this year between 6 to 1O July 1981and adopted by consensus its report to the thirty-sixth sessionof the General Assembly.

2. Due to the departure from New York of Ambassador N.Balasubramaniam (Sri Lanka), the Ad Hoc Committee elected asits new Chairman, Ambassador I.B. Ponseka (Sri Lanka).

3. During the course of the session, the Soviet Union andother Socialist States once again urged the convening of aworld disarmament conference at the earliest possible date afterthe second special session of the General Assembly devoted todisarmament. They held the view that this question should finda reflection in the work and decisions of the second specialsession and that the Disarmament Commission might take up thissubject in connexion with its recommendations and conclusions tobe presented in the Commission's report to the special session.China and the United States continued to maintain their previousnegative positions on the subject. The United Kingdom as wellas Prance, which previously supported in principle the concept ofholding a world disarmament conference, underlined the deteriora-tion of the international situation and doubted the usefulness ofpursuing the idea at this time. The views of the five nuclear-weapon States, as conveyed to the Chairman in the course of hiscontacts with the representatives of those States, are reflectedin the Committee's report.

4. The report also contains a number of conclusions andrecommendations which, inter alia, are as follows:

(a) The idea of a world disarmament conference hasreceived wide support by the membership of theUnited Nations, however, with varying degreesof emphasis and differences on conditions and

- 2 -

certain aspects related to the question ofits convening, including aspects related tothe deteriorating international situation;

(b) No consensus with respect to the convening of aworld disarmament conference under the presentconditions has yet been reached among thenuclear-weapon States whose participation insuch a conference has been deemed essential bymost States Members of the Organization;

(c) The General Assembly may wish to decide thatafter its second special session devoted todisarmament, a world disarmament conferencewould take place as soon as the necessaryconsensus on its convening has been reached; and

(d) The General Assembly may wish to renew the mandateof the Ad Hoc Committee.

UNITED H A T I O N S

G E N E R A L

A S S E M B L Yt-* i ^.

Distr.LIMITED

A/AC.167/L.25Q July 1981

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

AD HOC COIMTTEE OH THE WORLDDISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

DRAFT REPORT OF THE AD HOC COmiTTEE ON THET'fORLD DISARI-W-'lEHT CONFERENCE

CONTENTS

Paragraphs Page

Introduction .......................... 1 - U 2

I. l.'ork of the Committee ...... ........... °. . 5 - I1* 3

II. Conclusions and recommendations .............. 15-17 6

81-18351

A/AC.167/L.25rn^lishFa.pr.e 2

INTRODUCTION

1. 3y its resolution 35/151 of 12 December 1980, the General Assembly, inter alia,requested the Ad Hoc Committee on the World Disarmament Conference I/ to maintainclose contact with the representatives of the States possessing nuclear weapons inorder to remain currently informed of their attitudes, as well as with all otherStates, and to consider any possible relevant proposals and observations which mightbe made to the Committee, especially "bearing in mind paragraph 122 of the FinalDocument of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly (resolution S-10/2).The Assembly also requested the Committee to submit a report to the Assembly atits thirty-sixth session.

2. The elected officers of the Ad Hoc Committee were as follows:

Chairman: Mr. TTadarajah Balasubramaniam (Sri Lanka) and his successor,Mr. Ignatius Benedict Fonseka (Sri Lanka)

Vice-Chairmen: Mr. Juan Jose Calle y Calle (Peru)

Mr. Ryszard Frelek (Poland)

Mr. Artemon Simbananiye (Burundi)

Rapporteur: Mr. Fermin Zelada (Spain)

3. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics participated in the work of theCommittee by virtue of paragraph 3 of resolution 3133 (XXVIIl). Under the sameprovision, China, France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelandand the United States of America maintained contact with the Ad Hoc Committeethrough its Chairman. The German Democratic Republic and Viet Nam attendedmeetings of the Committee as observers.

U. The Working Group established in 197 - continued to function. At its56th meeting, on 6 April 1981, the Ad Hoc Committee decided to add Sri Lankato the membership of the Working Group. 2_/

I/ By its resolution 3183 (XXVIIl) of 18 December 1973, the General Assemblydecided that the Ad Hoc Committee should consist of the following ^0 non-nuclear-weapon Member States appointed by the President of the Assembly after consultationwith all regional groups: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria,Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Hungary, India,Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Liberia, "exico, Mongolia, Morocco,Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sri Lanka,Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire and Zambia.

2_/ The composition of the Working Group is as follows: Burundi, Egypt, Hungary,India, Iran, Italy, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Spain (Chairman) and Sri Lanka.Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia, theNetherlands and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics participated in the WorkingGroup as observers.

EnglishPage 3

I. WORK OF THE COMMITTEE

5. In accordance with its mandate mentioned in paragraph 1 above, the Ad HocCommittee held, two sessions in 1981.

6. During the first session, the Committee held two meetings on6 and 8 April 19 8l.

T. During the second session, the Committee held three meetings between6 and 10 July 1981. At the first meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee was informed thatH.E. Mr. N. Balasubramaniam (Sri Lanka) had completed his mission in New York andthus was unable to continue in his function as Chairman. The Committee,therefore, elected by acclamation H.E. Mr. I. B. Fonseka (Sri Lanka) as the newChairman. The Committee expressed its appreciation for the contribution madeto the work of the Ad Hoc Committee by Ambassador II. Balasubramaniam during hisChairmanship of the Committee.

8. During the two sessions, the representatives of the following States membersof the Ad Hoc Committee and observers made statements on the subject:Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland,Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Viet Nam.

9. Members of the Committee were fully aware of the positions previouslyexpressed by the Governments of other States on the convening of a world disarmamentconference .

10 . Members of the Ad Hoe Committee were aware of the fact that the idea ofconvening a world disarmament conference was recently recalled by the GeneralAssembly. In particular, resolution 35 A6 entitled "Declaration of the 1980sas the Second Disarmament Decade", under the subheading "Implementation, reviewand appraisal", recalls, inter alia, that the Final Document of the firstspecial session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament stated: "At theearliest appropriate timea a world disarmament conference should be convenedwith universal participation and with adequate preparation."

11. Some delegations expressed the view that the question of holding a worlddisarmament conference should find a reflection in the work and decisions of thesecond special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament and thatthe United Nations Disarmament Commission might take up this subject inconnexion with its recommendations and conclusions to be presented in theDisarmament Commission's report to the special session.

12. The Working Group held three meetings, on 8 and 9 July 1981 under theChairmanship of Mr. F. Zelada (Spain), and elaborated the draft of the report ofthe Ad Hoc Committee .

13. The Ad Hoc Committee, at its 60th meeting on 10 July 1981, considered andadopted its report, to be submitted to the General Assembly at its thirty-sixthsession.

A//C.167/L.25EnglishPage I

1 '•. In accordance with paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 35/151, theAc. Hoc Committee., through its Chairman, maintained close contact with therepresentatives of the nuclear-weapon States in order to remain currentlyinformed of their respective attitudes and obtained the following updatedindications of their positions.

China

The position of the Government of the People's Republic of China on thequestion of the World Disarmament Conference remains unchanged.

France

The French position with regard to the convening of a World DisarmamentConference has not changed since 1980. Having, in the past, adopted an attitudefavouring, in principle, the idea of a world disarmament conference which,after a period of adequate preparation, would be attended by, among others,the five nuclear-weapon Powers, France none the less recognizes that the presentinternational situation is not conducive to making real progress in consideringsuch an initiative.

France points out, moreover, that such an initiative should take into accountthe achievements of the 1978 first special session of the General Assembly devotedto disarmament and the conclusions which will emerge from the second specialsession to be held in 1982.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics^

The Soviet Union stands for the convening of the World Disarmament Conferenceon the presumption that this forum would constitute an important step towardsjoining in the efforts of States for the purpose of solving the key problem ofthe present time - the limitation of arms race and disarmament. The idea of holdingthe World Disarmament Conference has gained wide international support, inter alia,at the United TTations. It is witnessed, in particular by the Final Document ofthe first special session on disarmament, by the Declaration of the 1980s as theSecond Disarmament Decade, adopted by consensus, and by a series of otherresolutions of the General Assembly including resolution 35/151 of the thirty-fifthsession of the General Assembly.

In the opinion of the Soviet Union, the World Disarmament Conference proceedingon the basis of a detailed study of disarmament questions, could elaborateeffective approaches to the question of halting the arms race and realization ofreal disarmament. In the opinion of the Soviet Union the particular importanceand usefulness of this forum lies in the fact that the conference would adopt notmere recommendations but specific decisions, that the States would undertake toimplement.

A/AC.167/L.25EnglishPage 5

At the present tine preparations for the second special session on disarmamentare taking place at the United Nations. The Soviet Union believes that this sessioncan and should give a new impetus to negotiations on specific urgent problems ofarras race and disarmament. It is also important that it would become a milestonetowards the convening of the World Disarmament Conference. In the light of theprovision of the Final Document of the first special session on disarmamentconcerning the convening without delay of a World Disarmament Conference as wellas provisions of the resolution 35/151, adopted by the Assembly at its thirty-fifthsession, on the possibility of convening such a conference after the second specialsession on disarmament, the Soviet Union is of the opinion that during theforthcoming session it would be necessary to take such a decision that wouldcontribute to the practical realization of the above-mentioned recommendations.

"he international situation and the state of affairs in regard to thelimitation of the arms race urgently demand new, more decisive efforts en the partof the States in their all-out struggle to save mankind from the scourge of war.

Guided by its course of principle towards the strengthening of peace andcurbing the arms race, the Soviet Union is ready to facilitate in the mostactive way the achievement of the real disa.rmament.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Government of the United Kingdom maintains the view that, in the light ofthe deterioration in the international situation over the last two years, it isnot useful to continue to consider for the time being the idea of a WorldDisarmament Conference. Accordingly, the United Kingdom doubts the usefulnessof the A.d Hoc Committee on the World Disarmament Conference continuing to meet,and in any event does not think it appropriate for the Committee to undertakeany substantive work at this stage.

United States of America

The United States continues to believe that it is premature to set a dateand begin preparations for the convening of a world disarmament conference. Asnoted in the United States ' views contained most recently in the 1980 reportto the General Assembly of the Ad Hoc Committee on the World Disarmament Conference,the United States believes there is insufficient political agreement on the issueswhich would presumably be addressed at such a conference. This lack of agreementwould probably hinder rather than assist efforts to reach concrete and verifiablearms control measures.

A/AC.loT/L.25EnglishPage 6

II. CONCLUSIONS AI'TD RECOM*'iE?!DATIO:TS

15. The Ad Hoc Committee reiterated that the idea of a world disarmamentconference has received wide support by the membership of the United Nations,however, with varying degrees of emphasis and differences on conditions andcertain aspects related to the question of its convening, including aspectsrelated to the deteriorating international situation. It was also evident fromthe updated indications of positions of the nuclear-weapon States, as reflectedin paragraph 1^ of this report, some of which confirm certain elements requiringcareful consideration by the Ad Hoc Committee, that no consensus with respectto the convening of a world disarmament conference under the present conditionshas yet been reached among the nuclear-weapon States whose participation in sucha conference has been deemed essential by most States Members of the Organization.

16. Having regard for the important requirements of a world disarmamentconference to be convened at the earliest appropriate time, with universalparticipation and with adequate preparation, the General Assembly may wishto decide that after its second special session devoted to disarmament, a worlddisarmament conference would take place as soon as the necessary consensuson its convening has been reached.

17. The General Assembly may wish to renew the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee andto request it to continue to maintain close contact with the representatives of thenuclear-weapon States in order to remain currently informed of their attitudes,as well as with all other States, and to consider any relevant comments andobservations which might be made to the Committee.

AKU/atk cc: SC7 File: Disarm. Gen.Vx xRef: Comm. Disarm.


Mr. Pal Csillag, Officer-in-charge 13 July 19G1


Mr. V.A.Ustinov, Under-Secretary-General forPolitical and Security Council Affairs

Kafeeuddin Ahmed, Chef de CabinetOffice of the Secretary-General

Swedish request for an pn-camera statementby the Secretary-General

With reference to your memorandum of

10 July 1931 on the above subject, please

proceed as proposed.

TO:

THROUGH:3/0 DE:

FROM:DE:






~7~

1O Jul'

Mr. Viacheslav A. UstinovUnder-Secretary-General for Political andSecurity Council Affairs

C\P. Csillag, Officer-in-Chargel |^ '' tCentre for Disarmament V_>"VA U_«j

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT: Swedish request for an on-camera statementOBJET: by the Secretary-General

1. The Permanent Mission of Sweden communicated to the Centre thatthe Swedish experts participating in the Ad Hoc Group of SeismicExperts to Consider International Co-operative Measures to Detectand Identify Seismic Events intend to present, at the 3-15 Augustmeeting of the Group a video film describing the activities of aninternational seismic data network.

2. It is requested that the film which is under preparation beconcluded by a one-minute statement by the Secretary-General relatingto its subject. The recording, for technical reasons, would have tobe made not later than 16 July 1981.

3 . The Ad Hoc Group of Seismic Experts has been active for severalyears under the aegis of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament(CCD) and continues presently its work under the aegis of the Committeeon Disarmament (CD) . It has presented several reports to the Committeein connexion with possible international co-operative measures witha view to preparing for an international element in the verificationof a comprehensive test ban. It may be noted that the Group'sactivities are generally supported by all members of the CD. Inthe absence of concrete negotiations on the Comprehensive Test BanTreaty (CTB) within the CD, however, the role of an internationalsystem for the detection and identification of seismic eventsremains to be clarified. Various views continue to be expressed onthis subject in the Committee.

4. In the above circumstances, it would seem unusual for theSecretary-General to be party to a national contribution whichmight create an impression that he endorses a particular point ofview that would necessarily be subject to negotiations if and whenthey are started.

5. In order to indicate the clear and strong support of theSecretary-General for the conclusion of a CTB, the Swedish producerscould be encouraged to use in the narrative part of their filmstatements of the Secretary-General on the subject which are onthe record.

MJS/ET ccry^Gb/f: RA/AR/MKP/LCC/GMM/AKU/AFFile: Misc. Orgs. "I l-\Xref: Japan / (

V /1 July 1931

Dear Mr. Oishi,

On. ray return to United Nations Headquarters

from an extended mission overseas, I should like to

thank you for the letter and enclosed material on

the Japanese Parliamentary Association for the

Promotion of International Disarmament which you

gave to rcia during n\y visit to Tokyo last rr.onth. It

was a great pleasure to roast with you and your

parliamentary colleagues on that occasion.

I was most interested to near of the establish-

ment and the objectives of your association and found

our discussions useful and rewarding. As you know, I

am deeply concerned about the lack of progress in dis-

armament and I welcome your cojonitmerit to this goal

and to the United stations' efforts in this vitally

important field. I also vary ir.uch appreciated your

expression of support for ray continuing endeavours

for the maintenance of world paace.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely.

Kurt Waldheim

Mr. Buiciii Oishi

^ssociaticn for the Promotion "•*• • • -»• ' - - "<< --;,•- ..of International Disamiax:;ent

T o k y o

Japanese Parliamentary Association for thePromotion of International Disarmament

June 9, 1981

Sir:We welcome Your Excellency's visit to Japan, Taking

this opportunity, we have the honour to inform you of theinauguration, on 13 May 1981, of the Japanese ParliamentaryAssociation for the Promotion of International Disarmament.

Our Parliamentary Association is made up of membersrepresenting all the political parties from both Houses ofthe Diet. The present membership is 181 out of a totalof 763 Japanese parliamentarians. A party-by-party break-down of our membership is enclosed herewith, as well asthe Statement of Purpose.

We believe the world is on the verge of falling intoa serious military crisis. We hope that we will be ableto contribute to the ongoing efforts of the United Nationsin the field of arms control and disarmament, so as toensure the future peace and security of all nations.

We fully support your tireless efforts in the main-tenance of world peace and wish to add our voice to thatof the United Nations, that the scourge of war be erasedfrom the face of the earth.

Very truly yours,

Buichi OishiMember, House of CouncilorsChairman, Japanese ParliamentaryAssociation for the Promotion ofInternational Disarmament

His Excellency Dr. Kurt WaldheimSecretary-Generalof the United Rations

Japanese Parliamentary Association for thePromotion of International Disarmament

Statement of Purpose

Today, international arms control and disarmament isan urgent issue for global peace and security. The super-powers and other countries have maintained their securitysolely "by the "balance of arms expansion. We must recognizethe fact that, as a result, the global accumulation ofweapons, particularly nuclear weapons, has swelled to anextraordinary extent. This situation constitutes a gravethreat to mankind. Historically, arms control and disarma-ment has been a difficult problem, but not an impossibleone.

We would like to recall once again the purpose andspirit of the United Nations as expressed in the followingwords of the Charter.

