A/31/PV.96 General Assembly

I call on the representative of Nepal, who wishes to introduce draft resolution A/31/LA. 2. Mc. UPADHYAY (Nepal): The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, convened and sponsored by the United Nations, has held five sessions during this year and the past three years. This Conference has been dealing with one of the most challenging tasks before the international community-the task of establishing a har- monious relationship in the uses of the sea. The new developments in the field of technology and communi- cation, along with the rising expectations and new aspira- tions of the nations of the world, have posed a formidable problem of reconciling the divergent interests of the nations. The immense opportunity of exploiting the re- sources of the sea and of using its vast potential should be considered in a manner that would benefit all the nations of the world. The formidable task of setting up new rules that minimize the possibility of conflict and tension, that recognize the needs and aspirations of all the countries in the world, on the basis of the principles of equity and justice, and that guarantee the peaceful uses of the sea, the sea-bed and the ocean floor is by no means something that can be accomplished overnight. It is therefore natural that so many sessions have been devoted to tackling all the aspects of the problem. 3. Different orders of priority are accorded by different States to various issues before the Conference. It will therefore not be possible to have a unanimous view on the assessment of the work completed so far. It can, however, be said that the Conference has devoted its time to most meaningful negotiation and has done sufficient spade work. It has laid down firm foundations upon which the new convention's structure could be built. In order to sustain the gains made so far, we need to deploy more vigorous efforts and to show an indomitable will to achieve success. A/31/PV.96 5. The President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, in a letter dated 20 September 1976 addressed to the President of the General Assembly /A/31/225j, has hinted at such a possibility. The President . of the Conference has been acknowledged by all the representatives at the Conference to be a man of great insight, in addition to his other good qualities. The sponsors, who hold his opinion in high regard, therefore introduced the necessary element in the draft resolution in its fourth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 3. Operative paragraph 3 will render possible, as and when appropriate, the provision of the necessary facilities for private consultations among Governments and delegations. 6. In this connexion we have been informed by the Secretariat that an invitation may possibly be sent to the heads of the delegations of all participating States to meet in Geneva from 28 February to 11 March 1977, in order to concentrate mainly on problems related to the system of exploitation of the sea-bed. We should like to emphasize the importance we attach to those consultations, which in the past have proved conducive to a better understanding of possible areas of compromise. 7. The other new element introduced in the fifth pream- bular paragraph and in operative paragraph 4 is recognition of the need for continuity in the services of those staff members of the United Nations who have been associated with the Conference and have thus been effective in laying down the basison which future progress can be made. 8. The draft resolution before the Assembly is aimed at continuing the activities carried out in the past without trying to judge past performances or to give future promises, and it is, therefore, of a strictly procedural nature. 9. I hope that delegations will give their support to draft resolution A/31/L.4 and that they may consider the possibility of adopting it without a vote.

I should like to invite the attention of the General Assembly to the recommendation contained in paragraph 17 of the report of the Fifth Committee /A/31/396]. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts the Fifth Committee's recommendation without objection?

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/31/LA. Ma;: I take it that

The Assembly will first consider the report of the First Committee on agenda item 35 /A/31/372/. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Incendiary and other specific conven- tional weapons which may be the subject of prohibitions or restrictions of use for humanitarian reasons" reco: nended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of that .,ort. As the First Committee adopted that draft resolutionwithout a vote, may I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do likewise? The draft resolution lWlS adopted(resolution 31/64).

We shall now take up the report of the First Committee on agenda item 36 /A/31/373J. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons", rec- ommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of that report. The First Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do likewise'? The draft resolution lWlS adopted (resolution 31/65).

We shall now take up the report of the First Committee on agenda item 38 fA/31/375f. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Implementation of General Assembly resolution 3467 (XXX) concerning the signature and ratification of Additional Protocol 11 of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco)" recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. A recorded vote hasbeen requested.

The Assembly will now proceed to take up the report of the First Committee on agenda item 41 fA/31/3781. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Effective measures to implement the purposes and objectives of the Disarmament Decade" recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. The First Committee adopted this draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? The draftresolution was adopted (resolution 31/68).

We shall now proceed to consider the report of the First Committee on agenda item 42 / A/31/- 3791. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Implementation of the Declaration on the Denu- clearization of Africa" recommended by the First Com- mittee in paragraph 6 of its report. Since that draft resolution was also adopted by the First Committee without a vote, may I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? The draftresolution was adopted (resolution 31/69).

