DISAGREEMENT REMAINS ON KEY ISSUES IN NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TALKS AS 28 JUNE DEADLINE NEARS, DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE TOLD
Press Release
DCF/267
DISAGREEMENT REMAINS ON KEY ISSUES IN NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TALKS AS 28 JUNE DEADLINE NEARS, DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE TOLD
19960621 Conference Welcomes 23 New Members; Hears Calls for Approval of 13 Pending ApplicationsGENEVA, 20 June (UN Information Service) -- The representatives of India and Iran this morning sounded warnings about the course of late-hour negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear-test ban, set for completion by 28 June. Disagreement remained on several basic issues, the scope of the treaty no longer seemed comprehensive, and the underlying goal no longer seemed to be eventual world-wide nuclear disarmament, they said.
Arundhati Ghose (India) said the treaty that was emerging appeared "to be shaped more by the technological preferences of the nuclear-weapon States ... than by the imperatives of nuclear disarmament". India could not be expected to accept such a treaty; nor could it accept the legitimacy of some countries relying on such weapons for their security while denying that right to others.
Sirous Nasseri (Iran) said the ban should not be an end in itself, but a means to achieve nuclear disarmament. A treaty that did not prohibit testing and end the qualitative development of nuclear weapons was not comprehensive. If the treaty was not placed in the context of nuclear disarmament, it could have no meaning.
Statements were also made by the representatives of Australia, Slovak Republic, Spain, Turkey, Belarus, Ukraine, Malaysia, Italy, Austria, Ireland, Greece, Morocco, Cuba, New Zealand, Denmark, Mexico, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, Nigeria, Bangladesh, China, Portugal, Norway, and Chile. Among those addressing the Committee were several of the 23 countries which, on 17 June, were admitted to full membership in the Conference. Calls were made for rapid action to admit 13 States whose applications were still pending.
The newly admitted States are Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Finland, Iraq, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe. They bring membership in the Conference to 61.
Statements
RICHARD STARR (Australia) said the newly enlarged Conference was significantly better-equipped to carry out its work in a dynamic and changing world. The new members would contribute substantially to maintaining a relevant and focused thrust to that work. The expansion of membership was not the end of the road, but part of a phased approach. Action must now be taken on the historic challenge of completing negotiations on the comprehensive test ban. There must be a focus on solutions rather than problems.
MARIA KRASNOHORSKA (Slovak Republic) said nuclear tests were a cold war relic and no longer had a place in the world. Slovakia firmly supported a test-ban treaty, which must be truly comprehensive. It must ban all types of nuclear explosive tests without distinction and for all time, be effectively verifiable, and be of a universal character. It should enter into force as soon as possible, without unnecessary delays. The composition of the Executive Council should not be too large. The treaty should not become an end in itself, but serve as a catalyst for further nuclear disarmament. A cut-off convention would be the next logical step.
She said the Conference's agenda should be balanced, dealing with weapons of mass destruction, as well as conventional weapons. She also expressed gratitude to all who acknowledged her country's special status and had steadily supported its legitimate claim for the seat vacated by the former Czechoslovakia.
AMADOR MARTINEZ MORCILLO (Spain) said the Conference had taken a historic step in expanding its membership. It must also take account of the legitimate aspirations of other countries to take part in its work. The decision to expand to Conference had been timely, bringing it into line with new realities. Spain looked forward to participating fully and constructively in the conclusion of the test-ban negotiations, as well as in putting the agreement into effect by offering political and technological expertise. The treaty's rapid entry into force was essential. Its future organization should have effective working methods and verification procedures.
TUGAY ULUCEVIK (Turkey) said his country was firmly committed to arms control and disarmament. He fervently hoped that the turning point achieved by expansion of the Conference's membership would, within a week, be complemented by a new and meaningful historic achievement in the form of the comprehensive test-ban treaty. Following conclusion of work on the ban, the Conference should focus on an agreement banning production of fissile material for weapons purposes, as well as on transparency measures relating to conventional arms control.
