GA/9083

ASSEMBLY ADOPTS COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY

The General Assembly this afternoon adopted the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty and requested the Secretary-General to open it for signature at the earliest possible date.

By a vote of 158 in favour to 3 against (Bhutan, India and Libya), with 5 abstentions (Cuba, Lebanon, Mauritius, Syria and the United Republic of Tanzania), the Assembly adopted its resolution on a comprehensive nuclear- test-ban treaty as introduced by Australia. With that action, the Assembly also called upon all States to sign and to become parties to the Treaty at the earliest possible date. It requested the Secretary-General to report to its fifty-second session on the status of signature and ratifications of the Treaty. (See Annex for voting details.)

The text of the Treaty adopted by the Assembly was contained in an annex to a letter by Australia to the Secretary-General which submitted the text of a draft treaty "identical to that text" in a Conference on Disarmament document -- the same text which had not achieved consensus at the current session of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

The representative of India, speaking before the vote, said the treaty would allow the continuation of a discriminatory weapons regime. Throughout the negotiations, nuclear-weapon States had categorically rejected proposals to end the qualitative development and upgrading of nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, she continued, the treaty's entry-into-force provisions were contrary to fundamental international law because it made ratification by India and 43 other countries essential for the treaty's entry into force. Under customary international law, she said, no obligation could be imposed on a country without its consent.

(Treaty article XIV, on entry into force, states that the Treaty shall enter into force 180 days after its ratification by 44 States listed in its Annex 2 as States with nuclear capabilities. If the Treaty has not entered into force three years after the date of the anniversary of its opening for

General Assembly - 1a - Press Release GA/9083 125th Meeting (PM) 10 September 1996

signature, a majority of the States which had ratified could convene a meeting to decide by consensus "what measures consistent with international law may be undertaken to accelerate the ratification process".)

As one of the five abstaining votes on the resolution, the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said his country had taken that position because the Treaty text made no positive contribution towards the elimination of nuclear weapons; it left the nuclear weapons in the hands of a few. The international community needed a test-ban treaty of a truly comprehensive and non-discriminatory nature.

The representative of the United States, speaking after the vote, said the adoption of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty was a milestone in the transition from the cold war to a safer time. The effect of the Treaty would be greater security for all, a healthier environment, and a giant step towards ending a nuclear arms race that had endangered human survival for most of the past century.

Other statements in explanation of vote were made by the representatives of Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, Mauritius, Ghana, Pakistan, Viet Nam, Iran, China, Sudan and Libya.

The Assembly will meet again at a time to be announced in order to conclude its fiftieth session.

Assembly Work Programme

The General Assembly met this afternoon to take action on a 126-Power draft resolution (document A/50/L.78), which would have the Assembly adopt the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty as contained in an annex to a 22 August letter from the Permanent Representative of Australia (document A/50/1027). The letter describes the text of the comprehensive test-ban treaty as "identical to the draft treaty in Conference on Disarmament document CD/1427".

By the draft resolution, introduced by Australia, the Assembly would also request the Secretary-General, as depository of the treaty, to open it for signature at the earliest possible date. The Assembly would call upon all States to sign, and thereafter to become parties to the treaty at the earliest possible date.

On 19 August, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva 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. Subsequently, on 22 August, the Conference failed to reach consensus on whether to transmit the Ad Hoc Committee's report to the Assembly.

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

The basic obligations in article I of the draft comprehensive nuclear- test-ban treaty specify that each State party would "undertake not to carry out any nuclear-weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control". Each State party would also "undertake to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear-weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion".

(For more background on the draft treaty, see Press Release GA/9082, of 10 September.)

Action on Draft Resolution

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, DAUDI NGELAUTWA MWAKAWAGO (United Republic of Tanzania) said his country had always been a strong supporter of a test-ban treaty. Such a pact was always considered as the only viable first step towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. His country had been a leader in efforts in various forums in pursuit of that goal. It had followed the negotiations in Geneva closely. His country would, however, abstain in the vote on the draft resolution, due to the departure of

General Assembly - 3 - Press Release GA/9083 125th Meeting (PM) 10 September 1996

the draft treaty from its original mandate and the manner by which it had been brought to the Assembly. The Conference on Disarmament had always arrived at decisions by consensus. But no consensus could be reached at the Conference on a draft treaty and, thus, it could not transmit a text to the Assembly for ratification. The means of introduction of the text to the Assembly was unacceptable.

He said the treaty made no positive contribution towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons; it left the nuclear weapons in the hands of a few. Without a universally accepted programme to eliminate nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework, nuclear programmes would continue to be developed. The international community needed a test-ban treaty of a comprehensive and non-discriminatory nature.