We the peoples of the United Nations are determinedto save succeeding generations from the scourge ofwar, which twice in our lifetime has brought untoldsorrow to mankind...

We are convinced that the restoration of international trust,the suspension of the arms race, and the achievement of armscontrol and disarmament will not only be in the political andeconomic interests of all countries and peoples, but will alsocontribute to real peace and security in the future,

Japan is the only country to have experienced the ravagesof nuclear weapons, undoubtedly the principal weapon to beused in any future full-scale war. Therefore, we as Japaneseparliamentarians feel a special responsibility to tackle thisproblem. Gathering together with like-minded parliamentariansof all political parties, we plan both research and action toseek peace and security through international arms control anddisarmament.

Party-by-Party Breakdown of the Membership of the JapaneseParliamentary Association for the Promotion of InternationalDisarmament (as of 6 June 1981)

LOWER UPPERPARTY HOUSE HOUSE TOTAL

Liberal Democratic Party 45 24 69

Japan Socialist Party 37 17 54Komeito 8 5 13Democratic Socialist Party 7 4 11Japan Communist Party 7 3 10N e w Liberal Club 7 0 7United Social Democratic Party 3 3 6Shinsei Club ' 0 4 4Niin Club 0 3 3Ichinokai 0 3 3Independent 1 0 1

TOTAL 115 66 181

Speech Given By Tokuma Utsunomiya, Representing the FoundingMembers, at the Inaugural Meeting of the Japanese ParliamentaryAssociation for the Promotion of International Disarmament,13 May 1981

The present world situation is indeed in disorder. TheU.S.-Soviet arms race has escalated, although "both sides claimthey are trying to deter war. Even so, no one can say for surethat war will not "break out. There is no way of knowing whenthe frequent occurence of localized war, fought with conventionalweapons, will lead to nuclear war, "because it is generally assumedthat a preemptive strike gives one the decisive advantage in anuclear war.

The peoples of all countries involved in contemporary warsuffer greatly, whether in victory or defeat. Large-scale warcan lead even to the destruction of mankind. To ensure thecontinued existence of the human race, we must curb the presenttrend of arms expansion and potential war, irrespective of differ-ences in race, ideology, religion or class. Therefore, ourJapanese Parliamentary Association for the Promotion of Inter-national Disarmament transcends such differences,

Japanese are the only people to have suffered the miseryof atomic "bombing. Our Peace Constitution has become widelyaccepted because we have learned intimately the folly of wagingwar.

I believe the time has come once again for Japanese politicalleaders to make a fresh determination not to subject the people —and this includes those with no war experience — to that tragedyagain. Furthermore, as the only people to have been atomic-bombed,we have both the moral right and duty to prevent nuclear war inall areas of the world.

Especially considering geography and industrial structure,the injury done to the Japanese people in a full-scale war wouldbe incalculable. Among the misfortunes suffered by people aresickness, poverty and fire, although these can all be overcomethrough individual efforts. The calamity of war can only beprevented by national leaders.

It is beyond human power to prevent natural disasters.But since war is caused by governments, it can be prevented bygovernment leaders, and only by government leaders.

The supra-partisan Japanese Parliamentary Association forthe Promotion of International Disarmament, created by all ofyour efforts, is the first of its kind. Our purpose is to purgenuclear weapons and war from the world through arms reduction. Thiswould also help to ease economic privation caused by resourcesbeing assigned excessively to military production.

I firmly believe we will receive the understanding and support,not only of the Japanese people, but of all the peoples.of theworld. We must make unremitting efforts to that end.

ROUTING SLIP FICHE DE TRANSMISSION

iz-CHtl £^A tilRoom No. VNo de bureau

FOR ACTION

FOR APPROVAL

FOR SIGNATURE

FOR COMMENTS

MAY WE DISCUSS?

YOUR ATTENTION

AS DISCUSSED

AS REQUESTED

NOTE AND RETURN

FOR INFORMATION

Extension - Poste Dat<Wl^ / f

POUR SUITE A/DONNEB'

POUR APPROBATION/

POUR SIGNATURE /

POUR OBSERVATIONS

POURRIONS-NOUS EN PARLER ?

VOTRE ATTENTION

COMME CONVENU

SUITE A VOTRE DEMANDE

NOTER ET RETOURNER

POUR INFORMATION

COM.6 (2-78)

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OBJET:





MEMORANDUM INTER1EUR

DATE: 26 June 1981

REFERENCE:

Mr. Martenson, \0w\ HOfficer-in-ChSrVeDepartmentxof Political and Security

Council AfJEazrs

Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East

1. The New York Times of 24 June 1981 contains excerpts froma speech by President Saddam Hussein of Iraq in which he says,inter alia, that the Arabs should be assisted "in one way oranother to obtain the nuclear bomb in order to confront Israelis,existing bomb". The President was quoted as having said thatnuclear weapons in Arab hands were essential for world peace andsecurity and that it would be a rational move for the Arabs toacquire a bomb which he is said to have described as "a remedyfor an existing situation in Israel". President Hussein is furtherreported to have said that in 1979 Iraq had had discussions withfriendly countries about supplying a weapon that could ward off anexpected Israeli attack on its nuclear reactor. According to TheNew York Times he neither identified the countries nor the weapons.

2. In this context it may be noted that The New York Times of25 June 1981 quotes former Israeli Defence and Foreign MinisterMoshe Dayan as having said that Israel had developed the capabilityto produce nuclear weapons and that it could manufacture bombs 'ina short time1 should ;the Arabs do so. Mr. Dayan specifically saidthat Israel did not have any atomic bomb at present but did havethe capability to produce nuclear weapons.

3. It may be noted in this context that the experts studyingthe Israel nuclear armament, in the report which will shortly reachyou say, inter alia, that they are unable to conclude definitivelywhether or not Israel is at present in the possession of nuclearweapons but emphasize that they do not doubt that Israel, if it hasnot already crossed the nuclear threshhold has the capability tomanufacture nuclear weapons within a very short time.

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:




Mr. Mikhail D. SytenkoUnder-Secretary-General for

Political and Security

Pal CsillagOfficer-dischargeCentre for Disarmament



SUBJECT: Disarmament Commission session ofOBJET:

L981

1. The Disarmament Commission concluded its three week sessionon Friday 5 June after having adopted its report to the thirty-sixth session. In that report the Disarmament Commission maderecommendations on the substantive items of the agenda (attached)which reflected divergence of views and positions. Below is abrief discussion of the work of the Commission:

2. Item 4: The consideration of this item was objected to bythe United States and some Western countries on the ground thatit had already been considered in 198O by the Commission whichmade recommendations thereon to the thirty-fifth session of theGeneral Assembly. However, the priority accorded to nucleardisarmament, and the lack of progress in that area, were consideredby the non-aligned countries an essential reason to keep thequestion under consideration. The recommendations which were theresult of arduous negotiations and were not much different fromthose adopted in 198O, were adopted by consensus from which theUnited States disassociated itself.

3. Item 5: Under resolution 35/142 A, the Commission continuedconsideration of the item. In addition to the principles proposedby Romania and Sweden, other principles were drawn from the repliesof member States to the note verbale of the Secretary-General onthe subject, as well as from other working papers prepared duringthe session. This multitude of proposals which were at timesoverlapping and conflicting could not be negotiated and agreed onin the time available. Therefore, the Commission recommended thatthe item be considered again at its next substantive session.

4. Item 6; This item was included in the agenda in accordancewith resolution 35/156 A, which, inter alia, requested theCommission to work out the general approach, structure and scopeof a study on all aspects of the conventional arms race. In additionto the Danish proposed guidelines of the study, India, the GermanDemocratic Republic and several other delegations submitted writtenand oral proposals which would have made the scope and structure

- 2 -

of the study much wider and more global in character than wasoriginally proposed. For this reason, it was not possible toagree on the guidelines which, under resolution 35/156 A, wereto be submitted to the Secretary-General for transmittal to agroup of experts. Instead, the Commission adopted a recommendationthat member States should give the matter further consideration.

5. Item 9; In the context of the consideration of this item,the non-aligned countries circulated a document (A/CN.1O/3O)recommending, inter alia, that the Commission keep the questionunder continuous review. The working paper was negotiated in adrafting group which produced a text (A/CN.1O/CRP.18) that couldnot be agreed on by consensus in the Commission because the UnitedStates, supported by the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic ofGermany took the position that that paper contained controversialissues and could not therefore be included in the report of theCommission. In view of this lack of consensus, the Commissionrecommended that both the working paper of the non-aligned countriesas well as the negotiated text be included as annexes to the report.

6. As before, the Commission is expected to hold a shortorganizational session to elect a new bureau and consider itsprogramme of work of the next substantive session.

7. During this three week meeting, the Commission had toconsider a larger number of items than at previous sessions. Thedifficulties of this session may to a large extent be attributedto the present international situation which was not helpful toachieve consensus on sensitive disarmament issues.

UNITED N A T I O N S

G E N E R A L

A S S E

Distr.GENERAL

A/AC.206/IHF.2/Rev.12 June 1981

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE" SECONDSPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLYDEVOTED,. TO DISARMAMENT

PROVISIONAL LIST OF DELEGATIONS

Algeria

Argentina

Delegations of Member States appointed in accordance withparagraph 1 of General Assembly resolution 35AT

H.E. M. Mohammed BedjaouiAmbassador Extraordinary and PlenipotentiaryPermanent Representative to the United Nations

Mr. Djamal OurabahMinister PlenipotentiaryPermanent Mission

Mr. M'named AchacheAssistant Director for the United Nations

and Disarmament AffairsMinistry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Lahcene MoussaouiCounsellorPermanent Mission

i'lr. Santos Nestor MartinezMinister PlenipotentiaryDeputy Permanent Representative, to theUnited Nations \

Mr. Vicente Espeche GilCounsellorPermanent Mission

81-1U600

(<

Secretary-General

I attach for your information a background paper on the

question of deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe,

which Mr* Sutterlin wrote and which you might wish to

read on the aeroplane. As is pointed out in this paper,

there is indeed some confusion in the terminology used

for European nuclear forces, which the paper tries to

explain.

GMM23.5.81

Nuclear Weapons in Europe

.' C

•Definitions

Nuclear weapons can/

'be-<tivided into tnreia^categories accordii

to range: 1) inter-continental or strategic? 2)' battlefield or

tactical and 3) further than battlefield but less than inter-

continental. The third category is referred to in NATO countries

as Long-Range Theater Nuclear Forces or sometimes simply as Theater

Nuclear Forces. The Soviet Union refers to these weapons as Medium-

Range Nuclear Missiles. One other term that is frequently used in

this context is Forward Based Systems. These are American nuclear

weapons deployed in Europe with a possible strategic role.

Background

The United States maintains land-based missiles and nuclear-

capable aircraft in Europe which are committed to NATO defense.

While deployed in agreement with the host country they are kept

under a double-key system so that they can never be used without

American participation. The warheads are American. In the 195O's

these weapons included a number of relatively primitive missiles

with the capability of reaching Soviet territory. These were

replaced in the early 196O's by more modern missiles of shorter

range which could not reach the Soviet Union. The nuclear-capable

American bombers stationed in Europe since the 195O's have the

capacity, with in-flight refueling, to reach Soviet targets but

they are vulnerable to Soviet air-defense systems. The UK and France

each maintains an independent nuclear capacity.

Matching the United States, the USSR deployed on Soviet

territory (probably in the 195O's) nuclear missiles with a capability

of reaching Western Europe. Subsequently such missiles were also

deployed in East Germany and possibly other Warsaw Pact countries.

Soviet nuclear-capable bombers had a theoretical capacity during

this period to reach parts, but probably not all, of Western Europe.

This European-theater nuclear balance remained relatively

stable during the sixties and the first half of the seventies.

However, in the second half of the last decade the USSR began to

deploy a new missile in Western Russia called the SS-2O, a mobile

- 2 -

system with three multi-targeted, highly accurate warheads on each

missile and extended range which President Carter termed "an

enormous advance over two 'previous generations of Soviet missile

weaponry in both quantitative and qualitative terms". The SS-2O's

are believed to be targeted on Western Europe and have the capacity

to reach all parts of Western Europe, including the UK, from

deployments well behind the Soviet frontier. During the same

period the Soviet Union introduced a new medium-range nuclear-

capable bomber known in the West as "Backfire" which brought all

of Western Europe into easier bomber range. The SS-2O's do not

have the capability of reaching the United States. Some American

experts believe that the Backfire bomber could reach the US with

in-flight refueling but not from bases in Western Russia.

In response to what in the West was perceived, in Secretary

of State Vance's words, as "a drive toward nuclear preponderance in

Europe"., the NATO countries in December 1979 decided to "modernize"

NATO theater nuclear forces through the addition of 108 Pershing II

ballistic missiles and 464 ground-launched cruise missiles. All of

the Pershing II missiles and 112 cruise missiles are to be stationed

in the FRG. The remaining cruise missiles will be divided among

other NATO countries (besides the FRG, only the UK and Italy have

so far definitely agreed to accept them). The US will retain sole

control of launching but not of targeting. Both the Pershing II

and the cruise missiles, while classified as theater nuclear weapons,

can reach Soviet territory. Thus for the first time since the 195O's

western areas of the USSR will be within the range of land-based

American nuclear missiles deployed in Europe. American bombers

stationed in Europe have long had this capability but cruise missiles

are expected to be much more impervious to Soviet air defense. NATO

announced that parallel with these modernization measures arms

control efforts should be pursued based on five principles: 1) limit-

ations on US systems "principally designed for theater missions"

should be accompanied by appropriate limitations on Soviet theater

systems; 2) limitations should be negotiated bilaterally between

- 3 -

the US and the USSR; 3) the "immediate" objective should be mutual

limitations, thus implying that negotiations on complete removal of

long-range theater nuclear weapons (or mid-range in Soviet terminology)

could only come later; 4) any agreement must be based on equality;

and 5) agreements must be adequately verifiable.

The Soviet reaction to the NATO move has been strong and '

s.stained. President Brezhnev asserted/that "the number of medium-

range carriers of nuclear arms on the territory of the European

part of the Soviet Union has not been increased by a single missile,

by a single plane during the past ten years. On the contrary, the

number of launchers and also the yield of nuclear charges of these

missiles have even been somewhat diminished". He indicated that

the USSR would be prepared to reduce the number of medium-range

nuclear means deployed in Western Russia "but, of course, only in

the event that no additional medium-range nuclear means are deployed

in Western Europe". He did not specify whether the Soviet "medium-

range nuclear means" could include the SS-2O or the Backfire bomber.

More recently, at the 26th Congress of the CPSU, Brezhnev proposed

"a moratorium now on the deployment in Europe of new medium-range

nuclear missile facilities of the NATO countries and the USSR —

in other words to freeze both quantitatively and qualitatively the

existing level of such facilities, including, of course, the forward

based facilities of the United States in the region. This moratorium

would come into effect as soon as negotiations on this subject

commence and would be effective until a permanent treaty on limitation

or, even better, on reduction of such nuclear facilities in Europe

is concluded". The Western powers immediately rejected the idea of

a moratorium on the ground that this would leave the Soviet side in

a position of permanent superiority. They reaffirmed, however,

their 1979 decision in favor of negotiations parallel with implemen-

tation of the NATO modernization program.

The NATO powers do not deny the Soviet claims that the number

of Soviet launchers in Western Russia has been reduced. They contend

that this is misleading, however, since the number of warheads has

been increased, as has accuracy, range and mobility. In response to

Soviet charges that the new NATO weapons introduce a dangerous new

- 4 -

factor because of their ability to reach Soviet targets, the

Western Powers respond that they will all be within range of

the highly accurate SS-20's which are deployed on Soviet

territory.

Prospects

The United States has indicated the intention to begin

negotiations with the Soviet Union before the end of the year "on

Theater Nuclear Forces arms control within the SALT framework".

Secretary Haig will discuss the timing and procedures for such

negotiations with Foreign Minister Gromyko in September at the

United Nations. It is not clear whether the Soviet side will

insist on a moratorium on further deployments as a condition

for negotiations but there have been indications that it will

not. Thus the prospects of negotiations despite the current

tension in US-Soviet relations are good. But the problems inherent

in the negotiations are formidable, possible insuperable.

There are two basic potential or existing asymmetries in

the NATO and Warsaw Pact nuclear postures in Europe. First,

United States missiles deployed in Europe as theater nuclear

weapons will have the capacity to reach some parts of the Soviet

Union while Soviet medium-range missiles do not have the

capacity to reach the USA. While not entirely new, this difference

will be much enhanced by the NATO modernization program. This

blurs the distinction between strategic and theater nuclear

weapons for negotiating purposes. (In the past US forward

based systems were excluded from the SALT negotiations.)

Secondly, France and the UK have independent nuclear forces

of increasing theater capacity and with the theoretical possibility

of reaching Soviet territory especially with submarine launched

missiles. While the UK force is NATO-committed and the French

is not, both countries wish to retain a national nuclear force.

