WORLD DISARMAMENT CAMPAIGN

The World Disarmament Campaign is a Mexican initiative arising from the Final Document of the first special session on disarmament, calling for "mobilizing world public opinion on behalf of disarmament." The United States expressed two principal concerns when the Campaign was first proposed in 1980. First, we expressed serious doubt that the Soviet Union and other totalitarian governments would permit any free airing of international security or disarmament issues. Second, we noted that it was not the function of the United Nations or of governments in democratic societies to "mobilize" public opinion.

Despite United States and Western opposition, the 35th General Assembly adopted a Mexican resolution (35/152 I) requesting the Secretary General to prepare a study on the organization and financing of a Campaign under UN auspices. The study was favorably received and forwarded by the 36th General Assembly to the second special session on disarmament for action. (The United States abstained on that resolution.) At the special session, we raised our objections regarding the asymmetrical and unbalanced nature of the proposed Campaign. After considerable effort, a plan outline acceptable to the United States was developed, thus enabling the U.S. delegation to join the consensus which launched the Campaign. The plan outline, as approved, called for the campaign to be carried out "in all regions of the world in a balanced, factual and objective manner." We have made it clear that we expect the Campaign to be financed out of existing funds and voluntary contributions and not from any expansion of the UN budget.

At the 37th General Assembly the World Disarmament Campaign was considered under the agenda item entitled "Review and Implementation of the Concluding Document of the Twelfth Special Session of the General Assembly." The traditional Mexican sponsored draft resolution calling for a World Disarmament Campaign was adopted without a vote by the plenary on December 13. (Resolution 37/100 I.) Since the resolution approved the general framework of the World Disarmament Campaign as outlined at the second special session on disarmament which called for a balanced, objective, and universal campaign, we were able to join consensus on the initiative.

Following up on the unusually strong and positive language agreed to at the second special session, the United States cosponsored and introduced a draft resolution on Peace and Disarmament movements at the 37th General Assembly which recognized the right of peace and disarmament movements to publicly and freely express their views on disarmament questions and to organize and meet publicly for that purpose. The resolution also called on member states to

facilitate the flow of a broad range of accurate information on disarmament matters, both governmental and non-governmental, to and among their citizens. The resolution was cosponsored by a representative mix of 12 Western and non-aligned nations and was adopted without a vote on December 13. (Resolution 37/100 J.)

Finally, on November 17 Bulgaria introduced a draft resolution on the World Disarmament Campaign which invited all member states to collect signatures in support of measures to prevent nuclear war and curb the arms race. The United States and the Western nations noted that this resolution was singularly propagandistic and tendentious and did not further the expressed purpose of the World Disarmament Campaign. The resolution was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 108 to 0, with 33 (U.S.) abstentions on December 13. (Resolution 37/100 H.)

INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

A number of initiatives aimed at strengthening the United Nations institutional machinery for dealing with disarmament were introduced in the 37th General Assembly. These proposals largely flowed from initiatives which were developed in connection with the second special session on disarmament.

On November 9, Norway introduced a resolution, subsequently sponsored by 35 states, under the heading of the "Report of the Committee on Disarmament." The resolution noted that it had not been possible to complete action at either the second special session or the subsequent meeting of the Committee on the issue of expansion of its membership and requested the Committee to return to this issue during 1983 and to report to the 38th General Assembly.

Norway introduced another resolution on November 15 on behalf of 40 countries which addressed the status of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), which had been established on a trial basis as a result of the first special session on disarmament in 1978. The resolution was designed to make UNIDIR a permanent body. It invited voluntary contributions to the Institute, requested that a statute for UNIDIR be prepared and presented to the 38th General Assembly, and invited UNIDIR to report to the General Assembly on its activities.

A third Norwegian initiative was presented to the First Committee on November 17 in the form of a draft recommendation of the General Assembly to the Secretary General that he revive the Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies.

Sweden, on behalf of 23 other states, introduced a draft resolution on November 18 which noted the increasing responsibilities placed on the UN Center for Disarmament as a result of the second special session, e.g., the conduct of the World Disarmament Campaign, and

requested the Secretary General to elevate the status of the Center into a Department for Disarmament Affairs headed by an Under Secretary General. The resolution specified this should be done within overall resources of the United Nations and that the staffing of the Department reflect fully the principle of equitable geographical distribution.

On November 22 Norway withdrew the four resolutions and submitted a new omnibus resolution which incorporated, with minor changes, the four previous initiatives. One addition to the resolution was a recommendation that the Committee on Disarmament consider designating itself a Conference on Disarmament.

