GA/9081

GENERAL ASSEMBLY WOULD ADOPT NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY, BY PROVISIONS OF 126-POWER DRAFT RESOLUTION INTRODUCED AT RESUMED SESSION

General Assembly - 1a - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

political persuasion", he objected to the inclusion of a provision in the treaty that required India, among other countries, to sign and ratify the treaty for it to come into force.

Joining other countries in expressing concern over serious flaws in the draft comprehensive test-ban treaty, the representative of Malaysia said that, while it would support the draft resolution, the legitimate concerns of many countries had not been addressed. In addition to the fact that the draft treaty did not place itself within an overall process of nuclear disarmament, the entry-into-force article of the draft weakened the treaty and rendered it legally inoperative. By giving certain States veto power, it would prevent the treaty from becoming fully operative in the foreseeable future.

Article XIV, on entry into force, states that the treaty shall enter into force 180 days after its ratification by all the 44 States listed in annex 2 of the treaty, but in no case earlier than two years after its opening for signature. If the treaty has not entered into force three years after the date of the anniversary of its opening for signature, a majority of the States already ratifying the treaty could convene a conference and decide by consensus "what measures consistent with international law may be undertaken to accelerate the ratification process".

Stating that his Government supported the draft treaty believing that it would facilitate nuclear disarmament, the representative of China noted that it made no reference to the objective of concluding an agreement on no "first use" or threat of use, nor to the conclusion of an international convention on the prohibition and destruction of those weapons.

According to the representative of the Russian Federation, the draft treaty, which had emerged after lengthy and difficult talks in Geneva, should be considered final. Any amendment to the text would result in counter- amendments, yet more amendments, and the breakdown of the treaty. An international nuclear-test ban would strengthen the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) regime, make proliferation more difficult and forestall the development of improved weapons systems, he added.

The representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the draft resolution represented the international community's determination to bring to completion one of the most sought-after non-proliferation and disarmament measures in the history of the United Nations.

Other statements were made this afternoon by the representatives of the Marshall Islands, Fiji, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, New Zealand, Japan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

The Assembly will continue its consideration of the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 10 September.

Assembly Work Programme

The General Assembly met this afternoon in response to a request by Australia to consider and take action on a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty, pursuant to its resolution 50/65 of 12 December 1995. The request is contained in a letter to the Assembly President dated 22 August (document A/50/1024) from the Permanent Representative of Australia, Richard Butler, in which he asks the President to make arrangements for the Assembly to take action on a test-ban treaty.

In resolution 50/65, the Assembly declared its readiness to resume consideration of its agenda item on the subject "as necessary, before its fifty-first session in order to endorse the text of a comprehensive nuclear- test-ban treaty". Resolution 50/65 as a whole was adopted without a vote. Mr. Butler states in his letter that "the time to resume consideration of the item has now arrived, and we understand this view is shared by other Member States".

In operative paragraph 2 of its resolution, the Assembly also called upon all States participating in the Conference on Disarmament, in particular the nuclear-weapon States, to conclude, as a task of the highest priority, a universal and multilaterally and effectively verifiable comprehensive nuclear- test-ban treaty "so as to enable its signature by the outset of the fifty- first session of the General Assembly". That paragraph was adopted by a vote of 166 in favour, to none against, with 1 abstention (China).

The Australian Permanent Representative says in his letter that he has already sent a letter to the Secretary-General also dated 22 August (document A/50/1027) which submits, as an annex to it, the text of a draft treaty which is "identical to that text in Conference on Disarmament document CD/1427". Mr. Butler states his intention to introduce a draft resolution this afternoon, in the name of its co-sponsors, "relevant to action on the treaty".

On 19 August, in Geneva, the Conference on Disarmament adopted the report of its Ad Hoc Committee on a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty which stated that the Committee had been unable to reach consensus on a draft treaty after three years of negotiations. The Chairman of that Committee said that there seemed to be widespread realization that the draft text before the Conference represented the very limits of what could be negotiated. Further consultations were deemed necessary, however, before the Conference decided what further action to take on the Committee report. Subsequently, on 22 August, the Conference failed to reach consensus on whether to transmit the Ad Hoc Committee report to the Assembly.

(For further background on the session of the Conference on Disarmament, see Press Releases DCF/274-278 of 20, 23 and 29 August, and 3 September.)

