S/PV.1431 Security Council

The Security Council will now proceed with its consideration of the question before it. The first speaker inscribed on my list to take part in the debate this morning is the representative of Canada, our friend and colleague Ambassador Ignatieff, on whom I now call.

Mr. President, I should like at the outset to associate the Canadian delegation with the well-deserved tribute you paid to the outgoing President, the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. 3. As to your good self, Mr. President, perhaps I may be allowed to illustrate the predicament in which I find myself with the anecdote. of the general who, finding he had overlooked sending birthday greetings to his sovereign on the proper date, made a qick recovery with the following message: “Your loyal troops continue to drink to the long life, reign, health and happiness of Your Majesty”. That is a quotation, of course, But perhaps the time is also appropriate for me to, confess that when I first took up my post as Canadian representative on the Security Council at the beginning of last year, it was with some apprehension that I viewed the prospects of my association with such a distinguished personage, apprehension of the somewhat awesome qualifications that you personally brought Into our midst: your distinguished service in the highest legal tribunal of this great nation; your service as a member of the Cabinet of the United States for many years; and your service as the distinguished General Counsel of one of the world’s greatest associations of trade unions. 4. I can now look back on my year and a half of association with you in the Security Council with even enhanced regard for your diverse professional skills, and no less for the warm and human qualities with which you blended those skills and used them for the public service and that we are now going to miss very much. You have served this Council, this Organization and your own country in the cause of peace in a manner which has earned the admiration of Canadians-your closest friends and neighbours-in all walks of life. 5. It has been said that “parting is such sweet sorrow”. In your case, Mr. President, perhaps I might be permitted to say that my sorrow has been somewhat diluted, but not dispersed, by your continuing participation in our work right down to the last minute, We can at least take comfort from the fact that when you do leave us it will be with a resounding bang of the gavel signifying the accomplishment of an outstanding mission. 6. Now, as to the non-proliferation Treaty, Canada has taken the position that non-nuclear-weapon States, in return for their renunciation of nuclear weapons, should have the right to expect some assurances in respect of their security. In the course of the negotiations, many possible ways of achieving this have been discussed. On the one hand, the nuclear-weapon Powers have been reluctant to undertake additional formal treaty commitments to provide specific assistance to countries attacked or threatened with nuclear weapons. On the other hand, while some nonnuclear-weapon States already have such assurances by virtue of their treaty links with one or more of the nuclear Powers, other non-nuclear-weapon States, because of their adherence to a policy of strict non-alignment, have been reluctant to contemplate any ties which could be considered a departure from that policy. The question of security assurances, therefore, has been one of the most difficult issues encountered in the course of the nonproliferation negotiations. 7. The proposal now made by the nuclear Powers for assurances, falling squarely as it does within the framework of the United Nations Charter, seems to US to be the best answer attainable at the present time to this extremely 8. To those who contend that action by the Security Council is by no means assured, I would point to the special significance of the draft resolution together with the accompanying declarations which were made in this Council yesterday, 17 June. While they cannot and do not alter the provisions of the Charter, they do constitute unequivocal evidence of a com’mon intent by three major nuclear Powers to act in common in the event of nuclear aggression or the threat thereof, with a view to restoring the peace. It seems to us that this concert of understanding here recorded in the resolution of the Security Council and the solemn declarations made by the nuclear Powers is of the highest political importance. It is one of the most encouraging international developments in many years. It represents a great step forward in the pursuit of a durable world peace. 9. Finally, I would emphasize that the resolution also reaffirms Article 51 of the Charter under which the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence of Member States is recognized until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. The Canadian delegation considers that this part of the resolution, taken in relation to the preceding paragraphs, represents an important assertion that a nonnuclear-weapon State party to the non-proliferation Treaty, which is the victim of nuclear threat or nuclear attack, may reasonably expect assistance from one or more of the nuclear-weapon States which have made declarations in support of this resolution, until such time as the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security,

I should like to thank Ambassador Ignatieff for his contribution to our debate and for his warm and generous remarks concerning me. It is often said that good fences make good neighbours, The experience of our two countries belies this cliche. There are no fences between Canada and the United States, and certainly they have been, are and, God willing, will always be good neighbours. And certainly, Ambassador Ignatieff, there have never been any fences between us during our common service together-an experience that I shall always treasure.

