U.N. Document S/1998/464

LETTER DATED 4 JUNE 1998 FROM THE PERMANENT REPRESENTANTIVE OF INDIA TO THE
UNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

1. We came to know from the statement made to the press by your predecessor
as President of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative of Kenya,
on Saturday, 30 May, that the Council was considering a draft resolution on
a matter that directly concerns India. We have subsequently seen drafts of
the resolution, which have been discussed by the Council more than once
since then.

2. Under Article 31 of the Charter, "any Member of the United Nations which
is not a member of the Security Council may participate, without vote, in
the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council whenever
the latter considers that the interests of that Member are specially
affected". We deeply regret that the Council has disregarded this Charter
provision by not giving India an opportunity to participate in the
discussions on this draft. The general membership of the United Nations will
note this as one more instance of the Council acting in a manner that is
neither open nor transparent, a problem that has been repeatedly highlighted
in the discussions in the Open-ended Working Group of the General Assembly
on Security Council reform.

3. The proposed draft resolution raises a host of questions including the
following:

(a) Can the Security Council continue to ignore the overwhelming demand for
elimination of nuclear weapons, which has been repeatedly endorsed by the
General Assembly? Will the Council henceforth engage itself in matters
relating to nuclear disarmament?

(b) If indeed the Charter of the United Nations envisaged any role for the
Security Council on non-proliferation issues, which is doubtful, why has it
not acted on the proliferation of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons since
the United Nations was established? Is the Security Council's concern on
matters of proliferation limited to horizontal proliferation alone? Is the
continued retention of nuclear weapons by the nuclear-weapon States not
considered a proliferation risk that threatens international peace and security?

(c) If nuclear tests are a threat to "non-proliferation and disarmament", or
if the imputation is that tests raise tensions, why did the Council not take
cognizance of the over 2,000 tests carried out over the last 50 years,
including as recently as 1996?

(d) Can the Council call upon a country not to assemble or develop nuclear
devices, when this process continues in other countries, without the Council
taking any notice?

(e) Can the Council call upon a country not to develop ballistic missiles,
when it has made no such call to others, including to those who have several
thousand of these weapons in their arsenals, and continue to produce and
develop them? It should be noted that the United Nations has not even
considered the negotiation of a treaty to ban the development or production
of ballistic missiles.

(f) On what basis is the Council limiting its concern on nuclear weapons to
an arbitrarily defined geographical subregion, when nuclear weapons by
definition have a global reach and impact, and when the security concerns of
at least one of the countries it addresses extends well beyond that
subregion? Non-proliferation is a global issue and cannot be segmented
according to political preferences.

(g) The Council's call to engage in a dialogue is unnecessary, when
initiatives have been taken both bilaterally and regionally to strengthen
cooperation and build relations between the States of the region.

(h) The Security Council acts on behalf of the full membership of the United
Nations. Neither of the treaties mentioned in the draft resolution - the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty -
enjoy universal adherence among the United Nations membership. Since several
Member States of the United Nations are not States Parties to these
treaties, on whose behalf does the Security Council "reaffirm" its
commitment to these treaties?

(i) Can the Security Council urge any Member State of the United Nations to
become a Party to any treaty "without delay and without conditions"? This is
tantamount to coercion and a clear violation of the fundamental principle
that a State must freely consent to be bound by a treaty, a right protected
by the Law of Treaties.

(j) Can the Security Council specify that a Member State must contribute
"without conditions" in multilateral negotiations in any forum, when no such
conditions are imposed on other States? These are sovereign decisions taken
by Member States, not matters in which the Council has any role.

(k) On what basis can the Secretary-General report to the Council on the
steps taken by the countries addressed by this resolution, when most of its
provisions are ultra vires or at variance with international law and
infringe on the sovereign prerogatives of Member States?

(l) On what basis is the Council reserving its readiness to consider further
action, contingent on the implementation of this resolution, when no Charter
provision or treaty obligation has been breached by those to whom it is
addressed?

4. The tests conducted by India were not directed against any country.
Neither has India broken any treaty obligation by conducting these tests.
They were carried out as a defensive measure to protect India in a global
environment where nuclear disarmament was making no headway, and against
grave and growing challenges to its security from nuclear weapons in the
lands and seas bordering India. The right to take measures in self-defence
is an inherent right of Member States under Charter.

5. In view of the importance of the subject, may I request that this letter
be circulated as a document of the Security Council.

(Signed) Kamalesh SHARMA, Permanent Representative of India