General Assembly - 3 - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

Introduction of Draft Resolution

RICHARD BUTLER (Australia) said that, 33 years ago, a limited test-ban treaty had been achieved; 22 years ago, a threshold test-ban treaty had been accomplished. The comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty would enshrine, for all time, the obligation that there shall not be "any nuclear-weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion". The Charter of the United Nations had assigned to the General Assembly the responsibility to make recommendations to Member States on "the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments". In exercise of that authority, the Assembly had repeatedly called for the multilateral negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty.

The Conference on Disarmament, established by the Assembly, was an integral part of the United Nations system, he said. It accepted political guidance from, and reported to, the General Assembly. Regarding the proposed treaty, the Assembly had called upon the Conference to conclude a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty so as to enable its signature by the outset of its fifty-first regular session. Twenty days ago, the Conference completed its work on the text of the treaty, but one of its member States had withheld agreement to the treaty, and to the report of the negotiating committee being forwarded to the Assembly. While Australia respected the right of any State to act on its sovereign view, it did not accept the extension of a national point of view to the point of seeking to prevent others from acting on theirs.

The treaty negotiated at the Conference had been agreed to by all others at the Conference, he said. The action of bringing the draft treaty to the Assembly was consistent with the fundamental relationship between the Assembly and the Conference. Were that action not possible, the Assembly would be shedding its authority to a less than universal body whose charge was to work consistent with Assembly guidance. That would be of questionable legality; it would be "political nonsense", he said.

The draft treaty had been overwhelmingly agreed to, and all mandates had been fulfilled, he continued. One member State had vetoed the transmission of the draft treaty from the Conference on Disarmament to the General Assembly. The draft text had been agreed to by many States, including by all those which had conducted nuclear explosions, except India.

The core of the draft resolution before the Assembly -- which now had 126 co-sponsors -- was the proposed adoption by the General Assembly of the text of a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty and its opening for signature at Headquarters, at the earliest possible date. Adoption of the draft resolution would see the opening for signature of that text in just two weeks. By that action, the Assembly would have fulfilled its expressed determination

General Assembly - 4 - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

to do so by the outset of its fifty-first session. His Government asked that the Assembly reflect deeply upon the milestone of history that the draft resolution would lay down -- agreement that there should never again be nuclear explosions.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said that ever since the first nuclear-test-ban resolution adopted by the General Assembly, the international community had striven to achieve the goal of a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty. That goal was finally within reach. The conclusion of the test-ban treaty would, for the first time and in the form of an international legal instrument, comprehensively ban nuclear-weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosion. That ban would facilitate nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation, thereby enhancing international peace and security.

A nuclear-test-ban treaty would only be one step forward towards the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, he said. The international community should continue to promote disarmament by urging the major nuclear-weapon States to abandon their policy of nuclear deterrence and to drastically reduce nuclear stockpiles. Those States should also be encouraged to undertake not to be the first to use nuclear weapons and not to threaten to use those weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear- free zones. The international community should also demand that States with nuclear weapons deployed outside their borders withdraw those weapons, and commit to refrain from deploying space-based weapons or missile defence systems.

China was not entirely satisfied with the draft text, he said. The draft treaty had made no reference to the objective of concluding an agreement on no "first use" or threat of use, nor to the conclusion of an international convention on the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of those weapons. Regarding the triggering basis for on-site inspections, it failed to draw distinctions between the data and information from the international monitoring system and those from national technical means of verification. It was also not proper to include financial contribution to the treaty organization as a criteria for membership of its executive council. Notwithstanding those comments, China supported the treaty text, which was balanced and which reflected objectively the state of the negotiations of the past two-and-one-half years.

JACKEO A. RELANG (Marshall Islands), speaking on behalf of the members of the South Pacific Forum, said that the text for a comprehensive test-ban treaty should "go forward". Last year, despite the appeals of South Pacific governments, a number of nuclear devices had been exploded in their region. While his Government was concerned at the lingering environmental impact of those tests, one outcome was now clear. The five acknowledged nuclear-weapon States had pledged not to test those weapons again. The most effective way to

General Assembly - 5 - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

end nuclear testing was through the conclusion of a universal and verifiable comprehensive test-ban treaty. The treaty should be opened for signature at the United Nations.

The call for a test ban did not diminish the urgent need to address the health and environmental effects of past tests, he said. There was a special responsibility towards the peoples of the former Trust Territories who had been adversely affected as a result of nuclear weapons testing conducted during the trusteeship period. Up to half of the population of the Marshall Islands may have been adversely affected by nuclear tests. He was grateful to the United States Administration for disclosing previously classified information on the matter. But his Government was disappointed that the responsible party had not yet fully redressed health and environmental consequences resulting from the effects of radiation released by the 67 weapons detonated in the Marshall Islands.