At the outset allow me, Mr. President, fully to associate my delegation with the words of praise that you expressed at our meeting yesterday with regard to the President of the Security 12. My Government wholeheartedly welcomed the a&p. tion of General Assembly resolution 2373 (XXII) of 12 June 1968 commending the Treaty on the Non. Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. To our mind the historic importance of that accomplishment is obvious because any unnecessary delay might have jeopardized the very possi. bility of ever obtaining such a treaty, and thus have left us face to face with the awesome potentiality of a further spread of nuclear weapons. It also constitutes a necessary, if not in itself sufficient, prerequisite to a comprehensive, end in particular a nuclear, disarmament process, 13. In adopting the resolution by an overwhelming major. ity, the General Assembly, in our opinion, displayed alli& sense of responsibility. At the same time, however, concern was expressed by several countries that appropriate meas. ures be undertaken to safeguard their security. 14. The Government of Denmark, therefore, welcomes the agreement established among three nuclear-weapon States-the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States-expressed in the draft resolution submitted by them and in their statements in presenting this draft resolution to the Council to meet this concern. 15. We see this agreement as a token that these countries consider it in their own vital and proper interest that no non-nuclear-weapon State shall be subject to nuclear aggression or the threat of such aggression. It is therefore an agreement whose political significance goes far beyond the very text of the guarantee formula contained in the draft resolution now before the Council. 16. Furthermore, the agreement between the three nuclear-weapon States must be considered a reasonable basis committing the parties, a basis upon which the Security Council, should the occasion arise, may intervene. 17. We are satisfied that the solution now proposed provides such global security as may be obtained in the prevailing international situation? and that this solution in any case provides a greater measure of security than is today at hand. 18. For the several reasons I have mentioned, my delega. tion will vote in favour of the draft resolution contained in document S/863 1.

I thank Ambassador Borch for his contribution to the debate.

Before I turn to the item on the agenda, I should like to associate my delegation with the tributes paid by you, Mr. President, and other members to Lord Caradon, our President for the month of May. I can add nothing to what has’already been said about the outstanding qualities 22. At the meeting of the Security Council held yesterday afternoon, the representatives of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union submitted for the Council’s consideration the draft resolution contained in document S/8631. They also made identical declarations to the effect that their respective countries had undertaken to seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance, in accordance with the Charter, to any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. The three States reaffirmed in particular one of the fundamental provisions of the Charter, namely the inherent right, set forth in Article 51 of the Charter, of individual and collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. 23. There is an extremely close link between these declarations and the decision adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its afternoon meeting on 12 June.1 At that meeting the Assembly adopted by a majority vote a draft resolution (2373 (XXII)/ cornmending the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons proposed by the United States and the Soviet Union. In view of this close link, first of all I should like, before commenting on the three declarations I have mentioned and on the draft resolution which has been submitted to us, to refer to the Treaty itself. 24. Paraguay’s views on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons were defined by Mr. Sapena Pastor, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Paraguayan delegation, at the twenty-second session of the General Assembly, in his statement made at the 1570th plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 27 September 1967. I quote his words: L‘ . . , At the same time, the threat of the dissemination of nuclear weapons hangs over the world. Recent events give us reason to think that perhaps .the time is coming when this dissemination will be halted and when, as a result, the dread that nuclear weapons, against which we have not the slightest defence, inspires in our peoples will begin to diminish. We long to be free of this threat. When more countries join the hitherto restricted group of States that are able to manufacture and use nuclear weapons, the sufferings and anguish of the great masses of the inhabitants of this world will be even greater. “This concern about the possible dissemination of nuclear weapons should, moreover, be appraised in 1 See OfficioI Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-second Session, Plenary Meetings, 1672nd meeting. 