We now turn to the report of the First Committee on agenda item43/A/31/3801. We shall now proceed to take a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Comprehensive study of the question of nuclear- weapon-free-zones in all its aspects" recommended by the FirstCommittee inparagraph 7 of its report. 2 The de.egatlon of Guatemala subsequently informed the Secre- tariat that it wished to have ih vote recorded as having been in favour of the draft resolution. Against: None.

The Assembly will now consider the report of the First Committee on agenda item 44 {AI3113811. We shall now proceed to take a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Establishment of a nuclear- weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East" recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. 36. A separate vote has been requested on operative paragraphs 2 and 3 together. A recorded vote has been requested.

I shall put the draft resolution as a whole to the vote. A recorded vote has been requested.

The delegation of Mexico wishes to place on record its position on the so-called Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, which appears as an annex to the draft resolution in paragraph 15 of document A/31/382. By adopting this draft resolution the General Assembly would refer this Convention "to all States for their consideration, signature and ratification", and would request the Secretary-General, "as depositary of the Convention, to open it for signature and ratification at the earliest possible date". Similarly, the General Assembly would express its hope that the Convention will receive the "widest possible adherence". 41. The delegation of Mexico, much to its regret, will be unable to support that draft resolution, since we consider that the scope of the prohibition contemplated in the so-called Convention is totaJly unacceptable, and that the procedure being foJlowed to win its acceptance by the international community isequalIy unacceptable. 42. Paragraph I of article I of the so-called Convention reads asfollows: "Each State Party to thisConvention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environ- mental modification techniques having widespread, long- lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party". 43. That text is the same as that which appeared in the identical drafts submitted to the Conference of the Com- mittee on Disarmament in August )975 by the Soviet Union and the United States, respectively. True, in 1976 the delegations of the States participating in the work of that body succeeded in introducing some changes in the identical texts proposed by the super-Powers. It is also true, however, that, despite the intense negotiations held in the Conference in Geneva this year, almost all of the changes accepted by the super-Powers arc purely cosmetic and, from every point of view, of secondary importance. The text of article I, which defines the scope of the prohibition, is identical to the joint proposal of the super-Powers. From the outset, one of them had indicated that that text was not subject to negotiation; this intransigent attitude was supported unreservedly by the other super-Power, whose original proposal for a total prohibition had already received thegeneral supportof the Assembly. 44. Indeed, in the draft Convention submitted to the General Assembly by the Soviet Union in 1974, complete prohibition was envlsaged. Article I of that draft Conven- tion [resolution 3264 (XXIX), annex] was drafted as follows: 45. In comparison with that original Soviet text, a text all-encompassing in its prohibitions, and categorical and unequivocal in its concepts, article I of the so-called Convention which we are now called upon to endorse is, from every standpoint, insufficient and ambiguous and entails very grave risks. To illustrate this, it will suffice to give paragraph 1 of article I of the so-called Convention positive wording equivalent from a legal point of view. It would then read asfollows: "Each State Party to the Convention shall have the right to use environmental modification techniques for military or any other hostile purposes as the means of destruction, damage or injury to another State Party, as long as such techniques have no widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." 46. The risks that that would entail, not only from the legal standpoint, but also in practice, can be even better appreciated if one takes into account the explanations given to the scope of the words "environmental modification techniques" in article 11, whereby that phrase would in- clude, inter alia, the deliberate manipulation of natural processes to bring about earthquakes, tidal waves, various types of cyclones and hurricane storms, or to modify the condition of the ozone layer or the ionosphere and ocean currents. 47. It seems to us most alarming that one can think of legitimizing in an international convention actions so monstrous as those, on the condition that they have no "widespread, long-lasting or severe effects",especialIy when we bear in mind that there will always inevitably be an important subjective clement involved in the descriptlon of these effects. 48. For a better appreciation of the meaning of the text, we must bear in mind that among the effects of techniques of waging environmental warfare which arc allowed by virtue of their not being considered to be sufficiently "widespread" there would be those which, according to the clarifications of the super-Powers which sponsored the draft, would cover an area of less than "several hundred square kilometres"; and among those that would similarly be tolerated since they would Hot fall into the category of "long-lasting", in accordance with the so-called Convention, would be included those of a duration of less than "several months or approximately a season". 