U N I T E D N A T I O N S

D I S A R M A M E N T COMMISSION

Declaration of the Delepcations of Canada, Frar United K i n g & m and the United S t a t & of Ame

, the lica -

: , ther United Sta tes of 'Amezioa wish ta gbee on riec a their a t t i t uue

'towards the dpaft resolut ion intradlpasd by the de

UBS8 on 25 Bebmmy. T W Boviet prop&l c a l l * f ! the &mediate

!. destruotion of eto&a of nuclear amptams without ' I

p r o ~ o t i o n of' these weapons and xrkw xzo m o v i a i o

of military manpower and of cun~~.&BionW ammentta It makea only

the barest reference %a inteimatioxml can.tro1. M ! .

I

pro#?anrme would, in % W . . w @ ~ t & of P ; b 8 o ~ i e - t repre

-- carrged out here a d how wi%hout waiting for t h e

, .sf&+ questions" -- i n other words, w f thout agreeme t on the of230F i . ,

' ,essential elemente of the comprehansive d i samment wh%ch: I

the dub-Committee was i-nstructati %o war& out.

A s they have repeatedly qtat&d fa the W b d o

four ,Western delegations are resay tq . a i m u a s . the

fo r th in the Soviet draft raaolutib&- on ,the unde

- auoh kopoaala form an integ&l p a ~ t of a phased f-; , 7 , I

programne. However t he Soviet delegation has '

T b Savist delegation will b v s dczeemd th

rasolqtion were lingl led out for prior exemtion

tbfs four-Power &aft rasolution, The Western

wpuld be willing to discuss the three elements of

$ppoepl prior to a discussion ofmy bi the other - > 2 - - t , h e f ~ gwm draft resolutiop. I f , however, the Sov , id: - .'t . Xris i s t s - *. that its proposals sbuld be apeed and 0

>. . , a ..- I re there can be any expuninat ion of o t h e r guest

j f h e s . . . o f a diaar&ent progr-e, the 6ub-Codt

- unbap~ily be faced with the pmepect of &?&lock,

tberk could be no doubt with whom the msponsibi l i 4

risfi* must l i e . "

4 I

1