25. When the United States and the Soviet Union submitted the draft Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to the twenty-second session of the General Assembly, my Government, taking as its criteria the principles and considerations to which’1 have just referred, examined the text of the draft with the greatest care. It found that the text was open to improvement; and we therefore endeavoured, in conjunction with all the other members of the Latin American group, to improve it. Our efforts were well received, and the two sponsors agreed to introduce certain amendments which resulted in the revised text that appeared as an annex to the draft resolution submitted subsequently to the General Assembly for decision. We were fully aware then, as we are now, that the treaty does not fully meet our wishes, that it does not include certain provisions we should have liked to see in it, and that it will certainly not allay all fear of the possible wrongful use of nuclear weapons. But we knew also, and still know, that it will at all events prevent such fears and preoccupations from continuing to grow indefinitely. 26. After weighing the reasons in favour of this treaty against the remarks made about its deficiencies, my Government concluded that its duty was to work actively in favour of the draft. Such, in brief, were the reasons why my Government first of all co-sponsored the revised draft resolution and then added its vote to those of ninety-four other members of the General Assembly in adopting resolution 2373 @XII). 27. In assuming the special responsibilities involved in co-sponsoring and commending the draft treaty, and thereby provisionally accepting-until the treaty is signed and ratified by the appropriate constitutional processesthe obligations that the treaty imposes on non-nuclearweapon States such as my own, particularly the obligations under articles II and III, we are making our own modest but, as we believe, worthwhile contribution, and we are making it with genuine conviction and with faith in the cause of international peace and security. It was in this same spirit of zeal and faith that Paraguay much earlier subscribed to the Treaty of Tlatelolco, whereby the States of Latin America decided to ban nuclear weapons from our continent. 28. Within the geographical area where my country is situated, relations with near and more remote neighbours alike are such that we are far removed from the fear of possible aggression. However, present technological progress being what it is, particularly insofar as nuclear weapons are concerned, no country, whatever its location, its zeal in the cause of peace, or the level of its economic and social development, is completely safe from the possibilities of 2 Ibid., 1570th meeting, paras. 148 and 149. 30. There is a fourth nuclear State in the Security Council, one of the permanent members, which is not one of the sponsors of the draft resolution before us: I am referring to France. Because of this, we listened with particular interest to the statement made yesterday by the representative of France, Ambassador Berard, in which he repeated what he had said earlier at the 1672nd meeting of the General Assembly on 12 June. On that occasion he stated that when the Security Council had before it the draft resolution proposed by the United States and the Soviet Union, which was designed to give the non-nuclear Powers assurances regarding the risks which might result for them from the nuclear weapons in the possession of the nuclear Powers, France would abstain. He added, and I quote: “Such armaments”-that is, nuclear weapons-“are manufactured in France only for strictly defensive purposes, and France does not intend to use them either to threaten or to attack anyone.“3 3 1. It is certain that no guarantee, however comprehensive it may appear, can give absolute security. We must not have any illusions on that score. But limited guarantees are better than no guarantees at all. The nuclear States offer them to us in their declarations, and my Government considers that it is in our own interest to accept them; it considers also that the appropriate framework in which to take them up is that of the United Nations, and within the United Nations, that of the Security Council. 32. The draft resolution submitted by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union gives the assurance legal form, and my delegation will therefore vote in favour of the draft, as contained in document S/8631. 33. While I am making this statement and this assertion, I should like to add two comments which I think are essential First, we believe that the proposed resolution and the declarations made by the representatives of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union are of a temporary nature, and that their validity will disappear with the coming of the time, much to be desired, when we shall have progressed so far towards general and complete disarmament under effective international control that the manufacture of nuclear weapons will be stopped and existing stockpiles destroyed. The second comment has 3 Ibid., 1672nd meeting, para. 16.