49. This becomes all the more stark if we consider that we are legislating on a subject" environmental modification for military purposes which may be described astotally virgin. Hence any multilateral instrument adopted on the subject will constitute a precedent of incalculable consequences for the evolution of common law in this field, which will have such far-react ing consequences for the future of mankind. 51. Both at the Conference of the Committee on Disar- mament and in the debates in the First Committee on this item, the super-Powers have insisted that, despite the present wording of article I of the so-called Convention, it will be possible effectively to prohibit the use of environ- mental modification techniques for military or other hostile purposes. Hence the following sixth preambular paragraph has been included in the preamble to the draft resolution we are now considering: "Noting further that the Convention is intended to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eli- minate the dangers to mankind from such use". 52. But if what isat issue iscomplete prohibition, then we absolutely fail to realize why the super-Powers refuse to delete the limiting clause "having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects". It also seems to us, quite frankly, to be contradictory to have operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution, which reads: "Calls upon the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, without prejudice to the priorities estab- lished in its programme of work, 'to keep under review the problem of effectively averting the dangers of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques". 53. Furthermore, the delegation of Mexico wishes to emphasize the fact that the text of the so-called Convention is the result of inconclusive negotiations. That text does not have the general support of the countrieswhich participate in the work of the Geneva Conference. Contrary to the impression that some delegations have tried to give, the Conference did not "recommend" that the General Assem- bly adopt this draft; so that it is a mistake to affirm in the fifth preambular paragraph that "the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament has completed and trans- mitted" to this draft to the Assembly. 54. The delegation of Mexico understands very well that, after five years of sterile efforts, the States exercising the eo-chairmanship of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament want to present "results" to the Assembly. We realize, too, the importance accorded by the super- Powers to anything that might be interpreted as furtherance of the policy of detente. Nevertheless, as a State Member of the United Nations, we cannot accept that an attempt should be made to deceive the General Assembly by imposing on it a multilateral instrument that has not been properly negotiated; nor can we accept that the most rep- resentative organ of the internationalcommunity should be madeuse of for bilateral political purposes. 55. The disagreement of the States Members of the United Nations with the text of the so-called Convention, as well as with the procedure which, or the urging of the super- Powers, was followed in the First Committee to obtain 56. The super-Powers, using parliamentary techniques and manoeuvres that are somewhat irregular and with the assistance of a selective application of the rules of pro- cedure, succeeded in having a vote taken on a motion to give priority to draft resolution A/C.l/31/L.5/Rev.3. They obtained that priority but only with 59 votes in favour, while 61 delegations expressed their disagreement either by voting against it or abstaining. 57. It is true that draft resolution A/C.I/31/L,5/Rev.3 was adopted by 89 votes to 11, with 25 abstentions; but it is also true that a large number of the votes in favour were cast under the influence of an intense campaign carried on by the super-Powers. Time will tell whether the so-called Convention will be ratified by the same number of States which at that stage gave it an affirmative vote. 58. There can be no doubt that the great majority of delegations would have preferred to give their respective Governments an opportunity carefully to study the so- called draft Convention as it deserves to be studied. That was clearly shown when, with only 49 votes, the super- Powers succeeded in not putting to the vote draft resolu- tion A/C.l/31/L,4/Rev.1. Indeed, the First Committee decided to take no further action on that draft resolution by 49 votes to 42, with 35 abstentions; that is to say, 77 delegations were prepared, in one way or another, to support draft resolution A/C. I/31/L.4/Rev.1. 59. From an objective analysis of the votes it isclear that no fewer than 43 of the delegations which supported draft resolution A/C. I/31/L.5/Rev.3 were prepared to vote on draft resolution A/C. 1/31/L.4/Rev.1. 60. The procedure followed in the First Committee for the adoption of the draft resolution that we arc now considering cannot but redound to the detriment of the Committee itself and of the credibility of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament as a multilateral negotiat- ing body. 61. For all the foregoing reasons, the delegation of Mexico will vote against the draft resolution in document A/ 31/382, since we openly refuse to be accomplices in this attempt to legitimize, in an instrument allegedly concerned with disarmament, activities of a warlike character.

