SOVIET BLOC, NEUTRAL/NONALIGNED AND NATO COUNTRY STATEMENTS AT THE GENEVA CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD) 3 FEBRUARY - 30 APRIL 1987 VOLUME II

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 500
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 26, 2012
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: June 1, 1987
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Directorate of
Intelligence
?SPorpt?
Soviet Bloc, Neutral/Nonaligned
and NATO Country Statements
at the Geneva Conference on
Disarmament (CD)
3 February 30 April 1987
Volume II
Reference Aid
-sr
IR 87-10010
June 1987
Copy 30
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
25X1
Directorate of
Intelligence
Secret
Soviet Bloc, Neutral/Nonaligned
and NATO Country Statements
at the Geneva Conference on
Disarmament (CD)
3 Februar 3 April 1987
Volume II
Reference Aid
Secret
IR 87-101)10
June 1987
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
? r? _
SECRET
STATE GENEVA TEL [phone]
SECRET GENEVA 01784
EXDIS
E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
BODY
TAGS: FARM, UNGA, COG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS; FEBRUARY 17, 1987,
AMBASSADOR HANSEN'S STATEMENT.
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-003. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. FOLLOWING IS TEXT OF THE PREPARED STATEMENT
DELIVERED BY U.S. ACTING CD REPRESENTATIVE LYNN
HANSEN AT THE FEBRUARY 17 PLENARY MEETING OF THE
FIFTH ROUND OF U.S.-SOVIET INTENSIFIED CW BAN
DISCUSSIONS. THE DISCUSSION WHICH FOLLOWED IS
BEING REPORTED BY SEPTEL.
3. BEGIN TEXT.
MR. AMBASSADOR:
-- YESTERDAY, THE UNITED STATES AND SOVIET DELEGATIONS
BEGAN MOUND V OF THE ACCELERATED BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS
ON THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS. THESE
DISCUSSIONS ARE BEING HELD PURSUANT TO THE COMMITMENT
TO ACCELERATE WORK ON A CHEMICAL WEAPONS BAN MADE BY
PRESIDENT REAGAN AND GENERAL SECRETARY GORBACHEV AT
THEIR NOVEMBER 1985 SUMMIT MEETING.
-- IN THIS CONNECTION, I WOULD LIKE TO RECALL THE
MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT REAGAN THAT WAS READ TO THE
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ON FEBRUARY 5 BY THE DIRECTOR
OF THE U.S. ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY,
KENNETH ADELMAN. THIS MESSAGE IS A CLEAR AND
AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES POLICY. ALLOW
ME TO QUOTE:
-" ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TASKS FACING YOU
IS THE WORKING OUT OF A COMPREHENSIVE, EFFECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE BAN ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS. THIS TASK IS MADE
EVEN MORE DIFFICULT BY THE FACT THAT CAPABILITIES FOR
CHEMICAL WARFARE ARE INCREASING AND THAT, CONTRARY TO
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT, CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE BEING USED
IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE WORLD. YOU HAVE A HEAVY
RESPONSIBILITY. FOR AS YOU CONSIDER THE PROVISIONS OF
A CONVENTION, YOU MUST MAKE SURE THAT A GLOBAL BAN WILL,
IN FACT, ELIMINATE THE CAPABILITY FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS
TO BE USED AGAINST FUTURE GENERATIONS. AN EFFECTIVE
CONVENTION WILL REQUIRE AN UNPRECEDENTED DEGREE OF
OPENNESS ON THE PART OF ALL STATES.
SECRET
302
r.nnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
- - I REAFFIRM THE COMMITMENT MADE BY THE UNITED
STATES IN 1984 WHEN WE TABLED OUR DRAFT CONVENTION
BANNING CHEMICAL WEAPONS WORLDWIDE. THE UNITED STATES
DELEGATION WILL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO WORK FOR THE TOTAL
ELIMINATION OF THESE TERRIBLE WEAPONS AND FOR THE
VERIFICATION PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THEY
NEVER AGAIN ENTER THE ARSENALS OF THE WORLD'S ARMIES."
-- THIS IS, OF COURSE, THE FIRST ROUND IN WHICH I HAVE
PARTICIPATED. I REGRET VERY MUCH THAT IT IS THE TRAGIC
DEATH OF AMBASSADOR LOWITZ THAT HAS LED TO MY BEING HERE.
I CONSIDER MY POSITION AS HEAD OF THE UNITED STATES
DELEGATION TO BE A PRIVILEGE, AS WELL AS A VERY WEIGHTY
AND CHALLENGING RESPONSIBILITY.
-- THE SOVIET DELEGATION HAS A NEW LEADER AS WELL.
AMBASSADOR NAZARKINE, MY COLLEAGUES AND I WELCOME YOU
AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AND YOUR STAFF.
-- AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS
OF THE UNITED STATES' DELEGATION.
-- MR. AMBASSADOR, BEFORE DISCUSSING SUBSTANTIVE
QUESTIONS IN DETAIL, I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT THE U.S.
DELEGATION HAS NOTED WITH INTEREST THE IMPORTANT SOVIET
STATEMENT IN THE CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT THIS MORNING.
I WILL TOUCH ON IT ONLY BRIEFLY IN THIS STATEMENT
BECAUSE THERE HAS NOT YET BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE IT
THE VERY CAREFUL STUDY IT DESERVES. WE WILL STUDY IT AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE AND RESPOND IN A PROMPT AND SERIOUS
MANNER.
-- I WOULD NOW LIKE TO PRESENT VIEWS OF MY DELEGATION
ON THE ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH DURING THIS
ROUND OF DISCUSSIONS. THESE ISSUES ARE: ELIMINATION OF
CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES, DECLARATION OF
THE LOCATION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS STOCKPILES AND
ASSOCIATED VERIFICATION MEASURES, CHALLENGE INSPECTION,
AND BILATERAL MEASURES TO STRENGTHEN CONFIDENCE PRIOR TO
SIGNATURE OF THE CONVENTION. WE CAN ALSO ACCEPT THE
SOVIET SUGGESTION TO DISCUSS NON-PRODUCTION. I WILL
DISCUSS EACH ISSUE BRIEFLY IN TURN.
-- THE ELIMINATION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION
FACILITIES HAS BEEN THE FOCAL POINT OF THE PREVIOUS
FOUR ROUNDS. AS A RESULT OF THESE INTENSIVE
DISCUSSIONS, THE POSITIONS OF THE TWO SIDES HAVE MOVED
CLOSER TOGETHER. HOWEVER, THE INFORMAL DISCUSSION
PAPER JOINTLY DEVELOPED BY THE TWO SIDES CLEARLY SHOWS
THAT A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT POINTS NEED TO BE RESOLVED
BEFORE A MUTUALLY-ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION IS IN HAND. FOR
EXAMPLE, AGREEMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REACHED: (1) ON
WHETHER TO SPECIFY THAT CONVERSION OF SPECIALIZED
SECRET
303
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDPco_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
BUILDINGS WILL BE AN EXCEPTION; (2) ON THE TYPES OF
ACTIVITIES THAT MAY NOT BE CONDUCTED IN CONVERTED
BUILDINGS; AND (3) ON THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF ON-SITE
VERIFICATION IN CONVERTED BUILDINGS.
-- U.S. EXPERTS BELIEVE THAT, IN MOST CASES, IT WOULD
BE IMPRACTICAL TO CONVERT A SPECIALIZED BUILDING THAT
HAD BEEN USED FOR PRODUCTION OF SUPER-TOXIC LETHAL
CHEMICALS. COMMENTS BY THE SOVIET DELEGATION SUPPORTED
THIS TECHNICAL JUDGMENT. HOWEVER, THE SOVIET POSITION,
AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, CONTINUED TO BE THAT CONVERSION OF
SPECIALIZED BUILDINGS SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN ALL CASES.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE U.S. BELIEVES THAT CONVERSION
SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY AS AN EXCEPTION.
-- RETENTION OF THE MAJORITY OF SPECIALIZED BUILDINGS,
EVEN IF THEY WERE MODIFIED TO MEET PREVAILING
COMMERCIAL STANDARDS, WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO RESUME
CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION THAN IF THE BUILDINGS WERE
DESTROYED. I HOPE THAT THE SOVIET UNION WILL BRING ITS
FORMAL POSITION INTO LINE WITH THE LIMITED PRACTICAL
POSSIBILITIES FOR CONVERSION BY AGREEING THA, AS A
GENERAL RULE, SPECIALIZED BUILDINGS WOULD BE DESTROYED
AND THAT CONVERSION WOULD BE PERMITTED ONLY AS AN
EXCEPTION.
-- OBVIOUSLY, THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF VERIFICATION
REQUIRED AT A CONVERTED BUILDING HAS A DIRECT
RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT THE CONVERTED BUILDING IS USED FOR.
IN THE U.S. VIEW, USING SUCH A BUILDING FOR HANDLING
SUPER-TOXIC LETHAL CHEMICALS OR CORROSIVE CHEMICALS
WOULD GIVE RISE TO SERIOUS CONCERNS. A MUCH SIMPLER AND
MORE DESIRABLE APPROACH WOULD BE TO REQUIRE THAT A
CONVERTED SPECIALIZED BUILDING MAY NOT BE USED FOR
HANDLING SUPER-TOXIC LETHAL CHEMICALS OR CORROSIVE
CHEMICALS AND TO PLACE CORRESPONDING CONSTRAINTS ON THE
TYPES OF EQUIPMENT THAT COULD BE PRESENT.
-- DURING ROUND IV, THE SOVIET SIDE ASKED FOR U.S. VIEWS
ON HOW A CONVERTED FACILITY SHOULD BE MONITORED. IN THE
U.S. VIEW, A CONVERTED FACILITY MUST BE SUBJECT TO
MONITORING INDEFINITELY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY
LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN COMPLIANCE. A FACILITY CONVERTED
TO A USE NOT INVOLVING CHEMICAL PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING
WOULD NEED TO BE MONITORED BY SYSTEMATIC ON-SITE
INSPECTIONS, AT A FREQUENCY TO BE DETERMINED. A FACILITY
CONVERTED TO PERMITTED CHEMICAL PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING
WOULD NEED TO BE MONITORED BY DATA REPORTING AND
SYSTEMATIC ON-SITE VERIFICATION, WHICH MAY INCLUDE
ON-SITE INSTRUMENTS IN ADDITION TO INSPECTIONS. THE
FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION, AS WELL AS THE USE OF
INSTRUMENTS, IS TO BE DETERMINED. STUDIES ARE UNDERWAY
IN WASHINGTON TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR SUCH DETERMINATIONS.
SECRET
304
ConrF - Caniti7Pd Cony Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
-- IN CONTRAST TO THE PRODUCTION FACILITIES ISSUE, THE
ISSUE OF EARLY DECLARATION OF STOCKPILE LOCATIONS, WHICH
INCLUDES ASSOCIATED VERIFICATION MEASURES, HAS HARDLY
BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS. THE
UNITED STATES ATTACHES GREAT IMPORTANCE TO EARLY
DECLARATION OF STOCKPILE LOCATIONS AND TO THE
ASSOCIATED ON-SITE VERIFICATION MEASURES. WITHOUT THESE
PROVISIONS, IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THE
NECESSARY LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN THE STOCKPILE
DECLARATION.
-- MR. AMBASSADOR, IN YOUR PLENARY STATEMENT IN THE CD
THIS MORNING, YOU PRESENTED SOVIET VIEWS ON THE STOCKPILE
ISSUE WHICH SEEM TO CONTAIN MAJOR CHANGES IN THE SOVIET
POSITION. OBVIOUSLY, WE WILL STUDY THIS CONSTRUCTIVE
STATEMENT VERY CAREFULLY. I HOPE THAT DISCUSSIONS DURING
THIS ROUND WILL SHOW THAT THERE ARE NO LONGER ANY
IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES ON THIS IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE
MULTILATERAL CONVENTION. THERE ARE, OF COURSE, NUMEROUS
DETAILED PROVISIONS YET TO BE DEVELOPED IN THIS AREA, AS
WELL, THAT ARE ESSENTIAL FOR AN EFFECTIVE REGIME.
-- A THIRD ISSUE IN THE MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS IS
CHALLENGE INSPECTION. THIS IS, OF COURSE, A VERY
IMPORTANT ISSUE. IT MAY WELL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT,
BECAUSE AN EFFECTIVE CHALLENGE PROVISION IS ESSENTIAL
FOR DEALING WITH THE POTENTIALLY SERIOUS PROBLEMS OF
UNDECLARED STOCKPILES AND UNDECLARED PRODUCTION
FACILITIES.
-- THE CHALLENGE INSPECTION ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED
INTENSIVELY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ROUND IV. THE
DISCUSSION WAS USEFUL, ALTHOUGH THE POSITIONS OF THE TWO
SIDES REMAINED FAR APART. THE SOVIET SIDE CONTINUED TO
INSIST ON A MECHANISM TO SCREEN CHALLENGE INSPECTION
REQUESTS AND ON A RIGHT OF REFUSAL AS WELL. THE U.S.
SIDE, FOR REASONS WHICH HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED EXHAUSTIVELY,
BELIEVES THAT SUCH FEATURES WOULD MAKE A CHALLENGE
INSPECTION REGIME INEFFECTIVE.
-- THE SOVIET PLENARY STATEMENT IN THE CD THIS MORNING
ALSO DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF CHALLENGE INSPECTION. IT
APPEARS TO CONTAIN SOME INTERESTING NEW ELEMENTS,
ALTHOUGH IT ALSO APPEARS THAT MAJOR DIFFERENCES CONTINUE
TO EXIST. AS SOON AS WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
STUDY THE SOVIET STATEMENT, THE TWO SIDES COULD ALSO
EXPLORE THE CHALLENGE ISSUE BILATERALLY IN GREATER DETAIL.
-- NEVERTHELESS, I WOULD LIKE TODAY TO PRESENT BRIEFLY
U.S. VIEWS ON POSSIBLE MISUSE OF A CHALLENGE INSPECTION
PROVISION.
-- THE SOVIET SIDE HAS ARGUED THAT A SCREENING MECHANISM
AND A RIGHT OF REFUSAL ARE NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH
SECRET
305
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-ni isRpnnni rv-vv-, A A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
POSSIBLE MISUSE OF THE CHALLENGE INSPECTION PROVISION.
THE UNITED STATES CERTAINLY RECOGNIZES
THE RISK OF MISUSE. WE BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THE
REMEDIES PROPOSED BY THE SOVIET SIDE POSE A SERIOUS RISK
OF MISUSE AS WELL. A RIGHT OF REFUSAL, FOR EXAMPLE,
COULD EASILY BE USED TO BLOCK LEGITIMATE REQUESTS FOR
INSPECTIONS. ADOPTING THE APPROACH ADVOCATED BY THE
SOVIET DELEGATION WOULD ONLY SUBSTITUTE ONE PROBLEM
FOR ANOTHER.
-- BOTH SIDES ACKNOWLEDGE, I BELIEVE, THE POWERFUL
DETERRENT INHERENT IN THE POSSIBILITY OF RECIPROCAL
CHALLENGE INSPECTION REQUESTS. A PARTY WILL BE VERY
CAREFUL IN MAKING A REQUEST IF IT KNOWS THAT IT MAY
PROVOKE A REQUEST IN RETURN. HOWEVER, CONCERN HAS BEEN
EXPRESSED THAT IF A STATE HAS LITTLE TO LOSE, IT WILL
NOT BE DETERRED FROM MISUSING THE CHALLENGE PROVISION.
THE UNITED STATES APPROACH WAS DESIGNED WITH THIS RISK IN
MIND. CHALLENGE REQUESTS WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, NOT BE
MADE FREQUENTLY. REQUESTS FROM STATES NOT ON THE FACT-
FINDING PANEL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY A MEMBER OF
THE PANEL. INSPECTIONS WOULD BE CONDUCTED UNDER
PROCEDURES AGREED IN ADVANCE AND DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE
INTRUSION INTO MATTERS NOT RELEVANT TO RESOLVING THE
CONCERN THAT PROMPTED THE INSPECTION REQUEST. WE WOULD
LIKE TO KNOW THE REACTION OF THE SOVIET DELEGATION TO
THESE SAFEGUARDS. WE ARE CERTAINLY PREPARED TO CONSIDER
ANY SOVIET SUGGESTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF
PREVENTING ABUSE OF THE CHALLENGE INSPECTION PROVISION
SO LONG AS SUCH ALTERNATIVE MEANS PRESERVE THE SAME HIGH
STANDARD OF EFFECTIVENESS.
-- MR. AMBASSADOR, THE UNITED STATES ALSO ATTACHES
CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE TO ITS 1984 PROPOSALS FOR
BILATERAL EXCHANGE AND CONFIRMATION OF DATA BEFORE
SIGNATURE OF THE CONVENTION. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND
THE APPARENT RELUCTTNCE OF THE SOVIET SIDE TO PROVIDE
IN CONFIDENCE THE KINDS OF INFORMATION THAT THE UNITED
STATES HAS ALREADY MADE PUBLIC IN THE CD ON JULY 10,
1986. IT SEEMS STRANGE, AS WELL AS TROUBLING TO US,
THAT THE SOVIET UNION HAS NOT EVEN ADMITTED OFFICIALLY
THAT IT POSSESSES THE KIND OF WEAPONS THAT ARE THE
SUBJECT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS.
-- THE U.S. DELEGATION CONTINUES TO SEEK OPENNESS ON
THE PART OF THE SOVIET UNION CONCERNING ITS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS PROGRAM. WE ARE STILL AWAITING A CONSTRUCTIVE
AND DETAILED SOVIET RESPONSE TO THE 1984 PROPOSALS I
MENTIONED. I HOPE THAT THE SOVIET RESPONSE WILL COME
DURING THIS ROUND. THE LACK OF A RESPONSE CAN ONLY
PROLONG THE NEGOTIATIONS ON A CHEMICAL WEAPONS BAN.
-- DURING THIS ROUND, THE TWO SIDES ALSO NEED TO
CONTINUE EFFORTS TO CONVERT THE AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
SECRET
306
rnnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
ON BILATERAL INSPECTION REPRESENTATIVES INTO DETAILED
MEASURES. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER THE SOVIET
SIDE CAN AGREE THAT THESE REPRESENTATIVES WOULD BE
OBSERVERS RATHER THAN MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
INSPECTION TEAM. IN ROUND III, THE SOVIET SIDE SEEMED
TO FAVOR THE OBSERVER APPROACH, BUT, IN ROUND IV, IT
SEEMED TO BACK AWAY FROM THIS APPROACH.
-- BEFORE CONCLUDING, I WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH BRIEFLY ON
THE SUBJECT OF NON-PRODUCTION, WHICH WAS RAISED BY
SOVIET EXPERTS AT THE FIRST MEETING OF THE ROUND. THE
U.S. SIDE IS, OF COURSE, LOOKING FORWARD TO RECEIVING
THE CLARIFICATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS IT REQUESTED DURING
ROUND IV. SINCE THEN, AN ADDITIONAL POINT HAS ARISEN
THAT NEEDS CLARIFICATION. AS THE SOVIET SIDE IS AWARE,
THE U.S. POSITION IS THAT INSPECTIONS OF APPLICABLE
COMMERCIAL FACILITIES SHOULD BE UNPREDICTABLE IN THEIR
TIMING. OUR STRONG IMPRESSION FROM THE INTERSESSIONAL
DISCUSSIONS IS THAT THE SOVIET SIDE SUPPORTS THIS
APPROACH AS WELL. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL IN
PREVENTING POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING IF THE SOVIET
POSITIONS WERE CLEARLY STATED.
-- MR. AMBASSADOR, THESE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES
THAT EXIST AT THIS STAGE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS. THERE ARE
OTHER ISSUES WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE RESOLVED IN DUE
COURSE. BUT IT IS ESSENTIAL NOW TO FOCUS ON THOSE
PROVISIONS WHICH ARE KEY TO AN EFFECTIVE BAN AND ARE
MAJOR OBSTACLES IN THE MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS. IN
FULFILLING THE COMMITMENT MADE BY PRESIDENT REAGAN, THE
UNITED STATES DELEGATION IS PREPARED TO PRESENT ITS
VIEWS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING THE VIEWS OF THE
SOVIET DELEGATION AND TO A JOINT EFFORT TO SEARCH FOR
MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTIONS. END TEXT.
4. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
ADMIN
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
SECRET
307
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDID97-ni1RRpnnnit
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
STATE GENEVA TEL [phone]
SECRET GENEVA 01803
EXDIS
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, FEB 16, 1987
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-004. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. SUMMARY --
-- FIRST MEETING OF ROUND V WAS HELD AT
EXPERTS LEVEL ON FEBRUARY 16.
-- TOPICS DISCUSSED WERE: (1) SCHEDULE FOR
ROUND V BILATS; (2) AGENDA AND ORDER OF TOPICS;
(3) AN INVENTORY OF UNRESOLVED OPICS. U.S.
DEL REBUFFED SOVIET DEL SUGGESTION THAT RECENT
SWEDISH NON-PAPER ON CHALLENGE INSPECTION BE
USED AS THE BASIS FOR DISCUSSION.
END SUMMARY.
3. URPOSE AND SCOPE --
-- THIS INITIAL MEETING OF THE ROUND V BILATS
WAS LIMITED TO DISCUSSIONS OF AGENDA, SCHEDULE,
LISTING OF UNRESOLVED TOPICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
MATTERS RELEVANT TO FURTHER MEETINGS. SOVIET
DEL PROVIDED A LIST OF TEN DELEGATES HEADED BY
AMB. YOURI K. NAZARKINE. NEW NAMES ON DEL LIST
ARE ANDREY E. GRANOVSKY (MFA) AND VITALI M.
GANJA (MOD). THE SIDES AGREED TO START FORMAL
DISCUSSIONS AT A FEBRUARY 1 PLENARY MEETING.
4. SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR ROUND V --
-- SOVIET DEL PROPOSED A HIGHLY STRUCTURED
SCHEDULE OF 14 MORE MEETINGS WITH FIVE MEETINGS
PER WEEK FOR THREE WEEKS. THEY PROPOSED A
SEQUENCE OF TWO EXPERTS MEETINGS ON A SPECIFIC
TOPIC FOLLOWED BY AN AMBASSADORIAL LEVEL MEETING
AT WHICH EXPERTS MIGHT BE PRESENT. THE FORMAL
SESSION WOULD OPEN (FEB 17) A D CLOSE (MAR 6)
WITH PLENARY MEETINGS.
-- U.S. DEL PRESENTED A SCHEDULE OF EIGHT
MEETINGS COMPOSED OF THREE PLENARY MEETINGS
AND FIVE EXPERTS MEETINGS BETWEEN FEB 17 AND
MAR 5. U.S. DEL CRITICIZED SOVIET SCHEDULE
AS NOT ALLOWING SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE
PREPARATIONS BETWEEN MEETINGS NEEDED TO MAKE
DISCUSSIONS PRODUCTIVE.
SECRET
398
- cnniti7pri r.npv Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
-- AGREEMENT ON THE SCHEDULE WAS DEFERRED
UNTIL THE ARRIVAL OF AMB. HANSEN ON FEB 17.
5. AGENDA AND ORDER OF TOPICS FOR ROUND V BILATS
-- SOVIET DEL PROPOSED FOUR TOPICS FOR
DISCUSSION: (1) CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES; (2)
BILATERAL MEASURES; (3) CHALLENGE INSPECTIONS;
AND (4) OTHER QUESTIONS (TO INCLUDE NON-PRODUCTION).
-- U.S. DEL INSISTED, AND SOVIETS AGREED, THAT
DECLARATION AND VERIFICATION OF STOCKPILE LOCATIONS
BE ADDED.
-- AGREEMENT ON SEQUENCE OF TOPICS WAS DEFERRED
UNTIL THE FEB 17 ARRIVAL OF AMB. HANSEN.
6. INVENTORY OF UNRESOLVED TOPICS --
-- U.S. AND SOVIET DELS VERBALLY INVENTORIED
UNRESOLVED TOPICS. U.S. INVENTORY WAS BASED
ON JANUARY 14 PAPER "CW: PRINCIPAL
OUTSTANDING TREATY ISSUES (U)" (CIRCULATED IN
WASHINGTON TO CW IG MEMBERS).
-- SOVIET DEL ACCEPTED A L U.S. TOPICS AND
ADDED A FEW.
-- IN DISCUSSING THE TOPIC OF CHALLENGE
INSPECTION AS AN UNRESOLVED ISSUE, SOVIET
DEL PROPOSED THAT SWEDISH PON-PAPER "SOME
PRINCIPLES AND ELEMENTS TO GUIDE A SYSTEM
OF AD HOC ON-SITE INSPECTION IN A CONVENTION
ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS" BECOME THE BASIS FOR
DISCUSSIONS. U.S. DEL RESPONDED THAT SINCE
THE DOCUMENT WAS STILL CHANGING AND NOT PUT
IN FINAL FORM BY AMB. EKEUS, IT WAS NOT
USEFUL TO DISCUSS IT BILATERALLY (SWEDISH
PAPER DATAFAXED TO WASHINGTON FEB 12).
&7. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
ADMIN
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
SECRET
309
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-011RRPnnni nn rw-v-v-I4 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
STATE GENEVA
SECRET GENEVA 01871
EXDIS
SECRET
TEL [phone]
E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
BODY
TAGS: PARM, UNGA, CDG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS; FEBRUARY 17, 1987,
AMBASSADOR NAZARKIN'S STATEMENT
1. THIS IS CW BILAT -005. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. FOLLOWING IS TEXT OF THE PREPARED STATEMENT DELIVERED
BY USSR CD REPRESENTATIVE YURI NAZARKIN AT THE FEBRUARY
17 PLENARY MEETING OF THE FIFTH ROUND OF U.S.-SOVIET
INTENSIFIED CW BAN DISCUSSIONS. THE DISCUSSION WHICH
FOLLOWED IS BEING REPORTED BY SEPTEL.
3. BEGIN TEXT:
MR. AMBASSADOR,
-- THE FIFTH ROUND OF THE SOVIET-AMERICAN
TALKS ON THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
STARTS TODAY. IT WILL BE TAKING PLACE IN A
QUALITATIVELY NEW SITUATION GENERATED IN THE
MULTILATERAL TALKS ON THE CONVENTION ON A
COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPLETE BAN OF THESE WEAPONS.
-- IN THE COURSE OF THE PRECEDING ROUNDS OF
BILATERAL TALKS, EXTENSIVE WORK WAS ACCOMPLISHED
ON A BROAD RANGE OF ISSUES. SOME RESULTS OF
THIS WORK HAVE ALREADY BECOME THE PROPERTY OF
THE MULTILATERAL TALKS, CONTRIBUTING TO AGREEMENT
ON A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS OF THE FUTURE CONVENTION.
WE HOPE THAT FOLLOWING THE CURRENT ROUND, THE
USSR AND THE U.S. WILL BE ABLE TO AUGMENT THEIR
CONTRIBUTION TO THE ACTIVIZATION OF THE TALKS ON
THE CONVENTION.
-- DURING THE PERIOD THAT ELAPSED SINCE THE LAST
ROUND OF SOVIET-AMERICAN TALKS, THE SOVIET UNION
CARRIED OUT AN IN-DEPTH STUDY OF THE STATE OF
AFFAIRS IN BOTH THE BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL
TALKS OF ITS POSITIONS ON UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND
THE APPROACHES OF OTHER STATES TO THEM. WE HAVE,
OF COURSE, PAID PROPER ATTENTION TO THE POSITION
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED
BY THE U.S.
-- TODAY, AT THE PLENARY MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE
ON DISARMAMENT, THE USSR DELEGATION PRESENTED SOME
_
SECRET
310
A nThrmed for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4 -
c7r*-
? 0;0000....
Departi?lent of StaFI
PAGE 11 OF 12 GENEVA 01172 DO OF N 2113432 032 $503113 PAGE III GENEVA 11372 II OF I14 2113432 032
? I,*
? TO DESTROY ALL CN STOVES, RATNEAar
?. 1'1110 TO DIVERT OVAL-mint( CNEMICALS FOP-
_________?? .
---? -COMICIAL INDUSTRIAL USE.
?
C.s= AGREEMENT THAT CONVERSION OF CV PRODUCTION..
ClUllOINGS WOULD BE PERMITTED ONLY AS AN
EXCEPTION.
?
? 1.1 _
7-::-?? INFO ACOA-Ill /11.1 Al CAR
_ .
ACT ION SS-Il ?
??????????
? 4r. INFO LOG-11 COPY-01 ADS-11 SS0-111 /111 V
0 2112422 FEB 17
X iN MISSION GENEVA
?
10 SECSTATE VaSNDC IMMEDIATE Sill
INTO DOC WASNOC
JCS Nance
SECDEF VASNOC
AIC MASS? BONN
AMEMBASSY LONDON
ARERIASSY MOSCOW
? ANEMASSY PARIS
AMEMBASSY VIENNA
E? 00E1 mut Ritmo
HUH SS ION USNA10
SECRET GENEVA 11172
? E7DIS
ACOA FOR MA; 00C FOR OP/ISA; JCS FOR 33/0
SUM FOR 050/ISP; VIENNA FOR USDEL CSCE
?
E. O. 12356: OEM: OAOR
TAGS; Pall, NW., COG, UR, US
sus.tEct, CONFERENCE ON DISARMANENT -0.1. USSR.- ?
E$4 BILATERAL DENICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, PLENARY MEETING,
;: 7
X..?FEIRUARY. 17, 15117
REFS: Al GENEVA 111714 IlLAT-11131 II STATE 144171
?????????
!
,
-,111TFU
? ts
GC, MA/
PA,
VI ,
SP, D/GAC
D/ I1 S/ART
A7CS
JO.'-'41G1EENENT TO POT INCAPACIIANTS IN
'CATEGORY" CHEMICALS TO BE SAANC01.
?-?????? "ALSO; THEY WILL NOT INSIST ON INCLUSION OF CATEGORY I
Of IRRITANTS CS, CM AS LONG AS A SPECIAL
? REGIME IS DEVISED FOR THEM.
MA/ I SP
WC
S.
X
1. TN1S IS Cu BILAT-116., ISECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. SUMMARY
AT FEBRUARY 17 OPENING PLENARY MEETING OF -
FIFTH BILATERAL CV ROUND, SOVIET DEL HEAD
NAIARKINE REVIEWED SEVERAL AREAS OF SOVIET
MOVEMENT IN CV NEGOTIATIONS AND CALLED ION U.S.
TO CHANGE ITS 1314 POSITION AND OVIONSTRATE
FLEXIBILITY BY MAKING CONCESSIONS. O.S. DEL MEAD
NANSEN REVIEWED U.S. POSITIONS IN KEY AREAS MIMI
REWIRE BILATENAL DISCUSSION. NE CHASTIZED THE
SOVIETS FON TIEI1 ATTEMPT TO GET TII: th:. TO MAKE
CONCESSION: IN ITS 1334 PROPOSAL. C0/311 DID NOT
REPRESENT A nuINALIST PROPOSAL; RATHER IT
WAS AND IS SEEN AS A WAY OF ENSURING THAT U.S..
? SECURITY INTERESTS WERE PROTECTED. ENO SUMMARY.
S. SOVIET STATEMENT ?
? SOVIET DEL HEAD L0BASSADOR NAEARKINE1
DEL I VERED & PREPARED STATEMENT (SEPTEL) IN
WICK NE REITERATED THE SOVIET 'PROPOSALS'
MADE IN THE CD PLENARY EARLIER IN THE DAY
(TEXT OF SOVIET CD STATEMENT DATAFAXED TO ACDAI
AND NOTED ADDITIONAL POINTS OF FLEXIBILITY.
NE OFFERED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS U.S. DEL
HAD ON THEN. IN PARTICULAR, NAZARKINE CITED
TIE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE SOVIET POSITION
TO MEET U.S. CONCERNS:
A. EARLY DECLARATION OF LOCATIONS OF CV STOCKS
AND SUBSEQUENT VERIFICATION.
ALERT COPY
sow I ET READINESS TO ADD MORE CHEMICALS
to CHTErmeT F.
F. NA1ARKINE HOPED INA1 WORK ON THE JOINT
PAPER ON CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES COULD BE
COMPLETED, AS WELL AT ONE ON INC ISSUE OF
PAVING A RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE OF OBSERVERS
WEN INSPECTIONS OCCUR ON EACN?OTHERS
TERRITORY. ADDITIONALLY, HE HOPED THAT THE
BILATERAL T.01131111 AT INC ARRANGEMENTS PAPER
COULD BE FINISHED DURING THIS ROUND.
1.. HE SAID THAT TIE USSR WOULD NOT OBJECT
.1.`?., ? TO THE U.S. PROPOSAL THAT THE DEFINITION OF
A CV PRODUCTION FACILITY INCLUDE ANY FACILITY
FOR PRODUCTION or SINGLE-PURPOSE CHEMICALS
4.? THAT ME NOT IN THE SUPER-TOXIC LEINA). CATEGORY.
R. HE NOTED THAT THE USSR IS PREPARED TO
EXCHANGE IDEAS ON ALL ISSUES UNDER NEGOTIATION
INCLUDING CHALLENGE INSPECTION, TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT ALL PROPOSALS ON THE TABLE. HE
FURTHER STATED THAT THE TWO DEES SHOULD -
EXCHANGE VIEWS ON THE RECENT SWEDISH CHALLENGE.
INSPECTION NON-PAPER '
HE CONCLUDED By NOTING THAI THE SOVIET UNION-
PAD PRESENTED A 'WNW OF COMPROMISE PROPOSALS '
aND THAT THEY EXPECTED THE SAME FROr. THE U.S. -
a
4. U.S. STATEMENT --
k. IN HIS STATEMENT CRET a.), U.S. DEL HEAD
IsaisASSADOR HANSEN) ovoTED THE MESSAGE FROM
PRESIDENT REAGAN INC WAS READ BY AT.DA DIRECTOR
AOELMAN ik THE FEBRUARY L CD PLENARY. THIS
MESSAGE REAFFIRMED THE U.S. 1311 COmmlImENT
FOR A WORLD-WIDE CD IAN AND FOR VERIFICATION
PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT CHEMICAL
WEAPONS WOULD NEVER AGAIN RE STOCKPILED.
11. OMEN SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING AS THE
ISSUES THAT THE U.S. WISHED TO ADDRESS:
II) ELIMINATION OF CV PRODUCTION FAOILITIES,
12) DECLARATION OF THE LOCATIONS OF CV
STOCKPILES ANO ASSOCIATED VERIFICATION
MEASURES, (3) CHALLENGE INSECT tow, AND
141 BILATERAL MEASURES TO STRENGTHEN CONFIDENCE -
PRIOR TO SIGNATURE OF THE CONVENTION.
C. DRAWING ow GUIDANCE 1REF II HANSEN STATED
THAT, VITN RESPECT To THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE
WERE I CV FACILITY WAS PERMITTED TO BE
CONVERTED TO CIVIL USE, THE CONVERTED FACILITY
MUST BE SUBJECTED 10 MONITORING INDEFINITELY.
A FACILITY CONVERTED TO USE NOT INVOLVING
CHEMICAL PRODUCTION WOULD NEED TO BE MONITORED
SECRET 313A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-ni1RRPnnni nni rv-v-v-14
? _I"!
? ? ?
A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
^ .4
,
?? PAGE 12 14 12 GENEVA 11172 SI Of SA 2117432
^ Iv SYSTEMATIC ON-SITE INSPECTIONS, AT A FREQUENCY
TO 1E DETERMINED. IN A001TioN, A FACILITY
CONVERTED TO PERMITTED CHEMICAL PRODUCTioN vOMO
ALSO BE SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE rum IT MUST HE
MONITORED NV DATA REPORTING AND RAISE 1Y ON-SITE
INSTRUMENTS.
?
Department-of State
D. NANSEN ACKNOWLEDGED INC RECENT STATED
SOVIET SHIFT IN POSITION ON CV STOCKPILE
DECLARATIONS AND STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE
INC U.S. ATTACHES TO EARLY DECLARATION or
STOCKPILE MATIONS AND TO ASSOCIATED
VERIFICATION MEASURES.
,E. ON THE CNAILENGE INSPECTION, MANSEN STATED
THAT SOVIET INSISTANCE ON A MECHANISM TO SCREEN
1(go(sYS AND ON A RIGHT Or REFUSAL WOULD MAKE
A CHALLEHGE INSPECTION REGIME INEFrECTIVE. NE
SAID THAT THE U.S. WA: PREPARED TO CONSIDER
SOVIET SUGGESTIONS roe ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF
PREVENTING ABUSE Of THE CHALLENGE INSPECTION
PROVISION AS LONG AS SUCH ALTERNATIVES PRESERVED
INE sAmE NIGH STANDARD OF EFFECTIVENESS. NAHUM
SAID THAT IT WAS PREMATURE TO DISCUSS THE SWEDISH
Nom-PAPER AS THE SOVIETS SUGGESTED.
a
I. NANSEN SAID TIE U.S. DELEGATION CONTINUED
TO SEEK OPENNESS ON THE PART OF THE SOVIET
UNION CONCERNING ITS CHEMICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM.
LACK or RESPONSE TO U.S. PROPOSALS FOR ADVANCE
BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE WOULD ONLY PROLONG THE
NEGOTIATIONS ON A CU BAR.
S. PLENARY DISCUSSION --
A. NAZARKINE EMPHASIZED TNAT THE SOVIET UNION
HAD PRESENTED nal PROPOSALS AND IDEAS TO MEET
U.Z. CONCERNS, RUT ON TIE OTHER NAND, IN ITS
STA7EMENT, THE U.S. SIDE NAD CONFIRMED ITS 1384
POSI7104 AND REPEATED U.S. CRITIC!SM Or
s0vir7 PssiTioNc. NE URGED THE I.E. Sim TO
SNOW FLEXIBILITY TO SEEK A SOLUTION TC THE
NEGOTIATIONS, AND THUS MAKE MUTUAL CONCESSIONS
IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE AN AGREEMENT.
INCOMING
1132 SS091.1 PAGE II GENEVA 111172 SO OF S4 2119435 1632
FOR TIE U.S. TO HE NONE FLEXIBLE AND PROVIDE
coNcEssIoNs.
I. NAIARKiNE REVIEWED THE CHANGING [NARA:TER
OF THE CV NEGOTIATIONS SINCE 1976. NE STATED
THAT IT APPEAREC TO NMI NOV THAT THE NEGOTIATION:
NAD ENTERED A NEW STAGE IN WHICH THE POSITION:
ARE UNDERSTOOD AND NEGOTIATIONS IN THE MULTILATERAL .
ARENA ARE MOVING WELL. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROCEDURES
FOR THE CONDUCT OF BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS SHOULD CHANGE.
NE RECOMMENDED THAT DURING THE CURRENT ROUND,
UNION NE TERMED A THREE-WEEK 'MARATHON, THE TWO -
DELEGATIONS :Homo ADDRESS ONE ISSUE AFTER ANOTHER,
RELYING ON DISMISSION RATHER THAN ON PREPARED
STATEMENTS.
C. NAZARKINE AGAIN PUSHED FOR DISCUSSION OF
ME SWEDISH NON-PAPER ON CHALLENGE INSPECTION
AND NOTED TRE SOVIET DELEGATION WAS WILLING
TO REFER THE CHALLENGE INSPECTION ISSUE TO
MOSCOW.
D. FINALLY, NAZARKINE ALSO PUSHED FOR JOINT
DEVELOPMENT OF A PAPER ON THE RECIPROCAL
EXCHANGE OF OBSERVERS DURING INSPECTIONS ON
EAU OTHERS SOIL.
?
E. NANSEN FORCEFULLY COUNTERED THE SOVIET CALL
ALERT COPY
-- NE NOTED THAT THE U.S. HAD STOPPED CW
PRODUCTION IN ISIS. TIE SOVIETS HAD NOT STOPPED
PRODUCTION, BUT SAS PRODUCED THE voRLD'S.
e.AARGEST STOCKPILE. HE REMAINED THAT THE
SOVIETS GNAT STARTED TO SNOV INTEREST IN MOVING
FORWARD ON A CV BAN LAST YEAR.
?
^ NANSEN STATED THAT THE U.S. 1914 POSITION
1C31/311114 WAS NOT A "NAXIMALIST POSITION, BUT
ONE WORKED OUT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY TO ENSURE TIE ELIMINNTION
Of cu. THE IDEAS AND CONCEPT: IN C0/91/1 WERE
NOT PUT ON A TAKE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT BASIS RUT,
HE REMINDED, TNEY REFLECT CONDITIONS UNION ARE
SEEN AS VITAL TO PROTECT U.S. SECURITY INTERESTS.
? NANSEN CONTINUED BY STATING THAT THE U.S. WAS
IN GENEVA TO WORK OUT A BASIC CONVENTION THAT
WOULD MAKE CV A THING OF THE Pat AND WAS NOT
IN A'TURKISN RUG BAZAAR TO IARTER PRICE.
.. NE NOTED TIE DISTRUST BETWEEN THE TWO
COUNTRIES AND STATED THAT MISTRUST GROWS WHEN
THE SOVIETS WILL NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE CV
P055655 ION.
F. IN RESPONDING TO NAZARKINE"S SUGGESTION
FOR A "NARATNON.LIKE" APPROACH DURING THIS
BILATERAL ROUND, NANSEN SAID THAT INTENSITY
IS NOT A MATTER Or TM, roc WE HAD ALREADY
BEEN NEGOTIATING FOR OVER TEN YEARS. INTENSITY.
RESULTS FRON ADDRESSING THE SUBSTANCE
SERIOUSLY. NANSEN RECOMMENDED THAT THIS WORK
PROCEED ON THE BASIS or THREE EXPERTS MEETINGS
PER WEEK WITH ADDITIONAL MEETINGS OF AMBASSADORS
AS REQUIRED. THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR PREPARATION,
EVALUATION AND CONSULTATION WITH WASHINGTON.
G. NAZARKINE ACCEPTED HANSEN'S PROPOSAL.
AGREEMENT WAS ALSO REACHED ON AGENDA Topics
FOR ROUND V: III CU PRODUCTION FACILITIES;
CD BILATERAL MEASURES; 01 CW STOCKPILE
DECLARATIONS AND VERIFICATION; MI CHALLENGE
INSPECTIONS; AND CO CV NON.PRODUCTION,
6. CDPIMENt: LACK OF SOVIET REFERENCE TO
' 1614 U.S. PROPOSALS FOR BILATERAL DATA
EXCHANGE AND FOR NTN-RELATED PROVISIONS
WAS NOTABLE. END GWENT.
. -2, MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
SECRET 3138
SS0,161
in Part - Sanitized Com Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
STATE GENEVA TEL [phone]
SECRET GENEVA 01967
EXDIS
E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
BODY
TAGS: PARM, UNGA, CDG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, SOVIET DRAFT
TEXT ON RECIPROCAL PARTICIPATION OF USSR AND U.S.
REPRESENTATIVES IN INTERNATIONAL ON-SITE INSPECTIONS
1. THIS IS CW BILAT -007. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS THE SOVIET TEXT FOR
RECIPROCAL PARTICIPATION OF SOVIET AND U.S.
REPRESENTATIVES IN INTERNATIONAL ON-SITE
INSPECTIONS ON EACH OTHER'S TERRITORY. THIS
TEXT WAS PROVIDED TO THE U.S. DEL DURING A
CW EXPERTS BILAT MEETING ON FEBRUARY 20, 1987.
THIS PAPER WILL BE FURTHER DISCUSSED DURING
AN EXPERTS MEETING SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 27.
DISCUSSIONS OF FEB 20 ARE REPORTED SEPTEL.
3. BEGIN TEXT:
(TITLE) RECIPROCAL PARTICIPATION OF USSR AND U.S.
REPRESENTATIVES, IN INTERNATIONAL ON-SITE INSPECTIONS
ON THE RESPECTIVE U.S. AND USSR TERRITORIES
STIPULATED BY THE CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION
OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS (INFORMAL WORKING DOCUMENT)
-- GUIDED BY THEIR DESIRE TO ENHANCE MUTUAL
CONFIDENCE AND STRENGTHEN ASSURANCE OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AIMS AND PROVISIONS OF
THE CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL
WEAPONS, THE USSR AND THE U.S. AGREE TO ASSURE
PARTICIPATION OF USSR AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVES,
ON A BASIS OF RECIPROCITY, IN INTERNATIONAL
ON-SITE INSPECTIONS ON THE RESPECTIVE U.S. AND
USSR TERRITORIES WHICH WILL BE SPECIFIED BY THE
CONVENTION. THE SIDES SHALL PROCEED FROM THE
APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE IX OF THE
CONVENTION.
-- THE EXISTENCE OF THIS UNDERSTANDING AND ITS
USE SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
OF THE USSR AND THE U.S. AS THOSE OF STATES
PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION.
-- EACH SIDE MAY UTILIZE THIS UNDERSTANDING
WITH RESPECT TO ANY INTERNATIONAL ON-SITE
SECRET
314
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Rnnn1nn1nnnn1_A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
INSPECTIONS -- BOTH ROUTINE AND CHALLENGE --
ON THE TERRITORY OF THE OTHER SIDE WITH THE
PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CONVENTION.
-- THE SIDES WILL ASSIGN THEIR SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PARTICIPATION IN
INTERNATIONAL INSPECTIONS AND WILL EXCHANGE
LISTS OF SUCH REPRESENTATIVES NOT LATER THAN
DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE
CONVENTION. THE LISTS ARE SUBJECT TO UPDATING
AS NEEDED. THE SIDES SHALL UNDERTAKE THE
NECESSARY MEASURES TO ASSIST THE SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVES IN INTERNATIONAL ON-SITE
INSPECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING.
-- THE SIDES WILL UTILIZE THE BILATERAL CONSULTATIVE
MECHANISM TO ASSIST IN THE CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES
PERTAINING TO THE RECIPROCAL PARTICIPATION OF USSR
AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVES IN INTERNATIONAL ON-SITE
INSPECTIONS ON THE RESPECTIVE USSR AND U.S. TERRITORIES.
-- THE SIDE ON WHOSE TERRITORY THE INTERNATIONAL
INSPECTION IS TO TAKE PLACE SHALL, WITHOUT DELAY,
INFORM THE OTHER SIDE OF IT. HAVING RECEIVED SUCH
INFORMATION, THE OTHER SIDE MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
ITS RIGHT TO REQUEST THE PARTICIPATION OF ITS
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THIS INTERNATIONAL
INSPECTION. IN THIS CASE, THE SIDE ON WHOSE
TERRITORY THE INSPECTION IS TO TAKE PLACE WILL
SATISFY THE REQUEST.
-- THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES SHALL ACCOMPANY
THE INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION TEAM IN THE CAPACITY
OF AN OBSERVER AND SHALL ENJOY THE SAME PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIES AS THE MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
INSPECTION TEAM. HE WILL, IN PARTICULAR, HAVE
THE POSSIBILITY TO CARRY OUT HIS ACTIVITIES
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE ASSIGNMENTS FACING THE
INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION TEAM, PARTICIPATE IN ALL
ENDEAVORS CARRIED OUT BY THE INSPECTION TEAM.
HE WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS
RELATIVE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE INSPECTION TO THE
RECEIVING SIDE. AT THE SAME TIME, HE WILL NOT
INTERFERE IN THE INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION TEAM'S
EXECUTION OF ITS ACTIVITIES, WILL NOT INTERFERE
IN THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THIS TEAM AND THE
RECEIVING SIDE, AND WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN WRITING
THE TEAM'S REPORTS TO THE BODIES OF THE CONVENTION.
-- THE SIDE WHICH SENT A SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE
SHALL COMMUNICATE TO THE OTHER SIDE, USING THE
BILATERAL CONSULTATIVE MECHANISM, THE BASIC
CONCLUSIONS OF THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE ON
SECRET
315
n-r+
- c.niti7pri nnnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
THE RESULTS OF HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE
INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
AND NOT LATER THAN DAYS AFTER THE COMPLETION
OF THE INSPECTION. END TEXT.
4. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
ADMIN
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
SECRET
316
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001 nnnni-et
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
STATE GENEVA
SECRET GENEVA 01968
EXDIS
SECRET
TEL [phone]
E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
BODY
TAGS: PARM, UNGA, CDG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): US-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, EXPERTS
MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 1987
REF: STATE 44071
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-008 . (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT)
2. SUMMARY --
-- FEBRUARY 19 EXPERTS LEVEL MEETING WAS DEVOTED
TO DISCUSSION OF JOINT U.S.-SOVIET PAPER ON
CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES. SOVIET SIDE APPEARED
EAGER TO REACH AN AGREEMENT ON THIS PAPER.
THEY QUICKLY AGREED TO ACCEPT U.S. POSITION THAT
SPECIALIZED CW BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT MAY BE
CONVERTED ONLY AS AN EXCEPTION, BUT SAID THEY
WOULD HAVE TO STUDY OTHER CHANGES WHICH DEL
PROPOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDANCE (REFTEL).
PAPER WILL BE DISCUSSED FURTHER AT FEBRUARY 23
MEETING. END SUMMARY.
3. AT FEBRUARY 19 MEETING U.S. AND SOVIET
EXPERTS REVIEWED JOINT U.S.-SOVIET PAPER ON
DEFINITION OF A CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION
FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED ELIMINATION AND
VERIFICATION MEASURES. SOVIET SIDE EMPHASIZED
THAT IT WISHED TO APPROACH THE PROBLEM
"PRAGMATICALLY," TAKING ACCOUNT OF U.S.
VIEWS. SOVIET SIDE QUICKLY ACCEPTED EARLIER
U.S. PROPOSAL THAT CONVERSION OF EQUIPMENT
AND BUILDINGS BE ALLOWED ONLY AS AN EXCEPTION,
REFLECTING CHANGE IN POSITION ANNOUNCED AT
FEBRUARY 18 CD PLENARY. HOWEVER, THEY SAID
THEY WOULD HAVE TO STUDY LANGUAGE CHANGES
PROPOSED BY U.S. SIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ROUND V GUIDANCE (REFTEL).
4. SOVIETS ASKED WHETHER U.S. STILL OPPOSES
SOVIET POSITION THAT CONVERTED SITES BE USED
ONLY FOR NON-MILITARY PEACEFUL PURPOSES.
IN THEIR VIEW, WHILE INSPECTION OF SUCH
FACILITIES WOULD BE ONE SAFEGUARD AGAINST
RECONVERSION, LIMITING THE ACTIVITY IN THE
CONVERTED FACILITY TO NON-MILITARY PURPOSES
SECRET
317
flni-laccifiPri in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
WOULD BE STILL ANOTHER. U.S. REPS POINTED
OUT THAT THIS APPROACH WOULD IMPOSE SPECIAL
RESTRICTIONS ON CONVERSION OF U.S. FACILITIES,
WHICH ARE MOSTLY ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.
PER GUIDANCE, DEL SAID ISSUE WAS CURRENTLY
UNDER STUDY IN WASHINGTON.
5. WITH REGARD TO EQUIPMENT FOR PRODUCING
CHEMICAL MUNITION PARTS, SOVIETS ASKED FOR
EXPLANATION OF U.S. PROPOSAL FOR DESTRUCTION
OF NON-STANDARD EQUIPMENT. SOVIET SIDE
REQUESTED THAT U.S. DEL PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF
SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
DESTROYED. SINCE MUCH OF THE EQUIPMENT USED
FOR PRODUCING CW MUNITIONS IS COMMON TO
CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS PRODUCTION, THEY
WERE CONCERNED THAT A SPECIAL DESTRUCTION
PROVISION MIGHT INVITE A CHALLENGE INSPECTION
THAT COULD CREATE MORE DOUBTS THAN IT WOULD
SOLVE. U.S. REPS SAID PROVISION WAS NEEDED
TO PREVENT RETENTION OF SPECIAL FORMS AND
DIES THAT WERE USED ONLY FOR CW PRODUCTION.
