PRESS BRIEFING ON WORK OF TOKYO DISARMAMENT FORUM

Press Briefing

PRESS BRIEFING ON WORK OF TOKYO DISARMAMENT FORUM

A press briefing was held at Headquarters this afternoon on the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. The Vice-Chairman of the Japan Institute of International Affairs, Nobuo Matsunaga, told correspondents the Forum was established in August of last year on the initiative of the former Prime Minister of Japan, Ryutaro Hashimoto, and the current Prime Minister, Keizo Obuchi.

Also addressing correspondents at the same briefing was Yasushi Akashi, President of the Japan Centre for Preventive Diplomacy, and former United Nations Under-Secretary-General.

Mr. Matsunaga said the Japanese Government requested the Hiroshima Peace Institute and the Japan Centre for Institute of International Affairs to organize the Tokyo Forum on a non-governmental basis. It was felt that would make the Forum more useful and effective by providing a wide exchange of views on a free and informal basis. The initial thinking behind the establishment of the Forum was to address the problem caused by nuclear testing carried out by India and Pakistan in May 1998.

The Forum was supposed to have debated the measures needed to be taken by the international community against those nuclear tests, Mr. Matsunaga continued. However, over the course of one year in which four meetings were held, many things happened and changes of circumstances in the international community caused a rethinking of nuclear threats.

The situation in East Asia had caused a rather serious increase of tension in the area and also in Europe, he said, citing the Kosovo problem as an example of the very serious deterioration of the relationship between the two big weapons States -- the United States and the Russian Federation. He also drew attention to the deterioration of the relationship between the United States and China as another example. In addition, it was found that, in the Middle East, the peace process had become rather stagnated.

Those changes taking place in the international community also affected the Tokyo Forum, he added. It became a subject of concern in the Forum that the entire international community was now facing very dangerous situations in the field of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. As result, a big part of the report addressed the global issues that nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament were facing. Regional problems were also taken up, such as the South Asian, North-East Asian, as well the Middle Eastern, situations.

"We are urging not only India and Pakistan, but all the other countries of the international community, to cope with the situation which we are addressing", he stressed. "We are making very alarmed calls that unless the

countries in the communities take positive measures to address nuclear danger in the future, the coming century will really be a theatre of very serious concern." He hoped that the international community as whole, including the international organizations, would take the report of the Tokyo Forum very seriously.

Mr. Matsunaga said the report was accompanied by a series of concrete recommendations. The participants at the conference came in their own personal capacities. Therefore, the views and recommendations expressed in the report did not represent positions or views of any particular Government or organization. This morning, the report had been submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, who had issued a very positive statement on it.

Mr. Akashi told correspondents the report had been prepared by a very small group of distinguished experts who came from different countries. It constituted a critical mass of analysis, as well as suggestions and recommendations as to how best to cope with the deteriorating international situation. The report was quite refreshing and very different from normal reports done by governmental representatives.

He said the report was frank in assessing the dangers and in pointing opportunities. The conclusion of the experts was that "we are at a very dangerous turning point; either we will be able to strengthen the non-nuclear proliferation regime or we will face the danger of re-evaluated nuclear weapons spreading to many parts of the world".

The Russian Federation was already in the process of re-evaluating its nuclear arms, while the India and Pakistan tests of last May indicated that even on a regional basis there had been a challenge to the non-nuclear proliferation regime, he said. Disarmament was also linked to non- proliferation. Unless there was progress on one side, progress on another front could not be expected.

Mr. Akashi said the onus was very much on the nuclear Powers, particularly the United States and the Russian Federation and more specifically on the United States. The report had a number of calls and recommendations addressed to those countries. China was also discussed, particularly on the issue of its relative lack of transparency when compared to other nuclear Powers. A number of things were also asked of India and Pakistan, as well as Israel in the context of the Middle East "where we subscribe to the recommendation for a convention banning all weapons of mass destruction". There was also a very favourable opinion on the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in various parts of the world.

He noted that the recommendations in the report might cause much discussion and argument. It was, nevertheless, felt that in order to break the present deadlock on the many issues that could make the next century far more dangerous than the current, the recommendations would stimulate a lot of

Tokyo Forum Briefing - 3 - 4 August 1999

forward-looking discussions. It was also hoped that they would compel governments to take a hard and serious look at their present policies and also use the United Nations, the Security Council and the Secretary-General in a number of ways, in order to give additional impetus to nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.

What could the Forum contribute that was not already contributed? a correspondent asked. Mr. Akashi said the Forum was a non-governmental group of experts, all having worked with their governments and some still working in their governmental capacities. However, since they were not held down by their governments' policies, they had come up with refreshing ideas that could provoke thought for negotiating points among government representatives on disarmament issues.

Mr. Matsunaga added that the Forum's report had been given to the Government of Japan which would decide on actions regarding the recommendations. The United Nations Secretary-General had also been requested to issue the report as a United Nations document. It was hoped that all governments of the international community would give serious consideration to the report and would take appropriate measures or courses of action.

A correspondent pointed out that nuclear States, including Pakistan, were represented on the Forum, but India was not. Why?

