WEEKLY REVIEW

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 0001246413
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: June 23, 2015
• Document Release Date: March 15, 2010
• Case Number: F-2005-01250
• Publication Date: August 23, 1974

Weekly Review
APPROVED FOR RELEASED
DATE: 03-02-2010
([bi11
 WEEliLVs REV1ENhj i$wad #vM Fridayaiyzismorning by the r
CtIti ? Of GUrrrnt'trttsilipsnCS, ripprts and an slgnifitant
dswiapmsnts of ' f~ ,wok tttrough v'noon do ?hur daY.r:It j %
iwntiy rt cWq niatsrt3t CldQrdlnatsd with 'or nparsd by
- Offit:s ''t-f #conoml fir~alfeh; `the Office Of "Strs#y~id
+is far t .and "this birItocit. Of Science ' and technology
Comments and queries on the contents of this
publication are welcome. They ma be directed !o
the editor of the WNkly Revie
 -TOP SEGRET
ALTERNATIVES TO NON-PROLIFERATION
A second session of the committee preparing
for next year's Non-Proliferation Treaty Review
Conference will begin in Geneva next week. The
US views the conference as a means of attracting
more adherents to the treaty and otherwise
strengthening it. The non-proliferation system
established by the 1968 treaty is being increas-
ingly challenged, however.
The Indian nuclear explosion on May 18
provided the catalyst for a number of countries to
re-examine their nuclear policies. More im-
portantly, the failure of the US and the USSR to
condemn the Indian action has raised doubts
among many countries about the commitment of
the major powers to nuclear non-proliferation.
Many now perceive no disadvantage to keeping
the nuclear option open
The countries affected by these regional
arrangements are also claiming new rights for
parties to such nuclear-free zones.
e.organization
sp the Latin American
Nuclear Free Zone suggested that parties to
regional arrangements should enjoy the same
benefits as parties to the non-proliferation treaty.
While that treaty has long been condemned by its
critics as perpetuating discriminatory arrange-
ments In favor of the nuclear powers, incentives
for accession to the treaty itself would be severely
diminished if this proposal is widely accepted.
The US has consistently maintained that
four conditions must be met if a nuclear free zone
is to be recognized:
? the initiative should be taken by the
states in the region concerned;
Within recent months, the concept of the
regional nuclear free zone-similar to the 1967
Latin American Nuclear Free Zone-has become
the most frequently proposed alternative. In-
creased interest in the concept of nuclear free
zones has led the Iranians to revive their proposal
to establish a nuclear free zone in the Middle
East, although they have deliberately left the geo-
graphical limits of the zone undefined. The
Pakistanis have already made known their in-
tention to submit to the UN a proposal for a
Southeast Asian nuclear free zone if the Indian
subcontinent is excluded from the Iranian pro-
posal.
Earlier this year, a Nigerian spokesman sug-
gested reconsideration of the 1964 Declaration of
the Organization of African Unity regarding a
nuclear free zone for Africa. Most recently,
Romania promoted the concept of nuclear free
zones, declaring that regional regimes should
encourage peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
? the zone should include all states in the
area whose participation is deemed important;
? the creation of a zone should not disturb
necessary security arrangements;
? provision should be made for adequate
verification.
The actual establishment of a nuclear free
zone and the interpretation of what this entails
are up to the countries in the region, however,
and it is thus possible that there would be
provision for conducting peaceful nuclear
explosions. Under the terms of the treaty, states
not possessing nuclear weapons are prohibited
from conducting peaceful nuclear explosions,
although the US, UK, and USSR are obligated to
make available an technolo derived from
nuclear research.
TOP SE,15RLET,
Page 20 WEEKLY REVIEW
Aug