ABDELKADER MESDOUA (Algeria) said his country contributed actively to the drafting of the comprehensive test-ban treaty in Geneva which was intended to be universal and verifiable. The absence of a consensus text was due to the shortcomings of the final text. Algeria believed in the singular role of the Conference on Disarmament. It would, however, vote in favour of the draft resolution. A test-ban treaty would be a first stage towards nuclear disarmament. All States had the obligation to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspect.

ARUNDHATI GHOSE (India), speaking in explanation of vote, said that the text before the Assembly had been proposed as a national text despite the fact that it had not achieved consensus in the body charged with its negotiation. During negotiations on the text, her Government had been convinced that nuclear-weapon States had no intention of giving up those weapons. In the absence of a commitment by nuclear-weapon States to eliminate their weapons within a finite time period, the treaty would allow the continuation of a discriminatory weapons regime.

The ban on nuclear explosions provided for in the text was acceptable to nuclear-weapon States because those States had already completed their explosive testing programmes, she said. During negotiations, those States had categorically rejected proposals to end the qualitative development and upgrading of nuclear weapons. The 1963 partial test-ban Treaty, which banned atmospheric testing, had resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of underground tests. The present text, he said, would encourage a nuclear- weapon technology race.

She said the proposed treaty text failed to achieve the overarching objective assigned to it by General Assembly resolution 50/65 to enhance international peace and security. The text had betrayed that idea by perpetuating existing global insecurities born of a world divided into "nuclear haves and have-nots".

General Assembly - 4 - Press Release GA/9083 125th Meeting (PM) 10 September 1996

The draft treaty's entry-into-force provisions were contrary to fundamental international law, she continued. That provision, which would make ratification by India and 43 other countries essential for the treaty's entry into force, had been introduced after India had made clear that it would not subscribe to the draft. Under customary international law, no obligation could be imposed on a country without its consent. India would vote against the draft.

AHMAD HALLAK (Syria) said his Government regretted the fact that nuclear-weapon States had rejected several important proposals from non- nuclear-weapon States. Syria had reservations over the fact that some States had presented the draft treaty to the General Assembly in a way that did not conform with the functions of the Conference on Disarmament, which had been mandated to draft the text.

An agreement as important as the comprehensive test-ban treaty should not be negotiated in a way that ignored the views of the majority of negotiating States. The nuclear-weapon States clearly did not wish to do away with their arsenals. The draft treaty did not make any reference to obligations on the non-use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons; it also failed to ban laboratory-based testing and vertical proliferation. The strangest thing about the text was that it allowed the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, to take action against non- signatories.

SAMIR MOUBARAK (Lebanon) said that the comprehensive test-ban treaty should defend the interest of all States. It should also reinforce the significance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which forbade the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. By not forbidding laboratory testing nor the qualitative improvement of existing nuclear weapons, the draft treaty would allow de-stabilizing activities to continue. Lebanon would abstain in the vote, he said.

JOYKER NAYECK (Mauritius) said his Government was completely committed to the principles of non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. He shared the disappointment expressed by many regarding the failure of the comprehensive treaty to provide for nuclear disarmament within a fixed time-frame. He was also concerned to see that several States endorsing the treaty had failed to ratify the chemical weapons Convention. Mauritius would abstain in the vote.

YAKUBU ABDULAI (Ghana) said his Government joined the majority in endorsing the comprehensive test-ban treaty despite the inadequacies of that text. He regretted that the text had not included any commitment by the nuclear-weapon States to the ultimate goal of disarmament, without which non- proliferation would be meaningless. The test-ban treaty should have been drafted carefully enough to attract the support of all; otherwise, it would not be universal and stand the test of time.

General Assembly - 5 - Press Release GA/9083 125th Meeting (PM) 10 September 1996

How long would the nuclear threshold States continue to abide by the treaty while the "nuclear haves" were free to improve on the quality and destructive capacity of their weapons? he asked. The entry-into-force provisions of the draft virtually guaranteed indefinite "hibernation"; the nuclear-weapon States agreed to the draft only because the era of nuclear-test explosions was being surpassed by modern technology which permitted tests without explosions. As to the future of the treaty, he said, his Government called upon nuclear-weapon States to pursue negotiations in good faith on measures relating to disarmament.

The Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the comprehensive nuclear- test-ban treaty by a vote of 158 in favour to 3 against (Bhutan, India, Libya), with 5 abstentions (Cuba, Lebanon, Mauritius, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania). (See Annex for voting details.)

Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the Treaty would fall short of the expectations of the international community as an effective measure for nuclear disarmament. That shortcoming should have been redressed by an inclusion of solemn and binding commitments in the text towards the achievement of nuclear disarmament and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specific time-frame. Pakistan had repeatedly affirmed that the verification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test- Ban Treaty must be accomplished by the international monitoring system and that on-site inspections must be a rare and exceptional occurrence. Pakistan had reluctantly agreed to the use of national technical means for verification, since the capabilities of States were entirely unequal in that respect. His country would reserve the right to take all necessary measures to preserve its national jurisdiction from foreign intrusion, whether technical or physical.