The principal concern of the United States with this series of measures was with their financial implications. The United States had made clear its position that there should be no growth in new programs unless old, marginal programs were eliminated so that the new ones could be accommodated within existing resources. The United States was also concerned that an expansion in the membership of the Committee on Disarmament could undermine the efficient functioning of that body as a negotiating forum and that discussion of an expansion was beyond the scope of the General Assembly. Because UNIDIR is funded in its research activities by voluntary contributions, the United States was not concerned over financial implications which might result from making it a permanent body. Similarly, because the Advisory Board was an ongoing, although at that time dormant, function of the United Nations, the United States did not oppose its reactivation; the United States did, however, believe it should be scaled down in size and was assured that was the intent of the Secretary General. The upgraded status of the Disarmament Center, with its Assistant Secretary promoted to Under Secretary General, did carry minimal financial implications, but the resolution provided that this should be done within existing resources. The United States sought and obtained a statement by the sponsors that the reference to equitable geographical distribution in regard to staffing the new Disarmament Department was fully in consonance with the UN Charter which provides that "the paramount consideration in the employment of staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity."

Other states also had similar concerns with these institutional arrangements. A different concern arose from the Soviet Union which expressed its satisfaction with the present functioning of the Disarmament Center under the supervision of the UN Under Secretary General for Political and Security Council Affairs, who happens to be a Soviet national.

By merging its four resolutions into one, Norway made it necessary to consider them as a package of reforms rather than individual

proposals. The omnibus resolution was adopted by consensus in both the First Committee and the General Assembly. (Resolution 37/99 K.)

Another institutional issue concerned the decision of the second special session on disarmament to increase the number of disarmament fellowships from 20 to 25 per year. A resolution presented by Nigeria on November 4 requested the Secretary General to provide adequate staffing for the increased activities and structure of the program.

The United States had argued during the special session that any expansion in the fellowship program should be accomplished within existing resources or on the basis of voluntary contributions. The final action included a reference to the need to bear "... in mind the savings that can be made within the existing budgetary appropriations." When the Nigerian resolution came to a vote in the First Committee and General Assembly, the United States did not oppose its adoption by consensus. (Resolution 37/100 G.)

OUTER SPACE

The Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, its Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and its Legal Subcommittee met during 1982. The major issues considered were preparations for the Second UN Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space held in August 1982 (UNISPACE '82), direct television broadcasting from outer space, the use of nuclear power sources in space, remote sensing from space, and the geostationary orbit. The subject of "militarization" of space although not on the formal agenda stimulated some discussions in the Committee, its Subcommittees, and UNISPACE '82.

Scientific and Technical Subcommittee

The Scientific and Technical Subcommittee held its 19th session January 11-22 in New York. The Subcommittee considered the preparations for UNISPACE '82, the use of nuclear power sources in outer space, the UN program on space applications and the coordination of space activities within the UN system, questions relating to remote sensing of the Earth by satellites, questions relating to space transportation systems and their implications for future activities in space, and the examination of the physical nature and technical attributes of the geostationary orbit. Other items under consideration included a review of the future role and work of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee in its role of adviser to the preparatory committee for UNISPACE '82 considered issues related to the Conference and adopted a report dealing with arrangements and preparations.

The UN program on space applications for 1981-82 was reviewed. The program included various training workshops, panels, fellowships, and seminars. It was noted that the 1983 program would take into account the results of the UNISPACE '82 Conference. The Subcommittee continued to note the need for ensuring effective consultation and coordination in outer space activities within the UN system. The UN program on space applications and coordination of UN activities was continued as a priority agenda item.

In the area of the use of nuclear power sources in satellites (NPS) the Subcommittee took note of the conclusions of the NPS working group and recommended that this item be continued on its agenda on a priority basis. Work on questions relating to remote sensing of the Earth was also continued. The view was expressed that it would be desirable to broaden international cooperation in the use of remote sensing data. Remote sensing also was continued on the Subcommittee agenda on a priority basis.

Legal Subcommittee

The Legal Subcommittee held its 21st session February 1-19, in Geneva. Its agenda included consideration of draft principles concerning the remote sensing of the Earth from space; the possibility of supplementing the norms of international law relevant to the use of nuclear power sources in outer space; and matters relating to the definition and/or delimitation of outer space, bearing in mind questions relating to the geostationary orbit. The first two agenda items were considered in Subcommittee working groups.

The question of draft principles governing the use by states of artificial Earth satellites for direct television broadcasting (DBS), which had been considered by the Subcommittee at its 20th and prior sessions, was not on the agenda.

The discussion of remote sensing concentrated primarily on the questions of state responsibility for non-governmental remote sensing activities, prior consent of the sensed state to dissemination of remotely-sensed data, and guaranteed access by the sensed state to primary and analyzed data concerning its territory derived from remote sensing. The U.S. Representative, David H. Small, reviewed the problems inherent in the "prior consent" concept and its adverse consequences for the utility and availability of remotely-sensed data, rejected the proposition that dissemination of information concerning a sensed state's natural resources could violate that state's permanent sovereignty over those resources, stressed the unacceptability of a concept of "state responsibility" broadened to cover terrestrial activities of non-governmental entities, and reiterated the U.S. view that the remote sensing principles under consideration in the Subcommittee could apply to civil remote sensing activities only.