No Warsaw Pact country other than the USSR has a nuclear capacity.

Because of these asymmetries it will be difficult to define the

precise subject of negotiation between the US and the USSR and

while the objective of establishing a verifiable theater nuclear

parity is clear the problems of equating essentially dissimilar

systems are certain to be of extraordinary complexity.

- 5 -

The negotiating prospects are further complicated by the

uncertain future of the SALT II Agreement, which is directly

relevant to an agreement on theater nuclear weapons, and by the

American - now NATO - policy of linking negotiations with the

Soviet Union to Soviet behavior. Finally, time is running short.

At the time of the 1979 NATO decision to modernize theater nuclear

weapons it was estimated that three years would be required before

the Pershing II deployment could begin (probably somewhat longer

for the cruise missiles). This would mean that by the time US-

Soviet negotiations really get underway, the Pershing II deployment

may be close and the SS-2O deployment may have been practically

completed. Probably the best that can be hoped for from the

negotiations is restabilization of parity in Europe at a higher

level of weapons technology and even that will take a very long

time to achieve.

Summary of NATO-Communique - Rome, 5 May 1981

•«v Allies I reaffirm the need for alliance to guarantee the security ofits memberSjE*and foster stable international rp]i|.pions. USSR's

out by its deeds;ftangible signs that the USSR:

'discio tinue its disturbing build-up of military strength;desist from use of force and intimidation; andcease exploiting situations of crisis in the third world;

-/they condemn Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan andcall for withdrawal of forces and a political settlement;

- East-West co-operation on the basis of Helsinki Final Act is severelyundermined by use or threat of force for intervention in othercountries. Poland must be left free to resolve its own problems andintervention would have gravest consequences;

- Allies will therefore strengthen their capability to deter aggression;

- over-all military balance between NATO and Warsaw Pact is fundamentalto maintenance of security and peace;

- Allies will maintain dialogue with USSR and work for genuine detente,whenever Soviet behaviour makes this possible. They reaffirm supportfor French proposal of European disarmament conference;

- Allies support negotiations to achieve meaningful restraints onSoviet military power; they stress the value of stabilizing equitableand verifiable arms control through limitations on Soviet and USstrategic arms;

- Allies taking part in Vienna negotiations on mutual and balancedforce reductions reaffirm their determination to achieve genuinemanpower parity in the form of a common collective ceiling;

reaffirm their commitment to NATO decision of December 1979 onSncf-range nuclear forces modern iz at ion... in, Europe. In view of Sovietriff mif*" TT~ rr —"-"-" " --T- •"****•*'- ~*-~ • i --•- - --•-•\«i;-,;«. •-•• -'*• -•-*•", f-i.f.- • <...-. ..,.1., •-•-..>.,. ... .;-,,.....;_. ._..•« . -iil.~ •-'•'•"•" ' - L-" "•' " ' •*- ' '

_ oeriority in this field due to actual and planned SS-20 deployments,modernization of NATO forces offers the only realistic basis forparallel nuclear forces arms control in Europe.

Soviet threats and efforts to divide Allies have only strengthenedresolve to take steps necessary to maintain det j~r-ence and insuresecurity. Soviet proposal for moratorium on IpfagXrange nuclear forcesin. .Europe is wholly unaccepta&IeT"as i w6ul<£ Ereeze ' the Allies into^ —1——-™.*. --•_••• ' 'J- •-••• «Wb«w»Jfcn--«»«*. ' '

inferiority;\ *

Allies welcome intentions of US to begin negotiations with the SovietUnion on nuclear forqes arms control in Europe within the SALTWsww-- ..... •-"-••• --~,-<-r~.*™-T~~~a.,~~.-"~<-~-»~-"*~--« ............. --------- ....... --•• . C

framework by end of year.

AKU/14 May 1981

Note: The term "theatre nuclear forces" which is repeatedly usedin the NATO communiqu^ refers to those weapons that arestationed in Europe. The term derives from the expression"European war theatre"..

ti*f*«taai&**itf**tttt te a ;iw *. - '":f':''''~'Sf-!-- "•-'•."•" .."'-.i-r--..f.v ••-•-•••I—" •

leS! Z 7 23: 12

V .','

1o x- h_ I - cj-

i _

c l L - e r'f:& Lrc-.in Lr. s i;'-.c U-:cing f ir^riios,1 t!:e 3;-c.PCr; for1 ;-ec-.C£f LI I' so U: tions >

^f ti.c a. L Lii.-.ric-s r'iiiit-.ii'i iiidisrei"iSa-^ Leiti i'i• .z.':•;:'•• •:-:rs c.nc; ".;;irs;.'y to 'foster •

~s.. this 5tc.L'iL'ity rec;Liires thar aLL":' r^sr-onaicd-lity . . - c Lt.i.iiS L'y the' sov^e'

i.;;U '. O,. L-j '

.; vu I/ -.» : -w.v,

•relation's, v-rene\'erprircip.Les r..fid rro-islons

pos-si'-le. trie;f the helsinki final act pro-ic^ce -observed by all the. sic:no ;.„ri.es .

pb tr.e allies ' reaffirm their suppor t ' f or the frencn proposal•'for' a "conference ,on: disarmament in europe3

p ' t b v allies support negotiations to achieve meaningful restraints

i;'thi -p'ollcy is a stable, military balance, if possible at reducedvc; 'p ' vO « . '

•t e allies str'ess the vo.lue of stabilizing equitable and verifiableam .'corytrcl through limitations on Sovie ts and u.s. b traregie arms.

• eductions contini.;e in their determination •;-

• • ' t h e .allies w h o participated i n .the december 1^/9 nato decisiono,n /lo'nd' rang.e ' theater nuclear forces modernization and ar;:;S •• •control reaff irmed their coiririt.^ent to that decision., tneei'iphaoioed • th'at in light of incna,sing .soviet long rage tiieamer,ruo.lear -force? deployment?, v/hich in. the case of the ss-2'j alreadyexceec- t-i".e to.tal .long rage theater nuclear forces deploymentplanned by nato,. ' the. nodernizing of nato's. long-rage tneacer

.ru^clear forces is more ossential than 'and o f fers she only realistic•'-as' i 's•• for paralel theater nuclear forces arms control,,

oince the cecomber ' 1o7y decision, soviet threats and ef forts to:d;i\'ide -f.he allies have only st rong thrnod their reso lve to take' theysfeps necessary i;c -maintain deterrence, redress the imbalancej-i: ^o;ng— range theater nuclear forces t et":c:. insiire tneir s e o u r ^ ~ y «latest ,ao>'iet p ro fosa l for a moratorium on long-range tneaternL:clear forces dep-loyments Is v/holly unacceptable to these allies,it vou Id freeze th.em'into inferiority by blocking ti:e natomodernisation program al together, moreover he proposal v/o- ;U; p'er/i;it':the\ Soviets to increase the 'threat -to na-t-o by failinc; i;o li;::iu.systems, capable of 'Striking a lied terri tory from easu of \ \ - . ^ urals.

r:ego:-iati:'ns. vitii the soviet iinion on theoter ni.-c lea.r1 forces aioiis

.am.erican secretary' of s t a t e intends to discuss the timing an;.:

^: ' /• '• ' - v r.: -L- '-r'. •':''-. .--j'ryi. -• n .*• J.- •}- !-.,-,.- ^— •.' • ' • - •'- -i - *- - -. -— • , •' } I ,-••. •. ! ••=. . IL. I-'' C ;.';•—'.•-: .l.ivr/L. W C i O « ... •, I .L O" - : V. !^ '. .' 0 „: C'. '.•_'.,: •-. • '. >. L. L I ~: Vj

1

e-cc' thanks c^C bob!

i r*

-s

i 'i-

-; \ ^n<> J^;-H,. ^^ -1 i , " . ' • " > - * • • • '"^Vsf%;

' ." * -^l ' s ^ ,»

l ' r ' As'

*^ -ie

NOTE FOR THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

The Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies has just

concluded its sixth session, during which it discussed

the question of its mandate and functions.

No agreement on this matter could be reached. A

preliminary report was prepared on the functions that

the Board has been performing and some members suggested

that you might transmit it to the expert group dealing

with institutional arrangements relating to the process

of disarmament. The Centre for Disarmament advises

against this course of action, because the Board could

not agree to make a recommendation to you to that extent.

In addition, the expert group has already discussed the

Board's functions, the report is only preliminary, and

the Chairman of the expert group is a member of the Board

and thus is fully aware of the discussions.

The Centre would like to draw your attention to a

proposal made by Ambassador Vinci, which would ask you to

submit to His Holiness Pope John Paul II a request to

appoint an international commission of spiritual and

moral leaders, charged with the task of elaborating a

report on the new philosophy on disarmament. The proposal

did not enjoy broad support in the Board, and the Centre

considers implementation of this initiative premature.

A . Knippenber g-Uther/ j b22 May 1981

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OBJET:

s



r



The Secretary-Gener

Mr. Mikhail D. SytenlSoUnder-Secretary-Generaand Security Counci

Jan MartensonAssistant Secretary-General \ (Centre for Disarmament /A

Advisory Board on Disarmament)Studies= _,

REFERENCE:

May 1981

1. The Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies justconcluded its sixth session (4-15 May). A substantialpart of its deliberations was devoted to the question ofits mandate and functions. A preliminary report to youwas adopted on that question, which is contained indocument ST/SG/C.l/R.15 (Annex 1).

2. As reflected in Conference Room Papers 26/Corr.land 27/Rev.1, attached to the preliminary report, theBoard discussed in depth various possible approachesto its future, ranging from the possibility of itsdissolution to the strengthening of its role by becomingan advisory organ to you in the field of disarmament, andnot only in the area of studies. No agreement emerged onthe alternatives proposed and the preliminary reportreflects only a consensus on the functions that the Boardhas been performing since its establishment. Furtherdiscussions will be held on the subject at the nextsession. However, several members stressed the need fora preliminary report so that you might consider transmittingit to the group of experts dealing with institutionalarrangements relating to the process of disarmament,scheduled to meet between 22 June-2 July 1981. Norequest, however, has been made by the group of expertsto the Advisory Board for a report on its mandate andfunctions. It should also be noted, in that respect,that the Chairman of the expert group is also a member ofthe Advisory Board and is fully aware of the discussionheld under this item.

3. The notes of the sixth session (Conference RoomPaper No. 30/Rev.l) on the consideration of the remainingitems on the agenda are attached as Annex 2. Two itemsreceived particular attention by the Board: its rolein the activities of the United Nations Institute forDisarmament Research - on which I reported to you bymemorandum of 7 May 1981 - and the question of a newphilosophy on disarmament.

-2-

4. As reflected in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the notes,the Board held an in-depth discussion in connexion with thelatter item, but no consensus was achieved on how todischarge the tasks assigned to the Board under GeneralAssembly resolution 33/71 N. A proposal by Ambassador Vincito amend paragraph 12 of the notes was not accepted by somemembers. That proposal would ask you to submit toHis Holiness Pope John Paul II a request to appoint aninternational commission of spiritual and moral leaders,charged with the task of elaborating a report on thesubject (Annex 3). However, as part of the compromisereached on that paragraph, it was agreed that the Secretariatwill draw your attention to Ambassador Vinci's suggestion.You might also be approached by some members of the Boardto ascertain your views on his idea. Since the deliberationsof the Board show that it was far from an agreement onthe procedure to develop a new philosophy on disarmament,as well as on its contents, it seems to me that theimplementation of Ambassador Vinci's initiative would bepremature.

Annex 1

U N I T E D N A T I O N S Dis t r .Restricted

SECRETARIAT ST/SG/C.1/R.1515 May 1981ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

Advisory Board on Disarmament StudiesSixth Session, 1981

Report to the Secretary-General on the Considerationof the Mandate and Functions

of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies

1. The Advisory Board held its sixth session at United Nations Headquarters

in New York f rom 4 to 15 May 1981. Professor O . N . Bykov attended the session

of the Board for the f i r s t t ime, replacing Mr. Vladimir Shustov, and Professor

James E. Dougherty took the place of Ambassador George M. Seignious. The

session was attended by 27 members. Some members were unable to attend part

of the session, as indicated in Annex I, which lists the members of the

Advisory Board as of 15 May 1981.

2. During the f i r s t week, the session was chaired by the Cha i rman , Mr. Agha

Shahi , Minister for Foreign A f f a i r s of Pakis tan. In the absence of the

Chai rman, Ambassador E. Wyzner , Vice-chairman of the Board, chaired the second

part of the session.

3. The Advisory Board devoted a substantial part of its session to the

question of its mandate and functions. D u r i n g its consideration of that

subject, the Board kept in mind the following:

(a) Paragraph 124 of the Final Document of the f i r s t special session of the

Genera l Assembly devoted to disarmament reads:

"The Secretary-General is requested to set up an advisory board ofeminent persons, selected on the basis of their personal expertise andtaking into account the principle of equitable geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n , toadvise him on var ious aspects of studies to be made under the auspices ofthe Uni ted Nat ions in the f ie ld of disarmament and arms l imitat ion,including a programme of such studies."

-2-

(b) The Advisory Board, in accordance wi th General Assembly resolution

33/71 K, was asked to advise the Secretary-General on possible ways of

establishing, operating and f inanc ing an international inst i tute for

disarmament research, under the auspices of the United Nations (A/RES/33/71 K).

(c) In accordance with General Assembly resolution 33/71 N, the

Secretary-General was requested, with the assistance of the Advisory Board, to

study ways and means whereby "all the new ideas, new proposals, new thinking

and new strategies set forth in the broad range of general debates preceeding

and following the adoption of the Final Document of the Tenth Special Session

be formulated into a single comprehensive and co-ordinated system, into a new

philosophy on disarmament. . ."{A/RES/33/71 N) .

4. The Secretary-General , at the f i r s t session of the Advisory Board, made a

statement on 14 November 1978 in which he outlined 'the mandate and clarified

the immediate and long-term tasks of the Board. The Board noted the

Secretary-General 's view that it might , inter al ia, make recommendations for

updating or complementing earlier United Nations studies and for the

investigation of areas which had not been adequately studied so f a r . The

Board fu r the r took note of cer ta in specific funct ions that the

Secretary-General envisaged it would perform:

—defining the purposes of disarmament studies in the context of

the guidelines laid down by the Final Document of the tenth

special session-,

—elaborating a comprehensive programme for such studies in order

to support the work of the negotiating and the de l ibera t ive organs

in the f ie ld of disarmament.

-3-

--helping in the better utilization of possible contributions by

specialized agencies and other institutions and programmes within

the United Nations system with regard to studies and information

on this subject?

—drawing together the expertise of research institutes and non-

governmental organizations that are concerned with various aspects

of the problem.

5. The Advisory Board is of the view that the following areas are within its

mandate:

(a) The Board is entrusted with the task of elaborating and periodically

reviewing a comprehensive programme of studies to assist the work of the

negotiating and deliberative organs in the field of.disarmament;

(b) The Board believes that it can initiate and recommend United Nations

studies on the subject of disarmament. Members may be able to identify gaps

in the disarmament research of the United nations and suggest ways in which

they could be filled. If the Board wishes to initiate any proposals for

studies, this should be done at the Spring session of the Board so that the

Secretary-General, if he accepts the Board's recommendation for a particular

study, can bring this to -the notice of Member States in good time before the

First Committee of the General Assembly convenes in October;

(c) The Board believes that it also has a useful role to play in

commenting and advising upon disarmament studies generated elsewhere in the

United Nations machinery. The composition of the Board gives it a uniquely

valuable perspective in this respect;

-4-

(d) The Board believes its wide ranging expertise qualifies it to discuss

any disarmament matter referred to it by the Secretary-General;

(e) The Board believes that it has a continuing role in commenting upon

and promoting the work of the Institute which it was instrumental in creating;

(f) The Board believes that it might help in the co-ordination of United

Nations disarmament studies, or at least suggest how this might be

accomplished;

(g) If so requested, the Board may render advice on any study referred to

it, or on the modalities for conducting studies approved by the General

Assembly;

(h) The Advisory Board could follow-up decisions of the General Assembly

regarding the dissemination of the studies;

6. The Board considers that it should assist in developing new concepts and

approaches relevant for the promotion of various aspects of disarmament.

7. In assessing its role in the areas described in the preceeding paragraphs,

the Board kept in mind that it is exclusively an advisory body. In reporting

on the conclusions reached during the present session in connexion with its

tasks, the Board agreed that this preliminary report on its mandate and

functions is the result of an extensive exchange of views on the subject and

decided to continue its consideration of the matter at its seventh session, to

be held from 28 September to 9 October 1981.

8. A summary of that exchange of views is contained in Conference Room Papers

No. 26/Corr.l and 27/Rev.l, which are attached as Annexes II and III to this

preliminary report.

