IO Files: SD/A/C.1/99
Position Paper Prepared in the Division of International Security Affairs
Regulation and Reduction of Conventional Armaments and Armed Forces
Comment Paper
the problem
The question of regulation and reduction of conventional armaments and armed forces is not on the agenda of the second session of the General Assembly. Nevertheless, certain delegations may initiate a general discussion of the subject, or may even introduce new proposals, either during the opening general debate in the Assembly or during consideration of the annual Report of the Security Council, which is expected to include a section summarizing action taken in [Page 653] the field of armament regulation since the 1946 Assembly. In either case it would be incumbent upon this Government to state its position.
recommendations
- 1.
- The United States Delegation should not initiate a discussion of conventional armaments and armed forces in the General Assembly.
- 2.
- If a general debate on the subject develops, it should reaffirm the basic position which this Government has previously maintained, that the establishment of a system for the regulation and reduction of armaments depends upon the achievement of conditions of international security and confidence as manifested, for example, (a) by the conclusion of peace treaties with Germany and Japan, (b) by the establishment of international control of atomic energy, and (c) by the attainment of agreement on making forces available to the Security Council as provided in Article 43.
- 3.
- The United States Delegation should also take the position that no substantive recommendations by this Assembly are necessary or desirable since the Security Council and the Commission for Conventional Armaments are currently engaged in implementing the recommendations of the last Assembly.
- 4.
- If substantive proposals are introduced, the United States Delegation should seek supplementary advice from the Department of State before indicating in detail its attitude toward such proposals.
(Note: The position of the United States with respect to a possible Soviet proposal linking atomic energy control with regulation of conventional armament is being dealt with in separate paper.)1
discussion
The Present Situation
The General Assembly resolution of December 14, 1946, recommended that the Security Council promptly consider the practical measures necessary to effect the regulation and reduction of armaments and to establish safeguards guaranteeing observance. Pursuant to these recommendations, the Security Council resolution of February 13, 1947, established the Commission for Conventional Armaments and directed it to submit to the Security Council within three months such proposals as it was in a position to make (a) for the general regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces, and (b) for practicable and effective safeguards in connection with armament regulation and reduction.
The Commission initially undertook to formulate a plan of work for submission to the Security Council. Deliberations were focused on two draft plans, a United States proposal which was very general [Page 654] in nature but which was designed to permit consideration under its general headings of all relevant topics, and a Soviet proposal which was objectionably specific and detailed in that it linked consideration of atomic energy control with measures for the regulation of conventional armaments and included other provisions which might be used to divest the United States of its superiority in “offensive weapons” and industrial potential. The Commission for Conventional Armaments approved the United States proposal by a vote of 8 to 1, the USSR voting in the negative and Poland and Colombia abstaining. On July 8 this Plan of Work was approved by the Security Council with the Soviet Union and Poland abstaining. The Commission for Conventional Armaments is currently engaged in carrying out the approved Plan of Work.
The question of conventional armaments, though not on the agenda of the second session of the General Assembly, may arise during the opening general debate or during consideration of the annual Report of the Security Council. This document will probably summarize action taken by the Security Council and the Commission for Conventional Armaments in implementing the 1946 resolution of the Assembly with respect to conventional armaments. If the Assembly follows last year’s precedent it will simply note this Report and pass on to the next item on the agenda. However, the Soviet Union may, in the hope of a propaganda victory, seize upon the opening general debate or upon consideration of the Report as the occasion for initiating a general debate on conventional armaments or may even introduce new and far-reaching proposals designed to embarrass the United States.
Past United States Position
Throughout discussion of the subject in the United Nations, the United States has consistently maintained that conditions of general international security are necessary for the conclusion of international agreements for the regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces. Listed as paramount among these conditions have been the settlement of peace terms with Germany and Japan, the conclusion of agreements implementing Article 43 of the Charter, and an international agreement for the control of atomic energy.
By subscribing to the General Assembly resolution of December 14 and to the Security Council resolution of February 13, this Government has committed itself to a discussion of regulation and reduction of armaments before these conditions of international security have been completely realized, but has not in any sense receded from its original position that security must precede the actual execution of plans for the regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces.
[Page 655]Important statements of the position which the United States has previously taken are attached as Annexes.2
Attitude of Other States
The position of the United States on conventional armaments has been upheld by a majority of Security Council members, and particularly by the United Kingdom. France and China have stressed the view that the progressive realization of conditions of international security should make possible parallel and corresponding steps in the regulation of armaments. The Soviet Union has insisted that disarmament is an essential prerequisite to international security. It is anticipated that these differences of opinion will continue to appear in any General Assembly debates on the regulation of armaments.
Position of the United States in the General Assembly
Since an Assembly debate on armament regulation would be seized upon by the Soviet Union as an opportunity for a propaganda attack against this Government, the United States Delegation should not initiate a discussion of conventional armaments. However, if such a discussion should develop on the initiative of another delegation, it would be incumbent upon the United States, by virtue of its role in the United Nations, to participate in the discussion and state its position.
There would appear to be no reason for altering the basic position which this Government has taken in previous discussions of conventional armaments, inasmuch as there has been no change in the fundamental security considerations upon which this position has been based. A general debate in the Assembly or a far-reaching Soviet proposal would not alter the essential nature of the problem, and any minor modifications of the United States position for General Assembly purposes would be of a tactical rather than a substantive nature. It is therefore recommended that if a general debate on conventional armaments develops, the United States Delegation should reaffirm the previous general position of this Government, emphasizing the priority of international control of atomic energy, settlement of the peace terms, and implementation of Article 43 of the Charter.
Since the Security Council and the Commission for Conventional Armaments are currently engaged in attempting to implement the resolution on regulation and reduction of armaments adopted by the 1946 Assembly, it is believed that it would be unnecessary and undesirable for the 1947 Assembly to adopt resolutions or recommendations of a substantive nature. However, the United States would have no objection to a resolution urging the Commission for Conventional Armaments to expedite its work or expressing hope for an early solution [Page 656] of the problem of conventional armaments. If substantive proposals are introduced, the United States Delegation should in general take the position that they are unnecessary and undesirable, but should await further guidance from the Department of State before stating a detailed position, which will depend upon the exact nature of the proposals as well as upon the tactical situation in the Assembly, in the Security Council and in the Commission for Conventional Armaments.