TEXT URGING HIGH PRIORITY SUPPORT FOR COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY APPROVED WITHOUT VOTE BY FIRST COMMITTEE
Press Release
GA/DIS/3044
TEXT URGING HIGH PRIORITY SUPPORT FOR COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY APPROVED WITHOUT VOTE BY FIRST COMMITTEE
19951117 The General Assembly would urge all States to support the negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament for a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty, by a draft resolution approved without a vote this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).By other terms of the text, the Assembly would call on all States participating in the Conference, particularly the nuclear-weapon States, to give the highest priority to concluding a universal and verifiable ban, to be opened for signature by the outset of the Assembly's next session. It would also call on the Conference to re-establish its relevant ad hoc committee, so as to complete the treaty as soon as possible in 1996.
Prior to approval of the text as a whole, operative paragraph 2, which called for the treaty to be ready for signature by the outset of the Assembly's next session, was approved by 161 votes in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (China). (For details of the voting, see Annex.)
Also this morning, the Committee began the process of taking action on a draft resolution concerning nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons, holding an extensive discussion on a proposed revision to a preambular paragraph.
Statements were made by the representatives of Sri Lanka, India, Canada, Egypt, China, Pakistan, Liechtenstein, Gambia, Iran, Malta, Benin, Mexico, Japan, Uruguay, United Kingdom, New Zealand and the Russian Federation.
The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. to continue taking action on disarmament-related draft resolutions.
Committee Work Programme
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue taking action on draft resolutions and decisions on disarmament. It had before it texts on a comprehensive test-ban treaty, nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review and Extension Conference.
A draft resolution on a comprehensive test-ban treaty (document A/C.1/50/L.8/Rev.1) would urge all States to support the negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament for a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty. It would call upon all States participating in the Conference, particularly the nuclear-weapon States, to give highest priority to concluding a universal and effectively verifiable comprehensive test-ban treaty so as to enable its signature by the outset of the fifty-first session of the General Assembly.
Further provisions of the text would call upon participants in the Conference to proceed to the final phase of the negotiation at the beginning of 1996. The Conference would be asked to re-establish its relevant ad hoc committee at the start of its 1996 session, and to renew its mandate in order to complete the final text of the treaty as soon as possible in 1996.
The Assembly would declare its readiness to resume consideration of the item at its next session, in order to endorse the text of the treaty. In addition, the Secretary-General would be asked to ensure adequate administrative, substantive and conference support services for such negotiations.
The draft is sponsored by Afghanistan, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Venezuela and Viet Nam.
A 16-Power draft resolution on nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/50/L.17/Rev.2) would have the Assembly urge States not parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to accede to it at the earliest possible date. It would call for determined
First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3044 25th Meeting (AM) 17 November 1995
pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of their elimination, and for determined pursuit by all States of general and complete disarmament under effective international control. It would call on all States to implement fully their commitments in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Venezuela.
The importance on the Convention on Indiscriminate Conventional Weapons is emphasized, and the widest possible accession to the Convention is encouraged.
A draft sponsored by Bangladesh, South Africa and Sri Lanka on the NPT Review and Extension Conference (document A/C.1/50/L.49/Rev.1) would have the Assembly note that the Conference, on 11 May 1995, adopted decisions on strengthening the review process for the treaty, principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and extension of the Treaty. It would also note the Conference's 11 May resolution on the Middle East, and that the three decisions and the resolution were adopted without a vote.
The Assembly would note further that the States parties participating in the Conference agreed to strengthen the review process for the operation of the Treaty, and that Review Conferences should continue to be held every five years. The next Conference would thus be held in the year 2000, and the first meeting of the Preparatory Committee in 1997.
Statements
BERNARD GOONETILLEKE (Sri Lanka) introduced the draft on the NPT Review and Extension Conference. In reviewing the terms of the text, he said the draft had attempted to find a careful balance of what had been stated in the three decisions referred to in the first operative paragraph. There were States still not party to the Treaty. It was his hope that they would permit the draft's adoption without a vote.