-5-

Annex IMembers of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies

Mr. Erich Bielka-Karltreu, former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Austria

Mr. Abdulla Bishara, Permanent Representative of Kuwait to the United Nations

Mr. O.N. Bykov, Deputy Director of the Institute of World Economics andInternational Relations, Academy of Sciences, USSR, Vice-Chairman, ResearchCouncil on Peace and Disarmament

Mr. Frank Edmund Boaten, Ambassador of Ghana to Denmark

Mr. James E. Dougherty, Professor of Political Science, St. Joseph'sUniversity, Philadelphia.^./

Mr. Constantin Ene, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Romania

Mr. Alfonso Garcia-Robles, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the Committeeon Disarmament

Mr. John Garnett, Woodrow Wilson Professor of International Politics,University of Wales

Mr. Enrique Gaviria-Lievano, Deputy Permanent Representative of Colombia to theUnited Nations Office at Geneva

Mr. Ignac Golob, Assistant Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs ofYugoslavia^/

Mr. A.C.S. Hameed, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka—'

Mr. John W. Holmes, Counselor, Canadian Institute of InternationalAffairs

Mr. Hussein Khallaf, Professor at the University of Cairo, former Minister andAmbassador of Egypt

Mr. Lai Ya-li, Ambassador of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People'sRepublic of China

Mr. Carlos Lechuga Hevia, Director of International Organizations, Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Cuba

a/ Unable to attend sixth session,b/ Unable to attend part of sixth session

-6-

Mr. A k i r a Ma t su i , Vice-Chairman, Japan Atomic Indust r ia l Forum, Inc.;President, Japan Atomic Relations Organizat ion

Dr. Kasuka S. Mutukwa , Deputy Permanent Representative of Zambia to theUnited Nations

Mr. Carlos O r t i z de Rozas, Ambassador of Argent ina to the Court of St. James 's

Mr. Radha Krishna Ramphul, Permanent Representative of Mauri t ius to the UnitedNations^./

Mr. Klaus Ritter, Director, Foundation of Science and Politics, Ebenhausen,Federal Republic of Germany

Mr. Alejandro Rovira, former Minister of Foreign A f f a i r s of Uruguay .

Mr. Agha Shahi, Minister for Foreign A f f a i r s of Pakistan^/

Mr. P ier re-Chr is t ian Tai t t inger , Senator and former Minis ter of France^/

Mr. Oscar Vaerno, Director General for Planning and Research, Min i s t ry ofForeign A f f a i r s of Norway

Mr. Milous Vejvoda, Deputy Minster for Foreign A f f a i r s of Czechoslovakia

Mr. M . A . Vellodi, Adviser , .Depar tment of Atomic Energy, India

Mr. Piero Vinci , Ambassador of Italy, Rome

Mr. Eugeniusz Wyzner , Director, Department of International Organizations,Minis t ry of Foreign A f f a i r s of Poland

Mr. Alejandro D. Yango, Permanent Representat ive of the Phil ippines to theUnited Nations

Mr. Alexander Yankov, Professor of International Law, Sofia State Univers i ty ,Bulgaria.^/

Annex 2

Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies Conference Room Paper No. 30/Hev.15 May 1981

Notes on the Sixth Session*

1. The Advisory Board held its sixth session at United Nations Headquarters

in New York from 4 to 15 May 1981. Professor O.N. Bykov attended the session

of the Board for the first time, replacing Mr. Vladimir Shustov, and Professor

James E. Dougherty took the place of Ambassador Seignious. The session was

attended by 27 members. Some members were unable to attend part of the

session, as indicated in Annex I, which lists the members of the Advisory

Board as of 15 May 1981.

2. During the first week, the session was chaired by the Chairman, Mr. Agha

Shahi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan. In the absence of the

Chairman, Ambassador E. Wyzner, Vice-chairman of the Board, chaired the second

part of the session.

3. The Board conducted its work on the basis of the following agenda:

1. Opening

2. Adoption of the Agenda

3. Comprehensive programme of disarmament studies

4. Proposals for new studies

5. New Philosophy on Disarmament

6. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research

7. Other Business

*These notes on the work done by the Advisory Bo^rd on DisarmamentStudies at its sixth session, in May 1981, have been prepared as an informalaide memoire, to facilitate the Board's work in autumn 1981. They do notconstitute an official record nor are they intended as the Board's report onits proceedings.

-2-

Agenda Item 3: Comprehensive programme of disarmament studies

4. In its report to the Secretary-General on the fourth and fifth sessions

(ST/SG/C.1/R.14, para. 7), the Board expressed its awareness that it would in

due time be one of its main tasks to elaborate a comprehensive programme of

disarmament studies. The Board further recognized (Ibid., para. 11), that

the tasks of working out the ccmprehensive programme of disarmament studies

must be a continuing process, conducted in the light of the elaboration of a

comprehensive programme of disarmament. 'The Board considers, therefore, that

the scope and nature of a comprehensive programme of disarmament studies will

depend on the contents of the comprehensive programme of disarmament which is

being negotiated in the Committee on Disarmament. Accordingly, the Board

believes that, once the comprehensive programme of disarmament is adopted by

the second special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, it

should proceed to the elaboration of a comprehensive programe of studies by

selecting suitable subjects among those included in the comprehensive

programme'of disarmament.

Agenda Item 4; Proposals for New Studies

• 5. At its recent meetings the Board considered nine proposals for studies

and its report to the Secretary-General on the fourth and'fifth sessions

(ST/SG/C.1/R.14) cited four studies from among the nine which, in the view of

most of the members of the Board, should be undertaken, it being noted that

the remaining proposals which had also been discussed should be considered at

a later stage.

6. The Board recalled that one of the four proposed studies, "Organization

and Financing of a World Disarmament Campaign under the auspices of the United

Nations" was undertaken by resolution 35/152 I of the General Assembly.

—3 —

Accordingly, it was felt that it would not be advisable to hold, at this

session, further exchanges of views oh those proposals for studies not listed

together with the four studies on which a convergence of views had beennoted

in the Board. In that connexion, the suggestion was made that they could be

discussed within the framework of a comprehensive programme of disarmament

studies. The Board agreed that it would continue its consideration on how to

proceed with those studies at its next session.

7. The question of the status of the three remaining studies was also •

raised. The Board noted that they were still before the General Assembly for

consideration. The view was expressed that those members of the Board

represented in the Advisory Council of UNIDIR might, at an appropriate time,

be asked to request that those studies be taken into account when that body

decides on the programme of work of the Institute. .On the other hand, it was

felt that, since the studies put before the General Assembly are different in

scope and contents from those sponsored by UNIDIR, it might not be convenient

to take a decision on that matter. The Board agreed that it should again

stress its continuous interest in the three remaining studies.

Agenda Item 5; New Philosophy on Disarmament

8. In opening the discussion under this item, one member stressed that, in

view of the deteriorating international situation and a new escalation of the

arms race, a radical switch in political thinking was necessary to reduce

armaments and strengthen institutional arrangements at the regional and global

level. The same member reiterated previous proposals for the establishment of

a group of "wise men" to formulate a new philosophy on disarmament or to

entrust this task to a world known figure. Another member noted the various

meanings of the word "philosophy" and urged a moral or metaphysical approach

-4-

fco the development of a new philosophy on disarmament, by involving great

thinkers, spiritual leaders and scientists. A number of members supported

these views, noting, inter alia, the need of mobilizing world opinion and

maintaining the momentum achieved with the adoption of the Final Document of

the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.

B. Another member drew attention to the proposal for the establishment of a

international committee which would demonstrate the vital necessity of

preventing a nuclear catastrophe and stated that this idea was related to the

item under discussion.

10. A number of members emphasized that, in view of the nature of war and

the configuration of an international system composed of nation-states, the

task of developing a new philosophy on disarmament might be extremely

difficult, if not impossible. The approach suggested by some members would

change the entire system, when what is really needed are changes

within the system. In that context, the view was also expressed that the

concept of deterrence was inseparable from the tasks of arms control and that

the achievement of general and complete disarmament was not feasible in the

foreseable future. In addition, disarmament was not an abstract concept, but

was related to the ideas of stability and security. By forcing a consensus on

a new philosophy, there was the danger of promoting polarization in the

international community.

-5-

11. Other members objected to views critical of existing approaches and

achievements in the field of disarmament and noted the need to avoid

selectivity in the consideration of disarmament issues.

12. After this extensive, meaningful and constructive exchange of views, the

Board came to the conclusion that the subject is too broad and complex to. be

solved in the ten day sessions it has twice a year. Some members suggested,

inter alia, to set up a small working group entrusted with the task of

drafting a paper and submit it to the Board at the next session in October.

However, due to some difficulties encountered at this point, it was generally

felt that the Board would be in a better position to take up this matter at

its next session.

Agenda Item 6: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research

13. The Chairman of the Board submitted a brief report on the first meeting

of the Advisory Council of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament

Research (UNIDIR), which was held on 5 May 1981. The Board was informed by

its Chairman, who ex officio, also serves as Chairman of the Advisory Council

of the Institute, that the Council had approved the programme of work of the

Institute as presented by its Director. This programme consists of the

compilation of a repertory of disarmament research; a general analysis of the

field of disarmament; and studies on "Security and Disarmament: Security of

States and Lowering of Levels of Armaments"; "Prevention of War by Accident"

and "Science and Technology for Disarmament". Furthermore, the Board was

informed that the Council deferred its consideration of a list of 17 proposals

for possible future research projects.

—6 —

14. Members of the Board who also attended the session of the Council

offered additional comments on the subject. One member stressed the

assurances given by the Director of the Institute that the proposals for

possible future research projects were based on three elements: the Final

Document of the first special session of the General Assembly devoted

todisarmament, the elements of a comprehensive programme of disarmament

adopted by the Disarmament Commission and the Declaration of the 1980s as the

Second Disarmament Decade. The same member also noted a feeling within the

Advisory Council that the Institute should produce results which would be

useful for the second special session on disarmament. Another member stressed

the need for quality in the research to be undertaken by the Institute and

urged it to concentrate on certain subjects rather than covering a wide range

of topics. The importance of avoiding duplication with studies carried out by

the United Nations was emphasized by another member.

15. In commenting on a statement made by the Director of the Institute on

its future activities, members of the Board underlined, inter alia, the

following: (a) the Institute should not adopt an overly ambitious programme;

(b) in the future the Advisory Council should be consulted before any research

projects are undertaken; (c) the manner in which the Institute engages

experts should give assurance of their impartiality; and (d) the Institute

should refrain from duplicating studies already undertaken elsewhere.

16. The Board agreed to devote the first day of its next session to the

question of the programme of work of the Institute, so as to enable those

members participating in the Advisory Council to reflect adequately the views

of the Advisorv Board.

-7-

17. The Board recalled its decision that its seventh session should take

place in New York from 28 September to 9 October 1981. The Board decided to

convene on the morning of 28 September, and not to be in session on

29 September, keeping in mind that the Advisory Council of UNIDIR will meet on

that date.

Agenda Item 7: Other Business

18. Under this item, the Board considered the question of its mandate and

functions and submitted a preliminary report to the Secretary-General

(ST/SG/C.1/R.15).

Annex IMembers of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies

Mr. Erich Bielka-Karltreu, former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Austria

Mr. Abdulla Bishara, Permanent Representative of Kuwait to the United Nations

Mr. O.N. Bykov, Deputy Director of the Institute of World Economics andInternational Relations, Academy of Sciences, USSR, Vice-Chairman, ResearchCouncil on Peace and Disarmament

Mr. Frank Edmund Boaten, Ambassador of Ghana to Denmark

Mr. James E. Dougherty, Professor of Political Science, St. Joseph'sUniversity, Philadelphia^/

Mr. Constantin Ene, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Romania

Mr. Alfonso Garcia-Robles, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the Committeeon Disarmament

Mr. John Garnett, Woodrow Wilson Professor of International Politics,University of Wales

Mr. Enrique Gaviria-Lievano, Deputy Permanent Representative of Colombia to theUnited Nations Office at Geneva

Mr. Ignac Golob, Assistant Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs ofYugoslavia^/

Mr. A.C.S. Hameed, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka—/

Mr. John W. Holmes, Counselor, Canadian Institute of InternationalAf fa irs

Mr. Hussein Khallaf, Professor at the University of Cairo, former Minister andAmbassador of Egypt

Mr. Lai Ya-li, Ambassador of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People'sRepublic of China

Mr. Carlos Lechuga Hevia, Director of International Organizations, Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Cuba

a./ Unable to attend sixth session.b/ Unable to attend part of sixth session

-9-

Mr. Ak i r a Mafcsui , Vice-Chairman, Japan Atomic Industr ia l Forum, Inc.;President, Japan Atomic Relations Organizat ion

Dr. Kasuka S. Mutukwa, Deputy Permanent Representative of Zambia to theUnited Nations

Mr. Carlos Or t i z de Rozas, Ambassador of Argentina to the Court of St. James's

Mr. Radha Krishna Ramphul , Permanent Representative of Mauri t ius to the UnitedNations!/

r

Mr. Klaus Ritter, Director, Foundation of Science and Politics, Ebenhausen,Federal Republic of Germany

Mr. Alejandro Rovira, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay

Mr. Agha Shahi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan^/

Mr. Pierre-Christian Taittinger, Senator and former Minister of France^/

Mr. Oscar Vaerno, Director General for Planning and Research,Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway

Mr. Milous Vejvoda, Deputy Minster for Foreign Affairs of Czechoslovakia

Mr. M.A. Vellodi, Adviser, Department of Atomic Energy, India

Mr. Piero Vinci, Ambassador of Italy, Rome

Mr. Eugeniusz Wyzner, Director, Department of International Organizations,Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland

Mr. Alejandro D. Yango, Permanent Representative of the Philippines to theUnited Nations •

Mr. Alexander Yankov, Professor of International Law, Sofia State University,Bulgaria

-7-

Annex II

Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies Conference Room Paper No. 26/Corr.lSixth Session 7 May 1981

The iMandate and Functions of the Advisory Board

The following is a brief summary of views expressed at the second meeting

of the sixth session.

Amb. Ortiz de Rozas, speaking as Chairman of the group of experts studying

the institutional arrangements relating to the process of disarmament, made the

comment that there were two aspects to the considerations of the Advisory

Board with regard to its future. On the one hand, there were the functions of

the Board, which related to the procedures which the Board itself chooses, and

on the other hand there was the question of its mandate, which followed from

the decisions of the General Assembly as interpreted and elaborated by the

Secretary-General in various guiding statements. The Chairman of the Board

stated his impression that the Board's members all agreed that it might be

most useful if at the end of its discussion the Board could submit to the

Secretary-General its advice on possible future functions as well as on a

suitable mandate for this Board, in the hope that the Secretary-General would

find his way clear to acquainting the expert group on institutional

arrangements with this view, which they might then take into account at their

last meeting, which was due to start on 22 June. The Chairman understood that

the report of the expert group should be ready sometime at the end of this

summer and would therefore be available to the Board at its next meeting, at

which time presumably the Board could continue this discussion in the light of

the comments of the expert group, among other considerations.

The Board had heard some very interesting comments in its initial

discussion. Several speakers stressed the positive aspects of the work

theBoard has done, including recommendations for the establishment of the

Institute for Disarmament Research and two specific studies. It was noted

that the Board presents an interesting mixture of disciplines, notably the

diplomatic and academic, but that the balance between those two elements might

be improved. There was one comment that the Board was too big and thus

unwieldy. The openness and informality of the discussions was underlined. On

the other hand, several members, stressing the need to get an objective

perspective, recognized that the Board had not been 'able to fulfill its task

of developing a comprehensive approach to international studies. In this

respect it had been expected to play a coordinating role which would somehow

lead to a better use in disarmament deliberations and negotiations not only of

new studies but of studies previously carried out under United Nations

auspices and elsewhere. It was recognized that the formulation of a

comprehensive programme of studies, which would have to be integrated with and

based on a comprehensive programme of disarmament, could not very well have

occurred in the absence of that comprehensive programme of disarmament and the

expectation was expressed that in the future the Board would be able to

fulfill that function.

-9-

Several speakers tried to identify functions for the Board in the area of

studies that might improve the procedures in that area. The posssibility was

discussed that the Board might render advice on the implementation of studies

proposed in the General Assembly. Whereas one member said that the Board

could make suggestions on implementation and elaborate the possible contents

of studies proposed in the Assembly, leaving the final decision to the

Assembly, one member, on the contrary, saw this as a task for the Secretariat

which had amply demonstrated its ability to organize studies and to carry them

out to general satisfaction.

