16 August 1996

DCF/273


DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE CONTINUES SEARCH FOR CONSENSUS ON DRAFT NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY

19960816GENEVA, 15 August (UN Information Service) -- Cuba and Iran this morning blamed the lack of consensus on the text of a draft comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty before the Conference on Disarmament on the attitude of certain nuclear powers, but they did not rule out an ultimate agreement.

The representative of Cuba, Eumelio Caballero, said his country deeply regretted that the panel negotiating the draft treaty, the Conference's Ad Hoc Committee on a nuclear test ban, had not been able to produce a consensus document, due to the intransigence of certain nuclear Powers. This attitude was based on the refusal of those Powers to accept the placing of the treaty within the context of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament; to commit to achieving nuclear disarmament within a time-bound framework; and to guarantee that the qualitative development of nuclear weapons would not be pursued. Cuba, however, would not oppose the draft treaty at this point, as it felt that the prohibition of nuclear explosions was extremely important and constituted a step, albeit a modest one, in the process of nuclear disarmament.

Sirous Nasseri, representative of Iran, said it appeared that the Ad Hoc Committee would not be able to present a consensus text to the Conference, although consensus could be reached with small changes in the document. A unilateral decision by some nuclear Powers to block any changes had given rise to an impasse, however. Among the changes proposed by Iran was the removal of Israel from the list of States in the Middle East and South Asia that would form part of the executive council of the organization to be established to oversee the application of a comprehensive treaty.

Following the plenary meeting of the Conference, the Ad Hoc Committee met to continue to search for consensus on the draft treaty text submitted on 28 June by its Chairman, Jaap Ramaker (Netherlands). The Conference is working to conclude a draft treaty for submission to the forthcoming session of the General Assembly for signature.

Also participating in this morning's plenary were the representatives of the Seychelles, Chile, Bangladesh, Turkey and Australia.

The next plenary meeting of the Conference will be held at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 20 August.

Statements

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE ISEUX (Seychelles), making his delegation's first formal statement as an observer in the Conference, read from a letter from his country's Foreign Minister proposing a site in Seychelles for the international monitoring system of a test-ban treaty. The position of Seychelles was ideal for such a site, he said. At the Conference, meanwhile, Seychelles could play an important role as a mediator behind the scenes. In the future, the country would actively participate in the treaty's preparatory committee and its future organization in Vienna.

He said he was surprised to note that the draft treaty did not appear to be an act of nuclear disarmament, but more of an act to secure existing nuclear arsenals. In this situation, there was presently no ground for healthy negotiations.

JORGE BERGU�O (Chile) said his country considered nuclear tests as being incompatible with international law. The testing of a weapon whose use or threat of use was unlawful, in keeping with the recent finding of the International Court of Justice, could not be justified under any circumstances. The point of departure was the source of obligation not to test, which for Chile could already be found in the Antarctic Treaty and the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean. Signing the comprehensive treaty would merely mean for Chile taking on the additional obligation of not causing, encouraging or participating in nuclear tests in areas not under its jurisdiction, a responsibility, Chile felt, that already bound the international community under international law. None the less, pointing out governing principles did not mean diminishing the importance of instruments whose political and technical mechanisms would lead the international community to take on responsibilities and vigilance contained in their norms. Advancing in a common direction and leaving behind an era of immobility were aspirations that should not be abandoned now. What was at stake was not only the treaty but also the very future of negotiations for international disarmament, which could only prosper in a climate of mutual trust.

He said certain issues -- including entry into force, the preamble of the treaty and the indefinite nature of the ban -- had not been settled to the satisfaction of all delegations. The necessary adjustments could take place after the treaty was ratified.

ANWAR HASHIM (Bangladesh) said his country ardently hoped the Conference would be able to finalize agreement on a truly comprehensive test-ban treaty in time to transmit it to the General Assembly. This would require a readiness to address concerns that the draft treaty, apart from lacking in comprehensiveness, also did not address some crucial issues highlighted by a number of delegations. Nevertheless, the draft text before delegations was a

- 3 - Press Release DCF/273 16 August 1996

good basis for further negotiations. A comprehensive treaty would be a step towards achieving total nuclear disarmament. Like many in the "Group of 21" non-aligned countries, Bangladesh felt there was an overriding need to place the treaty in the broad frame of nuclear disarmament, without which the treaty would be little more than a "blind-alley" instrument of nuclear non- proliferation. For a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), a comprehensive treaty with such a limited scope could have little meaning. Under the NPT, Bangladesh's renunciation of the option to acquire nuclear weapons was unequivocal. This renunciation was born of a desire to seek the systematic dismantling of the world's nuclear arsenal, hence the value Bangladesh attached to article VI of the NPT. If the comprehensive treaty was to be read in the context of article VI, it was appropriate that it provide a window on nuclear disarmament beyond the test ban.