MS. GOSEE (India) said she would have wished to have co-sponsored the draft on a comprehensive test-ban treaty as she had in previous years, but there was a change in the international context. The indefinite extension of the NPT, followed by continued testing by some nuclear-weapon States had led her to reassess and re-examine the situation. It could not be business as usual. She had proposed a simple preambular paragraph which would have introduced the comprehensive test-ban treaty as one step in a phased programme leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the co- sponsors were unable to accept that concept. She regretfully withdrew her
First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3044 25th Meeting (AM) 17 November 1995
proposal, and was unable to join as a co-sponsor. She would pursue that substantive issue in negotiations in Geneva. In addition, the content of the final product was more important that the date it was achieved.
She said that all the drafts being considered today sought to bring to the Assembly concepts and language from a non-United Nations intergovernmental Conference to which India was not a party. Her country did not intend to become party to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation, which was prejudiced in its treatment. It was not acceptable that those who possessed nuclear weapons were freed of all controls, and those without were policed. It was the sovereign right of every country to take necessary measures for its national security. Urging States not party to the NPT to sign that Treaty, or reaffirming decisions to which they were not a party, was neither logical nor serious.
A. BISHOP (Canada) said he had continued to attach great importance to full implementation of the results of the NPT Review Conference. Those commitments must be fulfilled with determination, and a comprehensive test-ban treaty must be fulfilled by 1996. He regretted the lack of agreement on the realistic deadline of 30 June 1996. However, he was encouraged by the commitments of the United States, United Kingdom and France to the comprehensive test-ban treaty. In addition, he intended to support the draft on a treaty on an African nuclear-weapon-free zone, and urged further nuclear reductions by all nuclear-weapon States.
NABIL ELARABY (Egypt) introduced the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, which represented the views of many in the Committee and was a clear demonstration of the flexibility and good faith of the co-sponsors. It also was one of the many efforts to strengthen the non- proliferation of the non-nuclear regime. The draft should be regarded as an invitation of all States in the Middle East to join the club -- the NPT club. Universal adherence to the NPT in the Middle East was within reach.
A draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/50/L.19/Rev.1) would have the Assembly call upon Israel and all other States of the region not yet party to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons "not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and to accede to the Treaty at the earliest date".
By other terms of the text, the Assembly would call upon the States of the region to place all unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards as an important confidence-building measure and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.
First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3044 25th Meeting (AM) 17 November 1995
The draft resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Egypt and Malaysia.
STEPHEN LEDOGAR (United States), speaking on the draft on a comprehensive test-ban treaty, said that it was one of the most important drafts before the Committee. It addressed a development -- one that was momentous, historical and close at hand. It also enjoyed very broad support, and was the result of compromises, particularly over the timetable for success. President Clinton had proposed the treaty's completion by April 1996. That proposal had not been shared by all. His Government's approach related particularly to the wording of operative paragraphs 2 and 4 of the draft.
The representative of China, speaking in explanation of vote, said a comprehensive test-ban treaty was very important. However, his country could not support the parts of the draft resolution concerning the time-frame for opening the proposed treaty for signature. He called for a separate vote on operative paragraph 2, which addresses that question. China would abstain in that vote.
He said China hoped the treaty would be open for signature as soon as possible. However, to set the date given in the draft resolution was simply "a benign good wish". To commit to that date would not be responsible. Operative paragraph 4 calls for the final text to be completed as soon as possible in 1996. While China could accept that language, it was in conflict with operative paragraph 2. To include both paragraphs would make for completely illogical reading.
The future treaty would establish an independent, on-site verification system, he said. Such a regime would entail a series of complex political, legal, technical and financial problems. Their resolution required not only political will but time. To make judgements on the time-frame for opening the treaty for signature was neither realistic nor responsible.
The representative of Pakistan said a comprehensive test-ban treaty was now within grasp, although such issues as the scope of the treaty were still under discussion. It was hoped that the treaty could be concluded as soon as possible next year. However, Pakistan's support for the draft resolution on the treaty should not be construed as its subscription to artificial deadlines for the conclusion of the treaty.
Regarding the text on nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons, he said its provisions did not match its title. It focused largely on non-proliferation rather than disarmament. Pakistan was not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and could therefore not subscribe to the fourth and fifth preambular paragraphs or to operative paragraph 1. Pakistan would abstain on any separate votes on those paragraphs, as well as on the text as a whole.