Several members, who considered that for various reasons the Board was

inhibited from playing a meaningful part in the area of studies, expressed the

opinion that its mandate should be extended to include not only studies but

disarmament matters in general and that it should in that manner become an

advisory organ to the Secretary-General in the field of disarmament. This

notion was briefly discussed and while several members expressed an interest

in it some questions were raised such as to whether the Secretary-General will

really need and wish to have such an advisory body, whether it would by itself

render advice or do so upon request and what would be the status of such

advice, i.e., how much weight it would carry. The initial reaction of several

members to this proposal was that perhaps the time had not come to submit it

to the Secretary-General and there was one suggestion that the attention of

the Secretary-General could be merely drawn to the fact that the Board had

considered suggestions for a possible future role, without specifying what

those suggestions were.

-10-

Th ere have also been suggestions that the possibility of doing away

altogether with the Advisory Board should not be entirely precluded.

It has also been noted that perhaps the Advisory Board should take an

altogether new approach that would lead to a mobilization of public opinion.

-11- .

Annex III

Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies Conference Room Paper No. 27/Rev.l

Sixth Session 8 May 1981

The Mandate and Functions of the Advisory Board

The following is a brief summary of views expressed at the fifth meeting

of the sixth session.

There were some comments on the manner in which the Board's observations

would be submitted to the Secretary-General. . It was proposed that the Board

should give its preliminary views to the Secretary-General in the

understanding that it would reconsider these in the light of the report of the

institutional arrangements group. A number of speakers noted that it was

clearly within the competence of the Board to acquaint the Secretary-General

with its experience gained in three years' work. The remark has also been

made that the Board might first write to the Secretary-General to offer to

share its experience with him and then only do so once he expresses a wish to

that effect.

A number of speakers have underlined that whereas the Board may thus make

certain suggestions about the work the Board might do in the future, it should

not specifically indicate to the Secretary-General that the Bo^rd thinks its

existence should be continued.

-12-

A number of speakers, on the other hand, expressed the feeling that the

Board's existence was indeed a positive factor, that the disarmament machinery

had need of an advisory body and that the Board should express this view.

The view was also expressed that the Board was established by paragraph

124 of the Final Document, which does not contain a provision concerning the

duration of the Board. While its members have been appointed for a fixed

period, the question of the continuity of the Board as such is & prerrogative

of the General Assembly.

Differing views were expressed on the mandate. The view was expressed

that a significant turning point had taken place in the work of the Board

since its fifth meeting. Members of the Board had advocated a more conceptual

approach to disarmament issues. According to this view the Board should keep

alive the new momentum given to its discussions on its mandate. A number of

speakers said this should not be changed and several of them pointed out how

wide this mandate in effect is. There was a suggestion that in consonance

with the width of the mandate the designation of the Board should be changed

to include coordination and information. The aspect of the coordinating role

was stressed but several speakers did not think that the Board was in a

position to fulfill its tasks in that regard. Also stressed was the task of

the Board to ensure that studies would be better utilized and disseminated.

Several speakers noted that within the existing mandate the procedures

should be improved so as to make the Board more effective. It was suggested

that greater use should be made for this purpose of the assistance of

-13-

delegates to the Assembly, that more intensive consultations with delegations

should take place, that the Board should meet in smaller committees, that it

might take up only a single subject per session and that it might meet more

often.

With regard to the composition, there were suggestions that this was

satisfactory as it was, that the selection of members should be left to the

Secretary-General, that the number of members should be reduced and on the

other hand that it should be left as at present.

With regard to a possible change in the mandate of the Board, it was

pointed out that the UN Charter would permit widening this. With respect to

.the proposal that the Board should assume a more general advisory role one

member pointed out that it was necessary for_ the Board to realize that the

Secretary-General would have to weigh all relevant political considerations.

It was proposed in this connexion that the Board could give the General

Assembly advice on studies while advising the Secretary-General on all aspects

of disarmament matters in general and that it should in that manner become an

advisory organ to him in the field of disarmament. It was suggested that the

Board could in particular give the First Committee information as to how a

study could be carried out, what costs would be involved and how that could be

coordinated with other proposals for studies. A further suggestion was that,

in analogy to the ACABQ, the Board might give its views on all proposals for

studies. In the case of proposals contemplated before the start of the

Assembly, those might be submitted to the Board for consideration in its first

meeting of the year while more urgently arising proposals could be submitted

to the autumn session. The opinion was also-expressed that in fact, with its

present mandate, the Board could, with regard to studies, effectively only

propose and periodically adjust a comprehensive programme of studies once a

comprehensive programme of disarmament was adopted by the Committee on

Disarmament and the Second Special Session.

Annex 3

Proposal by Ambassador P. Vinci

After this extensive, meaningful and constructive exchange of

views, the Board came to the conclusion that the subject is too broad and

complex to be solved in the ten day sessions it has twice a year. It was

suggested, inter alia, to set up a small working group entrusted with the

task of drafting a paper and submit it to the Board at the next session in

October. But owing to many difficulties, including the possibility of

having members of the Board available for the time needed to work out such

a draft, it was generally felt that a better way to proceed would be to

ask the Secretary-General to submit to this Holiness John Paul II the following

request:

To appoint an international commission composed of spiritual and

moral leaders of the Buddhist, Christian, Hebraic, Hinauist and Moslem

communities, world famous scientists and prominent elderly statesmen. In

order to facilitate their work to elaborate a report in time for the second

special session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to disarmament,

the United Nations Secretariat would make available to each member of the

commission the Final Document of the first special session of the United

Nations General Assembly of June 1973, the present report with all the

documentation and excerpts of speeches or essays relevant to the subject.

I <jfr<s3&

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OBJET:

U N I T E D NATIONS'



Mr. Mikhail D. SytenkoUnder-Secretary-General fPolitical and Security

J^f REFERENCE:

""^X1 Affairs/

Jan MartensonAssistant Secretary-GeneralCentre for Disarmament, PSCA '\f\

s-^ \Disarmament Week 1981

1. In keeping with previous practice, it is intended to commemorateDisarmament Week established by General Assembly resolutionA/RES/S-10/2 on the week beginning with United Nations Day, in 1981at United Nations Headquarters. As you may recall, during DisarmamentWeek 198O, Mr. Shridath Ramphal, head of the Commonwealth Secretariat,addressed non-governmental representatives and members of delegationson the subject of disarmament and development.

2. I would like to propose that, for Disarmament Week 1981,_a_speaker of the stature of Mr. Willy Brandt be invited, who wouldmake eT valuable contribution to commemorating this event afeHeadquarters.

•'&•< '*•'*'

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OB JET:

^U N I T E D N A T I O N S


The Secretary-Genera

Mr. Mikhail D Syten1

Under-Secretary-General fo,Political and Securit

Jan MartensonAssistant Secretary-GeneraCentre for Disarmament

1981 Session of the Pis


MEMORANDUM INTERIEUR x'\

/, 19 May 1981

>t>s^^^^ REFERENCE:

sAsiuncil Aff|tTrs

1. The Disarmament Commission began on 18 May its 1981session which is scheduled to end on 5 June under a newChairman, Mr. Peter Michaelsen of Denmark. Following theopening of the session the Commission elected eight vice-chairmen from Bahamas, Czechoslovakia, Pakistan, Peru,Portugal, Romania, Syria and Zambia. Their election couldnot take place at the organizational meeting in December1980 because consultations regarding their nomination hadnot yet been completed. (See my memorandum of 9 December 198O).Following their election, the Commission adjourned to allowits bureau to consider the programme of work.

2. A new item on the agenda of this session is the elaborationof a general approach to a conventional weapon study as well asits scope and structure, £n~accoraance witn General Assemblyresolution 35/156 A. (item 5). It should be recalled that atthe 198O session, reservations were made by several members ofthe Commission to such study. The item will be considered bya working group which is expected to be established for thispurpose. Under paragraph 3 of resolution 35/156 A, theCommission is requested to convey to the Secretary-General theconclusions of its deliberation which should constitute theguidelines for the study. Another working group is expectedto be established to consider the question of reduction ofmiLij:agy__budggts, a carry-over from the 198O session (item 5(a) and (b) ).

3. Other items on the provisional agenda (attached),namely items 4, 7, 8 and 9 are expected to be consideredduring a general exchange of views or in plenary meetingsat a later stage.

UNITED N A T I O N SDistr.

G B- b. i r- r\ A 6 ^x-^E-\^ LIMITEDE N E R A LA/CN . 10 /L . 7

A S S E M B L YORIGINAL: ENGLISH

DISARMAMENT COMMISSION

PROVISIONAL AGENDA

1. Opening of the session

2. Election of officers

3. Adoption of the agenda

U. (a) Consideration of various aspects of the arms race, particularlythe nuclear-arms race and nuclear disarmament, in order to expeditenegotiations aimed at effective elimination of the danger ofnuclear war

(b) Consideration of the agenda items contained in section II ofresolution 33/71 H, with the aim of elaborating, within theframework and in accordance with the priorities established atthe tenth special session, a general approach to negotiationson nuclear and conventional disarmament

5. Reduction of military budgets:

(a) Harmonization of views on concrete steps to be undertaken byStates regarding a gradual agreed reduction of military budgetsand reallocation of resources now being used for militarypurposes to economic and social development, particularly forthe benefit of the developing countries, noting the relevantresolutions of the General Assembly

(b) Examination and identification of effective ways and meansof achieving agreements to freeze, reduce or otherwise restrainin a balanced manner, military expenditures, including adequatemeasures of verification satisfactory to all parties concerned,taking into account the provisions of General Assemblyresolutions 3U/83 F and 35/1 2 A and, in particular, to identify andelaborate on the principles which should govern further actionsof States in the field of the freezing and reduction of militaryexpenditures, keeping in mind the possibility of embodying suchprinciples into a suitable document at an appropriate stage

81-12965 /

A/CN.10/L.TEnglishPage 2

6. Elaboration of the general approach to the study on all aspects of theconventional arms race and on disarmament relating to conventionalweapons and armed forces, as well as its structure and scope

7. Preparation of a report of the Disarmament Commission on its work to theGeneral Assembly at its second special session devoted to disarmament

8. Letter dated 1 February 1979 from the Secretary-General addressed to theChairman »f the Disarmament Commission (A/CT.10/3)

9- Letter dated 8 March 1979 from the Chairman of the Special Committee againstApartheid addressed to the Secretary-General (A/CN.10/M

10. Adoption of the report of the Disarmament Commission to the General Assemblyat its thirty-sixth session

11. Other business

ft4r

Note for the Secretary-General

Preparatory Committee for the second special session

of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament

Ambassador Adeniji, Chairman of the Preparatory

Committee has an appointment to see you on Thursday,

21 May 1981. He is Nigeria's Ambassador to the United

NTC'ioris"in Geneva. You will recall that you formally

opened the Preparatory Committee's first session last

summer, when Ambassador Adeniji was elected.

The Preparatory Committee concluded its second

session last week. It completed the election of itsssffim^wvtWWtttai+srtttfW^-ttt^-K^^

Bureau and held discussions on the agenda for thertlS-jmS!»"MiiWliS-i.<i *KBa»USS»j

second special session, which it is mandated to

recommend. These consultations will continue at the

third session in October.

No final decision has yet been taken on the timing*rraiii<iinii>wiii»rr*'

!'B"B'gag'aia!^ ••-•"•"• '»-' "S" '-•'.£.««

of the second special session. It will most likely

take place in the second part of May and first part of

June 1982, with a duration of no more than five weeks.

Angela Knippenberg-Uther18 May 1981 (-^_ ij/x

TO: AKU

FROM: MEM

fAdeni^i's appointment is on Thursday,

21st

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:



The Secretary-Ge

Mr. Mikhail D.Under-Secretary-Political and Seq

Jan MartensonAssistant Secretary-GeneralCentre for Disarmament



cil Affairs

RE<X

MAY t f. 158115 May 1981

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT: Second session of theOBJET:

Committee the secondspecial session of the Genera Assembly devoted to disarmament

1. The Preparatory Committee today concluded its second session,which opened on 4 May 1981.

2. The Preparatory Committee completed the election of its Bureauand gave a thorough consideration to the agenda of the second specialsession on disarmament which it is mandated to recommend. In thecourse of both formal and informal discussions, a preliminaryframework to this agenda began to emerge which was consolidatedin a paper by the Chairman (CRP/6). Although marked differencesconcerning the agenda, reflecting various approaches to the secondspecial session on disarmament, continued throughout the session,the number of conflicting points had been decreased. The discussionon the agenda will continue at the third session in October.

3. Concerning the timing of the second special session on disarmament,no final decision has been taken. It is probable, however,that it will take place in the second part of May and first part ofJune 1982 and will extend for no more than five weeks.

4. The Preparatory Committee discussed also, in a preliminary manner,the character of the document(s) that the second special session ondisarmament expected to adopt. Decision on this question, however,can be taken only after agreement on the agenda.

5. The next session of the Preparatory Committee will take placebetween 5 and 16 October 1981 at Headquarters.

A/AC.206/CRP.615 May 1981

PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE SECONDSPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL'ASSEMBLY DEVOTED TO DISARMAMENT

Chairman's Summary of Discussions on PossibleElements of a Draft of the Provisional Agenda

of the Second Special Session Devoted toDisarmament

The discussions held in three informal meetings of the PreparatoryCommittee on an informal paper dated 12 May entitled "Possible elements ofa draft of the provisional agenda of the Second Special Session Devoted toDisarmament" have been very useful indeed. In order to ensure that due accountis taken of these useful discussions at our next meeting in October vhen veare required by resolution 35A7 to recommend an agenda for the SecondSpecial Session Devoted to Disarmament I provide this summary, without prejudiceto the position vhich any member of the Committee may see fit to take.

By way of general comment, the issues raised can be broadly grouped intotvo: those relating to item 8 - General Debate - and those relating to items9-15-

Item 8 - General Debate: The question here is whether to elaborate thisitem or not. There are arguments for both points of viev. Thus the alternativesopen to us in October for item 8 are:

Alternative 1: General Debate

Alternative 2: General Debate, including:

- Reviev and appraisal of the current international situation andconsideration of urgent measures to halt and reverse the arms race,particularly the nuclear arms race, strengthen international peaceand security, taking into account the relationship between disarmamentand international peace and security, and ensure the avoidance ofnuclear war;

- Urgent need to take positive measures towards general andcomplete disarmament under effective international control, includingthe adoption of a Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament;

- Urgent need to halt and reverse the arms race in order to increasethe possibility of finding solutions to the social and economic problemsfacing the world, especialiy_the developing countries, through the releaseof real resources now being used for military purposes to economic andsocial development in the vorld, particularly 'for the benefit of thedeveloping countries;

- The interest of all States and all peoples in disarmament whichhas an effect on their vital security interests.

2.

Alt ernative 3 • General Debate, including:

- Review and appraisal of the present international situationin the light of the pressing need to achieve substantial progressin the field of disarmament, the continuation of the arms race andthe close interrelationship between disarmament, internationalpeace and security and economic development.

Items 9-15

The problems raised under items 9 to 15 are of a different nature.They are different because, except perhapsin the case of the comment of thedistinguished representative of Mexico, who has suggested that all the other •• .it ems j except the World Disarmament Campaign and Adoption of the "Final Act")should be subsumed under the comprehensive programme of disarmament, all theother comments are focused mainly on rearrangement of the items. And so tothat extent the gap is not really too vide.

It is a fact that there are delegations which have felt - and they haveexpressed this view from the start of our work - that there is no need to considerthe recommendations of and follow-up to studies. However, it is also a fact thatthere are delegations which feel very, very strongly that the results of thesestudies have to be considered. It should be borne in mind that not all studieshave already been submitted. We also have to bear in mind that not all the studieshave equal weight: some are more important than others. So the fact that thereis an item on the follow-up of these studies does not necessarily mean that everystudy will be reopened. For instance, there is a study 'which for almost threeyears has been under preparation and which occupies a specific paragraph in theFinal Document, on disarmament and development. Certainly, after three years ofconducting such a study it does not seem that we can just brush it aside in viewof the relationship affirmed between disarmament and development. Therefore, weshould not immediately believe that because such an item is reflected in the agenda,the Special Session should or will be flooded by these studies. Those that havealready been considered by the General Assembly and on which the General Assemblyhas made some definite pronouncement would certainly not occupy the same kind ofattention as those which are just being submitted.

Item 9 - Review of the implementation of the decisions and recommendationsof the first special session devoted to disarmament: This seems to have generalsupport. In any case we are obliged to reflect an item like this in the agenda,bearing in mind paragraph 115 of the Final Document, resolution A/35A7 and theimportance which a very large number of delegations attach to the review of theimplementation of the Final Document.

Bearing in mind the various comments made, the elaboration of the item canbe as follows:

Review of the implementation of the decisions and recommendations of thefir'st special session devoted to disarmament:

Status of negotiations on disarmament as contained in the Programmeof Action and bearing in mind the priorities set out in the Programme.