6. DELS AGREED ADDITIONAL WORK IS REQUIRED BY
EXPERTS TO SOLVE REMAINING DIFFERENCES.
BOTH SIDES AGREED TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF
THE JOINT PAPER DURING EXPERTS MEETING ON
FEBRUARY 23. SOVIETS APPEAR TO WANT A FINAL
AGREED PAPER BY THE END OF THIS ROUND OF
DISCUSSIONS.
7. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
ADMIN
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
SECRET
318
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Rnnn1nn1nnnn1_A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
STATE GENEVA
SECRET GENEVA 02221
EXDIS
SECRET
TEL [phone]
E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
BODY
TAGS: PARM, UNGA, CDG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, EXPERTS MEETING,
FEBRUARY 20, 1987
REFS: (A) GENEVA 1976 (CW BILAT-000)
- (B) 86 STATE 339047
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-009. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. SUMMARY --
-- AT MEETING OF EXPERTS ON FEBRUARY 20, SOVIET
DEL PROVIDED AND EXPLAINED A PAPER WHICH FLESHED
OUT THE PREVIOUSLY AGREED PRINCIPLE THAT EACH
SIDE WOULD PARTICIPATE IN INSPECTIONS OF THE
OTHER SIDE. THE SOVIETS ALSO PROPOSED THAT
PERMANENT POSITIONS FOR THE U.S. AND USSR ON THE
INTERNATIONAL INSPECTORATE BE THE SUBJECT OF A
CONFIDENTIAL "GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT." U.S. DEL
PRESSED SOVIETS ON U.S. 1984 PROPOSAL FOR EARLY,
PRIVATE BILATERAL EXCHANGE OF DATA. FOR THE FIRST
TIME SOVIETS ENTERED INTO EXCHANGE OF VIEWS, BUT
DID NOT MOVE AT ALL TOWARD U.S. POSITION. END
SUMMARY.
3. TOPICS --
-- THE THIRD EXPERTS MEETING OF ROUND V BILATS,
HELD FEBRUARY 20, WAS DEVOTED TO A DISCUSSION
OF BILATERAL ARRANGEMENTS, SPECIFICALLY, U.S./USSR
OBSERVERS FOR INTERNATIONAL INSPECTIONS OF THE
OTHER SIDE AND EARLY, PRIVATE BILATERAL DATA
EXCHANGE.
4. U.S./USSR OBSERVERS FOR INTERNATIONAL INSPECTIONS --
-- SOVIET DEL PRESENTED A PAPER ON "RECIPROCAL
PARTICIPATION OF USSR AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVES,
IN INTERNATIONAL ON-SITE INSPECTIONS ON THE
RESPECTIVE U.S. AND USSR TERRITORIES STIPULATED
BY THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS" (REF A).
THE PAPER, WHILE GENERALLY IN LINE WITH U.S.
VIEWS (REF B), CONTAINS UNACCEPTABLE REFERENCE
TO INSPECTIONS ON "USSR TERRITORIES" RATHER THAN
BROAD FORMULA NECESSARY TO COVER ALL SOVIET BASES
SECRET
319
17:0,r1.
- Canifi7Pri r.onv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
REGARDLESS OF LOCATION. THE PAPER PROVIDES FOR
THE EXCHANGE OF LISTS OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION PERTAINING TO FORTHCOMING
INSPECTIONS, "OBSERVER" STATUS FOR U.S./USSR
REPRESENTATIVES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE
U.S. AND SOVIET REPRESENTATIVES AND THE COMMUNICATION
OF COMMENTS TO THE INSPECTED STATE.
-- U.S. DEL WELCOMED SOVIET PAPER AND SAID
IT WOULD RESPOND AFTER GIVING PAPER CAREFUL
STUDY.
-- U.S. DEL QUESTIONED SOVIETS AS TO THE
REPORTING CHAIN OF U.S./USSR OBSERVERS WITH
THE INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION TEAMS. SOVIETS
ENVISION OBSERVER REPORTS GOING BACK TO THE
OBSERVER'S GOVERNMENT. OBSERVER'S GOVERNMENT
WOULD THEN FORWARD ITS COMMENTS TO INSPECTED STATE.
5. CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT ON STAFFING INTERNATIONAL
INSPECTORATE --
- SOV DEL PROPOSED A "GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT"
WHEREBY U.S. AND SOVIET GOVERNMENTS WOULD TRY
TO ENSURE THAT AN AMERICAN HEADED THE SECTION
OF THE INTERNATIONAL INSPECTORATE RESPONSIBLE
FOR INSPECTIONS IN THE SOVIET UNION AND THAT
A SOVIET HEADED THE SECTION RESPONSIBLE FOR
INSPECTIONS IN THE U.S. SOVIET RATIONALE FOR
THIS WAS INCREASED CONFIDENCE IN EACH SIDE'S
KNOWLEDGE OF ACTIVITIES/EVENTS IN THE OTHER
COUNTRY. THEY CITED AS PRECEDENT UN POSITIONS
WHICH ARE TRADITIONALLY HELD BY THE SAME COUNTRY.
THEY SAID THERE MAY ALSO BE A SIMILAR IAEA
ARRANGEMENT. THE SOVIETS EMPHASIZED THIS WAS
A CONFIDENTIAL PROPOSAL. U.S. DEL QUESTIONED
SOVIETS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR MULTILATERAL
ACCUSATIONS OF U.S./USSR MONOPOLY OF THE INTERNATIONAL
INSPECTORATE. SOVIET DEL POINTED OUT THAT THE
INSPECTION TEAMS IN THE U.S. OR USSR WOULD
CONTAIN INSPECTORS FROM A VARIETY OF COUNTRIES.
U.S. DEL AGREED TO REFER THE MATTER TO WASHINGTON
FOR CONSIDERATION.
6. EARLY, PRIVATE, BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE --
-- U.S. DEL PRESSED SOVIETS HARD AND AT LENGTH
ON THE NEED FOR PRIVATE BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE
PRIOR TO SIGNATURE OF CONVENTION.
-- SOVIET DEL RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE THE
U.S. ATTACHES TO THIS MEASURE, BUT THEY REMAINED
UNCONVINCED OF ITS NECESSITY PRIOR TO SIGNATURE.
HOWEVER, RATHER THAN REJECTING THE CONCEPT OUT
SECRET
320
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP97-n1iRApnnni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
OF HAND AS IN THE PAST, SOVIETS TOOK A
"PERSUADE ME" ATTITUDE WHEN DISCUSSING THE TOPIC.
THEY RAISED HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE
CONVENTION MIGHT NOT BE SIGNED OR RATIFIED EVEN
AFTER THE EARLY EXCHANGE. THEY ALSO ASKED WHAT
WOULD HAPPEN IF THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA PROVIDED
WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE OTHER SIDE. FINALLY, THEY
CITED EXAMPLES OF NEGOTIATIONS IN WHICH DATA
EXCHANGE HAD NOT LED TO AN
AGREEMENT (MBFR) OR TO U.S. RATIFICATION (SALT II, TTBT
AND PNET.
-- U.S. DEL COUNTERED THAT EARLY DATA EXCHANGE
WAS A CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURE WHICH COULD
HELP GIVE BOTH SIDES CONFIDENCE THEY NEED TO
HAVE BEFORE SIGNING THE CONVENTION. THE DATA
EXCHANGE WOULD PROCEED IN TWO STAGES, FROM
GENERAL TO SPECIFIC, ALLOWING BOTH SIDES TO
ASSESS ITS VALIDITY AND WORK OUT PROBLEMS BEFORE
A CONVENTION WAS SIGNED. THIS WOULD ALSO ALLOW
AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE SOME OF THE PROPOSED
VERIFICATION MEASURES. U.S. DEL POINTED OUT
EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGES
AND REJECTED INSINUATION THAT THE U.S. MIGHT
TRY TO TAKE SOVIET DATA WITH NO INTENTION OF
SIGNING OR RATIFYING THE CONVENTION.
-- U.S. DEL POINTED OUT THAT THE U.S. HAD
PUBLICLY PROVIDED IN JULY 1986 THE KIND OF
DATA BEING DISCUSSED, AND NOW ASKED THE
SOVIETS TO PROVIDE COMPARABLE DATA PRIVATELY.
SOVIET DEL COUNTERED THAT THERE WERE "CERTAIN
DISCREPANCIES" BETWEEN THE U.S. AND SOVIET
DATA REGARDING U.S. SITES. THEY PROMISED
ELABORATION IN TWO TO THREE WEEKS FROM A
BOOK RECENTLY PUBLISHED IN MOSCOW.
-- SOVIET DEL ASKED WHETHER THE U.S. INTENDED
THE DATA EXCHANGE TO INCLUDE ALL U.S. BASES
INCLUDING THOSE IN EUROPE. U.S. DEL SAID YES.
7. COMMENT: THIS MEETING REPRESENTS FIRST
TIME SOVIETS HAVE BEEN WILLING TO HAVE EXCHANGE
OF VIEWS ON U.S. DATA EXCHANGE PROPOSAL, WHICH
THEY HAVE VIRTUALLY IGNORED SINCE IT WAS
PRESENTED TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS AGO. THEY
CAST THEMSELVES, HOWEVER, IN A SKEPTICAL
LISTENING AND QUESTIONING MODE AND WERE
UNWILLING TO MOVE TOWARD U.S. POSITION, TO
MAKE COUNTER PROPOSALS OR DISCUSS DETAILS.
SOVIETS MERELY HINTED THAT MAYBE SOMETHING
COULD BE WORKED OUT LATER. U.S. RESPONDED
THAT PUTTING OFF ISSUE WOULD SIMPLY PROLONG
MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS. END COMMENT.
SECRET
321
nnnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
8. THE NEXT EXPERTS MEETING WAS SCHEDULED
FOR FEBRUARY 23 TO DISCUSS THE DECLARATION
OF STOCKPILE LOCATIONS.
9. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
ADMIN
END OF MESSAGE
SECRET
SECRET
322
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001nnnni_zt
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
? r? _
SECRET
STATE GENEVA TEL [phone]
SECRET GENEVA 02222
EXDIS
E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
BODY
TAGS: FARM, UNGA, CDG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, FEBRUARY 23, 1987
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-010. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. SUMMARY--
-- THE FOURTH EXPERTS MEETING OF U.S./SOVIET
BILATERALS FOCUSSED ON (1) DECLARATION AND INTERIM
MONITORING OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS STOCKPILES AND (2)
JOINT PAPER ON CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES. SOVIETS
HAD NO PROBLEM WITH U.S. APPROACH TO CW STOCKPILE
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS REFLECTED IN CD/516. THEY
ACKNOWLEDGED THE NEED FOR AND AGREED TO THE USE OF
ON-SITE SENSORS, REMOTE MONITORING OF THESE SENSORS,
AND ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION THROUGH ON-SITE INSPECTORS.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF DRAFT JOINT DISCUSSION PAPER
ON CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES RESULTED IN SOVIET AGREE-
MENT WITH U.S. POSITION ON SEVERAL PREVIOUSLY DISAGREED
POINTS. SEVERAL MAJOR POINTS REMAIN TO BE RESOLVED,
HOWEVER. END SUMMARY.
3. AT MEETING OF EXPERTS ON FEBRUARY 23, TWO
TOPICS WERE DISCUSSED: MONITORING DECLARED
CW STOCKPILE LOCATIONS AND CW PRODUCTION
FACILITIES.
4. MONITORING DECLARED CW STOCKPILE LOCATIONS --
A. IN RESPONSE TO U.S. QUESTION, SOVIET REP
(BERDENNIKOV) STATED THAT PHRASE "PERMANENT
USE OF INSTRUMENTS", AS USED IN NAZARKIN'S
FEB 17 PLENARY SPEECH IN SECTION ON STOCKPILE
MONITORING, COULD INCLUDE REMOTE MONITORING
OF THOSE INSTRUMENTS, JUST AS IN THE CASE OF
CHEMICAL INDUSTRY MONITORING. THE SOVIET SIDE
COULD AGREE TO THE USE OF MONITORING DEVICES,
TO ON-SITE INSPECTIONS, OR TO A COMBINATION
OF BOTH IF NECESSARY, FOR VERIFICATION.
B. SOVIET REP SAID THAT CW STOCKPILE SITES WOULD
CONTINUE TO BE OPEN TO MANDATORY CHALLENGE ON-SITE
INSPECTION AFTER THE CW STOCKS HAD BEEN REMOVED.
C. U.S. REP PRESSED FOR SOVIET REACTION TO U.S.
CD WORKING PAPER, "THE DECLARATION AND INTERIM
SECRET
323
r.nnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
MONITORING OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS STOCKPILES"
(CD/516; JUL 13, 1984). DOCUMENT ILLUSTRATES
U.S. POSITION THAT USE OF A COMBINATION OF
REMOTELY-MONITORED ON-SITE SENSORS AND SYSTEMATIC
ON-SITE INSPECTIONS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR STOCKPILE
MONITORING. SOVIET REP SAID THAT THEY ARE
PREPARED TO ACCEPT REMOTE MONITORING OF ON-SITE
DEVICES AND THE OTHER VERIFICATION METHODS SUGGESTED
IN THE PAPER.
-- U.S. DELOFF (LOVELACE) ALSO HIGHLIGHTED FACT
THAT PERIODIC STOCKPILE SAFETY CHECKS MUST CONTINUE.
STOCKS CANNOT BE SIMPLY SEALED UP UNTIL THEY ARE
FINALLY REMOVED FOR DESTRUCTION. THESE SAFETY REQUIRE-
MENTS RESULT IN A DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT WHICH WILL REQUIRE
A COMPLEX MONITORING SYSTEM AND CONTINUING INFORMATION
FLOW TO THE MONITORING BODY. PARTICULAR DIFFICULTY
ARISES BETWEEN TIME OF FIRST INSPECTION AND TIME
MONITORING SYSTEM IS FULLY OPERATIONAL.
-- SOVIET REP AGREED WITH U.S. COMMENTS AND STATED
THAT THERE MAY BE A HIGH REQUIREMENT FOR ROUTINE ON-
SITE INSPECTIONS, POSSIBLY EVEN CONTINUOUS PRESENCE OF
INSPECTORS DURING SOME PERIODS, SUCH AS THE PERIOD PRIOR
TO INSTALLATION OF SENSORS. HE SAID THE SOVIETS WERE
PREPARED TO ACCEPT WHATEVER IS REQUIRED TO ENSURE AN
EFFECTIVE VERIFICATION REGIME.
D. THE SOVIET SIDE SAID IT BELIEVED A DIFFERENT
DETAILED PLAN FOR MONITORING WILL BE DEVELOPED
FOR EACH DECLARED SITE BASED ON THE MODEL
AGREEMENTS CONCEPT. THE DETAILED PLANS SHOULD
NOT BE INCORPORATED INTO THE BODY OF THE CONVENTION.
HOWEVER, THE CW CONVENTION SHOULD INCLUDE A
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
ENSURE ADEQUATE VERIFICATION.
5. CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CW) PRODUCTION FACILITIES--
A. DELEGATIONS CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE JOINT CW
PRODUCTION FACILITIES PAPER DEVELOPED DURING PREVIOUS TWO
ROUNDS.
B. THE TWO SIDES DISCUSSED AT LENGTH HOW TO FORMULATE
THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "CW PRODUCTION FACILITY."
SOVIET REP EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT A STATE COULD EVADE
DECLARATION REQUIREMENTS BY ARGUING THAT PRODUCTION OF
A NERVE AGENT HAD NOT BEEN "FOR CW PURPOSES." US REP,
WHILE SHARING CONCERN ABOUT LOOPHOLES, SOUGHT TO AVOID
INCLUDING FACILITIES THAT HAD ONLY MADE SMALL QUANTITIES
OF AGENTS FOR PHARMACEUTICAL, PROTECTIVE OR RESEARCH
PURPOSES. SOVIETS ACCEPTED U.S. POINT. TWO SIDES
AGREED THAT THERE APPEARED TO BE NO BASIC DIFFERENCES
AND THAT TOPIC SHOULD BE TAKEN UP AGAIN AT A LATER
SECRET
324
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
MEETING.
C. SOVIETS ACCEPTED CONCEPT OF "MAIN PRODUCTION TRAIN"
PROPOSED BY U.S. DEL PER ROUND IV GUIDANCE PAPER
(86 STATE 343781). THEY ALSO ACCEPTED VIRTUALLY ALL
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY U.S. DEL PER ROUND V GUIDANCE
(STATE 44071, PARA 38).
D. IN TWO CASES, SOVIETS SOUGHT TIGHTER RESTRICTIONS
THAN THOSE PROPOSED BY U.S. DEL PURSUANT TO INSTRUC-
TIONS. THEY SOUGHT TO NARROW OPTION FOR REUSE OF
SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT AND TO TIGHTEN UP U.S. REFERENCE
TO "PREVAILING COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR
FACILITIES NOT PRODUCING SUPER-TOXIC LETHAL OR
CORROSIVE CHEMICALS." (COMMENT: U.S. HAD CRAFTED ITS
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ON REUSE OF EQUIPMENT TO PROTECT U.S.
CHEMICAL COMPANIES FROM DESTRUCTION OF THEIR FACILITIES
IF THEY HAD PROVIDED PINACOYL ALCOHOL FOR BINARY
PROGRAM. OBVIOUSLY, THIS ARGUMENT CANNOT BE USED WITH
SOVIETS, SINCE U.S. INTEREST IN NERVE AGENT SOMAN IS
CLASSIFIED. PROPOSAL RELATING TO INDUSTRY STANDARDS
SEEMS TO BE A "NON-SEQUITUR" WITHOUT PRACTICAL EFFECT.
END COMMENT.)
E. SOVIET SIDE SAID THAT THEY WOULD NO LONGER INSIST
THAT REUSE OF CONVERTED CW PRODUCTION BUILDINGS BE
RESTRICTED TO NON-MILITARY PURPOSES. THEY COULD ACCEPT
USE FOR MILITARY PURPOSES. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY COULD
NOW ACCEPT EITHER APPROACH AND IT WAS UP TO THE U.S.
TO INDICATE WHICH APPROACH IT PREFERRED. PER
INSTRUCTIONS, U.S. REP SAID THE ISSUE WAS BEING STUDIED
IN WASHINGTON.
F. IN ORDER TO MEET U.S. CONCERNS, THE SOVIETS ACCEPTED
U.S. SUGGESTION THAT THE WORD "BUILDING" SHOULD INCLUDE
UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES.
G. AGREEMENT WAS NOT REACHED ON HOW EXCESS PRODUCTION
CAPACITY FOR DUAL-PURPOSE KEY PRECURSORS SHOULD BE
ADDRESSED. SOVIET SIDE ARGUED THAT U.S. LANGUAGE
(DRAWN FROM ROUND IV GUIDANCE) WOULD CREATE A LOOPHOLE
SINCE IT COVERED ONLY CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT A STATE
DECLARED HAD MADE KEY PRECURSOR CHEMICALS FOR CW USE
IN THE PAST. AS AN EXAMPLE, THE SOVIETS EXPRESSED
CONCERN THAT SOME WESTERN CHEMICAL PLANTS THAT HAD
FURNISHED KEY PRECURSORS FOR THE IRAQI CW PROGRAM,
SUCH AS THOSE MENTIONED IN A RECENT BBC DOCUMENTARY,
WOULD NOT BE COVERED. U.S. REP NOTED THAT SOVIET
APPROACH ALSO COVERED PLANTS THAT HAD NEVER PROVIDED
KEY PRECURSORS FOR CW PRODUCTION AND SAID THAT BROADER
ISSUE OF EXCESS CAPACITY SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IN
CONNECTION WITH CHEMICAL INDUSTRY MONITORING REGIME.
H. SOVIET DEL ALSO RAISED THE BASIC QUESTION OF
SECRET
325
nnrnved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
WHETHER MILITARY MUNITIONS HARDWARE FACTORIES SHOULD
FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A CW PRODUCTION FACILITY.
BOTH SIDES AGREED THAT THE PRODUCTION OF METAL PARTS
FOR CW WOULD NORMALLY BE AN AUXILLARY PART OF THE
PLANTS PRODUCTION PROCESS. FOCUS SHOULD REMAIN ON
DESTRUCTION OF THE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT USED FOR CW
HARDWARE PRODUCTION. THE CONVENTION SHOULD NOT IMPACT
ON NON-CW RELATED ACTIVITIES OF FACILITIES.
I. SOVIET DEL SUGGESTED THAT UNRESOLVED SECTIONS
(KEY PRECURSORS, MUNITIONS HARDWARE) BE DROPPED IN
ORDER TO OBTAIN AGREEMENT ON THE CURRENT PAPER SO IT
COULD BE INTRODUCED IN CD. WORK COULD CONTINUE ON
OMITTED SECTIONS. U.S. REP REPLIED THAT THESE ISSUES
SHOULD BE ADDRESSED NOW RATHER THAN LATER. DISCUSSION
WILL CONTINUE ON PAPER DURING A FUTURE EXPERTS MEETING.
6. BOTH SIDES AGREED TO DISCUSS THE CHALLENGE
INSPECTION ISSUE AT THE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, CW
EXPERTS MEETING.
7. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
ADMIN
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
SECRET
326
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 ? Cs.1,6,_RnDon
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
STATE GENEVA
SECRET GENEVA 02377
EXDIS
SECRET
TEL [phone]
E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
BODY
TAGS: FARM, UNGA, CDG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, EXPERTS MEETING,
FEBRUARY 25, 1987.
REFS: (A) STATE 42809
- (B) GENEVA 2145
- (C) STATE 51601
1. THIS IS CW BILAT -011. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
-2. SUMMARY --
-- AT FEBRUARY 25 MEETING ON CHALLENGE INSPECTION,
U.S. AND SOVIET EXPERTS ADDRESSED: (1) RELEVENT
FACILITIES AND ACCESS QUESTION, (2) POSSIBLE
ALTERNATIVES TO UNRESTRICTED ACCESS, (3).SAFEGUARDS
AGAINST MISUSE OF CHALLENGE INSPECTION, AND
(4) SOVIET VIEWS ON U.S. PROPOSAL FOR MANDATORY
(ARTICLE X) AND NON-MANDATORY (ARTICLE XI)
CHALLENGE INSPECTION IN U.S. DRAFT TREATY
(CD/500). U.S. DEL EMPHASIZED IMPORTANCE
U.S. ATTACHES TO TREATY PROVISION FOR MANDATORY,
SHORT-NOTICE CHALLENGE INSPECTION OF ALL RELEVANT
FACILITIES TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS PROPOSED BY
POSSIBLE CLANDESTINE CW STOCKS AND PRODUCTION
FACILITIES.
-- SOVIETS SAID THEY ALSO ATTACH IMPORTANCE TO
CHALLENGE INSPECTION AND COULD ACCEPT EITHER UK
OR SWEDISH CHALLENGE INSPECTION VARIANTS AS BASIS
FOR NEGOTIATION. SOVIETS SAID THEY WILL ACCEPT
MANDATORY ONSITE INSPECTION FOR ALL DECLARED
LOCATIONS AND FACILITIES, INCLUDING THOSE NOT
SUBJECT TO ROUTINE INSPECTION.IN OTHER CASES,
ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS UP TO AND INCLUDING
PARTIAL ACCESS COULD BE AGREED UPON. SOVIETS
SAID THEY APPRECIATE UNDECLARED STOCKS POSE
DIFFICULT PROBLEM AND WISH TO SOLVE PROBLEM IN
WAY WHICH MEETS THE CONCERNS OF BOTH THE
CHALLENGER AND THE CHALLENGED STATE. SOVIETS
ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT U.S. "TWO-TIERED"
APPROACH--I.E., ARTICLE X AND XI AND DISTINCTION
BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SITES--PROVIDE BASIS
FOR DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT. THEY SUGGESTED
U.S. DELETE ARTICLE XI.
SECRET
327
rhnv Anuroved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
-- DISCUSSION WAS DETAILED AND WIDERANGING, WITH
SOVIETS SEEKING TO CONVEY ATTITUDE OF FLEXIBILITY.
POSITIONS REMAIN FAR APART. HOWEVER, IN SOME
RESPECTS SOVIET POSITION NOW SEEMS AT LEAST
SLIGHTLY STRICTER THAN THAT IN UK PROPOSAL.
END SUMMARY.
3. FEBRUARY 25 EXPERTS MEETING WAS DEVOTED TO
CHALLENGE INSPECTION. DRAWING ON GUIDANCE
(REF A), U.S. DEL EXPLAINED U.S. POSITION AND
PRESSED SOVIETS TO CLARIFY THEIR POSITION.
-- SOVIETS SAID THEY ALSO ATTACH IMPORTANCE TO
CHALLENGE INSPECTION AND COULD ACCEPT EITHER UK
OR SWEDISH CHALLENGE INSPECTION VARIENTS AS BASIS
FOR NEGOTIATION. SOVIETS SAID THEY WILL ACCEPT
MANDATORY ONSITE INSPECTION FOR ALL DECLARED
LOCATIONS AND FACILITIES. IN OTHER CASES.
ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS UP TO AND INCLUDING
PARTIAL ACCESS COULD BE AGREED UPON. SOVIETS
SAID THEY APPRECIATE UNDECLARED STOCKS POSE
DIFFICULT PROBLEM AND WISH TO SOLVE PROBLEM IN
WAY WHICH MEETS THE CONCERNS OF BOTH THE
CHALLENGER AND THE CHALLENGED STATE. SOVIETS
ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT U.S. "TWO-TIERED"
APPROACH--I.E., ARTICLE X AND XI AND DISTINCTION
BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SITES--PROVIDE BASIS
FOR DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT. THEY SUGGESTED
U.S. DELETE ARTICLE XI.
4. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS --
-- U.S. REP (MIKULAK) OPENED THE DISCUSSION
BY NOTING THE IMPORTANCE U.S. ATTRIBUTES TO
A PROVISION FOR MANDATORY, SHORT-NOTICE
CHALLENGE INSPECTION OF ALL RELEVANT FACILITIES
AS BOTH A DETERRENT AND A WAY TO RESTORE
CONFIDENCE WHEN CONCERNS ARISE. HE EMPHASIZED
THE NEED TO ADDRESS EFFECTIVELY THE PROBLEMS
POSED BY POSSIBLE UNDECLARED CW STOCKPILES
AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
-- SOVIET REP (BERDENNIKOV) REPLIED THAT
SOVIET SIDE CONSIDERS CHALLENGE INSPECTION
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AND DIFFICULT ISSUES
IN THE CW BAN NEGOTIATIONS. CHALLENGE INSPECTION
IS A NECESSARY PART OF A CW BAN AND THE USSR
FAVORS AN EFFECTIVE CHALLENGE INSPECTION SYSTEM
WHICH WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS OF ALL PARTIES. IN 1986, THE USSR
HAD TAKEN A MAJOR STEP BY AGREEING TO USE UK
CHALLENGE INSPECTION PROPOSAL AS THE BASIS FOR
NEGOTIATIONS AND WAS INTERESTED IN U.S.
DELEGATION'S VIEWS ON THIS PROPOSAL AS WELL AS
SECRET
32s1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA_Rnpao r" - -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
ON THE SWEDISH PROPOSAL (REF B). HE SAID THE
SOVIET SIDE WAS OPEN-MINDED; IT COULD ACCEPT
EITHER PROPOSAL AS THE BASIS FOR DISCUSSION
AND WAS ESPECIALLY INTERESTED IN THE DIFFICULTIES
THE U.S. HAS WITH THE UK PROPOSAL. HE NOTED
U.S. OPPOSITION TO PROPOSALS THAT PROVIDE FOR
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL REVIEW OF REQUESTS AND STRESSED
THAT THE UK PROPOSAL, WHICH THE USSR CAN ACCEPT
AS THE BASIS FOR NEGOTIATION, HAS NO SUCH FILTER.
(COMMENT: THIS REMARK TENDS TO CONFIRM PRIVATE
INDICATION TO DELOFF THAT SOVIETS ARE BACKING
AWAY FROM THE CHANGES THEY PROPOSED TO THE EK
PROPOSAL, SUCH AS EXECUTIVE COUNCIL REVIEW OF
REQUESTS. END COMMENT.)
-- U.S. DEL REFUSED TO BE DRAWN INTO DISCUSSION
OF EITHER THE UK OR SWEDISH PROPOSALS. INSTEAD,
U.S. SIDE NOTED (1) NEED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF
U.S. PROPOSAL, WHICH PROVIDES FOR SHORT-NOTICE,
MANDATORY CHALLENGE INSPECTION OF ANY SUSPECTED
SITE; (2) U.S. CONCERNS THAT ANY RIGHT OF REFUSAL
WILL ENABLE A STATE INTERESTED IN VIOLATING THE
TREATY TO ESTABLISH SANCTUARIES AND MISUSE THE
RIGHT OF REFUSAL; AND (3) GREAT DIFFICULTIES
U.S. SIDE WOULD HAVE WITH CONCEPT OF SUBMITTING
CHALLENGE INSPECTION REQUESTS TO ANY VOTING
PROCEDURE.
5. RELEVANT FACILITIES AND ACCESS QUESTION --
-- THE SOVIET SIDE SAID THAT IT WOULD ACCEPT
MANDATORY CHALLENGE ON-SITE INSPECTION WITH
NO RIGHT OF REFUSAL FOR ALL LOCATIONS AND
FACILITIES DECLARED UNDER THE TREATY, EVEN
THOSE NOT SUBJECT TO ROUTINE INSPECTION.
- BERDENNIKOV SAID THE USSR WAS PREPARED
TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO ANY SITE CONNECTED WITH
CW. IN THIS RESPECT, THE USSR WANTED "ABSOLUTE
TRANSPARENCY" BUT WAS CONCERNED THAT THE
CHALLENGE INSPECTION PROVISION NOT BE MISUSED.
THE SOVIET SIDE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT POSSIBLE
EFFORTS BY A PARTY TO SEEK UNWARRANTED ACCESS
TO NON-CW-RELATED SITES TO OBTAIN STATE
SECRETS. THE PROBLEM WAS WHERE TO DRAW THE
LINE BETWEEN WHAT IS RELEVANT AND WHAT IS NOT.
PLANTS WITH A CW PRODUCTION CAPABILITY SHOULD
BE COVERED. IN OTHER CASES, ALTERNATIVE
ARRANGEMENTS COULD BE AGREED UPON. THE NATURE
OF THE ARRANGEMENTS -- BEGINNING WITH PROVISION
OF DATA AND GOING UP TO PARTIAL ACCESS -- WOULD
DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC CASE.
-- U.S. SIDE COUNTERED THAT THE ISSUE WAS
SECRET
329
im,,,Inecifiari in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
WHERE SUSPICIONS AS TO CLANDESTINE PRODUCTION
AND STOCKPILING MIGHT BE MOST LIKELY TO ARISE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE UNITS WHICH MIGHT EMPLOY CW
MIGHT NOT BE CHEMICAL TROOPS. THESE UNITS
AND THEIR STORAGE SITES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE
TARGETS FOR MANDATORY CHALLENGE. VIOLATIONS
ARE MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR AT SECURED SENSITIVE
MILITARY SITES THAN AT SITES TO WHICH ACCESS
IS NOT RESTRICTED. SINCE STOCKS CAN BE MOVED
QUICKLY, ANY DELAY WOULD FAVOR A VIOLATOR.
U.S. SIDE SAW NO REASON WHY ANY MILITARY
FACILITY MIGHT NOT BE RELEVANT TO A CW
CONVENTION. IF SOME SITES WERE EXCLUDED
FROM CHALLENGE, THE CONVENTION COULD NOT BE
EFFECTIVE.
^ BERDENNIKOV REPLIED THAT THE SOVIET SIDE
REALIZES THAT THE PROBLEM OF UNDECLARED
STOCKPILES IS A VERY DIFFICULT ONE. IT HAD
BEEN THE SUBJECT OF THE MOST RECENT UK-SOVIET
CW DISCUSSIONS (REF C). THE SOVIET SIDE HAD
ASKED THE BRITISH HOW THEIR CONCEPT OF
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES WOULD DEAL WITH CASES
OF SUSPECTED CW STOCKS AND WHETHER THERE
WOULD BE ALTERNATIVES TO INSPECTING THE SITE
WHERE THE WEAPONS ARE. THE BRITISH HAD LITTLE
TO SAY BUT HAD SAID THAT PARTIAL ACCESS MIGHT
BE SUFFICIENT. THE SOVIET SIDE FAVORS
CARRYING OUT CHALLENGE INSPECTIONS IN THE
SHORTEST POSSIBLE TIME AND IS INTERESTED IN
RESOLVING THE PROBLEM IN A WAY WHICH MEETS THE
CONCERNS OF BOTH THE CHALLENGER AND THE CHALLENGED
STATE. (NOTE: AT RECEPTION SAME EVENING SOVIET
DELOFF SMIDOVICH VOLUNTEERED SEPARATELY TO TWO
U.S. DELOFFS THAT HE FOUND PERSUASIVE THE U.S.
ARGUMENTS THAT ON-SITE ACCESS WAS THE ONLY
WAY TO RESOLVE CONCERNS ABOUT CLANDESTINE STOCKS.)
-- U.S. SIDE POINTED TO THE INCONSISTENCY
IN THE SOVIET DESIRE FOR VERY STRICT VERIFICATION
OF THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AND SOVIET RELUCTANCE
TO PERMIT CHALLENGE INSPECTION IN OTHER AREAS.
- BERDENNIKOV RESPONDED THAT THE TWO
SITUATIONS WERE NOT COMPARABLE. THE SOVIET
UNION FAVORS MANDATORY CHALLENGE OF CHEMICAL
INDUSTRY SITES WITH A POTENTIAL FOR CW
PRODUCTION. HOWEVER, ADDED SOVIET CHEMICAL
INDUSTRY REP, THERE ARE ALSO SENSITIVE
NON-CW-RELATED PARTS OF THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY.
HE CITED EXAMPLES CONNECTED WITH MILITARY OR
SPACE-RELATED PROGRAMS.
-- U.S. SIDE REPLIED THAT U.S. IS PREPARED
SECRET
330
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-011Aspnnninni nnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
TO SUBMIT SUCH A SITE TO MANDATORY CHALLENGE
INSPECTION; U.S. EXCLUDES NO/NO SITES.
6. ALTERNATIVE MEASURES --
-- U.S. SIDE PROBED THE SOVIETS ON ALTERNATIVE
MEASURES AND HOW THEY ENVISAGE THEM WORKING.
DEL MADE CLEAR U.S. DOES NOT RULE OUT ALTERNATIVE
MEASURES. HOWEVER, THE MEASURES WOULD HAVE TO
OCCUR QUICKLY AND IF AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE
REACHED ON SUCH MEASURES, THEN AN INSPECTION
MUST OCCUR.
-- THE SOVIETS SAID THAT THE INSPECTION
SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE SHORTEST TIME AND
THAT ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE
USED TO NULIFY THE OBJECTIVE OF THE CHALLENGE
INSPECTION. PROCEDURES COULD BE ELABORATED
TO FACILITATE THE ARRIVAL OF THE INSPECTION
TEAM AT THE SITE IN QUESTION AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, THE CHALLENGER COULD NOT
SIMPLY HAVE CARTE BLANCHE ACCESS.
-- SOVIET SIDE SAID IT DID NOT PRECLUDE
ANY ALTERNATIVE MEASURES. THEY CITED AS
EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE MEASURES:
(1) AN AIR SURVEY, (2) ANALYSIS OF
INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER, AND (3) PARTIAL
ACCESS.-
7. MISUSE ISSUE --
-- U.S. SIDE ASKED WHETHER SOVIETS WERE
CONCERNED PRIMARILY ABOUT POSSIBLE U.S.-
SOVIET BILATERAL ACTIONS. IN SUCH CASES,
U.S. REPS NOTED THE ABILITY OF A STATE TO
RETALIATE WOULD DETER IMPROPER REQUESTS.
IF, HOWEVER, THE SOVIETS WERE CONCERNED
ABOUT STATES "WITH NOTHING TO LOSE," THE
FACT-FINDING PANEL WOULD SCREEN OUT SUCH
REQUESTS.
- BERDENNIKOV REPLIED THAT IN TIMES OF
STRAINED RELATIONS, ONE SIDE MIGHT FIND IT
POLITICALLY USEFUL TO MISUSE THE CONVENTION.
THE USSR CONSIDERS THAT THE NNA WILL NOT
ACCEPT THE FACT-FINDING PANEL.
8. DISCRIMINATION ISSUE --
-- THE SOVIETS ASKED ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN U.S. ARTICLE X AND ARTICLE XI AND
ABOUT ACCESS TO PRIVATE DWELLINGS AND
TERRITORY UNDER THE U.S. PROPOSAL. BERDENNIKOV
SECRET
33
in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
SAID THAT "THE BIGGEST PROBLEM" ARTICLE X
POSES FOR THE SOVIET SIDE IS THAT IT IS
BASED ON A DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT-
OWNED OR CONTROLLED SITES, ON THE ONE HAND,
AND PRIVATE SITES, ON THE OTHER. BECAUSE
OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE U.S. AND SOVIET
SYSTEMS, THIS COULD RESULT IN A DISCRIMINATORY
SYSTEM. THE FACT THAT THE UK AND SWEDISH
PROPOSALS DO NOT MAKE A DISTINCTION OF THIS
SORT MAKES THEM MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN ARTICLE X
TO THE SOVIET SIDE. SOVIET DEL ASKED WHAT
PURPOSE ARTICLE XI SERVES AND WHETHER IT WAS
REALLY NECESSARY SINCE U.S. WAS ARGUING
EVERYTHING COULD BE COVERED BY ARTICLE X.
BERDENNIKOV CALLED THE U.S. APPROACH "TWO-
TIERED." THE USSR, ON THE OTHER HAND,
THINKS THERE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENTIATION
BETWEEN SITES AND THAT THE SAME CHALLENGE
INSPECTION REGIMES AND ONE SET OF PROCEDURES
SHOULD APPLY TO ALL RELEVANT LOCATIONS AND
FACILITIES.
-- U.S. SIDE EXPLAINED THAT ARTICLE X WAS
DEVELOPED TO REACH ANY ACTIVITY OR LOCATION
WHICH COULD BE SUSPECTED OF A CW TREATY
VIOLATION IRRESPECTIVE OF OWNERSHIP. THE
U.S. PROPOSAL IS NOT INTENDED TO BE
DISCRIMINATORY. HOWEVER, IF THE SOVIET SIDE
HAS SUGGESTIONS FOR ELIMINATING PERCEIVED
DISCRIMINATORY ASPECTS, THE U.S. SIDE WOULD
LIKE TO HEAR THEM.
- BERDENNIKOV SUGGESTED THAT ELIMINATING
ARTICLE XI AND DEALING WITH THE "PRIVATE
DWELLING" PROBLEM BY MEANS OF A FOOTNOTE
MIGHT BE ONE SOLUTION. HE ASKED WHETHER
THE U.S. SIDE WAS PREPARED TO SAY PRIVATE
DWELLINGS DO NOT INCLUDE PRIVATELY-OWNED
LAND AND WHETHER THE U.S. COULD ASSURE
UNDELAYED ACCESS TO DWELLINGS.
-- U.S. NOTED THAT ARTICLE XI PROVIDED A WAY FOR
STATES NOT ON THE FACT-FINDING PANEL TO MAKE NON-MANDATORY
CHALLENGE INSPECTION REQUESTS. RESPONDING TO SOVIET
DOUBTS THAT THE NNA MOULD ACCEPT VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE
U.S. APPROACH, U.S. SIDE SAID THAT IN OUR VIEW THE U.S.
PROPOSALS CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED. THE NNA IS
RELUCTANT TO GET EMBROILED IN ANY U.S.-SOVIET
DISAGREEMENT. HOWEVER, IF MOSCOW AND WASHINGTON CAN
REACH AGREEMENT, THEN THE NNA WILL ACCEPT BOTH ARTICLE
X AND XI. AS FOR DWELLINGS, THE TERM "PRIVATE" IS NOT
A USEFUL ONE. SOME HOMES IN THE U.S. ARE PUBLICLY-
OWNED, AND THE U.S. PROPOSAL CONCERNS HOMES OR
RESIDENCES IRRESPECTIVE OF OWNERSHIP. THE U.S. DOES
SECRET
332
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-011RRPnnni nn rv-v-v-14 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
NOT ANTICIPATE DELAYS IN OBTAINING ACCESS AND CAN ASSURE
THE SOVIET SIDE THAT IT WILL COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THE CONVENTION.
-- U.S. SIDE THEN ASKED WHETHER THE SOVIET
SIDE WOULD ACCEPT ARTICLE X IF ARTICLE XI
WERE REMOVED. BERDENNIKOV REPLIED THAT THE
U.S. PROPOSAL WOULD THEN BE QUITE DIFFERENT
AND THAT IF THE TWO SIDES COULD ALSO WORK
OUT ALTERNATIVE MEASURES THEN THE SIDES
WOULD BE "ON THE RIGHT TRACK." ALSO, IF THE
U.S. COULD CONVINCE THE SOVIETS OF THE
FEASIBILITY OF THE FACT-FINDING PANEL, THAT
COULD BE DISCUSSED AS WELL.
9. COMMENT --
-- DISCUSSION WAS MOST LIVELY, DETAILED AND
WIDE-RANGING TO DATE ON CHALLENGE INSPECTION.
SOVIETS WENT TO SOME EFFORT TO CONVEY
ATTITUDE OF FLEXIBILITY. THEIR APPROACH
REMAINS COMPLETELY UNSATISFACTORY IN KEY
RESPECTS, HOWEVER. WHILE POSITIONS REMAIN
FAR APART, SOVIETS NO LONGER SEEM TO BE
TRYING TO WATER DOWN THE UK PROPOSAL. IN
SOME RESPECTS, FOR EXAMPLE, WILLINGNESS TO
ACCEPT MANDATORY CHALLENGE INSPECTION IN SOME
CASES, SOVIET POSITION IS AT LEAST MODESTLY
STRICTER THAN THE UK PROPOSAL. END COMMENT.
10. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. RUSHING
ADMIN
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
SECRET
333
narinccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
STATE GENEVA
SECRET GENEVA 02371
EXDIS
SECRET
TEL [phone]
E.O. 12356: DECL:OADR
BODY
TAGS: PARM, UNGA, CDG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): US-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CW) DISCUSSIONS,
AMB. NAZARKIN VIEWS ON CW AND OTHER ISSUES
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-012 . (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT)
2. SUMMARY--
-- ACTING U.S. REP TO THE CD HANSEN AND SOVIET REP
NAZARKIN MET ON 25 AND 26 FEBRUARY 1987 IN ONE-ON-ONE
SESSIONS WHERE PRINCIPAL TOPIC WAS THE NEGOTIATIONS
ON A CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION. NAZARKIN REPEATEDLY
SAID THAT CHALLENGE INSPECTION IS THE KEY TO THE
NEGOTIATIONS AND CITED SOVIET FLEXIBILITY TO
REACH AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH HE CITED A REQUIREMENT
FOR A RIGHT OF REFUSAL TO PREVENT ABUSE. IT IS NOT
YET POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER A BILATERAL EXCHANGE OF
DATA BEFORE FINALIZATION OF AN AGREEMENT, NAZARKIN
SAID. NAZARKIN SHOWED INTEREST IN THE U.S.
INVITATION TO VISIT THE CW DESTRUCTION FACILITY
AT TOOELE, UTAH AND INQUIRED BRIEFLY ABOUT THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGETARY PROCESS AND CHEMICAL
WEAPONS MODERNIZATION. HE ALSO SUGGESTED THE NEXT
BILATERAL ROUND BEGIN IN APRIL. ON NON-CHEMICAL
ISSUES, NAZARKIN EXPRESSED PESSIMISM ABOUT POSSIBILITIES
FOR AGREEMENT IN THE NUCLEAR TESTING EXPERTS MEETING
DUE TO RESUME IN MARCH. HE ALSO NOTED THE PRESENCE
OF CSCE EXPERT GEN. MIKHAYLOV IN KARPOV'S ARMS CONTROL
DEPARTMENT IN THE SOVIET FOREIGN MINISTRY. END
SUMMARY. - ?
3. IN FEBRUARY 25 AND 26 MEETINGS WITH AMBASSADOR
HANSEN, SOVIET CD REP NAZARKIN CHARACTERIZED CHALLENGE
INSPECTION AS THE KEY ISSUE IN THE CW NEGOTIATIONS.
THE SOVIET UNION HAD LOOKED MOST FAVORABLY ON THE
UK PROPOSAL, IT BEING THE ONLY COMPROMISE ON THE
HORIZON, BUT REALIZED IT DID NOT HAVE WIDESPREAD
SUPPORT AMONG THE NON-ALIGNED. NEVERTHELESS,
NAZARKIN EXPLAINED, THE SOVIET SIDE WOULD BE
MAKING ADDITIONAL ROVES TOWARD THE UK PROPOSAL IN
THE NEAR FUTURE. THEY ARE NOW STUDYING THE LATEST
SWEDISH IDEAS AND ARE FAVORABLY DISPOSED TOWARD
THEM. THE MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE U.S. APPROACH,
AS EMBODIED IN ARTICLE X, IS THE POSSIBILITY OF
FRIVOLOUS INSPECTIONS AND ABUSE. NAZARKIN OFFERED
SECRET
334
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-011ARPnnni nn nt-Int-14 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
THAT THE SOVIET SIDE ACCEPTED THAT THERE ARE BUILT-IN
DETERRENTS TO EITHER SOVIET OR U.S. ABUSE, BUT SUCH
DETERRENTS WOULD NOT APPLY TO SOME OTHER SIGNATORIES
OF A MULTI-NATIONAL AGREEMENT. HE ARGUED THAT A
STATE MUST BE ALLOWED TO REFUSE AN INSPECTION ON
THE GROUNDS OF SUPREME NATIONAL INTEREST AND
ATTEMPTED TO PORTRAY THE STOCKHOLM DOCUMENT AS
ESTABLISHING SUCH A PRECEDENT. HANSEN REJECTED
THE RELEVANCE OF THE STOCKHOLM PROVISIONS TO
ANY ARMS REDUCTION REGIME. NAZARKIN REITERATED
SEVERAL TIMES THAT THE SOVIET SIDE HAD FLEXIBILITY
TO REACH AGREEMENT ON CHALLENGE INSPECTION.
-- REFERRING TO THE PACE WITH WHICH THE SOVIET SIDE
APPEARS TO BE MOVING TOWARD U.S. POSITIONS IN THE CW
NEGOTIATIONS, NAZARKIN SAID HIS WAS RESULT OF A
CONSCIOUS POLITICAL DECISION TO SEEK A CW CONVENTION.
THE MILITARY HAD GRUMSLED, BUT THEY HAD BEEN INFORMED
AND THE POLITICAL DECISION WOULD DOMINATE.
NAZARKIN CLAIMED HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE SOVIET
SIDE HAD FAILED TO ACCEPT THE USG INVITATION LAST FALL
TO ATTEND A DEMONSTRATION AT THE U.S. ARMY CW DESTRUCTION
FACILITY AT TOOELE, UTAH. BUT HE ALSO STATED THE SOVIETS
DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THE DEMONSTRATION IN
THE FIRST PLACE. HANSEN REITERATED THE INVITATION
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC TIMES OR TERMS. (COMMENT:
NAZARKIN RETURNED TO THIS ISSUE DURING THE SECOND
CONVERSATION, DEMONSTRATING AN INTEREST IN A POSSIBLE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE INVITATION. END COMMENT.) NAZARKIN
THEN SUGGESTED THE NEXT ROUND BEGIN IN APRIL. HANSEN
REPLIED THAT HE THOUGHT THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW ENOUGH
TIME FOR PREPARATION AND THAT THE U.S. WAS THINKING
OF EARLY IN THE SUMMER CD SESSION.
NAZARKIN SAID THERE IS NOT YET ANY POSSIBILITY FOR
A BILATERAL EXCHANGE OF DATA BEFORE AN AGREEMENT
IS FINALIZED. HE POINTED THE FINGER AT THE
MILITARY, STATING THAT THE POLITICAL SIDE HAS
NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS ABOUT
THE NEED FOR A BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE. THE
DELEGATION, HE SAID, WAS TRYING TO "FIND SOMETHING"
TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE OR THE QUESTION OF
CONFIDENCE-BUILDING. MOSCOW WAS NOT CONVINCED
OF U.S. WILLINGNESS TO COMPLETE THE CONVENTION
AND FEARED THEY WOULD BE GIVING AWAY MILITARY
SECRETS FOR NOTHING.
-- THE CAPABILITY OF THE WESTERN CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
TO MANUFACTURE TOXIC CHEMICALS AND LETHAL AGENTS
CONTINUES TO BE OF SIGNIFICANT CONCERN, ACCORDING
TO NAZARKIN. THE ANSWER TO SOVIET CONCERNS IN
THIS AREA, HE NOTED, WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL
NEGOTIATION OF A CHALLENGE INSPECTION PROVISION.
SECRET
335
?-? 17),r+
- Caniti7Pri r.npv Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
NAZARKIN CLAIMED NOT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE
QUESTION OF WHAT TO DO WITH STATES, LIKE IRAQ,
WHICH WOULD BE NON-SIGNATORIES TO A POSSIBLE
CW CONVENTION. BUT, HE OPINED, POLITICAL
PRESSURE WOULD FORCE SUCH STATES TO COMPLY.
NAZARKIN ALSO INQUIRED ABOUT THE CONGRESSIONAL
PROCESS OF ALLOCATING MONEY TO CHEMICAL WEAPONS
MODERNIZATION. HANSEN NOTED THAT THERE ARE
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATSEVERY YEAR ON NEARLY EVERY
SUBJECT WHEN MONIES ARE APPROPRIATED AND
ALLOCATED, BUT THAT BINARY PRODUCTION WAS NOW
ASSURED BY DECISIONS ALREADY MADE.
4. PESSIMISM PERMEATED NAZARKIN'S VIEWS ON THE
POSSIBILITY FOR SUCCESS AT THE BILATERAL NUCLEAR
TESTING EXPERTS MEETINGS TO RESUME IN MARCH.
HE RETURNED TO THIS SUBJECT AT LEAST THREE
TIMES, INDICATING HE DID NOT BELIEVE AN AGREEMENT
ON AGENDA WOULD BE POSSIBLE. HE CITED U.S.
PRECONDITIONS, I.E., AGREEMENT TO DIRECT
MEASUREMENT BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS ON OTHER ISSUES
COULD TAKE PLACE. NAZARKIN ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE
SOVIETS USE A METHOD SIMILAR TO CORRTEX WHICH
HE REFERRED BY ITS ACRONYM MIZ (PRONOUNCED MEEZ).
-- HE NOTED THAT THE DIRECTIVE TO NRDC TO TURN OFF ITS
MONITORING DEVICES CONSTITUTED DE-FACTO NOTIFICATION
OF 26 FEBRUARY SOVIET TEST AND CITED THE NAMING OF
LOCATION, THRESHOLD AND PURPOSE AS EVIDENCE OF "NEW
SOVIET THINKING".
5. LT GENERAL KONSTANTIN MIKHAYLOV (SOVIET MILITARY
NEGOTIATOR AT THE BELGRADE AND MADRID CSCE MEETINGS)
WHO WORKED FOR COL GEN CHERVOV IN THE ARMS CONTROL
SECTION OF THE GENERAL STAFF HAS RETIRED FROM THE SOVIET
ARMY AND IS KARPOV'S DEPUTY IN THE FOREIGN MINISTRY'S
ARMS CONTROL DEPARTMENT. (COMMENT: POLISH AMB.
TURBANSKI TOLD HANSEN THAT THE POLES ARE NOW ORGANIZING
A CLONE OF KARPOV'S DEPARTMENT WHICH, IT IS EXPECTED,
WILL BE HEADED BY POLISH CDE AMBASSADOR KONARSKY.