On oehalf of the delegation of Bolivia, which was a sponsor or draft resolution A/C.l/31/L,5/Rev.3 on the draft Corn ention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Tech- 64. It might not be a perfect instrument, but it cannot be denied that it is good, that intrinsically it limits environ- mental warfare in such a way as to make it militarily impracticable and establishes legal machinery to regulate the application of the wise prescriptionsit contains. 65. The imperfections of the draft can be overcome by the system of amendments, set out in article VI, and the periodic review conferences referred to in article VIII. That is the usual way in which human societies shape their institutions in seeking the attainment of their highergoals. 66. It is noteworthy that the draft Convention deals with two fundamental aspects of environmental modification: techniques used "for military or any other hostile use" and those used "for peaceful purposes"; they are specifically referred to in articles I and Ill, respectively. While this distinction seems to be clear and objective, it is nevertheless difficult in certain areas to draw the line, so that it is wise to be aware of this. 67. Let us look at it. A given environmental modification can be carried out on a civilian basis and cause manifest "hostility" to a neighbouring State that could thus lead to war. In other words, techniques used in the exploitation of natural resources can cause "destruction, damage or injury" that might be "widespread,long-lasting or severe". Thus we see that in that case such an act assumes "paramilitary" significance and, therefore, is "hostile" and comes within the scope of this convention. 68. Our concern about this should not be surprising. It is similar to that shown by the Government of Austria when considering "the need for adequate definitions of basic concepts" whir' it pointed out in the "comprehensive study of the stion of nuclear-free zones in all its aspects". "One of the problems in this connexion," it emphasized, "is the differentiation between nuclear weap- ons and nucleardevices for peaceful purposes," an aspect of the question to which it "attaches particularImportance".» 69. Some matters overlap and have to be differentiated as much as possible so that we may confine our approach to each one separately and so that we will not in the future end up with divergent and controversial rules. Apart from the example that I have just given, others can be given that are equally significant. 70. When the item on the "exclusive economiczone" was dealt with in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, it wa, said that it both "is and is not" a "jurisdlctional sea" and that it both "is and is not" at the same time "the high seas". But nobody ventured to say what "it would become," in brief, what the "exclusive 72. That is to say, if the effects of the environmental modification techniques lead to "widespread, long-lasting or severe 'destruction,' damage or injury" to the countries suffering therefrom, we would be witnessing one of the modifications of the environment' of the type covered by the draft, and the parties could not refuse to comply with the Convention. 73. There is a further consideration. In the section on "Understandings", it is stated that "the interpretation lof the limitations that have been established] is not intended to prejudice the interpretation of the same or similarterms if used in connexion with any other international agree- ment" [see A/31/27, p. 91/. But "widespread, long-lasting or severe effects" have not been mentioned in previous declarations or treaties; so that when they do occur and cause "destruction, damage or injury" to a country, it will be in vain to seek similar or identical interpretations in documents other than the present. and we shall have no other recourse than what is state:I in the principles and rules which we are now considering. 74. Furthermore the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament considers that "earthquakes; tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); ... changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere" are "illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques" [ibid., p. 92/. 75. This presumption is unique and peculiar to the treaty which we are considering, and therefore should any of these phenomena occur-and the list is not exhaustive through the use of environmental modification techniques,we shall have to subject the affected area to the procedure provided for under our Convention, since there is no other adequate and clear international instrument. 76. But that is not all. The Convention furthermore establishes the presumption that any of the phenomena indicated, and others not listed "when produced by military or any other hostile use of environmental modifi- cation techniques, would result, or could reasonably he expected to result, in Widespread, long-lasting or severe destruct ., damage or injury" [ibid], Such a presumption ex....f, ;. no other document previoush subscribed to by Member States. 77. In the context of the interpretation which I am explaining, we must note the understanding expressed by the delega;' 'In of Pakistan in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament when he said that the phrase 78. One may say that man lives in water. The relationship between man and the environment may basically be expressed as a direct function of the liquid element which he needs for survival. Water is the basis of human existence. More than by the destruction of the soilor the depletion of the oxygen in the air, man's life is threatened by any impairment of the quality of the water. Therefore the'core of the ecological balance can be nothing other than the hydrological balance. 79. By means of water we can cause widespread, long-last- ing or severe "destruction, damage or injury". History has shown this to be true. God himself, to punish man for his unbridled appetites, brought on him a universal deluge. In the exodus of the Hebrews escaping from the slavery of Egypt, Moses used the technique of the miracle of dividing the waters of the RedSeaso that his people could cross;he then caused the waters to come together again in order to trap their pursuers in the raging waves. When my country was still a colony, the Indians roseup and besieged the city of La Paz. In order to force it to surrender they diverted the waters of the river Choqueyapu with their primitive techniques and thus left the population without that precious element. 80. Any alteration to the hydrological balance of a region, will naturally lead to changes in its "climate patterns." A serious diminution in the volume or extent of water flows will result in fewer clouds and an alarming decline in the rainfall and natural water courses will decrease or disappear. The temperature will rise, the soil will become parched, the seedlings will disappear and there will be no water with which to irrigate the earth. Life, in sum, will become difficult, not to say precarious, just as in the deserts. 81. The delegation of Pakistan indicated in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament quite rightly that it would have "preferred the draft Convention to include a provision on the obligation of States to ensure that their use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes would not result in adverse effects for other States" [tbid., p. 94/. 82. The delegation of Italy, for its part, maintained in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament that "arti- cle II! should contain a provision establishing the respon- sibility of States Parties for damages or injuries deriving from the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes"; he further pointed out that "such a provision would, inter alia, greatly help to prevent that prohibited activities under the draft convention might actuallybe disguised aspeacefulones" [ibid., p, 95/. 83. In accordance with this thinking, the delegation of Egypt noted that in article III "no mention was made ... about the liability of States partiesconcerning the peaceful use of environmental modification techniques which might cause damage or injury to any other State, a principle already applicable in the field of international law" Iibid., p. 96/ but one which is without legal effect, as is borne out by present-day experience. 85. To sumup these ideas, we can affirm that any environ- mental change for the benefit of the perpetrator and to the detriment of another State is an act of geographical aggression. That is true with respect to every phenomenon considered in the Convention. We wish in particular to emphasize that such geographical aggression is involved in the alteration of the hydrological regime which, of neces- sity, changes the condition of man's habitat. 86. Franz Tamayo, the Indian eagle of Bolivia, said: "To touch the waters and claim that one has not touched the territory of a country is to add a stupidity to a crime."

