Volume #21 - 74.|
NATIONS UNIES ET AUTRES ORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALES
QUESTIONS PRÉSENTÉES À LA DIXIÈME SESSION DE L`ASSEMBLÉE GÉNÉRALE
COMMISSION DU DÉSARMEMENT
Le chef de la délégation à l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies|
au secrétaire d'État aux Affaires extérieures
le 21 octobre 1955|
MEETING OF DISARMAMENT COMMISSION100 |
Reference: Our telegram No. 159 of October 21.?
Repeat Paris No. 77; London No. 124.
At the meeting of the Disarmament Commission this afternoon statements were made by representatives of Canada, France, United States, China and the U.S.S.R.
2. The definitive text of Mr. Martin's statement will be sent to you by bag,101 the U.S. delegation was particularly pleased by the references to the Eisenhower plan and before Mr. Martin had finished speaking they asked for a text to be used immediately in "Voice of America" broadcasts. In his statement Lodge said he deeply appreciated the references to President Eisenhower's plan in the Canadian statement. We were a little surprised by the warmth of the American reaction since the statement did not accept the Eisenhower plan unreservedly but made clear our view that it requires much further development and elaboration and that it must be considered in conjunction with other proposals. However, neither Moch nor Nutting made any substantial reference to the Eisenhower plan and the Canadian reaction has been consistently warmer than that of the U.K. and French delegations.
3. In a brief intervention Moch stressed that time was not appropriate for discussion of disarmament either in the Commission or in the Assembly. On the substance of the question he reiterated his view that no particular plan was acceptable except as part of a wider agreement but that, at the same time, no absolutely comprehensive programme covering everything we eventually hope for could be achieved.
4. Lodge said that the U.S. wanted a real debate on disarmament both in the Commission and in the Assembly but that this was not the time to have it. Every member of the Commission and of the United Nations had a right to play its part and the Soviet proposal would make this impossible.102 His most interesting remarks were on the reservation of earlier U.S. positions. He had given us to understand privately that he thought he could restate this reservation in a way that would deprive the U.S.S.R. of any propaganda advantage from it. In fact, his statement appeared to us even more categorical and negative than Stassen's formulations. He set forth three reasons for the U.S. reservation on its earlier disarmament proposals:
(1) The problem of accounting for stockpiles of weapons and weapons material;
(2) The requirement for time to make a new study of the problem of inspection;
(3) The fact that not only science but the present international situation, in short the "facts of life", placed their own reservation on all earlier disarmament proposals.
5. The first two of these reasons are essentially the ones Stassen has used but the third is a sweeping and imprecise assertion which might be interpreted to mean that U.S. policy on prohibition would not necessarily be affected even by the achievement of the "scientific breakthrough" of which Mr. Stassen has spoken so frequently.
6. Sobolev then replied to the statements made, attempting to rebut each in turn by repeating his view that discussion now in the Commission and in the Assembly would clear the air and assist the Geneva discussion. He also gave a detailed restatement of the Soviet May 10 proposals and of the Bulganin letter to President Eisenhower.103 He concluded that the Commission should make its own report to the Assembly as soon as possible in order to permit Assembly discussion of the disarmament item.
7. As had been agreed at a meeting of the Chairman [Sarper] and the U.S., U.K., French and Canadian representatives, the Chairman then remarked that the consensus of the meeting was that further meetings of the Disarmament Commission would be most useful when it would be possible to take full account of the report of the sub-Committee and of the Geneva Conference and, unless there were objections, he proposed that the Commission should now adjourn and hold its next meeting at a time fixed in the light of the considerations he had just mentioned.
8. Sobolev naturally objected and proposed that the next meeting of the Disarmament Commission should be held on Wednesday, October 26. The Chairman suggested that since only one of the 12 members of the commission did not agree, the meeting should adjourn and leave it to the next Chairman to take what action he considered appropriate. (Sarper is Chairman until the end of October when Sobolev becomes Chairman.) Sobolev also objected to this and the Chairman then said that the decision was in the hands of the meeting. Nutting and Moch expressed the hope that Sobolev would not press for a meeting on the 26th in view of the difficulty this would cause in connection with the Geneva Conference which begins on the following day. Sobolev said he did not insist on putting his proposal to a vote provided the record showed quite clearly that he was opposed to the Chairman's suggestion. We therefore adjourned without fixing the date of the next meeting.
9. It is, of course, conceivable that the Soviet Delegation will still request a further meeting of the Commission, or, when Sobolev becomes Chairman on November 1, he may call a meeting. Under the rules of procedure of the Disarmament Commission, the Chairman may call a meeting when he thinks it necessary and he is required to call a meeting when requested to do so by any member of the Commission.104