High-level debate, innovative proposals highlight session; no consensus on concluding document; the vital objective: terminating the arms race.

The early morning skies over the UN Headquarters complex on the East River were threatening, gray and gloomy. It was just after 6 a.m. on Sunday, 26 June. And, after all-night consultations, delegates to the third special session of the General Assembly on disarmament had to acknowledge that they had been unable to reach consensus on a Concluding Document setting out new aims and priorities in the field of disarmament.

The vital objective:

Terminating the arms race

"As though by design and not by accident", noted Sweden's representative Maj Britt Theorin wryly as ominous rolls of thunder interrupted ambassadorial statements expressing regret at the session's disappointing end. She had been among those who had pleaded for more time, hoping differences could be bridged, convinced consensus was possible.

But despite the many months of intensive preparations and, at the session itself, scores of hours of behind-closed-door negotiations, the final gavel was sounded at 7:25 a.m. that Sunday, no agreement having been reached.

The Assembly had opened on 31 May in an atmosphere charged with expectations, bolstered by what many called a "new international political climate", holding open, it was hoped, new possibilities for the disarmament process.

Secretary,-General Javier Perez de Cuellar, at the session's opening, said it was a "striking coincidence" that the session was opening at the same time that the USSR-United States summit was taking place in Moscow.

"The dynamics of human affairs have brought us to a stage where we need no longer view, the prospects of credible measures towards disamament as remote," he said, welcoming the joint expressions by the two major military Powers that a nuclear war could not be won and must never be fought.

Twenty-six days later, however, the view was somewhat different, "Basic national positions were not amenable to a compromise text," the Secretary-General said at the session's conclusion.

"Divergent positions made consensive impossible", said General Assembly President Peter Florin of the German Democratic Republic, adding that efforts to find new language arid a new approach had been paralleled by "the continuing existence of old problem and attitudes".

The special session-the fifteenth in UN history, the third in 10 years on the subject of disarmament-was the largest, most representative meeting of nations ever gathered to consider disarmament issues.

All 159 Member States were joined by several hundred nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), peace movements and other popular national and international organizations in the work of the session.

Participating in the two-week general debate were 22 Heads of State or Government, 1 VicePresident, several Deputy Prime Ministers and more than 50 Foreign Ministers-the greatest number of high-ranking officials ever attending a global conclave on disarmament. Wide-ranging proposals on disarmament were presented. Hopes were high.

'Within our grasp'

Many delegations felt that the Committee of the Whole, entrusted with the complex task of formulating a concluding document, came close to final agreement. "Consensus was nearly within our grasp", stated one delegate. "We were indeed very close to agreement. We should not take thisas failure"'said another.

Three working groups had been created to deal with implementation of the decisions and recommendations of the first and second special sessions; assessment of' developments and trends relevant to the disarmament process, and the relationship between disarmament and development; and The role of the UN in the field of disarmament, including information and educational activities. Consultations were also held on the comprensive programme of disarment..

After two weeks of deliberations, the working groups reported on 20 June a lack of agreement on texts they had worked on.

Mansur Ahmad of Pakistan, Chairmanof the Committee of the Whole, then prepared a paper summarizing the work of the three working groups, to serve as a basis for final informal talks.

The document's five sections were: Introduction, Assessment, Directions for the Future, Machinery, and Conclusion. Part 111-Directions for the Future-was the most controversial.

Provisional agreement was reached on most of the 67 paragraphs. The topics remaing in contention were: prevention of an arms race in outer space, the relationship between disarmament and development, nuclear-weapon-free zones, zones of peace, and the acquisition of a nuclear-weapon capability by South Africa and by Israel.

Too ambitious?

"We were perhaps too ambitious at this juncture", mused Brazil's Marios Castrioto de Azambuja at the end. The positive results of recent super-Power negotiations, he said, "encouraged many to believe that such gains could be translated into a new impulse for multilateral negotiations". That proved not necessarily the case, he added.

James Kateka of the United Republic of Tanzania made a stronger assessment, pointing to a lack of political will as the culprit. There was, he said, "ample evidence of obstructionism on the part of some and a conspiracy of silence on the part of others".

Nihal Rodrigo of Sri Lanka said the effort had not been entirely wasted. Now all delegations were better informed of others' opinions, and the firmness, even intractability of some of them.

Bernd Fischer of the Federal Republic of Germany, speaking for the 12 countries of the European Economic Community, was sorry that the recent achievements in nuclear and conventional disarmament "could not be translated to the global multilateral field".

Harry Ott of the German Democratic Republic, on behalf of 10 socialist countries, said that existing differences of opinion "turned out to be stronger than the will for co-operation and for a balanced consensus .

"This is a process", said Mr. Ahmad, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. "We may not have succeeded on this occasion, but I personally have no doubt that we will succeed, because we have no option but to succeed". A success in some ways

Despite the absence of consensus, the session was widely viewed as a success in many ways. The Secretary-General on 27 June said that while attempts to formulate a common strategy had not yet succeeded, efforts would continue to that end in UN organs, including the General Assembly

President Florin said the general debate was characterized by "a new quality of multilateral deliberations" on arms limitation and disarmament, wit"substantive and generally business-like" statements showing that national and regional positions on major issues were moving closer to each other The proposals submitted showed that the range of areas of consensus had been widened, and points of disagreement reduced and assumed sharper contours (see box).

Sri Lanka said that the UN remained the "parliament for disarmament". The United Kingdom saw the session as an opportunity to consolidate positive achievements over recent years.

The Soviet Union called it a "unique laboratory

of' new ideas", with "rich potential"

to be translated into practical action.

Reports

The session reviewed special reports submitted by the Disarmament Commission, the Conference on Disarmament, the Ad Hoc Committee on the World Disarmament Conference and the Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean. It was also provided with a newly released study on the climatic and other global effects of nuclear war, and an updated study on the economic and social consequences of the arms race and military expenditures (see pp.18-19).

The Secretary-General reported on developments in the field of arms limitation and disarmament since 1982, including the status of negotiations in bilateral and various multilateral forums; objective information on military matters; and the World Disarmament Campaign.

The Campaign was described as "the focal point for contact" between organizations, research and educational institutes, individuals and the Department for Disarmament Affairs of the UN Secretariat.

The Campaign had been launched in 1982 by a unanimous decision of the General Assembly at its second special session on disarmament The three primary purposes of the campaign are to inform, to educate and to generate public understanding and support for the objectives of the United Nations in the field of arms limitation and disarmament,

Support for the Campaign had declined markedly since 1985, resulting in "less than optimal" implementation of Campaign programmes, it was reported.

Background

In 1978, the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, consensus was reached on a 129-paragraph Final Documenta comprehensive strategy setting out principles and priorities for disarmament negotiations.

The Final Document declared that while the final objective should be general and complete disarmament under effective international control, the immediate goal was the elimination of the danger of nuclear war and the halting and reversing of the arms race. The first special session also affirmed the importance of the central role and primary responsibility of the UN in the process of disarmament.

The second special session on disarmament in 1982 reaffirmed the validity of the 1978 Final Document and launched the World Disarmament Campaign to promote UN goals in that field. Agreement was not reached, however, on two major agenda items: a review of the developments since the first special session and a comprehensive programme of disarmament.

The third special session was to elaborate on the 1978 Final Document, developing a concrete programme of action covering issues ranging from nuclear and conventional disarmament to verification and confidencebuilding measures. It also was to review and appraise the present international situation in light of "the vital objective of terminating the arms race" and the need to achieve progress in the disarmament field.