The Assembly will now proceed to take a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques" recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 15 of its report IA/31/ 382/. A recorded vote has been requested. 89. I now call on the representative of India, who wishes to explain his vote before the voting.

When the First Committee considered the draft resolution now before us, the Indian delegation explained its position. We then proceeded to say that this year we could be brief because at the twenty-ninth and thirtieth sessions of the Assembly our position on this question of a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in South Asia had been explained in great detail. I am happy to be even briefer now. I shell merely say that, for the reasons then explained in ·some detail in the First Committee,« my delegation was not in a position to support this draft resolution and that in fact ifwould vote against it.

I very much wish that delegations which have already expressed their views in the First Committee would not repeat them at length in this plenary meeting of the Assembly. 92. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia" recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 6 of its report [A/3i/383J. A recorded vote has been requested.

I call on the representative of the United Kingdom, who wishes to explain his vote after the voting.

The United King- dom delegation saw considerable merit in the draft resolu- tion on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia, which was introduced in the First Committee in document A/C.l/31/L.6 by the delegation of Pakistan. The creation of such a zone would be an effective contribution to the cause of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and to the reduction of the nucleararms race. 95. It is unfortunately, however, a fact that the concept could only become a reality if allStates in the area were to work together to that end, and it was noticeable in the First Committee as well as in this plenary meeting that this draft resolution did not command the support of all such States. 96. It seems, therefore, to my delegation that the factors weighing both for and against this draft resolution are in present circumstances balanced, and the appropriate course was for us to register thisfact by abstaining.

The Assembly will now consider the report of the First Committee on agenda item 48 [A/3i/385J. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Prohibition of the development and manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons" recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 8 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested.

The Assembly will now consider the report of the First Committee on agenda item 116 [A/31/388J. 99. I call on the representative of Zambia, who wishes to explain his vote before the voting.

As my delegation indicated in the First Committee, nothing that has taken place since 1968 has made the basis of our position on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons untenable. We still maintain the position that we cannot be a party to the non-proliferation Treaty. This being the case, the Zambian delegation considers the item before us irrelevant and it will therefore not participate in the voting.

I now put to the vote the draft resolution entitled "Implementation of the conclusions of the first Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report [A/31/388/. A recorded vote has been requested. 7 The delegation of Sweden subsequently informed the Secretariat that it wished to have its vote recorded as having been in favour of the draft resolution. Against: Albania, China. Abstaining: Algeria, Argentina, Bhutan, Bouvia, Brazil, Burma, Chile, Comoros, Cuba, France, India, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nigerla,s Pakistan, Portugal, Spain, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania. The meeting rose at 5.15 p.m. 8 The delegation of Nigeria subsequently informed the Secretariat that it wished to have its vote recorded as having been in favour of the draft resolution.