END COMMENT.)
6. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED.RUSHING
ADMIN
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
SECRET
336
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP97-ni1RRpnnn1 tv-14 f-Innrs
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
STATE GENEVA
SECRET GENEVA 02418
EXDIS
SECRET
TEL [phone]
E.O. 12356: DECL: OADR
BODY
TAGS: PARM, UNGA, CDG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CW) DISCUSSIONS, EXPERTS
MEETING, FEBRUARY 27, 1987
1. THIS IS CW BILAT -013. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. SUMMARY --
-- FEBRUARY 27 EXPERTS MEETING FOCUSSED ON CHEMICAL
INDUSTRY MONITORING, BILATERAL OBSERVER ARRANGEMENTS
AND ELIMINATION OF CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
-- TWO SIDES ALMOST FINISHED TEXT OF JOINT PAPER
ON OBSERVER ISSUE AND AGREED ON FURTHER ASPECTS
OF JOINT PAPER ON CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
END SUMMARY.
3. CHEMICAL INDUSTRY MONITORING ("NON-PRODUCTION")--
-- U.S. REP ASKED FOR SOVIET RESPONSE TO U.S.
DEL QUESTIONS FROM PREVIOUS ROUND CONCERNING
AMB. ISSRAELYAN'S STATEMENT ON 5 NOV 86 DEALING
WITH NON-PRODUCTION.
-- SOVIET REP NOTED THAT SOME QUESTIONS HAD ALREADY
BEEN ANSWERED IN AMB. NAZARKIN'S STATEMENTS. HE
THEN PROVIDED RESPONSES TO U.S. QUESTIONS ON SOVIET
CONCEPT OF "MULTIPURPOSE TECHNOLOGY" AND ON REGIME
FOR COMMON INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS USEFUL FOR CW.
-- WITH REGARD TO MULTIPURPOSE TECHNOLOGY, SOVIET
AIM IS TO PREVENT FACILITIES THAT PRODUCE COMMERCIAL
SUPER-TOXIC LETHAL CHEMICALS (STLC) FROM BEING
DIVERTED TO PRODUCTION OF CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS.
-- SOVIET REP CITED LIST OF EQUIPMENT IN 1986
AUSTRALIAN WORKING PAPER (CD/698) AS POSSIBLE BASIS
FOR DISCUSSING CHARACTERISTICS OF "CONVERTIBLE"
FACILITIES. (COMMENT: LIST WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED
BY U.S. AS POSSIBLE "WARNING LIST" TO AID CW NON-
PROLIFERATION EFFORTS. END COMMENT.)
-- WITH REGARD TO COMMON INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS,
SOVIET VIEW WAS THAT DECLARATION OF THE LOCATION
OF THE FACILITY AND EXCHANGE OF DATA WOULD BE
SECRET
337
in Part - Sanitized CODV Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
SUFFICIENT FOR VERIFICATION PURPOSES. HOWEVER,
SOVIET DEL WAS READY TO DISCUSS ROUTINE ON-SITE
VERIFICATION INSOFAR AS OTHER DELS WANTED TO.
-- U.S. REP OBTAINED CONFIRMATION THAT SOVIET
POSITION IS THAT ANY DECLARED FACILITY WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO MANDATORY CHALLENGE INSPECTION, EVEN
IF IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ROUTINE INSPECTION.
-- U.S. REP PRESSED FOR EXAMPLES OF STLC
COMMERCIAL CHEMICALS MADE ON A SIGNIFICANT
SCALE. SOVIET REPS RESPONDED WITH TWO EXAMPLES:
CARBAMATES -- TOXIC CHEMICALS NOT MADE ON A
LARGE SCALE, AND SUBSTANCES WITH AN ETHYL-PHOSPHORUS
BOND (KEY PRECURSORS). WHILE REFUSING TO DISCUSS
SPECIFICS, THEY INDICATED THAT LATTER TYPE OF
COMPOUND IS PRODUCED IN THE USSR, AS WELL AS IN
THE WEST.
-- U.S. REP ALSO PRESSED SOVIETS TO JUSTIFY
THEIR PROPOSAL FOR SEPARATE CATEGORIES FOR STLC
COMMERCIAL CHEMICALS AND FOR KEY PRECURSORS,
SINCE THE REGIMES PROPOSED SEEMED TO BE THE
SAME. SOVIETS RESPONDED THAT THERE WAS NO
DIFFERENCE IN THE REGIMES PROPOSED, BUT THAT
IT COULD BE COMPLICATED TO PRODUCE A MIXED
LIST.
-- U.S. DELOFFS THEN PRESSED FOR INFORMATION
ON THE KINDS OF INSTRUMENTS TO BE USED TO MONITOR
COMMERCIAL FACILITIES. SOVIET REPLIED THAT THE
SAME KINDS OF INSTRUMENTS USED FOR MONITORING
STORAGE AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES COULD BE USED.
THEY CITED CONTINUOUS GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY AND MASS
SPECTROMETRY AUGMENTED BY SAMPLING, AS EXAMPLES.
PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL SECRETS WOULD HAVE TO
BE NEGOTIATED. SOME DATA, BUT NOT ALL, WOULD
HAVE TO BE TRANSMITTED OFF-SITE. (KUZMIN NOTED,
HOWEVER, THAT AS A STUDENT HE AND OTHER STUDENTS
HAD FOOLED THEIR PROFESSORS WITH FALSIFIED GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY DATA.)
-- U.S. DELOFF QUESTIONED WHETHER THE ANALYSIS
OF DATA SHOULD BE GENERAL OR COMPOUND SPECIFIC,
AND POINTED OUT THAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION
PRESENTS A HIGHER CHANCE OF TECHNICAL LOSS.
SOVIETS RESPONDED THAT A COMBINATION WOULD BE
BEST. PART OF THE SAMPLES COULD BE ALALYZED
ON SITE, PART ELSEWHERE SO NO ONE COULD ARGUE
INSTRUMENT DEFECTS.
-- U.S. DELOFF SUGGESTED THAT BOTH TRE INSPECTED
FACILITY AND THE INSPECTORS SHOULD HAVE THE
SAME EQUIPMENT IDENTICALLY CALIBRATED. SOVIETS
SECRET
338
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-ni 1RPRnnninn1t-inn,14 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
AGREED.
-- U.S. DELOFF RAISED THE QUESTION OF TRAINING
INSPECTORS, CITING IAEA PROBLEMS. SOVIETS
RESPONDED THIS WAS A PROBLEM TO WORK OUT IN THE
FUTURE. U.S. DEL SUGGESTED STANDARDIZED INSPECTION
PROCEDURES TO AID INEXPERIENCED INSPECTORS.
SOVIETS AGREED IT WAS A POSSIBILITY, BUT POINTED
OUT AGAIN THAT NOT ALL PROBLEMS COULD BE FORESEEN,
SO SOME DETAILS MUST WAIT FOR FUTURE NEGOTIATION.
-- U.S. REP ASKED FOR SOVIET VIEWS ON THE LISTS
OF CHEMICALS. SOVIETS SAID THAT A DEFINITION OF
THE TERM "KEY COMPONENTS" WOULD FACILITATE
AGREEMENT ON LISTS. U.S. REP SAID THAT TERM
"KEY COMPONENTS" RELATED TO A SPECIFIC WEAPONS
SYSTEM AND WAS UNACCEPTABLE. THE BROADER U.S.
APPROACH (I.E., IT IS NOT IMPORTANT WHERE THE
REACTION OCCURS BUT THAT THE PRODUCT CAN BE
RAPIDLY APPLIED ON THE BATTLEFIELD) IS A BETTER
APPROACH. HE PRESSED SOVIETS TO EXPLAIN WHY U.S.
APPROACH WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN RESPONSE TO
SOVIET REQUEST FOR U.S. TO SUGGEST A COMPROMISE,
U.S. REP PROPOSED A NEW, NEUTRAL TERM "SPECIAL
KEY PRECURSOR." SOVIETS SAID THEY WOULD DECIDE
LATER BUT THOUGHT IT MIGHT LEAD TO POSSIBLE
SOLUTION.
4. BILATERAL INSPECTION PAPER --
-- U.S. REP EXPLAINED THAT THE U.S. REWRITE OF
THE SOVIET PAPER USED SIMPLER LANGUAGE AND REARRANGED
THE PIECES, BUT THAT VIRTUALLY ALL ELEMENTS HAD
BEEN RETAINED. HOWEVER, U.S. HAD MODIFIED SOVIET
PROPOSAL FOR REPORTING TO THE OTHER SIDE AFTER THE
INSPECTION, AND HAD INCLUDED MATERIAL ON THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVERS. SOVIETS SAID MOST OF U.S.
TEXT WAS ACCEPTABLE BUT THAT THEY WERE STUDYING
(I.E., SEEKING INSTRUCTIONS) U.S. IDEAS ON THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVERS. (NOTE: U.S. DEL HES PROPOSED
THAT AT LEAST T 0 U.S. OR SOVIET OBSERVERS ECCOMPANY
THE INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION TEAM ON EACH OTHER'S
TERRITORY. END NOTE.) THE DISCUSSION ON REPORTING
AFTER THE INSP C IK CENTERED ON THE SOVIET POSITION
THAT PROBLEMS SHOULD BE RAISED IMMEDIATELY AND
DISPOSED OF AS OPPOSED TO THE U.S. POSITION THAT
SOME PROBLEMS MIGHT NOT BE IMMEDIATELY APPARENT AND
MIGHT SURFACE ONLY AFTER A NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS.
BOTH SIDES AGREED TO DEVELOP NEW LANGUAGE.
5. CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES --
-- SOVIETS RESPONDED TO U.S. PROPOSALS FOR
CHANGES IN THE JOINT PRODUCTION FACILITIE
SECRET
339
flni-laccifiPri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
APER BY ACCEPTING HANGES AT THE EXPERTS
EEVEL. THESE CHANGES INCLUDED THE FULL
U.S. POSITION IN MONITORING CONVERTED FACILITIES.
6. NEXT MEETING --
-- AGREED TOPICS FOR NEXT EXPERTS MEETING (MAR 2)
ARE BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE, BILATERAL OBSERVERS,
AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
7. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. RUSHING
ADMIN
END OF MESSAGE
SECRET
SECRET
340
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100ionnn1-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
qwrpw,
SECRET GENEVA 02588
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD); U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, EXPERTS MEETING,
MARCH 2, 1987
REF: GENEVA 02221 (CW BILAT -009)
1. THIS IS CW BILAT -014. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. SUMMARY --
-
-- AT MARCH 2 EXPERTS MEETING DELS RESOLVED
REMAINING DIFFERENCES ON JOINT PAPER ON U.S.!
SOVIET OBSERVERS FOR INTERNATIONAL INSPECTIONS.
DESPITE EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION, HOWEVER, SEVERAL
BRACKETED POINTS REMAIN IN JOINT PAPER ON
ELIMINATION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION
FACILITIES. END SUMMARY.
3. JOINT PAPER ON CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES --
-
-- DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON REMAINING POINTS
OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES ON THIS
PAPER.
A. ELIMINATION OF EQUIPMENT --
-- THE SOVIET SIDE SOUGHT TO ENSURE THAT
EQUIPMENT USED TO PRODUCE BINARY PRECURSORS
DF AND QL WOULD BE DESTROYED. U.S. REP
DRAFTED LANGUAGE TO SPECIFY THAT EQUIPMENT
THAT HAD BEEN USED FOR PRODUCTION OF A SUPER-
TOXIC LETHAL CHEMICAL OR A SCHEDULE 1 CHEMICAL
WITH AN ALKYL-PHOSPHORUS BOND MUST BE DESTROYED
AND COULD NOT BE RETAINED FOR PERMITTED
PURPOSES. SOVIET SIDE AGREED TO PROPOSED
U.S. LANGUAGE.
B. CONVERSION OF CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES --
-
-- SOVIET REP REEMPHASIZED THAT SOVIET SIDE
COULD ACCEPT CONVERSION OF BUILDINGS TO
PERMITTED MILITARY USES. ON THE OTHER HAND,
SOVIETS ALSO COULD AGREE THAT BUILDINGS
COULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY MILITARY ACTIVITIES
AT SUCH FACILITIES. IT WAS UP TO THE U.S. SIDE
TO DECIDE WHAT IT WANTED. U.S. REP STATED THAT
THIS WAS BEING LOOKED AT IN WASHINGTON AND U.S.
DEL COULD NOT PROVIDE AN ANSWER AT THIS TIME.
C. EXCESS PRODUCTION --
-- IN DISCUSSION ON ISSUE OF EXCESS PRODUCTION
341
SECRET
25X1
Dar!. - aniti7ed Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
CAPACITY FOR KEY PRECURSORS, THE SOVIET SIDE
SAID THAT THE U.S. APPROACH TO THS DECLARATION
AND MONITORING OF FACILITIES WHICH PRODUCE KEY
PRECURSORS FOR CW PURPOSES WAS DISCRIMINATORY.
THEY SAID THAT UNDER THE U.S. APPROACH IT
WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO PROVE THAT WESTERN
COMMERCIAL FACILITIES HAD PRODUCED KEY PRECURSORS
FOR CW PRODUCTION AND ANY EXCESS CAPACITY WOULD
ESCAPE EFFECTIVE CONTROL. SOVIET REP (SMIDOVICH)
PROPOSED A TWO-TRACK DECLARATION PROCEDURE FOR
CHEMICAL FACILITIES THAT PRODUCE THESE KEY
PRECURSORS: (1) THE DECLARATIONS FOR FACILITIES
WHICH HAVE PRODUCED KEY PRECURSORS FOR CHEMICAL
WEAPONS WOULD GO BACK TO JANUARY 1, 1946,
(2) IN THE CASE OF OTHER FACILITIES WHICH PRODUCE
THE KEY PRECURSORS FOR PERMITTED PURPOSES, ONLY
CURRENT PRODUCTION WOULD BE DECLARED.
-- U.S. REP REPLIED THAT EXCESS CAPACITY IS MOST
LIKELY TO EXIST AT FACILITIES THAT FORMERLY MADE
KEY PRECURSORS FOR CW PURPOSES. AFTER THE CONVENTION
COMES INTO FORCE, THIS PRODUCTION CAPACITY IS LIKELY
TO BE IDLE. THE U.S. PROPOSAL FOCUSSES ON THIS
PROBLEM.
-- SOVIET SIDE ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL REVIEW ALL THE DATA DECLARED ON KEY
PRECURSOR PRODUCTION AND CAPACITY AND DETERMINE
WHAT EXCESS PRODUCTION CAPACITY MUST BE ELIMINATED.
U.S. SIDE QUESTIONED THIS APPROACH. TO AVOID THE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL'S PASSING JUDGMENT ON A STATE'S
INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY, QUESTIONS OF EXCESS CAPACITY
SHOULD BE RAISED AND WORKED OUT BILATERALLY. IF A
PARTICULAR PROBLEM IS NOT RESOLVED, THEN A STATE
COULD TAKE THE QUESTION TO THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
FOR REVIEW.
-- SOVIET REP (BERDENNIKOV) ALSO SUGGESTED THE
FOLLOWING POSSIBILITIES FOR ELIMINATING EXCESS
KEY PRECURSOR CAPACITY: (1) CONVERSION TO
PRODUCTION OF OTHER CHEMICALS USED FOR PERMITTED
PURPOSES, (2) PRODUCTION FOR EXPORT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CONVENTION, AND (3) IF CONVERSION IS NOT
POSSIBLE OR NOT DESIRED, DESTRUCTION OF THE EXCESS
CAPACITY. HE AGREED THAT ELIMINATION WOULD BE
VERIFIED BY PROCEDURES USED TO VERIFY ELIMINATION
OF CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
-- FOLLOWING DISCUSSION OF NEED TO DEAL
WITH MARKET FLUCTUATIONS AND COMPETITION,
THE SIDES NOTED THAT JUDGMENT ABOUT EXCESS
CAPACITY SHOULD BE BASED ON NATIONAL
342
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP97-ni1RRPnnn1 nr-11
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
PRODUCTION AND THAT MORE DISCUSSION IS
REQUIRED ON THIS ISSUE. (COMMENT: AT
END OF DISCUSSION SOVIETS WERE PREPARED TO
ACCEPT LANGUAGE ON ISSUE PROPOSED BY U.S.
DEL FOR PRODUCTION FACILITIES PAPER ON
THE CONDITION THAT U.S. ACCEPT ANALOGOUS
LANGUAGE FOR ARTICLE VI (CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
MONITORING. HOWEVER, U.S. DEL RESISTED
TRADEOFF AND ISSUE REMAINS UNRESOLVED.
END COMMENT.)
-- ON FACILITIES PRODUCING CHEMICAL MUNITIONS
HARDWARE AND SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR CW EMPLOYMENT,
THE SIDES AGREED: (1) IF THE FACILITY ONLY
PRODUCED PARTS FOR CW, THEN IT MUST BE DECLARED
AND ELIMINATED,AND (2) IF THE FACILITY PRODUCED
PARTS FOR OTHER MUNITIONS AS WELL, THE SPECIALIZED
EQUIPMENT (DIES, MOLDS, ETC.) MUST BE REMOVED AND
THEIR DESTRUCTION VERIFIED.
-- PAPER AS IT NOW STANDS REFLECTS SOVIET
ACCEPTANCE OF ALL POINTS OF U.S. POSITION.
4. JOINT PAPER ON U.S./SOVIET OBSERVERS FOR
INTERNATIONAL INSPECTIONS --
-
-- SOVIETS SAID THEY COULD ACCEPT U.S.
PROPOSAL THAT AT LEAST TWO OBSERVERS FROM
ONE SIDE WOULD ACCOMPANY THE INTERNATIONAL
TEAM PERFORMING AN INSPECTION ON THE OTHER
SIDE.
-- SOVIETS AGREED THAT RESULTS OF OBSERVER'S
REPORTS SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE OTHER SIDE
PROMPTLY. U.S. REP NOTED THAT IT MAY ONLY
BE AFTER A NUMBER OF SUCH INSPECTIONS THAT
AN UNFAVORABLE TREND OR SITUATION IS REALIZED.
THE SIDES EVENTUALLY AGREED THAT PROBLEMS
NOTED BY OBSERVERS SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED
PROMPTLY AND NOT LATER THAN 90 DAYS FOLLOWING
THE INSPECTION. IN ADDITION IT WOULD BE SPECIFIED
THAT PROBLEMS NOTED AFTER A SERIES
OF INSPECTIONS WOULD BE REVIEWED DURING THE
ANNUAL BILATERAL MEETINGS.
- BERDENNIKOV ASKED WHETHER U.S. SIDE
HAD ANY REACTION TO SOVIET PROPOSAL FOR
U.S. AND SOVIET REPRESENTATIVES IN PARTS
OF THE INSPECTORATE RESPONSIBLE FOR
INSPECTIONS OF THE OTHER SIDE (REFTEL).
U.S. REP REPLIED THAT DEL DID NOT EXPECT GUIDANCE
DURING THE CURRENT ROUND.
343
SECRET
25X1
narinccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SFCRET
5. MAIN TOPIC AT MARCH 3 CW EXPERTS MEETING WAS
ADVANCE DATA EXCHANGE. CRITERIA AND CONTENT OF
SCHEDULE 1 (PROHIBITED) CHEMICALS ALSO WERE
DISCUSSED. (SEPTEL).
6. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
NNNN
344
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SWAP'?
SECRET GENEVA 02618
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): US-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, EXPERTS MEETING
MARCH 3, 1987
REF: GENEVA 2221
1. THIS IS CW BILAT -015 . (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT)
2. SUMMARY --
-- MAIN TOPIC OF MARCH 3 EXPERTS MEETING
WAS EARLY DATA EXCHANGE. US DEL EMPHASIZED
IMPORTANCE OF 1984 U.S. PROPOSALS AND PRESSED
SOVIETS TO RESPOND SERIOUSLY. SOVIETS
REPLIED THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT POLITICAL
COMMITMENT OF U.S. AND "OTHERS" (I.E., FRANCE)
TO CONCLUDING A CONVENTION, PARTICULARLY IN
VIEW OF EMPHASIS U.S. IS PUTTING ON MOVING
FORWARD WITH ITS BINARY MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
NONETHELESS, SOVIET DEL WAS NOT CLOSING THE
DOOR TO POSSIBILITY OF EARLY DATA EXCHANGE.
SOVIET SIDE EMPHASIZED THAT SOMETHING COULD
WELL BE WORKED OUT IF U.S. GAVE CLEAR SIGNAL
OF ITS COMMITMENT TO GO AHEAD WITH A CW BAN.
-- BOTH SIDES ALSO REVIEWED PROGRESS DURING
THE ROUND AND AGREED TO SEEK A MUTUALLY
ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO DIFFERENCES OVER
GUIDELINES FOR SCHEDULE 1 (PROHIBITED)
CHEMICALS AND CONTENT OF THIS LIST. IN
ADDITION, SOVIET MILREP SUGGESTED TO U.S.
MILREP THAT MILREPS HAVE MILITARY DISCUSSIONS
DURING NEXT ROUND. END SUMMARY.
3. BILATERAL EXCHANGE --
-
-- AT MARCH 3 EXPERTS MEETING, U.S. DEL
PRESSED SOVIETS ON NEED FOR MOVEMENT ON U.S.
1984 PROPOSAL FOR BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE
PRIOR TO SIGNATURE OF A CONVENTION. DEL
STRESSED IMPORTANCE OF ISSUE TO U.S. AS A
CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURE, FACT THAT ISSUE HAD
HARDLY BEEN DISCUSSED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 20
MEETING (REFTEL), AND NEED FOR BALANCE BETWEEN
PROGRESS ON MULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL ISSUES.
-- SOVIET REP (BERDENNIKOV) REPLIED THAT
SOVIET SIDE WAS NOT CLOSING DOOR TO EARLY
DATA EXCHANGE. HOWEVER, IT WANTED TO SEE
WHAT PROGRESS IS MADE ON OTHER ASPECTS OF
THE NEGOTIATIONS. HE SPECIFICALLY CITED
NEED TO WORK OUT CHALLENGE INSPECTION
PROVISION ACCEPTABLE TO ALL PARTIES. THAT
345
SECRET
25X1
rIFd in Darf - Aniti7ed CODV Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
ISSUE, HE SAID, WAS FAR MORE COMPLICATED.
DATA EXCHANGE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD
DEPEND ON A POLITICAL DECISION BY THE SIDES
TO ACHIEVE A CONVENTION. IN THIS CONTEXT,
THE USSR DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE U.S.
WAS CONTINUING ITS BINARY PROGRAM. THE
SOVIET SIDE HAS DOUBTS AS TO THE COMMITMENT
OF THE U.S. AND "OTHERS" TO A BAN AND IS
CONCERNED NOT TO DIVULGE MILITARY SECRETS
NEEDLESSLY. (NOTE: BERDENNIKOV MADE CLEAR
TO U.S. REP AFTER THE MEETING THAT THE "OTHERS"
THE USSR HAS IN MIND IS FRANCE.) HOWEVER,
ONCE THE POLITICAL COMMITMENT IS ESTABLISHED,
THEN THE DATA EXCHANGE ISSUE COULD BE
WORKED OUT. THEN THE QUESTION OF STAGES
WOULD NOT BE IMPORTANT -- ASIDE FROM, PERHAPS,
ON A DECLARATION OF POSSESSION OF CW. BERDENNIKOV
THEN ASKED HOW MUCH IMPORTANCE U.S. ATTACHED TO
A SOVIET DECLARATION OF POSSESSION.
-- U.S. REP RECOMMENDED THAT THE SOVIET
SIDE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT PRESIDENT REAGAN
SAYS. HE NOTED THAT IN HIS FEBRUARY 5
STATEMENT TO THE CD, THE PRESIDENT HAD
REAFFIRMED THE U.S. COMMITMENT TO A COMPREHENSIVE
CW BAN. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE U.S. SIDE IS
TROUBLED BY THE FACT THAT THE USSR DOES NOT
EVEN ADMIT THAT IT HAS CW, EVEN THOUGH SUCH
AN ADMISSION WOULD NOT AFFECT SOVIET SECURITY
IN ANY WAY. NATURALLY, THS U.S. WOULD ATTACH
MORE IMPORTANCE TO A DECLARATION ON POSSESSION
OF CW IF IT WERE PART OF A PROCESS, RATHER
THAN AN ISOLATED EVENT. THE U.S. HAD PROVIDED
GREAT AMOUNTS OF DATA ON ITS CW STOCKPILE AND
DID NOT FEEL ITS SECURITY WAS THEREBY DIMINISHED.
AS FOR WHY THE U.S. IS GOING AHEAD WITH THE
BINARY PROGRAM, IT WOULD BE MOST UNWISE FROM A
SECURITY STANDPOINT FOR THE U.S. TO PUT ALL ITS
EGGS IN THE TREATY BASKET. U.S. REP THEN
ASKED WHETHER SOVIET SIDE WAS LINKING MOVEMENT
ON DATA EXCHANGE TO CHALLENGE ISSUE.
BERDENNIKOV SAID THAT THE USSR TOOK THE
PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS AT FACE VALUE. HOWEVER,
THE USSR ALSO NEEDED PRACTICAL SIGNS OF
MOVEMENT ON THE U.S. SIDE. AT PRESENT, HE
SAID, EVERYONE SEEMED TO BE SIMPLY WAITING FOR
THE SOVIET SIDE TO COME FORWARD WITH MORE AND
MORE CONCESSIONS. THE SOVIET SIDE DID NOT
WANT TO SINGLE OUT ANY ISSUE. HOWEVER, CHALLENGE
INSPECTION WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AND
346
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Rnnni nni nnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SFCRFT
DIFFICULT ISSUES. BERDENNIKOV THEN ASKED HOW
THE U.S. ENVISAGED THE DATA EXCHANGE OCCURRING.
NOTING THAT THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED IF
THERE WERE TO BE AN UNDERSTANDING, HE ASKED
ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD, WHETHER LOCATIONS AS
WELL AS QUANTITIES WOULD BE INVOLVED, AND HOW
CHALLENGE INSPECTION WOULD BE USED.
-- U.S. REPS REPLIED THAT IT WAS PREMATURE
TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF TIME PERIOD AND THAT
CHALLENGE REQUESTS COULD WELL BE PART OF THE
PROCESS. CHALLENGES WOULD NOT BE MADE JUST
TO CHECK THE PROCEDURES BUT TO RESOLVE A
SPECIFIC CONCERN.
4. SCHEDULE 1 LIST AND GUIDELINES --
-- U.S. REP ASKED SOVIET REP TO CLARIFY HIS
EARLIER SUGGESTION THAT THE SOVIET SIDE WAS
PREPARED TO FIND A SOLUTION TO DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE SIDES OVER THE GUIDELINES
(CRITERIA) FOR SCHEDULE 1 (PROHIBITED)
CHEMICALS AND THE CHEMICALS ON THIS LIST.
(NOTE: DIFFERENCES CENTERED ON DESCRIPTION
OF KEY PRECURSORS FOR BINARY SYSTEMS -- WHICH
U.S. INSISTS NOT BE SINGLED OUT FOR SPECIAL
TREATMENT -- AND SOVIET REFUSAL TO AGREE TO
INCLUDE IN THE LIST CERTAIN CHEMICALS OF
CONCERN TO THE U.S., WHILE INSISTING THAT
THE RIOT CONTROL AGENTS CS AND CR BE INCLUDED.)
SOVIET REP INDICATED SOVIET SIDE WAS INTERESTED
IN A "PACKAGE DEAL" WHEREBY IT WOULD AGREE TO
INCLUDE IN THE LIST ALL CHEMICALS U.S. HAS
PROPOSED AND TO DROP TERM "KEY COMPONENTS" IF
A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION COULD BE
DEVISED TO MAKE SURE BINARIES ARE IMPLICITLY
COVERED BY THE GUIDELINES. DELS DISCUSSED
POSSIBLE FORMULATIONS AND AGREED SUBJECT WOULD
BE TAKEN UP AGAIN IN MULTILATERAL CONTEXT.
(COMMENT: U.S. REPS WERE CONVINCED THAT ISSUE
COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED ON THE SPOT TO U.S.
SATISFACTION BUT HELD BACK IN ORDER TO SLOW
PACE OF DISCUSSIONS. END COMMENT.)
5. REVIEW OF THE ROUND --
-
-- U.S. REP SAID THAT FRANK EXCHANGE DURING
THE ROUND WAS SIGN THAT THE REAL CONCERNS OF
BOTH SIDES WERE BEING LAID OUT. HOWEVER,
THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN PROGRESS IN THE MULTI-
LATERAL AND BILATERAL FORA HAD TO BE ADDRESSED,
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE BILATERAL
347
SECRET
25X1
im,,ninecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
DATA EXCHANGE ISSUE.
-- SOVIET REP SAID THAT THE DISCUSSIONS HAD
BEEN USEFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE. HOWEVER, THE
SOVIET SIDE FELT THE IMBALANCE WAS IN THE
OTHER DIRECTION. HE CITED THE SOVIET MOVEMENT
ON THE STOCKPILE LOCATION ISSUE AND THE PROGRESS
ON THE "KEY" PRODUCTION FACILITIES ISSUE. ONCE
THE LATTER ISSUE WAS RESOLVED ALL ARTICLE VI
(PERMITTED ACTIVITIES) ISSUES COULD BE
RESOLVED MUCH MORE EASILY. THE SOVIET SIDE
HOPED THE U.S. SIDE UNDERSTOOD THE SOVIET
POSITION ON DATA EXCHANGE; THE SOVIET SIDE
WAS PREPARED TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE.
ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE, SOVIET REP CITED SOVIET
UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE U.S. COMMITMENT TO MOVE
TOWARDS A CONVENTION. A CLEAR U.S. SIGNAL
WOULD FACILITATE PROGRESS. HOPEFULLY, EVENTS
WOULD SHOW THAT SOVIET CONCERNS IN THIS REGARD
WERE NOT JUSTIFIED.
6. SOVIET SUGGESTION FOR MILITARY TALKS --
-- AT THE END OF THE MEETING, SOVIET MILITARY
REP GANJA PROVIDED U.S. MILREP (GARDNER) A
COPY OF MOST RECENT VERSION OF SOVIET
UNCLASSIFIED PUBLICATION ON THE U.S. MILITARY
ESTABLISHMENT, "FROM WHENCE THE THREAT?" RE
REFERRED TO THE SECTION ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS,
AND SUGGESTED THAT IT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR
THE MILITARY REPS ON THE TWO SIDES TO DISCUSS
MILITARY ISSUES AT THE NEXT ROUND. U.S. MILREP
SAID HE WOULD REFER THIS SUGGESTION TO WASHINGTON.
7. COMMENT --
-
-- SOVIETS ARE LESS RELUCTANT THAN PREVIOUSLY
TO DISCUSS DATA EXCHANGE ISSUE, ALTHOUGH
POSITIONS REMAIN FAR APART. PARTICULARLY
INTERESTING WAS INDICATION THAT DECLARATION
OF POSSESSION OF CW IS NOT A SENSITIVE ISSUE.
DEL SUSPECTS THAT SOVIETS MAY PLAN TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE CW AND THEN PRESS
OTHER "CLOSET CW STATES" TO MATCH THEIR OPENNESS.
-- LATE COMMENT: SOVIET AMB. NAZARKIN MADE
VERY LOW KEY BUT UNMISTAKABLE ANNOUNCEMENT IN
CD PLENARY MEETING ON MARCH 5 THAT THE USSR
POSSESSES CW. END COMMENT.
-- SOVIET "PACKAGE DEAL" ON SCHEDULE 1 WOULD
ELIMINATE ALLUSIONS TO BINARIES. THEIR
CONCERN TO ENSURE BINARIES ARE FULLY COVERED
348
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000inninnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SRT
COINCIDES WITH U.S. POSITION THAT ALL CW
BE CAPTURED BY THE CONVENTION. END COMMENT.
BE CAPTURED BY THE CONVENTION. END COMMENT.
8. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
NNNN
349
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
SECRET GENEVA 02622
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, U.S./USSR
INFORMAL POINT PAPER ON CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-016. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. THIS IS AN INFORMAL POINT PAPER PREPARED
AD REFERENDUM TO CAPITALS BY U.S. AND SOVIET
CW BILATERAL DELEGATIONS. BRACKETED LANGUAGE
IS INDICATED BY //. BEGIN TEXT:
MARCH 2, 1987
CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES
1. POSSIBLE DEFINITION
THE TERM "CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITY":
(A) INCLUDES ANY EQUIPMENT, AS WELL AS ANY
BUILDING HOUSING SUCH EQUIPMENT, THAT WAS
DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED OR USED SINCE JANUARY 1, 1946:
(I) AS PART OF THE STAGE IN THE PRODUCTION
OF CHEMICALS ("FINAL TECHNOLOGICAL STAGE")
WHERE THE MATERIAL FLOWS CONTAIN ANY SCHEDULE 1
CHEMICAL, OR ANY OTHER CHEMICAL THAT HAS NO USE
FOR PERMITTED PURPOSES ABOVE . . . KILOGRAMS PER
YEAR BUT CAN BE USED FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS
PURPOSES; OR
(II) FOR FILLING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
(B) DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY FACILITY WITH AN
ANNUAL CAPACITY FOR SYNTHESIS OF CHEMICALS
SPECIFIED IN SUBPARAGRAPH 1(A) (I) ABOVE
THAT IS LESS THAN . . . KILOGRAMS.
2. POSSIBLE MEASURES FOR ELIMINATION,
INCLUDING VERIFICATION
(A) GENERAL
-- CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES
SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.
-- ELIMINATION AND ITS VERIFICATION SHOULD
BE CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO AGREED GUIDELINES.
-- THE DETAILED PLANS FOR ELIMINATION, AS
WELL AS CORRESPONDING VERIFICATION MEASURES,
SHOULD BE AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL AND THE STATE PARTY TO ENSURE THAT THE
350
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000inninnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
AGREED GUIDELINES ARE MET.
-- THE ELIMINATION PROCESS SHOULD BE VERIFIED
BY SYSTEMATIC INTERNATIONAL ON-SITE INSPECTION.
(B) ELIMINATION OF EQUIPMENT
-- SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE PHYSICALLY
DESTROYED. AS AN EXCEPTION, CERTAIN SPECIALIZED
EQUIPMENT MAY BE USED FOR PERMITTED PURPOSES,
PURSUANT TO AGREED CONDITIONS.
-- SUCH AN EXCEPTION MAY ONLY BE REQUESTED FOR
SPECIFIC PIECES OF EQUIPMENT IN THE MAIN PRODUCTION
TRAIN: (A) AT A FACILITY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN
CONVERTED TO PERMITTED PURPOSES, OR (B) AT A
FACILITY THAT PRODUCES CHEMICALS FOR PERMITTED
PURPOSES, BUT WAS ALSO DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED,
OR USED TO PRODUCE A CHEMICAL FOR CHEMICAL
WEAPONS PURPOSES THAT IS NEITHER A SUPER-TOXIC
LETHAL CHEMICAL NOR A SCHEDULE 1 CHEMICAL WITH
AN ALKYL-PHOSPHORUS BOND. ALL OTHER SPECIALIZED
EQUIPMENT AT THE FACILITY MUST BE DESTROYED.
-- "SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT" IS:
.
THE MAIN PRODUCTION TRAIN, INCLUDING
ANY REACTOR OR EQUIPMENT FOR PRODUCT SYNTHESIS,
SEPARATION OR PURIFICATION AND ANY OTHER
EQUIPMENT WHICH HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE
PRODUCT, OR WOULD BE IF THE FACILITY WERE OPERATED.
. ANY CHEMICAL WEAPON FILLING MACHINES.
. ANY OTHER EQUIPMENT SPECIALLY DESIGNED,
BUILT OR INSTALLED FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
FACILITY AS A CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION
FACILITY, AS DISTINCT FROM A FACILITY CONSTRUCTED
ACCORDING TO PREVAILING COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY
STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES NOT PRODUCING SUPER-
TOXIC LETHAL OR CORROSIVE CHEMICALS. (EXAMPLES
INCLUDE EQUIPMENT MADE OF HIGH-NICKEL ALLOYS
OR OTHER SPECIAL MATERIAL; SPECIAL EQUIPMENT
FOR WASTE CONTROL, WASTE TREATMENT, AIR FILTERING,
OR SOLVENT RECOVERY; SPECIAL CONTAINMENT ENCLOSURES
AND SAFETY SHIELDS; NON-STANDARD LABORATORY
EQUIPMENT USED TO ANALYZE TOXIC CHEMICALS FOR
CHEMICAL WEAPONS PURPOSES; CUSTOM-DESIGNED PROCESS
CONTROL PANELS; DEDICATED SPARES FOR SPECIALIZED
EQUIPMENT.)
-- "STANDARD EQUIPMENT" COULD BE REUSED FOR
PERMITTED PURPOSES UNDER AGREED CONDITIONS.
351
SECRET
25X1
im,,,,Inecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
OTHERWISE IT MUST BE DESTROYED.
-- "STANDARD EQUIPMENT" INCLUDES:
. PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT WHICH IS GENERALLY
USED IN THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AND IS NOT INCLUDED
IN THE TYPES OF "SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT;"
. FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT, GUARD AND SECURITY/
SAFETY SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT, MEDICAL FACILITIES,
LABORATORY FACILITIES, COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT.
(C) ELIMINATION OF BUILDINGS
-- THE WORD "BUILDING" SHOULD INCLUDE UNDERGROUND
STRUCTURES.
-- SPECIALIZED BUILDINGS SHOULD BE PHYSICALLY
DESTROYED. AS AN EXCEPTION, SUCH BUILDINGS MAY
BE CONVERTED FOR PERMITTED PURPOSES, PURSUANT TO
AGREED CONDITIONS.
-- "SPECIALIZED BUILDING" IS:
. ANY BUILDING CONTAINING SPECIALIZED
EQUIPMENT IN A PRODUCTION/FILLING CONFIGURATION;
. ANY BUILDING WHICH HAS DISTINCTIVE FEATURES
WHICH DISTINGUISH IT FROM BUILDINGS NORMALLY USED
FOR CHEMICAL PRODUCTION OR FILLING ACTIVITIES NOT
BANNED BY THE CONVENTION.
-- "STANDARD ("NON-SPECIALIZED") BUILDINGS"
COULD BE REUSED FOR PERMITTED PURPOSES UNDER
AGREED CONDITIONS. OTHERWISE, THEY MUST BE
DESTROYED.
-- "STANDARD BUILDINGS" MEANS BUILDINGS
CONSTRUCTED TO PREVAILING INDUSTRY STANDARDS
FOR FACILITIES NOT PRODUCING SUPER-TOXIC
LETHAL OR CORROSIVE CHEMICALS.
(D) GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR REUSE OF EQUIPMENT
OR BUILDINGS
-- ALL PLANS FOR REUSE OF EQUIPMENT AND BUILDINGS,
AS WELL AS CORRESPONDING VERIFICATION MEASURES,
SHOULD BE AGREED BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AND
THE STATE PARTY.
-- THE REUSE OF EQUIPMENT OR BUILDINGS SHOULD
TAKE PLACE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE FACILITY
IN QUESTION IS NO MORE CAPABLE OF BEING RECONVERTED
TO CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION/FILLING THAN ANY
352
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-0116ARnnn1 nn nnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SEC.RRT
SIMILAR FACILITY USED FOR PERMITTED PURPOSES. TO
THE EXTENT THAT A BUILDING OR ANY PART OF THE
REMAINING FACILITY HAS SPECIAL FEATURES (TO BE
SPECIFIED) IN EXCESS OF THOSE NEEDED BY FACILITIES
NOT PRODUCING SUPER-TOXIC LETHAL CHEMICALS OR
CORROSIVE CHEMICALS, E.G., SPECIAL AIR FILTERING
AND SPECIAL CONTAINMENT MEASURES, THEY MUST BE
REMOVED OR MODIFIED. IN INSTANCES WHERE IT IS
NOT POSSIBLE TO CONVERT A BUILDING TO MEET THESE
STANDARDS, THE BUILDING MUST BE DESTROYED.
-- EQUIPMENT OR BUILDINGS SHOULD BE REUSED ONLY
FOR //NON-MILITARY PEACEFUL// (NOTE: SOVIETS
CAN ACCEPT WITH OR WITHOUT ERACKETED PHRASE.
U.S. DEL HAS NO GUIDANCE.) PERMITTED PURPOSES.
FURTHERMORE, EQUIPMENT OR BUILDINGS SHOULD NOT
BE REUSED FOR PRODUCTION/FILLING OF CHEMICALS
IN SCHEDULE 1, OTHER SUPER-TOXIC LETHAL CHEMICALS,
OR CORROSIVE CHEMICALS. TO ENSURE THIS, THE
FACILITY WILL NOT CONTAIN ANY EQUIPMENT SPECIALLY
NEEDED FOR HANDLING SUCH CHEMICALS, INCUDING
LINED OR HIGH-NICKEL ALLY PIPING OR VESSELS FOR
ANY LOW-PRESSURE CONTAINMENT AREAS.
-- INTERNATIONAL INSPECTORS SHOULD MONITOR THE
DISMANTLING OF EQUIPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS.
-- ALL CONVERTED FACILITIES, INCLUDING
FACILITIES CONVERTED BEFORE A STATE BECAME A
PARTY, SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATORY ON-SITE
INSPECTION AND THEN TO SUBSEQUENT MONITORING
FOR THE LIFE OF THE FACILITY AS FOLLOWS:
- (A) FACILITIES CONVERTED TO A USE NOT
INVOLVING CHEMICAL PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING
WILL BE MONITORED BY SYSTEMATIC ON-SITE INSPECTIONS
AT A FREQUENCY TO BE DETERMINED.
- (B) FACILITIES CONVERTED TO PERMITTED
CHEMICAL PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING WILL BE
MONITORED BY DATA REPORTING AND SYSTEMATIC
ON-SITE VERIFICATION. (THE INCLUSION OF
ON-SITE INSTRUMENTS IN ADDITION TO INSPECTIONS
SHOULD BE EXPLORED.) FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION,
AS WELL AS THE USE OF INSTRUMENTS, IS TO BE
DETERMINED.
-- PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MAY CONTINUE DURING
CONVERSION.
-- INFORMATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE DETAILED
353
SECRET
nprlacsifiRd in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
PLANS FOR ELIMINATION ON, INTER ALIA, THE PRECISE
LOCATION, IDENTITY AND PURPOSE OF REUSE OF EQUIPMENT
AND ON THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH BUILDINGS ARE TO BE
REUSED.
-- EQUIPMENT AND BUILDINGS SHOULD BE REUSED WITHIN
A REASONABLE TIME (FOOTNOTE: A SPECIFIC PERIOD
SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED); THEY SHOULD NOT BE "MOTHBALLED."
AS AN EXCEPTION, SMALL STANDARD PARTS, SUCH AS
VALVES, FITTINGS, ETC., MAY BE RETURNED TO STOCKPILES
OF LIKE PARTS.
-- INITIAL AND FOLLOW-UP ON-SITE INSPECTION
SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT
THROUGH THE REUSE OF EQUIPMENT, THE RECEIVING
FACILITY HAD NOT BEEN MADE SUITABLE FOR RAPID
CONVERSION TO CW PRODUCTION.
3. RELATED MEASURES
(A) FACILITIES FOR PRODUCTION OF KEY PRECURSORS
411.
-- ANY FACILITY USED TO PRODUCE //FOR CHEMICAL
WEAPONS PURPOSES// (NOTE: SOVIETS HAVE BRACKETED)
A KEY PRECURSOR FOR WHICH THE NEED FOR PERMITTED
PURPOSES EXCEEDS . . . . KILOGRAMS PER YEAR
SHOULD BE DECLARED AND MONITORED UNDER ARTICLE VI
("PERMITTED ACTIVITIES").
-- IT SHOULD BE DEMONSTRATED TO THE SATISFACTION
OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL THAT THERE IS A LEGITIMATE
NEED FOR THE FACILITY AND THAT USAGE (PERCENT OF
RATED CAPACITY) FOR PERMITTED PURPOSES IS CONSISTENT
WITH PREVAILING INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
-- IF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT THE
CAPACITY IS GREATER THAN THE PREVAILING INDUSTRY
STANDARD WOULD JUSTIFY FOR DEMONSTRATED LEGITIMATE
NEEDS, THE EXCESS CAPACITY SHOULD BE DESTROYED,
OR CONVERTED TO OTHER PERMITTED PURPOSES. THE
DESTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF THE EXCESS CAPACITY,
AND THE VERIFICATION OF THESE ACTIONS, SHOULD
BE CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE V THAT GOVERN ELIMINATION OF CHEMICAL
WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
/AB) FACILITIES FOR PRODUCING CHEMICAL MUNITIONS
AND SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS
EMPLOYMENT.
-- FACILITIES USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR PRODUCTION
OF: (A) NON-CHEMICAL PARTS FOR CHEMICAL MUNITIONS
354
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000inninnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
gWrIN'T
OR (B) SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS
EMPLOYMENT, SHOULD BE DECLARED AND ELIMINATED.
THE ELIMINATION PROCESS AND ITS VERIFICATION
SHOULD BE CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS
OF ARTICLE V THAT GOVERN ELIMINATION OF CHEMICAL
PRODUCTION/FILLING FACILITIES.
-- ALL EQUIPMENT FOR PRODUCING NON-CHEMICAL PARTS
FOR CHEMICAL MUNITIONS WHICH IS NOT STANDARD
EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE DESTROYED. SUCH EQUIPMENT,
WHICH MAY INCLUDE SPECIALLY DESIGNED MOLDS AND
METAL-FORMING DIES, MAY BE BROUGHT TO A CENTRAL
LOCATION FOR DESTRUCTION, WHICH SHOULD BE CONFIRMED
BY ON-SITE INSPECTION AT THE DESTRUCTION SITE.
-- ALL BUILDINGS AND STANDARD EQUIPMENT USED FOR
PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE CONVERTED TO
PERMITTED PURPOSES, WITH CONFIRMATION AS NECESSARY
THROUGH CONSULTATION OR CHALLENGE INSPECTION.
-- PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MAY CONTINUE WHILE
DESTRUCTION OR CONVERSION PROCEEDS.// (NOTE:
SOVIETS BRACKETED ENTIRE SECTION DEALING WITH
MUNITIONS, PENDING AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT TEXT.)
(C) FACILITIES FOR PRODUCING COMMON COMMERCIAL CHEMICALS.
-- FACILITIES PRODUCING CHEMICALS IN SCHEDULE //3//
//IV// SHOULD BE DECLARED AND MONITORED UNDER
ARTICLE VI (PERMITTED ACTIVITIES). PLANTS PRODUCING
OTHER COMMON COMMERCIAL CHEMICALS NEED NOT BE
DECLARED OR MONITORED, EVEN IF THEY PRODUCED
PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT WERE USED IN TURN FOR PRODUCING
CHEMICAL WEAPONS. END TEXT.
3. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
NNNN
355
SECRET
25X1
in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
RWIRET
SECRET GENEVA 02620
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, U.S.-USSR INFORMAL
POINT PAPER ON BILATERAL REPRESENTATIVES AT ON SITE
INSPECTIONS.
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-017. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. THIS IS AN INFORMAL POINT PAPER PREPARED
BY U.S. AND SOVIET CV BILATERAL DELEGATIONS
AD REFERENDUM TO CAPITALS. THERE ARE NO POINTS
OF DISAGREEMENT. BEGIN
TEXT:
MARCH 2, 1987
PARTICIPATION OF US AND USSR REPRESENTATIVES
IN INTERNATIONAL ON-SITE INSPECTIONS ON THE
OTHER SIDE'S TERRITORY
GENERAL PROVISIONS
-- TO ENHANCE MUTUAL CONFIDENCE IN FULFILLMENT
OF THE OBJECTIVE AND PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION
ON PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS, THE U.S. AND
THE USSR SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEND SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVES TO PARTICIPATE, ON THE BASIS OF
RECIPROCITY, IN INTERNATIONAL ON-SITE INSPECTIONS
CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE CONVENTION OF THE OTHER
SIDE.
-- THIS ARRANGEMENT WOULD BE IN IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE UNDERTAKING TO COOPERATE WITH OTHER PARTIES,
CONTAINED IN ARTICLE IX OF THE CONVENTION. IT
WOULD NOT AFFECT THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
THE U.S. OR USSR AS PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION,
NOR WOULD IT IMPEDE CONDUCT OF INTERNATIONAL
ON-SITE INSPECTIONS PURSUANT TO THE CONVENTION.
-- EACH SIDE COULD UTILIZE THIS ARRANGEMENT WITH
RESPECT TO ANY INTERNATIONAL ON-SITE INSPECTION--
WHETHER ROUTINE OR CHALLENGE--OF THE OTHER SIDE.
RIGHTS AND FUNCTIONS OF SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES
-- THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD ACCOMPANY
THE INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION TEAM AS OBSERVERS
AND SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO OBSERVE ALL OF ITS
INSPECTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES. IN ADDITION, THE
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO
DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, OR REQUESTS
CONCERNING THE INSPECTION TO OFFICIALS OF THE SIDE
BEING INSPECTED ("RECEIVING SIDE").
-- THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD NOT
356
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-o11ARPnnninninnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
INTERFERE IN THE INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION TEAM'S
EXECUTION OF ITS RESPONSIBILITIES, NOR INTERFERE
IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TEAM AND THE
RECEIVING SIDE. THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES
SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN PREPARATION OF THE
TEAM'S REPORT TO THE RESPONSIBLE INTERNATIONAL
BODY UNDER THE CONVENTION.
-- THE SIDES SHOULD UNDERTAKE THE NECESSARY
MEASURES TO ENABLE THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES
TO CARRY OUT THEIR FUNCTIONS.
-- THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD ENJOY
THE SANE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AS THE
MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION TEAM.
GENERAL PROCEDURES
-- THE SIDES SHOULD EXCHANGE LISTS OF SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVES NOT LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER
THE DATE ON WHICH THE CONVENTION IS IN FORCE
FOR BOTH SIDES. THEY SHOULD UPDATE THE LISTS
AS NECESSARY.
-- WHEN ONE SIDE ("RECEIVING SIDE") IS NOTIFIED
THAT IT IS TO BE SUBJECT TO AN INTERNATIONAL
INSPECTION, IT WOULD INFORM THE OTHER SIDE
("OBSERVING SIDE") WITHOUT DELAY. THE OBSERVING
SIDE SHOULD WITHOUT DELAY INFORM THE RECEIVING
SIDE WHETHER IT WILL EXERCISE ITS RIGHT TO SEND
ITS SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES TO PARTICIPATE IN
THIS INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION.
-- THE SIDES SHOULD USE THE BILATERAL
CONSULTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS ESTABLISHED BETWEEN
THEM TO CONSIDER QUESTIONS RELATED TO PROCEDURES
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ARRANGEMENT FOR
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES, AS WELL AS ANY CONCERN
ARISING FROM OBSERVATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL
INSPECTION. THE OBSERVING SIDE SHOULD COMMUNICATE
TO THE RECEIVING SIDE ANY CONCERNS ARISING
FROM OBSERVATION OF A PARTICULAR INTERNATIONAL
INSPECTION PROMPTLY, BUT NOT LATER THAN 90 DAYS
FROM THE END OF THE INSPECTION. DURING THE
ANNUAL MEETINGS ENVISIONED IN THE BILATERAL
CONSULTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS, THE SIDES SHOULD
JOINTLY EXAMINE THE OBSERVATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL
INSPECTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND ENDEAVOR
TO RESOLVE ANY CONCERNS. IN ADDITION, PROBLEMS
THAT BECOME APPARENT ONLY AFTER A SERIES OF
INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE PROMPTLY COMMUNICATED
357
SECRET
25X1
Davi - Saniti7ed Cocw Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
25X1
TO THE RECEIVING SIDE AND THEN DISCUSSED PROMPTLY
BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES.
-- DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
THIS ARRANGEMENT FOR SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES
SHOULD BE DEVELOPED BILATERALLY AT THE SAME
TIME THAT RELATED PROVISIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING
THE RELATED VERIFICATION PROVISIONS OF THE
MULTILATERAL CONVENTION ARE BEING DEVELOPED.
SUCH BILATERAL PROVISIONS SHOULD INCLUDE SPECIFIC
TIME FRAMES FOR NOTIFICATIONS, SPECIFIC MEASURES
TO FACILITATE ARRIVAL OF OBSERVERS, AND GUIDELINES
FOR THE NUMBER OF SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES AT A
SPECIFIC INSPECTION. (THE NUMBER SHOULD BE SMALL,
BUT AT LEAST TWO REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE
PERMITTED.) END TEXT.
3. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
NNNN
358
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Ronninni nnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
grrurT
SECRET GENEVA 02623
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, MARCH 5, 1987,
AMBASSADOR HANSEN'S STATEMENT
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-018. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. FOLLOWING IS TEXT OF THE PREPARED STATEMENT
DELIVERED BY U.S. ACTING CD REPRESENTATIVE
LYNN HANSEN AT THE LAST MEETING OF THE
FIFTH ROUND OF U.S.-SOVIET INTENSIFIED
CW BAN DISCUSSIONS. BEGIN TEXT.
MR. AMBASSADOR,
-- THIS MEETING MARKS THE END OF THE FIFTH ROUND
OF ACCELERATED BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS PURSUANT TO
THE NOVEMBER 1985 SUMMIT COMMITMENT BY PRESIDENT
REAGAN AND GENERAL SECRETARY GORBACHEV. FOR THAT
REASON, I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT A BRIEF, PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT, BOTH OF THE POLITICAL SITUATION AND OF
BILATERAL WORK OF SPECIFIC ISSUES.
-- THE BILATERAL COMMITMENT IN NOVEMBER 1985 CLEARLY
HAS LED TO AN INTENSIFICATION OF THE WORK ON A
COMPREHENSIVE CHEMICAL WEAPONS BAN. THIS IS VISIBLE
BOTH IN THE CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT AND IN THESE
BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS. IN THE BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS,
THIS POSITIVE TREND BECAME APPARENT IN ROUND III AND
DEVELOPED FURTHER IN ROUND IV.
-- AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS ROUND, AND CONTINUING
THROUGH THE ROUND, THERE HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE SOVIET POSITION AND THE PACE HAS ACCELERATED
FURTHER. WE CONSIDER THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SOVIET
POSITION AS VERY IMPORTANT AND CONSTRUCTIVE ONES.
WE WELCOME THEM.
-- YOU APPRECIATE, I AM SURE, THAT THE POLITICAL
SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, AND THEIR SPECIFIC
IMPACT ON FUTURE WORK IN THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS
NEGOTIATIONS, ARE BEING CAREFULLY AND INTENSIVELY
ASSESSED IN WASHINGTON.
-- WHILE THIS ASSESSMENT IS TAKING PLACE, U.S.
REPRESENTATIVES WILL CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE CONSTRUCTIVELY,
STEADILY, AND DELIBERATELY. WE WILL CONTINUE TO FULFILL
THE COMMITMENT THAT PRESIDENT REAGAN MADE IN GENEVA IN
NOVEMBER 1985 AND THAT HE REAFFIRMED IN HIS MESSAGE TO
THE CD ONE MONTH AGO.
-- AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR OTHERS TO
REALIZE THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT BE RUSHED INTO
AN INEFFECTIVE AGREEMENT. "GETTING IT RIGHT" IS
359
SECRET
25X1
in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND ITS ALLIES. ONCE A CONVENTION IS AGREED, IT WILL BE
IN FORCE FOR A LONG TIME. THEREFORE, MY DELEGATION WILL
CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT ISSUES BE EXAMINED THOROUGHLY
AND THAT EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS BE FOUND. WE WILL INSIST
THAT THE MANY DETAILS REQUIRED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A
CONVENTION BE WORKED OUT CAREFULLY. THIS WORK WILL TAKE
MORE THAN A FEW WEEKS OR A FEW MONTHS.
-- LET ME NOW TURN MORE SPECIFICALLY TO THE BILATERAL
DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE OVER THE LAST THREE
WEEKS. OVERALL, WE CONSIDER THAT THIS ROUND HAS BEEN
MORE CONSTRUCTIVE THAN PREVIOUS ROUNDS.
-- DURING THIS ROUND, THE TWO SIDES PREPARED A JOINT
PAPER ELABORATING ON THE EARLIER AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF U.S. AND SOVIET REPRESENTATIVES
IN INTERNATIONAL INSPECTIONS ON EACH OTHER'S TERRITORY.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ACCOMPLISHMENT.
-- THE TWO SIDES ALSO RESOLVED MANY POINTS OF
DIFFERENCE IN THE JOINT PAPER ON ELIMINATION OF CHEMICAL
WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES. ONLY A FEW BRACKETED
POINTS NOW REMAIN. THIS IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT ACCOMPLISH-
MENT.
-- THESE PAPERS, WHICH WERE PREPARED AD REFERENDUM TO
CAPITALS, WILL BE PROMPTLY REVIEWED IN WASHINGTON. IT
IS, OF COURSE, POSSIBLE THAT CHANGES MAY BE SUGGESTED
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW. THE RESULTS OF THE REVIEW
WILL BE COMMUNICATED PROMPTLY TO YOU.
-- IN THIS CONNECTION, I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM THE
SOVIET DELEGATION THAT MY AUTHORITIES HAVE REVIEWED
THE JOINT PAPER ON BILATERAL CONSULTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
RESULTING FROM ROUND IV. THEY HAVE FOUND THE PAPER
TO BE ACCEPTABLE WITHOUT MODIFICATION. WE WOULD LIKE
TO KNOW WHETHER MOSCOW ALSO FINDS THE PAPER TO BE
ACCEPTABLE.
MR. AMBASSADOR,
-- IN THE U.S. VIEW, THE SUBJECTS OF EARLY DATA EXCHANGE
AND CHALLENGE INSPECTION HAVE PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE AT
THIS STAGE OF WORK ON A CHEMICAL WEAPONS BAN. DURING
THIS ROUND, THE DISCUSSIONS OF THESE TWO TOPICS WERE
SOMEWHAT MORE DETAILED AND USEFUL THAN IN PREVIOUS
ROUNDS, ALTHOUGH NOT SATISFACTORY FROM THE U.S. VIEWPOINT.
THE TWO SIDES STILL SEEM TO BE FAR APART ON BOTH OF
THESE CRITICAL ISSUES.
360
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000inni nnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SPrIIFT
-- THE UNITED STATES CONSIDERS EXCHANGE AND
CONFIRMATION OF DETAILED DATA BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
AND THE SOVIET UNION BEFORE SIGNATURE OF A CONVENTION
TO BE ESSENTIAL TO BUILDING THE CONFIDENCE NECESSARY
FOR ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT TO GIVE UP ITS CHEMICAL
DETERRENT. OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE SOVIET UNION
DOES NOT RULE OUT SUCH AN EARLY EXCHANGE, BUT SEEKS A
GUARANTEE THAT THE CONVENTION WILL BE COMPLETED ONCE DATA
IS PROVIDED. SUCH GUARANTEES ARE NOT POSSIBLE. CERTAINLY,
A SATISFACTORY PROCESS OF EXCHANGE AND CONFIRMATION WOULD
MAKE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE CONVENTION VERY PROBABLE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WITHOUT SATISFACTORY PROCESS OF DATA
EXCHANGE AND CONFIRMATION, THE COMPLETION OF THE
CONVENTION WOULD BE IN DOUBT.
???
-- IN OUR VIEW, THE BUILDING OF THE NECESSARY CONFIDENCE
MUST BE A STEP-BY-STEP PROCESS, RATHER THAN A ONE-TIME
ALL-OR-NOTHING AFFAIR. THAT IS WHY THE UNITED STATES
PROPOSED EXCHANGE OF DATA IN TWO STAGES. FIRST, GENERAL
DATA WOULD BE EXCHANGED, AND THEN MORE DETAILED DATA.
CERTAINLY, "TWO" IS NOT A MAGIC NUMBER. OTHER STATES
COULD BE CONSIDERED. AND THE EARLIER THE PROCESS BEGINS,
THE BETTER. SOVIET FAILURE TO DEAL MORE DIRECTLY AND
CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH OUR CONCERNS IN THIS REGARD CAN ONLY
PROLONG THE MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS. FOR THESE REASONS,
WE BELIEVE THE DATA EXCHANGE ISSUE SHOULD BE A KEY ELEMENT
IN FUTURE BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS.
-- WHILE EMPHASIZING THE CRITICAL ROLE OF EARLY DATA
EXCHANGE IN BUILDING CONFIDENCE, I DO NOT WANT TO
MINIMIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF OTHER STEPS AS WELL. THE
INCREASING SERIOUSNESS OF THE BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS
CONTRIBUTES TO BUILDING CONFIDENCE. A FURTHER
CONTRIBUTION COULD BE MADE, FOR EXAMPLE, THROUGH A JOINT
VISIT OF U.S. AND SOVIET REPRESENTATIVES TO THE U.S.
STOCKPILE DESTRUCTION FACILITY AT TOOELE, UTAH. AS YOU
KNOW, AN INVITATION HAS ALREADY BEEN EXTENDED TO THE
SOVIET SIDE. THIS INVITATION REMAINS OPEN. WE HOPE
THAT YOU WILL NOT IGNORE THIS OPPORTUNITY. WE ARE
AWAITING YOUR RESPONSE.
-- WITH REGARD TO THE CHALLENGE INSPECTION ISSUE, THIS
ALSO REMAINS A SERIOUS OBSTACLE IN THE NEGOTIATIONS.
WHILE WE WELCOME THE CHANGES MADE IN THE SOVIET POSITION
ON FEBRUARY 17, IT IS OUR JUDGMENT THAT THE SOVIET
APPROACH, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, WOULD STILL NOT PROVIDE
THE NECESSARY HIGH LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS. FOR EXAMPLE,
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES SUCH AS OBSERVATION FROM A DISTANCE
OR NEAR-SITE WATER SAMPLING CANNOT RESOLVE A QUESTION
OF SUSPECTED CLANDESTINE STOCKPILES. THE ONLY WAY TO
TELL WHETHER A MUNITIONS BUNKER CONTAINS CHEMICAL
361
SECRET
nRciassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CPCRPT
WEAPONS IS TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE BUNKER. THIS IS NOT
A MATTER OF OPINION; IT IS A FACT.
-- THE UNITED STATES PROPOSES THAT FUTURE DISCUSSIONS
OF CHALLENGE INSPECTION FOCUS ON MEANS FOR PREVENTING
ABUSE OF A MANDATORY CHALLENGE INSPECTION PROVISION. WE
HOPE THAT THE SOVIET SIDE, RATHER THAN CONTINUING TO
INSIST ON A RIGHT OF REFUSAL IN MANY INSTANCES, WILL BE
PREPARED TO JOIN THE U.S. SIDE IN EXAMINING OTHER
POSSIBLE SAFEGUARDS IN THE INTERESTS OF FINDING A MUTUALLY
ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION.
-- TURNING TO THE ISSUE OF NON-PRODUCTION, I NOTE THAT
THE TWO SIDES HAD CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS, ALTHOUGH
THIS ISSUE WAS NOT A CENTRAL ONE IN THIS ROUND. IDEAS
RELATED TO SCHEDULE 1 WERE EXPLORED THAT SEEM HELPFUL,
BUT REQUIRE FURTHER STUDY. HOWEVER, I WOULD NOTE THAT
THE U.S. SIDE IS STILL AWAITING A RESPONSE TO ITS
FEBRUARY 17 REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE SOVIET
POSITION ON THE ISSUE OF RANDOM, I.E., UNPREDICTABLE,
TIMING OF INSPECTIONS AT DECLARED COMMERCIAL FACILITIES.
-- MR. AMBASSADOR, I WILL BE RETURNING TO WASHINGTON
SOON, ALONG WITH MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES. I CAN ASSURE
YOU THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING DEVELOPMENTS DURING THIS
ROUND WITH OUR AUTHORITIES, WHO HAVE A VERY DEEP INTEREST
IN THESE DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION
OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO RESUMING
DISCUSSIONS AFTER THIS PERIOD FOR REVIEW AND FURTHER
PREPARATION. END TEXT.
3. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
362
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
UNCLAS GENEVA 02630
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS (ROUND V):
PRESS STATEMENT:
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-019. (UNCLAS -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WAS RELEASED TO THE PRESS
AT 1700 HOURS, MARCH 5, 1987 BY U.S. DEL.
3. BEGIN TEXT:
FROM FEBRUARY 16 TO MARCH 5, DELEGATIONS FROM
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF
SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS HELD BILATERAL
DISCUSSIONS IN GENEVA ON THE PROHIBITION OF
CHEMICAL WEAPONS. THESE TALKS WERE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE NOVEMBER 1985 AGREEMENT BETWEEN PRESIDENT
REAGAN AND SOVIET GENERAL SECRETARY GORBACHEV
TO ACCELERATE EFFORTS TO CONCLUDE AN EFFECTIVE
AND VERIFIABLE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE
GENERAL AND COMPLETE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL
WEAPONS AND TO INTENSIFY BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS
AT THE EXPERT LEVEL ON ALL ASPECTS OF A
CHEMICAL WEAPONS BAN, INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF
VERIFICATION.
THE U.S. DELEGATION WAS HEADED BY AMBASSADOR
LYNN HANSEN, ACTING U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO
THE CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT. THE SOVIET
DELEGATION WAS HEADED BY AMBASSADOR YURI
NAZARKIN, SOVIET REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT. END TEXT.
4. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
END OF MESSAGE UNCLASSIFIED
NNNN
363
SECRET
narinccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
cATRFT
SECRET GENEVA 02730
VIENNA FOR USDEL CSCE
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): US-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, MARCH 5, 1987.
TEXT OF AMB. NAZARKIN'S PLENARY STATEMENT.
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-002 (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT)
2. BEGIN TEXT--
STATEMENT BY
THE HEAD OF THE USSR DELEGATION YU. K. NAZARKIN
AT THE SOVIET-AMERICAN TALKS ON THE
PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
GENEVA, MARCH 5, 1987
MR. AMBASSADOR,
-- USEFUL WORK WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN THE COURSE OF THE
FIFTH ROUND OF SOVIET-AMERICAN NEGOTIATIONS ON THE
PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS ABOUT TO BE COMPLETED
TODAY, AND, WE HOPE, THIS WORK WILL PERMIT US TO MOVE
AHEAD WITH THE TASK OF PREPARING THE CONVENTION. AS
A RESULT OF NEW PROPOSALS ON THE DECLARATION OF
CHEMICAL WEAPONS STOCKPILES, BROUGHT FORTH BY THE
SOVIET UNION ON FEBRUARY 17, 1987, THIS ISSUE, AS
SHOWN BY OUR DISCUSSIONS, WAS PRACTICALLY RESOLVED.
WE SPEAK OUT FOR THE USE OF MAXIMALLY EFFICIENT METHODS
OF STOCKPILE VERIFICATION INCLUDING PERMANENT USE OF
INSTRUMENTS. IT APPEARS TO US THAT, FOR MAKING THIS
SITUATION MORE SPECIFIC, ONE COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
PROVISIONS IN THE DOCUMENT CD/516 PRESENTED BY THE
U.S. WE PROCEED FROM THE FACT THAT THE QUESTION OF
STOCKPILES WAS, IN PRINCIPLE, RESOLVED BETWEEN THE
USSR AND THE U.S. DELEGATIONS.
-- THE CENTRAL ISSUE ON WHICH NOTICEABLE PROGRESS WAS
ACHIEVED IN THE COURSE OF THIS ROUND IS THE ISSUE OF
CHEMICAL WEAPON-PRODUCING FACILITIES. WE ARE PREPARED
TO REPORT THE DOCUMENT DEVELOPED BY OUR DELEGATIONS TO
OUR CAPITAL. WE PROCEED FROM THE FACT THAT, IN ORDER
TO FINISH WORKING OUT THE DEFINITION CONTAINED IN THIS
DOCUMENT, IT IS STILL NECESSARY TO AGREE ON THE THRESHOLDS
WHICH ARE PROVIDED FOR IN ITEMS (A) (I) AND (B) OF THE
U.S. PROPOSAL. ACCORDING TO OUR VIEW, THEY SHOULD BE
LOW THRESHOLDS MEASURED IN KILOGRAMS AS IT IS INDICATED
IN THE WORKING DOCUMENT. WE ARE AWAITING FURTHER, MORE
DETAILED INFORMATION ON THIS MATTER FROM THE U.S.
DELEGATION. AS FOR THE SECTION ON POSSIBLE ELIMINATION
MEASURES, INCLUDING VERIFICATION, WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS
A MATTER OF FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND BUILDINGS WHICH
ARE INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPED DEFINITION OF A CHEMICAL
WEAPONS-PRODUCING FACILITY.
-- I WOULD LIKE TO ESPECIALLY DWELL ON SECTION III
OF THE DEVELOPED DOCUMENT ENTITLED, "RELATED MEASURES".
REGREATABLY, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE COMPLETE
364
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-0116RRnnn1nnl nnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
WPRPT
AGREEMENT ON THIS SECTION. WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE
THAT THE PHRASE, "FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS PURPOSES" UNDER
ITEM (A) OF THIS SECTION WHICH SPEAKS OF KEY PRECURSORS,
CREATES A LOOPHOLE FOR BRINGING OF A CONSIDERABLE PART
OF INSTALLATIONS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH CHEMICALS
OUT FROM UNDER THE REGIME OF THE CONVENTION UNDER THE
PRETEXT THAT THEY ARE ALLEGEDLY BEING PRODUCED NOT FOR
CHEMICAL WEAPONS PURPOSES. IT WILL, IN ANY CASE, MOST
LIKELY BE DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH WHICH KEY PRECURSORS
WERE DIRECTED TOWARD CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION AND
WHICH ONES TOWARD PERMITTED PURPOSES. THIS IS WHY WE
ARE PROPOSING THAT THE CONVENTION ENCOMPASS ALL
PRODUCTION OF KEY PRECURSORS, WITH RESPECT TO FUTURE
ACTIVITY IN ANY CASE, INDEPENDENT OF THE FACT WHETHER
THESE PRODUCTION FACILITIES IN THE PAST WERE OR WERE
NOT USED FOR PURPOSES OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS. THE CAPACITY
THRESHOLD WHICH IS TO BE ESTABLISHED PROVIDES FOR, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROVISIONS ON EXCESSIVE CAPACITIES,
A CRITERION WHICH WILL MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO SEPARATE
PRODUCTION OF KEY PRECURSORS FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS
PURPOSES FROM THE REST OF THE PRODUCTION OF KEY
PRECURSORS.
-- WE COUNT ON BEING ABLE TO RESOLVE IN THE NEAREST
FUTURE THE ISSUE OF KEY PRECURSORS-PRODUCING FACILITIES.
-- ANOTHER UNRESOLVED QUESTION IN SECTION III REMAINS
THE ISSUE ON FACILITIES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CHEMICAL
MUNITIONS AND SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE USE OF CHEMICAL
WEAPONS. WE ARE THANKFUL TO THE U.S. DELEGATION FOR
PROVIDING DETAILS ON THIS PROPOSAL IT MADE. THEY WILL
BE REPORTED TO OUR CAPITAL SUBSEQUENT TO WHICH A
DECISION WILL BE MADE ON THE USSR POSITION ON THIS
ISSUE. AT THIS STAGE, WE DO NOT CONSIDER OURSELVES
BOUND IN ANY WAY BY THE TEXT CONTAINED IN SECTION III,
ITEM (B).
-- IN THE COURSE OF EXCHANGING VIEWS, ON THE ISSUE OF
NON-PRODUCTION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRY, WE PROVIDED ANSWERS TO A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
WHICH WERE PROPOSED TO US BY THE AMERICAN SIDE AT THE
PRECEDING ROUND. AS FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND, OUR REPLIES
CONTRIBUTED TO THE CLARIFICATION OF THESE QUESTIONS.
AS FOR THE OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE U.S., THE REPLIES,
AS NOTED BY BOTH SIDES, WERE PROVIDED EARLIER IN THE
COURSE OF MULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS. IN
THE COURSE OF THE CURRENT ROUND, WE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO
RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF CATEGORY I LISTS OF CHEMICALS
TO WHICH, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, THE U.S. SIDE ASCRIBES
A GREAT DEAL OF IMPORTANCE. WE HOPE THAT OUR PROPOSALS
WILL SOON LEAD TO A MUTUALLY-ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION. I WISH
TO STRESS THAT THE DELEGATION OF THE SOVIET UNION
365
SECRET
npriaccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
BELIEVES THAT WE WENT MORE THAN HALF-WAY TO MEET THE
U.S. POSITION IN THIS MATTER. WE THINK THE CONVENTION
SHOULD PROVIDE FOR A RELIABLE PROHIBITION AND DESTRUCTION
NOT ONLY OF UNITARY BUT ALSO OF BINARY AND MULTI-COMPONENT
CHEMICAL WEAPONS, AND, BY THE WAY, NOT ONLY OF ITS KNOWN
EXAMPLES AND TYPES, BUT SHOULD ALSO BLOCK THE APPEARANCE
OF NEW TYPES OF WEAPONS WITH THE USE OF STILL UNKNOWN
CHEMICALS. WE HOPE THAT THE U.S. DELEGATION SHARES WITH
US THE AIM OF COMPLETE PROHIBITION OF ANY CHEMICAL
WEAPONS.
-- I WOULD LIKE TO DWELL ESPECIALLY ON THE QUESTION
WHICH, AS WE SEE IT, IS THE MAJOR ONE OUT OF ALL THE
REMAINING UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS; THAT IS, ON CHALLENGE
INSPECTIONS. WE PROCEED FROM THE FACT THAT CHALLENGE
INSPECTIONS SHOULD BECOME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
MECHANISM GUARANTEEING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONVENTION
BY ALL PARTIES TO IT AND SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO AN
EFFICIENT IDENTIFICATION OF THE VIOLATION OF THE
CONVENTION NO MATTER BY WHOM. WE ARE EMPHASIZING THIS
IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF CHALLENGE INSPECTIONS AS A PRE-
VENTION OF VIOLATIONS. AS WE SEE IT, CHALLENGE
INSPECTIONS AS SUCH, IN PRACTICE, SHOULD BE AN
EXCEPTIONALLY RARE, AN EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON, YET
THE POSSIBILITY TO CARRY THEM OUT SHOULD RENDER VIOLATIONS
OF THE CONVENTION A POLITICALLY UNACCEPTABLE MATTER.
WE HOPE THAT THE U.S. SIDE SHARES THIS APPROACH OF OURS.
-- AS WE SEE IT, A FRANK EXCHANGE OF VIEWS ON THE
ISSUE OF CHALLENGE INSPECTION TOOK PLACE DURING THIS
ROUND. THIS EXCHANGE OF VIEWS WILL MAKE IT EASIER TO
UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER. I WOULD LIKE TO STRESS THE FACT
THAT WE MET THE U.S. POSITION HALF-WAY, AGREED WITH THE
AUTOMATIC NATURE OF CHALLENGE INSPECTIONS IN FULL IN
CASES WHEN THERE IS SUSPICION THAT CHEMICAL WEAPONS WERE
USED, OR WITH RESPECT TO DECLARED FACILITIES OR LOCATIONS
ACCORDING TO THE CONVENTION. WE ARE ALSO FOR HAVING
THE INSPECTION CONDUCTED IN THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE
PERIODS, SO THAT THE STATE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION
WOULD NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO COVER UP ITS TRACKS.
MOREOVER, WE BELIEVE THAT THE CONVENTION SHOULD NOT
HAVE ANY FORBIDDEN ZONES FOR CHALLENGE INSPECTIONS,
OTHERWISE, IT IS PRECISELY IN THESE FORBIDDEN ZONES
THAT VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION WILL TAKE PLACE,
SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, CLANDESTINE CHEMICAL WEAPONS
STOCKPILES.
-- AT THE SAME TIME, WE SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE
FACT THAT WE ARE NOT DEVELOPING AN AGREEMENT ON COMPLETE
AND COMPREHENSIVE DISARMAMENT, BUT RATHER, A CONVENTION
ON THE PROHIBITION OF AN IMPORTANT WEAPON, YET STILL
ONLY ONE TYPE OF WEAPONS, NAMELY, CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
366
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168Rnnni nni nnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SFPRFT
THEREFORE, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION SHOULD
NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF STATES, INCLUDING
MILITARY ACTIVITIES, NOT RELATED TO CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
MOREOVER, IF OTHER TYPES OF ARMS ARE NOT TOUCHED UPON
BY THIS CONVENTION, IT MEANS THAT STATES MAY HAVE
SECRETS RELATED TO THESE OTHER TYPES OF ARMS, THEIR
DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION, STOCKPILING, AND THE LIKE.
I COULD NOTE IN PARENTHESES THAT IN MANY INTERNATIONAL
DOCUMENTS DEVELOPED WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF THE U.S.,
INCLUDING THE DOCUMENT OF THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION,
THE RIGHT OF STATES TO HAVE CLOSED LOCATIONS AND REGIONS
IS ACKNOWLEDGED. THUS, THE TASK CONSISTS OF SETTING UP
A SYSTEM OF CHALLENGE INSPECTIONS SO THAT ON ONE HAND,
EFFECT IVENSSS WOULD BE ASSURED AND ON THE OTHER HAND,
NO DAMAGE WOULD BE DONE TO THE SECURITY OF STATES IN
AREAS IN NO WAY RELATED TO CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
-- AS WE SEE IT, A GOOD WAY TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE IS
PROVIDED FOR BY THE UNITED KINGDOM DOCUMENT, CD/715.
THE MAIN IDEA OF THIS PROPOSAL--THE POSSIBILITY TO
PROPOSE ALTERNATIVE MEASURES WHICH WOULD SATISFY THE
STATES MAKING THE REQUEST--IS VIEWED BY US AS THE KEY
WHICH COULD FACILITATE THE FINDING OF MUTUALLY-ACCEPTABLE
DECISION WHICH WOULD OBJECTIVELY CORRESPOND TO THE SCOPE
OF PROHIBITION OF THE CONVENTION BEING DEVELOPED.
-- AS FOR THE APPROACH CONTAINED IN DOCUMENT CD/500,
PERTAINING TO THE U.S. DELEGATION, WE CANNOT AGREE WITH
THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS CONTAINED IN IT:
- -- THE DISCRIMINATORY NATURE WITH RESPECT TO
STATE PROPERTY;
^ -- THE LACK OF POSSIBILITY TO PROPOSE AND AGREE ON
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES IN THOSE CASES WHEN FULL
ACCESS TO ONE OR ANOTHER LOCATION OR FACILITY
IS IMPOSSIBLE;
- -- AUTOMATIC INSPECTIONS IN ALL CASES.
-- ONE SHOULD MOREOVER TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF STATES PARTY TO THE
CONVENTION WILL TURN OUT TO BE IN AN UNEQUAL POSITION
VIS-A-VIS THE FIVE STATES-MEMBERS OF THE FACT-FINDING
GROUP, WHICH WILL APPARENTLY BE UNACCETABLE.
-- IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE SOONER THE U.S. SIDE
INTRODUCES CORRECTIONS INTO ITS APPROACH, THE BETTER
IT WILL BE FOR A SPEEDY CONCLUSION OF A CONVENTION.
-- FINALLY, ONE SHOULD DWELL ON THE ISSUE OF
BILATERAL MEASURES. WE SHARE THE VIEW THAT A HIGHER
LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE BETWEEN OUR COUNTRIES WOULD
CONTRIBUTE TO A SPEEDY IMPLEMENTATION OF CHEMICAL
DISARMAMENT. A LOT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED IN THIS
RESPECT. OUR DELEGATIONS AGREED ON A DOCUMENT ON A
BILATERAL CONSULTATIVE MECHANISM, AND WE CONFIRM THE
FACT THAT WE AGREE TO SUCH A DOCUMENT. AS WE UNDER-
367
SECRET
25X1
nprdaccified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
STAND IT, THE U.S. SIDE IS DOING THE SAME. IN THE
COURSE OF THIS ROUND, OUR EXPERTS DEVELOPED A MUTUAL
UNDERSTANDING ON THE PARTICIPATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE OTHER SIDE IN INTERNATIONAL INSPECTIONS ON USSR
AND U.S. TERRITORIES. WE EXAMINED THIS DOCUMENT, ON
THE DELEGATION LEVEL, AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
WE WOULD BE PREPARED TO SEND IT TO OUR CAPITAL FOR
CONSIDERATION, SHOULD THE AMERICAN SIDE BE PREPARED
TO DO LIKEWISE.
-- WE KNOW WHAT GREAT IMPORTANCE THE U.S. SIDE
ASCRIBES TO THE QUESTION OF DATA EXCHANGE ON CHEMICAL
WEAPONS. AND HERE, TOO, WE MET THE U.S. WISH HALF-WAY:
WE AGREED TO HAVING SUCH AN EXCHANGE TAKE PLACE AFTER
THE SIGNING BUT PRIOR TO THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE
CONVENTION. FINALLY, HAVING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE
U.S. VIEWPOINT ON THE IMPORTANCE OF HOW HAVING THE
INFORMATION ON THE POSSESSION OR NON-POSSESSION
OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS, WE MADE A STATEMENT AT TODAY'S
PLENARY MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT IN
WHICH IT IS DIRECTLY STATED THAT THE SOVIET UNION, AS
WELL AS THE U.S., ARE STATES POSSESSING CHEMICAL
WEAPONS. WE HOPE THAT THE U.S. DELEGATION WILL ?
APPRECIATE THIS STEP OF OURS AS A CONTRIBUTION TO
CREATING AND STRENGTHENING CONFIDENCE IN THE FIELD
OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
-- THE SOVIET DELEGATION IS PREPARED TO CONTINUE,
TOGETHER WITH THE U.S., THE CONSIDERATION OF FURTHER
STEPS TO STRENGTHEN CONFIDENCE. WE FEEL THAT AN
IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE STRENGTHENING OF
CONFIDENCE BETWEEN OUR COUNTRIES WOULD BE THE
ACHIEVEMENT OF AN UNDERSTANDING ON ONE OF THE CENTRAL
ISSUES OF THE CONVENTION--ON CHALLENGE INSPECTIONS.
BUT IT, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, REQUIRES STRIVING FOR AN
UNDERSTANDING NOT ONLY ON OUR PART, BUT FLEXIBILITY
ON THE PART OF BOTH SIDES. END TEXT.
3. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
NNNN
368
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000inninnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
PAGE 61
SEP,R ET
, FILE
Department of State
GENEVA 02732 81 OF 06 06138IZ
ACTION OFFICE ACOA-I2
WLM
INFO
/082 Al
INFO
656-6I
INFO
556-61
I 11 GNI I NG
2701 J2039 6601672 PAGE 61 GENEVA 82732 01 OF 06 061901Z 2701 002151 6501672
0E/0359Z DELS HOD USEFUL, DETAILED CISCUSSIONS ON
10-81 /002
??
OCT-81 /062 Al WLM
OCT PASS ACDE
CHALLENGE ANC DATA EXCHANGE ISSUES. IRONICALLY,
SOVIET POSITION ON CHALLENGE INSPECTION IS NOV
05/83521 MORE STRINGENT THAN THE UN POSITION, SINCE
SOVIETS SUPPORT MANDATORY INSPECTION IN TWO
06/19321 CASES.
-- ALSO, AT BEGINNING OF ROUND SOVIETS
06/19231 ANNOUNCED IN THE CD THAT THEY CAN AGREE TO
PROMPT DECLARATION OF CW STOCKPILE LOCATIONS
WITH EXTENSIVE ON-SITE VERIFICATION. AT END
OF ROUND THEY ACKNOWLEDGED IN ANOTHER CD
STATEMENT THAT THE USSR POSSESSES CHEMICAL
WEAPONS.
06/1906Z -
-- SOVIETS CONTINUE TO CRITICIZE ARTICLE
STRONGLY AND TO INSIST ON A RIGHT OF REFUSAL
ACTION OFFICE EUR-02
INFO MR-01 550-81 SSS-01 SSI-02 SS-01 0-01 P-02 7-01 C-81
SARN-I1 INR-61 L-01 PA-81 OCT-01 PM-8I SP-01 SRT-0l
SNP-01 ACDA-01 SSSC-01 SDEL-03 /027 Al WLM
OCT PASS INRE ASCE CIAE DODE
INFO AC011-81 X-81 /002 A4 GAN
ACTION SS-06
INFO LOG-00 AOS-06 550-00 /000 W
132213 0619031 /38
0 8618582 MAR 17
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASNDC IMMEDIATE 6752
INFO DOE VASHDC
JCS WASHDC
SECDEF WASNOC
AMEMIASSY BONN
AMEMIASSY LONDON
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
AMEMBASSY PARIS
AMEMBASSY VIENNA
USMISSION MATO
USDEL NIFR VIENNA
SECRETSECTION II OF 06 GENEVA 02732
EXDIS
ACOA FOR MA; DOE FOR DP/ISA; JCS FOR J5/001N;
SECDEF FOR OSO/ISP
VIENNA FOR USDEL CSCE
E.O. 12356: DECL:
TAGS: PARM UNGA, COG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CIO: US-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, ROUND V
WRAP-UP AND ANALYSIS
REF: U0
VO
IC/
MO
1E/
STATE 644871 (ROUND V GUIDANCE/
STATE 34378f-'1GUIDANCE ON PRODUCTION FACILITIES)
STATE 33914/ (GUIDANCE ON BILATERAL OBSERvERSI
GENEVA 86134 (ROUNO CW BILAT-868I
GENEVA 2626 (LW BILAT-017)
GENEVA 2622 ICW 0ILAT-016/
I. THIS IS CW BILAT-621. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. SUMMARY/OVERALL ASSESSMENT --
-- FIFTH BILATERAL ROUND, HELD IN GENEVA
DURING THREE-WEEK PERIOD ENDING MARCH 5, WAS
NOTABLE FOR SOVIET EXPRESSIONS OF WILLINGNESS
TO ACCEPT VIRTUALLY ANYTHING THE U.S. PROPOSED
ON ISSUE OF CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND ON
BILATERAL OBSERVER ARRANGEMENT. ON THE OTHER
NAND, REY ISSUES OF MANDATORY CHALLENGE
INSPECTION AND BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE,
ARE STILL FAR FROM RESOLUTION.
()
36g A
crrDCT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
IN MOST CASES. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NOW
FRAGMENTARY SIGNS THAT THE SOVIETS MIGHT
EVENTUALLY ACCEPT ARTICLE X, PARTICULARLY
IN A BILATERAL CONTEXT, AFTER MOVING THROUGH
SEVERAL INTERMEDIATE POSITIONS.
-- TWO SIDES WORKED OUT AN INFORMAL POINT
PAPER BASED ON U.S. PROPOSAL FOR SOVIET
OBSERVERS AT INSPECTIONS OF U.S. SITES AND
VICE VERSA. INFORMAL POINT PAPER ON
ELIMINATION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION
FACILITIES HAS ONLY A FEW UNRESOLVED POINTS.
END SUMMARY.
3. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES --
A. U.S. AND SOVIET DELEGATIONS MET TEN TIMES
IN GENEVA BETWEEN 16 FEBRUARY AND 4 MARCH FOR
FIFTH ROUND OF DISCUSSIONS PURSUANT TO THE 1985
SUMMIT AGREEMENT TO INTENSIFY BILATERAL
DISCUSSIONS. (THIS REPRESENTS THREE FEWER
MEETINGS THAN IN PREVIOUS ROUND.) FIRST AND
LAST MEETINGS WERE AT AMBASSADORIAL LEVEL,
THE OTHERS AT EXPERTS LEVEL.
B. PRIMARY TOPICS WERE: CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CV)
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
X
0
S
PAGE 01
S;:.UET
Department of State
GENEVA 02732 02 OF 36 0619021
ACTION OFFICE ACDA-11
INFO SSS-01 /013 Al WLM
ia.
2762 070359 :S01673
INFO SSS-01 10-111 /001.
,S/S--0
11
PAGE 01 GEMEVA a2732 02 Or 06 251902Z 1'32 Z:2359 ! 161
06/0359Z DID NOT ENGAGE IN POLEMICS ON BINARIES,
NOR DID THEY iNTRODUCE EXTRANEOUS SUBJECTS.
06/03521 B. SOVIETS WERE nu:m LESS FORTHCOMING ON
BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE AND CHALLENGE INSPECTION
06/1933Z THAN OTHER VERIFICATION-RELATED AREAS. HOWEVER,
THEY WERE LESS RETICENT THAN IN PREVIOUS ROUNDS,
PARTICULARLY ON CHALLENGE INSPECTION. BOTH
ISSUES, HOWEVER, REMAIN FAR FROM RESOLUTION.
ACTION OFFICE EUR-112
INFO MR-11 550-01 SSS-01 55I-02 SS-01 0-01 P-62 7-01 C-01
SARN-11 INR-11 L-01 PA-11 OCT-01 PM-01 SP-01 SART-01
ACOA-11 SSSC-01 50E1-03 SCSC-01 /028 Al WLM
OCT PASS IMRE NSC( CIAE DODE ACDE
INFO ,ICDA-It X-01 /002 Al GAK
ACTION 55-01
INFO LOG-11 ADS-01 SS0-00 /080 W
132317. 0619041 /38
0 0618511 MAR 17
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASP= IMMEDIATE 6753
INFO DOC WASHDC
JCS MASI=
SECOEF WASNDC
AMEMIASSY BONN
AMEMRASSY LONDON
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
AMEMIASSY PARIS
AMEMSASSY VIENNA
USMISSION USNATO
USOEL MIFR VIENNA
SECRETSECT1ON 02 OF 86 GENEVA 02732
EXDIS
ACOA FOR MA; DOE FOR OP/ISA; JCS FOR .15/0DIN;
SECDEF FOR 050/ISP
VIENNA FOR USDEL CSCE
B. 0. 12356: CUL:
TAGS: FIRM UNGA, CDG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): US-USSR
PRODUCTION FACILITIES, BILATERAL OBSERVER
ARRANGEMENT, BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE, AND
CHALLENGE INSPECTION. IN ADDITION, THE
SIDES DISCUSSED ASPECTS OF CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
MONITORING MON-PRODUCTIONPLANI-INTERIM
MONITORING.
C. DISCUSSION OF IlLATERAL OBSERVER ARRANGEMENTS
RESULTED IN INFORMAL POINT PAPER USED ON U.S.
APPROACH (TEXT REF F). 'INFORMAL POINT PAPER
ON CV PRODUCTION FACILITIES THAT WAS JOINTLY
DEVELOPED IN ROUND III AND IV WAS FURTHER
ELABORATED, BUT NOT COMPLETED. (TEXT REF F).
IT IS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT BOTH PAPERS
ARE TO It REVI(VED IN CAPITALS AND NAT THIS
COULD RESULT IN SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES.
4. SOVIET OBJECTIVES AND TACTICS --
A. ROUND V WAS NOTABLE FOR STATED SOVIET
WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT VIRTUALLY ANYTHING THE
U.S. PROPOSED ON CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES
AND BILATERAL OBSERVER ISSUES. THIS
REPRESENTS A FURTHER MANIFESTATION OF THE
MORE BUSINESS-LIKE SOVIET APPROACH ALREADY
APPARENT IN ROUNDS III AND IV. SOVIETS
C. WHILE SOVIETS PRESSED TO REACH AGREEMENT
06/19061 ON CV PRODUCTION FACILITY ISSUE, IN THOSE AREAS
WHERE U.S. HAD DETAILED MATERIAL TO PUT FORWARD,
THEY WERE WILLING TO DISCUSS IT AND IN MOST
3688
CrrInT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-m1RRPnnni nr1 rIn
CASES ACCEPTED THE U.S. PROPOSALS.
S. ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES --
A.. CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES --
-- U.S. DEL PUT FORWARD CHANGES IN U.S. VIEWS
AS INSTRUCTED REF A. THESE POINTS WERE ACCEPTED
BY SOVIETS. IN ADDITION, MOST POINTS REMAINING
UNRESOLVED FROM PREVIOUS ROUND WERE AGREED ON
BASIS OF THE U.S. APPROACH REF B.
-- IN ORDER TO HELP ENSURE AN ORDERLY,
DELIBERATE PACE FOR NEGOTIATIONS, U.S. DEL
DID NOT PRESS TO COMPLETE PRODUCTION
FACILITIES PAPER. IN FACT, U.S. DEL SOUGHT
TO ENSURE THAT AT LEAST A FEW POINTS REMAINED
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. DEL BARELY MANAGED
THIS SINCE SOVIETS ACCEPTED VIRTUALLY ALL
U.S. PROPOSALS.
-- REMAINING ISSUES ARE RELATIVELY MINOR:
G1 WHETHER OR NOT CONVERTED BUILDINGS CAN
BE USED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES MOVIETS CAN
ACCEPT EITHER SOLUTION; U.S. DEL HAS NO
INSTRUCTIONS), MI WHETHER SAME APPROACH
TO ELIMINATION OF EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Department of State
PAGE 91 GENEVA 92732 03 OF 06 0619942
ACTION OFFICE *CDA-12
INFO 555-11 /093 Al WLM
270A 003269 5S01674
06/93592
INFO 555-91 10-11 /902.
00/93552
00/1935:
ACTION OFFICE EUR-112
INFO 110-91 SSO-OI SSS-OI SSI-92 55-01 0-01 P-02 1-01 C-01
SARN-11 INR-11 L-111 PA-01 OCT-01 P11-01 SP-01 SAR1-01
SNP-91 ACOA-01 SSSC-91 SDEL-03 SCSC-11 /028 Al WLM
OCT PASS INRE NSCE CIAE DODE ACDE
INFO ACA-SI A-11 /OM A4 GAN
VS-0
1:ICEING
PAGE 01 GENEVA 02732 03 OF 06 0619041 2704 1017360 5.7.067J
WITH =PLAINTS 4eour AN INSPECTION YEARS
AFTER IT HAD TAKEN PLACE. U.S. DEL RESISTED
SOVIET EFFORT TO ESTABLISH A STRICT TIME
LIMIT AND SOUGHT SPECIFIC RECNNITION OF
THE RIGHT TO RAISE CONCERNS BASED ON A PATTERN
OF EVENTS SPREAD OVER TIME. FINAL TEXT
ENCOURAGES PROMPT COMMUNICATION OF COMPLAINTS
BUT REFLECTS U.S. CONCERN AS WELL.
-- SOVIETS ALSO SUGGESTED "GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT'
WHEREBY INSPECTORATE SECTION FOR THE USSR
00/:9072 WCULD BE HEADED BY AN AMERICAN AND THE AMERICAN
SECTION BY A SOVIET.
ACTION 55-08
Itao LOG-01 ADS-01 SSO-90 /000 W
132336 01:9042 '3/
0 0618582 MAR 87
FM usmissom GENEVA
TO SECSTATE MASI= IMMEDIATE 6754
INFO DOE WASHDC
JCS WASHOC
SECDEF WASHDC
AMEMBASSY BONN
AMEMBASSY LONDON
AMEMOASSY MOSCOW
AMEMBASSY PARIS
AMEMBASSY VIENNA
USMISSION USNATO
USDEL MR VIENNA
SECRETSECTION 93.0F 96 GENEVA 02732
EXOIS
ACDA FOR MA; DOE FOR DP/ISA; JCS FOR J5/DDIN;
SECDEF FOR 050/ISP
VIENNA FOR USDEL CSCE
E.O. 12356: DECL:
TAGS: PARR UNGA, COG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD). US-USSR
CAPACITY THAT IS AGREED FOR ARTICLE V
(PRODUCTION FACILITIES) SHOULD ALSO BE
APPLIED TO CHEMICAL INDUSTRY FACILITIES
UNDER ARTICLE VI W.S. - NO, SOVIETS - YES),
ALSO SOVIET DEL BRACKETED"SONT1Y-NEGOTIATED
TEXT ON MUNITIONS HARDWARE PRODUCTION,
PENDING AUTHORITY FROM.MOSCOW TO ACCEPT IT.
-- SOVIETS EXPRESSED SWAG INTEREST IN
INTRODUCING AGREED MATERIAL INTO CD
DISCUSSIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. U.S. SAID
IT WAS PREMATURE TO DISCUSS THIS BEFORE
PAPER HAD BEEN REVIEWED IN CAPITALS.
B. BILATERAL OBSERVER ARRANGEMENT --
-- DRAFT JOINT PAPER BECAME POSSIBLE WHEN
SOVIETS ACCEPTED U.S. PROPOSAL THAT SPECIAL
U.S./SOVIET REPRESENTATIVES FUNCTION AS
OBSERVERS RATHER THAN AS MEMBERS OF THE
INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION TEAM. DEL BELIEVES
PAPER REFLECTS SOVIET ACCEPTANCE OF ALL
POINTS OF U.S. POSITION (REF C).
-- PRINCIPAL SOVIET PREOCCUPATION WAS TO
ENSURE THAT THE U.S. WOULD NOT SURPRISE THEM
C. BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE --
-- THIS TOPIC WAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL FOR
THE FIRST TIME AT TWO EXPERTS MEETINGS.
-- U.S. DEL STRESSED THAT SATISFACTORY
BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE IS A PRECONDITION
FOR SIGNATURE OF THE MULTILATERAL CONVENTION
AND THAT SOVIET FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE U.S.
PROPOSAL WOULD AFFECT THE MULTILATERAL
NEGOTIATIONS.
-
-- SOVIETS HINTED THAT THEY WERE CONSIDERING
PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THEY POSSESS CW.
(SOVIETS DID OBLIQUELY ACKNOWLEDGE THIS IN
MARCH 5 PLENARY STATEMENT.) THEY ALSO SAID
THEY DID NOT RULE OUT PROVIDING DETAILED
DATA BEFORE SIGNATURE, BUT STRESSED THAT THIS
COULD BE DONE ONLY WHEN IT WAS CERTAIN THAT THE
CONVENTION WOULD BE COMPLETED. THEY SAID
THEY WANTED A CLEAR POLITICAL COMMITMENT
NOT ONLY FROM THE U.S., BUT ALSO OTHERS (SUCH
AS FRANCE). IN SUM, THE SOVIETS WINKED AND
SMILED, BUT GAVE NO COMMITMENT.
D. CHALLENGE INSPECTION --
364C C.
errnrr
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
??????
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
X
ci

X
0
S
l
PAGE 11
sr.ET
Department of State
GENEVA 82732 24 OF 26 J615361
ACTION OFFICE ACOA-82
INFO 555-91 /On Al WLM
2715 022361 2201677
26/24282
INFO 555-Il 10-11 /Or,. AL..W?M
.s/so
I LI
PAGE 21 GENEVA 02732 24 or 26 361906: 2715 02361 ::c:o
BUT REITERATED SOVIET CONCEXN ABOUT PO2SI8LE
ABUSE OF MANDATORY CHALLENGE.
26/83552 -- BASED ON SOVIET STATE".ENTS IN ROUND V,
ONE 4OULD CONCLUDE THAT THEY ARE DEAD SET
06/19401 AGAINST A MANDATORY CHALLENGE PROVISION
ALONG THE LINES OF U.S. ARTICLE X. HOWEVER,
IT MAY BE USEFUL TO SPECULATE ON HOW FAR
THE SOVIETS MIGHT EVENTUALLY BE WILLING TO
MOVE.
ACTION OFFICE E112-12
INFO KR-11 550-11 SSS-81 55I-22 55-81 0-91 P-02 1-81 C-01
SUN-Il INN-91 1-91 P6-21 OCT-01 P11-01 SP-81 SART-01
SNIP-11 ACDA-01 SSUI81 50(1-03 SCSC-01 /028 A1 WtM
OCT PASS INRC IISCE CIAE DODE ACDE
INFO ACDA-11 X-11 /202 64 CAN
ACTION 55-91
INFO 106-111 ADS-111 SS0-00 /800 W
132454 2619072 /38
0 1618582 MAR 87
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASNOC IMMEDIATE 6755
INFO DOE WASNOC
JCS WASNOC
SECOEF WASNOC
AMEMBASSY BONN
AMEMBASSY LONDON
AMEMIASSY MOSCOW
AMEMOASSY PARIS
AMEMIASSY VIENNA
USNISSION USNATO
USDEL IMER VIENNA
SECRETSECTION 114.0f 96 GENEVA 02732
EXDIS
ACOA FOR MA; DOE FOR DP/ISA; ICS FOR J5/00111:
SECOEF FOR 050/ISP
VIENNA FOR USDEL CSCE
E.O. 12366: DECL:
TAGS: PUN UNGA, COG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT ICD): us-ussa
BOTN SIDES STRESSED IMPORTANCE OF
CHALLENGE INSPECTION ISSUE. IN VIEW OF
INSTRUCTIONS MEF AI TO KEEP CHALLENGE
ISSUE IRON DOMINATING DISCUSSIONS, U.S.
DEL LINITED DISCUSSION OF.1SSUE7t0 A
SINGLE MEETING.
-- CURRENT SOVIET POSITION, AS LAID DOWN
IN FEBRUARY 17 CD PLENARY STATEMENK ANO
CLARIFIED IN BILATERAL DiSCUSSIONS, PROVIDES
FOM MANDATORY CHALLENGE INSPECTIONS IN TWO
CASES -- FOR ALLEGATIONS OF CW USE AND
FOR ACTIVITIES AT ALL DECLARED FACILITIES.
NET RESULT IS THAT SOVIET POSITION NOW GOES
FUITNER TNAN THE JULY 1986 UK PROPOSAL.
-- SOVIETS EXPRESSED CONSIDERABLE INTEREST
IN UK CONCEPT OF 'ALTERNATIVE MEASURES AND
DISCUSSED SPECTRUM Of POSSIBILITIES, INCLUDING
PARTIAL ACCESS.
-- U.S. DEL PRESSED SOVIETS HARD ON NEED FOR
MANDATORY CHALLENGE PROVISION TO DEAL WITH
UNDECLARED STOCKS AND UNDECLARED PRODUCTION
FACILITIES. SOVIET DELOFF LATER ACKNOWLEDGED
PRIVATELY PERSUASIVENESS OF U.S. ARGUMENTS,
26/19892 -- SINCE SUMMER 1986 THERE HAVE BEEN HINTS
THAT A MANDATORY CHALLENGE PROVISION WOULD
BE MORE ACCEPTABLE ON A BILATERAL BASIS THAN
3680
ON A MULTILATERAL BASIS. THE SOVIETS ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT IN A BILATERAL CONTEXT THE POSSIBILITY OF
A RETALIATORY CHALLENGE WOULD PROVIDE A POWERFUL
DETERRENT TO ABUSE. THEY CONTINUE TO EXPRESS
CONCERN, HOWEVER, ABOUT ABUSE BY THIRD PARTIES
WHO MAY HAVE LITTLE TO LOSE. THIS CONTINUING
THEME SUGGESTS THAT EVENTUALLY THE SOVIETS
MIGHT BE RECEPTIVE TO A BILATERAL OUTCOME
ON THIS ISSUE.
-- WHILE EVIDENCE IS QUITE FRAGMENTARY, THE
CHANCES THE SOVIETS WILL ACCEPT A MULTILATERAL
PROVISION FOR MANDATORY CHALLENGE BASED ON
ARTICLE X MAY BE IMPROVING AND CERTAINLY
SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED NEGLIGIBLE. THEIR
CURRENT STRESS ON 'ALTERNATIVE MEASURES' MAY
BE ONE IN A SERIES OF INTERMEDIATE POSITIONS.
