BACK: Wrapping Up at the CCD | NEXT: Votes and Quotes from UNGA

Battle at the General Assembly

In 1976 ENMOD was once again on the General Assembly's agenda as the First Committee's Item 45 for the UNGA 31st session. Canada, Denmark, Finland, East Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom and Zaire tabled the CCD draft text in a resolution.

It was not a smooth ride. A large debate took place during the month that the session lasted, with many countries opposing adoption of the CCD draft. Most of these countries felt the treaty was too weak and that lack of consensus at the CCD was problematic, Several countries called for re-opening the text for further negotiation. According to Kenya:

The draft convention before us does not even enjoy a consensus within the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD), which is absolutely essential if it is to constitute an acceptable and sound basis, and if it is to be capable of commanding widespread support within the international community. (A/C.1.31/PV.51; 3 December 1976; pp. 32-33)

Malaysia also pointed to the lack of consensus, in particular, on Article I:

My delegation will not be able to support draft resolution... because we are of the view that no convention should be open for signature and ratification if there is no consensus over the substance of one of its articles. (A/C.1.31/PV.51; 3 December 1976, p. 42)

Trinidad and Tobago opined that the draft Convention was too weak, the process of drafting it fundamentally flawed, and - identifying an undercurrent clear in the CCD debate - questioned whether the treaty served the interest of small and medium-sized states:

My delegation is not impressed by the argument that half or a quarter of a loaf is necessarily better than no bread at all and that, since the two super-Powers have got together and churned out a common text, we should all be grateful... we should ask ourselves whether breathing a sigh of relief and appearing to defer more and more to the alleged wisdom of the two super-Powers is in the long run in the best interests of the small and medium-sized countries of the United Nations... [The treaty] is simply not good enough. (A/C.1/31/PV.51; 3 December 1976, p. 24-28)

Some countries, unhappy with the text approved at the CCD, made a final attempt to amend the draft treaty during the General Assembly session. Consistent with its position at the CCD, Mexico was the most outspoken rebel, introducing amendments to the CCD's text to extend the scope of the prohibition and to extend protections to non-parties. Mexico was particularly interested in eliminating the troika:

The Mexican Government is convinced that, if the aim is to enable the General Assembly of the United Nations to recommend the draft to Member States, it will be essential to omit the limitative clause 'having widespread, long lasting or severe effects'. That would ensure that the provisions of paragraph 1, although very inferior to those of the original Soviet text of 1974, do not entail the slightest risk of legitimizing many acts of environmental war. (A/C.1/31/8; 16 November 1976, p. 2)

Arguing its case, Mexico referred to the history of ENMOD: At its 29th Session in September 1974, the General Assembly adopted the initial Soviet ENMOD proposal with 126 votes in favor, none against, and only five abstentions, among them the US. Art I of the draft Convention, which was annexed to the Resolution, provided a complete prohibition of any hostile modification of the environment, and to carry out preparations for their use. Mexico argued the US abstention was due to the fact that the US administration hadnŐt decided whether they would favor a total or partial ban.

(Mexico was correct. The US Defense Department favored allowing some environmental warfare, despite the US Senate request (Resolution 71) for an absolute ban. The US adminstration eventually sided with Defense. See the US Congress section for more detail.)

Many Latin American countries held dissenting views, including Panama and Trinidad and Tobago, who (along with Mexico) sponsored a resolution to forward the Convention to governments for their consideration, requesting they submit their comments to the Secretary General within six moths. That formula would give an opportunity to convey their views to those countries that had not participated at the CCD. Panama, like most of the rest of the non-aligned movement, opposed the despised troika:

My delegation wishes to state that it will vote against the [draft treaty] because we feel that... the General Assembly would to a certain extent place the seal of legitimacy on something according to the title of the proposed convention it should prohibit - namely, the use of environmental modification techniques. (A/C.1/31/PV.51; 3 December 1976, p. 42.)

According to Peru:

My delegation will vote against the draft resolution because we cannot morally endorse an instrument whose deficiencies and ambiguities entail risks that new weapons systems that some developed countries are trying to perfect will be used, and this time legitimately used. (A/C.1/31/PV.51; 3 December 1976, p. 38.)

Trinidad and Tobago, explaining its vote against the draft text, said:

It has been suggested that there is a difference between 'widespread, long-lasting and severe' and 'widespread, long-lasting or severe'. My delegation appreciates the fineness of the legal distinction between 'and' and 'or', but with the greatest respect considers it, as far as small entities are concerned, largely irrelevant. If, for instance, an artificially-created tidal wave were to wash in a few minutes - and there is nothing 'long-lasting' there- over a small island and destroy nearly everything and everyone on it, who then, of the island's governmental authorities would complain about the severity of the damage? A delegation of corpses? And of what significance would such a complaint be? (A/C.1/31/PV.51; 3 December 1976, p. 22)

Some countries, including Ireland, were unsatisfied with the draft text; but were ready to move the CCD on to other pending arms control negotiations, skeptical that any improvement in ENMOD could be achieved:

As a small country, we could not but share the doubts expressed about the effect of the words 'having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects' in article I of the draft convention and about the threshold approach this representÉ I should also add that we share the disappointment expressed by a number of delegations that it had not been possible to arrive at a more satisfactory complaints procedure than that provided for in article V. Having said this, I should say that the Irish delegation is conscious, firstly, that the present convention is designed to prevent the use of techniques which up to now have not been used rather to be a measure of disarmament as such and, secondly, that it was subject to detailed discussion in the CCD. We therefore doubted, like many others, whether the CCD should be asked to devote more time to an endeavour which is peripheral to what should, in our view, be its major concern: ... a comprehensive test ban and a ban on the production and stockpiling of chemical weapons. (A/C.1/31/PV.51; 3 December 1976, p. 47)

Others, including Spain and Burkina Faso (then Upper Volta) accepted the text, but expressed uncertainty about ratifying it. Burkina Faso:

Although the new text does not satisfy us entirely... rather than awaiting unanimity which probably would not come soon at all, will vote in favour of the [draft treaty.] In doing so, however, my delegation... reserves the right to explain its position in further detail if we were to sign or ratify this convention. (A/C.1/31/PV.51; 3 December 1976, p. 47)

The delegation of Spain, which also voted for the treaty, had much the same position, questioning whether or not his government would ever ratify ENMOD (it did), and criticizing Article I in particular.

Italy made the suggestion that the shortcomings of the text, particularly the limitations to the scope of the ban, would be corrected at future review conferences:

the Italian delegation can only hope that this fundamental question [of the troika] will be reconsidered in the future. This could be done especially on the occasion of those review conferences... (A/C.1/31/PV.24; 3 December 1976, p. 78)

After some complicated procedural maneuvers, on 3 December 1976, the Latin American-led proposal to delay for six months to allow countries to send comments to the Secretary-General was very narrowly defeated by a vote of 49 to 42 with 35 abstentions. The CCD's draft ENMOD text was adopted by the First Committee by a vote of 89 to 11, with 25 abstentions.

The UN General Assembly adopted the resolution on 10 December 1976, paving the way for the treaty to be ratified and brought into force. Ninety six countries voted in favor of the Convention, thirty abstained, and eight countries voted against the treaty.

BACK: Wrapping Up at the CCD | NEXT: Votes and Quotes from UNGA