Greenpeace Update on CTBT Negotiations
from the Conference on Disarmament

16th August 1996

On Friday evening, the ad hoc Committee on a Nuclear Test Ban adopted its report to the Conference on Disarmament. The report will be formally presented to the Conference at a special Plenary meeting on Tuesday morning, 20 August. This update also considers what might happen at the Plenary meeting and subsequently.

The Report of the Committee

As indicated earlier, the report from the Committee was largely technical in that it described the mandate of the Committee, organization of work, documents received, and the substantive work during the 1996 session. In addition, the report contained the conclusions of the Chairman on his consultations. These have been previously described. The report adopted on Friday evening contained two 'new' sections: national statements of position, and the conclusions and recommendations.

The National Statements of Position section (Section VI) contained a number of statements by individual countries or groups of countries, detailing their concerns. The statements are as follows:

1. Egypt - while noting that the text 'offers a better balance and an improvement', Egypt expressed a number of criticisms on Preamble (with respect to elimination of nuclear weapons), Scope, OSI, NTMs and Executive Council. It reaffirmed the Chairman's conclusions that 'measures' did not refer to action by the UN Security Council. It did NOT express a view as to whether or not it accepts the text.

2. Mexico - despite making a number of critical observations on the text, stated its opinion that the treaty will help establish the norm that bans nuclear testing, and to strengthen the legal opinion regarding the obligation to eliminate nuclear weapons. It stated that the treaty satisfies the intention which, in 1985, led Mexico to propose an amendment to the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Mexico concluded that the Committee should approve sending the draft text of the CTBT to the Conference.

Mexico emphasized entry-into-force as the draft treaty's most serious short-coming. Other concerns were: Preamble - with respect to elimination of nuclear weapons, and Scope.

3. India - reiterated that it cannot and does not accept the draft CTBT as the CTBT the Committee was mandated to negotiate and that it opposes any transmission of the text in any form to the Conference from the ad hoc Committee.

India criticised the Scope, the Preamble, but saved its strongest criticism for the provisions related to the entry into force of the treaty.

4. Brazil - indicated that it supported the draft treaty and that, while it would have preferred to see further adjustments, further modifications might imperial the attainment of a CTBT in the required time-frame. Brazil sees the Scope article as contributing to a treaty which constitutes a significant step towards a nuclear weapon-free world. It supported the use of NTMs and the implications for the Executive Council, but expressed its concern about the financial burden of implementing the treaty.

5. China - is ready to agree to the transmission of the draft treaty text to the Conference on Disarmament especially in light of the strong international call for a CTBT and the time frame for its completion.

China expressed concern on the lack of provisions on no- first-use and reference to prohibition of nuclear weapons, particularly as they were not reflected in the Preamble. China still has concerns about the use of NTMs, OSI, international monitoring system and criteria for membership of the Executive Council.

6. Algeria - did not oppose the transmission of the text to the Conference on Disarmament. It did express concern on the balance of non-proliferation and disarmament objectives, verification especially NTMs, entry- into-force, and Executive Council.

7. Cuba - stated that it will not oppose the [transmission of] the draft treaty. Cuba expressed concern on the Scope, NTMs, Executive Council, financial burden of the treaty, and entry-into-force.

8. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakstan, Mongolia, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States - while none of them are fully satisfied with the text, support it and consider that it should be forwarded to the Conference for its consideration and adoption.

9. The United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Italy, Spain, France and Belgium - did not accept that national statements had any authoritative status at the level of interpretation or otherwise.

10. Colombia - expressed its willingness to sign a CTBT which contributes to the elimination of nuclear weapons, but hopes that outstanding difficulties can be resolved as quickly as possible.

Colombia expressed concern on the Preamble, Scope, and entry into force.

11. Iran - stated that it was prevented from 'lending our support' to the draft because of its outstanding concerns. The concerns were: Preamble (on nuclear disarmament), NTMs, the composition of the Executive Council.

12. Viet Nam - did not state specifically whether or not it accepted the current text, but did note that the present treaty would greatly enhance international co-operation for peace and nuclear disarmament.

It expressed concern on the Preamble and the financial burden of the treaty.

13. Pakistan - is prepared to accept the treaty text as the basis for consensus on a CTBT and agree to its transmission to the Conference. Pakistan expressed some concern on Scope, OSI and NTMs, and the Executive Council. It reaffirmed the importance it attached to the requirement of the list of 44 countries for entry-into- force.

14. Kenya - reaffirmed its support for a CTBT.

15. Nigeria - expressed a number of criticisms on Scope and Preamble, the financial implications, entry-into-force and the composition of the Executive Council, however - without it being explicit - appeared to accept the treaty as a first step.

16. Peru - is prepared to accept the draft text as the best prospect for a CTBT.

It emphasized however that the Preamble and the financial burdens of the treaty as the two main deficiencies in the text.

17. Canada - despite its serious reservations is prepared to accept the text and forward it to the Conference for consideration and adoption. Canada also stressed the importance of meeting the deadline of signing this year.

The key reservations are Preamble, verification and - most importantly - entry into force.

18. Belgium - while it considers that text to be far from perfect, is ready to accept the text and recommend that it be sent to New York for endorsement by the General Assembly of the United Nations. It therefore wishes the text to be sent to the Conference for consideration and adoption.

Belgium expressed concern on Preamble, verification and entry-into-force.

The Conclusions and Recommendations section reads as follows:

As this report indicates, despite the assessments of CD/NTB/WP.330/Rev.2 contained in section VI above and support for a proposal to transmit it to the Conference on Disarmament for its consideration, no consensus could be reached either on the text or on the action proposed. The Ad Hoc Committee refers this report to the Conference on Disarmament.

Next Stop - New York ?

On Tuesday, at the Plenary, the report of the ad hoc Committee will be formally introduced by the Chairman. It is as yet unclear how the discussion in the Plenary will proceed.

Perhaps the most likely scenario is that, on Tuesday, the Conference will take note of the report from the Committee, confirm that there is no consensus, and refer its report to the United Nations General Assembly. There would be no actual referral of the text of the treaty to New York by the Conference. However, there may be a delay in reaching this point, with the decision perhaps being taken at Thursday's regular Plenary meeting.

In this scenario, the next question is whether or not a country or group of countries will announce a decision to take the treaty text to New York for consideration by the United Nations General Assembly. There are a number of possibilities as to how, who, when and where such an announcement will be made, but the general approach itself now looks inevitable.

It is also possible, given the public nature of the Plenary meetings, that countries use the opportunity to make public statements on their positions concerning the treaty. ________________________________

Simon Carroll monitors the CTBT negotiations in Geneva for Greenpeace and until the evening of 20 August, may be contacted at:

Hotel des Nations -- phone +41 (22) 734.30.03, Room 303, fax: +41 (22) 734.38.84.

Mobile phone: +41 (77) 68.33.74. ________________________________