PRESS CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY INDIA

12 September 1996

Press Briefing

19960912 FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY

The Government of India would press for progress towards a phased elimination of nuclear weapons within a well-defined time-frame, Prakash Shah, Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations, and Arundhati Ghose, Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva and lead negotiator on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the Conference on Disarmament, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Shah said that his Government wanted a comprehensive treaty, but believed that the text voted on by the General Assembly on 10 September had not represented a sufficient step in the direction of nuclear disarmament. His Government was not playing a "numbers game", he said. It had not lobbied for votes, and were prepared to stand alone if need be. Almost every Non- Aligned country speaking in the Assembly debate had stated the same objections as India had -- that the text permitted non-explosive testing and that it had failed to ask for nuclear disarmament within a time-bound framework. Many had also stated objections to the Treaty's article 14, regarding its entry into force.

The most important outcome of the exercise had been the high level of support demonstrated for India's views regarding the elimination of nuclear weapons, he said. Most governments agreed that the nuclear Powers must commit to disarmament.

India would not sign the draft approved on 10 September, he continued. In the meantime, India would pursue a convention on the non-use of weapons, and on time-bound disarmament. The real issue was nuclear disarmament, he said. A genuinely comprehensive test-ban treaty was essential in that regard.

A correspondent noted that Mr. Shah had been accompanied by a bodyguard during the General Assembly meeting. Had he received threats? Mr. Shah insisted that he had not. On the grounds of the United Nations, security was the responsibility of the Organization.

Had some nuclear Powers implied that India's views on the CTBT would interfere with its possible ascension to a non-permanent seat in the Security Council? a correspondent asked. Mr. Shah responded that India's candidacy would stand on its contribution to the work of the United Nations, to peace- keeping and to the resolution of difficult political issues over the course of 50 years. Those contributions were widely recognized, he said. India would also be credited for its clear, objective and honest role in the negotiations on the CTBT.

Would India seek to form a new ad hoc committee in the Conference on Disarmament? a correspondent asked. What would be its mandate? Ms. Ghose said that India would move forward towards a convention on the non-use of nuclear weapons, and would work for the establishment of an ad hoc committee for that purpose.

A correspondent then asked about press reports to the effect that certain governments would assist India with its security concerns in the nuclear area.

Mr. Shah said that he had seen a statement by United States President Clinton to that effect. India's national security concerns had been clearly placed before the public. Ms. Ghose added that India's security would best be guaranteed by the elimination of nuclear weapons.

How would matters play out when the fifty-first General Assembly considered the report of the Conference on Disarmament, which paradoxically would state that the Conference had failed to agree on a text to which the Assembly had agreed? a correspondent asked. "We'll have to see, won't we?", Ms. Ghose said. The text approved on 10 September was not a Conference on Disarmament text; it was identical to a Conference on Disarmament text.

She was concerned that the damage done to the Conference on Disarmament be reversed, she continued. The manoeuvres resorted to in the General Assembly had not been helpful. India wondered how any future issue could be negotiated in good faith in the Conference if States which did not agree to be bound by consensus could simply take the matter directly to the General Assembly. The Conference on Disarmament should be maintained as the primary multilateral forum for the negotiation of disarmament treaties.

To another question on the formation of an ad hoc committee of the Conference on Disarmament, Ms. Ghose said that India had asked for the formation of an ad hoc committee since 1993. The problem had been that the nuclear-weapon States simply did not want to discuss nuclear disarmament.

A correspondent then asked what the practical use of pursuing the matter would be if the nuclear Powers had no intention of doing away with their arsenals.

Mr. Shah said that it had taken nearly 20 years to negotiate the Chemical Weapons Convention. India had ratified it last week and believed that the United States would follow suit in a week or two. India had received overwhelming support from non-governmental organizations and others in civil society regarding its position on the test ban. One had to be optimistic as regards nuclear disarmament.

India Press Conference - 3 - 12 September 1996

Ms. Ghose said that she was very glad to see nuclear disarmament placed back on the diplomatic agenda. A lot of thinking and talking was going on; it was important that the diplomatic community not lose that momentum.

To a question on a proposed ban on the production of fissile material, Ms. Ghose said that India, together with Canada, had sponsored that initiative in the Conference on Disarmament two years ago. At the last General Assembly, India had proposed preambular clauses on both the CTBT and on a fissile materials cutoff, but both initiatives had been defeated. In any case, India did not believe that fissile material was the main problem. There was already too much material floating around, that was why the nuclear Powers had initiated unilateral moratorium on production. The problem now was weapons.

* *** *