DCF/275

DRAFT TEST BAN TREATY BEFORE DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE BEST THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED, REPRESENTATIVES ON NUCLEAR-WEAPONS STATES SAY

GENEVA, 22 August (UN Information Service) -- Representatives of the five nuclear-weapon States this morning expressed regret that the Conference on Disarmament had not been able to approve the text of a draft comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty to be forwarded to the General Assembly for signature.

In separate statements delivered before a plenary session of the Conference, representatives of the Russian Federation, China, the United Kingdom, the United States and France expressed support for the draft treaty tabled by the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Nuclear Test Ban, Jaap Ramaker (Netherlands), and indicated that further negotiations or attempts to amend the text would not bring the parties closer to consensus. A number of other delegations also backed the draft as the best that could be achieved after almost three years of negotiations. India, however, has rejected it, claiming the draft ignores some the country's major concerns. On Tuesday, India's representative told the Conference that India would not agree to the text being forwarded to the General Assembly in any form.

The Conference had been working to conclude a draft treaty in time for it to be endorsed by a resumed fiftieth session of the Assembly. The draft would then have been ready for signature at the opening of the fifty-first session next month.

The statements on the draft treaty text were preceded by a lengthy debate on whether to transmit the report of the Ad Hoc Committee to the resumed fiftieth session of the General Assembly.

Statements

GRIGORI BERDENNIKOV (Russian Federation) said the fact that the draft comprehensive test-ban treaty was the result of a compromise was confirmed by, among others, the provision in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee that none of the delegations of the countries supporting the text had been able to declare that they were fully satisfied with its contents. That was normal in

compromise: nobody was fully satisfied, but the overwhelming majority was not able to oppose it either. He expressed regret that not all members of the Conference had been able to take such a reasonable stand, all the more so because the draft treaty contained substantial and objectively positive features. It would free humanity forever from nuclear explosions; it would make an effective contribution to the nuclear non-proliferation regime; its comprehensive ban on any unclear explosions would serve as an effective brake on the qualitative improvement of nuclear charges and prevent the appearance of new type of charges as well as of nuclear weapons based on new physical principles; and it would become a new point of departure for the continuation of the negotiating process aimed at further reductions of nuclear armaments leading to their ultimate elimination.

The Russian delegation supported the draft treaty as it was, he continued, and had reached the firm conclusion that further negotiations or attempts to amend the text would not bring the Conference closer to consensus.

CLOVIS KHOURY (Syria) said his country opposed the inclusion of Israel in the group of Middle East and South Asia States that would form part of the executive council of a future treaty monitoring organization. Israel continued to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus threatening the security of the area. Israel had not adhered to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), nor did it submit its facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). Syria would reaffirm that position anywhere the draft treaty was submitted for consideration.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said that although the draft treaty text was not totally satisfactory, it did represent what was achievable. The difficulties of some delegations should have been resolved through continued negotiations or consultations. In light of the timeline set by the Assembly in resolution 50/65 of 1995, however, continued negotiations or amendments to the text did not seem very practical. Should negotiations be reopened, the intricate and fragile balance of the current treaty provisions might be destroyed. China, therefore, supported the text and regretted that the Conference had not been able to approve it and forward it to the Assembly.

RICHARD STARR (Australia) said one must not overlook the fact that, despite procedural debates on the report, that document did not contain the text of the draft treaty. No matter how long or successful the efforts of the President in conducting consultations on the course of work to follow regarding the report, the Conference would not be able to transmit the text of the draft treaty to the Assembly. Australia had continued to hope that the one State opposing the text would have allowed it to go forward. For whatever the limitations of the provision of the text on entry-into-force, opposed by

- 3 - Press Release DCF/275 23 August 1996

that State, it was not accurate to say that it was illegal or coercive. The draft treaty was as reasonable a compromise as could be achieved; any effort to reopen negotiations would bring the certainty of the treaty's unravelling.

ANNE ANDERSON (Ireland), speaking in her national capacity on behalf of the European Union, said the Union had issued a declaration yesterday in which it expressed its belief that further urgent efforts must now be made to ensure that the draft text was adopted and opened for signature within the agreed timetable.

WOLFGANG HOFFMANN (Germany) said his country regretted that the Ad Hoc Committee had not found consensus on the draft test-ban treaty. Germany supported the draft and was convinced that it should be forwarded to the Assembly.

ROMULUS NEAGU (Romania) expressed regret that the Conference had been unable to reach consensus on transmitting the text of a draft treaty to the Assembly. It was necessary for all to demonstrate a spirit of compromise at this time, given that the current draft treaty text was the maximum of what could be achieved. As it was not possible to forward the draft text on behalf of the Conference, it was up to the international community to see that that product of two-and-a-half years of negotiations was not lost.

LARS NORBERG (Sweden) said the draft was the best attainable outcome of negotiations, and as such it deserved support. Sweden hoped a draft treaty would be opened for signature very soon, for the international community must seize the present historic opportunity to take a decisive step towards a nuclear-weapon-free world.

