Greenpeace Briefing on CTBT Negotiations
Special Update,
26th June 1996

The main issues on today's agenda were the two principal barriers to completion of the CTBT on schedule: On-Site Inspection and Entry-into-Force. There were no breakthroughs on either issue, and these remain these remain the main obstacles to completion of a CTBT.

While there has been an expectation that the full revised Chairman's Text will be presented on Thursday, it may need to be delayed until Friday morning because of the lack of progress on the key issues.

Thursday's Plenary will be addressed by FRANCE, VIETNAM and NIGERIA - with both France and Nigeria speaking on the subject of the CTBT.

1. Entry-into-Force

Discussions continued past midnight, with what amounts to little or no progress being made.

The positions fall roughly into three groupings:

• The UNITED KINGDOM, RUSSIA AND PAKISTAN, supported by CHINA remain absolutely insistent that any Entry-into-Force criteria must include all 5 Nuclear Weapon States together with Israel, India and Pakistan. While CHINA appears to be less insistent on this issue, the other three countries are showing no flexibility whatsoever on their demand. Basically, these countries want an explicit list of countries who are required to ratify before the treaty can enter into force, with NO exceptions for the 5 NWS and Israel, India and Pakistan.
• A group including the UNITED STATES, FRANCE and GERMANY who, while favouring a solution that does NOT allow the treaty's Entry-into-Force to be held hostage by the ratification of any one country, are 'flexible' and thus could support a solution that would break the deadlock.
• A group including CANADA, AUSTRALIA, INDONESIA and others who, more out of concern for the viability of the treaty than sympathy for INDIA, strongly argue for Entry-into- Force criteria that will not allow the treaty to be blocked by the failure to ratify of any one particular State. These countries prefer a requirement of a simple number of ratifications by any State for the treaty to enter into force, or they could accept a list of specific countries provided there was included some sort of waiver or method of bringing the treaty into force if one or more countries on the list did not ratify.

The only area of progress is that the concept of a 'positive' Conference which could meet and discuss what to do in order to bring the treaty into force is acceptable to all. However, as this Conference would not have the right to amend or waive any of the Entry-into-Force criteria, the main question remains - what criteria for Entry-into-Force will it be combined with.

Thus, Entry-into- Force remains the single-biggest area of disagreement.

2. On-Site Inspection

Today's discussion on OSI centred primarily on the use of National Technical Means (NTMs). While some participants indicated a 'slight convergence' of views (with the UNITED STATES accepting that espionage and other intelligence gathering activities not in accord with general international law will not be acceptable), the general feeling was that the discussion "had just gone around in circles" and "that there had been no movement at all". There remains a considerable gulf between the position of the UNITED STATES on the one hand, and CHINA and RUSSIA on the other.

Discussion on OSI will resume after Thursday's Plenary meeting, and attention will be focused on the decision-making (i.e. voting) on initiating an OSI.

3. Preamble

It had been hoped to resume discussion of the Preamble following the G-21 meeting this morning. However the G-21 did not discuss the issue, and it is unlikely that there will be a further discussion of this within the ad hoc Committee on the Nuclear Test Ban.

Simon Carroll monitors the CTBT negotiations for Greenpeace and can be contacted at:

+41.21.728.52.25 and mobile phone: +41.79.213.70.67

or

via Greenpeace International (phone: +31.20.523.62.22 and fax: +31.20.523.62.00.).