ANOTHER INTERMEDIATE SOVIET MOVE MIGHT BE TO
CLAIM TO TAME ARTICLE X AS THE 'BASIS FOR
DISCUSSION' AND THEN SUGGEST CHANGES TO WATER
DOWN THE MANDATORY ASPECT.
-- STRAWS IN THE WINO THAT INDICATE THAT
POSSIBLE SOVIET ACCEPTANCE OF ARTICLE X
EVENTUALLY ARE:
- REPEATED COMMENTS BY SOVIET REPS THAT
CrrIDET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-n1iRRPnnni nn nt-Int-14 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
'; F.1] RET
Department of State
SiS
kb0.17 1k(
PAGE 11 GENEVA 82732 05 OF 06 2619082 2719 302362 SC1560 PACE 11 GENEVA 82732 05 OF 06 0519092 2719 020262 2?:0151
26/0082 NOT USE TERM "BINARY" AND i:OULC BE BROAD
ACTION OFFICE Acu-02 ENOUGH TO COVER CHEMICALS NOT USED IN BINARIES.
INFO SSS-01 /803 Al WLM THESE CHEMICALS WOULD BE REFERRED TO AS "SPECIAL
05/03512 KEY PRECURSORS." WHILE P;OPOSAL APPEARS
INFO 555-81 10-01 /Oa Ac:EPTABLE, DEL HAS DELAYED ACCEPTANCE IN OROER
06/19552 TO MODERATE PACE OF DISCUSSIONS.
ACTION OFFICE EUR-12
INFO MR-01 550-81 SSS-81 55I-02 53-01 0-01 P-02 T-81 C-81 -- AS INSTRUCTED, DEL PRESSED SOVIETS TO
SARA-81 INR-81 L-01 PA-01 OCT-81 PM-01 SP-01 :ART-01 ELABORATE POSITION ON TIMING OF INSPECTIONS
50-11 ACDA-81 SSSC-11 SDEL-83 SCSC-01 /028 A1 KM TO MAKE CLEAR THEY ACCEPT U.S. V:EW THAT
OCT PASS INRE NSCE CIAE DODE ACDE IN:PECTION TIMING BE RANDOM (UNPREDICTABLE/.
06/19102 THEY SAIO THEY AGREE BUT U.S. DEL WILL ZEEK
INFO ACDA-01 X-01 /012 A4 CAN TO NAIL THIS DOWN IN FUTURE DISCUSSIONS.
ACTION SS-08
INFO LOG-01 ADS-81 SSQ-08 MOO W
132555 0615092 /38
-- DEL ALSO PRESSED FOR SOVIET VIEWS ON USE
OF INSTRUMENTS. THEY APPEAR TO ACCEPT
EXTENSIVE USE OF INSTRUMENTS.
0 0618582 MAR 17 F. MISCELLANEOUS --
Fm USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE wASHDC IMMEDIATE 6756 -- NO REFERENCE AT ALL WAS MADE TO NATIONAL
INFO DOE 'IASI= TECHNICAL MEANS INTMI BY EITHER SIDE.
JCS WASHOC
SECDEF WASHDC -- SOVIETS DID NOT RAISE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL
AMEMBASSY BONN CORPORATIONS.
AmEmBASSY LONDON _
AmEMBASSY MOSCOW -- DATE FOR NEXT ROUND IS TO RE SETTLED THROUGH
AMEHBASSY PARIS DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS. U.S. SUGGESTED MEETING AGAIN
AMEMBASSY VIENNA EARLY IN SUMMER CD SESSION, OUT SOVIETS INDICATED
USMISSION uSNATO INTEREST IN APRIL.
USDEL MBFR VIENNA
-- SOVIETS ATTEMPTED TO BUILD SENSE OF
SECRETSECTION OS .OF 06 GENEVA 02732 MOMENTUM BY SUGGESTING A DETAILED PRESS
RELEASE 1E ISSUED AT THE END OF THE ROUND
EXDIS AND BY PROPOSING ?ELS MEET EVERY DAY.
THEY DID NOT PRESS EITHER POINT WHEN U.S.
AcDA FOR MA; DOE FOR DP/ISA; JCS FOR J5/DOIN; DEL REJECTED THEIR APPROACH.
SECOEF FOR 050/ISP
VIENNA FOR USDEL CSCE 6. RECOMMENDATIONS/REQUESTS -.
E.O. 12356: DECL:
TAGS: PARM UNGA, COG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): US-USSR
THEY HAVE A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY ON CHALLENGE
)( ISSUE.
. SOVIET DELOFF'S ACKNOWLEDGEOMENT OF
PERSUASIVENESS OF U.S. ARGUMENTS-ABOUT
UNDECLARED STOCKS.
- 'FAVORA1LE SOVIET POSTURE ON SWEDISH
CHALLENGE PROPOSAL. .
- -- PREDICTION BY RELIABLE AND WELL-INFORMED
SENIOR CD SECRETARIAT OFFICIAL THAT AFTER
SEVERAL INTERMEDIATE POSITIONS SOVIETS WOULD
ACCEPT THE U.S. PROPOSAL.
E. CHEMICAL INDUSTRY MONITORING --
-- SOVIETS OFFERED TO COMPLETE SCHEDULE 1
(BANNED CHEMICALS) LIST ALONG LINES PROPOSED
BY U.S. IN EXCHANGE FOR AN AGREED GUIDELINE
FOR SCHEDULE 1 THAT INCLUDES, INTER ALIA, A
REFERENCE TO FORMATION OF AGENTS IN MUNITIONS
AND DEVICES. LIST WOULD INCLUDE PINACOLYL
ALCOHOL, COLOROSOMAN/CHLOROSARIN, SAXITOXIN,
AND SULFUR MUSTARDS, BUT NOT RIOT CONTROL
AGENTS CS AND CR. AGREED GUIDELINE WOULD
368 E
A. DEL REOUESTS WASHINGTON REVIEW OF PAPERS
ON CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND ON BILATERAL
rrnrirT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
X
SI
I, 16
Department of State
PAGE 01 GENEVA 02732 06 OF 06 2619102 2727 2C11363 :S01612
ACTION OFFICE ?COA-02
:NFO 555-01 /003 Al WLM
we
06/04012
SYS-6
PAGE 01 GENEVA 02732 06 OF 06 0619102 2727 032363 52016
MINIMO DETERRENT UNTIL END OF THE TEN-
YEAR DES:RUCTION PERIOD.
05/03562 E. DEL RECUESTS GUIDANCE ON THE SOVIET
INFO 555-01 10-01 /002. SUGGESTION FOR A "SENTLEMAN'S taREEMENT:
35/19571 CONCERNING STAFFING OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ACTION OFFICE EUR-12 INSPECTORATE (PARA 58 ABOVE).
INFO MR-01 SSO-01 555-91 55I-02 55-01 D-01 P-02 1-91 C-91
SARN-91 INR-91 L-01 PA-01 OCT-01 PM-91 SP-91 SART-01 F. DEL NOTES INCREASING NEED IN THE OILATS
57-111 ICDA-Ii SSSC-01 50E1-93 SCSC-01 /021 Al ULM AND IN THE CD TO DISCUSS ACTUAL VERIFICATION
OCT PASS (NRC NSCE CIAE DODE ACDE HARDWARE AND URGES INCREASED ATTENTION TO
06/19122 DEVELOPING U.S. IDEAS ON SUCH HARDWARE.
INFO ACDA-01 6-01 /002 AN GAB
ACTION 55-00
INFO LOG-00 ADS-09 SSO-09 /909 W
132709 0613112 /31
0 0611512 MAR 87
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHOC IMMEDIATE 6757
INFO DOE WASHDC
JCS WASNOC
SECEIEF WASNDC
AMEMBASSY BONN
AMEMBASSY LONDON
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
AMEMSASST PARIS
AMEMIASSY VIENNA
USMISSION MATO
USDEL MIFR VIENNA
SECRETSECTION 06 OF 96 GENEVA 02732
EXDIS
ACDA FOR MA; DOC F04 DP/ISA; JCS FOR JS/DDIN;
SECEIEF FOR OSO/ISP
VIENNA FOR USDEL CSCE
E.O. 12356: DECL:
TAGS: PARR UNGA, COG, UR, US
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): US-USSR
OBSERVER ARRANGEMENTS, COMPLETION OF WORK
UNDERWAY ON CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES ISSUE,
AND FURTHER GUIDANCE ON ISSUE OF MILITARY USE
OF CONVERTED FACILITIES.
B. DEL REQUESTS CLARIFICATION OF GUIDANCE
CONCERNING AUGUST MI UNITED STATES PROPOSAL
ON NON-CONCEALMENT MEASURES. ROUND V GUIDANCE
APPEARS TO DEAL ONLY WITH RELATED'Ill.S. PROPOSAL
ON MEASURES TO ENHANCE HIM MONITORING. (DEL
ALSO NOTES THAT DRAFT INF TREATY INCLUDES
NON-CONCEALMENT PROVISION.) .
C. DEL RECOMMENDS THAT SOVIETS BE TOLD AT
SENIOR LEVEL THROUGH DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS PRIOR
TO NEXT ROUND THAT THEY NEED TO RESPOND MORE
SERIOUSLY TO U.S. PROPOSAL FOR EARLY DATA
EXCHANGE IF NEGOTIATIONS ARE TO MOVE AHEAD.
D. DEL RECOMMENDS THAT WASHINGTON PREPARE
GUIDANCE ON THE SCHEDULE FOR STOCKPILE
DESTRUCTION, SINCE THIS IS AN INCREASINGLY
IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY
BILATERAL IN CHARACTER. GUIDANCE SHOULD
ALLOW STATES WITH SMALL STOCKPILES (E.G.,
FRANCE AND POSSIBLY U.S.) TO MAINTAIN
369F
7. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
erpncT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000inninnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SRCRFT
SECRET GENEVA 02747
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD); U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, PLENARY MEETING,
MARCH 5, 1987
REFS: (A) CW BILAT -020 (NAZARKIN SPEECH)
(B) CW BILAT -018 (HANSEN SPEECH)
(C) CW BILAT -013 (CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES PAPER)
(D) CW BILAT -014 (BILATERAL OBSERVERS PAPER)
1. THIS IS CW BILAT -024. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT.)
2. SUMMARY --
-- AT THE MARCH 5 CLOSING PLENARY OF ROUND V,
CW BILATERALS, SOVIET AMBASSADOR NAZARKIN
SPOKE AND CHARACTERIZED THE TALKS AS USEFUL.
HE THEN REVIEWED BOTH THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF
THE ROUND AND THE REMAINING AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT,
STRESSING CHALLENGE INSPECTION. AMBASSADOR
HANSEN SAID RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SOVIET
POSITION ARE BEING CAREFULLY ASSESSED IN
WASHINGTON AND STRESSED THAT THE U.S. WILL NOT
BE RUSHED INTO AN INEFFECTIVE AGREEMENT. HANSEN
NOTED ADVANCES DURING THE ROUND, BUT EMPHASIZED
NEED FOR SOVIETS TO DEAL MORE SERIOUSLY WITH
U.S. PROPOSAL FOR EARLY DATA EXCHANGE. END SUMMARY.
3. SOVIET STATEMENT --
A. SOVIET AMBASSADOR NAZARKIN DELIVERED
A PREPARED STATEMENT (REF A) IN WHICH HE
LISTED THE "USEFUL WORK" ACCOMPLISHED
DURING THIS ROUND. HE SAID THE CW
STOCKPILE LOCATION ISSUE WAS RESOLVED
IN PRINCIPLE AND SUGGESTED THE 1984
U.S. WORKING PAPER ON STOCKPILE
MONITORING (CD/516) AS BASIS FOR VERIFICATION
APPROACH.
B. NAZARKIN SAID THAT THE CENTRAL ISSUE
ON WHICH NOTICEABLE PROGRESS WAS ACHIEVED
WAS CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
THE SOVIET DEL WAS PREPARED TO SEND THE
U.S.-USSR JOINT PAPER ON THIS SUBJECT (REF C)
BACK TO MOSCOW FOR REVIEW.
- NAZARKIN NOTED THE FOLLOWING UNRESOLVED
POINTS IN THE CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES PAPER:
- -- THRESHOLDS OF PRODUCTION OF STLC'S
FOR PERMITTED PURPOSES. (HE SAID THEY
SHOULD BE MEASURED IN KILOGRAMS);
- -- THE PHRASE "FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS
PURPOSES" IN THE SECTION ON KEY PRECURSOR
369
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SFCRFT
PRODUCTION COULD CREATE A LOOPHOLE BY
EXCLUDING A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF FACILITIES
FROM THE REGIME THAT ALLEGEDLY ARE NOT
PRODUCING CHEMICALS FOR CW PURPOSES;
- -- SECTION WHICH DEALS WITH THE PRODUCTION
OF CHEMICAL MUNITIONS AND SPECIAL EQUIPMENT
FOR USE IN CW;
C. ON CATEGORY 1 CHEMICALS NAZARKIN NOTED
SUGGESTIONS BY SOVIET SIDE WHICH HE HOPED
WOULD SOON LEAD TO A SOLUTION;
D. ON CHALLENGE INSPECTION NAZARKIN SAID THE
SOVIETS AGREED TO "AUTOMATIC" CHALLENGE
INSPECTION IN THE CASE OF CW USE OR WITH
REGARD TO DECLARED CW FACILITIES. THEY ALSO
AGREED ON THE NEED FOR TIMELINESS IN CHALLENGE
INSPECTIONS. HOWEVER, THEY STILL SUPPORT THE
RIGHT OF REFUSAL IN INSTANCES IF NECESSARY TO
PROTECT MILITARY SECRETS NOT RELATED TO CW.
NAZARKIN REFERRED TO THE STOCKHOLM DECLARATION
IN WHICH THE PRINCIPLE OF CLOSED
AREAS IS ACKNOWLEDGED. HE ALSO SAID THAT THE
UK PAPER, CD/715, WITH ITS PROVISION FOR
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES, MIGHT PROVIDE A BASIS
FOR A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION. NAZARKIN
THEN LISTED SOVIET OBJECTIONS TO U.S. CHALLENGE
INSPECTION PROPOSAL. HE CITED THE FOLLOWING:
- -- DISCRIMINATION AGAINST STATE-OWNED
PROPERTY;
-- NO POSSIBILITY FOR ALTERNATIVES TO
INSPECTION;
- -- AUTOMATIC INSPECTION IN ALL CASES;
- -- INEQUALITY OF MOST CONVENTION
PARTICIPANTS WITH REGARD TO THE FACT-FINDING
GROUP.
E. NAZARKIN ANNOUNCED SOVIET AGREEMENT
ON THE PAPER ON THE BILATERAL CONSULTATIVE
MECHANISM, DEVELOPED IN PREVIOUS ROUND.
HE INDICATED THAT HE WAS REFERRING THE
PAPER ON U.S. AND SOVIET REPRESENTATIVES
ON INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION TEAMS TO MOSCOW
(REF D).
4. U.S. STATEMENT --
370
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SF.C.RFT
A. AMB. HANSEN BEGAN (REF B) BY NOTING THAT
SINCE THE BILATERAL COMMITMENT ON CW AT
NOVEMBER 1985 SUMMIT, THERE HAS BEEN A CLEAR
INTENSIFICATION OF THE WORK ON A CW BAN.
FURTHERMORE, IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
SOVIET POSITION HAVE FURTHER ACCELERATED
THE PACE. THE IMPACT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS
IS BEING ASSESSED IN WASHINGTON.
-- U.S. DEL WILL CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE
CONSTRUCTIVELY, STEADILY, AND DELIBERATELY.
HOWEVER, U.S. WILL NOT BE RUSHED INTO AN
INEFFECTIVE AGREEMENT BECAUSE OF THE
POTENTIAL THREAT TO OUR SECURITY AND THAT
OF OUR ALLIES. U.S. DEL WILL CONTINUE TO
INSIST ON WORKING OUT THE DETAILS REQUIRED
TO IMPLEMENT A CONVENTION.
B. AMB. HANSEN THEN REVIEWED THE WORK OF
THE CURRENT ROUND OF BILATERALS, WHICH HE
CHARACTERIZED AS "MORE CONSTRUCTIVE THAN
PREVIOUS ROUNDS." TWO PAPERS (ON BILATERAL
OBSERVERS AT INSPECTIONS AND ON ELIMINATION
OF CW PRODUCTION FACILITIES) HAD BEEN
PREPARED AD REFERENDUM TO CAPITALS (REF C,D).
THE RESULTS OF THE U.S. REVIEW WILL BE
COMMUNICATED PROMPTLY TO THE SOVIETS.
THE U.S. HAS ALSO COMPLETED REVIEW OF
THE JOINT PAPER ON BILATERAL CONSULTATIVE
ARRANGEMENTS AND FINDS IT ACCEPTABLE
WITHOUT MODIFICATION.
C. THERE ARE SEVERAL OUTSTANDING CRITICAL
ISSUES WHICH, ALTHOUGH DISCUSSED, REMAIN
UNRESOLVED:
- -- EARLY BILATERAL DATA EXCHANGE IS
AN IMPORTANT MEASURE TO BUILD CONFIDENCE.
IT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED BEFORE SIGNATURE OF
A CONVENTION. THE EXCHANGE OF DATA IS NOT
A GUARANTEE OF A COMPLETED CONVENTION, BUT
IT IS NECESSARY. THIS TOPIC SHOULD REMAIN
A KEY ELEMENT IN FUTURE BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS.
A JOINT U.S.-SOVIET VISIT TO THE U.S.
DESTRUCTION SITE AT TOOELE, UTAH WOULD
ALSO BE USEFUL IN BUILDING CONFIDENCE.
- -- CHALLENGE INSPECTION WITHOUT RIGHT
OF REFUSAL IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE HIGH
CONFIDENCE IN THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
WITH A CONVENTION. FUTURE DISCUSSIONS OF
371
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
CHALLENGE INSPECTION SHOULD FOCUS ON SAFEGUARDS
AGAINST ABUSE OF A MANDATORY CHALLENGE INSPECTION
PROVISION.
D. ON THE ISSUE OF NON-PRODUCTION, CONSTRUCTIVE
DISCUSSIONS OCCURRED IN THIS ROUND, AND FURTHER
STUDY OF THE SOVIET PROPOSAL ON CATEGORY 1 MUST
BE DONE. THE U.S. AWAITS CLARIFICATION OF THE
SOVIET POSITION ON RANDOM, I.E., UNPREDICTABLE
TIMING OF INSPECTIONS AT DECLARED COMMERCIAL
FACILITIES.
5. PLENARY DISCUSSION --
A. AMB. NAZARKIN POSED THREE QUESTIONS:
(1) WHAT WAS THE U.S. OBJECTIVE IN
INVITING SOVIETS TO TOOELE?
(2) WOULD THE U.S. ALLOW INSPECTORS INTO
MUNITIONS BUNKERS CONTAINING MON-CHEMICAL
MUNITIONS AS PART OF A CHALLENGE INSPECTION?
(3) WHY WAS U.S. ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION
OF THE SOVIET POSITION ON RANDOM INSPECTION
OF THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY? THIS POINT HAD
BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE FEBRUARY 17 SOVIET
CD PLENARY STATEMENT. NAZARKIN NOTED THAT
IN HIS FEBRUARY 17 SPEECH HE HAD REFERRED
TO THE IAEA MODEL FOR SYSTEMATIC INSPECTION
IN WHICH THE VERIFICATION AUTHORITY SELECTS
THE FACILITIES AND THE TIMING OF SYSTEMATIC
INSPECTIONS, THEREFORE ALLOWING FOR RANDOM
INSPECTION.
AMB. HANSEN SAID U.S. WOULD PERMIT
INSPECTION OF BUNKERS. THE U.S. IS
PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE LOSS OF SECRETS
IN SUCH A SITUATION; HOWEVER, FURTHER
WORK SHOULD BE DONE TO FIND WAYS TO
MINIMIZE SUCH LOSS.
-- WITH REGARD TO THE TOOELE VISIT, AMB.
HANSEN SAID NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE INVITATION
WOULD CREATE A SENSE OF SOVIET OPPOSITION
TO OPENNESS AND CALL INTO QUESTION THEIR
WILLINGNESS TO DECLARE FACILITIES AND HAVE
OSI'S, WHICH ARE FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF A
CONVENTION. ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE, THE
U.S. WANTS TO DEMONSTRATE ITS DESTRUCTION
METHODS AND ALLOW THE SOVIETS TO OBSERVE
372
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R00010010n001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SRT
THE SECURITY AND SAFETY TECHNOLOGY WHICH
MIGHT BE APPLICABLE TO THE CONVENTION. A
VISIT TO TOOELE WOULD ALSO BEGIN TO DEAL
WITH THE PROCEDURES FOR THE VERIFICATION
OF DESTRUCTION.
C. HANSEN SUGGESTED FURTHER EXPERTS' DISCUSSION
ON RANDOM INSPECTION. HE STATED THAT THE U.S.
WANTED TO PREVENT A SITUATION IN WHICH ILLEGAL
CW MATERIALS COULD BE ROVED FROM ONE SITE TO
ANOTHER TO PREVENT DISCOVERY BECAUSE THE TIMING
OF INSPECTION OF A STATES' FACILITIES WOULD
BE KNOWN IN ADVANCE.
5. NEXT ROUND --
-
-- AT END OF THE SESSION SOVIETS ASKED
WHAT U.S. HAD IN MIND FOR THE DATES OF THE
NEXT ROUND.
-- HANSEN SAID U.S. WOULD RESPOND FORMALLY
LATER THROUGH DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS. RESUMING
IN THE EARLY PART OF THE SUMMER CD SESSION
WOULD PROVIDE TIME FOR REVIEW AND FURTHER
PREPARATION.
6. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. FLACK
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
NNNN
373
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
CONFIDENTIAL GENEVA 02968
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): U.S.-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, ROUND V TELEGRAM
LIST
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-023. (CONFIDENTIAL -- ENTIRE TEXT.
2. FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF REPORTING TELEGRAMS ON THE
U.S.-USSR BILATERAL CW DISCUSSIONS HELD IN GENEVA
DURING THREE-WEEK PERIOD ENDING MARCH 5, 1987.
ADDITIONAL CLEARANCES: RMIKULAK,
CW BILAT GENEVA DATE TIME
NUMBER NUMBER GROUP
BTUA
ABBREVIATED SUBJECT/
TOPIC
003
01784
181724ZFEB87
HANSEN 2/17 STATEMENT
004
01803
1911172FEB87
2/16 EXPERTS MTG
(GENERAL)
005
01871
201236zFEB87
NAZARKIN 2/17 STMT
006
01872
201242ZFEB87
2/17 PLENARY MEETING
007
01967
231048ZFEB87
DRAFT USSR TEXT
(RECIPROCAL PARTICI-
PATION OF OBSERVERS)
008
01968
231052ZFEB87
1/19 EXPERTS MTG (CW
PRODUCTION FACILITIE
009
02221
261544ZFEB87
2/20 EXPERTS MTG
(BILATERAL OBSERVERS
010
02222
261545ZFEB87
2/23 EXPERTS MTG
(STOCKPILE DECLARA-
TIONS/CW PRODUCTION
FACILITIES)
011
02377
021309ZMAR87
2/25 EXPERTS MTG
(CHALLENGE INSPECT 10
012
02371
021117ZMAR87
AMB. NAZARKIN VIEWS
ON CW
013
02418
021730ZMAR87
014 02588 051407ZMAR87
CW BILAT
NUMBER
015
GENEVA DATE TIME
NUMBER GROUP
02618 051656ZMAR87
016 02622 051706ZMAR87
017 02620 051701ZMAR87
2/27 EXPERTS MTG
(BILAT OBSERVERS/CHE
INDUSTRY/CW PRODUCTI
FACILITIES)
3/02 EXPERTS MTG (CW
PRODUCTION FACILITIE
BILAT OBSERVERS)
ABBREVIATED SUBJECT/
TOPIC
3/3 EXPERTS MEETING
(EARLY BILATERAL
EXCHANGE)
US/USSR INFORMAL POINT
PAPER (CW PRODUCTION
FACILITIES)
US/USSR INFORMAL POINT
PAPER (BILATERAL REP'S
374
SECRET
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRFT
OSI)
AT
018
02623
051712ZMAR87
3/5 PLENARY MEETING
019
02630
051759ZMAR87
3/5 PRESS STATEMENT
ENDING ROUND V
020
02730
06186ZMAR87
3/15 PLENARY (AMB.
NAZARKIN'S SPEECH)
021
02732
061858ZMAR7
WRAP-UP AND ANALYSIS
022
02747
071112ZMAR87
3/5 PLENARY MEETING
(N.B. THIS MESSAGE WAS
INCORRECTLY NUMBERED
023
FLACK
END OF MESSAGE
?11???
375
SECRET
024. PLEASE CORRECT.)
ROUND V TELEGRAM LIST
CONFIDENTIAL
NNNN
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
SECRET
SECRETGENEVA 04562
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): US-USSR
BILATERAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISCUSSIONS, DATE OF NEXT
ROUND
1. THIS IS CW BILAT-024. (SECRET -- ENTIRE TEXT)
2. AMBASSADOR NAZARKIN, HEAD OF THE SOVIET CD
DELEGATION, HAS PROPOSED TO ACTING U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE HANSEN JUNE 15 AS THE STARTING
DATE FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF US/SOVIET CW
BILATERALS. REQUEST WASHINGTON PROVIDE
APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE SOONEST.
3. MOSCOW MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. PETRONE
END OF MESSAGE SECRET
NNNN
376
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.385
3 February 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-FIFTH PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 3 February 1987, at 10.30 a.m.
President.
Mr. Fan Guoxiang (China)
GE.87-60034/7000E 177
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I declare open the 1987 session
and the 385th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
Today we are all saddened by the sudden loss of a colleague and friend
who devoted all his energies to the work of the Conference.
Ambassador Donald Lowitz will always be remembered by us as a man of
integrity, competence and good will who not only represented his country with
distinction, but also gained our friendship and respect. He was our President
at the opening of the 1985 session, when he had just been appointed to lead
his country's delegation, and he showed then those professional and personal
qualities which we all came to admire so much. On behalf of the Conference on
Disarmament and of the delegation of China, I extend to the delegation of the
United States of America and to his family our deeply felt condolences and
sympathy at such a tragic moment. Now may I suggest that we observe a
minute's silence in memory of our esteemed colleague.
I now give the floor to the representative of Peru,
Ambassador Morelli Pando.
Mr. MORELLI PARDO (Peru) (translated from Spanish): Speaking, on behalf
of the Group of 21, I wish to say that we are deeply grieved by the death of
Ambassador Donald Lowitz, the representative of the United States of America.
Ambassador Lowitz passed away at a time when he was dedicated heart and
soul to his high office and when it was expected that he would continue to
serve for a long time as the representative of a country that carries
considerable weight in world affairs.
From his assumption of his post, together with the presidency of this
body, at the beginning of the 1985 session, Ambassador Lowitz was held in high
esteem by his colleagues for the way in which he performed his official
duties, for his outstanding academic qualifications and for his personal
qualities, which are now remembered with gratitude and respect.
The Group of 21 wishes on this occasion to express its condolences to the
delegation of the United States of America, and, through it, to the
United States Government, as well as to the wife and other members of the
family of Ambassador Lowitz.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Peru for his statement. I now give the floor to the representative of the
German Democratic Republic, Ambassador Rose.
Mr. ROSE (German Democratic Republic): We were profoundly shocked and
grieved to learn of the sudden and totally unexpected passing away of the Head
of the United States delegation to the Conference on Disarmament,
His Excellency Ambassador Donald Lowitz. With this tragic event I would like
to offer the heartfelt condolences of the Group of socialist countries.
Together with the other delegations we mourn, in Ambassador Lowitz, a diplomat
who served his country for several years in the Conference on Disarmament. We
17R
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
3
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
have lost a colleague whose personal integrity, intellectual qualities and
sincerity were valued by everyone. His abilities were particularly manifest
two years ago when he chaired the Conference as a fair and even-handed
President. May I ask the United States delegation to convey to the family of
Ambassador Lowitz, as well as to his Government, my Group's deepest sympathy.
Ambassador Lowitz will be long remembered as an outstanding person. We shall
miss him here.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
the German Democratic Republic for his statement. Now I give the floor to the
representative of Australia, Ambassador Butler.
Mr. BUTLER (Australia): Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honour to
make the following statement on behalf of the Western Group of States members
of the Conference on Disarmament.
Exactly two years ago, on 4 February 1985, Ambassador Donald Lowitz
presented his letter of appointment by the President of the United States
of America as United States Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament. Just
two days ago, this past weekend, Ambassador Lowitz died in Geneva. He was
57 years of age, he had shared 35 of those years with his wife, Shana, with
whom he had children and then grandchildren. Ambassador Lowitz was at this
Conference for a relatively short time but the mark he left here will endure
for a very, very long time.
As Don Lowitz often said himself, he was not a professional diplomat, in
the sense that he had not spent all of his professional life in the conduct of
foreign relations. Indeed, he often described himself as simply a lawyer from
Chicago. Yet Donald Lowitz showed us all the craft, the skill of diplomacy at
its highest. He was scrupulously honest. He never sought to mislead anyone.
He listened hard to all points of view and, I suspect, especially to those
with which he thought he might conceivably have difficulty. Thus, his
scrupulous personal honesty was also translated into fairness to others. He
joined argument and negotiation vigorously, seeking to leave no one in any
doubt or lack of clarity about the position of the Government that he was so
proud to represent, and which he represented completely faithfully. And, when
compromise could be reached, he would show generosity of spirit and join in
that compromise.
The Western States members of this Conference mourn the loss of a valued
colleague and friend. We know that the purposes of this Conference were
greatly served by Donald Lowitz's presence at it. We feel great sympathy
towards his wife, Shana, and the members of his family. Their loss is as
grave as it was sudden and we collectively convey this expression of sympathy
to the Lowitz family. We know, too, that the Government and people of the
United States of America have lost an immensely skilled official and devoted
public servant and we ask the Acting Head of the delegation of the
United States of America to convey to the United States authorities our
expression of sympathy for their loss of Ambassador Donald Lowitz. He
combined qualities of personal integrity, patriotism and deep religious faith
in a way that was rare and of inestimable value to all and we will all miss
him.
379
narlaccifipn in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
4
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Australia for his statment. The representative of the United States
of America, Mr. Barthelemey, has asked for the floor, and I now give him the
floor.
Mr. BARTHELEMEY (United States of America): The United States delegation
acknowledges with gratitude the expressions of condolence that have just been
offered by yourself, and by representatives of the Group of 21, the Group of
socialist States and the Western Group on the sad occasion of the death of the
leader of the United States delegation, Ambassador Donald Lowitz. We have
also been moved by the generous words spoken to us by other colleagues here.
The delegation will ensure that they are transmitted to Mrs. Lowitz and her
family, as well as to Washington.
Ambassador Lowitz's death was, of course, a great shock to us. He had
just returned to Geneva from the United States eager to renew the pursuit of
the diverse goals of this Conference, in particular the chemical weapons
negotiations. Ambassador Lowitz was immensely proud to have been chosen by
President Reagan to represent the American people in this unique negotiating
Conference and in the United Nations, for he believed profoundly that nations
must be steadfast in the defence of their freedom and security but must also
summon the will and wisdom to reduce weaponry and the danger of war.
In the two years that he served here, Donald Lowitz gained not only the
respect, but also the affection of his delegation. The statements we have
heard this morning are testimony to the esteem of his colleagues as well. It
is a respect and affection that he earned by his integrity in representing the
views of his Government; by his painstaking attention to all aspects of the
issues and his quick grasp of their subtleties; by his willingness to listen
carefully to the views of others; by his generosity of spirit and by his wit
and good humour. We shall miss Don Lowitz very much.
Mrs. Lowitz has graciously consented to the request of the United States
delegation that I share with you a message to her from the President of the
United States, Ronald Reagan. I would like to read that message:
"February 2, 1987. Dear Mrs. Lowitz, I was saddened to learn of the
death of your husband. Please accept my heartfelt condolences.
Ambassador Lowitz will be remembered as a public servant of the highest
distinction. As United States representative to the Conference on
Disarmament and to the United Nations First Committee he pursued with
imagination and energy the security of the United States. His
negotiations toward a comprehensive ban on chemical weapons and other
important United States arms control efforts promoted world peace and
stability. In all of his efforts his deep humanity won him the affection
and respect of his colleagues, both American and foreign. We shall all
miss Ambassador Lowitz. Our best tribute to him will be to continue to
pursue the goals to which he was dedicated and to pursue them in the same
humane spirit he constantly exhibited. Signed, Ronald Reagan."
380
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
5
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
the United States for his statement. I thank everyone. We shall now continue
with our proceedings.
I am sure that all members join me in extending our thanks to
Ambassador Alan Beesley, of Canada, for the brilliant manner in which he
presided over the Conference during the month of August and the
inter-sessional period. His rich diplomatic experience, tact and dedication
to the work of the Conference were brought to bear in resolving a number of
delicate questions facing the Conference at the time.
On behalf of the Conference, allow me to extend a warm welcome to the
First Deputy Foreign Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
His Excellency Mr. Yuli Vorontsov, who will be addressing the Conference later
today. I need hardly elaborate on Mr. Vorontsov's great knowledge in matters
of disarmament, which makes him an eminent leader of the Soviet delegation in
bilateral talks on nuclear and space arms. I am sure that members will be
following his statement with particular interest.
I would like also to bid farewell to our colleagues who have left the
Conference during the inter-sessional period to follow other pursuits: the
representative of Indonesia, Ambassador Sutowardoyo; the representative of
Italy, Ambassador Franceschi; the representative of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, Ambassador Issraelyan; and the representative of
Yugoslavia, Ambassador Vidas. Both Ambassador /ssraelyan and Ambassador Vidas
chaired this Conference during their tenure as representatives of their
countries. The very effective manner in which they discharged their duties
was appreciated by all of us. We wish all the above representatives every
success in their future endeavours. I should like to recall that
Ambassador Issraelyan was one of the deans among the representatives to the
Conference on Disarmament, which he joined upon its constitution in its
present form. He is also a veteran. He served his country with distinction
and won the respect of all his colleagues.
As President of this Conference, I would also like, on behalf of you all,
to extend a warm welcome to the new representatives who are joining us for the
first time: Ambassador Hacene, of Algeria: Ambassador Barbosa, of Brazil:
Ambassador Morel, of France; Ambassador Pugliese, of Italy;
Ambassador Yamada, of Japan; Ambassador Dolgu, of Romania;
Ambassador Nazarkine, of the USSR; and Ambassador Rosin, of Yugoslavia. We
are sure all these new delegates and colleagues will support us in handling
the difficult tasks confronting us in the coming weeks and I am sure that we
are all looking forward to co-operating with them in our daily work.
I wish also to note the presence among us of the Director-General of the
United Nations Office at Geneva, Mr. Erik Suy, who has very kindly provided
effective servicing for the Conference during his tenure in office in Geneva.
I understand that he will be leaving us soon and I extend to him all our best
wishes for his future personal and professional life. May I also extend a
381
nna-Inecifiarl in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
6
(The President)
cordial welcome to the Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs,
Mr. Jan Martenson, who is present at our proceedings today. In doing so, I
should like to note that he will soon be leaving this important function and
assuming others which will keep him also in close contact with the
Conference. He has served as Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs
for more than seven years and during that period his department has serviced
this Conference with devotion and effectiveness. I am sure we all thank him
for that and wish him every success in his new post.
Now, as President of the Conference, I have the honour to present to the
Conference a message by the State Councillor and Foreign Minister of the
People's Republic of China, Wu Xuegian, which reads as follows:
"On the occasion of the commencement of the work of the Conference
on Disarmament in 1987, I wish to extend, on behalf of the Chinese
Government, our warm congratulations and cordial greetings to the
distinguished representatives from various countries. Nineteen eighty-six
was designated as the International Year of Peace. Over the year, the
people of the world expressed their earnest desire for world peace in
various ways, demonstrating their determination to strengthen unity,
safeguard peace and oppose war. The continuous expansion of the forces
for peace has become an irresistible historical trend.
However, the turbulent world situation shows that the danger of war
is not yet past. Regional conflicts remain unsettled and the arms race
continues unabated, posing a grave threat to world peace and security.
The world's people strongly demand that the countries which bear a
'special responsibility' for putting an end to the arms race conduct
serious negotiations in conformity with the trend of the times so as to
reach an early agreement contributing to the maintenance of world peace
without prejudice to the interests of other countries and that they
fulfil in real earnest the obligations of 'taking the lead' in
drastically reducing armaments.
The preservation of world peace and security and the realization of
genuine disarmament are the common aspirations of the people of all
countries and also the main task of the Conference on Disarmament. China
has always held that the question of disarmament concerns the security
interests of all countries and that all countries, big or small, strong
or weak, should have equal rights to join in the discussion and
settlement of the question. The institution of the Conference on
Disarmament has changed the situation in which only a few countries
monopolized disarmament negotiations and it has provided the small and
medium-sized countries with an important forum for participation in the
settlement of disarmament questions. As the sole international body for
multilateral disarmament negotiations, the Conference on Disarmament has
over the past few years done a great deal of useful work in pushing
forward the international disarmament process. The non-aligned and
neutral countries have played an important role in this respect.
However, for reasons known to all, the Conference on Disarmament has made
little progress on most of the major issues, much to the dissatisfaction
of the people.
382
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
7
(The President)
China pursues an independent foreign policy of peace. It opposes
the arms race and actively supports and advances proposals and
propositions on disarmament which contribute to the maintenance of world
peace and security. It has also taken serious major steps of practical
significance concerning disarmament. This fully demonstrates the Chinese
Government's sincerity in disarmament. Together with the people of other
countries, the Chinese people will make unremitting efforts to build a
world of lasting peace, prosperity and development, as well as equality
and co-operation.
The Chinese Government attaches great importance to the role of the
Conference on Disarmament and has taken an active part in its work.
China is ready to work with the other member States participating in the
Conference for progress in the negotiations on various disarmament issues
and to make contributions to the early realization of genuine
disarmament. I wish the Conference on Disarmament fresh progress in
1987."
This concludes the message by Minister Wu.
I should like now to give the floor to the Secretary-General of the
Conference, Ambassador Miljan Komatina. In his capacity as personal
representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, he will read
out a message addressed to the Conference by the Secretary-General.
Mr. KOMATINA (Secretary-General of the Conference and
Personal Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations): The
message of the Secretary-General to the Conference on Disarmament reads as
follows:
"Today, more than ever before, the tasks before the Conference on
Disarmament engage the anxious interests of all, in East or West, North
or South, who are cognizant of the deadly dangers created by an
unrestrained arms race in this nuclear age. The whole community of
nations will keenly watch the Conference's work and hope for auguries of
success in the vast endeavour of lessening these dangers.
The past year has witnessed some remarkable developments. The
meeting between the leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
and the United States of America at Reykjavik was a most significant
event: it showed what possibilities are open, in dialogue at the highest
leadership level, for taking radical initiatives on crucial disarmanent
issues which have been bogged down in indecisive negotiations for years.
The proposals and ideas that were discussed were indicative of the
positive evolution in the intentions and positions of the two most
powerful States.
Nineteen eighty-six also recorded some progress in multilateral
forums. The agreement in Stockholm, the two Conventions concluded in
Vienna under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the
successful conclusion of the Biological Weapons Review Conference and the
progress made by the Conference on Disarmament in elaborating the
chemical weapons ban are noteworthy examples of a constructive approach
towards the issues of disarmament and international security.
.101
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
8
(Mr. Komatina, Secretary-General of the
Conference and Personal Representative of
the Secretary-General of the United Nations)
The deliberations on these issues during the forty-sixth session of
the General Assembly also contributed to the promotion of international
dialogue. Furthermore, activities during the International Year of Peace
put a focus on the elemental issue of human survival. The year ended
with a wide international consensus for the strengthening of the role and
efficacy of the United Nations without which the international order
would be even more precarious.
These are all reassuring signs, but they have not yet changed the
sombre realities facing us all. Concrete disarmament agreements still
elude us and the gap between words and deeds has not narrowed. The same
year that encouraged some hope also furnished vivid and alarming
reminders of how even seemingly reliable technology can go wrong and of
how war continues to take its high toll in human life and the assets of
nations.
The responsibility resting on your Conference in matters of vital
importance for the future of mankind can hardly be exaggerated. The goal
of curbing the arms race, particularly the nuclear arms race, and moving
towards substantial disarmament agreements leading to the final
elimination of nuclear weapons needs to be vigorously pursued. Pending
the realization of that goal, all practicable measures for the prevention
of war, particularly nuclear war, need to be taken so as to bring about
an immediate decrease in the risks stemming from the existence of today's
enormous arsenals of weapons.
A most important and urgent matter of disarmament is the complete
cessation of nuclear weapon tests and no efforts can be spared in the
elaboration of a comprehensive nuclear test ban. To that end, fresh and
perhaps innovative proposals are needed which would lend a decisive
impetus to your efforts and complement other endeavours in this field.
Your negotiations on a global chemical weapons ban have now reached
a crucial stage and assumed a growing sense of urgency in the light of
present realities. Elements for early success in your negotiations are
not wanting. What is needed is the manifestation of a genuine
willingness to make the necessary political compromises which would
facilitate the conclusion of a convention even this year.
The resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the prevention of
the arms race in outer space needs to be translated into a co-operative
undertaking by your Conference to create conditions for negotiating
agreements on this vital matter. This is now one of the essential areas
in which concerted action can be taken for strengthening international
peace and security.
The tasks before your Conference as a unique representative
negotiating forum are indeed difficult, but in no way unsurmountable,
given the universal desire for a more secure world in which our scarce
human and material resources could be utilized for the fullest, economic
384
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
9
(Mr. Komatina, Secretary-General of the
Conference and Personal Representative of
the Secretary-General of the United Nations)
and social development of all societies. In discharging its
responsibilities, the Conference would certainly benefit from more
high-level political attention by all its members.
I pledge my full support to the efforts of the Conference, which I
consider essential not only for the completion of multilateral
disarmament agreements, but also for the promotion of the general process
of disarmament at all levels.".
This concludes the message of the Secretary-General, but I have been asked by
the Secretary-General to convey on his behalf to the delegation of the
United States and to the family of Ambassador Lowitz the expression of his
heartfelt condolences and deepest sympathy.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the Personal
Representative of the Secretary-General for his statement. Allow me to invite
him to convey to Mr. Perez de Cuellar our thanks for his message and for the
interest he shows in our work.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations has also addressed a letter
to us transmitting the resolutions and decisions on disarmament adopted by the
General Assembly at its forty-first session. That letter has been circulated
today by the secretariat as document CD/733.
I have on my list of speakers for today, the representatives of Mexico,
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Sweden, the Chairman of the
Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons, and the representative of Australia.
I now give the floor to the first speaker of the 1987 session, the
distinguished representative of Mexico, Ambassador Garcia Robles.
Mr. GARCIA ROBLES (Mexico) (translated from Spanish): Those of us who
have had occasion to participate for some time in the work of this "single
multilateral disarmament negotiating body" can, on the basis of our
experience, say that the two months in which the task of guiding our
deliberations presents the greatest difficulties are without doubt the first
and last months of each session.
For this reason we are gratified that you are presiding over the work of
the Conference on Disarmament for the month of February which is now starting
and which marks the beginning of its 1987 session. The skill which you
displayed during previous consultations and your valuable participation as
representative of China in the First Committee during the recent session of
the General Assembly are guarantees of the efficiency with which we are sure
you will discharge the important duties that are now entrusted to you, and in
connection with which you may count on the wholehearted co-operation of the
delegation of Mexico.
I should also like once again to extend to your predecessor,
Ambassador Beesley, the distinguished representative of Canada, our warmest
congratulations on the outstanding way in which he performed his duties from
1 August 1986.
nna-Inecifiarl in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
10
(Mr. Garcia Robles, Mexico)
My delegation also associates itself with the tribute paid by the
Conference on Disarmament to the memory of Ambassador Donald Lowitz as well as
with the fully justified and well-deserved words of farewell you addressed to
those who have left or are about to leave the Conference and your words of
welcome to those who, in one way or another, are just beginning to participate
in our work.
In embarking today on the ninth session of the Conference on Disarmament,
it is most appropriate that we should bear in mind what the United Nations
General Assembly stated emphatically at its last session, which happened to
coincide with the so-called International Year of Peace, in its
resolution 41/86 M, adopted on 4 December by the impressive majority of
133 votes in favour, on the item entitled "Report on the Conference on
Disarmament".
In this resolution which, for a number of reasons, should serve as a
guide in our work this year,' the Assembly:
Expressed its conviction that this Conference, as the single multilateral
negotiating body on disarmament, "should play the central role in substantive
negotiations on priority questions of disarmament".
It reaffirmed that the establishment of ad hoc committees "offers the
best available machinery for the conduct of multilateral negotiations on items
on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament".
It called upon the Conference on Disarmament "to further its mandate more
earnestly through negotiations and to adopt concrete measures on the specific
priority issues of disarmament on its agenda, in particular those relating to
nuclear disarmament", and for that purpose established relevant committees
with appropriate negotiating mandates.
At that forty-first session, the General Assembly adopted over
60 resolutions which, in one way or another, cover all the disarmament items
on the agenda of the Conference. Of these various resolutions, I shall
confine my present statement to an examination of the resolution which is the
most important among those relating to the first of these items, namely, the
prohibition of nuclear-weapon testing; of the resolution on the prevention of
an arms race in outer space; of the main resolutions dealing with the
cessation of the nuclear-arms race and nuclear disarmament and the prevention
of nuclear war, including all related matters as well as, finally, of the
decision on the comprehensive programme of disarmament which, this year, is of
particular importance in the light of the action taken by the Assembly in the
sense that, noting the recommendation contained in the report submitted by the
Conference, it decided that work on the elaboration of the programme be
resumed at the beginning of the Conference's 1987 session "for the purpose of
completing that task during the first part of that session and submitting a
complete draft of the programme to the General Assembly at that time", namely,
during its forty-first session which, as we know, was not done.
386
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
11
(Mr. Garcia Robles, Mexico)
The first of the resolutions to which I have just referred, namely,
resolution 41/46 A, was adopted on Wednesday, 3 December 1986, by 135 votes in
favour, and is entitled "Cessation of all nuclear-test explosions". Although
its text is more concise than in previous years, it contains all the essential
and relevant elements. In its first preambular paragraph it is recalled that
the item, which had been examined for more than 30 years and on which the
General Assembly had adopted more than 50 resolutions, was a basic objective
of the United Nations in the sphere of disarmament, to the attainment of which
it had repeatedly assigned the highest priority.
The resolution stresses that, on eight different occasions the
General Assembly had condemned such tests in the strongest terms and that,
since 1974, it had stated its conviction that the continuance of
nuclear-weapon testing "will intensify the arms race, thus increasing the
danger of nuclear war". Reference is also made to what was stated by the
Secretary-General at a plenary meeting of the General Assembly on
12 December 1984, at which the highest administrative official of the
United Nations emphasized that no single multilateral agreement could have a
greater effect on limiting the further refinement of nuclear weapons, and that
the desired comprehensive test-ban treaty was undoubtedly "the litmus test of
the real willingness to pursue nuclear disarmament".
Another of the preambular paragraphs emphasizes that the three
nuclear-weapon States which act as depositaries of the 1963 Treaty Banning
Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and under Water
undertook in article 1 of that Treaty to conclude a treaty resulting in the
permanent banning of all nuclear-test explosions, including all those
explosions underground, and that such an undertaking was reiterated in 1968 in
the Preamble to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
article VI of which further embodies their solemn and legally binding
commitment to take effective measures relating to cessation of the
nuclear-arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.
In the next paragraph, the Assembly recalls that the same three
nuclear-weapon States, namely, the United States, the United Kingdom and the
Soviet Union, in the report they submitted on 30 July 1980 to the Committee on
Disarmament after four years of trilateral negotiations, stated, inter alia,
that they were "mindful of the great value for all mankind that the
prohibition of all nuclear-weapon test explosions in all environments will
have" as well as "conscious of the important responsibility placed upon them
to find solutions to the remaining problems", adding furthermore that they
were "determined to exert their best efforts and necessary will and
persistence to bring the negotiations to an early and successful conclusion".
The preamble to the resolution I am referring to also contains a new
element, since it refers to something that happened after the adoption of the
1985 resolution, namely, the so-called "Mexico Declaration" which was adopted
at Ixtapa on 7 August 1986 and in which the leaders of the six countries
associated under the five-continents peace and disarmament initiative affirmed
387
nna-Inecifiarl in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
12
(Mr. Garcia Robles, Mexico)
that they "remain convinced that no issue is more urgent and crucial today
than bringing to an end all nuclear tests", adding that "Both the qualitative
and the quantitative development of nuclear weapons exacerbate the arms race,
and both would be inhibited by the complete abolition of nuclear weapons
testing".
In the operative part of its resolution, the Assembly began by
reiterating once again its grave concern that nuclear-weapon testing continues
unabated, "against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Member States",
reaffirming its conviction that a treaty to achieve the prohibition of all
nuclear-test explosions by all States for all time is a matter of the highest
priority and would constitute "a contribution of the utmost importance to the
cessation of the nuclear-arms race".
The Assembly once more urged the three depositary Powers of the Treaty of
Moscow and the Non-Proliferation Treaty "to abide strictly by their
undertakings" to seek to achieve the early discontinuance of all test
explosions of nuclear weapons and to expedite negotiations to this end. It
went on to appeal to all States members of the Conference on Disarmament, in
particular to the threq depositary Powers already mentioned "to promote the
establishment by the Conference at the beginning of its 1987 session of an
ad hoc committee with the objective of carrying out the multilateral
negotiation of a treaty on the complete cessation of nuclear-test explosions".
The resolution ends with a recommendation to the Conference that this
ad hoc committee should "comprise,- two working groups dealing, respectively,
with the following interrelated questions: contents and scope of the treaty,
and compliance and verification", and with an appeal to the States
depositaries of the Partial Test-Ban Treaty of 1963 "to bring to a halt
without delay all nuclear-test explosions, either through a trilaterally
agreed moratorium or through three unilateral moratoria".
As we all know, by virtue of the decision announced in July 1985, it will
be one year and a half at the end of this week since the Soviet Union began to
abide by a unilateral moratorium that took effect on 6 August of that year.
It is for this reason that the Group of Six, consisting of the Heads of State
or Government of Argentina, Greece, India, Mexico and Sweden and the
Prime Minister of Tanzania, issued a joint declaration at the end of last year
in which, among other things, they stated:
"There is no justification for nuclear testing by any country. We
appeal once again to the United States to reconsider its policy on
nuclear testing so that a bilateral moratorium can be established. Our
offer to help ensure adequate verification of such a moratorium remains
valid. We are ready to start implementing it at any moment."
It will be recalled that the same Heads of State or Government who, in
the Delhi Declaration of January 1985, had stated that "Two specific steps
today require special attention: the prevention of an arms race in outer
space, and a comprehensive test ban treaty", reverted to this question in the
following terms in a new Declaration, adopted in Ixtapa on 7 August 1986:
388
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
13
(Mr. Garcia Robles, Mexico)
"We reiterate our demand that an arms race in outer space be
prevented. Space belongs to humanity, and as participants in this common
heritage of mankind, we object to the outer space of our Earth being
misused for destructive purposes".