First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3044 25th Meeting (AM) 17 November 1995
Regarding the text on the NPT Review and Extension Conference, he said he saw that draft resolution as simply taking note of what occurred at the Conference. Pakistan's support for the text could not be taken to constitute its support for the substance of the decisions taken at that Conference.
A recorded vote was held on operative paragraph 2 of the text on a comprehensive test-ban treaty. It reads as follows:
"2. Calls upon all States participating in the Conference on Disarmament, in particular the nuclear-weapon States, to conclude, as a task of the highest priority, a universal and multilaterally and effectively verifiable comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty which contributes to nuclear disarmament and the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects, so as to enable its signature by the outset of the fifty-first session of the General Assembly;"
Operative paragraph 2 was approved by 161 votes in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (China). (For details of the voting, see Annex.)
The representatives of Liechtenstein, Gambia, Iran, Malta and Benin said their countries should be listed as co-sponsors of the draft resolution.
The draft resolution was approved as a whole without a vote.
The Committee then turned to the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons.
SOHRAB KHERADI, Committee Secretary, drew attention to a technical change in part (b) of the sixth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution. In the current version of the text, it reads as follows:
"Noting the reference in the decision on the principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament to the importance of the following measures for the full realization and effective implementation of article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, including the programme of action as reflected below:
"...
"(c) The determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,"
Mr. KHERADI said that, as a technical matter, the word "goal" in that paragraph should be changed to read "goals".
First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3044 25th Meeting (AM) 17 November 1995
[Note: In the original document, the word appeared as "goals". However, in its second revision -- the most recent version -- its appears as "goal".]
ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said that was not a technical change. What appeared in the text was what had been agreed to at the NPT Conference.
Mr. KHERADI, Committee Secretary, said the request for the change had been received from the representative of Japan.
LUVSANGIIN ERDENECHULUUN (Mongolia), Committee Chairman, said the change was being presented to make the language of the draft resolution consistent.
SOHRAB KHERADI, Committee Secretary, said that, in the original Rev.1, the word "goals" had been used.
Mr. DE ICAZA (Mexico) said the wording had been the subject of negotiation between his delegation and that of Japan. If it was going to be changed at the last minute, without an opportunity to verify the language used by the NPT Conference, Mexico would abstain.
HISAMI KUROKOCHI (Japan) said the word "goals" was used by the NPT Conference, and appeared in its document NPT/CONF.1995/32/DC.2 of 11 May 1995.
Mr. DE ICAZA (Mexico) said there appeared to be a difference between the Spanish and English versions of what appeared in the NPT document. He therefore had no objection to the English version containing the plural. However, the Spanish version must contain the singular.
GUSTAVO ALVAREZ (Uruguay) said the problem did lie in the Spanish version, and perhaps in other languages. He supported the view expressed by Mexico, "otherwise we will be adopting different things".
Mr. ERDENECHULUUN, Committee Chairman, said the Spanish version of the draft resolution would be made to conform with the NPT document.
Sir MICHAEL WESTON (United Kingdom) said he did not consider the wording to be a question of translation. The word "goal" had been negotiated. It seemed that between the time of the negotiations and of the final document approved, the Secretariat -- as often happened -- tried to improve the document by adding an "s".
Mr. KHERADI said the Secretariat had pursued the matter on the basis of a written communication from the representative of Japan.
DANIEL RICHARDS (New Zealand) said it was the word "goal" which had been negotiated.
GRIGORY V. BERDENNIKOV (Russian Federation) said the word had been negotiated in the singular.
(annex follows)
First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3044 25th Meeting (AM) 17 November 1995
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3044 25th Meeting (AM) 17 November 1995
ANNEX
Vote on Preambular Paragraph 5 of the Draft on Nuclear Disarmament
Preambular paragraph 5 of the draft on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/50/L.17/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 135 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikstan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstaining: Afghanistan, Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, Ghana, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe.
Absent: Algeria, Angola, Belize, Costa Rica, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea- Bissau, Indonesia, Monaco, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu, Zaire.
* *** *
First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3044 25th Meeting (AM) 17 November 1995