The participant from Pakistan had attended all four meetings of the Forum, Mr. Matsunaga replied, but the participant from India had taken part in only the first two. The presumption, based on telephone and written communications, was that the participant from India did not attend the third and fourth meetings because India's position was not accepted by the Forum. The report noted in a preface that the participant's presence was appreciated and his contribution was included in the report. India's position and views were, therefore, sufficiently accommodated in the report.

Why did the report not specifically address the qualitative testing of nuclear weapons since their improvement was a major activity of the major nuclear Powers?

Mr. Akashi said the report contained a good discussion of the so-called "subcritical tests", often used by the United States and Russia, which did not violate the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). The report suggested monitoring procedures to determine whether those tests conformed with the objectives and purposes of the CTBT. So qualitative improvement, if the increase of destructive power could be called that, was addressed in the report, as was quantitative improvement, the deployed strategic nuclear arms and also the non-deployed nuclear arms. "We also bring in the often forgotten issue of tactical nuclear weapons, as well as chemical and biological weapons, bringing in verification clauses for those weapons of mass destruction."

Tokyo Forum Briefing - 4 - 4 August 1999

The report called on the United States and Russia to either negotiate and begin on a third, more ambitious Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) than the original START II, or to begin unilateral reductions of their nuclear arsenal in parallel with each other, without formal treaty commitments, Mr. Akashi continued. Once they brought their respective numbers to 1,000 strategic warheads each, the process could then be turned into a multilateral one by bringing in China, France and the United Kingdom, all halving their nuclear arms or proportionately reducing them until they came very close to zero. Things would get more complex as the zero point was neared, but the process should not stop at the 1,000 mark for the major Powers.

"We also express complete bewilderment about the number of nuclear weapons on 'hair-trigger alert status' 10 years after the end of the cold war. What are they intended for?" Mr. Akashi asked. They were hard questions and the Forum had not been addicted to the old debate about whether deterrence was still valid, or to the old Indian argument whether of a time-limited target for total abolition was realistic or not. The Forum was proposing something in between, while the ultimate target was total abolition. "We want to be realistic and pragmatic, and we want nuclear Powers to advance step by step." The ambassadors of the nuclear Powers had described the proposals as "very far-reaching and ambitious without being totally devoid of realism". The hope was that the recommendations would be presented to the General Assembly's First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) and at the Millennium Assembly. Speaking of realism and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), a correspondent said, how could the Forum expect India and Pakistan to reverse their nuclear capabilities while the nuclear nations not only retained theirs, but went to the subcritical phases?

The question was not unexpected, Mr. Akashi said. Had the test by India, followed by that of Pakistan, either increased their own security or enhanced stability in the subcontinent? The latest Kashmir flare-up indicated neither. But a number of steps as interim measures had been indicated for them in the report, such as a moratorium on testing and on missiles, their mutual discussion about alleviating tensions, with the suggestion that ultimately should they join the NPT as non-nuclear States.

Some had argued the Forum's position on that had been unrealistic, Mr. Akashi said. But there was the so-called realistic school, and then there was the school that believed the NPT was a worthy objective, even if there had been two very serious violators to date. Also, it was possible that the general alleviation of tension, progress in nuclear disarmament by the two big ones and three others, the conclusion of a fissile materials cut-off treaty and the introduction of greater transparency would make it possible for India and Pakistan to forego their nuclear weapons. It was extremely dangerous to endorse ex post facto the emergence of two new nuclear States. The Forum was not categorical in advocating a non-nuclear status, but rather that it be put in the right context.

Tokyo Forum Briefing - 5 - 4 August 1999

Mr. Matsunaga added that the Forum had recognized the NPT was not functioning well, and had looked to fortify it by recommending a permanent body to be established to look into the functioning of the NPT. With regard to India, India had presented itself as a nuclear State. It would have been "unreality" for the Forum to recommend that India join the NPT as a non- nuclear State. India would not have accepted that. The ultimate goal was for both India and Pakistan to join NPT as non-nuclear States, but a paragraph in the report stated that the ultimate goal could not be achieved without substantive progress in the field of disarmament, especially between the two big nuclear States and the other nuclear countries. India and Pakistan were urged, in the report, to join the NPT in light of progress in disarmament.

The NPT was a well-entrenched and well-recognized global system, Mr. Akashi added. The tests carried out by the two States could not be legitimized, but they had been called upon to take a number of steps to stabilize the situation.

Asked to elaborate on the responsibility of the United States in the area of disarmament, Mr. Akashi said that, first of all, the United States had more weapons than it needed. Secondly, those weapons were on a hair-trigger alert status. Against whom? The Soviet Union, which did not exist? Against Russia, which was in economically bad shape? The United States had not ratified the CTBT after being a proponent of it. The United States should consider those questions if it was ultimately committed to the elimination of nuclear arms.

Asked how optimistic he was that the United States would heed the recommendations, Mr. Akashi said: "We are so pessimistic in our assessment of the present situation that we are bound to be optimistic about the future."

Asked how the Bulletin of Atomic Science Doomsday Club would respond to the report, Mr. Akashi said: "If they look at the pessimistic content of our report, that clock may advance closer to doomsday. If they agree with our remedies and the realizability of our remedies, they might move the clock backwards."

* *** *