Although, in addition to the resolution that was approved, three other
draft resolutions were submitted in the First Committee on this item -- one
sponsored by China, the second by a group of Western States and the third by a
group of socialist States -- no decision was taken on them at the request of
their respective sponsors. Then there was the draft resolution sponsored by
many members of the so-called Group of 21 among whom, as in the previous year,
the representatives of Sri Lanka and Egypt played a particularly important
role in its elaboration and in the usual round of consultations; after the
original text had been amended by its sponsors this draft resolution was
adopted in plenary by the General Assembly on 3 December by a vote which can
certainly be described as one of the most impressive of the session, namely,
154 votes in favour, none against and only 1 abstention -- that of the
United States.
That resolution, namely, resolution 41/53, like that of the previous
year, is very long and as usual consists of a preamble and an operative part.
In the preamble, the General Assembly, after recognizing the.common interest
of all mankind in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful
purposes, reaffirms the commitments assumed by the States parties to the
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and
Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, in
accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and
in particular their undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth any
objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass
destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies or station such weapons
in outer space in any other manner.
In the preamble the General Assembly also reaffirmed paragraph 80 of the
Final Document of the first special session devoted to disarmament, in which
it is stated that, in order to prevent an arms race in outer space, further
measures should be taken and "appropriate international negotiations held in
accordance with the spirit of the Treaty".
In the operative part of the resolution I am discussing, it is worthwhile
highlighting the following two appeals: the first is contained in paragraph 4
and addressed to all States, in particular those with major space
capabilities, "to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of
outer space and to take immediate measures to prevent an arms race in outer
space" in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and
promoting international co-operation and understanding.
The second appeal is contained in paragraph 9 and is addressed to the
United States and the Soviet Union, which are urged to pursue intensively
their bilateral negotiations in a constructive spirit aimed at reaching early
agreement for preventing an arms race in outer space, and to advise the
Conference on Disarmament periodically of the progress of their bilateral
sessions so as to facilitate its work.
389
n.rincQifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
14
(Mr. Garcia Robles, Mexico)
Finally -- just as I did a year ago -- I have intentionally kept until
last the following three quotations from operative paragraphs 5, 6 and 8,
since they all refer expressly to the Conference on Disarmament:
In paragraph 5, the Assembly reiterated that the Conference on
Disarmament, as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, "has
the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements,
as appropriate, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its
aspects".
In paragraph 6 the Assembly expressly requested the Conference on.
Disarmament "to consider as a matter of priority the question of preventing an
arms race in outer space".
Lastly, in paragraph 8 of its resolution, it requested the Conference "to
re-establish an ad hoc committee with an adequate mandate at the beginning of
its 1987 session, with a view to undertaking negotiations for the conclusion
of an agreement or agreements, as appropriate, to prevent an arms race in
outer space in all its aspects".
As regards the item that has invariably been the second item on the
agenda of this multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, namely, the
one entitled "Cessation of the nuclear arms race.and nuclear disarmament",
resolution 41/86 F whose title is the same as the item and which was adopted
on 4 December by 130 votes in favour, recalls, in its preamble, the danger
posed by nuclear weapons to mankind and to the survival of civilization and,
after a number of other equally pertinent considerations, goes on in its
operative part to;
Affirm that the existence of bilateral negotiations on nuclear arms "in
no way diminishes the urgent need to initiate multilateral negotiations in the
Conference on Disarmament on the cessation of the nucelar-arms race and
nuclear disarmament".
In the same operative part the resolution goes on to request the
Conference on Disarmament "to establish an ad hoc committee at the beginning
of its 1987 session to elaborate on paragraph 50 of the Final Document and to
submit recommendations to the Conference as to how it could best initiate
multilateral negotiations of agreements" that would bring about a "substantial
reduction in existing nuclear weapons with a view to,their ultimate
elimination".
As regards the third item on our agenda, the main resolution adopted by
the Assembly at its last session is, in my opinion, resolution 41/86 G
entitled "Prevention of nuclear war" which, on 4 December, received 134 votes
in favour in the plenary of the Assembly. This resolution, after stating that
"it is the shared responsibility of all Member States to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of another world war, which would inevitably be a
nuclear war" and noting with "grave concern" that the Conference on
Disarmament had once more been unable to start negotiations on the question
390
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
15
(Mr. Garcia Robles, Mexico)
during its 1986 session, again requests this Conference "as a matter of the
highest priority" to establish for that purpose an ad hoc committee on the
subject "at the beginning of its 1987 session".
Coming to the last point in my brief review, namely, the question of the
comprehensive programme of disarmament, I shall today simply recall what has
been on the agenda of the multilateral disarmament negotiating forum
since 1980 and what the Conference recommended in its last report to the
Assembly -- which endorsed that recommendation in its decision adopted
unanimously on the subject on 4 December -- namely, that the elaboration of
the draft programme should be concluded "during the first part" -- namely, the
part that is beginning today -- of this year's session with a view to
submitting "a complete draft of the programme to the General Assembly" at its
forty-first session which, as we know, has not yet been concluded. At some
later date I shall discuss the background of this question in greater detail
and also examine with the attention it deserves another of the more important
items on our agenda, namely, the elimination of chemical weapons.
In concluding this, my initial, statement, I should like to stress that
what it suggests can be summarized as follows*
The need, this year, to establish without further delay an ad hoc
committee "with the objective of -- and I emphasize these four words which
represent a significant concession by the sponsors of the draft which
constituted the basis of resolution 41/46 A -- with the objective of carrying
out the multilateral negotiation of a treaty on the complete cessation of
nuclear-test explosions".
The need for the Conference "to re-establish an ad hoc committee with an
adequate mandate ... with a view to undertaking negotiations" to prevent an
arms race in outer space, in accordance with resolution 41/53 which, as I have
already mentioned, was adopted by 154 votes in favour, none against and with
only 1 abstention.
The need to establish forthwith an ad hoc committee for the purpose
described in resolution 41/86 P, which was adopted by 130 votes in favour, on
the second item on the Conference's agenda concerning the cessation of the
nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament.
The need to establish without delay a subsidiary body which, in
accordance with the provisions of resolution 41/86 G, adopted by 134 votes in
favour, would deal with what the Assembly had every reason to describe as "the
most acute and urgent task of the present day", namely, the prevention of
nuclear war.
The need to concentrate efforts and display a real spirit of flexibility
and mutual concession so that the draft comprehensive programme of
disarmament, on which we have been working since 1980, can be completed and
submitted to the Assembly at its forty-first session, as we ourselves
suggested last year and as the Assembly expressly requested in the decision it
adopted unanimously on 4 December last.
391
narinQqifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
16
(Mr. Garcia Robles, Mexico)
The points I have summarized above are all the more urgent if they are
viewed in the light of two factors. The first is that the year we are
embarking upon will mark the first decade of this multilateral disarmament
negotiating forum and that, during the nine years of its existence, contrary
to what happened with its predecessors, it has been unable to approve a single
treaty or convention on the subject. The second factor concerns what the
Assembly stated at its last session and which / took the liberty of quoting at
the beginning of my statement, namely, that it is vital that the Conference
should "further its mandate more earnestly through negotiations ... in
particular those relating to nuclear disarmament".
It must also be borne well in mind that, at their recent Reykjavik
meeting, Secretary-General Gorbachev and President Reagan "came very close to
reaching agreements which would have been historic in their sweep and
significance ... could have paved the way for the complete elimination of all
nuclear weapons".
The authors of this sensible view that I have just quoted are the six
leaders who, since 1984, have been submitting concrete proposals concerning
disarmament and peace. They include Miguel de la Madrid, the President of
Mexico who, in his statement at the United Nations on 24 September, expressed
the following opinion that I feel constitutes an appropriate epilogue to my
own statement with which, in accordance with our time-honoured tradition,
initiates for us today the 1987 discussions of the Conference:
"In the Declarations that we have signed", said the President of
Mexico, "first at New Delhi in 1985 and just last month in the Mexican
city of Ixtapa, we have stated that it is incumbent upon all men and all
peoples, and not just those Governments which possess the technical
capacity to wreak total destruction, to make efforts to halt the arms
race. ...
Our statements, whose legitimacy flows from the fact that they
express the wishes of all mankind, are but the first in a series of
efforts that the international community will have to undertake, in the
hope of eradicating nuclear weapons.".
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Mexico for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the President.
I now give the floor to the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, His Excellency the First Deputy Foreign Minister,
Mr. Yuli Vorontsov.
Mr. VORONTSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): Comrade President, thank you for the warm words of welcome
addressed to me. It is pleasant to be here once again in the midst of
large-scale disarmament. On behalf of the Soviet delegation, may I
congratulate you on occupying the responsible post of President of the
Conference on Disarmament and wish you success in the discharge of your
392
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001nonn1-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
17
(Mr. Vorontsov, USSR)
complicated duties. We express the hope that under your guidance the
Conference will succeed in engaging in businesslike negotiations on a wide
range of questions relating to arms limitation and disarmament. In your
person, Comrade President, we also welcome the 'representative of the People's
Republic of China, our great socialist neighbour whose Government has
repeatedly stated its interest in solving questions of nuclear disarmament, of
preventing an arms race in outer space, of banning nuclear-weapon tests and of
prohibiting chemical weapons -- in other words, of virtually all those issues
which take pride of place in the work of the Conference on Disarmament.
I also have pleasure in greeting the distinguished representative of
Mexico, Ambassador Garcia Robles, whom I met within these walls over 20 years
ago. The tireless activity of the dean of the disarmament corps has earned
wide recognition and has been marked by the award to him of the Nobel Peace
Prize. All of us listened with great interest to his thoroughgoing statement
concerning the tasks of the Conference on Disarmament. We should like to wish
success to the distinguished representatives of Algeria, Brazil, Italy,
Romania, France, Yugoslavia and Japan who have recently been appointed as
heads of delegations, Ambassadors Hacene, Barboza, Pugliese, Dolgu, Rosin and
Yamada. We should also like to thank Ambassador Beesley, who was in the Chair
in August 1986 and represented the Conference on Disarmament with distinction
during the intersessional period.
May I, on behalf of the Soviet delegation, express my most profound
condolences to the delegation of the United States of America with regard to
the sudden demise of their Head, Ambassador Lowitz. I should like to ask for
our condolences to be conveyed to Mrs. Lowitz and to her family.
I should also like to introduce the new Head of the Soviet delegation,
Ambassador Yuri Nazarkine, who is well known to many of you and who has the
necessary experience in the field of disarmament negotiations, including at
this Conference, and experience of work in preparing treaties and agreements.
/ should like to wish him and the Soviet delegation he heads successful and
fruitful activity.
This session of the Conference on Disarmament is opening at a difficult,
a crucial time. To prevent the world from moving towards the abyss of the
nuclear self-annihilation of mankind to which we are all being criminally and
irresponsibly pushed by the high priests of the arms race, by those enamoured
of fabulous profits on armaments, by the fanatical advocates of the military
orientation of each and every scientific discovery, it is now more urgently
necessary than ever before to have new political thinking, new conduct by
States. It is necessary, in sum, to break the sequence of years of senseless
accumulation of the most sophisticated weapons of death, necessary resolutely
to engage in creating a just, non-violent world, necessary to direct our
efforts towards ensuring the survival of mankind and releasing its priceless
intellectual and vast material potential for the purposes of development.
The Conference on Disarmament can make a concrete and invaluable
contribution to this process. The Conference in essence embodies the idea of
a world conference on disarmament. In its work there participate all the
nuclear-weapon States, which have special responsibility for the elimination
in - Saniti7ed Cony Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
18
(Mr. Vorontsov, USSR)
of the nuclear threat. But not only they. In the efforts to ensure reliable
security for all, the contribution of every State is weighty and important;
this issue is the common responsibility of all the members of the world
community.
The Soviet Union fully realizes its share of responsibility. A year has
elapsed since, on 15 January 1986, the Soviet Union took an initiative
unprecedented in its scope and purposes by puttting forward a programme for
the elimination of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction,
including chemical weapons, before the end of this century. This programme
has become the nucleus of the concept fixed by the twenty-seventh Congress of
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of a comprehensive system of
international security. As a result of a joint initiative by socialist
countries in the United Nations, a wide-ranging, democratic international
dialogue has begun on comprehensive security for all.
The plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union held a few days ago demonstrated the resolve of the Soviet
people in their desire to implement the decisions of the
twenty-seventh Congress of the Party. We are openly talking about the need to
think and act in a new way, as the realities in our country and in the world
as a whole require. The plenary meeting noted that, under the leadership of
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, all sound forces in Soviet society
are resolutely in favour of profound, revolutionary transformations in all
spheres of our lives, the galvanization of socialist development and the
practical implementation of the great humanitarian ideals associated with the
theory of socialism.
We are now restructuring our national economic machinery in keeping with
objective economic laws and freeing ourselves from the accumulation, as a
result of the ignoring of scientific approaches to economic development, of
serious defects in the operation of planning and management institutes and in
management practice, style and methods. Priority is being given to the
consistent introduction of self-management into the life of work collectives
and to the creation of conditions that will enable every worker to feel
himself truly the master of his enterprise. Elections are being introduced
for senior managerial posts and the conditions for the operation of a
competitive system for the selection and replacement of other supervisory
staff are in the course of being defined. Simultaneously with this, methods
are being introduced for managing economic activity by means of material and
financial incentives rather than by directives.
Of course, economic and scientific progress is not an end in itself. Its
fruits will be enjoyed fully by all Soviet people. Moreover, our basic
premise is that, by increasing our economic potential, we shall be able to
assist to a greater and qualitatively better degree in the development of the
world economy and to make a weightier contribution towards helping the
developing countries.
394
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100nn1-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
19
(Mr. Vorontsov, USSR)
Restructuring is already more than merely an idea for our further
advances it is the reality in which the multi-million population of the
Soviet Union. lives, thinks and works. Its implementation and the introduction
of new, transformative ideas are inconceivable without genuine democracy,
which is why the plenary session put the serious, thorough democratization of
Soviet society on a pinnacle as the lever whereby our main force, the people,
can be fully involved in the solution of the problems confronting us.
We are convinced that democracy, openness, criticism and self-criticism
are the guarantees for the sound development of Soviet society. Democracy and
openness are inseparable from socialism, whose main principle is "everything
on behalf of man, everything for the good of man". It is natural, therefore,
that man, the means for the comprehensive development of his creative
potential, and the satisfaction of his material and spiritual needs were at
the centre of the plenary session's attention. "We want to turn our country
into a model of a highly-developed State, into a society of the most advanced
economy, the broadest democracy and the most humane and the highest moral
standards, where the working man will feel himselea full and equal master".
These words spoken at the plenary session by the General Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,
Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev, determine our thinking, our hopes and our
practical actions.
The Soviet people associate with the restucturing, the speeding up of
development and the democratization their vital interests, the fate of the
country and its international prestige. It is clear to every unprejudiced
person that the attainment of our creative goals is possible only in
conditions of peace and security. We do not conceal the fact that the
implementation of our plans as defined by the Party Congress and the January
plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,
plans for the most significant restructuring and the acceleration of the
development of our entire country, would be furthered by the reduction of
international tension and the cessation of the squandering of efforts and
resources on the arms race, which is senseless and deadly dangerous to all
mankind. We are in favour of the creation of a climate of trust conducive to
the organization of a wide-ranging international distribution of labour and to
the mutual enriching of the cultural lives of peoples.
We do not set concern for our own security against the interests of the
security of other States and peoples. In the modern world -- a world that is
interdependent, that is in many respects one and that is too fragile for
military rivalry and wars -- political realism demands that the indivisibility
of security be recognized. No country can achieve security for itself alone,
by acting on its own or together with a narrow group of allies, by relying
solely on military technology, whether on Earth or in space. In the Delhi
declaration which was signed by the leaders of the Soviet Union and India and
has enriched the world community with a concrete presentation of the
principles of a non-violent world free from nuclear weapons, it is stressed,
and I quote, "Instead of the 'balance of terror', there must be comprehensive
international security ... East and West, North and South, regardless of
social systems, ideologies, religions or races, must unite in a common
devotion to disarmament and development".
nnt-laccifiPri in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2512/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
20
(Mr. Vorontsov, USSR)
Reykjavik has given us precise awareness of the fact that a nuclear-free
world and the resolution of the crucial problems in the nuclear and outer
space area is no Utopia but a real possibility. Although the hope that the
meeting in Reykjavik would lead to early practical results has not been borne
out, the negotitions in the capital of Iceland have taken the cause of nuclear
disarmament to an unprecedentedly high frontier from which the outline of a
nuclear-free, secure world is clearly visible. The Soviet Union is, through
active and presistent practical actions at all the negotiations under way,
reaffirming its desire to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.
Here in Geneva, the Soviet-American negotiations on nuclear and space
weapons are under way. We are not withdrawing a single one of the proposals
aimed at the sharp reduction and subsequent elimination of all nuclear devices
and the guaranteeing of a peaceful space that we put forward at Reykjavik.
Moreover, we are crystallizing our proposals and manifesting in practice a
readiness to find constructive outcomes by doing our utmost to impart dynamism
to these negotiations. Hence, in the negotitations on nuclear space weapons,
the Soviet side has put forward a proposal aimed at moving the discussions on
at last from endless debate into the constructive channel of practical
preparation of documents. Work on reaching agreement on the documents in
question has already begun. We are counting on achieving success in this
important task. People expect real results from us. We hope that they
understand this in Washington too and that they will positively respond to our
efforts there. However, one has the impression that in Washington they are
for the present occupied with other business.
Upon the conclusion of the current round of negotiations, we intend, in
keeping with the United Nations recommendations, to inform the Conference on
Disarmament of the results. We are convinced that openness is bound to be one
of the most powerful factors of movement towards a nuclear-free world too.
The results of Reykjavik have become the common heritage of all countries
and peoples to whom it is of vital interest that nuclear weapons should be
eliminated and that the arms race should not spread into outer space as well.
The productive interaction of States both large and small is necessary as
never before for the continued existence and progress of mankind.
In these circumstances, it is especially intolerable that the great
negotiating potential of the Conference on Disarmament is being far from fully
used. The reason for this is well-known: some people would not like
businesslike negotiations to be conducted here on disarmament issues or real
agreements to be achieved. Joint efforts are needed to wrench the Conference
out of the "procedural quagmire" and to embark upon a search for constructive
decisions and forward-leading compromises.
A priority measure on the way towards the curbing of the arms race and
the subsequent elimination of nuclear weapons is, as the United Nations has
recognized, the banning of nuclear-weapon tests. Hence, their attitude to the
prohibition of nuclear explosions attests in the most eloquent fashion to
States' attitude to the whole range of disarmament questions and is a test, a
litmus test, of their good will and of the concordance of their words and
deeds.
395
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
21
(Mr. Vorontsov, USSR)
The most striking proof of our willingness to promote progress on the
nuclear-test-ban que tion is our repeatedly extended unilateral moratorium on
nuclear explosions. Today is the 547th day of silence on our nuclear test
sites, silence that will continue until the first American test of this year.
And even were we to be forced into resuming nuclear explosions -- and, as a
well-known Soviet scientist has so eloquently put it, "the button for the
Soviet test sites is on the desk in the White House" -- we would not cease
even then our persistent efforts in favour of the commencement of full-scale
negotiations on this problem, negotiations which we are prepared to conduct
with a delegation of any composition and in any forum -- with, of course, the
participation of the United States. One such forum is undoubtedly the
Conference on Disarmament.
It is incumbent on the Conference to begin, without a single day's
postponement, the preparation of a treaty that would put an end to nuclear
tests and, in particular, to resolve the issues pertaining to the structure
and sphere of application of the treaty and to its observance and
verification. And we urge you to move from discussions to actions. The time
has come to create an ad hoc committee endowed with appropriate powers. It is
time, finally, to get down to real business, to achieve tangible results. The
Soviet side is prepared positively to consider all proposals furthering
progress in this extremely important, this key area.
We are convinced that the focus of the Conference's attention should be
the programme for the elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2000, which
both sets concrete goals and fixes clear deadlines for their achievement. The
Conference could consider such concrete questions of nuclear disarmament as
the cessation of the production of fissionable and fusionable nuclear
materials for the purposes of developing and creating weapons, the order of
elimination of nuclear aramaments, and fundamental approaches to the
monitoring of multilateral nuclear disarmament measures.
The solution to the question of nuclear disarmament is inseparably linked
with the prevention of an arms race in outer space. It would be unforgiveable
if, after being wrested from the nuclear nightmare, mankind was thrust into a
laser/space nightmare. The time has come for active negotiations and
practical work, rather than abstract discussion, on finding effective measures
to prevent an arms race in outer space. The view is about here and there that
the "serious" negotiations on this problem should be conducted, not in the
meeting hall of this Conference, but rather on a bilateral basis, in the
Soviet and American missions. We think otherwise. We are convinced that, in
the matter of the prevention of an arms race in outer space, there is not and
cannot be any division of the negotiations into "serious" and "unserious". We
are in favour of being guided by the most serious approach to any negotiations
on this crucial problem that has now arisen before mankind.
The Conference has good potential for businesslike and concrete
discussion of the problem of preventing an arms race in outer spacn. This
problem affects all States and is a case in which the Conference could not
only become the generator of useful ideas, but also engage in concrete
397
im,,,Inecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
22
(Mr. Vorontsov, USSR)
negotiations on certain aspects of this problem. For instance, in our view,
the Conference could engage in the businesslike consideration of the question
of the prohibition of the use of force in outer space and from space against
the Earth. After all, from outer space it is possible to select as a "laser
target" not only Soviet cities, but any town in any "disobedient" country.
The Conference could also consider the possibility of creating a system of
international verification guaranteeing unswerving compliance with an
agreement of the kind in question and, in particular, study the idea of an
international inspectorate. Such an inspectorate, for instance, would have
the right of access for the purpose of carrying out on-site inspections to all
facilities designed for the launching and deployment in outer space of space
devices and to the corresponding launch vehicles.
Bearing in mind as the ultimate goal the banning of the deployment of
armaments in outer space, the Conference could begin the elaboration of
partial, but important measures leading to this goal. In particular, the
Conference could consider the possibility of drawing up an international
agreement guaranteeing immunity for artificial Earth satellites which do not
carry weapons of any sort on board. In this connection, it would also be
desirable to study the possibilities of eliminating existing anti-satellite
systems. For our part, we suggest banning weapon systems of the
"space-to-space", "space-to-Earth" and "Earth-to-space" kinds. We should like
to stress that the USSR, manifesting good will, continues to refrain from
placing anti-satellite systems in outer space.
An area in which the most urgent action is today required from the
Conference is indisputably that of negotiations on the ptohibition of chemical
weapons. The Soviet Union considers it essential that every effort be made to
complete the elaboration of a convention on the prohibition and elimination of
chemical weapons this year. Such a possibility does really exist, whatever
those whom it does not suit may say. To drag out this work now, when most of
the questions of principle have been solved, would be truly criminal. I have
a suggestion to make to the participants in the Conference: let chemical
disarmament become the first example of peaceful, rather than military
progress in international politics.
The preparation of a convention on the elimination and prohibition of
chemical weapons would mean a significant increase in trust, including in the
military sphere, and would give the lead for the solution of complicated
problems of disarmament. It would be a striking confirmation of the viability
of the multilateral approach to disarmament and would greatly increase the
prestige of the Conference, which bears full responsibility vis-a-vis the
international community for negotiations on chemical weapons.
It is gratifying to note that progress achieved in many areas at the
negotiations is the result of a series of Soviet proposals and steps made in
the Conference on Disarmament last year, as well as of constructive
initiatives by many other countries, including the United Kingdom, Sweden and
Pakistan.
398
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
23
(Mr. Vorontsov, USSR)
We are not closing our eyes to the difficulties. Nor do we consider
that, having put forward our proposals, we can sleep on our laurels. I should
like to inform the members of the Conference that our experts in Moscow are
continuing their intensive work on the search for breakthrought on the
questions outstanding.
At the same time, the efforts of a mere one country, and even the efforts
of a mere majority of countries, are not enough for the drawing up of the
convention. We hope that the United States will truly join the search for
compromises. Now at the negotiations the time has come when what is needed is
the ability to rise above "author's pride" in one's own approaches and to put
to the forefront the task of finding a common approach. There is no other way
to success. This applies both to the United States and to all other
countries, including the Soviet Union.
And yet one further point. There remain in the negotiations few unagreed
major questions that require a political solution. However, there are a lot
of, as it were, minor technical issues, which as a whole make up a swamp that
is difficult to cross. Let's not get bogged down in it, let's take a critical
look at whether everything that is now being discussed at length in working
groups and sub-groups is really necessary for an effective Convention.
I should like to wish every success to the Ambassador of Sweden,
Rolf Ek6us, as the future Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons
in the organization of the final stage of the agreeing of a convention on the
prohibition of chemical weapons. May Mr. Ekeus go down in diplomatic history
as the last leader of negotiations on this issue.
In conclusion, I should like to express the hope that at this year's
session progress will be made on the many procedural obstacles and the cause
of real disarmament will move forward. And it is necessary to look
purposefully ahead because, if we once again open the quarrel between the past
and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future, whereas what is
at issue here is the future of mankind itself.
May I wish all the participants in the Conference success in the
discharge of the responsible tasks before them.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank His Excellency the
First Deputy Foreign Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for
his statement and for the kind words addressed to the President. I now give
the floor to the representative of Sweden, Ambassador Theorin, whom I welcome
again amongst us.
Mt THEORIN (Sweden): It was with a deep sense of sadness and distress
that the Swedish delegation learned about the death of
Ambassador Donald Lowitz. In Ambassador Lowitz, the delegates to the
Conference had a trusted and always reliable friend. He served his Government
with distinction and skill. In the small community of delegates dedicated to
the great task of disarmament, his intelligent, articulate and steadfast
399
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
24
(Ms Theorin, Sweden)
representation of his Government's position and interest was looked upon with
respect and admiration. We deeply regret that the Conference can no longer
benefit from the lucid and penetrating intellect of Donald Lowitz. We will
badly miss his strong sense of humour and his warm personality. The memory of
Donald Lowitz is inscribed in the annals of the Conference on Disarmament. We
mourn with the delegation of the United States and we ask the leader of that
delegation, Mr. Barthelemy, to convey to Mrs. Shana Lowitz and the children of
Donald Lowitz and to the Government of the United States our heartfelt
condolences and deep sympathy.
May I express my delegation's pleasure at seeing you, Ambassador Fan, in
the Chair as President of the Conference on Disarmament for the month of
February. My delegation is looking forward to working with you. I assure you
of the full support and co-operation of my delegation in your important task
to launch our work effectively. I wish also to extend to your predecessor,
Ambassador Beesley, of Canada, my sincere thanks for the skilful way in which
he guided the Conference during the closing months of its previous session and
up to the opening of this session.
And finally, I would like to extend a heartfelt welcome to those other
colleagues who have joined us since August. Ambassador Hacene, of Algeria,
Ambassador Barbosa, of Brazil, Ambassador Morel, of France,
Ambassador Pugliese, of Italy, Ambassador Yamada, of Japan, Ambassador Dolgu,
of Romania, Ambassador Nazarkine, of the Soviet Union, Ambassador Kosin, of
Yugoslavia. I wish to pledge to our new colleagues the full co-operation of
the delegation of Sweden.
My delegation listened with the greatest attention to the important
statement by the First Deputy Foreign Minister of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, Mr. Yuli Vorontsov.
The Conference on Disarmament today reassembles at an important moment.
Will disarmament be given a chance? Or will yet another lost opportunity be
added to the list that is far too long? The next weeks and months may well
determine whether progress can be made building on what was achieved in
Reykjavik. The next weeks and months will determine whether the possibility
now to advance towards a nuclear test ban will be wasted in Nevada and
Kazakhstan. The United States has announced its intention to carry out a new
test this very week. The Soviet Union has made it clear that it will, if that
occurs, follow suit and abandon its unilateral testing moratorium. It would
indeed be deplorable if such fireworks should mark the opening of this
session. It would amount to nothing less than an affront to international
efforts to achieve a comprehensive test ban. Many far-reaching disarmament
proposals have lately been made, with a culmination at the dramatic Reykjavik
meeting. But developments since have been slow. Though all proposals are
said to remain on the table, we have seen no reports of outstanding
differences being narrowed or even jointly defined. To stall negotiations is
to gamble, not only with high stakes, but against the odds.
400
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
25
(Ms Theorin, Sweden)
The concerns of the non-nuclear States are legitimate and must be met.
The world expects major steps because major steps are needed. The world
expects bilateral and multilateral negotiations to reap the fruits of a new
international climate. The world expects the nuclear Powers to show boldness
and determination at the negotiating table and restraint on testing grounds
and in weapons laboratories. Not the other way round, as is today the case.
For the multilateral negotiations, a constructive dialogue between the major
nuclear Powers is essential. Equally important: results in multilateral
negotiations improve international political relations in general.
In Europe, the most over-armed of all continents, the Stockholm Conference
achieved militarily and politically significant results. A breakthrough was
made for the principle of on-site inspection of compliance with treaties on
disarmament and confidence-building. Last September, a successful review
Conference of the Bacteriological Weapons Convention was held in here in
Geneva. Also at that Conference, progress was made regarding measures to
strengthen and enhance the Convention. During the latest session of the
General Assembly, the First Committee produced consensus resolutions on such
traditionally controversial topics as verification and compliance. In
addition to established priority issues in the nuclear field, increased and
appropriate attention was paid to the conventional arms race. Several
resolutions acknowledged progress made here in the Conference on Disarmament
on a chemical weapons convention. On the main issue of a nuclear test ban, a
development took place that should give the Conference a good opportunity
finally to agree on a mandate to deal with all aspects of the matter.
The latest statistics of nuclear explosions published by the Swedish
Defence Research Institute, although still preliminary for 1986, show that
unilateral measures in the field of disarmament make a difference. Mainly as
a result of the Soviet Union's moratorium, the total number of explosions has
decreased: from 55 in 1984 to 30 in 1985 and 21 in 1986. The Soviet Union
carried out 27 explosions in 1984, 7 in 1985 and none in 1986. The
United States carried out 17 tests in 1984, 15 in 1985 and 12 in 1986. France
continues to test on more or less the same level as before: 8 explosions were
registered during 1986. One British test was registered in 1986, while no
Chinese test was registered.
In 1986, the Conference on Disarmament was again unable to establish a
committee with a view to negotiating a comprehensive test ban treaty.
However, while positions remained locked on the question of a mandate, one
sensed a greater openness in the debate of the issue. And substantial
progress was made by the Group of Scientific Experts, which agreed on an
ambitious working plan for the future, including a second global data
collection and analysis test in 1988.
Later on, the Reykjavik meeting was close to producing an agreed formula
on how to deal with the matter between two major nuclear Powers. Seemingly
this involved an approach in stages, which we regret, since the time is more
than ripe to negotiate and conclude a comprehensive treaty. In the view of
some, I may add, this goal is put off to a distant future. It is even said
401
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
26
(Ms Theorin, Sweden)
that it should be preceded by the elimination of nuclear weapons. One may
wonder what is the purpose of a test ban once nuclear weapons are abolished.
Nuclear weapons development is taking place now and to halt it a test ban is a
necessity now. This is the case with regard to both the present and the
possible future nuclear-weapon States.
In the General Assembly, Sweden was pleased to note an improved political
climate on the test ban issue. This improvement was translated into a certain
convergence of views expressed in resolutions on the matter. The resolution
on the urgent need for a comprehensive test ban treaty, introduced by
Australia, attracted positive votes from an overwhelming majority of
non-aligned States and for the first time from the group of socialist States,
while this year the United States did not oppose it. The resolution on a
cessation of all nuclear test explosions, introduced by Mexico, attracted a
greater number of positive votes from the group of Western States than ever
before. Sweden, as co-sponsor of both resolutions, appreciates the
flexibility shown by various delegations.
Diplomacy is to accommodate without losing sight of the goal. For my
country, the voting pattern by which these resolutions were adopted was a
significant development. It makes the call for practical work on a
comprehensive test ban treaty in this Conference still more authoritative. It
is time for the convergence in the General Assembly to be translated by us
into a mandate for an ad hoc committee on a nuclear test ban. This Conference
cannot abdicate its responsibility for what has been our professed goal for
25 years -- a comprehensive test-ban treaty. It is time for the Conference on
Disarmament to start practical work on its first agenda item. All relevant
matters should be addressed: scope and content, as well as compliance and
verification.
The informal meetings held during last year's session of the Conference
on Disarmament on the substance of the agenda item, "Cessation of the nuclear
arms race and nuclear disarmament", were both constructive and worthwhile.
Continued efforts should lead to more structured and formalized deliberations
under this item.
Although delegations from all groups have stated that they attach the
utmost importance to the item "Prevention of nuclear war", unfortunately no
agreement on how to deal with the issues involved has so far been reached.
New efforts should be made to bring about progress on the matter.
It is unfortunate that the Conference on Disarmament has not been able to
make progress on the question of negative security assurances for
non-nuclear-weapon States. The obstacles reflect basic differences of opinion
on this issue. The most fundamental element of an effective negative
assurance is legally binding undertakings by the nuclear-weapon States not to
use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.
These nom-nuclear-weapon States should not have to make any further
commitments beyond that of staying nuclear-weapon free. This commitment
should be formalized by adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, by
402
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
27
(Ms Theorin, Sweden)
participation in an established nuclear-weapon-free zone, or in other agreed
ways, giving it international legal effect. The threat of an arms race in
space has assumed an increasingly prominent place on the disarmament agenda.
Possible future systems for defence against ballistic missiles have become a
fundamental problem in bilateral negotiations between the United States and
the Soviet Union. Development and deployment of anti-satellite systems would
be destabilizing and trigger an arms race in outer space. ASAT developments
are a source of concern for the increasing number of countries having civilian
space programmes.
Sweden is gratified that discussions have taken place in the Ad Hoc
Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space during the past two
years. That Committee's deliberations have, to a degree, been useful in
sorting out issues in this field. The existing body of international law
relating to an arms race in space is in many respects inadequate. We must
negotiate additional measures, for example, a ban on space weapons, including
development, testing and deployment of ASAT systems and their destruction.
Existing agreements, both bilateral and multilateral ones, must be strictly
adhered to. The ABM Treaty is a case in point. The Ad Hoc Committee should
continue its work during this year's session. Its considerations can be
further broadened and deepened within the framework of its mandate. There are
still a variety of legal aspects that should be further analysed. An
overview of the technical aspect of space weapon development is called for.
The setting up of an informal working group of technical experts could be
considered.
The international context of the negotiations on chemical weapons gives
cause for serious concern. Chemical weapons have been used by Iraq in the war
with Iran, disregarding rules of international law. In Europe, very large
chemical weapons stockpiles exist and further development, production and
deployment of such weapons is under way. Major military Powers have prepared
themselves to carry out chemical warfare. The worldwide spread of chemical
weapons is a clear possibility, in some cases even a definite probability.
There is no alternative to the conclusion of a comprehensive convention
banning all chemical weapons.
After almost two decades of work and negotiation, it has been possible to
address most of the elements which are necessary ingredients of a treaty. A
structure and the early drafts of the treaty have been developed. We must not
allow the steady pace of negotiations, and the smooth functioning of this
multilateral negotiating body, to lull us into accepting slow progress and a
long-term perspective. If that happens, weapons development will overtake us
and ruin our efforts. In order to further the negotiations, all countries
producing or considering the production of chemical weapons, unitary as well
as binary, should refrain from it during the course of the negotiations.
Disarmament can never be furthered through increased armaments. Against this
background, any production of chemical weapons is regrettable. My Government
attaches the utmost importance to this negotiation and will spare no effort to
assure its urgent and successful conclusion.
403
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
28
(Ms Theorin, Sweden)
A number of problems remain and must now be addressed vigorously. One is
the regime for declaring and verifying existing stockpiles of chemical
weapons. Another is the search for an effective, but not excessive system for
international challenge inspections. The general narrowing of positions on
verification that has been demonstrated lately should help to facilitate
agreement on this issue. A third major problem is verification of future
non-production of chemical weapons. Steps have been taken towards generally
acceptable verification regimes applicable to different categories of
chemicals. Such a verification system should, of course, not hamper
legitimate activities of the chemical industry. Other important problems to
be solved are questions related to the functioning of the Consultative
Committee and its organs, including the Executive Council and the Technical
Secretariat.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Committee
Chairman during the past session, Ambassador Cromartie, of the United Kingdom,
for his energetic and efficient performance of this function, characterized by
his deep insight in the field. The continued work should be organized in a
most effective way, corresponding to the requirements of this stage of the
negotiating process. I rest assured that all members of the Conference will
actively support efforts to speed up the negotiation to make possible an early
conclusion of a convention.
Last year's summer session of the Conference took place in the aftermath
of the Chernobyl accident. Many delegations pointed out the dangers connected
with all nuclear activities, civilian or military, and the geographical
dimensions of the risks involved. In Vienna, two international Conventions
have been elaborated with efficiency and speed. They aim at improving
arrangements for countries to alert and assist each other in the case of a
nuclear accident. The Conventions have already entered into force. The IAEA
General Conference has also adopted resolutions calling on competent fora to
deal with the prohibition of military attacks against nuclear installations.
Sweden regrets proposals by some countries to elaborate a convention on this
matter in the framework of the IAEA. The prohibition of attacks against
nuclear installations is indeed a disarmament issue, in view of the mass
destruction which such attacks would cause. And, while not opposing any
bilateral or regional arrangement on this matter, we prefer a global
approach. The forum is here, in the Conference on Disarmament. in 1984,
Sweden put forward a draft treaty on radiological weapons. The proposal aims
at prohibiting radiological weapons, as well as attacks on nuclear facilities,
causing mass destruction through radiation. Mass destruction -- the very
title of the agenda item -- is the link which justifies this approach.
Instead of suggesting the moving of the item from one international body to
the other, delegations should this year try to address the substantive
outstanding dispute.
Circumstances oblige me once again to draw the attention of the
Conference to the somewhat perennial question of the expansion of its
membership. It is far from reasonable that candidates are kept waiting year
after year for a decision. I hope that a satisfactory solution of the matter
will be arrived at during this session.
404
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
29
(Ms Theorin, Sweden)
The third special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament
is scheduled to take place in 1988. Sweden will take an active part in that
special session, as well as in the important preparatory work preceding it.
The special session should reconfirm the conviction of the international
community that there is no task more urgent for mankind than to achieve
nuclear disarmament. Bearing in mind the priority of the nuclear issue, the
scope could be broadened. For our part, we would be pleased if the special
session also addressed such crucial questions as conventional disarmament, the
prevention of an arms race in outer space, the naval arms race and the need
for confidence-building measures on a global level.
Twenty-five years ago the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament was
established here in Geneva. Sweden joined it as one of eight members not
belonging to any of the military alliances. The record of that Committee and
that of its successors, the CCD and the CD, deserves close examination. The
Geneva disarmament bodies have been instrumental in producing such agreements
as the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Bacteriological Weapons Convention, the
Sea-Bed Treaty and the ENMOD Convention. It is a record that well stands
comparison with what has been achieved in negotiations between the nuclear
Powers. On several crucial disarmament issues, particularly when nuclear
weapons are the subject, the functioning of these multilateral bodies has,
however, been severely hampered. The comprehensive test ban is a case in
point. This has not been due to lack of dedication, deftness or derring-do on
the part of negotiators here in Geneva. It is because the conferences have
been denied, by nuclear Powers, the leeway necessary to fulfil their role.
They have even been denied the prerogative to negotiate on main items of their
agenda.
Today we have an excellent opportunity to reinforce confidence in the
ability of the Conference on Disarmament to perform its task. We must proceed
with and conclude a treaty outlawing chemical weapons. We must get
negotiations going on a comprehensive test treaty. We must, on all items on
our agenda, demonstrate the potential and viability of multilateral
disarmament negotiations. Political and military decision-makers, all over
the world, are preparing plans for war and for new rounds of the ever
accelerating arms race. If peace and disarmament is to become a reality, it
must also be planned for and vigorously pursued. As the saying has it, "They
sow the wind, they will reap the storm". If we sow weapons, we will reap
war. But if we sow seeds of disarmament, we will reap peace. The work has
been going on for 25 years here in Geneva. Time is running short. We will
not have 25 more years to try it out.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the distinguished
representative of Sweden for her statement and for the kind words addressed to
the President. We have exhausted the time available to us this morning though
we still have two members listed on our list of speakers. Furthermore, we
also have some organizational matters to consider. Accordingly, I will
suspend the plenary meeting and resume it at 3.30 p.m. sharp in order to
405
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
30
(The President)
continue our deliberations. As agreed by the Conference, after we have
listened to the last speaker for today we shall hold an informal meeting to
consider the provisional agenda and programme of work for the Conference. If
we reach agreement at that informal meeting, we shall resume the plenary
meeting in order to adopt any decision resulting from the informal meeting.
Also, at the request of the Co-ordinator of the Group of 21, I wish to inform
the members of that Group that they will meet here at 3 p.m. for a brief
consultation and will be provided with interpretation service. The plenary
meeting of the Conference is suspended.
The meeting was suspended at 1 p.m. and reconvened at 3.30 p.m.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I declare that the
385th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament is resumed. First of
all, I will give the floor to Ambassador Cromartie, of the United Kingdom, the
Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons, to introduce the report
of the Committee. Now I give the floor to him.
Mr. CROMARTIE (United Kingdom): Mr. President, I should like first to
tell you of the profound shock with which I heard the news of the death of
Ambassador Don Lowitz, whom we mourn both as a colleague and as a friend. He
arrived in this Conference two years ago this week and we admired the courage
and skill with which he stepped, at his first meeting, into the Chair which
you now occupy to preside with success over the Conference for the month of
February. Thereafter we were able to admire the ability and integrity with
which he conducted his official function as leader of the United States
delegation and we enjoyed friendship with him and with his family. He would
have been sitting next to me today and it is with sorrow that I realize I
shall see him no more. I should be grateful if the United States delegation
would accept my deep condolences and convey them to his widow, Shana, whom we
remember with affection and sympathy, and to their children.
I should now like to speak as outgoing Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee
on Chemical Weapons to present the report which was adopted by the Committee
on 29 January and which is now before you as document CD/734. This report
covers the work carried out during the intersessional period on the basis
recommended in the Committee's last report, CD/727, of 21 August, and approved
by the Conference on 28 August.
The Conference requested that the Committee should resume its work under
its existing mandate for a session of limited duration during the period
12-30 January 1987 on issues under Articles III, IV, V, VI and IX and the
parts of Article II relevant to Articles V and VI: that consultations should
be undertaken on those issues by the Chairman in the meantime in preparation
for the resumed session: and that for that purpose open-ended consultations
of the Ad Hoc Committee should be held between 24 November and
17 December 1986, including, where necessary, meetings with full services:
and that the Committee should report to the Conference on Disarmament on its
work during the intersessional period. It is this report that I am giving to
you today.
406
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
31
(Mr. Cromartie, United Kingdom)
The substantive results of the work in question are before you in
document CD/734. The open-ended consultations were very well attended and
took place in an atmosphere that demonstrated the keen interest of delegations
in this work. Mr. Rowe, of Australia, and Mr. Poptchev, of Bulgaria,
continued their work as Chairmen of Working Group A and Working Group B
respectively with great dedication and enthusiasm. The Ad Hoc Committee owes
a great debt of gratitude to them for the way in which they pursued during the
intersessional period the work they had undertaken in the 1986 session, the
results of which are contained in the Committee's previous report, CD/727, of
21 August 1986.
When the Committee met again in formal session, on 12 January, it decided
that the progress achieved in informal consultations warranted an updating of
the rolling text of the draft Convention to incorporate the addition of common
ground identified during the intersessional period. This revised version is
contained in appendix I to the document before you, CD/734, with the
recommendation, in paragraph 9(a), that this appendix should be used for
further negotiation and drafting of the Convention. Active work was still
continuing until the last day. Two other papers of the Chairman of Working
Group A were placed in appendix II so that they could be available for further
work in the 1987 session.
As Mr. Wisnoemoerti, of Indonesia, who was Chairman of Working Group C
in 1986 and who clarified the issues under Articles VIII and IX, left at the
end of the most recent session of the Conference, in August 1986, / undertook,
in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee, extensive consultations with many
delegations on the subject of article IX and its relation to the Convention as
a whole. I am most grateful to those of you who spent the time to give me the
benefit of your perceptions both from your national and regional points of
view and from the points of view of any Groups to which your countries
belong. As a result of those consultations, / came to the conclusion that it
would not at this stage help the Conference's work to attempt multilateral
consideration of the text of Article IX. I was, however, agreeably surprised
by the extent of common ground which I found. I therefore recorded in the
Committee's report that / had detected a convergence of views on four points:
firstly, that confidence in the Convention should be built up and maintained
by routine inspection of declared facilities; secondly, that provisions under
Article IX were needed for any party to give voice to its suspicions that
another party was not complying with its obligations and to have confidence
that these suspicions would be promptly allayed by agreed procedures;
thirdly, that such procedures should be regarded as a fundamental source of
confidence in the Convention and recourse to them should be a rare event;
fourthly, that once these procedures had been invoked, a very short time for
resolution of the issue was essential both for reasons inherent in the nature
of chemical weapons as well as for wider political reasons. These points do
not, of course, form part of the rolling text, which contains provisionally
agreed treaty language subject to reservations expressed by square brackets or
footnotes.
407
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
32
(Mr. Cromartie, United Kingdom)
As you will see from our latest version of the text, appendix 1 of the
report before you represents a considerable advance on what was contained in
the appendix to our previous report, CD/727. In the light of the agreement at
the very end of the previous session on a new text for Article IV,
Working Group B, under the chairmanship of Mr. Poptchev, has developed an
improved and more comprehensive structure for Articles III, iv and V of the
Convention, which deal with initial declarations of chemical weapons and
production facilities for their elimination. This represents an important
step forward and I hope that it will provide a good foundation for further
work on this subject, where there are important points remaining to be
resolved, including the questions of declaration of location of stocks and of
the definition of production facilities. In the absence of a resolution of
this last point, it seemed premature to tackle the questions remaining to be
resolved under Article II on definitions.
In any case, Working Group A was very fully occupied with work which
continued until the report before you went to press. The new text of
Article V/ developed during our previous session has been further developed
under the able and energetic guidance of Mr. Rowe to comprise three schedules
of chemical substances of concern under a chemical weapons convention, with
corresponding annexes on regimes to deal with them. The Article now provides,
for the first time, for an undertaking for each State Party to declare data on
the relevant chemical substances and facilities which produced them and to
subject the chemicals and facilities covered in Annex II and Schedule 2 to
monitoring by data reporting and routine systematic international on-site
inspection. This undertaking represents an important step forward. Taken
together with the provisions of Annexes 1 and 3 of Article VI, it will make an
important contribution to the confidence required for the Convention to be
concluded.
This accords with the first of the four points of convergence that I
mentioned earlier, namely that confidence in the Convention should be built up
and maintained by routine inspection of declared facilities. During the
transitional period in which stocks of chemical weapons and their production
facilities are eliminated, further measures will be required, and remain to be
elaborated, to give confidence that States Parties are complying with their
obligations in this respect. As I told you earlier, I also detected a
convergence of view that provisions under Article /X would be required to
underpin confidence in the Convention we are negotiating. This crucial issue
remains to be resolved. The execution of all these measures of verification
will require the establishment of an effective organization under Article VIII
of the treaty. This task may prove to be as complex as Article VI has proved
this year. The development of Article V/ so far establishes that this
organization will have a long-term, detailed routine task to perform. Further
work on this Article in conjunction with Article VIII will be required to
ensure that the provisions of the draft convention together provide the
necessary confidence in the draft Convention as a whole to enable it to be
concluded.
408
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
33
(Mr. Cromartie, United Kingdbm)
Finally, I should like to express my warm thanks to all delegations for
the way in which they have, during my year as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee
on Chemical Weapons, contributed positively and constructively to the common
task of negotiating in this Conference, the sole multilateral negotiating
forum in the field of disarmament, a draft Convention to ban chemical weapons
altogether.
Our special joint thanks are due to the Chairmen of the three
Working Groups, Mr. Rowe, of Australia, Mr. Poptchev, of Bulgaria and
Mr. Wisnoemoerti, of Indonesia, for their tireless work and for the great
contribution they have made to .the fruitful result of our year's work. I am
sure that I speak for all members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons
in expressing our deep gratitude to the United Nations Secretariat for the
support and help that they have given to the Committee in its work, especially
to the Secretary of the Committee, Mr. Abdelkader Bensmail and his staff, who
have made a great contribution to the Committee's work, and to all the
interpreters and translators, who have enabled us to operate in all the
languages of the Conference.
I have now discharged the function with which the Conference entrusted me
at the beginning of its last session. In doing so, I am delighted that, as a
result of a decision of the Conference in August, roan hand over this task to
Ambassador Ekeus, of Sweden. I know that the Chair of the Committee could not
be in better hands. I offer my heartfelt best wishes for the forthcoming
session and pledge to him as Chairman the co-operation and support of the
delegation of the United Kingdom.
As I have the floor, let me say as the representative of the
United Kingdom, that I congratulate you, Mr. President, on your assumption of
the office of President. I know that you will discharge it with all the
wisdom traditional in your country. And let me say finally a word of thanks
to your predecessor, Ambassador Beesley, of Canada, for the great diplomatic
skill with which he conducted the presidency in the month of August.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the Chairman of the
Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons for his introduction to the report of the
Committee contained in document CD/734 and I also thank him for his kind words
addressed to the Chair. I wish to say to Ambassador Cromartie that we all
admire his outstanding performance as Chairman of the Ad hoc Committee on
Chemical Weapons, and also to thank him for his introduction to the fruitful
results of one year's work. I would also like to say that, by his well-known
diplomatic ability and his personal charm, he has been instrumental in
securing substantial progress in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee.
During our informal consultations we agreed that, on 5 February, at our
next plenary meeting, I will submit the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Chemical Weapons to the Conference for adoption. At the end of the morning
session on 5 February, we will re-establish that Ad Hoc Committee and we will
appoint Ambassador Ekeus, of Sweden, as Chairman.
I now give the floor to the last speaker on my list, the representative
of Australia, Ambassador Butler.
409
neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
34
Mr. BUTLER (Australia): Australia has great hopes at this 1987 session
of the Conference on Disarmament. I believe, Mr. President, that there is a
Chinese saying that says that "Even a journey of a thousand miles starts with
its first steps"; our first steps this year are in your hands and this is one
of the sources of our hope, or our optimism. /t gives great satisfaction to
my delegation to see you in the vital opening month of our 1987 session
presiding over the Conference on Disarmament as head of the delegation of
China. China's depth of culture and historical experience is well known and
is deeply felt by the Australian Government and people. We have admired the
determination and the resolve of the Chinese people in pursuing the goals of
modernization and have been struck by the strides that China has made in
multilateral work on disarmament. This was most recently reflected in the
significant initiatives China took at the latest session of the
General Assembly of the United Nations. Australia also appreciated the very
important declaration by China that it would no longer conduct nuclear tests
in the atmosphere. We look to the historic wisdom of China and to your
obvious personal abilities to get us started on the right path, on the right
journey in 1987. My delegation will give you full support in your efforts
this month and not least because of the strong and ever-growing relationship
that exists between our two countries as neighbours in the Asia and Pacific
region.
I want to express, too, our thanks to your predecessor,
Ambassador Beesley, for the efforts he made in August, a difficult month for
the Conference on every occasion. I would like, too, to pause briefly to
express congratulations to him for his election in the meantime as a member of
the International Law Commission. I also want to join others who this morning
have welcomed new heads of delegations who have joined us here at the
Conference table.
I said that we have great hopes at this 1987 session of the Conference on
Disarmament. There are a number of reasons why we hold this view and I will
mention a few of them briefly.