He said Pakistan attached the highest importance to the provisions on entry into force which provided that the Treaty would enter into force once it had been signed and ratified by 44 States, including all the nuclear-capable States. The Treaty's effectiveness depended on its acceptance by all those States which had the technological capability and legal latitude to conduct nuclear tests. Pakistan would take its own sovereign decisions regarding time and conditions for its signature and ratification of the Treaty. The signature and ratification by a State of the Treaty could not constitute a legal commitment to its basic obligation until the Treaty had entered into force.

PHAM QUANG VINH (Viet Nam) said his country had consistently supported comprehensive disarmament and, thus, had voted in favour of the draft resolution. Today's vote reflected that long-standing, principled position together with the hope that the just-adopted Treaty would constitute an important step against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and towards nuclear disarmament, despite the fact that there was yet room for its further

General Assembly - 6 - Press Release GA/9083 125th Meeting (PM) 10 September 1996

improvements. Viet Nam regretted that the Conference on Disarmament had not been able to achieve consensus on a treaty text. The present Treaty provided a number of important measures and, if implemented in good faith, would greatly enhance international cooperation for peace and nuclear disarmament. However, the action by the Assembly should in no way constitute a precedent for the future work of the Conference.

SIROUS NASSERI (Iran) said his country's position had been expressed in the debate. Premature halting of negotiations on the text in Geneva made consensus impossible. The haste to rush the text to the Assembly was also unwarranted. The horrifying possibility of increased nuclear proliferation and another arms race was left open. The Treaty did not meet the requirement of its mandate. Unless a test-ban treaty were part of an overall nuclear disarmament programme, it could not be effective. The inclusion of Israel in the Middle East regional grouping in the Treaty was objectionable.

He added that the choice was between a flawed Treaty and abandoning the Treaty altogether. Means must be found in the future to overcome the shortcomings of the Treaty in negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament and in other forums.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said the Treaty adopted by and large reflected the realistic state of negotiations and, therefore, was balanced in general. The Treaty was not entirely satisfactory, however. It failed to fully reflect the justifiable requests and reasonable positions of many developing countries. The Treaty contained no reference, for example, to international legal instrument on no-first-use of nuclear weapons, and no-use or threat-of-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States and nuclear-weapon-free zones, nor touched upon the conclusion of a convention on the comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons. The Treaty did not draw distinction between the international monitoring system and national technical means of verification. Sophisticated national technical means were only possessed by a few technically advanced countries. The relevant provisions in the text on the decision-making procedure of on-site inspections were less than reasonable. The criteria for membership of the Executive Council set a bad precedence for such treaty organizations. The practice of bypassing the Conference on Disarmament should not constitute a precedent.

TARIK ALI BAKHIT (Sudan) said that the Treaty did not use language strong enough regarding the elimination of nuclear weapons within a fixed timetable. The Treaty also did not call upon States to make any alteration in their present nuclear capacities. The Sudan hoped that the "hasty transmission" of the text to the General Assembly would not stand as a precedent.

ALI SUNNI MUNTASSER (Libya) said that the Treaty should have called upon the comprehensive elimination of nuclear weapons. Because the text did not

General Assembly - 7 - Press Release GA/9083 125th Meeting (PM) 10 September 1996

include a time-frame for the achievement of that goal, the threat of nuclear conflict remained. Libya did not accept half solutions. What was at stake was the survival of humanity.

MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT (United States) said that the adoption of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty was a milestone in the transition from the cold war to a safer time. The effect of the Treaty would be greater security for all, a healthier environment, and a giant step towards ending a nuclear arms race that had endangered human survival for most of the past century.

In recent decades, trillions of dollars had been spent developing ever more destructive nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Even so, the destructive potential of the atom had not been fully exploited or explored. Under the Treaty, the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons should end. The present generation of nuclear weapons would be the last.

An end to nuclear-test explosions would create a climate of confidence that would sustain trends towards smaller nuclear arsenals, she continued, substantially reducing the risk that the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons would grow. Ever since the dawn of the nuclear era, a comprehensive test-ban treaty had been the dream of the international community; it had already been 30 years since tests had been banned in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water.

Each State would have to undertake sovereign procedures in deciding whether to ratify the Treaty. The United States was confident that every country would choose to join in the global consensus in support of the Treaty. There could be no greater gift to the future.

(annex follows)

General Assembly - 8 - Press Release GA/9083 125th Meeting (PM) 10 September 1996

General Assembly Press Release GA/9083 125th Meeting (PM) 10 September 1996

ANNEX

Vote on Draft Resolution on Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty

The draft resolution on the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty (document A/50/L.78) was adopted by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 3 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, C�te d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

Against: Bhutan, India, Libya.

Abstain: Cuba, Lebanon, Mauritius, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent: Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Eritrea, Lesotho, Rwanda, Seychelles, Zambia.

* *** *

United Nations