JOHN CAMPBELL (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, as well as of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, said the draft resolution introduced by Australia and co-sponsored by all the member States of the European Union represented the international community's determination to bring to completion one of the most sought-after non-proliferation and disarmament measures in the history of the United Nations.

The draft treaty concluded after long and arduous negotiations, represented the compromise characteristic of any multilateral instrument of importance, he said. It contained all essential provisions to ensure that it achieved the objectives that its title called for. The Union regretted that the Conference on Disarmament had not been in a position to transmit the text of the treaty to the Assembly; however, it wanted to ensure that the role of the Conference as the principal negotiating forum in the field of disarmament would not be diminished. He emphasized that the treaty was not the end of the process and that there was need for further systematic efforts towards nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. He called on all Member States to adopt the draft resolution.

POSECI BUNE (Fiji) said his country and other countries in the South Pacific had constantly opposed nuclear testing in the Pacific. Those collective protests had led to the establishment of the South Pacific Nuclear-Free-Zone Treaty under which nuclear States would refrain from stationing nuclear weapons and testing nuclear devices in the region.

Therefore, it was with dismay that Fiji had watched the negative posture of a few in Geneva which had stemmed the tide by the vast majority of countries attending the Conference on Disarmament to agree on the text of the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty, he said. It would not allow the events

General Assembly - 6 - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

in Geneva to daunt the efforts to conclude the treaty. He reiterated that Fiji would be among the first to ratify and sign the treaty.

CELSO AMORIM (Brazil), speaking on behalf of the members of the Common Market of the Southern Cone (MERCOSUR) -- Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, as well as Bolivia and Chile -- expressed support for the draft resolution aimed at adopting the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty by the Assembly. The new opportunities for progress in the field of non- proliferation and disarmament were encouraging. The complete cessation of nuclear tests forever was, in itself, a great achievement. It should lead to new and decisive measures of nuclear disarmament.

During the negotiations of the comprehensive test-ban treaty, he said the overwhelming majority of countries expressed support for the conclusion of the text. While the draft before the Assembly might not address all concerns, it encompassed the unprecedented commitment to stop nuclear explosions forever. He stressed the particular responsibility of the nuclear-weapon States. A firm commitment on their part to the cessation of nuclear tests, as well as to nuclear disarmament, would serve the interests of the international community.

RAZALI ISMAIL (Malaysia) expressed concern that the unusual procedure whereby a member State of the Conference on Disarmament was remitting, on behalf of a number of countries, the text of a treaty not unanimously adopted by the Conference, might undermine the Conference's competence and create a precedent for the future. It was regrettable that after two-and-a-half years of intensive negotiations, the Conference could not reach consensus on the draft treaty. It revealed a lack of political will among the negotiating parties. It was regrettable that legitimate concerns of States members of the Conference, many of which Malaysia shared, had not been given the deserved consideration. Rather than being dismissed out of hand, they should have been addressed and dealt with seriously.

He said the draft text was seriously flawed. It was deficient in its scope and fell short of the expectations of many countries. It did not place itself within an overall process of nuclear disarmament. The preamble to the treaty was couched in feeble and uninspiring language to cater to the interests of the nuclear-weapon States. It should have contained a clear and unambiguous commitment of States to the total elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-frame. The text gave rise to the impression that the nuclear- weapon States desired the preservation of the status quo, wherein they maintain their exclusive monopoly of nuclear weaponry. The comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty should be seen as a step towards attainment of genuine nuclear disarmament. The current draft text rendered the treaty less than comprehensive, as it kept the door open for other kinds of testing.

General Assembly - 7 - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

He added that his country shared the concern of other States with article XIV on the treaty's entry into force. It was a major flaw of the draft; it weakened the treaty and rendered it legally inoperative. By giving certain States veto power, it would prevent the treaty from becoming fully operative in the foreseeable future.

[Article XIV, on entry into force, states that the treaty shall enter into force 180 days after its ratification by all the States listed in annex 2 of the treaty, but in no case earlier than two years after its opening for signature. If the treaty has not entered into force three years after the date of the anniversary of its opening for signature, a majority of the States already ratifying the treaty could convene a conference to examine the extent to which the States listed in the annex had ratified the treaty. It could then decide by consensus "what measures consistent with international law may be undertaken to accelerate the ratification process".