Consideration of recommendations of and follow up to studies initiatedby the General Assembly at its first special session devoted todisarmament and subsequent sessions

Item 10 - Consideration of initiatives and proposals of Member states:The main doubt vhich vas expressed, vas that, even vithout such an item, any MemberStates is free to submit any item or any proposal to the General "Assembly.Since many delegations argue for the insertion of such an item, I do not seeany over-powering argument against it.

Item 11 - Implementation of the Declaration of the 1980s as the SecondDisarmament Decade: Gives no difficulty.

Item 12 - Consideration and adoption of instruments on the basis of draftssubmitted by the Committee on Disarmament: The specific rationale for this itemis to deal with instruments such as the CTB, chemical weapons, radiological weapons,security assurances, on which the Committee on Disarmament may conclude negotiationswhich may be submitted to the second special session. Any instrument adoptedwill no longer form part of the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament to beadopted by the second special session devoted to disarmament.

Item 13 - Consideration and adoption of the Comprehensive Programme ofDisarmament: As to consideration of the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament,a suggestion has been made that this be up-graded. There also have been argumentsadduced to the contrary—that perhaps it should be left where it is and mighteven be brought a little down, because if we do reach some agreement on some ofthe earlier items, it may well be that some of these can be embodied in theComprehensive Programme of Disarmament which is being elaborated. But I thinkthere should really be no difficulty as to placement, and that we can agree toplace it as item 10.

Item 1^ - Strengthening of the role of the United Nations in the field ofdisarmament: (a) Review of the functioning of the deliberative bodies; (b) Enhancingthe effectiveness of the Committee on Disarmament as the single multilateralnegotiating body, (c) Consideration of other institutional arrangements;(d) Disarmament education, seminars and training (Fellowship Programme);(e) Public information activities; (f) World Disarmament Campaign; and (g) Possibleconvening of a World Disarmament Conference: As to item lU, there have been anumber of suggestions as to how the heading can be reformulated, as well assuggestions that some of the sub-items there can, in fact, be part of item 9, whichis "Review of the implementation of the decisions and recommendations of the specialsession". That, of course, is a possibility. It is possible that some of theitems reflected under item lU can be moved up. For instance, there has been thesuggestion that (a), (b) and (c) ought to be grouped together under a sub-itemof item 9 which would be called "Review of institutional requirements'1 or "Reviewof the machinery in the field of disarmament". On the other hand, of course, thereare some, also, who would want specific mention of the strengthening of the roleof the United Nations in the field of disarmament, and the suggestion made byone representative was that this particular —————— _ )subject could very well have a title which would read "Disarmament institutions andthe role of the United Nations". Of course, if we have "Strengthening of the roleof the United Nations in the field of disarmament", we can also still come down andtalk of disarmament institutions, or review of institutional requirements, as partof the exercise of strengthening the role of the United Nations in the field ofdisarmament. So these are the various possibilities which can ie considered.

It appears that (d), (e) and (f) under item 1^ did not cause any particulardifficulty, except that it was felt that if (a), (b) and (c) are transferred toitem 9, then a separate heading, which would be called "Measures to mobilizeworld public opinion to prevent and limit the arms race" could then be the newitem 1*4, with the sub-items, that..would be under it.

Since all the elements reflected in the sub-items of item lU belong toChapter IV of the Final Document, they do have a certain "common heritage" whichmay be a justification for keeping them together under the same separate item.Modifications can then be made to the sub-items to take account of the variouscomments made, thus:

Item lh: Strengthening of the role of the United Nations in the field ofdisarmament

Review of the international machinery and institutional arrangementsfor disarmamentDisarmament education, seminars and training (Fellowship Programme onDisarmament)Public information activities

- World Disarmament CampaignPossible convening of a World Disarmament Conference and otherpossible follow-up of the second special session devoted to disarmament

Item 15 - Adoption of the principal document(s) of the special session: We havenot got to the stage of taking a decision on the title of the document which sn.ll beadopted. There have been various views proposed, and I think that perhaps thenature of the document, or documents, which would emerge from the special sessionmay have a lot to do, ultimately, with our agreement on the agenda. We can,therefore, reflect for the time being all'the options as suggested:

* '•"•».

Item 15 - Adoption of: the Principal Document(s) of the special sessionor the Final Act of the special sessionor the Declaration of the special sessionor the resolutions and decisions of the special session

U N I T E D N A T I O N S W$M§ N A T I O N S U N I E S ~ ' " -^SS^S^ ::,>; - •

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM^ ~^~ MEMOR^f jiHlNTERIEUR i;-*''«

TO: The Secretary-General lA -""" DATE: 8 May 1981A: 7 /

REFERENCE:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM- Jan MartensonDE:

Political and/Security Council Affairs

SUBJECT: First Unifeed Natiojts Regional Seminar on DisarmamentOBJET: for Non-Governmental Organizations. Mexico City. 27-30 April 1981

1. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution A/35/46 authorizing theUnited Nations to sponsor regional seminars on disarmament, the Centrefor Disarmament in co-operation with DPI organized the first of theseseminars from 27-3O April 1981 in Mexico City for the Latin Americanand Caribbean region.

2. The seminar was attended by 26 participants from 13 countries fromthe region which included representatives of Latin American trade unions,educators, youth organizations, religious organizations and media.Participants were selected on the basis of nominations received fromUnited Nations Information Centres, UNDP offices and internationalnon-governmental organizations.

3. The presentations to the participants were made by me and staffmembers of the Centre as well as the guest speakers: Ambassador AlfonsoGarcia-Robles, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the Conference onthe Committee on Disarmament, Mr. Danilo Jimenez, UNDP Resident Repre-sentative in Mexico and Ambassador Hector Gros Espiell, Secretary-General of OPANAL. The programme is attached for your information.

4. The seminar, including the press conference I held on the openingday, received considerable publicity in Mexico City and other LatinAmerican countries. Three main TV channels in Mexico City carried dailyreports on the proceedings of the seminar. Press reports includededitorials in the leading Mexican newspapers.

5. At the closing session of the seminar, the participants inter aliareferred to the need to create a network for disarmament information inLatin America, expressed the desire to continue the contacts establishedat the seminar on a personal and organizational level and expressed thedetermination to hold seminars of this kind on the regional and sub-regional level.

Copy to: Mr. Alexander Kashirin

FIRST UNITED NATIONS REGIONAL SSMU&R ONDISARMAMENT FOR NON-GOVERNMSMTAL ORGANIZATIONS.

27-30 April, 1981, Mexico City

Programme

Monday. 27 April, 1981

16:00

19:00

Opening Statement by MR. JAN MARTENSON,Assistant Secretary-General of theCentre for Disarmament, United Nations.

Address by H.E. AMBASSADOR ALFONSO GARCIA-SOBLESPermanent Representative o£ Mexico to theCommittee on Disarmament: "Disarmament and theUnited Nations".

Showing of United Nations films:"Nuclear Countdown" and "Boom".

Reception offered by the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Mexico.

Tuesday, 28 April 1981

10:00

13:00 - 15:30

16:00

Presentation by MR. JAH MARTENSON:"Disarmament: A World Responsibility"

Presentation by MS. AMADA SEGAR8A:"Multilateral arms control and disarmamenttreaties and current states of negotiationsat the Committee on Disarmament"

Discussion

Lunch

Presentation by MR. PRVOSIAV DAVINIC:"The current state of the arms race and itssocial and economic consequences"

Presentation by MR. DANILO JIMENEZ:lesident Coordinator for the United NationsDevelopment System, "Disarmament and Development".

Discussion

- 2 -

Wednesday, 29 April 1981

10:00

13:00 - 15:30

16:00

Presentation by MR. PRVOSLAV BAVINIC:"The Second Special Session of theGeneral Assembly devoted to Disarmament",

Discussion

Lunch

Presentation by MS. INGRID LEHMNN:"The Role of Non-governmental Organisations •in Disarmament"«

Suggestions from participants about what canbe done by NGO's and public opinion makersin cooperation with the UN to increase the flowof information about the arms race and mobili-zation of public opinion.

Thursday^ 30 April, 1981

10:00 Address by H.E, AMBASSADOR HECTOR GROS ESPIELL,Secretaey-General, OPANAL (Organization for theProhibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America(Tlatelolco Treaty).

Presentation by MR. PRVOSLAV BAVINICon other aspects of regional disarmament.

Discussion

Closing of Seminar

0i

A U S T R A L I A N M I S S I O N

TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Note No : 531/81

The Permanent Mission of Australia to the

United Nations presents its compliments to the

Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the

honour to refer to Note No. OR 421 (2) requesting

views and comments on the agenda and other relevant

questions relating to the Second Special Session of

the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament pursuant

to Resolution 35/4? of 3 December, 1980. .

The views and comments of

Government are attached to this Note.

the Australian

NEW YORK, 7 May 1981.

\JVIEWS AND COMMENTS 0? AUSTRALIA ON THE AGENDA AND OTHER

RELEVANT QUESTIONS RELATIjflf TO THE SECOND SPECIAL SESSION

L^DEVOTED TO DISARMAMENT po pj\ ff' '

OF THE GENERAL ASSEr-SLDEVOTED TO DISARMAMENT o pj\

Australia's approach to questions of

disarmament and arms control has been stated frequently

in United Nations forums. Australia strongly supports the

goal of disarmament and the negotiation of balanced and

verifiable measures of arms control. Australia will continue

to give the highest priority to preventing the spread of

nuclear weapons, particularly through continued support for

the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the conclusion of a

Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would ban the

testing of nuclear weapons by all States in all

environments, and through the development of an international

consensus on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Australia's- view is that the Second Special

Session on Disarmament offers the international

community an opportunity to review the international

disarmament agenda. Australia would hope that the Special

Session might concentrate on those disarmament issues which

are likely to lead to fruitful concentration in disarmament

forums, including the Committee on Disarmament and the

United Nations Disarmament Commission, and set aside those

items of an essentially political nature which have

unfortunately remained on the United Nations General

Assembly's First Committee agenda for several years.

A review by the Second Special Session

of the Disarmament agenda should, of course, include review

of the UNSSOD i final document. But Australia believes

that there should be no attempt to amend or rewrite that

document. Such action would retard progress on the goal

of securing early and fruitful action on those disarmament

issues where such progress is possible.

Australia would hope, therefore, that

2 .

UMSSOD II will give impetus and effectiveness to

international disarmament and arms control endeavours.

Australia is of the view that the Second Special Session

should be able to restate clearly its recognition that

there is a continuing need for international endeavours

towards arms control and disarmament. The need for these

endeavours has been underlined by the threats to world

peace which have been experienced in the period since

UNSSOD I.

The Second Special Session should recognise

that there is a need to set priorities in the discussion

of arms control measures. In Australia's view, the

elaboration of a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons

testing in all environments is a central issue on the

international disarmament agenda, and the Second Special

Session should encourage the early conclusion of such an

agreement. Australia also sees progress on a chemical

weapons convention as of particular importance to the

international community. Australia hopes that UNSSOD II

will accord the highest priority to those issues. On such

matters* as with other areas of arms control and

disarmament., Australia believes that effective

verification is an essential element in any agreement.

While- the precise requirements for verification provisions

will depend on the nature and scope of the agreement in

question, verification must protect the security of

States accepting agreed limitations, provide reasonable

confidence that a case of non-compliance will be quickly

detected, deter any breach of agreed conditions and

provide mechanisms to deal with possible breaches or

circumvention. Australia hopes that UNSSOD II will

strongly endorse the principle of verification.

3.Australia has noted the progress

which has been made recently in the Committee of

Disarmament on the drawing up of a comprehensive program

of disarmament, and hopes that there might emerge from

UNSSOD II a realistic program of concrete disarmament

measures worthy of the respect and'support of all

countries.

Australia also supports suggestions

that UNSSOD II could usefully examine the effectiveness

of existing disarmament forums and discuss the follow-up

action required by the various disarmament studies

currently being undertaken for the Special Session.

PERMANENT MISSION

OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

TO THE UNITED NATIONS

11 EAST 84TH STREET

NEW YORK. N. Y. 1OO2S

REGENT -7-479O

New York, 5 May 1981

The Permanent Mission of the People's' Republic of

Bulgaria to the United Nations presents its compliments to the

Secretary-General of the United Nat ions and has the honour to

transmit herewith the text of the communication of the Government

of the People's Republic of Bulgaria regarding the convening of '

the Second Special Session of the General Assembly Devoted to

Disarmament in 19820

The Permanent Mission of the People 's Republic of

Bulgaria to the United Nations avails itself of this opportunity

to renew to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the

assurances of its highest consideration,

His Excellency

Dr. Kurt Waldheira

Secretary-General

Room 3800

United Nations

New York , N . Y . 10017

fesSC^^•••<:•'.,.. -4ex

OTBET HP EOJirAPM II Of B O H P O C A M ,

KACAHOTMCfl BTOPOM/CnEUFAJlBHOM CECCHPI

TEHEPAJlbHOM ACSAMJIEH O O H , nOCBflll lEHHOffi

V '"•"•0

,;'

HP B o n r a p i T H npF/iaeT 6o/ iLmoe SHa ieHne B T O p o f i

HOH ceccMH FeHepa / iBHOH AccanSêH OOH no paaopyxeHMio , K O T o p a n

C O C T O I T T C H B 1982 ro/iy.

H aaraeH c o B p e M e H H O C T H , pemeHHe K O T O P O M sa SHOUT neno-

c p e / J C T B G H H O OT ynpoHHeHHH Mifpa H MG^^ynap OZIHOH 6 e 3 o n a c H O C T H .

3Ta npoSnena npHo6pe/ ia ocoSeHno OCTPMH H HeoT/iosHMH xapaKTep

B HacTOHineH H a n p H ^ e H H O H Mexc,ziyHapo/iHOH o S c T a H O B K e , Kor/ia B pe~

3ynBT3Te / leHCTBWH HMnepManpfCTH-qecKHX IT .MH/iHTapHCTKHX cwn, Han-

paB/ reHHMX na peanoe ycKOpeHjre T O H K H soopyêHiTH n o

B 0 6 H H O H K O H ^ p O H T a ' n H H yB e/JFâ TiaCL O n a C H O C T B BOHHbl .

PyKOBor rcTsyHCL C B O G H MHponw6HBof i H O T I H T H K O H , HP

Kan PT jpyrne C T p a n w coLt iTa / j jTCTHêcKoro co^pyêcTBa ,

n p o T H B o n o C T a s T i H e T C f l nposo j iHMOMy HenoTopbiM^ C T p a n a M H Kypcy p e 3 K (

ro H a p a m p f B a H H / i BoopyaceHHH c UGHLIO / jocTpêHFff B o e n H o r o npesoc-

xoj iCTBa cvn HATO na^ CF/iaMM O p r a n w s a m ^ H B a p r a a s c K o r o f lorosopa

H no/TFTHKe "c noawu^F CH^Fbi" . B n p o T H B O s e c 3TOM.Y Kypcy

Ba-HêHH OpraHHaamu.? B a p m a B C K o r o A o r o B O p a oS-BHB

33 nepexo/i K coKpamenHio HaKon/ieHHbix sanacos opy^ml,

HJTH) y p O B H H B 0 6 H H O H KOH$p OHT6 UHPT M 33 pa Cnp OCTpa H6HHe p a 3 p H j J K H

B B 0 6 H H O H o S n a C T H . 3T3 000/76,0083 TG/IBHa fl n 0 /THTKHeCKa fl HHHITH 6bl-

â B H O B B y6e/JHTenBHO noTBep^c/ ieHa p e m e H U H M H , npi-THHTbiMH XXVI

2.

CT>e3,noM KI1CC, XII C-LGSZIOM EKI1 PT C T b G 3 / j a M p r

n a p T p r H /ipyrprx couHa/ j j i 'CTi -THecKKX CTpan .

HP Bonrap iTf l no /mocTLw H S e a p e a e p B H O nojaziepAiTBaeT llpor-

p a M M y MHpa KIICC, p a a s H T y w ee XXVI ctesrtoM B O T O M rojiy. Oco6oe

S H a H G H H e jinn ycTpaneHHH yrposw H J J G P H O H B O H E M H nfnn coxpaHeHHH

MHpa Ha aeM/ie HMeeT UIHPOKHH Kpyr KOHKpeTHtix K O H C T p y K T H B H m x npe/i-

noxeHHH, Bbi/jBPTHyTi>ix FeHepani>HWM c e n p e T a p e M UK KOCC JI .H. Bpe^c-

HGBblM 06 O r p a H H M e H H H BOOpyêHPTH M B 0 6 H H O H p a 3 p H J 3 K H . H e C O M H 6 H H O

ocymeCTB/ieHHe OTHX BaxHsix prHHmraT^B c o n e M C T B O B a n o 6bi ycKopeHmo

peineHPTH HeKOTOpsix CBMLIX aKTya / i tHMX H Haspenbix B o n p o c o s B O T O H

oSnacTK, o cos^raHHiT aTMOcêpw B s a n M H o r o / josepna H

sa Mescziy C T p a H a w H .