First, last year at Reykjavik we saw the end of the first period of
renewed vigour in United States/Soviet negotiations on major issues in arms
control and disarmament. That period began in November 1985, at the Geneva
summit meeting, and a year later, indeed a relatively short time later, there
were exposed at Reykjavik the main elements of a truly significant agreement
between the two major military Powers. Our understanding is that, while an
agreement was not able to be sealed at Reykjavik, its elements remain
substantially intact and work is proceeding on securing not only a
far-reaching agreement, but an agreement which would be a beginning not an
end, one which would lead naturally to even further measures of arms control
and disarmament. This real possibility must and should have a positve
influence on what we will seek to do and will be able to do in this Conference
in 1987. It validates our confident expectations of momentum in this
Conference this year.
410
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
35
(Mr. Butler, Australia)
Second, there was the progress we made in our own work last year. Two or
three years ago, times were hard in this Conference. Debates were sharp and
positions often very divergent. But last year a degree of convergence started
to emerge. In several areas of our work there was a sense that the Conference
was on the move, that differences were being narrowed and that progress was
being sought with new determination.
Third, the same process of convergence and reconciliation of important
differences was evident at the most recent session of the General Assembly of
the United Nations. This was perhaps nowhere better illustrated than in the
resolutions adopted on nuclear testing and chemical weapons. Again,
delegations set aside the narrow expression of differences of view and
approach and strove instead to seek common ground. This spirit still exists.
We detect a widespread willingness to continue this flow of events and to
develop it.
We have heard a good deal of criticism of the multilateral disarmament
system and machinery during the past few years. There is no doubt that some
of that criticism has been valid, but surely it is wise, at least on some
occasions, to put these things into an historical perspective.
It has always been the case, for example, certainly throughout this
century, that there has been a multilateral conference on disarmament in
Geneva and real disfunctionalities between what that conference could do and
the realities of the military power held by certain States. Yet, in spite of
that degree of disfunctionality, the various versions of the Conference on
Disarmament in Geneva have added incrementally to international law and
practice in the field of arms control and disarmament. / think this was a
point made this morning by Ms Theorin, the distinguished leader of the Swedish
delegation. I think the point is this: if one looks at the corpus of such
law and practice that has been agreed upon in Geneva this century, the value
of historical perspective is revealed as in a flash. To put it simply the
agreements and practices negotiated in Geneva have proven indispensable to the
management of international relations and to attempts to maintain the peace in
our difficult and increasingly complex age.
I would like now to address briefly three items on our Conference agenda
which have definite priority for my Government. The first of them is a
nuclear-test ban treaty.
Towards the end of our set- an last year, the gap between members of the
Conference on this vital subject was closing. This process of convergence was
further revealed at the General Assembly in the resolutions which were adopted
on this subject, both in terms of the substance of the resolutions and in the
voting patterns on them. There was also the resumption of discussions between
the United States and the Soviet Union on this subject.
Signific:_c aevelopments took place too in the work of the Ad Hoc Group
of Scientific Experts and in proposals for the establishment of an
international seismic monitoring network for the verification of a test-ban
treaty, one of which was made by my own Government. May I again at this
moment urge the Conference to take a decision to establish that network, along
the lines, for example, of our proposal.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
36
(Mr. Butler, Australia)
On the central issue, that of a nuclear-test ban treaty, we see no reason
why the last step cannot be taken very soon and an ad hoc committee of this
Conference on a nuclear-test ban treaty established. We believe that this can
be done and done quickly, and my delegation stands ready to participate in
removing the last obstacles.
This is not to say that other work external to this Conference, either in
bilateral discussions or by particular groups of States, should not continue.
However, the missing piece is at hand and that piece is the resumption of work
in this Conference on bringing into existence a verifiable treaty, preventing
all nuclear test explosions by all States in all environments for all time.
I now turn to chemical weapons. We have stated repeatedly in this
Conference that the Australian Government attaches high priority to the
conclusion of a multilateral convention which would ban the development,
production, stockpiling, transfer and use of chemical weapons. We believe
that such an objective is clearly in sight. There is a new spirit in the
negotiations and this was evident throughout the 1986 session of the Chemical
Weapons Committee. It was reflected in particular in the process which was
recorded in the intersessional consultations during November, December and
January. The advances made in the negotiations are reflected in the report
containing the revised rolling text of the Convention which
Ambassador Cromartie presented this afternoon. This momentum which was
generated under the dedicated chairmanship of Ambassador Cromartie must be
sustained.
In fact we must increase the tempo of our negotiations during 1987 so
that the opportunity which clearly exists of concluding a convention this year
may be realized. This requires two things: concentration upon resolution of
the main outstanding issues, and tailoring of the working arrangements of the
Committee in the most effective way. The Committee has concentrated its work
during the past year on matters relating to Articles III, IV, v, VI and IX.
While all these Articles will continue to require further attention, we
consider it is now imperative to focus in a concentrated way on other specific
issues.
Four of these are of central importance: declaration and verification of
chemical weapons stocks; chemical weapons production facilities;
non-production of chemical weapons; and challenge inspection. There has
already been a considerable amount of effort devoted to the discussion of
these issues and to the formulation of appropriate provisions for inclusion in
the Convention, but a solution to all aspects of these issues has remained
elusive. They are difficult and complex, but it is not beyond our ability to
solve them. Our ability to find solutions was demonstrated in the latter part
of the 1986 session, which resulted in progress, good progress being made on
Articles III, IV, V and VI.
The subject of challenge inspection is recognized as one of the most
important issues needing solution. A range of proposals has been put forward
in relation to it, but we believe that an appropriate provision can be arrived
412
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
37
(Mr. Butler, Australia)
at if the issue is taken up in a concentrated way. A solution to challenge
inspection would give a significant impetus to the negotiations as a whole.
Thus we think that the challenge inspection issue should be given prominence
during the 1987 session.
We have mentioned the desirability of focusing our work on specific
issues in a concentrated way. This would require an adjustment to the way in
which we have organized the Committee's work in the past. We are very
pleased that the incoming Chairman of the Chemical Weapons Committee,
Ambassador Elceus, is envisaging such an approach. We fully support the idea
of focused consideration of clusters of issues, providing, of course, that
there can be flexibility in relation to when particular issues might be taken
up depending on the progress being made. It is through such an approach that
we believe that the momentum that has been so much in evidence during 1986
will be sustained and that the objective to which we are all committed will be
achieved.
As further evidence of Australia's commitment to this objective, we would
like to record that since the last plenary meeting of the 1986 session of the
Conference the Australian Government has taken further action in support of
its view that chemical warfare is abhorrent. On 26 November 1986, Australia
withdrew its reservation to the 1925 Geneva Protocol. The 1925 Geneva
Protocol, although a valuable international agreement, is less than perfect.
In view of the many reservations to the Protocol, it cannot be said
categorically that it prohibits all use of chemical weapons. By withdrawing
its own reservation and by its active pursuit of a comprehensive chemical
weapons convention, Australia aims to strengthen the international norms
against chemical warfare.
Australia has also been concerned about the proliferation of chemical
weapons. To ensure that Australia does not inadvertently contribute to the
problems of chemical weapon use through chemicals exported from Australia
being secretly diverted to the manufacture of chemical weapons, eight
chemicals which could be misused in this way were placed under strict export
controls by us in 1985. The Australian Government has recently decided that
an additional 22 chemicals which could be used in making chemical weapons will
be placed under Australian export controls, bringing to 30 the number of such
chemicals for which export permits will be required. Although Australian
Ministers decided in December 1986 that an additional 22 chemicals would be
controlled, I have to make clear :hat the full implementation of this
decision, this firm decision, i still in train. The Australian export
control list will, we hope, serve as a model for all chemical exporting
nations. The measures we have implemented to control the export of these
chemicals is intended to reduce the risk of chemical warfare. But export
controls, while a valuable measure, are not a substitute for a comprehensive
chemical weapons convention. So we will continue to give our full support to
the maintenance' - that important objective, an objective which is in sight
and is one of our expectations for 1987.
413
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
38
(Mr. Butler, Australia)
I turn now to outer space. On the question of a convention of an arms
race in outer space, the position of the Australian Government is clear: such
an arms race should never take place. We accept that it is the basic
commitment of the major Powers involved to prevent an arms race in outer
space. That is what they have said, and we accept it and we want to see that
commitment honoured. We believe that the multilateral community, whose
interest in this issue is beyond question, can make an important contribution
towards achieving this goal. We believe that the work of this Conference has
a central place in this effort and should be resumed this year without
delay. It would be distressing in the extreme if the resumption of that work
were to be delayed by mere procedural arguments. The task is urgent and the
job at hand is large. We hope, Mr. President, that the Conference's Ad Hoc
Committee on Outer Space will be well into its working stride before you leave
the Chair of this Conference.
At an earlier point in this statement I mentioned initiatives that have
been taken by groups of States outside the strict confines of the Conference
on Disarmament or the multilateral disarmament system. One such initiative
which came to fruition in 1986 was the entry into force of the Treaty of
Rarotonga, the treaty establishing a South Pacific nuclear-free zone. On
8 August 1985, I informed the Conference of the decision taken on 6 August by
the Heads of Government of the 13 member countries of the South Pacific Forum,
at its meeting in Rarotonga in the Cook Islands, to endorse the draft.
South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and subsequently to open it for
signature. The text of the Treaty and its draft Protocols was transmitted to
the Conference on 16 August 1985 in document CD/633. Today I wish to inform
the Conference that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, the Treaty of
Rarotonga, entered into force, with the deposit of the eighth instrument of
ratification, on 11 December 1986. Just one and a half years after it was
opened for signature, the Treaty of Rarotonga is in operation. There is now
a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone stretching from the Equator in the north to
the Antarctic in the south and from the west coast of Latin America to the
west coast of Australia. The States which have ratified the Treaty are:
Fiji, the Cook Islands, Tuvalu, Niue, Western Samoa, Kiribati, New Zealand and
Australia. The South Pacific has therefore become the second populated
region, that is, after Latin America, to establish a nuclear-free zone, one
which covers a truly significant portion of the surface of this Earth. As
illustration of that significance, I have asked the secretariat now to
distribute to the Conference a map of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.
The Treaty of Rarotonga provides that: no South Pacific country which
becomes a Party to the Treaty will develop, manufacture, acquire or receive
from others any nuclear explosive devices; there should be no testing of
nuclear explosive devices in the South Pacific; there will be no stationing
of nuclear explosive devices in the territories of participating States;
nuclear activities in the region, including the export of nuclear material,
are to be conducted under strict safeguards to ensure exclusively peaceful,
non-explosive use; South Pacific countries shall retain their unqualified
sovereign rights to decide for themselves such questions as access to their
41 4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
39
(Mr. Butler, Australia)
ports and airfields by vessels or aircraft of other countries; international
law with regard to freedom of the sea will be fully respected; and finally,
performance of obligations by Parties will be subject to strict verification.
The Treaty also bans the dumping of radioactive waste at sea in the region and
in this it compliments the SPREP Convention concluded in 1986 for the
environmental protection of the South Pacific region. The Treaty of
Rarotonga reflects deeply-felt and longstanding concern in the South Pacific
region about nuclear testing, the ocean dumping of nuclear wastes and the
horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. It expresses the strong
community of interests which members of the South Pacific Forum share in
environmental and security matters and, in the words of the Treaty's Preamble,
the determination of the Parties to ensure "that the bounty and beauty of the
land and the sea in their region shall remain the heritage of their people and
their descendants in perpetuity to be enjoyed by all in peace".
There are three Protocols to the Treaty and they were opened for
signature on 1 December 1986. The first of them invites France, the
United States of America and the United Kingdom to apply key provisions of the
Treaty to their South Pacific territories. The other two Protocols
respectively invite the five nuclear-weapon States not to use or threaten to
use nuclear weapons against Parties to the Treaty and not to test nuclear
explosive devices within the Zone.
It is our firm view that the Treaty of Rarotonga constitutes an important
contribution to the maintenance of peace and security in the region it covers
and is a significant nuclear arms control agreement. Its significance in this
respect would be further enhanced if those nuclear-weapon States which have
been invited to sign the Protocols to the Treaty relevant to them did so as
expeditiously as possible. One State, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
did so on 15 December of last year, and Australia welcomed this.
A significant feature of the Treaty of Rarotonga is that the
South Pacific Forum, which produced the Treaty, is an association of regional
Governments which traditionally operates by consensus. Members of this
Conference will be sensitive to the difficulties associated with the process
of arriving at a consensus in producing arms control and disarmament
agreements, and aware that, in coming to an agreement, the interests of all
participants must be taken into account. The Treaty of Rarotonga is a
document which is a product of just that process, a consensus document agreed
to by a number of States, a number in fact numerically equivalent to a third
of this Conference.
I have said that this Treaty is an important arms control measure. No
nuclear weapons are stationed on the territory of the South Pacific States.
This Treaty provides a strong guarantee that this will remain the case. The
Treaty also creates verification mechanisms with respect to this
undertaking. Other areas where a similar undertaking has been
institutionalized, with the overwhelming support of the international
community, are Antarctica, Latin America, outer space and the sea bed. The
Treaty of Rarotonga marks an important additional contribution towards
415
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
40
(Mr. Butler, Australia)
preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive
devices, a contribution with significant consequences both for the
South Pacific region and for neighbouring regions. It is a major
contribution towards preventing a sizeable part of the globe becoming yet
another location in which the geographical spread of nuclear weapons could
occur. The prohibition of the stationing of nuclear weapons on the territory
of South Pacific countries is of particular importance in this regard. It
extends beyond the obligations that these countries have entered into under
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. As I mentioned
earlier, the text of the Treaty of Rarotonga was circulated to this Conference
in 1985 in document CD/633. Since then, following consultations by a
South Pacific Forum delegation of officials with all the prospective Protocol
States, the Protocols have been adopted in final form by the South Pacific
Forum, meeting at Suva in August 1986. The final text of the Protocols has
been circulated today jointly by the delegations of Australia and New Zealand
as an annex to document CD/633. That has been placed on the table of
delegations today. The text of the Treaty proper, including all the annexes,
with the exception of the amended Protocols circulated today, remains
identical to what is contained in CD/633.
I referred earlier to the history of multilateral disarmament efforts in
Geneva. One thing that is clear about these efforts is that, in spite of
occasional very difficult periods, they have never remained static. We
believe the multilateral disarmament machinery is today undergoing a process
of change. The reason for this is that States value the machinery and they
want to see it made more effective. In New York, where this subject has been
increasingly vigorously discussed, we have made clear that we welcome attempts
being made to review and upgrade our machinery. We believe that this should
include a reshaping of the agenda of multilateral negotiations to enable us to
respond very directly to the central realities of armaments and their impact
on the maintenance of peace and security. The multilateral disarmament
process would be better served if this Conference, for example, could focus
its attention on a number of priority agenda items. There is a strong case
for streamlining the current agenda by setting aside items that are less
urgent or relatively unsuited to consideration by the Conference at the
present time. We particularly hope that we can conclude our work on a
comprehensive programme of disarmament and, in conformity with the resolution
of the General Assembly at its forty-first session, submit our conclusions to
the General Assembly before the end of that session.
Australia believes in this Conference and in its role of ensuring that
disarmament plays its proper part in the maintenance of peace and security.
May I add that, in my firm view, this Conference is a better place for having
had my friend, Donald Lowitz, sit at its table.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Australia for his statement and for his kind words addressed to the Conference
and to the country that I represent. That concludes my list of speakers for
today. Does any other member wish to take the floor? I now give the floor
to the Ambassador of Mexico.
416
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
41
Mr. GARCIA ROBLES (Mexico) (translated from Spanish): Forgive me for
having made so bold as to ask for the floor again after my lengthy statement
this morning, but it will, I think, be understood that, as the representative
of a country, Mexico, whose capital serves as the headquarters of the body set
up under the first treaty to have established a nuclear-weapon-free zone in an
inhabited area, I should not wish to let pass the occasion on which
Ambassador Butler has informed us of the entry into force of the Treaty of
Rarotonga without extending to him, and asking him to convey to all the
members of the new zone, the congratulations of the delegation of Mexico to
the Conference on Disarmament. I believe that the first special session of
the General Assembly was very right when it said in its Final Document -- and
I quote the words of paragraphs 60 and 61 -- that "the establishment of
nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among
the States of the region concerned constitutes an important disarmament
measure" and that, as it added in paragraph 61, "the process of establishing
such zones in different parts of the world should be encouraged with the
ultimate objective of achieving a world entirely free of nuclear weapons".
For that reason, I reiterate my congratulations to Ambassador Butler and to
the State or States he represents.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the distinguished
representative of Mexico for his statement. Does any other member wish to
take the floor? I see none. I now give the floor to the Secretary-General of
the Conference, Ambassador Komatina, for a statement concerning the services
allocated to the Conference.
Mr. KOMATINA (Secretary-General of the Conference and
Personal Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations): As
you know, the United Nations continues to face a financial emergency
necessitating reductions and the reprogramming of a number of its activities.
As was the case during the second part of the 1986 session, the Conference
needs to consider how to implement the target reduction of 30 per cent in
services allocated to it. Intensive consultations were held at Headquarters,
as well as in Geneva, in order to ensure the best prevailing conditions for
the work of the Conference and for its servicing. The outcome of these
consultations was that, in order that the work of the Conference would be the
least impaired while bringing about the required rate of saving, it was
better, on the basis of the experience of the second part of the 1986 session,
to concentrate on reducing the number of weekly meetings rather than imposing
a 30 per cent reduction in the duration of the annual session. As was the
case for the second part of the 1986 session, those savings would mean in
practice the allocation to the Conference of 10 meetings per week, with full
servicing and 15 meetings per week also with full servicing, during the
sessions of the Seismic Group. Therefore, the Conference will be afforded two
daily meetings with full servicing throughout the whole of the 1987 session,
plus one additional daily meeting when the Seismic Group is in session.
Furthermore, should the Conference establish a higher number of
committees than in 1986, it should be envisaged to hold their meetings
consecutively with other committees or working groups. This practice was put
into effect in the past and prevented the wastage of allocated resources in
417
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
42
(Mr. Komatina, Secretary-General of the
Conference and Personal Representative of
the Secretary-General of the United Nations)
the event that the time allocated for each meeting had not been fully
utilized. May I recall that predecessors of the CD developed a system of
punctuality, whereby all meetings would start no later than five minutes after
their scheduled time of commencement. Of course, the substantive secretariat
will always be available to service informal consultations in case members
wish to intensify their activities beyond the allocation of meetings with full
services. As in the case of the 1986 session, it will not be possible to hold
meetings in the evenings or during weekends with full servicing.
May I also recall the measures accepted by the Conference at the informal
meeting held on 22 April 1986 concerning documentation. In order to implement
these decisions and to bring about savings in the cost of documentation, we
hope that documents will be presented in good time, since there is no overtime
for the technical staff of Conference Services and therefore it will not be
possible to meet last-minute deadlines.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the Secretary-General
of the Conference for his statement. During the informal consultations that
we held before the opening of the session, I noted that there was general
agreement among members on the services to be provided by us, as outlined by
the Secretary-General. This being the case, we shall proceed accordingly.
In conformity with Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat has
circulated working paper CD/WP.251, entitled "Provisional agenda for
the 1987 session and programme of work on the Conference on Disarmament".
intend now to suspend the plenary meeting and convene an informal meeting of
the Conference to consider that working paper. The plenary meeting is
suspended.
The meeting was suspended at 4.35 p.m. and reconvened at 4.45 p.m.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): The 385th plenary meeting on
Disarmament is resumed. I put before the Conference for decision the agenda
for the 1987 session and the programme of work for the first part of the
session, as contained in working paper CD/WP.251, dated 30 January 1987. In
doing so, / wish to make the following statement on behalf of the Conference:
"The Conference will also intensify its consultations on the item
dealing with the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament, bearing in mind
that the Conference recommended in its last report to the
General Assembly, and the Assembly supported this recommendation in the
decision it adopted on this matter, that the elaboration of the programme
should be completed during the first part of the 1987 session for
submission to the General Assembly before the closure of the latter's
forty-first session.".
If there is no objection, I shall consider that the Conference adopts the
working paper. 1/
It was so decided.
418
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.385
43
(The President)
I should like to express my appreciation to the members for their
assistance in adopting quickly our agenda for 1987 and the programme of work
for the first part of the session.
As agreed during our informal consultations, I intend to put before the
Conference for adoption at the opening of our next plenary meeting, the report
of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons contained in document CD/734,
which was introduced today by its Chairman, Ambassador Cromartie of the
United Kingdom. Also on that occasion, we shall re-establish, at the end of
the morning meeting, that Ad Hoc Committee and appoint Ambassador Ekeus of
Sweden as its Chairman. As you know, there is no need to re-establish the
Ad Hoc Committee on the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament, which can
start its work immediately.
The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be held on
Thursday, 5 February at 10.30 a.m. The plenary meeting stands adjourned.
The meeting rose at 4.50 p.m.
Note
I/ Later issued as document CD/735.
41g
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.386
5 February 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SIXTH MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 5 February 1987, at 10.30 a.m.
President:
GE. 87-60143/71].7E
?
Mr. Fan Guoxiang (China)
420
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I declare open the
386th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament. At the outset, I wish
to extend, on behalf of the Conference, a warm welcome to the Director of the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency of the United States of America, the
Honourable Kenneth L. Adelman, who is to address the Conference today as first
speaker. Mr. Adelman is well-known to us, as he has visited the Conference
before. We also know of the important responsibilities which have been
entrusted to him and, for that reason, I am sure that members will follow his
statement with special interest. I should also like to welcome warmly the
Deputy Foreign Minister of Cuba, His Excellency Mr. Ratil Roa Kouri, who will
also speak today at the Conference. Mr. Roa Kouri is an experienced
diplomat, who has served as Permanent Representative of Cuba to the
United Nations and, in that capacity, has been actively involved in
disarmament matters. His statement will also be of particular interest to us.
As announced at our last plenary meeting, I intend now to put before the
Conference for adoption the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons
on its work during the period 12-30 January 1987, as contained in
document CD/734. You will recall that the report was introduced by
Ambassador Cromartie of the United Kingdom at the same plenary meeting.. If
there is no objection, I shall consider that the Conference adopts the report
of the Ad Hoc Committee.
It was so decided.
I have on my list of speakers for today the representatives of the
United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Cuba,
Federal Republic of Germany and Poland.
I now give the floor to the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency of the United States of America, the Honourable Kenneth L. Adelman.
Mr. ADELMAN (United States of America): Mr. President, before I make my
statement today, I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of the
United States delegation to the Conference on Disarmament, to extend our
congratulations and best wishes to you as you guide the work of this
Conference in the opening month of its 1987 session. On two occasions during
the past three years I have had the privilege to lead an arms control
delegation to your country, China, for discussions of arms control issues; it
is a pleasure to be speaking under your presidency today.
The United States delegation also extends its congratulations to
Ambassador Beesley of Canada, who so ably guided the work of the Conference in
August and through the inter-sessional period. The United States delegation
joins in the welcome that has been extended to the new heads of the
delegations of Algeria, Brazil, France, Italy, Japan, Romania, the
Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
421
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
3
(Mr. Adelman, United States of America)
Two years ago, when I first addressed this Conference on Disarmament, I
was sitting on the podium with Donald Lowitz at my side; he was serving as
President for that month. Since then, you have had the good fortune to know
Don as I've known him for all my adult life: as a warm and wonderful person,
who served his country whenever called upon -- and I asked him to do so more
than two years ago now -- and who believed in this Conference and its goals
and who believed in all of you. You saw this side of Don. I had seen him as
a marvellous husband to Shana -- herself such a perfect embodiment of what's
fresh and caring about America -- and as a fabulous father to Amy, Teddy and
Josh and a loving grandfather to David. How they will all miss him. How we
will all miss him.
I understand that you have already heard from President Reagan on his
tribute to Don. Let us, as the President said, pursue the goals Don pursued
and, by so doing, give a living monument to his work here. I would now like
to convey to you the President's greetings at the opening of this session;
the President's words:
"As the Conference on Disarmament resumes its work in 1987, I would
like to extend my wishes for a productive session. Although the opening
of the Conference has been darkened by the sad and untimely loss of our
Ambassador, Donald Lowitz, I am certain we can join together in making
progress in this forum as a fitting testimonial to his memory.
Your work constitutes an important and integral part of efforts
undertaken by the international community to make our world a more
peaceful place. The issues with which you deal are complementary to
those being addressed bilaterlly between the United States and the
Soviet Union. The promise of Reykjavik, which has given us the vision of
a world with significantly reduced levels of nuclear weapons, has become
an indicator of what is possible. It inevitably draws attention to the
issues on your agenda and should encourage you in your efforts to
increase international stability and co-operation.
One of the most important tasks facing you is the working out of a
comprehensive, effectively verifiable ban on chemical weapons. This task
is made even more difficult by the fact that capabilities for chemical
warfare are increasing and that, contrary to international agreement,
chemical weapons are being used in various parts of the world. You have
a heavy responsibility. For, as you consider the provisions of a
convention, you must make sure that a global ban will, in fact, eliminate
the capability for chemical weapons to be used against future
generations. An effective convention will require an unprecedented
degree of openness on the part of all States.
I reaffirm the commitment made by the United States in 1984 when we
tabled our draft convention banning chemical weapons worldwide. The
United States delegation will make every effort to work for the total
elimination of these terrible weapons and for the verification provisions
necessary to ensure that they never again enter the arsenals of the
world's armies.
422
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
4
(Mr. Adelman, United States of America)
Your efforts in this and in other fields are to be commended. We
are committed to working with you in the Herculean task of bringing
stability to a still insecure world and in achieving responsible
solutions to the problem of reducing the world's arms."
In the two years since I last spoke to this forum, the world has
witnessed some dramatic developments in arms control. I would like to single
out especially the remarkable meeting between President Reagan and
General Secretary Gorbachev in Reykjavik last October, in which I had the
privilege of participating. From the United States perspective, Reykjavik
marked an historic turning-point in our arms control dialogue with the
Soviet Union. Why is that? Because for the first time, we engaged the
Soviet Union in serious negotiations -- not just public initiatives, but
serious, hands-on negotiations during those dramatic two days -- on the
subject of deep reductions in offensive nuclear arms.
This was the goal that President Reagan has been striving for ever since
he entered office, ever since he first proposed the "zero-zero" option for
intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) and deep strategic arms reductions
(START) in 1981 and 1982. At that time, you may remember, there were many
people in our own country and elsewhere who argued that such ambitious arms
reduction proposals had no real place in the arms control dialogue. Many, if
not most, claimed that these deep-cuts proposals were too far-reaching and
could never be the basis for productive negotiations with the Soviet Union:
the Soviet Union would just never entertain such deep cuts as we envisioned.
But, when the Soviet Union walked out of the arms talks at the end of 1983 --
a walk-out that was totally unjustifiable, I might add, due to the INF
situation -- many of these same critics reiterated their arguments, believing
that events had vindicated their views.
But President Reagan persisted. And his persistence has paid off in a
real shift in the arms control agenda. Now at last -- at long last, if you
ask me -- the two sides are talking in nuclear arms control about agreements
that, if signed -- and if fully complied with, which is another thing
altogether -- would effect real and deep reductions in offensive nuclear
arsenals, particularly those systems that are most destabilizing, that are
most threatening in the world. No more are we looking at arrangements like
the SALT accords of the 1970s, which permitted vast growth in the arsenals of
both sides -- a fourfold increase in the number of Soviet strategic nuclear
weapons since SALT I was signed in 1972 and an increase in our own arsenal in
response to that fourfold increase on the Soviet side. Thanks to
President Reagan's persistence, the agenda in nuclear arms control is now, I
believe, irreversibly, deep offensive weapons cuts.
There is another development to which I would call your attention, a
development that has occurred outside the field of arms control proper, but
which, if it were to come to pass, could have potentially broad ramifications
for arms control and surely for the deliberations of this forum, for the
future of the Conference on Disarmament. That is the increasing discussion of
423
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
5
(Mr. Adelman, United States of America)
"openness", or glasnost, in the Soviet Union itself. Indeed, First Deputy
Foreign Minister Vorontsov addressed it here two days ago and we talked about
it last night during our long evening together. It is not clear where this
focus might lead, it is not clear what glasnost, is to mean and how it is to
unfold, or if the openness that the Soviet Union talks about now will be
genuine openness by the standards of a truly open society. We can speak
conditionally and we can express hope, a deep hope) we can say that, if this
interest in openness on the part of the Soviet Union were indeed to prove
real, if it were indeed to prove enduring, we could very much find ourselves
standing on the threshold of a new era for the cause of arms control and
disarmament.
For openness and arms control go together, hand in hand, they go together
on at least two levels. First, there is a clear connection between openness
and international trust, between peace and the open society. Andrei Sakharov,
that great world hero and a Soviet hero, has spoken of "the indissoluble bond
between international security and trust on the one hand, and respect .for
human rights and an open society on the other". Societies that respect the
rights of their citizens, that respect freedom of speech, that respect freedom
of religion, that respect freedom of the press, that respect freedom of
assembly, these kinds of societies that defend the rights of individuals to
criticize their leaders, to vote for their leaders in office and out of
office -- such societies also keep their international treaty commitments.
Such societies can be expected to behave in a fashion that promotes world
peace. Such societies do not crave new territory. Such societies do not
menace their neighbours. Looking at the history of the United States, it is
impossible to find any time in our history when we went to war, engaged in
war, against another open society, another democratic society. In fact, I
don't believe that history shows one example of two free countries ever going
to war with one another, because free peoples just don't choose to go to war.
Conversely, as President Reagan said not long ago, "a Government that breaks
faith with its own people cannot be trusted to keep faith with foreign Powers".
Second, there is a direct, practical link between openness and progress
in arms control. That link lies in the problem of verification, in which I
know this Conference is so interested and on which you have heard so much over
the years. Verification has always defined the outer frontier of what we can
achieve in arms control. We can control effectively only what we can verify
effectively. But verification is often directly limited in turn by the degree
of openness permitted by the States that subscribe to an arms control
agreement.
In an open society like the United States, relevant information on
defence programmes is readily available. That is why, when dealing with open,
democratic societies, one does not have to rely exclusively on what we call
"national technical means" or elaborate verification mechanisms to verify arms
agreements. Often in the past I have been asked about the Soviet ability to
verify our arms control agreements and I say basically that all the
424
npriaccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
6
(Mr. Adelman, United States of America)
Soviet Union needs to verify our compliance with arms control is a
subscription to various open publications in the United States --
The New York Times, The Washington Post, Aviation Week, and publications like
that -- because, if there were ever a case where the United States violated an
arms control agreement, it would be readily available in the open press.
That is one reason why the United States has called for greater openness
in all nations. Since 1982, when I worked with many of you here in this room
there in the First Committee at the United Nations, the United States has
consistently pressed for resolutions on disarmament and openness in the
United Nations General Assembly and I am sure Jan Martenson will remember
that, in 1982, we introduced a resolution on disarmament and openness and it
was adopted by the General Assembly as I remember, by consensus. This
resolution explicitly stated the connection between advancing disarmament and
advancing openness and free discussion and free dissemination of information
in all nations. It encouraged all nations to advance the cause of openness as
a way of advancing the cause of disarmament as a way of advancing the cause of
arms control.
And basically this is my message to you today: the path to more
ambitious arms control, in all areas, lies through the gateway of greater
openness. To quote Dr. Sakharov, once again, the issue here "is not simply a
moral one, but also a paramount, practical ingredient of international trust
and security".
The world is still very far from achieving this kind of openness, which
is one reason why arms control remains a very painstaking, very difficult,
very timely business. Take an issue as rudimentary as published figures on
defence spending. You all know just as well as I do how slow and careful we
must be in terms of arms control and how frustrating is a lot of the pace of
the arms control talks, because all of us in this room grapple with the issue
on a daily basis. But take an issue as rudimentary as published figures on
defence spending, something that the United Nations has also been discussing
for a good number of years.
In 1985, according to our best estimates, the United States and the
Soviet Union each devoted around $250 billion to defence. Figures on
United States defence spending are, of course, widely available in open
sources. They are broken down by category. They are extensively discussed.
They are scrutinized in the United States Congress -- probably scrutinized a
little too much, if you ask me -- but they are scrutinized in the
United States Congress and elsewhere in our society. Figures for Soviet
defence spending, on the other hand, must be derived from careful analysis.
Why? Because published Soviet figures bear absolutely no relationship to the
reality of the Soviet defence effort.
In 1985, for example, the Soviet Union claims to have spent
20.3 billion roubles on defence. Assuming the official exchange rate of
approximately $1.50 per rouble, that comes to less than $35 billion. Now,
425
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
7
(Mr. Adelman, United States of America)
that is a ridiculously small sum -- some 15 per cent of what they really
spend -- for the declared defence budget of a State regarded as a military
super-Power. It bears no relationship at all to the $250 billion figure I
mentioned a moment ago, which suggests what it would cost the United States to
mount an effort equivalent to the present Soviet defence effort. There is no
way in the world that the Soviet Union could be mounting its current defence
effort on a declared budget of 20.3 billion roubles. It is spending many,
many, many times that, and we all know that.
Or again, take the public statements of the two sides on the issue of
strategic defences. The United States Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), of
which you have heard some, I am sure, in this room, is an openly declared
programme. Its budget is published and voted on by the United States
Congress. Its activities are reported to the Congress, where it is widely
discussed and debated. The President of the United States often discusses the
programme in his speeches. In fact I have personally found it hard to stop
him from discussing the subject of SDI at any time, in his speeches or
otherwise.
Yet to this day, even as we negotiate on defence and space issues with
the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union continues to deny that it has the
equivalent of an SDI programme of its own. We know this denial to be false.
I believe everybody in. this room knows the denial to be false. We know that
the Soviet Union began investigating several advanced strategic defence
technologies before we did, years before. We know it is extensively engaged
in exploration and development of these technologies. We know, for example,
that the Soviet Union has an extensive laser research programme which involves
about 10,000 scientists and expenditure of resources worth approximately
$1 billion a year just on that kind of laser research programme. And we know
it is researching a host of other technologies, advanced technologies, as well.
Can it surprise anyone that our progress in arms control if often slow
and halting when there is such a lack of openness and honesty between
Governments about even such an elementary fact as this one?
There is, in short, almost no area of arms control in which greater
openness would not lead to greater openness on the way to greater progress.
In some of these areas, lack of openness is among the most crucial barriers to
a meaningful agreement. Thus, my message to you today can be summed up as
this: unless the Soviet Union moves to the openness it now talks about,
accomplishments in arms control are just going to be limited, if not thwarted
altogether. That movement towards greater openness is necessary for progress
on an issue like the one this Conference has before it.
Of the tasks before you, my Government, as you know, considers the
negotiations on achieving a comprehensive and effectively verifiable global
ban on chemical weapons to have the highest priority. International
negotiators have been striving to remove the chemical weapons threat since the
late nineteenth century. Here it is 198/. Nearly a century has passed
since the Hague Conference prohibited use of chemical projectiles, in 1899.
426
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
8
(Mr. Adelman, United States of America)
Yet the world finds that the problem of chemical weapons remains; indeed, as
the world edges toward the twenty-first century, the chemical weapons danger
continues to grow. Shockingly, we have witnessed use of chemical weapons by
some nations in this decade and even during the past year.
It is high time that chemical weapons use was rendered a thing of the
past. It is high time that these barbaric weapons were banished from the
face of the earth. But it is obvious that, if these weapons are to be
banned, a thorough and effective mechanism of verification is necessary. My
country will just not accept, and no free nations should accept, a ban on
chemical weapons without sound machinery of verification.
A chemical weapons ban without confidence of compliance will be no more
effective than the Hague Conference's 1899 prohibition on use of artillery
containing poison gas, which did nothing to prevent extensive use of chemical
weapons in the First World War. The use of chemical weapons, as I remember,
produced some 1 million casualties. It will be no better than so many of
the misguided disarmament measures of the 1920s and 1930s, which, the great
Americal commentator, Walter Lippmann, said, were "tragically successful in
disarming the nations that believed in disarmament" while permitting aggressor
nations to maintain and expand their own arsenals. Until an effectively
verifiable chemical weapons ban is in place, the American people will insist,
and rightly's?, that the United States maintain adequate chemical forces to
deter use of these heinous weapons by an aggressor.
While the establishment of procedures for the effective verification of
arms control agreements is often extremely demanding both technologically and
politically, in the case of chemical weapons, the challenges are especially
great. The toxic chemicals which are or could be used as agents of warfare
are in general not very different from a variety of substances having
legitimate civilian use. Clearly, the chemical process equipment used in
their production can be found in the legitimate manufacture of pesticides or
corrosives. Chemical agents can be stored in bulk, facilitating
transportation as well as concealment. Chemical munitions have no particular
characteristics which distinguish them from other types of munitions. They
are too small and easily transported and concealed.
Thus, as I mentioned before, the issue of openness goes to the heart of
achieving a chemical weapons ban. Article III of the rolling text of the
draft Convention on chemical weapons (CD/734) requires each State Party to
declare whether it possesses chemical weapons. And yet today the
United States is the only country in this room, the United States is the only
country in the world, that publicly admits to having chemical weapons and has
made public its stockpile locations. That, to me, is astonishing --
especially when so many countries are pressing the urgency of a chemical
weapons ban. Some are even criticizing the United States for holding up
progress and for developing chemical weapons.
427
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100ionnn1-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
9
(Mr. Adelman, United States of America)
The production of chemical weapons is not illegal. The use of chemical
weapons is illegal. Since it signed the 1925 Geneva Protocol, the
United States has never used chemical wweapons; others have -- others, who do
not even publicly admit to possessing chemical weapons, they heave used them;
others, with representatives in this very room, they have used chemical
weapons. The world expects better than this.
The United States openly declares its possession and development of
chemical weapons. The Soviet Union, along with other nations, does not.
The world expects better than this.
The United States has presented publicly an extraordinary amount of
information concerning its binary weapons programme. The details are known
to everyone. The Soviet Union has told us nothing about its chemical weapons
programme. The world expects better than this.
The United States has invited all members of this Conference to examine
procedures for the destruction of chemical weapons. The Soviet Union has yet
to accept this invitation, which is still outstanding. The world expects
better than this.
The United States will devote some $500 million under the fiscal 1987
defence budget to the elimination of its current chemical munitions stocks.
The Soviet Union, apparently, has no similar chemical weapons elimination or
demilitarization programme. The world expects better than this.
The United States has maintained a unilateral moratorium on the
development of chemical weapons for 17 years. The Soviet Union has never
stopped producing chemical weapons and it continues today to expand its
facilities and to expand its capabilities. The world expects better than this.
It is because of this sad state of affairs, because of this glaring lack
of openness in the realm of chemical weapons, that we are more than ever
convinced that confidence in compliance is essential to a chemical weapons
ban. We are more than ever convinced that nothing less than an inspection
regime institutionalizing the right of short-notice access upon demand to any
location or facility suspected of producing or storing chemical weapons will
effectively deter non-compliance -- that is, of course, the
challenge-inspection provision of Article X of the United States draft
convention, CD/500.
But every article of the convention must be designed to contribute to
this overall objective of confidence in compliance. And, to be effective,
each provision must be clearly and unambiguously defined, written, and
understood. It will do little good to have broad agreement on the basic
provisions concerning permitted and prohibited activities if inspection
procedures are inadequate or if they are imprecise.
428
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
10
(Mr. Adelman, United States of America)
At present, it is a point of consensus among all our Governments that
each State Party will provide international access to its destruction sites,
its production facilities to be eliminated, and its facilities for producing
permitted chemicals. But the working out of precise procedures for all these
tasks had only just been begun by Ambassador Lowitz and his fine delegation.
And the vital question of how to ensure confidence in compliance with regard
to undeclared sites still remains at issue.
But, again and again, wherever we turn in this negotiation, we run up
against the same problem: it is precisely the absence of openness, the
absence of glasnost, that is standing in the way, blocking further progress.
In the draft Convention, I count no less than 13 different types of
declarations that each State Party must be expected to make about its
stockpiles and about their destruction, about its chemical weapons production
facilities and about their elimination, and about its chemical industry.
Article IV is a key element in this series of declarations -- calling for
the declaration of all stockpiles. Everyone agrees that each State Party
should declare the amount and composition of its stockpile. Everyone agrees
with the basic objective that the complete stockpile should be destroyed. And
yet the Soviet Union continues to reject two particular "openness"
provisions; each is necessary if we are to have confidence that this
objective is fulfilled. One is the early and complete declaration of the
stockpile locations and on-site verification to ensure that the declaration
reflects reality. The second is on-site monitoring of the stocks until
destruction to ensure that some weapons are not clandestinely diverted to
undeclared sites before destruction. And it is obvious that we face the
serious risk that a State will not declare all its stockpile locations or the
entire amount of its stockpile.
The consequences of lack of openness in this realm are unfortunate, and
they are not lost on world opinion. I think the 1983 Yearbook of the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) identified the
problem -- and identified the solution -- as well as anyone did:
-Faced with a high degree of uncertainty about Soviet CW intentions,
Western defence authorities have no prudent option but to assume that
they pose a threat. If it decided to do so, the Soviet Government could
probably find a way for reducing the ambiguities attaching to its CW
stance in Western (and non-aligned country) eyes without at the same time
jeopardizing Soviet security to the point of net detriment. Yet even
though the need for such mistrust-reducing measures is so evidently
growing, it seems that Moscow has not chosen to act in such a manner, a
failure which is becoming more and more conspicuous and damaging".
And that is from the Stockholm Institute (SIPRI).
Clearly, there is a gap between the way certain States conduct business
today and the way they promise they will behave under a convention banning
chemical weapons. And it is simply not possible for a nation to yield
429
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
11
(Mr. Adelman, United States of America)
national control over its own defence to an international agreement -- as we
will be asked to do when we have a convention ready for signature -- on the
basis of a mere promise of a new and better pattern of behaviour by other
States like the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union says it is interested in real openness. Good. But will
its deed& in this forum match its words? We hope so. We hope to see signs of
real glasnost, here in the CD, in the coming weeks and months, otherwise I
fear our work will be even slower and more difficult.
I believe that a turn by the Soviet Union to real glasnost would
transform our discussion and sweep away a host of difficulties that have been
blocking your progress here. I believe it could remove the barriers that some
have attempted to erect to the inspection procedures absolutely essential to
make a chemical weapons ban worth the paper it is printed on. Genuine
openness, real glasnost, were it to emerge in the Soviet Union and in the
Soviet Union's dealings with the rest of the world -- nothing could be more
welcome to the United States of America. Nothing could do more to make
possible progress in the relationship between our two Governments. Nothing
would so improve the prospects, not only for real advances in arms control,
but for the entire cause of world peace. Nothing would be a better tribute to
your dedicated and important work. Nothing could be a better monument to
Donald Lowitz's work and to his life.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the Director of the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency of the United States of America for his
statement and for the kind words addressed to the Chair personally and to the
country the Chair represents. I wish also to thank him for conveying the
message of the President of the United States of America to the Conference on
Disarmament. I now give the floor to the representative of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, Ambassador Nazarkine.
Mr. NAZARKINE (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): Comrade President, I endorse your greetings in connection with the
presence at today's meeting of the distinguished Deputy Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Cuba, Comrade Raul Rao, and the Director of the United States Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, Mr. Adelman. Allow me also to thank you and
those distinguished delegates who expressed words of welcome to me on my
appointment as representative of the Soviet Union to the Conference on
Disarmament. It is also a pleasure for me to transmit to my predecessor,
Ambassador Issraelyan, the warm wishes expressed by yourself and by
distinguished representatives.
The opening day of the current session of the Conference on Disarmament,
3 February this year, was "celebrated" by an event that constituted an open
challenge to the entire world community which is seeking to remove the threat
of nuclear war and to strengthen the foundations of peace. On the day when
there were heard in this room the statements of Alfonso Garcia Robles, the
distinguished representative of Mexico and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize,
and other distinguished representatives in favour of the cessation of nuclear
430
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
12
testing, the United States carried out
explosions at the test site in Nevada,
maliciously timed to coincide with the
Conference on Disarmament.
(Mr. Nazarkine, USSR)
another in the series of nuclear
an explosion as it were deliberately,
opening of the current session of the
One cannot but agree with the opinion voiced by the distinguished
representative of Sweden, Maj Britt Theorin, literally a few hours before the
receipt of the news of the explosion, that such fireworks to mark the opening
of this session "would amount to nothing less than an affront to international
efforts to achieve a comprehensive test ban". This affront shows Washington's
real attitude towards the opinion of the world community, which has called
upon the United States time and again to reconsider its negative stance on
nuclear testing and to join the Soviet moratorium.
By conducting another nuclear explosion, the United States has
demonstrated flagrant disregard for the calls of the non-aligned movement, for
the constructive proposals by the leaders of the "Delhi Six", for the views of
parliaments and for the apirations of all people on Earth demanding the
cessation and banning of all nuclear tests.
The United States Administration carried out a nuclear explosion -- and I
wish particularly to emphasize this -- in a situation in which the
Soviet Union had been strictly observing for a year and a half and had
extended five times the moratorium on all nuclear explosions that it had
declared in August 1985. It is deplorable that the present United States
Administration has not responded positively to the call from the USSR to join
its peace initiative and has carried out another nuclear explosion, the
twenty-fifth since the Soviet Union declared its unilateral moratorium. Thus,
the United States has ignored the numerous decisions of the United Nations
General Assembly, including the resolutions of the forty-first session calling
for the cessation of nuclear testing once and for all. For example,
resolution 41/46A, as you know, explicitly calls upon the Soviet Union, the
United States and Great Britain to bring to a halt, without delay, all nuclear
test explosions. It also indicates the ways to achieve such a halt: "either
through a trilaterally agreed moratorium or through three unilateral
moratoria, which should include appropriate means of verification", that is,
exactly what the Soviet side has done in practice.
By carrying out the first nuclear explosion of 1987 in Nevada, the
United States has also put an end to the silence at Soviet test sites. As the
Soviet Government has repeatedly warned, the Soviet Union will be compelled to
resume nuclear testing after the first nuclear explosion by the United States
in 1987. In connection with what happened in Nevada on 3 February, the
Soviet Union no longer considers itself bound by its unilateral moratorium on
all nuclear explosions and will resume at the appropriate time the execution
of its own programme of nuclear testing. We will not let the United States
achieve military advantages. At the same time, the Soviet delegation is
authorized to declare that the Soviet Union will be prepared, on the basis of
reciprocity, to stop the implementation of its test programme if the
United States halts its nuclear testing.
431
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
13
(Mr. Nazarkine, USSR)
The purpose of American nuclear tests is well known. It is to test
fundamentally new types and classes of nuclear arms intended above all for the
implementation of the notorious "Star Wars" programme. The United States
stubbornly refuses to cease nuclear testing for it cherishes an unrealizable
dream: to achieve military superiority over the Soviet Union, primarily
through the development of third-generation nuclear weapons, including
fundamentally new means of laser-beam warfare.
Even today we do not think that the door leading to a solution to the
question of halting nuclear testing has been definitively slammed shut. It is
not our intention to cease our persistent efforts in favour of the
commencement of negotiations on a nuclear-test ban, negotiations which we are
prepared to conduct in any framework and in any forum -- with, of course, the
participation of the United States. As you may recall, in his statement at
the plenary meeting on 3 February, the First Deputy Foreign Minister of the
USSR, Yuli Vorontsov, pointed out that the Conference on Disarmament is
undoubtedly one such forum.
The Soviet Union is in favour of the participants in the Conference
engaging without delay -- I repeat, without delay -- in the elaboration of a
treaty on a complete and general nuclear-test ban by the members of the
Conference. We are in favour of establishing an ad hoc committee on this
subject in the framework of the Conference and of endowing it with appropriate
powers. In short, we are in favour of moving at last from words to practical
work.
There are no reasons, except false and fictitious ones, preventing
agreement on a nuclear-test ban. There was a time when the United States
argued that it would be impossible to verify such an agreement, but now,
thanks to Soviet initiatives, these so-called arguments have been dispelled
once and for all. The Soviet Union is willing -- and this has repeatedly been
affirmed at the highest level -- to see any measures of verification in this
field. It has been clearly stated by the Soviet side that such verification
could be implemented both by national technical means and on the basis of
international procedures, including on-site inspections.
When the United States was no longer in a position to use the
verification issue for delaying a solution to the question of the cessation of
nuclear testing, it advanced new arguments. It now argues that nuclear tests
can only be ceased in the event of complete nuclear disarmament and that, so
long as nuclear arsenals exist, there is need for nuclear testing. However,
to put the question in that way is to do nothing more than to deny the
existence of the problem of a nuclear-test ban as an issue in its own right in
the field of disarmament. After all, since 1954, when this question first
appeared on the agenda of international disarmament negotiations, it has been
understood that the cessation of nuclear testing is a significant measure in
the limiting of the nuclear arms race and a step towards nuclear disarmament,
and that its implementation will in fact put an end to qualitative improvement
of nuclear weapons, lead to their elimination and promote the conclusion of
radical agreements on the reduction and elimination of these weapons. The new
432
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
14
(Mr. Nazarkine, USSR)
American logic puts the cart before the horse. After all, nobody would take
it into their head to argue that nuclear tests will be needed even when all
nuclear arsenals have been destroyed. That line of argument, too, is nothing
more than yet another unsuccessful attempt to justify the unjustifiable, that
is, the unwillingness of the United States Administration to start curbing the
nuclear arms race.
Kr. Adelman, who has, unfortunately, already left the room, today put
forward the usual collection of well-worn conjectures against the
Soviet Union, the aim of which is to cover up the United States
Administration's unwillingness to move towards arms-reduction and disarmament
measures. But there is a reliable sign, a litmus test of States' attitude to
disarmament and that is their attitude to the cessation of nuclear tests. We
are in favour of such a ban. The United States, and this they confirmed on
3 February, is against it. In this way, they have shown their true attitude
to the problem of disarmament. It is significant that Mr. Adelman did not
feel it possible even to mention the question of a nuclear-test ban, which, as
you know, is item number 1 on our agenda.
As to the specific questions which are the subject of negotiations and
which Mr. Adelman touched upon in his statement in a polemical tone, we
prefer, not polemics, but businesslike negotiations. We have been and will
continue showing our attitude to these questions at the negotiating table, in
the form of constructive proposals and not by declarations. Unfortunately,
the United States prefers declarations, polemics. Behind this lies their
aspiration to continue and strengthen the arms race.
Once again we appeal to the United States to stop and heed the voice of
dozens upon dozens of States, the voice of hundreds of millions of people on
our planet. At stake is the survival of mankind, the salvation of human
civilization.
The Soviet delegation has explicit instructions from its Government to do
everything necessary to reach a solution on the question of the complete
prohibition of all nuclear tests as a priority measure towards the attainment
of the principal objective of containing the nuclear arms race and
subsequently eliminating nuclear arms. I would like to express the hope that
we shall be supported in this undertaking by all members of the Conference who
hold dear the cause of preserving peace on Earth.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for his statement. I would now inform
the Conference of a change in the order of the list of speakers, the speakers
next in line having agreed to a request put forward by the Co-ordinator for
the Group of 21, who would like to make a statement at present. For this
reason, I now give the floor to the Co-ordinator for the Group of 21,
Ambassador Morelli-Pando.
433
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
15
Mr. MORELLI-PANDO (Peru) (translated from Spanish): I have requested the
floor at this time with the permission of distinguished delegates, who had
requested their inclusion on the list of speakers, the distinguished delegates
of Cuba, the Federal Republic of Germany and Poland, in order to make, as you
have just explained, the following statement on behalf of the Group of 21
(continued in English):
"The Group of 21 expresses its deepest regret and disappointment at
the announcement of the new nuclear-weapon test by one of the
super-Powers on 3 February, the opening day of the 1987 session of the
Conference on Disarmament.
The international community has been discussing for 30 years the
question of the cessation of nuclear-weapon tests. The General Assembly
in that period of time has adopted more than 50 resolutions on this
matter, to which the United Nations has assigned the highest priority.