The countries listed in the annex include States members of the Conference on Disarmament as of 18 June which formally participated in the work of the 1996 session and which appear in the International Atomic Energy Agency's 1996 listings of "Nuclear Power Reactors in the World" and of "Nuclear Research Reactors in the World". The countries listed are as follows: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Viet Nam and Zaire.]

Notwithstanding its reservations on the deficiencies of the draft treaty, he said his country would not want to be a part of any effort that would further undermine and thereby inflict a fatal blow to the treaty. Flawed as it was, Malaysia would join others, albeit with a lot of reservations, in supporting the draft resolution before the Assembly so that the draft treaty could be accepted by an overwhelming majority. The draft treaty, however imperfect, could serve as an essential instrument in stopping or at least inhibiting nuclear testing. The nuclear-weapon States should seriously consider, however, the proposed programme of action for the elimination of nuclear weapons jointly tabled by 28 non-aligned and neutral member countries of the Conference on Disarmament on 7 August 1995.

ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said that after two-and-a-half years of negotiation, the Conference on Disarmament had arrived at a draft treaty which did not enjoy unanimous support. The Conference had not met the flexibility which would have been desirable; as a consequence, the Assembly was considering a text which did not enjoy universal endorsement. His Government would have preferred the adoption of a ban on all types of testing. He hoped

General Assembly - 8 - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

that all States would, in good faith, respect the objectives of the treaty, which included a prohibition on the development of new types of weapons.

The cessation of nuclear-weapon tests by all States, and total nuclear disarmament, would be in the best interest of mankind, he said. Mexico had submitted a draft text to the Conference on Disarmament which would have called for complete nuclear disarmament, achieved in phases, early in the twenty-first century. Because the treaty proposed to the Assembly did not allow for its entry into force prior to ratification by at least 44 States, it could fall hostage to those who failed to ratify it.

K.J. JELE (South Africa) said, on 6 August, President Nelson Mandela had announced that, following the passage of the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban text through multilateral negotiations, South Africa intended to sign the treaty at the earliest opportunity. South Africa believed that the treaty would not only establish an internationally legally binding obligation on States which signed and ratified it, but would also establish a norm in international law from which no State could escape. It would achieve the end of nuclear-test explosions and inhibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, both horizontally and vertically.

It was evident from the large number of co-sponsors of the resolution that the international community wished to adopt the draft treaty, he said. While South Africa recognized the sovereign right of Member States to adopt a position on the basis of their own national interests, it had to be ensured that the will of the overwhelming majority of States who sought peace through disarmament was upheld.

PRAKASH SHAH (India) said the achievement of global nuclear disarmament had been a major objective of his country's foreign policy. That objective stemmed from a belief that global security lay in total elimination of nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction. However, no country could feel secure as long as thousands of nuclear warheads were retained by a handful of States, justifying this by the assertion that deterrence provided security for those States. The security requirements of other States, however, were ignored.

The comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty that India had sought was meant to ensure an end to the further qualitative development, upgrading or improvement of nuclear weapons, he said. Such a treaty would have signalled a "sea change" in the perceptions of nuclear-weapon States which had sought to retain nuclear weapons for the last half century. The resumed session of the Assembly was being asked to consider a text which disguised the fact that it was a text on which the negotiating body had been unable to reach consensus. Moreover, it had not been forwarded by the Ad Hoc Committee on a nuclear-test ban to the plenary of the Conference on Disarmament. Such a procedure eroded the standing of the Conference on Disarmament. Treaties are made through

General Assembly - 9 - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

voluntary agreements and the legitimate exercise of sovereign choice and not by procedural manoeuvre and political persuasion", he declared.

In Geneva, India had tried to place the treaty firmly in the disarmament context by including in it a commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework, he said. The second thrust of the approach had been to ensure that the treaty would be a watershed in the development of nuclear weapons. Explosive technology was only one of the technologies available to nuclear weapons States. Technologies relating to sub-critical testing, advanced computer simulation using extensive data from previous explosive testing, and weapons related application of laser ignition could open the way to fourth generation nuclear weapons even without explosive testing. To be relevant today, the comprehensive test-ban treaty should have banned not only test explosions, but all nuclear tests which could lead to the development and upgrading of nuclear weapons.

