Greenpeace Update on CTBT Negotiations
29th July 1996
On Monday the third and final part of the 1996 session of the
Conference on Disarmament resumed. While the session is scheduled
to run until 13 September, agreement on a CTBT must be obtained
in the first one or two weeks and the treaty adopted, if it is
to be ready for signature at the outset of the 51st session of
the United Nations General Assembly.
It still remains unclear when the CTBT might be able to be
adopted by the ad hoc Committee and then by the Conference. Some
delegations seem to believe that this could be completed in the
opening week, others say at least two weeks will be needed. The
likely time-frame should be further clarified after the next
meeting of the Committee, scheduled for Wednesday afternoon. The
time-frame will be determined primarily on whether delegations
wish to formally re-open negotiations on the text or not.
There was only one formal (closed door) session today, a meeting
of the ad hoc Committee on the Nuclear Test Ban -- the body
negotiating the CTBT -- on Monday afternoon. A total of 26
countries spoke on the subject of the CTBT negotiations -- twenty
supporting adoption of the Chairman's text as currently drafted
despite their reservations about details of the text (mainly on
the Entry-into-Force criteria), and six expressing the need for
further changes to the text to be made before it could be
adopted. The six opponents to adopting the text as drafted are:
India, China, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, and Cuba.
The morning was taken up by meetings of the various political and
regional groups participating in the Conference.
Country Positions
China emphasized its concerns with the verification package in
the current Chairman's draft text, particularly on the issue of
on-site inspections.
There are two issues on which China has particular concerns:
- whether or not information gathered by so-called National
Technical Means (NTMs) may be used on its own to trigger an
On-Site Inspection (OSI) -- i.e. without support from
information obtained from the International Monitoring
System (IMS);
- that the requirement for only a simple majority vote of
members of the Executive Council to initiate an OSI is
inadequate, and that a two-thirds majority of all Executive
Council members is needed to prevent abuse.
China did NOT however explicitly demand resumption of
negotiations, but did express its firm opposition to a 'take it
or leave it' text. This suggests that China's concerns might be
addressed in informal consultations.
India expressed its major concerns with the draft treaty. However
rather than stress the disarmament concerns it has, India
reportedly centred its opposition to the current text on the
Entry-into-Force (EIF) provisions. These currently require that
India be one of 44 countries that must sign and ratify the CTBT
before it can enter into force.
There are indications that the Indian position is becoming
more hard-line. The official position remains that India will NOT
sign the treaty in its current form (but not actually block its
adoption). However, reportedly, India implied that unless the EIF
provisions were altered, India might employ its veto and block
adoption of the treaty. It should be stressed that India did NOT
state that it would veto, but only that it might do so.
Pakistan raised similar concerns as to those put forward by
China, with emphasis especially on NTMs.
Iran raised three specific concerns about the current Chairman's
draft, again without explicitly calling for a formal resumption
of negotiations. Iran wished to see stronger disarmament language
in the Preamble and expressed concerns on the use of NTMs.
However, its major political concern is the inclusion of Israel
in the list of Middle East countries for the composition of the
Executive Council.
Egypt and Cuba also expressed a range of concerns, but Cuba at
least urged a rapid conclusion of the CTBT.
Russia reiterated the content of the US-Russia Jakarta statement,
whereby both countries indicated that they are prepared to accept
the treaty as it is, despite that it fails to fully meet either
country's concerns fully. Russia noted, at the end of its speech,
that 'if the draft is "opened up" by someone we of course would
reserve the right to make efforts to improve its elements which,
in our opinion, do not reach the optimum'.
The United States emphasized that it could not accept a reopening
of negotiations and pressed for the adoption of the current text
without changes.
As noted above, of the twenty speakers who supported adoption of
the current text, most identified the Entry-into-Force provisions
as the major shortcoming of the text.
Remainder of the Week
All of Tuesday and Wednesday morning will be taken up by informal
consultations by the Chair of the test-ban negotiations.
The next formal meeting of the ad hoc Committee on the Nuclear
Test Ban is planned for Wednesday afternoon (a meeting of the
Bureau, followed by a meeting of the full Committee).
Also on Wednesday, John Holum, Director of the United States'
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) will hold a Press
Conference in Geneva.
A Plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament is tentatively
scheduled for Thursday morning, but may be rescheduled.
N.B.: The next Greenpeace CTBT Update will be written
following the discussions on Wednesday afternoon.
Simon Carroll monitors the CTBT negotiations in Geneva for
Greenpeace and may be contacted at:
Hotel des Nations -- phone +41 (22) 734.30.03, fax: +41
(22) 734.38.84, Room 303;
Mobile phone: +41 (77) 68.33.74.
|