I thank Ambassador Solano Lopes for his remarks, and I now call on the next speaker, the representative of Hungary.

Before making my statement on the item on our agenda I wish to join the other representatives preceding me in referring to the activities of the former President of the Security Council. I recall that Lord Caradon, when I greeted him last month, replied that he would try to live up to the high level of performance of his predecessor. The Hungarian delegation noted that promise with satisfaction and the efforts and the performance that followed in a very delicate and complex situation, when Lord Caradon took a resolute stand, as a statesman of his stature is expected to do. We extend our congratulations to him, 36. Mr. President, we already have congratulated you on a previous occasion, I wish only to say how we regret to see you leave our circle here in the United Nations. We not only considered you an able representative of a great Power, the United States, but appreciated your personal capacity which created an atmosphere of warm friendship in official as well as in private contacts with everyone,.no matter how divergent their convictions might have been, I wish you good health and happiness, and we shall always remember you with the same friendship you have so generously displayed towards us. 37. The Hungarian delegation welcomes the fact that the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States, promptly responding to the desire of many Members to see appropriate measures taken to safeguard their security in conjunction with their adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which has been commended overwhelmingly by the General Assembly, asked for a meeting of the Security Council at an early date. The three Powers, in submitting the draft resoIution contained in document S/8631 on security assurances made identical declarations and clearly expressed their joint resolve to take immediate action in the event of nuclear aggression or the threat of such aggression against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 38. The Hungarian delegation, highly appreciative of this prompt and meaningful action, attaches great importance to the security assurances thus given. These assurances are a matter of vital self-interest to the nonnuclear Powers and to the nuclear Powers as well. 39. The provisions of the draft resolution do constitute ill1 important step in applying the Charter to the realm of nuclear weapons that could not have been foreseen at the time the Charter was drafted. By adopting the draft 40. Contemporary international law provides that international security properly emanates from the United Nations through the Security Council in the spirit and letter of the Charter. The resolution of the General Assembly on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the resolution of the Security Council on security assurances constitute an entity. The identical declarations of three nuclear Powers set up a bridge between the Treaty and the resolution of the Security Council and thus provide for the widest possible adherence to the Treaty and lead to strengthening the collective security system under the Charter. 41. There is no doubt that if there is a need to give security assurances against possible use or threat of use of nuclear weapons in the present d;lngerously tense situation of the world, there is even a greater need to create an atmosphere devoid of such dangers and threats. The action taken at the resumed twenty-second session of the General Assembly followed up by the adoption of the draft resolution in the Security Council and the early coming into force of the Treaty itself should as soon as possible lead to effective measures on the cessation of the nuclear arms race, on the complete prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons and on nuclear disarmament. 42. Hungary is a small country which does not possess nuclear weapons, The resolution on security assurances and our forthcoming adherence to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons provide us, as they do other small non-nuclear-weapon States, with genuine guarantees. The Hungarian delegation welcomes the draft resolution on security assurances, which not only reaffirms the right of individual and collective self-defence but, by virtue of the three identical declarations we have heard, introduces a powerful element of deterrence against nuclear aggression. Indeed, the non-nuclear Powers could hardly obtain stronger assurances than that of the immediate assistance of the three nuclear Powers commanding the overwhelming preponderance of nuclear-weapon power in the world today. 43. Hungary voted in favour of the Treat); on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We shall vote for the draft resolution on security assurances, because we believe that in doing so we shall be contributing to the strengthening of peace and international security.

I wish to thank Ambassador Csatorday for his contribution to our debate and for the personal comments which he has again made. The Ambassador and myself cannot always harmonize our official positions but we have never encountered any difficulty in developing close and friendly personal relations. These, I would venture to suggest, are not irrelevant in our common search for a better ditente in our official relationships. 46. I have already had occasion, Mr, President, to express my opinion of your own abilities as a diplomat, jurist and negotiator. We only hope that you will continue to serve the cause of peace in your future functions as you have always done while you have been with this Organization. 47. In voting in favour of the draft resolution commend-. ing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weap ons, Senegal wished to show its approval of a policy of ditente and peace, and to hail the passing of an important milestone on the road to disarmament. 48. Since the adoption of the General Assembly resolution of 24 January 1946 concerning disarmament, the solution of this problem has never ceased to be one of the major preoccupations of the United Nations. In 1965, in resolution 2030 (XX), the General Assembly endorsed a proposal on the convening of a world disarmament conference not later than 1967. In implementation of resolutions 2153 A and B (XXI) adopted at the twenty-first session of the General Assembly, the Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament has met almost without interruption from 27 January 1967 onwards to carry out the tasks which were entrusted to it, striving above all to reach agreement on a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. 49. The efforts made both in the Eighteen-Nation Committee and outside it have led to the submission of a joint text by three nuclear Powers. The General Assembly, by a large majority, has just recommended the signing of the treaty. Knowing the major preoccupations of the nonnuclear States, the sponsors of the draft treaty have today submitted a draft resolution with the intention of providing formal guarantees of security in the event of nuclear aggression or the threat of such aggression. 50. We should like to make two comments. First, we are still convinced that the ultimate solution is to stop all manufacture of nuclear weapons and to destroy existing stocks. But at the same time we wish to be guided by the facts and to take a realistic attitude. In the present international situation, the fact that the two giant nuclear Powers, the fact that East and West, have reached an agreement, is a historic event which we must applaud, while at the same time encouraging them to continue their discussions in the hope of reaching a solution leading to general and complete disarmament. The stage that has just been completed is, let us hope, a decisive step forward in international co-operation for the achievement of the ideals of peace. 51. My second comment concerns the guarantees of security offered to non-nuclear States in the draft resolution which has been submitted to us and in the solemn declaration of the three nuclear Powers. 52. We for our part have no reason to doubt the good faith of the sponsors, and in any case we must evaluate the 53. In the belief that the draft resolution and the solemn cleclarations supporting it, which we regard as forming one entity, constitute a formal guarantee of protection for non-nuclear countries from the nuclear-weapon countries sponsoring the draft treaty, Senegal will vote in favour of the draft resolution before us. ,T _ & The meeting rose at 11.45 a.m.