Recalling that Bangladesh was included in the list of 44 countries whose ratification of the treaty was linked to its entry into force, he said that since his country was already bound by its broader commitment under the NPT, a national commitment under a comprehensive treaty would perhaps be superfluous, and therefore could not be a formal condition for entry into force. Another major consideration for Bangladesh was the question of the financial obligations that would devolve on States parties when the treaty entered into force. Bangladesh would have to base its decision on budgetary consideration, especially if it would mean paying for the cost of a treaty which merely reaffirmed part of a broader commitment already made in the context of the NPT. Bangladesh proposed, among other things, that non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT could be exempted from any financial obligation.

EUMELIO CABALLERO (Cuba) said that although Cuba appreciated the effort of Ad Hoc Committee Chairman, it deeply regretted that the Committee had not been able to produce a consensus draft treaty due to the intransigence of certain nuclear Powers. This attitude was based on their refusal to accept the placing of the treaty within the context of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament; to commit to achieving nuclear disarmament within a time-bound framework; and to guarantee that the qualitative development of nuclear weapons would not be pursued. The lack of political will on the part of these nuclear Powers had prevented the emergence of clear formulation on the question of scope; what was contained in the current draft was in fact another partial test-ban treaty. It was also deeply regrettable that a greater effort had not been made to look for a formula on entry into force that would take into account the legitimate concerns of all delegations.

Nevertheless, he went on, Cuba would not oppose the draft treaty, as it felt that the prohibition of nuclear explosions was extremely important and constituted a step, albeit a modest one, in the process of nuclear disarmament. Cuba would evaluate the content of the text and would determine at the appropriate time the position it would take.

- 4 - Press Release DCF/273 16 August 1996

SIROUS NASSERI (Iran) said it appeared that the Ad Hoc Committee would not be able to present a consensus text to the Conference. The appalling fact was that failure could be avoided. In practical terms, negotiators were faced with only three or four small brackets. One critical issue was the question of nuclear disarmament. Many delegations were dissatisfied with the text, particularly after limitations imposed on the scope of the draft treaty brought seriously into question the comprehensive nature of the test ban. The use of national technical means for verification of compliance with the treaty should apply provisionally and only to explosions not covered by the international monitoring system. Iran also reiterated that national technical means should not be interpreted to include information received from espionage and human intelligence.

On the composition of the executive council, he said, Iran had been stunned to see Israel listed in the group of Middle Eastern States. In the text previously under consideration, Israel had been listed in the group of Western States, as was the usual practice. One or two Western States had resisted Israel's return to their group, a move that would have solved the problem. The Middle Eastern and South Asian Group had therefore gone along with the suggestion to allow the future conference of States parties to a comprehensive treaty to redraw the list when it convened. However, a unilateral decision by some nuclear Powers to block any change in the text proposed by the Chairman had led to an impasse.

But the remaining issues could be resolved, he continued. In an effort to do this, Iran proposed three changes to the draft -- the preamble should stress the need for continued systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons through negotiations on a comprehensive phased programme with agreed time-frames, with the ultimate goal of eliminating such weapons; on- site inspection requests should be based on information collected by the international monitoring system, which might be combined with any relevant technical information obtained by national technical means; and Israel should be removed from the list of Middle Eastern and South Asian Group of States and included in the North American and Western Group.

TUGAY ULUCEVIK (Turkey) said the most significant task before the delegations was to expeditiously bring to a conclusion work on the draft treaty so that it could be submitted to the General Assembly for signature. The text submitted by the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee was an important effort in the search for a compromise. Turkey saw the validity of concerns that the reopening of negotiations on the text could compromise the consensus already achieved. Turkey supported the draft and believed it should be submitted to the Assembly in order not to frustrate the aspirations of the international community for a ban on nuclear tests.

- 5 - Press Release DCF/273 16 August 1996

RICHARD STARR (Australia) said the Canberra Commission Report on the elimination of nuclear weapons had been submitted to the Australian Government this week. The report contained much thought-provoking information and represented an important contribution to the disarmament debate. The document would be submitted to the General Assembly at its fifty-first session and to the Conference at the beginning of its 1997 session next January.

* *** *


United Nations





This article comes from Science Blog. Copyright � 2004
http://www.scienceblog.com/community