MICHAEL WESTON (United Kingdom) expressed regret that the Conference had not been able to approve the treaty text and forward it to the Assembly. The United Kingdom supported the treaty text "as it is". After having carefully considered the continuing difficulties some countries had with it, his country had reached the firm conclusion that further negotiations or attempts to amend the text would not bring the Conference closer to consensus. The text offered the only possibility of achieving a comprehensive test-ban treaty at the present time. The United Kingdom called on all those delegations that had not already done so to support the text.

YOSEF LAMDAN (Israel) said the draft treaty text should have been forwarded to the Assembly for signature. It was an important step forward and the best attainable outcome to negotiations. Israel trusted that some way would be found to advance the text for adoption "as is", as the reopening of negotiations would not lead anywhere and would indeed be detrimental. As for the composition of the executive council of a future treaty organization, Israel would oppose any attempt to render ineffective the mechanisms for

- 4 - Press Release DCF/275 23 August 1996

equitable representation of all States concerned. Israel was against the altering of the list of States in the Middle East and South Asia Group.

STEPHEN J. LEDOGAR (United States) said his country regretted that the Conference had not been able to approve the treaty text and forward it to the Assembly. The United States supported the text "as it is". After having carefully considered the continuing difficulties some countries had with it, his country had reached the firm conclusion that further negotiations or attempts to amend the text would not bring the Conference closer to consensus. The text offered the only possibility of achieving a comprehensive test-ban treaty at the present time. The United States called on all those delegations that had not already done so to support the text.

JOELLE BOURGOIS (France) said her delegation supported the draft text. Attempts to amend it now would not bring the Conference closer to consensus; rather, the opposite would happen. The text offered the sole possibility of achieving a comprehensive test-ban treaty. She appealed to all delegations that had not yet done so to support the text.

HISAMI KUROKOCHI (Japan) said she hoped a way would be found for opening a test-ban treaty for signature this autumn. Japan strongly urged India and others to reconsider their positions in view of the long-term good a test-ban treaty could bring.

MARK MOHER (Canada) said he was encouraged by the amount of support garnered by the draft treaty text. Efforts for a comprehensive test-ban treaty could not be allowed to end in failure now. To prevent that, Canada would do its utmost to bring about the signing of a treaty this September. Canada hoped other countries would join in that endeavour.

Debate on Report of Ad Hoc Committee

At the outset of this morning's meeting, Conference members engaged in a debate on whether to transmit the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Nuclear Test Ban to the resumed fiftieth session of the General Assembly. The representatives of Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil, Egypt, Peru, Chile, Austria, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Romania, Slovakia, Morocco and Belgium all spoke in favour of transmitting the report. The representative of Pakistan said his country had consistently underlined the Conference's role in negotiating a draft treaty, and it continued to believe that that forum must continue to play its part in the conclusion of a test-ban treaty. His delegation had already expressed regret at the inability of the Conference to take a decision on a text of a draft treaty. The report of the Ad Hoc Committee, however, had been adopted without objections and should be transmitted immediately for information to the resumed fiftieth session of the Assembly.

- 5 - Press Release DCF/275 23 August 1996

The representative of Mexico said that if the comprehensive test-ban treaty were not opened for signature at the outset of the fifty-first session of the Assembly, the Conference would have lost an historic opportunity. If the treaty was not signed, it would be very hard to start, let alone institutionalize, a process leading to comprehensive nuclear disarmament. It could also discourage the current momentum for disarmament evident in civil society. Nuclear testing must stop immediately and once and for all. The international community demanded it. The Conference had made tremendous efforts to achieve that end, and the Assembly should be informed of those efforts.

Other speakers said it was only natural that, after its adoption by the Conference, the report of the Ad Hoc Committee should be transmitted to the Assembly. It was the duty and right of the Conference to transmit the report to the Assembly. This could be done in the form of a report from the Conference or a letter from the President, it was suggested.

The representative of Iran said, however, that the proposal to transmit the report of the Ad Hoc Committee had not been made in the proper form. In accordance with the rules of procedure, the President should have submitted a proposal at least two weeks in advance. Furthermore, it was not clear whose proposal it was. It would be awkward to submit to the Assembly a separate report recording a lack of consensus, especially as the full report of the Conference could be prepared very quickly. It was entirely possible to follow the rules of procedures and submit a report to the resumed session of the Assembly. Furthermore, before acting on the report, there were practical issues to be resolved, including the need for delegations to consult with their capitals.

Responding to the statement that the rule of procedure mentioned in connection with the report had never been invoked before, the representative of India said the issue of rules should not be quietly dismissed. The Assembly did need to be informed of the treaty negotiation process, and India would not object to the transmittal of a report to that body following the normal course. What had been proposed, however, was somewhat extraordinary and curious, and the reasons behind it were not clear. The Assembly had asked for an agreed draft treaty text from the Conference, but the Conference could not agree on a text to recommend.

If the report was killed today with unprecedented procedural manoeuvres, it would be dead for good said the representative of the United States. The rule invoked by Iran concerned draft reports, whereas the Ad Hoc Committee document was a final report. Time was of the essence; the Conference had accepted the deadline issued by the international community.

* *** *

United Nations