ANDREI SANNIKAU (Belarus) said his country was glad to finally attain membership in the Conference. He hoped the Conference would now complete its
- 3 - Press Release DCF/267 21 June 1996
test-ban negotiations. Belarus supported a full and unconditional ban of any nuclear explosions or tests, including so-called peaceful explosions. A reliable verification regime was needed, including an international monitoring regime and data centre. On-site inspection should be infrequent and exceptional. Entry into force should be based on acceptance by all States having relevant nuclear capabilities. The treaty would be an important step towards the achievement of nuclear disarmament.
Following completion of its work on the treaty, the Conference should act rapidly to prohibit the production of fissile materials, he said. Belarus had undertaken the difficult, expensive option of eliminating nuclear weapons from its territory -- weapons dating from the Soviet era. Still struggling with the consequences of the Chernobyl accident, Belarus had a strong interest in nuclear arms control. Expansion of the Conference's membership would enhance the quality of its work.
KONSTYANTYN GRYSHCHENKO (Ukraine) said his country had inherited from the former Soviet Union the third largest nuclear potential in the world, as well as one of the largest armed forces in Europe. Ukraine had adopted a responsible and predictable arms control policy as a matter of priority. It was quite symbolic that its assumption of membership in the Conference coincided closely with the complete withdrawal from its territory of nuclear warheads, which were to be destroyed under the supervision of Ukrainian observers. Ukraine had, thus, become a non-nuclear-weapon State.
He expressed the hope that expansion of the Conference would mark a new, productive era in its work and that other countries would be accepted as members. Following completion of its work on the comprehensive test-ban treaty, the Conference should urgently re-establish its Ad Hoc Committee on a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. It should also resume serious consideration of such important matters as security assurances to non-nuclear States, conventional arms control, transparency and confidence-building measures, and the creation of new nuclear-weapon-free zones.
ARUNDHATI GHOSE (India) expressed disappointment with the way negotiations on the comprehensive nuclear-test ban had developed. Its scope remained narrow and did not fulfil the requirements of a comprehensive ban. Attempts to introduce substantive disarmament provisions in the treaty had been blocked. How could India escape the conclusion that the nuclear-weapon States were determined to continue relying on such weapons for their security, seeing the treaty, not as a serious disarmament measure, but merely as an instrument against horizontal proliferation?
The test ban that was emerging seemed to be shaped more by the technological preferences of the nuclear-weapon States than by the imperatives of nuclear disarmament. That was not the treaty India had envisaged. It was
- 4 - Press Release DCF/267 21 June 1996
not the treaty India could be expected to accept. India could not accept the legitimacy of some countries relying on nuclear weapons for their security while denying that right to others. Under such circumstances, it was natural that national security considerations would become a key factor in India's decision-making.
India's capability had been demonstrated, but its policy was one of restraint, he said. Meanwhile, neighbouring States continued their weapon programmes, either openly or in a clandestine manner. In such an environment, India could not accept any restraints on its capability if other countries remained unwilling to eliminate their nuclear weapons. It had been suggested that ratification by India might be required for the comprehensive nuclear- test ban to enter into force. India would not accept any language in the treaty that would affect its sovereign right to decide, in the light of supreme national interest, whether or not to accede to it. India's commitment to the cause of nuclear disarmament remained unaltered.
HARON SIRAJ (Malaysia) said his country, an observer at the Conference for many years, had submitted its application for membership on 3 September 1993. The issue of expanding the Conference should not end with the admission of 23 new States; the pending applications by Malaysia and 12 other States now merited immediate attention.
ALESSANDRO VATTANI (Italy), speaking as the country now holding the rotating presidency of the European Union, said 13 further applications for Conference membership remained to be considered. Those included applications by four European Union members, some of which had been submitted over a decade ago. The Conference should consider the remaining candidatures before the end of its 1996 session, with a view to taking an early decision on their admission to full membership.
HARALD KREID (Austria) said that, while it was good that Conference membership had been expanded, the remedy was only a partial one. Further steps towards universality of membership should follow. Austria hoped that the membership expansion would be followed by achievement of the Conference's next major goal -- achievement of the comprehensive nuclear-test ban.