India's security environment had obliged it to maintain the nuclear option, he said. "Countries around us continue their weapons programmes either openly or in a clandestine manner. In such an environment, we cannot permit our option to be constrained or eroded in any manner." India could have restrained itself from opposing the consensus. However, in full knowledge of its decision not to subscribe to the treaty, a provision was included that required India, among other countries, to sign and ratify the treaty for it to come into force. India perceived that as an attempt to restrain a voluntary sovereign right and to enforce obligations on it without its consensus. Moreover, it had been told that any modification would unravel the text. The refusal of a very small group of countries to allow the change in the entry-into-force article had left it with no choice but to withhold consensus in the Conference.

PARK SOO GIL (Republic of Korea) said that while no one would argue that the draft text of the treaty was without imperfections, it was the best available option at the present time. It was the product of compromise among different views and concerns which had emerged in the process of negotiations. Failure to adopt the draft text would be a major setback for the international disarmament and security agenda; it would be a serious mistake which evaded collective responsibility to leave the legacy of a nuclear-weapon-free world to future generations. While fully conceding the right of every Member State to decide whether to sign and/or ratify a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty, he said the position of a handful of countries should not work to the detriment of the international community's aspiration to adopt the treaty. He urged all States to join in the efforts towards realizing the common goal of a treaty banning all nuclear-test explosions for all time. It was only the beginning of a long and difficult road, but the adoption of the draft treaty would be greatly conducive to creating an important momentum to take further measures towards nuclear disarmament and against proliferation of nuclear weapons.

General Assembly - 10 - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said his country had consistently supported the objective of a comprehensive test-ban treaty as good for his region and good for the world. The draft resolution before the Assembly called for the adoption of the draft treaty text from the Conference on Disarmament. One State had vetoed the consensus on the text and vetoed the transmission of the text to the Assembly. The rule of consensus was designed to protect the legitimate security interests of States not to thwart measures which were in the security interests of all States. The responsibility for any erosion of the role of the Conference on Disarmament must rest with the country that blocked consensus and not with the rest of the international community.

He said his country was not happy with a number of provisions in the draft text. In the final stages, the negotiations lacked full transparency and the texts did not always reflect the outcome of negotiations. The treaty would not be truly comprehensive, and Pakistan would state its reservations. He referred to dangers in abuses of on-site inspections as an example of those reservations. A ban on nuclear explosions would, however, severely constrain nuclear-weapon States in the development of nuclear weapons. It could also decisively arrest further nuclear escalation in South Asia. If the aim was to promote nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, the draft treaty was better than no treaty.

Pakistan was not surprised at the opposition of its neighbour to the treaty, he said. Its past activities in the development of its nuclear capabilities were indicative of the posture of the country which had blocked consensus at the Conference. That country's opposition to the draft treaty was not based on any commitment to an overall time-bound framework for nuclear disarmament. Pakistan supported such a framework for nuclear disarmament and had supported such efforts. Putting such a prior commitment on the nuclear- weapon States as a precondition for the entry into force of the comprehensive test-ban treaty was designed to ensure that those States would reject such a treaty. Pakistan, he concluded, would support the draft resolution; however, it would not be in a position to respond to the call in the resolution to sign the treaty while its concerns about its neighbour continued to exist.

MICHAEL FOWLES (New Zealand) said that it was clear that most Member States recognized the final treaty text, as negotiated by the Conference on Disarmament's Ad Hoc Committee, as the best that could be obtained. It served the goal of bringing to an end all nuclear testing for all time. The treaty did not satisfy every country, and it was regrettable that it did not command consensus at the Conference and that it could not be transmitted to the Assembly in the normal fashion. That should not be seen as devaluing the work of the Conference, nor should it be seen as a precedent.

He went on to say that the international community had the opportunity today to decide for themselves on the merits of the treaty. The alternative of letting it languish in the records of the Conference on Disarmament would

General Assembly - 11 - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

bring the whole United Nations system into disrepute. New Zealand would not accept that scenario and, thus, was a co-sponsor of the draft resolution introduced by Australia, which, when adopted, would deliver to the international community a ban on nuclear-test explosions in all environment for all time. New Zealand would sign the treaty as soon as it was opened for signature.