Ha p a s s w T w e H yrny6;reHpe M^PHMX oTHoraeHHM H

r o c y ^ i a p C T B a M H H a n p a B / r e H L i H HOBbie npennoKeHi-TH o

FenepanBRbiM c e K p e T a p e n UK EKII IT IIpezice/jaTeJie>f Focy-

oseTa 1IPB To/jopo?-f " /KFBKOBHM na XII ctesrie BKI1.

Bbixoji F3 HacTOf l i ae ro c n o x H o r o PT onacnoro MG/K-

no/ io>KeHFH s a K / i w n a e T C f i B n p ^ H H T H H pemMTe/iLHbix Mep K

Heyêp^HMOH F O H K M soopyxeHMH, K pasopyênmo. 3TO

6o/ibinoe SHaneHpre B T O P O H cnemra/ ibHOH cecwiT FeHe-

AccaMS/ rep r OOH n o C B a m e H H O H pa

KaK H 3 B G C T H O , H3 ngD B OH „ CneiI,Ha H B H O H CeCPTPT B 1978 T.

K O H C G H C y C O M 6bI/J npPTHHT ( < SaKnif lHPfTe/ I tHblH / J O K y M G H T , O X B a T b l B a W I A H H B C (

aCOGKTbl H npoSTIGMbl , C B H 3 a H H M 6 C pa 3 Opy2CGHH6M .

O c y m G C T B T J G H H G MGp , OTpa^(GHHblX B 3TOH U p O r p a M M G , C6HM3C

OHRTI, CTOHT B n O B G C T K G JJHH . 3TPTM OOp G Z I G r t H G T C H PI O C H O B H 3 H 33/13-

îa B T o p o H cnGm-ra^LHOH CGCHPT - oScyîHTB nono^GHiTe B oSnacTH or-

paHHêHPTH BOOpyXeHPTH PT B O n p O C b l CBf l3a? IHbIG C B b i n O T I H G H P T G M p G f f l G H P T H

H p e K O > f G H j j a u p T H n c p B O H cnGaiTa/TLHOH cecpfH FA. B M G C T e c 3THM cne-

npe/ iycMOTpeTi , B O O B G C T R G /THE PT o6cy»zieHire H O B M X

B O O H , a T a K ^ G PT I I P P T H H T P T G

ZJOKyneHTa H/IH j

Ha n e p B O H cner jua j iBHOH cecirir SWTIK Haii^reHbi n

HwsauHOHHiie H npoue,rrypHbie $opMW,

oSmenpneM/ieMwx pemeHwi i , Ses HaneceHHH ymepSa

rocypapCTB . ITcnoTiBSOBani-Te aToro onwTa

6bi B 3HaHHTe/ iLHOi i nepe paSoTy no n o / i r o T O B K e B T o p o f i

HP Bo-nrap^H npOjio/isaeT SMTL y6e/KjjeHa B

/JFMOCTH scecTopoHHero p a c c M O T p e n w H npo6neMii pa

na inFpoâfnneM M H P O B O M ôpyne, K O T O P H H MOT 6w np^HHTL

Hbie, o S f f s a T e T i B H H e ZJ/TH rocy/ japCTB p e i n e H H H . BOT noêny ona

T a e T , ÎTO oco6e?mo cymecTBeHHO jinn B T O P O H cneuna/iLHoii C G C K H

n o 3 H T F B H o e pemenwe o Haâ / ie KOHKpeTHof i n p a K T ^ ^ e c K O H

c ue^Lio npOBe/Jenna B C G M H P H O H KOH$epeH^HH no p a a o p y

HeT C O M H 6 H H M , HTO 6^6 607166 6/13 F OnpHHTHbie yCTIOBHf l /I/IH

ycnemHoro npOBej ienHH cnemTa/iBHOH ceccnn 6binn 6w co3/jaHi>i,

B nepnozie /io ee OTKPMTHH 6y/iyT npHno/Kenbi HHTeHCHBHwe

pea / jLHoro npoj iBHsenHH peraeHna canbix naspeBDiKX H aKTy

npo6/ ieM pasopy/AeHiTfl . STO TpeSyeT BcenepHpiJ aKTHBMsauni i Teny-

mnx n e p e r o B O p O B H no/703K6HH€l naqa/ ia cept.e3Hwx neperosopos o

H O B M X a c n e K T a x pa30pys:eHHH , ocoSenHo B o6/iacTH H/ iepnoro pasopy

HP E o n r a p n H BLipaxaeT najie'/Kjiy B T O M , HTO B T o p a n

Ha/r cecoHH FeHepa / iLHOH A c c a M S n e w 0011, n o c B H i n e H n a a pa

6yzieT o T B e ^ a T B BO^j je r /enpHM HapozioB K nocTFJKeHino n e p e n o M a B ycn

, HanpaB/ ieHHBix Ha o6y3/ jaHK6 F O H K H soopyseHPH v na ocymecT-

peniFTe/ i tHoro nporpecca B p a a p e m e H j - T H npoS/ieM

ponxria c/ie/iaTB eme O/JT-TH. sa^HMH mar K

- BceoSmee:.; H n o n H O E \ - pa

, 30 a n p e / i H , 1981 r.

NOTE FOR THE SECRETARY- GENERAL

You will recall that a General Assembly resolution,

which established a group of experts to investigate reports

on the alleged use of chemical weapons, was the subject of

much controversy at the thirty-fifth session.

The group now held its first session, though only two

experts (from Egypt and Canada) , as well as a consultant

(from France) participated. Efforts are still being continued

to complete composition of the group, which should have

five members.

A note verbale has been sent to governments requesting

information on the use of chemical weapons. The group now

feels it necessary that you address a questionnaire to

those States, which have submitted substantive information

(.Canada and the U.S.) . The group also wants to make an

on-site investigation in Afghanistan, Kampuchea, Laos,

Pakistan and Thailand.

There is a clear understanding that decisions on these

two matters rest solely with you. A decision will have to

wait until the remaining members of the group are appointed.

The report is due to be submitted to the thirty- sixth

General Assembly.

Angela Knippenberg-Uther1 May 1981

V

>Wx\X>

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:




Mr. Mikhail D. SytenkoUnder-Secretary-GeneralPolitical and Security

Jan MartensonAssistant Secretary-General ,Centre for Disarmament ^ ;W\\



30 April 1981

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT: Group of Experts to Invesrtrate Reports on theAlleged Use of Chemical Weapons

1. The Group of Experts to Investigate Reports on the AllegedUse of Chemical Weapons, established by the Secretary-Generalpursuant to General Assembly resolution 35/144 C, held its firstsession from 2O-24 April 1981. Although, prior to the session,three countries, Egypt, Kenya and Peru, had indicated their interestto provide experts for the Group, only Major General Dr. E. Ezz ofEgypt and Dr. E. Ambeva of Kenya were able to participate in thefirst session. Peru informed the Secretariat that it was not in aposition to provide an expert to attend this session. The consultantto the Group, Dr. Herbert Marcovich of the Institute Pasteur, France,also attended. Currently, we .are continuing our efforts to completethe composition of the Group which, according to the financialimplications, should consist of five members.

2. The Group concluded its session by adopting a summary of theproceedings of the session, which, inter alia, included the followingelements: (i) with regard to the parameters of its investigation,the Group considered that it had no choice but to base itself onthe information provided in the material submitted by Governmentsin response to the Secretary-General's note verbale of 26 January 1981and relevant documents of the thirty-sixth session of the GeneralAssembly (see para. 7 of the summary) ; and (ii) on the basis of apreliminary assessment (paras. 9-14) of the material presented byGovernments, the Group thought it necessary to explore other relevantsources of information, and for this purpose, felt that it wasnecessary to do the following: (a) A questionnaire (see Annex I)should be addressed by the Secretary-General to the Governments whohad submitted substantive information in response to his note verbale,namely, Canada and the United States. Furthermore, it would be up tothe Governments concerned to determine which persons should, in turn,receive the questionnaire; and (b) Request the Secretariat to makearrangements, as soon as feasible, with the authorities of Afghanistan,Democratic Kampuchea, Laos, Pakistan and Thailand, which would permitan investigation to be made in the respective areas, immediatelyprior to the final session of the Group, and in accordance with theprocedures outlined in Annex II.

3 . It should be noted that there is a clear understanding on thepart of the Group that the relevant decisions regarding the

- 2 -

questionnaire and the on-site investigation suggested by theGroup, rest solely with the Secretary-General. ^My final^commendation to you will be contingent upon tHe receipt and

evaluation of written comments concerning any aspect of thesummary of the proceedings, to be submitted by the remainingmembers of the Group, who are yet to be appointed (para. 16).However, once the latter condition is fulfilled and in view ofthe short time available for the completion of the Group's work,the Secretariat will need to take speedy action in terms of thedecisions to be taken as well as their implementation.

-__ _ __ 2k April 1981

Summary of the proceedings of the first sessionof the Group of Experts to Investigate Reports on

the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons

1. The Group of Experts to Investigate Reports on the Alleged Use of Chemical

Weapons, established by the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly

resolution 35/1 C, held its first session from 20-2h April 1981 at United

Nations Headquarters in New York.

2. The session was opened by Mr. Jan Martenson, Assistant Secretary-General,

Centre for Disarmament. The session vas attended by Major General Dr. Esmat A. Ezz

of Egypt and Dr. Edward E. Ambeva of Kenya as veil as by the Consultant to the Group,

Dr. Herbert Marcovich of the Institute Pasteur, France. The Group decided to

defer the question of election of a Chairman until the second session, pending

completion of the Group.

3. The Group initially considered its mandate as contained in operative

paragraphs k and 5 of the resolution according to which the Secretary-General

vas requested to carry out an impartial investigation to ascertain facts

pertaining to the reports regarding the alleged use of chemical veapons and

to assess the extent of the damage caused by the use of chemical veapons, and

to carry out such investigation, inter alia, taking into account uroposals

advanced by the States on vhose territories the use of chemical veapons has

been reported, with the assistance of qualified medical and technical experts

vho shall: (a) Seek relevant information from all concerned Governments,

international organizations and other sources necessary; and (b) Collect

and examine evidence, including on-site with the consent of the countries

concerned, to the extent relevant to the purposes of the investigation.

2.

U. In carrying out its work, the Group had before it the following material:

(a) Replies received from Governments to the note verbale from the

Secretary-General, dated 26 January 1981, pursuant to resolution 35/1 ^ C

(Conference Room Paper No. 1 and Add.l and 2); and

(b) Documents of the thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly:

A/36/81, 10U, 121, 157, 173 and 207- (Letters from the Permanent Representative

of Democratic Kampuchea to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General

containing, inter alia, a request that the information therein be brought to the

attention of the Group.)

5- The Secretariat also drev the attention of the Group to the existence

of other General Assembly documents from previous years which the Group might

consider to be of relevance to its vork.

6. With a view to facilitating the work of the Group, the Secretariat also

provided it with certain background material, including: (i) General Assembly

resolution 35/1 4 C; (ii) relevant verbatim records of the Plenary and First

Committee during the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly;

(iii) Geneva Protocol of 1925; and (iv) Report of the Secretary-General

entitled "Chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons and the effects

of their possible use".

7. With regard to the parameters of its investigation, the Group considered that

it had no choice but to base itself on the information provided in the material

referred to in paragraph k above. The Group recognized that in investigating the

reports of alleged use of chemical weapons referred to in that material, it would be

necessary, as stipulated in operative paragraph 5 (a) of resolution 35/1 C, to

explore other necessary sources of information with a view to seeking further

elaboration and clarification regarding the allegations.

3.

8. The Group noted that the Secretariat had. made initial informal approaches to

the relevant international organizations, including the International Committee

of the Red Cross, the World Health Organization and the Office of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, vith a viev to ascertaining the type

of information that might be available in case the Group might wish to obtain

such information in pursuance of operative paragraph 5 (a.) of resolution 35/1 C.

9- In undertaking a preliminary examination of the material referred to

in paragraph k above, the Group concluded that in assessing the allegations

of the use of chemical weapons, it could only take into account material

which contained substantive information concerning, in particular, the

symptomatology and the circumstances surrounding the alleged use of such

weapons. The cases were classified into two main groups: (a) cases which

were .reported by eye-witnesses or victims; and (b) cases which were of a

hear-say nature. Without ignoring the second group, a great deal of attention

was devoted to the first group of cases.

10. The cases that were considered were analyzed in terms of the alleged

method of use, i.e., aerial delivery by sprays, bombs or rockets or ground

attack with rockets or artillery. Various factors, such as weather (wind, rain

or temperature) and the location of victims during attacks (in a sheltered area

or in the open) were also taken into consideration.

11. The signs and symptoms were evaluated in terms of their onset after exposure

and the distance of the alleged victim from the site of maximum concentration

of the agent. Each case was then analyzed with a view to correlating the

alleged signs and symptoms with what is known about the effects of the various

chemical agents in an attempt to find out what sort of chemical agent might

have been used.

12. On the basis of the available data, it was almost impossible, in some cases,

to reach any decisive conclusion whether chemical agents were used or not, and

even more so regarding the nature of the agent which might have been employed.

In other cases, the evidence presented did not substantiate, in any manner, the

allegation of use of chemical agents.

5.

13- The Group expressed its concern that whereas the material

included, cases where medical treatment was given to the alleged victims,

no medical reports were submitted. Furthermore, the Group was of the opinion

that some of the medical data presented were very meagre and could not be of

any help in carrying out a valid assessment.

l*i. In some cases, it was clear that the alleged devices for chemical

agents bearing the labels "yprit" and "sarin" were only detection

kits used for reconnaissance purposes in identifying various chemical

agent s.

15. In order to carry out its task in a satisfactory manner, to ascertain the facts

end reach scientific conclusions, the Group felt that it vas important to do the

following:(a) Request the Governments which have submitted information pursuant

to the Secretary-General's note verbale, to furnish further details

which might clarify areas of uncertainity concerning the incidents where

alleged use of chemical agents are mentioned.— In particular, the following

types of information would be especially valuable:

(i) medical records of cases where treatment was provided, with

accurate description of signs and symptoms at the time of admission

(laboratory investigations, x-rays, treatment and conditions of

discharge);

(ii) autopsy reports, if any;

(iii) chemical analysis of any polluted soil, food and water;

(iv) reports of examination of any ammunitions utilized, or any

part of them;

(v) names and addresses of casualties _or eye-witnesses to a

chemical attack; and

!_/ A questionnaire to be addressed by the Secretary-General to theGovernments who had submitted information in response to his note verbaleis appended as Annex I.

6.

(vi) films or pictures where they exist.

(b) Since, however, no documentary evidence can entirely replace evidence

obtained directly from the persons affected, the Group, vhile fully aware

of the sensitivities of the situation, would request the Secretariat to

make arrangements, as soon as feasible, with the authorities of Afghanistan,

Democratic Kampuchea, Laos, Pakistan and Thailand, which would permit an

investigation to be made in the respective areas, immediately prior to the

final session of the Group, and in accordance with Annex II.

16. It was agreed that the present summary of the proceedings would be

communicated by the Secretariat to the other members of the Group, upon

their appointment. It was also agreed that, if they wished to do so, the

latter would submit written comments, on any aspect of the summary, to the

Secretariat and to the other members of the Group. Any comments concerning the

draft questionnaire, contained in the Annex, would be communicated directly

to the Consultant, Dr. Herbert Marcovich, who, after finalizing the questionnaire

on the basis of the comments received, would transmit it to the Secretariat

with an indication of the further action to be taken with respect to it, with

a view to its dispatch at an early date thereafter.

17. It was recalled that the Group has to complete its work by the end of

August 19Sl and that two more sessions are scheduled for that purpose. In view

of the very short time available for completion of its highly complicated task,

the Group emphasized the need for full co-operation on the part of all concerned.

18. The Group decided to hold its next session from 22 June to 2 July 1931 in

New York.

ATHCEX I

Draft Questionnaire

I. If you have personally witnessed the use of chemical weapons:

1. (a) Can you specify whether it was by means of air delivery, bombs,

cannisters or sprays, artillery ammunitions, air bursts or impacts?

(b) What were the features of the attack with the chemical agent

with respect to the color, if any, and the prevailing weather

conditions?

(c) If there were clouds of gas, how long did they last before

complete dissipation?

(d) Were you in the open air or under cover?

2. (a) If you were exposed to the attack, what was the distance

between you and the site of detonation?

(b) What was your immediate reaction?

(c) After how long a period of time did the first symptoms begin

to appear, what was the sequence of the various symptoms and how

long did they last?

(d) Did you receive any medical treatment and if so, where and

how soon was it given?

(e) What was the nature of the treatment and how long did it take

before you completely recovered?

3. (a) If there were other casualties, how far from the site of

detonation were they located?

