"...The worst only needs to happen once..." (nuclear war)

You have before you at this session 64 resolutions dealing with disarmament. During the past weeks in the First Committee, your able and dedicated representatives have worked diligently to devise resolutions on almost every aspect of nuclear and conventional disarmament and arms limitation. Their efforts have been painstaking and thorough.

I believe I would be failing in my responsibility as Secretary-General, however, if I did not take this occasion to voice my alarm with the current state of disarmament endeavours in the world. We must ask ourselves if we are truly committed to the first precept of the United Nations Charter, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".

The Charter gives both the General Assembly and the Security Council responsibility for considering disarmament and the regulation of armaments. Today, there is no more important task before us. The threat of nuclear catastrophe is not one issue among many. Preventing such a horror is the pre-condition of all our endeavours. The great tasks before this world Organization, the challenges of economic and social development, progress in human rights, the construction of a world of justice and human dignity--all will be in vain if we fail to prevent nuclear disaster.

Imperfect as it may be, the Uni Nations is the only existing expression of the entire international community. The common aspirations of the world's people must be articulated here. And none is more fundamental than the survival of humanity. I will not rehearse once more the terrifying statistics that seem to have numbed us with their repetition. Suffice is to say that a nuclear war could never remain limited and could never be won. Its effects would not be confined to the nuclear adversaries but would threaten the existence of all the peoples on this earth. It could lead to the extinction of humanity. Doomsday scenarios need not be proven: the existence of the risk is enough. For the worst only needs to happen once.

As I look across this Hall, I see the delegations of 159 Member nations. Almost all the world's peoples are represented here. And all of them--all of us--live under the nuclear threat. As Secretary-General of this Organization, with no allegiance except to the common interest, I feel the question may justifiably be put to the leading nuclear-weapon Powers: by what right do they decide the fate of all humanity? From Scandinavia to Latin America, from Europe and Africa to the Far East, the destiny of every man and woman is affected by their actions. No one can expect to escape from the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war on the fragile structure of our planet. The responsibility assumed by the great Powers is now no longer to their populations alone: it is to every country and every people, to all of us.

No ideological confrontation can be allowed to jeopardize the future of humanity. Nothing less is at stake: today's decisions affect not only the present, they also put at risk succeeding generations. Like supreme arbiters, with our disputes of the moment we threaten to cut off the future and extinguish the lives of the innocent millions as yet unborn. There can be no greater arrogance. At the same time, the lives of all who lived before us may be redered meaningless. For we have the power to dissolve in a conflict of hours or minutes the entire work of civilization, with all the brilliant cultural heritage of humankind.

for almost 40 years we have lived under the nuclear shadow. Many have claimed that it alone has kept peace in the world. If nuclear weapons are indeed peace-keepers, does it follow that they ought to be acquired by every nation on earth? On the contrary, it is clear that to rely on nuclear deterrence is to accept a perpetual community of fear. That is very far from the community of human worth and understanding foreseen by the United Nations Charter.

It is neither desirable, not feasible in the long term, to find true stability through nuclear deterrence. It is not desirable because in the long term human values are inconsistent with the threat to bring about the indiscriminate death of millions of our fellow men and women. No humane society that recognizes individual worth and dignity can contemplate such an action. Comversely, the very fear and hatred of an adversary believed to be capable of carrying out such an attack would destroy the basis of a civilized society.

Even if we ignore its inhuman aspects, in the long run can we really expect stability from a balance of fear and the suspicion that it breeds? With the accelerating pace of military technology, the need to counter each new threat will become ever more frantic and desperate. Every innovation in arms will tend to destabilize the fragile balance. Every perceived advantage will lead to fears of first-strike capability and the resulting temptation, at a time of great crisis, to launch a pre-emptive attack. And will our scientific vanity allow us to forget the double fallibility we face from human and technological error? Offensive capacity must certainly be reduced. Ultimately, however, there is no deterrence, since any initiation of nuclear hostilities would be to no one's advantage. This is made cruelly clear by suggestions that a "nuclear strike, even could follow a nuclear strike, even without any retaliation. To launch any nuclear attack could then indeed be suicide. The fruits of such violence would fall equally and with grim justice on the initiator and the victim alike.