HISAMI KUROKOCHI (Japan) said if the Assembly were to adopt the draft treaty text, it could make nuclear- test explosions illegal forever, in any environment. If the Assembly failed to adopt it, there would be no comprehensive test-ban treaty in the foreseeable future. The choice was whether to have a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty or not. The draft treaty was not perfect; however, it was the only attainable text after two- and-a-half years of negotiations. All five nuclear-weapon States, Pakistan and Israel, and the majority of countries had expressed their support for the text. Any amendment on that text, or any other version of a draft treaty, could not enjoy the support from all the five nuclear-weapon States. There was now an opportunity to have a legal commitment by those States to stop nuclear testing for all time.

He said the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty prohibited all nuclear-weapon test explosions and all other nuclear explosions. That would constrain the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons. Once the treaty was opened for signature and, thus, established an international norm prohibiting nuclear testing, even a country remaining outside of the treaty could not ignore a significant political deterrence against such testing. The treaty, thus, contributed to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation worldwide. It was crystal clear that it was now time for the Assembly to act.

FELIPE MABILANGAN (Philippines) said that the madness of the cold war had created seemingly insurmountable divisions which continued to dominate the international community. Much still needed to be done to ban nuclear weapons. The dedicated efforts of the international community towards disarmament would in no way be negated by adoption of the draft test-ban treaty. Action was taking place on several fronts. New nuclear-free zones had been established in southern Asia and in Africa. The recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of threat or use of nuclear weapons had given impetus to hope for nuclear disarmament. The Philippines would be co-sponsoring the draft resolution.

H.L. DE SILVA (Sri Lanka) said that the end of the present century was seeing epoch-making events in global politics and security. Ever since the development of nuclear weapons, the international community had sought to grapple with the consequences of nuclear explosions. Proposals for banning nuclear-test explosions with nuclear disarmament as a final objective had been on the global agenda since the early 1950s.

General Assembly - 12 - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

He said, in the decades gone by, the international community had achieved a partial test-ban treaty, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968 and the Threshold Test-Ban Treaty in 1974. Those agreements had been merely interim measures prior to a complete ban on nuclear testing. The fiftieth session of the General Assembly had called upon the Conference to complete the final text in 1996, in order that it be opened for signature at its fifty-first session. The Assembly had clearly envisaged the Conference to be the sole negotiating forum for that task. The Conference had not reached consensus due to the belief of some that the text required additional negotiation. The failure of the draft treaty to call for the total elimination of nuclear weapons was disappointing. Also, the treaty only banned weapons test explosions, leaving open the possibility of additional laboratory tests.

GRIGORI BERDENNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that his Government endorsed the text of the draft treaty, which had emerged after lengthy and difficult talks in Geneva. The text was final, and not subject to alteration. Any amendment to the text would result in counter-amendments, yet more amendments, and the breakdown of the treaty. The old saying "better is the enemy of good" could not be more apt, he added.

An international nuclear-test ban had been the goal of the international community for decades. The draft would have the effect of strengthening the NPT regime, and would make it more difficult for nuclear weapons to proliferate. The ban on any and all nuclear explosions would also forestall the development of improved nuclear weapons or of a new generation of weapons. The test-ban treaty would be a necessary stage on the road to complete nuclear disarmament.

NUGROHO WISNUMURTI (Indonesia) said that one major flaw of the draft treaty before the Assembly was that it would allow the improvement of arsenals and related technologies through laboratory-scale nuclear testing. A treaty that permitted technical loopholes for testing could not be comprehensive. As long as testing continued in any form or manner, the international community would be faced with the dangers attendant upon proliferation and sophistication of nuclear weapons. The draft also evaded the question of nuclear disarmament as if the comprehensive test-ban treaty were an end in itself. Like the overwhelming majority of the international community, Indonesia could only expect that the draft treaty would constitute new ground in pursuit of the objective of nuclear disarmament. The entry into force of the treaty (article XIV) also appeared to be problematic.

Notwithstanding the inherent weaknesses, it would be unrealistic to underestimate the importance of what was achieved in Geneva, he went on. Many countries around the world considered the resumed session of the Assembly as among the most important gatherings in the field of arms limitation and disarmament. The outcome of the Assembly's endeavours would have profound

General Assembly - 13 - Press Release GA/9081 123rd Meeting (PM) 9 September 1996

implications for global peace and security. The draft treaty could have been improved to satisfy the critical interests of many Member States. It was regrettable that it was not a consensus text. He called upon the nuclear Powers to forego weapons development which would assure non-nuclear nations about the intentions of sub-critical tests and experiments. It was also their responsibility to put forward a credible and comprehensive programme of nuclear disarmament. Indonesia had decided to endorse the draft treaty.

* *** *

United Nations