(b) What signs and symptoms did you observe in such cases and what

was the sequence in which they occured?

(c) Did you witness any fatalities and, if so, how many?

2.

(d) Did you notice any correlation between the age, sex and general

health of the victims and the intensity of the symptoms involved?

(e) How long were the victims exposed to the chemical agent?

(f) Was any treatment administered?

(g) How long did it take for the victim to recover?

(h ) Have you spoken to any of the attending medical staff and what

were their comments?

II. If the information that you have reported was of a hear-say nature, can

you identify your sources and indicate their reliability?

AIIHEX II

I. Places to be visited

1. Sites where alleged use of chemical veapons vas mentioned.

2. Hospitals where alleged casualities were treated.

3. Camps where refugees vere either eye-witnesses to or casualities

of alleged chemical attack.

II. Things to be seen and examined

1. Medical records of the alleged casualities.

2. Any ammunition or parts thereof which were claimed to be chemical.

3. Any records of laboratory tests conducted on alleged contaminated

soil, food or water.

^. Films or pictures of alleged chemical attack, amunitions or

casualities.

5- Autopsy records of alleged casualities.

III. People to be questioned

1. Persons who were allegedly exposed who to chemical attack.

2. Persons who witnessed the alleged chemical attack.

3. Medical staff who treated the alleged casualities of chemical

attack or who conducted autopsy on such casualities.

U. Local authorities, social workers and others who handled such

casualities immediately after the alleged exposure to chemical

attack.

U N I T E D Distr.GENERAL

A/AC.206/2/Add.l29 April 1981ENGLISHORIGINAL: ARABIC/ENGLISH/FRENCH/

RUSSIAN/SPANISH

PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE SECONDSPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERALASSEMBLY DEVOTED TO DISARMAMENT

VIEWS OF MEMBER STATES OW THE AGENDA AND OTHER RELEVANTQUESTIONS RELATING TO THE SECOND SPECIAL SESSION OF THE

GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEVOTED TO DISARMAMENT

Reporb of the Secrebary-General

Addendum

CONTENTS

REPLIES RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENTS

Jordan

Luxembourg . . . „ ,

Mexico

Portugal .

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United States of America

Page

2

3

5

7

9

10

13

81-11718

t-tSf

Note for AR

I discussed the question of the UStelfl/initiative with

Mr. Martenson. According to him there were three alternatives:

1. Submitting this proposal to the Preparatory Committee for the

Second Special Session devoted to Disarmament with a view to

including the item in the agenda of SSDD II. This would delay

the initiative by one year and this might not be acceptable

to the USSR. In addition, decisions in this body are taken by

consensus, so that there is no guarantee that the proposal

would be adopted;

2. drawing the proposal to the attention of the Advisory Board

on Disarmament Studies. The Advisory Board could then advise

the Secretary-General on how to proceed (again, decisions are

taken by consensus) . As the Advisory Board cannot submit

proposals to the General Assembly, the Secretary-General

would have to submit a report to the Assembly;

3. a USSR initiative in the First Committee. This would appear

to be the quickest and most straightforward course of action.

In addition, the proposal would not be subject to consensus

approval .

Mr. Martenson considers that the USSR should formally submit

the text to the Secretary-General before any further discussion of the

item takes place. He discussed the initiative with members of the

USSR mission who, it seems, favour the third alternative. He got the

impression, however, that the USSR mission did not regard the

initiative as a priority item. If the issue is brought up during

the Secretary-General's forthcoming visit to Moscow he could there-

fore suggest the third alternative outlined above.

21 April 1981

Orig.. SGb/f: RA/GMM/AKU-

FileiUSSR

The attached message was conveyed to the

Secretary-General orally by Ambassador Ovinnikov on

Friday, 6 March 1981. The unofficial translation was

handed to me by Counsellor Schiborin on Monday, 9 March.

AR/- 9 March 1981

Inofficial translationI

In Moscow it was considered necessary to address the Secretary-General of

the United Nations in connection with new major foreign policy initiatives put

forward at the XXVI Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

These initiatives stem from a well-balanced comprehensive appraisal of the

current international situation and the concern to preserve peace and to ensure for

the present and future generations the most important right of every man - the

right to live.

The Congress reaffirmed the Soviet Union's consistent course of principle aimed

at preventing military danger, deepening detente and curbing the arms race. It was

pointed out in this connection that all the proposals we had put forward earlier at

various international fora in order to ensure security and eliminate the tension in

the world are still valid, and many of those proposals, as it is known, have gained

the approval of the United Nations. .v

The new Soviet proposals which gave rise to profound interest and positive

response in the world embrace a wide range of issues. They concern nuclear-missi-

le and conventional armaments, land, naval and air forces, they touch on the

situation in different areas of the world, including such problems as the Persian

Gulf and political settlement of the situation around Afghanistan, the necessity to

return to a collective search for a comprehensive just settlement of the Middle

East conflict, negotiations on confidence-building measures in the Far East and,

of course, an active dialogue between the Soviet Union and USA at all levels,

particularly, on the questions of further limitation of strategic armaments.

It is obvious that the new Soviet initiatives in their spirit correspond to the

2.

main purposes and major avenues of the UN activities and are in line with the

decisions adopted by this Organization during the entire post-war period in the

interests of consolidating peace and international security and deepening detente

in the relations among states.

We would like to draw the particular attention of the Secretary General to the

following two specific proposals which directly concern the United Nations.

In Moscow it is considered that far-sighted approach, political will and

courage, prestige and influence are necessary to solve many of the present

international problems. That is why, in our opinion, it would by useful to call

a special session of the Security Council with the participation of the top leaders

of states - permanent and non -permanent members of the Council - in order to

look for keys to improving international situation and preventing war. Leaders of

other states, if they so desire, could evidently take part in the session.

In'putting forward this proposal we bear in mind the special responsibility of

the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace. To ensure the

positive results of this important undertaking thorough preparations are required.

And Secretary General of the United Nations, certainly, could play his role in it.

Furthermore, various studies on the question of how humanity is menaced by

the continuing arms race, the emergence of ever new types of weapons, especially

weapons of mass destruction, have been conducted within the framework of the

United Nations for quite a few years.

Activities in this respect, carried out by prominent public figures in various

countries, are also of great importance. An example of this is the recent decision

of Soviet and American medical scientists - representatives of the most humane

profession in the world - to voice joint protest against the threat of nuclear con-

flict by specifically showing from a medical point of view the extent of its danger

to the life of human kind.

We are convinced that the proper awareness of the public at large, of all the

people, in these matters would have paramount significance, Inter alia, from the

point of view of additional pressure on governments to reach agreements, practi-

cally aimed at preventing a nuclear-missile war.

Guided by these motives, the Soviet Union proposes to set up__...an.,.international

committee with proper standing, which would demonstrate the vital necessity of

preventing a nuclear catastrophe. It could be composed of most eminent scientists*^^ ^

of different countries. We are convinced that the UN Secretary General has good

potentialities to contribute to the implementation of this proposal without delay.

Obviously, conclusions of this .committee should be made public.

It has been noted with satisfaction in Moscow that, judging from Dr.Wald-

heim's statements, the spirit and the objectives of the above mentioned proposals

are consonant with his own views. Soviet leadership hope that Dr.Waldheim will

consider with utmost attention these and other new initiatives of the Soviet Union

as to what specific steps could be taken tby the United Nations, and personally

by the Secretary-General, to translate them into reality.

We are ready, of course, to continue the exchange of views on the above

mentioned questions with Secretory General of the United Nations.

AR/JEB - cc: |SG y

b/f:RA/MKP/GMM/AKU/AF/MJSFile:USSRXRef:Centre for Disarmament

••ir. Jan Martenson 17 March 19B1

Assistant Secretary-GeneralCentre for DisarmamentMr. Mikhail D. SytenkoUnder-Secretary-General for Political andSecurity Council Affairs

Albert RohanDirector of the Executive Office of theSecretary-General

Please find attached the text of a message theSecretary-General has received from the Permanent Missionof the USSR concerning new major foreign policyinitiatives put forward at the XXVI Congress of theCorriraunist Party of the Soviet Union.

I wish to draw your attention to page 3 of themessage which contains the propoposal to set up aninternational coivuriittee composed of ".fiininent scientistsof different countries which would demonstrate the vitalnecessity of preventing a nuclear catastrophe.

The Secretary-General would be gsateful to receiveyour comments and. suggestions regarding this proposal.

AR/JEB -cc:SG

b/f: RA/MKP/GMM/AKU/AF/MJSFile : USSR

11 DQpaMr. Gustav Ortner J^UA 17 F.-arc 192Director, Security Council and PoliticalCoiTiinittees Division

Mr, Mikhail D. SytenkoUnder-Secretary-General for Politicaland Security Council Affairs

Albert RohanDirector of the Executive Office of theSecretary-General

Please find attached the text of a message theSecretary-General has received from the Permanent Missionof the USSR concerning nev/ major foreign policyinitiatives put forward at the XXVI Congress of theCorm-p.unist Party of the Soviet Union.

I wish to draw your attention to page 2 of themessage which contains the proposal "to call a specialsession of the Security Council with the participation ofthe top leaders of states - permanent and non-permanentof the Council ~ in order to look for keys to improvinginternational situation and preventing war."

The Secretary-General would be grateful to receiveyour comments and suggestions regarding this proposal.



TO: Mr. AlbertA: Director

Executive Office of

THROUGH: yfc f Mikhail D. SytenkoUnder-Secretary-General fo

and Security Council AffairsFROM:DE: Jan Martenson \

SUBJECT:OBJET:

Assistant Secretary- GeneralCentre for DisarmamentMessage received by the Secretary- General from the Permanent Missionof the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic§ _

1. With reference to your memorandum of 17 March 198! concerning theUSSR initiatives to set up "an international committee with prQpj3r_jjtanding,which jrould demonstrate the_'7italnegessity oF^reventing a nuclear catas€rophe",attention "could be drawn tcMdie fact that the United Nations~and theSecretary-General have manifested continuous interest in these crucial issues.Various aspects of the devastating effects of a nuclear war have been studiedand discussed in the past by the United Nations. Thus in 1968 the Secretary-General, in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 21.62 A (XXI) submitteda report on "Effects of the possible use of nuclear weapons and the securityand economic implications for States of the acquisition and further developmentof these weapons". Further in 1980, the Secretary-General submitted anotherreport to the General Assembly, in pursuance of resolution 33/91 D, containing"a comprehensive study on nuclear weapons", which dealt, inter alia, with theeffects of the use of nuclear weapons.

2. It should be noted that in view of the topical importance of the issuesinvolved, on occasion, the Secretary-General has associated himself withinitiatives to study various means to prevent nuclear war and achieve nucleardisarmament. Thus, for example, in 1979 the Secretary-General associatedhimself with the suggestion of his Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies toprepare a report on the general and complete prohibition of nuclear-weapons tests,

3. In view of the present international situation it^would seem to be quiteappropriate for the Secretary-General to support initiatives aimed at diminishingthe dangers of a nuclear war and the United Nations may pjrovide a frameworkfor such action_in line with its already traditional study activities in thefield of international security and disarmament. The concrete approach to beadopted will still have to be decided upon in further consultations.

^. The proposal would seem to leave room for several alternative approaches,including "drawing the attention of the Preparatory Committee for the SecondSpegial^Session Devoted to Disarmament to the Soviet initiative as a questionthat could be appropriately handled in the preparatory process, or seeking theadvice^ of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies on tne implementation of"initiative. It is suggested that the b'ecretary-uenerai mignt clarity variousappropriate procedures in direct conversation with representatives of theGovernment of the USSR, during his forthcoming visit to Moscow.

\f \t ,\JL_V _V.A A A A A

AF/atk File: DisarmamentxRef: OPAKAL bf : AR/MKP/GW*/AKJ^MJS

Mr, Jan Martcnscrs , Assistant 17 April 1581Secretary-GeneralCentre for

Mr. Mikhail D. SytenkoUnder- Secretary-General forPolitical anc Security Council Affairs

Rafeeuddin Ahmed, Chef de CabinetExecutive Office of the Secretary-General

S c ven t h _r egu 1 ar s e s^s i on _o f the GeneralConf cr en c e 5 ^ ^ 5isr _ r__the__prohi_bition_ of J<ucl ea r Wea pon s" in" La t inAmerica (CPAI-JAL)

With reference to gc-ur itiemorandura of

2 April 1981 on the above subject, I have

attached the revised message of the Secretary-

General to OPAHAL.

We understand that it is your intention

tc deliver this on b&half of the Secretary-

General during the Conference.

Message of the Secretary-General to the Seventh Regular

Session of the General Conference of the Agency for the

Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (CPANAL)

I am pleased to extend my greetings to the participants

in the seventh regular session of the General Conference of

the Agency for the Prohibition _of Nuclear Weapons in Latinf-

America. The venue of this session, Mexico City, is not only

the capital of a country-'that has taken a leading part in f

disarmament efforts at the United Nations but the very city

in which the Treaty of Tlatelolco was signed.

The Treaty of Tlatelolco was the first legal instrument9

for the military denuclearization of an inhabited region of the

earth. Since the conclusion of the Treaty, the General Assembly

has continued to follow v?ith great interest the developments

relating to it. In this connexion it is to be hoped that the

process of ratification of Additional Protocol I of the Treaty

will soon be completed.

The merits of the concept of establishing nuclear-weapon-

free zones have been demq'nstrated by the Treaty of Tlatelolco

and recognized "over the y.ears by many resolutions of the

United Nations General Assembly. In the Programme of Action

for Disarmament drawn up ;by the General Assembly at its first

special session devoted to disarmament, the Assembly reaffirmed

this concept and drew attention to the various regional

initiatives for the creation of such zones. The concept was

also included in the recommendations concerning the elements

of a comprehensive programme of disarmament approved by the

Disarmament Commission in 1979.

The creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones is one of the

means by which States can reduce the danger of the nuclear.-arms

race and contribute effectively to attaining the goal of non- .

proliferation. The States Parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco

can take pride in the fact that they have provided the world

with a successful model of such a zone and, in so doing, made

a significant contribution to the strengthening of international

peace and security.

I send you my best wishes for success in your endeavours.

TO:A:

THROUGH:S/C DE:

FROM:DE:

SUBJECT:OBJET:

cc: Y.Buch,9.4.81



2 April 1981




Mr. Mikhail D. SytenkoUnder-Secretary-GeneralPolitical and Security

Jan MartensonAssistant Secretary-GeneralCentre for Disarmament ^Seventh regular session o&T3n.eGenera Conference of theAgency for the Prohibitio&iof Nuclear Weapons in Latin "America(OPANAL)

1. As indicated earlier, the seventh regular session of the OPANALGeneral Conference will take place between 21 and 24 April 1981 inMexico City. At the invitation of OPANAL you have decided to designateme as your representative to attend the conference.

2. In view of the importance of the Treaty of Tlatelolco whichestablished OPANAL as its executive organ, and the continuous considera-tion the General Assembly gives to its implementation, it has becometradition that you address a message to the General Conference. It issuggested that this practice should be continued and for that purpose,please find enclosed for your consideration and approval the draftmessage.

DRAFT/2 April 1981

Message of the Secretary-General to the Seventh Regular Sessionof the General Conference of the Agency for the Prohibition of

Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (OPANAL)

It gives me pleasure to extend my greetings to the participants

in the Seventh Regular Session of the General Conference of the

Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America.

It is particularly gratifying to note that this session is taking

place in Mexico City, which is not only the capital of a country

that has for many years taken a leading P rt in disarmament efforts

at the United Nations but the very city in which the Treaty of

Tlatelolco was signed.

The merits of the concept of establishing nuclear-weapon-

free zones, which the Treaty of Tlatelolco embodies, have been

recognized over the years by many resolutions of the United Nations

General Assembly. In the Programme of Action for Disarmament drawn

up by the General Assembly at its first special session devoted to

disarmament, the Assembly reaffirmed this concept in general, and

drew attention, in particular, to the various regional initiatives

for the creation of such zones. The concept was also included in

the recommendations concerning the elements of a comprehensive programme

of disarmament approved by the Disarmament Commission in 1979.

The Treaty of Tlatelolco, which was the first legal instrument

for the military denuclearization of an inhabited region of the

earth, has demonstrated the validity of the concept of nuclear-

weapon-free zones. Since the conclusion of the Treaty, the

General Assembly has continued to follow with great interest the

developments relating to it. In this connexion it is to be hoped that

the process of ratification of Additional Protocol I of the Treaty

will soon be completed.

The creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones is one of the

means by which States can reduce some of the world community's

justified concern over the nuclear arms race and contribute

effectively to attainment of the goal of non-proliferation.

-2-

The States Parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco can take

gratification in the fact that they have provided the world

with a successful model of such a zone and in so doing made a

significant contribution to the strengthening of international

peace and security.

I extend to all of you my best wishes for success in your

endeavours.