Six years ago in this Hall we decided on the fundamental objective facing all of us "Removing the threat of a world war--a nuclear war--is the most acute and urgent task of the present day. Mankind is confronted with a choice: we must halt the arms race and proceed to disarmament or face annihilation." It remains our most acute and urgent task. Every representative in this room, I am sure, shares the hope that the meeting between the Foreign Ministers of the United States and the USSR will be a step in the direction that we all seek. Indeed, every one of us has a right to urge the start of a new and determined process of disarmament negotiations by the nuclear Powers. Next September we will hold the Third Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The corollary for horizontal non-proliferation under that Treaty was the undertaking given in article VI, particularly by the great Powers, to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear-arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament". Is it reasonable to expect restraint in one direction and uncontrolled expansion in the other? With progress in both directions the Non-Proliferation Treaty could become the embryo of a Treaty, however distant, for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

It is not for me to make detailed observations on the course of the negotiations to be undertaken. However, it seems clear that fundamental security needs have to be acknowledged and taken into account. Paradoxically, both sides have an interest in the other's security since insecurity can only lead to mutual peril and to pre-emptive considerations. Given the enormous complexity of today's weaponry and the varying composition of arsenals, advantages in different spheres will have to be balanced against each other. Finally, serious talks can only take place at the negotiating table and not through the airwaves of the media. The international community will no longer be reassured by the mere appearance of progress.

United Nations Member States have at their disposal the world's only multilateral negotiating body for disarmament, the Conference on Disarmament at Geneva. I have said on more than one occasion that its endeavours should not be made to depend upon progress on the bilateral side. Moreover, we can make a contribution to the bilateral process in various ways. I appeal for a renewed effort towards a comprehensive test-ban treaty. No single multilateral agreement could have a greater effect on limiting the further refinement of nuclear weapons. A comprehensive test-ban treaty is the litmus test of the real willingness to pursue nuclear disarmament. Is it wise to develop new classes of ever more lethal, ever more technically complex weapons, whose control is ever more difficult to verify? We are at the point of leaving the decision on humanity's future to the automatic--and fallible--reactions of computers. Talks on a comprehensive test ban have been in abeyance for too long and their value has even been questioned. As with all armslimitation negotiations, there will never be a perfect time to begin them in the opinion of all sides. The time to recommence these talks is now: they should not be delayed any further.

The time is equally pressing for talks on space weapons. If seems that where weapons are concerned, the only way to half a race is to prevent its starting. Once the race is under way, agreement is far more difficult. And the winner enjoys only a few, insecure moments of victory before the other side catches up, leaving both to look back over yet more wasted human effort and ingenuity. There is no final advantage in the arms race. It is therefore crucial that a ban on weapons in the new theatre of outer space be concluded at the earliest possible time, before it is once again too late.

Next year is the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. It is also the fortieth anniversary of the first and only use of nuclear weapons, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While we have so far avoided global conflagration, we have made only halting and inadequate progress in disarmament or arms limitation over these past 40 years. Discussions have taken on a life of their own. All too often it seems as if the players are only moving their lethal pawns in a global chess game. We cannot calculate the quantity of our precious and limited resources that has already been poured into the endless arms race.

At a time of uncertainty for the young and despair for the poor and the hungry, we have truly mortgaged our future to the arms race--both nuclear and conventional. Several brilliant studies have shown us how expenditure on arms distorts our economics. We know that development will be a casualyt of the arms race. In this sense, the arms trade impoverishes the receiver and debases the supplier. Here there is a striking resemblance to the drughs trade. Yet we continue on the same course even when faced with the silent genocide of famine that today stalks millions of our fellow men and women. The international community has to focus and act on the link between disarmament and development. We should take concrete and far-sighted steps towards the conversion of arms industries from military to civilian production. And we should begin to redress some of the enormous imbalance between research on arms and research on arms limitation and reduction.

The role of the Secretary-General under the Charter requires him to confront any matter which may threaten international peace and security. It is my belief that nothing poses a greater threat to the internationl community than the continuing arms race, above all the nuclear-arms race. The leaders of the great Powers have recently expressed their commitment to the prevention of war between them. The announcement that their two Foreign Ministers will soon meet is most welcome. I appeal to the two leaders to ensure that these talks lead to persistent, determined negotiations. I would also hope that they will eventually meet together in the recognition of their responsibility for humanity's survival. I would urge them to enhance the prospects for disarmament by taking steps to strenghten the collective security framework afforded by the United Nations. This Organization and I are at their disposal.

Many words have been spoken in the cause of disarmament. We are all aware of the goals, as outlined in the first special session's Final Document. Only the political decisions of Governments can take us towards the realization of these goals. And only the peoples of the world can urge their Governments to move in that direction. The Charter of the United Nations speaks of "We, the peoples", since it was to fulfil their hopes that this Organization was created. Every person on this earth has a stake in disarmament. In the nuclear age, decisions affecting war and peace cannot be left to military strategists or even to Governments. They are indeed the responsibility of every man and woman. And it is therefore the responsibility of all of us in this chamber to break the cycle of mistrust and insecurity and respond to humanity's yearning for peace.