Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–2, Documents on Arms Control and Nonproliferation, 1969–1972

354. Telegram 5164 From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State¹ ²

New York, November 30, 1972, 0330Z.

Subj:

• Non-use of Force (NUF) Res

Ref:

• (A) State 216018 (B) Phillips-De Palma Telcon of Nov 29

1. Confirming Phillips-De Palma telcon, we ascertained midday Nov 29 co-sponsors of non-aligned NUF res, would firmly oppose any attempt to vote on separate paras of res. As per telcon, we therefore registered our opposition to preambular para six in explanation of vote after vote and did not request separate vote on the para. Text of our explanation given below.

2. Outcome of vote was 73–4 PRC, Albania, South Africa, Portugal)–46(US). Most WEO’s abstained, as did several LA and AF dels.

3. In explanation of vote before vote, PRC was sharply critical of Sov NUF initiative. Revised NUF res and use in general. Text of Chinese statement reported septel.

4. We understand Malik was furious over Chinese statement and immediately inscribed to make right of reply. He later deinscribed, apparently at urging of cooler heads on his staff. Malik did, however, make brief summary statement after vote, ostensibly on behalf of co-sponsors, in which he called attention to PRC isolation from Third World on this issue and in calm tone hoped PRC would learn to cooperate with other dels in maintaining international peace and security. Malik also lamely claimed vote was great victory for USSR and peace-loving countries.

Begin unclassified.

5. Text of US explanation of vote, delivered by Amb Phillips, follows:

Quote

Mr. President, while the non-use of force is a laudable objective, the United States believes the Charter of the United Nations remains the basic guideline covering the conduct of nations. We are skeptical about the utility of restating principles of the UN Charter through General Assembly resolutions because we feel that such resolutions tend to detract from the Charter itself. It is for these reasons my delegation has abstained on draft res 676/rev. 1.

We also believe that the distinction drawn in the Charter between the threat of, or use of force in accordance with the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, which is legitimate, and non-legitimate uses such as acts of aggression, is the key principle governing the use of force in international relations, and we regret that the resolution before us does not explicitly draw that distinction.

I also wish to point out that the United States and many other members voted against General Assembly Res. 1659 (XVI), the declaration on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. We continue to regard that resolution, which asserts that the use of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances is ipso facto a violation of the Charter and a crime against humanity, as without any legal basis. The draft resolution before us today refers to this earlier resolution and appears to assert that nuclear weapons have been prohibited. However laudable the goals of the proponents of this resolution, we are, of course, unable to support such a proposition which so clearly flies in the face of reality and law.

Finally, I wish to make clear that the United States considers that nothing in the sixth or seventh preambular paragraphs of the resolution we have just voted upon can change the provisions of the Charter regarding the legitimate use of force.

Let me emphasize that in our view paragraph six would establish a right to use force which is beyond the provision of the United Nations Charter. To our knowledge, no United Nations document affirms a right to use force in the circumstances described in this paragraph, and my delegation could not accept an implicit interpretation of the Charter to that effect. Article 2, para 4, of the Charter states “all members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

We must not in the name of the “non-use of force” convey to anyone the suggestion that we are creating loopholes to this cardinal Charter principle. End quote.

Bush

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–1973, DEF 18–6. Confidential. It was repeated to Moscow, Hong Kong, and the U.S. Delegation to SALT.
2. The telegram reported on the General Assembly vote on the non-use of force resolution and provided the text of Ambassador PHILLIPS’ explanation of the U.S. vote.