ANNE ANDERSON (Ireland) said her country had witnessed the Conference's expansion with mixed feelings. While she was genuinely pleased for the 23 new members, Ireland was not among them, and its application for membership was now of 14 years' standing. She urged the Conference to consider the remaining candidatures before the end of its 1996 session.
GEORGE HELMIS (Greece) said it was laudable that the Conference had admitted 23 new members. However, while that was a step in the right direction, it should be followed by the early accession of the remaining 13 candidates. He added that early conclusion of the comprehensive test ban
- 5 - Press Release DCF/267 21 June 1996
would facilitate the future elimination of all nuclear arms, which should be one of the international community's most important goals.
NACER BENJELLOUN-TOUIMI (Morocco) drew attention to a letter distributed by the 23 new members. Morocco did not understand its reference to Chapter VII of the Charter, as that Chapter contained no reference to blocking the participation or voting rights in the Conference of certain countries that were the subject of Security Council resolutions. Morocco considered that paragraph of the letter to have no meaning or application. The Conference, having expanded its membership, must now quickly consider the outstanding applications for membership.
EUMELIO CABALLERO (Cuba) said the 23 new members would contribute constructively to the Conference. Their letter represented an exercise of national sovereignty that no one could call into question and whose effect was limited to the signatories. The Security Council had prime responsibility for international security. The letter's reference to measures taken under Chapter VII of the Charter could in no way be linked to the Conference or to any other multilateral forum. Cuba could only accept that reference in the context in which it had been interpreted. It was regrettable that, owing to United States intransigence concerning one of the 23 new members, the process of admission had taken such a long time.
WADE ARMSTRONG (New Zealand) said his country was glad to have achieved membership in the Conference. The expansion of membership demonstrated the Conference's ability to deliver on its commitments. Composition of the Conference should be kept representative through timely consideration of other applications for membership.
JOHN KIERULF (Denmark) said he expressed the keen interest of his country, for many years an observer at the Conference, in becoming a member of the Conference at the earliest possible date. All States interested in joining the Conference should be admitted. Denmark hoped its candidature would be further considered by the Conference at its 1996 session.
SIROUS NASSERI (Iran) said a number of significant issues relating to the test-ban negotiations had yet to be resolved. They covered a wide range of areas, including scope, verification, on-site inspection and other issues -- in effect, the main body of the treaty. The ban was not an end in itself, but a means to achieve nuclear disarmament. A treaty that did not prohibit nuclear testing and end the qualitative development of nuclear weapons, and which allowed the nuclear Powers to their nuclear systems through simulations, as well as sub-critical tests, was not comprehensive. When the treaty was not placed in its appropriate context of nuclear disarmament, it lost its meaning.
Regrettably, the trend seemed to be towards compromising on essential points, he said. The scope of the treaty as now presented might be considered
- 6 - Press Release DCF/267 21 June 1996
if, as a minimum, specific commitments were included in the preamble, with its stated purpose the achievement of nuclear disarmament within a time-bound framework and an end to the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons. There must be good faith at the Conference in establishing the ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament.
As for verification, use of national technical means to trigger on-site inspections could have serious legal and political implications. The major Powers consistently placed national security objectives over international concerns. Any notion of permanency on the treaty's Executive Council for those who had acquired nuclear weapons or relevant nuclear capabilities was unacceptable. To resolve those and other issues over the few days remaining would require determination and will by all members, as well as a readiness to engage in real negotiations.
ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said agreement had yet to be reached on the question of entry into force. Some delegations wished the only requirement to be a simple number of ratifications, while others wanted ratification by specific States. As moderator on the topic, he had received the views of non-governmental organizations who were concerned that requiring ratification by certain States could greatly delay the entry into force. In fact, it could be delayed by only one State, and for reasons having nothing to do with the topic. Entry into force might even be delayed past the duration of the current moratoriums on nuclear testing.
Requiring ratification by certain States could also be seen as discriminatory, since it made their interests more important than those of other States, he said. Mexico fully shared the concern of those non- governmental organizations and favoured a provision for entry into force that would endow the treaty with credibility, enabling it to enter into force within a reasonable period.
HOCINE MEGHLAOUI (Algeria) said his country had always supported expansion of the Conference, which should represent all shades of opinion in the international community and all geographical regions. More countries wished to be members, and a balance must be struck. The letter by the 23 new members deserved comment. Algeria recognized no link between the decision of the Conference and that letter, which referred to elements that fell outside the concerns of the Conference. For Algeria, all its members were fully fledged members. As for the test-ban treaty, he said the negotiations should be transparent; Algeria had expressed a few concerns, and he hoped they would be considered. MOHAMED ENNACEUR (Tunisia) said the participation of the 23 new members of the Conference would make its work more fruitful. Tunisia would have preferred it if all the States which applied for membership had been admitted. His country had been among the first to apply, and he hoped that the request for membership by the "Group of 13" could be met promptly.
- 7 - Press Release DCF/267 21 June 1996
CLOVIS KHOURY (Syria) said the expansion of the Conference's membership would make it more democratic; Syria was gratified to be able to participate more effectively now in its work. There was now better hope for achieving global peace, stability and security. Syria had participated in the drafting of the letter the 23 new members sent to the Chairman. His country finally had accepted the letter, despite various reservations, in order not to disrupt the feeling of unanimity within the group.
EJOH ABUAH (Nigeria) said he looked forward to working with the 23 new members. Nigeria did not question the right of any State to exercise its sovereignty. However, it was his understanding that there was no restriction on the full exercise of membership by the new members. Nigeria recognized no constraints on their membership activities.
ANWAR HASHIM (Bangladesh) said general and complete disarmament was a fundamental policy principle in his country. The Conference's goals would be more effectively achieved if dialogue were to extend to clear commitments by all national governments. The true relevance of the test ban -- which Bangladesh fervently hoped would be achieved in a little over a week -- would lie in its ability to go beyond the issue of non-proliferation. Bangladesh looked forward to progress on the issue of vertical proliferation, and ultimately to nuclear disarmament.
WU HAITAO (China) welcomed the 23 new members and invited them to work towards the causes of disarmament, international peace, and security. The decision to expand the Conference was made in unique circumstances. China felt that the modality for the new admissions, under which the States concerned made legally binding commitments for membership, was exceptional. It did not establish a precedent; neither did it affect the Conference's rules of procedure.
GONCALO DE SANTA CLARA GOMES (Portugal) welcomed the new members of the Conference. Other countries interested in joining should be admitted quickly. Portugal had a history of responsible participation in disarmament matters and felt entitled to membership. It was eager to contribute at the Conference to the establishment of a world free of arms.
BJORN SKOGMO (Norway) expressed pleasure at the admission, finally, of the 23 new members. That decision was in the best interests of the Conference, as well as of the new members. Norway had long participated in the Conference as an observer and was glad finally to be a member. Other candidates for membership should also be admitted. Norway was committed to working towards that goal.
JORGE BERGUNO (Chile) said that, as a signatory to the letter sent by the 23 new members, Chile felt the communication had not set forth any interpretation that was controversial.
- 8 - Press Release DCF/267 21 June 1996
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan), Conference Chairman, said his four-week term as Chairman had been rewarding and challenging. With its 23 new members, the Conference was now more representative of international political and strategic realities. It had greater credibility as it strove to complete a comprehensive nuclear-test ban. It must also decide on a course of action regarding those countries still seeking admission.
Work on the test ban over the next few days would have to be intensive and productive, he said. Consultations on the issue of nuclear disarmament, held by him over the past few days, had not been successful. He hoped his successor, the representative of Peru, would continue such negotiations and be successful.
* *** *
NOTE:On page 3 of Press Release DCF/266 of 17 June, the final sentence of the summary of the statement of MOUNIR ZAHRAN (Egypt), should read as follows: "Egypt hoped that once negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty had been concluded, an ad hoc working group within the Conference could be set up to discuss the issue of nuclear disarmament."