As stated in the Final Document of the first special session devoted
to disarmament, the cessation of nuclear-weapon testing by all States
within the framework of an effective nuclear disarmament process would be
in the interest of mankind. It would make a significant contribution to
the aim of ending the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and the
development of new types of such weapons and of preventing the
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
This action ignores the insistent appeals made recently by the
international community for the cessation of nuclear-weapon tests. In
Harare last year, the Heads of State or Government of the non-aligned
countries state in their Political Declaration, inter alia, that 'the
continuance of the nuclear-weapon testing fuels the nuclear arms race and
increases the danger of nuclear war'. In January 1985, in New Delhi, the
Heads of State or Government of Argentina, India, Greece, Mexico, Sweden
and Tanzania called for an immediate halt to nuclear-weapon testing
preparatory to a comprehensive test-ban treaty. The same appeal was
reiterated by the Group of Six in the Mexico Declaration and in the Joint
Declaration of December 1986, in which it was stated that 'There is no
justification for nuclear testing by any country. We appeal once again
to the United States to reconsider its policy on nuclear testing so that
a bilateral moratorium can be established'. Thus, this new
nuclear-weapon test also frustrates the hopes of the international
community for a joint moratorium.
In light of the above, and bearing in mind that the aforesaid
super-Power's decision not only greatly increases the risk involved in
its bilateral nuclear-arms race with the other super-Power, but also
affects the interest of the international community as a whole, in which
the neutral and non-aligned countries play a significant role, the
Group of 21: reaffirms its call for the multilateral negotiation of an
agreement on the complete cessation of nuclear-weapon tests, and demands
that this objective be fulfilled in the Conference on Disarmament.".
434
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
16
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the Co-ordinator of the
Group of 21, the Ambassador of Peru, for his statement. The next speaker on
my list is the representtive of Cuba, His Excellency the Deputy Foreign
Minister, Mr. Raul Roa Kouri. I now give the him the floor.
Mr. RAUL ROA KOURI (Cuba) (translated from Spanish): First of all, I
wish to express the appreciation of my delegation for the work done in the
past few months by the distinguished Ambassador of Canada in fulfillment of
his duties as President and to welcome the distinguished representative of the
People's Republic of China, Ambassador Fan Guoxiang, to whom has fallen the
difficult task of presiding over this Conference during the month of February,
a time of particular significance since it is the occasion for establishing
the guidelines for our work for the entire session. Knowing your diplomatic
skill, we are sure, Sir, that under your presidency the deliberations of this
disarmament negotiating body will gain momentum. It goes without saying that
the Cuban delegation, which represents a country struggling for peace, will
contribute to that effort to the full extent of its abilities.
The delegation of Cuba wishes also to extend its condolences to the
delegation of the United States of America on the demise of
Ambassador Donald Lowitz.
In beginning the work of the new session, the Conference must redouble
its efforts to reach the objectives that were at the origin of forum. The
danger of a conflagration persists and, rather than diminishing, is growing
daily.
The intensification of the arms race, the enormous quantity of weapons
already accumulated, the advances of technology in the perfecting of means of
destruction, particularly in the nuclear sphere, constitute the greatest
threat there has ever been to the survival of mankind. It is for that reason
that all peoples urgently demand the adoption of measures to prevent nuclear
war and promote disarmament.
The declaration adopted by the Heads of State or Government of the
Non-aligned Movement meeting at Harare is a genuine expression of that demand
for peace. The hundred or so countries that comprise the Movement proclaimed
themselves in favour of the banning of the use of nuclear weapons, the
freezing of their development, production, stockpiling and deployment and the
cessation of all new production of fissionable material for military
purposes. This stand in favour of disarmament and peace, which has been
restated throughout the 25 years of the Movement's existence, was renewed on
this occasion, with the greatest priority being given to the issues of nuclear
armament.
At their meeting in Zimbabwe, the Heads of State or Government therefore
generally welcomed the broad programme for nuclear disarmament according to a
schedule and with fixed deadlines submitted by the Soviet Union, whose
objectives and priorities are aimed at the complete elimination of nuclear
weapons from the face of the earth. Being convinced likewise of the enormous
435
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168ROOninninnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
17
(Mr. Raul Roa Kouri, Cuba)
importance of the suspension of nuclear-weapon tests for the halting of the
arms race, our countries also expressed themselves on the need to establish a
moratorium on all tests.
Accordingly, they not only took note of the initiatives of the Heads of
State or Government of Argentina, Greece, India, Mexico, Sweden and of the
first President of the United Republic of Tanzania, but also expressed their
satisfaction at the unilateral moratorium declared by the Soviet Union in
August 1985 and extended several times and appealed to the United States to
join the Soviet Union in that action, while urging the Soviet Union to
maintain its moratorium. It is appropriate, in this context, to draw
attention to the latest statement made by the Soviet Government extending the
moratorium on testing so long as the United States did not stage ahy further
nuclear tests -- which, it has been announced, it unfortunately did some hours
ago, thus going against the interests of peace and disregarding the clamour of
international public opinion. This and no other has been the United States
Government's portentous greeting to the present session of this Conference on
Disarmament.
The resumption of nuclear testing is a serious matter that will poison
both the environment and the international political climate still further and
will complicate negotiations between the two great nuclear Powers while
raising new obstacles to the work of this Conference. But this challenge to
the international community is not the only thing contributing to the
heightening of tension. We would also mention the decision of the
United States Government to cease respecting the SALT II Agreement by adding
to its arsenal, without dismantling another aircraft as the Agreement provides
to remain within the established limit, its 131st heavy bomber capable of
transporting long-range cruise missiles.
In the present situation, that is a new factor of disturbance that
increases distrust, particularly as the decision was premeditated and a
further expression of the militaristic policy that it is desired to continue
developing.
Another question that deserves our attention and that was also examined
by the summit Conference of the non-aligned is the extension of the arms race
into outer space. The Heads of State or Government meeting at Harare
expressed their deep concern at the preparations under way to extend the arms
race into outer space and vigorously reaffirmed the principle that outer space
is the common heritage of mankind and must be used exclusively for peaceful
purposes to the benefit of all countries, whatever their level of economic or
scientific development, and be open to all States.
Consequently, they urged this Conference urgently to begin negotiations
with a view to arriving at agreements to prevent the extension of the arms
race, in all its aspects into outer space and to promote the possibility of
co-operation in the sphere of the use of outer space for peaceful purposes,
while emphasizing the imperative need to halt the development of
anti-satellite weapons, to dismantle existing arsenals, to prohibit the
introduction of new weapons systems and to ensure that the treaties in force
preserve outer space for peaceful purposes.
436
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
18
(Mr. Raul Roa Kouri. Cuba)
In taking stock of what happened last year in the sphere of disarmament,
special mention must be made of the meeting that took place at Reykjavik on
11 and 12 October between the highest-ranking leaders of the Soviet Union and
the United States, a meeting which came very close to achieving significant
progress in arms reduction that, if they could continue going forward along
those lines in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, would obviously have
great importance for all mankind. The persistence of one of the parties, the
United States, in continuing to develop what is termed the Strategic Defence
Initiative to its ultimate consequences has prevented the realization of the
agreements that had in principle been reached. That negative policy has
earned the opprobrium of public opinion, which contrasts it with the
willingness of the other party to give up nuclear weapons, to agree on a plan
for their total elimination within a fixed time-frame, to propose guarantees
for all as regards verification and, finally, to adopt effective measures to
ensure the peaceful use and prevent the militarization of outer space before
it is too late and the situation becomes irreversible.
The Conference on Disarmament has a great responsibility in the efforts
being exerted to eliminate the dangers of war by altering the course of that
negative policy for world peace. It is, therefore, imperative to get the
Conference out of the deadlock it now finds itself and to attempt by every
means to attain a convergence of views that will make possible progress in the
negotiations on all the items on the agenda. If the negotiations on the
prohibition of chemical weapons are crowned with success this year, there is
no doubt that a great step will have been taken. Still fresh in our memory
are the scourges affecting the Vietnamese people as a result of the criminal
use of defoliant chemicals by the United States army.
We must not lose sight of the fact that whatever arrangement that may be
made as regards disarmament measures will have a beneficial influence on the
budgets of the immense majority of international community by releasing, for
their devotion to disarmament, the resources that are today being criminally
squandered upon arms production and that this would alleviate in great measure
the present economic crisis, by which all are affected in one way or another.
Furthermore, the Conference is, in our view, duty-bound to pay attention
to the resolutions of the General Assembly. It is inadmissible that, year
after year, the agreements reached in the Assembly, which reflect the
attitudes and aspirations of the immense majority of the international
community, should be cast aside. The Conference cannot operate in a vacuum.
It must link its work with what is being demanded by that public opinion that
is, in turn, an echo of the aspirations of peoples and of their need to live
in a climate of peace and trust in order fully to develop their capabilities.
This negotiating body has a key role to play in the sphere of disarmament and
a major responsibility of contributing by its efforts to rendering
international relations more healthy.
Given the fait accompli of a resumption of nuclear testing by the
United States which is, objectively, the serious event with which we are
confronted today, we believe it is timely for the Conference to pay urgent
heed to the opinion of the Assembly, which gives the greatest priority to this
matter, since as the resolution that gained overwhelming support during the
437
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
19
(Mr. Ratil Roa Kouri, Cuba)
Assembly's forty-first session puts it, the permanent prohibition of all
explosions would constitute "a contribution of the greatest importance for the
cessation of the nuclear-arms race". In conformity with the provisions of
that resolution, our Conference should create an ad hoc committee to draft 1.
treaty on the banning of nuclear tests. My delegation trusts that the
Conference will not fail to do this. We hope that, in this 1987 session, the
Conference on Disarmament will shoulder its great responsibilities and take
steps seriously and definitively to resolve the grave problems before it.
Cuba, of course, will lend its resolute support to that end.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the Deputy Foreign
Minister of Cuba for his statement and the kind words addressed to the
President. I now give the floor to the representative of the Federal Republic
of Germany, Dr. Wilfried Bolewski.
Mr. BOLEWSKI (Federal Republic of Germany): Mr. President, it gives
great satisfaction to my delegation to see you, as the representative of the
People's Republic of China, presiding over the Conference on Disarmament
during this opening month.
My delegation would like to stress the usefulness of our inter-sessional
consultations and regular sessions in November, December and January which
have provided us.with a number of clarifications and useful discussions.
There has been continuous general recognition of the urgent need for a ban on
chemical weapons and speakers have expressed their desire for further
constructive deliberations.
My Government has emphasized on many occasions that it attributes the
highest priority to the negotiations of a worldwide ban on CW. In this
context, permit me also to quote from the North Atlantic Council Communiqu?f
12 December 1986: "At the Geneva Conference on Disarmament, we seek a
convention which meets our objective, the general, complete and verifiable
prohibition of chemical weapons and the destruction of all existing
stockpiles".
The North Atlantic Council further states: "If the Soviet Union is
prepared to take a constructive attitude on all aspects of an effective
verification regime, such an agreement is within reach. We appeal to the USSR
to join us in overcoming the outstanding obstacles".
At this point, my delegation would like to reaffirm the position of my
Government on the need for effective verification. Our wish is that agreement
be reached as soon as possible on a system of verification which effectively
prevents the production of chemical weapons. It must be impossible for any
contracting party to evade the inspections required for the attainment of this
goal. Of decisive importance is verification expecially in areas where there
is a danger of chemical weapons production. The inspections must therefore be
tailored to the very purpose of the convention prohibiting chemical weapons.
438
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
20
(Mr. Bolewski. Federal Republic of Germany)
Our object is and remains, for example, to control super-toxic lethal
chemicals which are suitable for CW, not dangerous substances of the chemical
industry in general. But even if a total control of the chemical industry
were feasible or acceptable -- not only of the commercial industry, but of any
chemical industry -- this would not render superfluous challenge inspections,
because even such a total control would not mean that there could not be
undeclared or unknown facilities and stocks which might present a risk. That
is why my delegation insists on the necessity for any challenge inspection not
to be limited to declared facilities, but to cover all possible installations
and all locations. This, then, in turn will be a factor reacting upon the
regular controls.
The pre-condition to make challenge inspection a really satisfying
operation is the acceptance of such a demand for control as a rule. But there
are other elements on which consensus does not seem to be achieved yet. This
concerns, for example, a further pre-condition, namely that the demand of a
challenging State should prevail and not be made dependent upon a
plebisciterian machinery of any sort. In our view, majority results or
minority failures are hardly apt procedures, even if they are called
democratic, to solve international security problems -- and this is what we
are dealing with here. If a State perceives an imminent danger to its
security, then that State -- no State -- will want to rely on a multilateral
process to accept or discard its perception. In addition to that, we might
run the risk of establishing the right of veto for one or even more groups in
the international supervising body, depending upon the qualifications chosen
for representation in that body. A right of veto or a blockimg minority would
be a completely new element in an international convention, the central logic
of which is to guarantee all States equal rights to security and equal duties
to contribute towards its realization.
As for on-challenge inspections, we continue to regard the British
proposal as the basis of a solution that answers the need for stringent
verification while taking account of the legitimate interests of the
participating countries in terms of protection.
My delegaqtion stands ready to help in any way to ensure that decisive
steps towards a convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons are taken in
1987.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
the Federal Republic of Germany for his statement. I also thank him for his
kind words addressed to the President and to the country which the President
represents. I now give the floor to the representative of Poland,
Ambassador Stanislav Turbanski.
Mr. TURBANKSI (Poland): Permit me to begin by expressing to the
delegation of the United States, my delegation's and my own profound
condolences on the sudden, unexpected and untimely death of
Ambassador Donald Lowitz, whose funeral will take place today in Chicago. It
is still difficult to believe that he will no longer be with us. His
exceptional personal qualities which so many representatives have pointed out
in this hall and his contribution to the work of the CD will be long
remembered by us.
439
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
21
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
Comrade President, as it is for the first time that I take the floor
under your presidency, allow me to congratulate you wholeheartedly on assuming
this important and, especially at the beginning of the session, undoubtedly
difficult function. My delegation is very pleased to see you, Ambassador
representative of the People's Republic of China, a great socialist State wit.
which my country, Poland, enjoys traditionally friendly relations in all
spheres, presiding over the first month of the 1987 session of the Conference
on Disarmament. We are convinced that your diplomatic skill and personal
qualities will make this month to be remembered as an example of good work and
efficiency. We wish you a successful presidency and pledge full co-operation
and support in your efforts. May I also take this opportunity to express my
delegation's gratitude to your predecessor, Ambassador Beesley of Canada, who
presided in the last month of the 1986 session of the Conference and in the
inter-sessional period.
It is also a pleasure for me to welcome our new colleagues, the
Ambassadors and heads of delegation of Algeria, Brazil, France, Italy, Japan,
Romania, the USSR and Yugoslavia, and to wish them a most successful stay in
Geneva. And last, but not least, I welcome the presence at our today's
meeting of the Deputy Foreign Minister of Cuba, Comrade Raul Roa Kouri, and
the Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,
Mr. Kenneth Adelman. I have listened with interest to their statements, so
different in their tune and the messages they contained.
Speaking as co-ordinator of the Group of socialist States for item 4,
chemical weapons, I wish to express our satisfaction over the Conference's
adoption of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons, together
with the substantial annexes reflecting, as they do, the state of affairs in
our work on a CW convention. The results achieved are a convincing
demonstration of the usefulness and fruitfulness of the work during the
inter-sessional period, i.e. of both the informal consultations and the
resumed session of the Ad Hoc Committee.
In this connection, I would like to express our thanks to
Ambassador Cromartie, of the United Kingdom for his skillful chairing over the
Committee's work, his personal devotion and contribution to the achieved
results. May I also extend our gratitude to Mr. Rowe, of Australia, and
Mr. Poptchev, of Bulgaria, who, also during the January session, chaired
Working Groups A and B respectively, as well as to Mr. Bensmail and other
staff of the Secretariat and technical services.
The re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on which we shall decide
later today already in the first week of the session has, in our view, more
than just procedural meaning. It points to the willingness of the
Conference's members to restart without any unnecessary delay further work on
a convention banning chemical weapons. We believe that is also an indication
of the feeling that 1987 should bring us to the completion of this task.
Indeed, an early finalization of the draft Convention is within our reach, and
1987 is most propitious for concluding the negotiations.
440
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
22
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
This no doubt optimistic event at the outset is a good omen for our
further work. We are deeply convinced that similar efficiency will be a
guiding principle in the Ad Hoc Committee's work throughout the session of
1987.
On the part of the socialist States, I assure you, no effort will be
spared in the search for mutually acceptable solutions, as was stressed
recently at the Berlin meeting of the Deputy Foreign Ministers of socialist
States. We do have our own position, but we also do realize that at the
outcome of these negotiations there has to be only one common position based
on a compromise.
We expect that the same approach will be taken by others and we appeal to
all delegations to contribute their share to the compromise solutions which
are sought for. In this connection, let me draw your attention to the
statement of the First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the USSR,
Comrade Yuli Vorontsov, who said:
"What is now required at the negotiations, is to be able to shed
'parental feelings' toward the apptoaches one proposes and to concentrate
on finding a common approach.".
The rolling working text of the future Convention represents quite an
extensive area of agreements, including most of the fundamental issues.
The time has come to make necessary political decisions which would open
the way to a successful solution of some of the outstanding issues. There is
no need to repeat what we all know, i.e. what the areas of agreement are, or
to point out issues where political solutions are needed. It seems, however,
that both last year's session and the inter-sessionsal period have
demonstrated clearly the growing significance of the overall problem of
verification, both verification of non-production of chemical weapons in
commercial industry and challenge verification. We are of the opinion that
verification measures should be in the centre of our work. The verification
system should provide confidence for all States parties that the provisions of
the convention are observed. We should be careful to close all loopholes
which may either open the way to re-emergence of chemical weapons or become a
constant source of misunderstandings.
The socialist countries will continue their activity and flexibility in
search for possible solutions to these important issues, as well as to all
other still unresolved questions.
We call on all States participating in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee
on Chemial Weapons to join in a common effort toward an early conclusion of a
convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons. It would contribute to the
strengthening of international security and confidence and would enhance the
credibility of this body.
441
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001 own 1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
23
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
Our Group is very pleased that at this very decisive stage of our
negotiations the work of the Ad Hoc Committee will be chaired by
Ambassador Ekeus, of Sweden, whose contribution to the progress achieved so
far is considerable. We support Ambassador Ekeus' intention of giving a
strong boost to the Committee's work. We are certain that both the method and
the programme of work he is to put forward will serve this goal. His personal
experience as previous Chairman of the Committee, and as long-time
co-ordinator in the Group of 21 is a good guarantee that the 1987 session
will close with a result which would enable the Conference to finalize its
work on agenda item 4.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Poland for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the President.
Now I give the floor to the Co-ordinator of a group of socialist countries,
Ambassador Rose, of the German Democratic Republic.
Mr. ROSE (German Democratic Republic): I have asked for the floor in
order to make a statement on behalf of a group of socialist countries, but,
before coming to that, I would like cordially to congratulate you,
Comrade President, on your assumption of the presidency of the Conference on
Disarmament. We are pleased to see in the Chair a very experienced and
outstanding representative of socialist China, a country with which the German
Democratic Republic enjoys friendly relations. These ties received fresh
impetus through last year's visit to China by Erich Honecker, Chairman of the
Council of State of the German Democratic Republic. I wish to assure you,
Mr. President, of my delegation's unqualified support in the discharge of your
responsible duties.
Also, I should like to thank Ambassador Beesley, of Canada, once more for
the job well done as Conference President at the end of last year's session.
My delegation is pleased to see in our midst the Deputy Foreign Minister of
Cuba, Mr. Rail Roa, and I listened with great interest and attention to his
important speech.
Now I will read the joint statement of a group of socialist countries:
"We deplore and condemn the nuclear-weapon test which the
United States conducted on 3 February 1987, the very day the 1987 session
of the Conference on Disarmament opened and 547 days after the
Soviet Union's testing sites fell silent. With this move, militarist
circles have tried in their specific way to counteract the efforts of
States and peoples to ward off the danger of nuclear disaster and have
shown their indiferrence to the demands of the international community,
as expressed in numerous United Nations resolutions, in the declarations
of the 'Delhi Six' and in strong appeals launched by peace forces all
over the world.
442
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
24
(Mr. Rose. German Democratic Republic)
The USSR has stated that it cannot put up ad infinitum with the
disadvantages resulting for its security and that of its allies from
extending its unilateral moratorium to almost one and a half years and
that it would have to resume nuclear testing after the first
United States nuclear explosion in 1987. Thus, the Soviet Union has made
it clear that the button for touching off nuclear-weaspon tests at
Semipalatinsk is located right in Washington. Regrettably, this has
fallen on deaf ears.
Even so, we still possess the means to agree on immediate measures
to end all nuclear-weapon testing. The lasting impact of the unilateral
moratorium will reside in the fact that the feasibility of such a step
has been demonstrated to everyone. Fatalism and resignation are out of
place. They would only aid the plans to carry the nuclear-arms race into
outer space through a third generation of nuclear weapons and to destroy
targets on Earth from outer space.
With this in mind, we appeal to all those willing to avert the
nuclear threat from mankind to start working, without any further delay,
on dependable agreements aimed at halting all nuclear-weapon tests. The
Conference on Disarmament is certainly the proper forum for that. It
should at once set up a committee to begin drafting a nuclear-test ban
treaty, including provisions for strict international verification. We
are prepared to consider seriously all proposals to this effect, from
whatever side they may come.".
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): That concludes my list of
speakers for today. Does any other member wish to take the floor at this
stage? I see none. Then we take up the following items.
As agreed at our last plenary meeting, I shall now proceed to put before
the Conference for adoption the draft decision on the establishment of the
Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons and the appointment of its Chairman, as
contained in document CD/WP.252 which has just been circulated. If there is
no objection, I shall take it that the Conference adopts the draft decision. 1/
It was so decided.
May I, on behalf of the Conference, extend to the representative of
Sweden, Ambassador Ekeus, our warm congratulations on his appointment as
Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons. I am sure that all
members join me in wishing him a successful tenure in that important office,
which he has already held with the utmost competence and person commitment,
advancing substantially the work of the Ad Hoc Committee.
Mr. EKEUS (Sweden): Mr. President, I would like to thank you and,
through you, the members of the Conference for the confidence the Conference
has placed in me and, through its decision, in my delegation. On this
occasion, I would only state one thing and that is that results can only be
achieved if all members of the Conference work together in the same direction
and that progress can only be achieved through joint efforts.
443
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.386
25
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the Ambassador of
Sweden, Ambassador Ekeus, for his statement.
I should like now to refer to other questions. The secretariat has
circulated all requests received from non-members concerning their
participation in the work of the Conference. They are as follows: Norway,
Finland, New Zealand, Portugal, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Viet Nam, Austria, Denmark
and Greece. I have requested the secretariat to prepare the relevant draft
decisions, which I intend to put before the Conference at our next plenary
meeting, on Tuesday, 10 February. As usual, we shall first have a brief
informal meeting to consider those requests and later, at a resumed plenary,
we will formalize the agreements reached at the informal meeting. We shall
also take up then the question of the re-establishment of the Ad Hoc
Committees under item 6 on the agenda, entitled "Effective international
arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States sgainst the use or threat of
use of nuclear weapons", and item 7, "Radiological Weapons".
I have requested the secretariat to circulate today an informal paper
containing a timetable for meetings to be held by the Conference and its
subsidiary bodies during the coming week. You will notice there that the
Ad Hoc Committees on Chemical Weapons and on the Comprehensive Programme of
Disarmament will start their work immediately. Of course, the timetable is
merely indicative and subject to change, if neCessary. On that understanding,
and if there is no objection, I shall take it that the Conference adopts the
timetable.
It was so decided.
The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be held on
Tuesday, 10 February, at 10.30 a.m. This plenary meeting stands adjourned.
The meeting rose at 12.25 p.m.
Note
1/ Later issed as CD/736.
444
n.rincQifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.387
10 February 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVENTH PLENARY MEETING
held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 10 February 1987, at 10.30 a.m.
President:
GE. 87-60162/7121E
Mr. Fan Guoxiang (China)
445
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I declare open the
387th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
In accordance with its programme of work, the Conference will listen to
statements in plenary meetings and consider the establishment of subsidiary
bodies on items of the agenda and other organizational questions. In
conformity with rule 30 of the rules of procedure, however, any member wishing
to do so may raise any subject relevant to the work of the Conference.
As agreed at our last plenary meeting, I intend to convene an informal
meeting, immediately after we listen to those members listed to speak today,
in order to consider the re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committees on
"Effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States
against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons" and on "Radiological
weapons". We shall also then examine requests by non-members to participate
in the work of the Conference.
I have on my list of speakers for today the representatives of Argentina,
Japan, Bulgaria and Peru. I now give the floor to the first speaker on my
list, the representative of Argentina, Ambassador Cimpora.
Mr. CAMPORA (Argentina) (translated from Spanish): Thank you,
Mr. president. At the outset I wish to say that the Argentine delegation
places the greatest confidence in your ability to exercise the very
responsible duties of the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament in the
first month of its annual session. Under its rules of procedure the
Conference on Disarmament each year is obliged to engage in a process of
setting up .subsidiary bodies and establishing mandates for them that requires,
from the person occupying the Presidency, great diplomatic ability, which
fortunately for us you possess in a most noteworthy degree, so as to give the
Conference the initial impetus that will set in motion he negotiations on
disarmament and these are its very raison d'etre. We therefore have no doubt
that at the end of your term as President you will have made to the Conference
on Disarmament a positive contribution, for which in advance we extend our
heartiest congratulations and offer you our closest co-operation. Through
you, Sir, I should also like to extend to Ambassador Beesley of Canada the
appreciation of the Argentine delegation for the diplomatic tact and keen
political insight with which, as President, he carried to fruition the work of
the Conference on Disarmament in August of last year. It is a sad duty indeed
to extend to the delegation of the United States of America the most heartfelt
condolences of the Argentine delegation on the untimely demise of
Ambassador Lowitz, a man esteemed by us all for his moral and political
qualities in the service of his country. My delegation extends a warm welcome
to the new members of the Conference on Disarmament, Ambassador Kemal Hacene
of Algeria, Ambassador Rubens Barbosa of Brazil, Ambassador Pierre Morel of
France, Ambassador Aldo Pugliese of Italy, Ambassador Chusei Yamada of Japan,
Ambassador Gheorghe Dolgu of Romania, Ambassador Marko Kosin of Yugoslavia,
and Ambassador Yuri Nazarkin of the Soviet Union.
Mr. President, we can never dwell sufficiently upon the first session of
the General Assembly devoted to disarmament where agreement was reached on an
international strategy to take decisive action on the problems before us in
this field. In particular, it was then agreed to establish a strategy for
446
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-o11ARPnnni nni nnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
3
(Mr. Campora, Argentina)
nuclear disarmament and the growing risks of nuclear war, and machinery was set
up in the disarmament field by the establishment of a deliberative body, the
United Nations Disarmament Commission, and a negotiating body, the Conference
on Disarmament.
The Final Document adopted by consensus on that occasion provided the
appropriate framework for initiating the disarmament process. What had to be
done from that moment on was to translate into practical terms the provisions
of the Final Document and continue along the avenue that was to lead us to the
conclusion of binding and effective international disarmament agreements.
Regrettably, in the intervening four years between the first and second
special sessions no tangible result was reached. In addition, if we had to
take stock of the second special session of the General Assembly itself, the
salient feature would be the inability to agree on a single measure, however
modest, to limit the risks of nuclear war. And yet on that occasion it was
very clear that mankind's primary concern was the threat of nuclear
annihilation.
As we begin, this month, the ninth session of the Conference on
Disarmament, we should ask ourselves what has been achieved to date. Looking
back we can reach one unquestionable conclusion, which is that the initiatives
undertaken do not offer any solution to the priority problems of disarmament
nor to the increasingly urgent requirements generated by the nuclear and space
arms races. It is clear also that for the two military alliances the quest
for military pre-eminence that goes hand in hand with the accumulation of
weapons has been more important than the search for international security
through the disarmament process.
The situation faced by the sole multilateral negotiating body on
Disarmament derives chiefly from the fact that certain Powers and their allies
take the view that negotiations on disarmament, especially nuclear
disarmament, should be confined exclusively to a bilateral framework. This is
only one symptom of a totalitarian attitude that seems to be based on the
utterly unacceptable idea that the force of nuclear weapons grants them the
omnipotent and exclusive right to decide how, when, where and to what extent
this question is to be negotiated. It should be emphasized once again in this
forum that no country is prepared to surrender its right to participate in a
negotiating process that affects its very survival.
It would seem that in setting aside the urgent priority questions in this
field of disarmament that have been defined and agreed in the Final Document,
the Conference on Disarmament has gradually been losing sight of the gravity
and urgency of the situation it faces. Were this tendency to continue, there
is a danger that the credibility of the multilateral process could be
completely lost. This state of affairs, certainly not created by the
Group of 21, indicates the need to endow the sole multilateral disarmament
negotiating forum with a new resolve and a new sense of urgency in its work.
This requires, among other things, that we should be carefully selective in
our efforts and concentrate our attention upon those items which, by their
effects, have the greatest importance and priority.
447
narinccifipri in Part - Sanitized CoPv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
4
(Mr. Cgmpora, Argentina)
On the eve of the third special session of the General Assembly devoted
to disarmament, the Conference still has a chance to give its work the impetus
that will yield the concrete results which the international community has been
demanding. It would suffice, as a first step, for us to fulfil the mandate
entrusted to us in paragraph 120 of the Final Document and to leave to the
appropriate body the deliberative work which, important though it may be, is
stripped of any great efficiency in a forum such as this. At the same time we
should establish a preliminary method that will ensure appropriate
complementarity between bilateral and multilateral disarmament endeavours.
The situation we face today, as has repeatedly been said by other
distinguished colleagues in this Chamber, is extremely critical for the
multilateral negotiating body if it does not begin negotiations on the chief
items upon its agenda. Questions such as the negotiation of a treaty that
will prohibit nuclear-weapon tests, the cessation of the nuclear-arms race,
measures to prevent nuclear war, the necessity to avoid an arms race in outer
space and the adoption of a comprehensive programme of disarmament cannot be
delayed any further. Nor can we accept that progress on these items should
depend upon something so haphazard as the relations between the two principal
nuclear-weapon States and their allies. The Conference on Disarmament should
not confine its work to the negotiation of questions which, in our judgement,
lack the necessary priority, as is the case, among other things, of what are
generally referred to as radiological weapons.
We recognize that the conclusion of a treaty banning nuclear-weapon tests
will not in and of itself bring about the reduction of existing nuclear-weapon
arsenals, nor will it imply a limitation of the geographical proliferation of
nuclear weapons throughout all regions, particularly in the seas and oceans.
However, we do believe that this measure would contribute to halting the
qualitative development of these weapons and would make it possible
simultaneously to tackle the question of the cessation of their production and
deployment throughout the world.
The commencement of those negotiations would serve to strengthen
confidence, thus tending to reduce risks of nuclear weapons, and would
contribute also to the adoption of additional measures preventing the outbreak
of nuclear war and permit the appropriate functioning of multilateral crisis
management centres which, in our opinion, it is urgent to establish.
Similarly, the various aspects and problems involved in the broad subject
of outer space should be the object of our consideration. If this Conference
does not respond with the necessary firmness and determination in dealing with
this question, both from the standpoint of the interests of the space Powers
and from the standpoint of the non-aligned countries, developments in this
sphere will continue to accelerate until they lead to another ruinous arms
race that will increase the risks of nuclear war.
This rationale, which compels us to take a consistent approach to
disarmament, leads me back to my point of departure, namely the
Final Document. This is so because the strategy set forth in that Magna Carta
of disarmament, has as its ultimate aim general and complete disarmament, and
it therefore requests, in paragraph 109, that the then Committee on
Disarmament should "undertake the elaboration of a comprehensive programme of
4 4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R0001nninnnni_A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
5
(Mr. Cgmpora, Argentina)
disarmament encompassing all measures thought to be advisable in order to
ensure that the goal of general and complete disarmament under effective
international control becomes a reality in a world in which international
peace and security prevail and in which the new international economic order
is strengthened and consolidated".
It clearly emerges from this that there is an essential prerequisite of
agreeing on calendars for the fulfilment of the Programme and for each stage
of its implementation. Along this same line of thinking, as regards nuclear
and space weapons, the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament cannot mean or
imply any backward movement, however small, with respect to the Final Document
of the first special session devoted to disarmament, in particular as regards
paragraph 51.
For my country, disarmament is not just one subject among many; rather
it is one which is given the most serious attention at the highest level of
Government. The active presence of the President of Argentina in the context
of the initiative of the Group of 6 and his participation in the eighth Summic
of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement serve to
illustrate the degree of our concern and our resolve to take up this challenge
with the urgency and earnestness that it requires.
Let me conclude my statement today by repeating some of the ideas
expressed by President Alfonsin in his message to the Conference on
Disarmament in 1985.
President Alfonsin said:
"The aim of my Government is to give expression to its policy
through deeds which confirm our intentions rather than through words
alone. This applies to our conduct both in internal affairs and in the
field of foreign policy. In simple terms, we propose to preach by
example rather than with words.
"Our actions in government contribute to peace and international
co-operation because we neither believe nor accept that the threat or use
of force should be an instrument of policy. This attitude does not imply
the renunciation of principles or any lessening of our determination to
protect legitimate national interests. Above all, our position is the
expression of a stubborn faith in the capacity of man to settle disputes
by peaceful means, through dialogue and negotiation, because nothing is
lost from peace while everything can be forfeited as a result of war and
violence."
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Argentina for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the President
personally. I now give the floor to the representative of Japan,
Ambassador Yamada.
Mr. YAMADA (Japan): Mr. President, I would like to express my sincere
congratulations to you on your assumption of the Presidency in this important
opening month of the Conference; under your pre-eminent leadership we will no
doubt embark on a fruitful undertaking. May I also express my gratitude to
449
;, Dmrl? - aniti7Rd Coov Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
6
(Mr. Yamada, Japan)
you, Mr. President, and other representatives, for the kind words of welcome
extended to me. It is a sad duty for me to offer my heartfelt condolences to
Mrs. Shana Lowitz and the United States delegation on the untimely demise of
Ambassador Donald Lowitz. May his soul rest in peace, for we will carry on
his work for the cause of peace.
At the beginning of the spring session of the Conference on Disarmament
for 1987, I wish first of all to state that this is a year of critical
importance in determining the future of disarmament negotiations, and those of
us who are engaged in disarmament tasks have a joint responsibility to the
international community to make further intensive efforts. The adoption last
year by the General Assembly of resolution 41/60 G, calling for the convening
of the third special session on disarmament in 1988, sets a date towards which
we must carry forward our substantial work. It is with this perception that I
wish to enunciate the views of my delegation on the arms control negotiations
between the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of
America, and on the major agenda items of our Conference, especially those of
a nuclear-test ban and chemical weapons.
With regard to the United States-Soviet arms control negotiations, we
wish to witness that in year 1987 they will succeed in giving effect to the
progress thus far achieved.
Speaking at the University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia, on 15 January, my
Prime Minister, Mr. Nakasone, renewed his calls on the two Powers to work for
early agreement at the nuclear and space talks, keeping in mind the following
five points.
First. the United States-Soviet negotiations on nuclear disarmament
should be such as to enhance the sense of strategic stability between the East
and the West, and to contribute to the strengthening of the peace and security
of the world.
Second, in the negotiations for reductions of nuclear weapons,
"globalism" should be fully adhered to, and, in the case of the long-range
intermediate-range nuclear forces (LRINF), they should ultimately be
completely removed from Europe and Asia alike.
Third, in the negotiations, whatever is practicable should be undertaken
and realized steadily on a step-by-step basis. In order to realistically move
the negotiations even a step forward, it may have to be considered to separate
the INF negotiations from others and to reach early agreement thereupon.
Fourth, the security of the world should be safeguarded with
consideration for the overall balance of all systems of weaponry. We must pay
attention to the international efforts now being exerted in this direction for
arms control and disarmament, including chemical and other conventional
weapons.
Fifth, East-West dialogue should be expanded and deepened.
450
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Rnnninninnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
7
(Mr. Yamada, Japan)
The United States-Soviet exchanges following the Reykjavik meeting do
not, I regret to say, warrant optimism. We hope, however, that during the
seventh round of the nuclear and space talks now taking place here in Geneva,
the negotiators of the two Powers will continue to search for common ground
for agreement in a business-like atmosphere.
I now wish to take up the work of the Conference which is entrusted with
the task of multilateral disarmament negotiations by the international
community.
The fact that this Conference, since its establishment by the first
special session on disarmament to this day, has produced no disarmament
convention, should be a source of serious concern to us. I am not overly
pessimistic, but I would rather like to focus our attention on the
Conference's potentiality. The five nuclear-weapon States and States
representing the various economic and social systems as well as regions of the
world are gathered here to work seriously for disarmament. The Conference has
at its disposal many interesting ideas put forward by various States, as well
as accumulated expert knowledge and experience in the field of disarmament.
It is my belief that if we skillfully draw upon the potentiality of the
Conference with our wisdom and determination, there is a real possibility for
the Conference to move substantially forward this year.
Allow me to begin with the comprehensive prohibition of nuclear tests.
As is well known, Japan has consistently considered the realization of a
comprehensive nuclear-test ban as being the priority item in the field of
disarmament, and strongly wishes to see a resumption of substantial work by
the Conference on the issue. We believe that the following circumstances hold
out prospects for recommencement in 1987 of this long-suspended work.
First, there now seems to be a genuine desire on the part of a number of
member States that substantial work be resumed. In the General Assembly last
year, a great majority of non-aligned countries and socialist States, in
contrast to their previous abstentions, voted in favour of the
resolution 41/47 which Japan co-sponsored, calling for various actions to be
taken in order that a CTB treaty may be concluded at an early date. We are
encouraged by the wide support shown for the resolution, in particular, the
call on the Conference on Disarmament, in its operative paragraph 2(a), to
"commence practical work on a nuclear-test-ban treaty at the beginning of the
1987 session."
Secondly, there is now a widening common perception as to the subject
matter of the work. Resolution 41/46 A lists "contents and scope" of a treaty
and "compliance and verification" as the subject matter of the work which, in
comparison to the similar resolution of the previous year, shows a more
realistic approach, an approach which we view favourably.
Thirdly, all groups now seem to share a more or less common perception of
the importance of verification in developing a CTB regime.
451
r.nnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
8
(Mr. Yamada, Japan)
A comprehensive nuclear-test ban has serious implications for the
security concerns of all States. Verification measures to ensure compliance
are therefore essential. It is from such a perspective that my Government
has, in a number of ways, contributed to the work on verification, including,
in particular, the proposal in June 1984 for a step-by-step approach, whereby
those nuclear tests which are at present verifiable would be prohibited, and
as progress is made in verification technologies, the scope of prohibition
would be expanded, finally arriving at a comprehensive prohibition. It is
also well known that other Western States such as Australia, the Federal
Republic of Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom have made concrete
proposals which stress the need for adequate verification measures.
We welcome the fact that the socialist States, at the 1986 session of th
Conference, began to attach importance to verification measures with regard ee
a CTB. As Mr. Petrovsky, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, state,3
in his intervention on 24 June, "the Soviet Union favours the strictest
possible verification of the ban on nuclear-weapon tests, including on-site
Inspection and making use of all achievements in seismology". He went on to
state that the Soviet Union does not favour any loopholes in the regime for ar
on-site inspection and that "Should any ambiguous situation arise when, for
example, an exchange of seismic data would make it difficult to determine
whether or not there had been a nuclear explosion or an underground tremor dse
to some other reason, that would in fact be just the case when an on-site
inspection would be required". 7 do hope that such positive statement h7 try.1
socialist States with regard tc the problem of verification, will he
translated into concrete proposals in the course of substantial work r)n.
The non-aligned and neutral States have also stressed the need for
specific measures of verification with regard to a CTB, and have made cie
their willingness to co-operate actively. For example, the "Doc,Iment iss
at the Mexico Summit on Verification Measures" by the Leaders of the
Six Nations, in August 1986 in Ixtapa, Mexico, recognizes the i7lpoftan,77
verification and expresses the preoaredness of the six counries to
participate in on-site inspections at the nuclear-test sites cf the
United States and the Soviet Union, and in monitoring of the territories of
the two States outside of the test sites.
As I have discussed, there exists now, in the Conference, a general
expectation for the commencement of substantial work on a CTB. There is
common perception of the subject matter of the work. There are rece,gnition
the importance of verification and willingness to participate in its
implementation. Now is the chance to resume substantial work on a CTB.
Lastly, the Conference has, in the past three years, failed to esteblie
an ad hoc committee on agenda item 1 because of the mandate issue. Whal
great loss this has been to all members of the Conference! Given the
common perception of the subject matter of the work, we may well wonder
whether the so-called negotiating mandate is absolutely necessary at this
present time. The draft mandate of a group of Western countries (CD/521)
provides that the ad hoc committee is to resume its work "with a view to
negotiation of a treaty", while the non-aligned sponsored resolution 41/46 A
of the General Assembly lays down that the ad hoc committee is to be
452.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
9
(Mr. Yamada, Japan)
established "with the objective of carrying out the multilateral negotiation
of a treaty". We cannot but note that there could be much in common between
the two.
Since July 1986, talks have been under way between United States and
Soviet experts on the entire scope of issues related to nuclear testing. They
can also have a positive impact on the work in the Conference.
It must be possible for us to proceed in a spirit of co-operation to
establish an ad hoc committee with an appropriate mandate to commence
substantial work on a CTB at the beginning of this session. Indeed, it would
be our collective responsibility to do so. Mr. President, may I call upon you
to make the best use of your eminent leadership for the establishment of the
ad hoc committee. As far as my delegation is concerned, I pledge our full
co-operation.
The conclusion of a CTB treaty will necessitate the establishment of an
international seismic monitoring network as an indispensable international
mechanism to ensure compliance. In this connection, we highly value the
Report of the Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts' Technical Test (GSETT) 1984,
presented last year, concerning an exchange and analysis of Level I data, as
well as the agreement by the experts to begin work directed towards the design
of a modern international system based on the expeditious exchange of
wave-form (Level II) and parameter (Level I) data and on the processing of
such data at International Data Centres. We had, in April 1986, presented our
ideas on an exchange of Level II data with like-minded countries, and,
following up the results of the Canadian Workshop in October 1986 for data
communication experts, we began an experimental exchange of Level II data in
December 1986 with several interested countries. We will report on the
results of this experiment to the Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts this
year. May I take this opportunity to thank the Canadian Government for its
sponsorship of this useful workshop.
Useful ideas on the organization of an international seismic monitoring
network indispensable for verifying compliance with a CTB treaty have been
presented by Australia, the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway, Sweden and
others. Discussions on this important question of organization would require
much work. From this point of view also, I earnestly hope for an early
establishment of an ad hoc committee on CTB.
A comprehensive ban on chemical weapons, in the form of a convention
widely acceptable the world over, is another item on which we hope to see
further progress during the course of this year.
The Ad hoc Committee, in 1986 and January 1987, has identified those
substances to be controlled under a future convention and has begun the
drafting of the regimes to which these substances would be subject, as well as
streamlining the provisions concerning the destruction of chemical weapons and
their production facilities. I would like to take this opportunity to express
my delegation's appreciation of these results and to extend our sincere
gratitude to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, Ambassador Ian Cromartie of
the United Kingdom, and the Chairmen of the Working Groups, Mr. Richard Rowe,
Mr. Petar Poptchev and Mr. Noegroho Wisnoemoerti. Many countries called for
r-N
453
rnnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
10
(Mr. Yamada, Japan)
the convention to be concluded in the course of this year, and my delegation
for one is certainly prepared to do its share to enhance the work under the
new Chairman, Ambassador Rolf Ekeus of Sweden.
Much time and effort have already been spent on the chemical weapons
negotiations, and they are now at an advanced stage. They are very
complicated and extensive in detail. As such, they do not lend themselves
easily to immediate and simultaneous solutions. I should therefore like to
propose that we concentrate our energies on those problems which will require
agreements on principles: namely, articles of the convention and some of its
annexes, leaving those other problems of a technical and procedural nature for
extended consideration by experts.
In the view of my delegation, the priority questions are as follows:
First, the definition of chemical weapons is one of the basic issues of
the convention. It is a most complicated and difficult problem. But the
definition should, in principle, be understood to be "substances of particular
relevance to chemical weapons" and related munitions. In drafting, the focus
up to now has been placed on the prohibited substances under Article VI.
Would that be sufficient? We should probably also take into consideration
those substances as will be declared under Article IV.
In this connection, my delegation thinks that the convention should not
create impediments for the legitimate activities of the chemical industry for
peaceful purposes, and thus feels that due significance should be given to the
general purpose criterion. It is therefore imperative that the concept of
"permitted purposes" be given careful attention in drafting the definition.
Second, with regard to the destruction of chemical weapons, the
declaration of location of stocks, together with the declarations on the
entirety of the stockpile and on its composition, should be made at an early
point in time following the entry into force of the convention. These
declarations should be verified by on-site inspection.
In this connection, my Government welcomed the presentation in July 1986
by the United States delegation of a document in which detailed information on
United States stockpiles and plans for their destruction were given. It was a
courageous step helpful to the negotiations. If the other countries
possessing chemical weapons were to follow suit, during the course of the
negotiations, it would greatly contribute to the solution of the problems we
now face, in particular, with regard to Articles IV and V.
Third, in Article VI, which deals with the question of permitted
activities, we should strive to develop common language on the verification
measures to be applied to each of the categories of substances.
There is much work to be done, also, on the issues of thresholds for the
control of various chemical substances, the concept of militarily significant
quantities, the mechanism for revising lists of chemicals, the cost factor,
and so on. We feel however that these problems might be better assigned to
the experts for their consideration and advice. It would be more productive
454
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
????
CD/PV.387
11
(Mr. Yamada, Japan)
for the Ad Hoc Committee to agree on the basic utility of these concepts in
implementing Article VI, and then proceed to work out the body of Article VI
and its annexes.
With regard to the substances on which there is no agreement as to
whether they should be included in a particular list or regime, we suggest
that it would do no harm to put them aside temporarily by putting them on a
preliminary list, returning to settle the question of the outstanding
substances once the regimes to which they would be subject are more developed.
Fourth, as regards the organizational questions in Article VIII, we feel
it appropriate to maintain the present draft text for the time being. When
the various substantive provisions on the destruction of chemical weapons and
their production facilities, regimes for permitted activities, challenge
verification, and so forth are developed, there will be a need for a thorough
review. The organs of the convention will need to be fully worked out and be
in existence by the time of the entry into force of the convention. As they
require extensive work, my delegation thinks that these, including the
financial clauses, would be another set of problems which we could delegate
for expert consideration at an appropriate time.
Fifth, there seems to be common understanding on a challenge inspection
regime under Article IX, that this inspection is to be of an exceptional
nature to be conducted within a short time scale. However, when we get down
to working out the details of its implementation, the divergences seem to be
as wide as ever. In order to overcome this impasse, we must develop our
thoughts as to whether we are pursuing a rectifying effect as regards possible
contraventions of the convention or the restoration of confidence among the
parties to the convention, whether our aim is to drive the offending party out
of the convention regime, or whether bilateral solutions may possibly be
contemplated. We should review existing proposals and engage in quiet and
informal discussions to seek a solution to the problem.
I have already said that the chemical weapons negotiations are at an
advanced stage. We must organize ourselves to deal with this new stage in a
most effective way.
My delegation has advocated a work process where we concentrate on one
item for a given week and move on to another, rather than deal with several
questions in three separate working groups at the same time. I am pleased to
note that the organization of work suggested by Ambassador Ekeus is along the
lines of our thinking. We might meet as the Ad Hoc Committee for several days
each month so as to assess the situation in the Working Groups, to consolidate
areas where there has been progress and give directives where there has been
little progress.
Rather than spending day after day in various meetings, we need also to
bear in mind the utility of "breathing spaces", so as to allow delegations to
develop their thoughts and to consult with capitals. To this end, we may need
to reduce the frequency of meetings within the framework of carefully
formulated schedules.
455
nniiv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDp92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
12
(Mr. Yamada, Japan)
To sum up, we should aim to built substantive agreements one by one at
this advanced stage.
Besides the CTB and chemical weapons, we are also expected to make
substantial progress, during this spring session, on the Comprehensive
Programme of Disarmament.
The position of my delegation with regard to the various subjects on this
item were stated in the Ad Hoc Committee. To recapitulate, we feel that the
Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament should by its nature be adopted by
consensus, both here in the Conference and at the General Assembly; that the
various measures it envisages and their means of implementation should be of a
realistic character, accurately reflecting the present international
situation; and that the review of the Comprehensive Programme should be an
entirely different thing from the special sessions on disarmament which would
have political significance in the light of the international situation
prevailing at the time. My delegation stands ready to make its contribution,
under the able chairmanship of Ambassador Garcia Robles of Mexico, in
furthering our work to develop the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament.
There are other agenda items such as outer space which are equally
important, but I shall defer them to another opportunity.
In beginning my statement, I stated my belief that this is an important
year to work for disarmament, in view of the third special session scheduled
for 1988. I also touched upon the potentiality of this Conference.
We should not become overly pessimistic or blame others for lack of
progress. Let us reaffirm our joint responsibility and focus our efforts on
those areas where progress seems possible. And we can, through dialogue and
co-operation, fulfil our joint responsibility to the international community
and share in the fruits of such progress.
Allow me to conclude my first intervention in the Conference with a
personal note. In 1945 I was a boy of 14 years old attending a school in the
beautiful city on the river Delta facing the inland sea. There was an old
castle, temples, schools, inns, shops and houses. Almost in an instant they
were all gone and people were suffering beyond description. There now stands
a monument on which it is inscribed "Let it never happen again". I would like
to pass on to all of you what a nuclear catastrophe really is, for I witnessed
myself what it was like. I pledge to you, Sir, that I will work with you for
a world where we can live together free from the fear of nuclear weapons.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Japan for his statement and for his kind words addressed to the President. I
now give the floor to the representative of Bulgaria, Ambassador Tellalov.
Mr. TELLALOV (Bulgaria): Thank you, Comrade President. It is a great
pleasure for me to see you in the Chair of the Conference on Disarmament
during the opening month of its 1987 session, representing a great country
which bears special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace
and security. You are willing, I am sure, to perform your duties in a most
efficient manner. Your high professional and diplomatic skills have already
456
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
13
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
brought about some concrete results. In the spirit of the existing friendly
relations between our two countries, you may rely, Comrade President, on the
co-operation of the Bulgarian delegation. I wish to pay tribute to the
successful work done by Ambassador Beesley of Canada who presided in August
and during the intersessional period. It is a pleasure for me to welcome in
our midst our new colleagues, Ambassador Hacene of Algeria, Ambassador Barbosa
of Brazil, Ambassador Morel of France, Ambassador Pugliese of Italy,
Ambassador Yamada of Japan, Ambassador Dolgu of Romania, Ambassador Nazarkin
of the USSR, and Ambassador Kosin of Yugoslavia. My delegation looks forward
to co-operating with them. On a sad note, I wish to extend our heartfelt
condolences to the delegation of the United States of America in connection
with the passing away of Ambassador Donald Lowitz.
The year 1986 will remain memorable as "the International Year of
Peace". The President of the State Council of the People's Republic of
Bulgaria, Todor Zhivkov, sent a message on 29 January last to the
.Secretary-General of the United Nations, which contains the assessment of my
Government on a period that was difficult and complex, but rich in important
international events. In his message, President Zhivkov informed the
Secretary-General of the efforts that my country has been deploying for the
implementation of the lofty'ideals of the International Year of Peace,
including the establishment, in the Balkans, of a nuclear-weapon-free zone and
a chemical-weapon-free zone.
There is no doubt that the year 1986 will remain, in the annals of
disarmament, intricately linked with the Statement of
General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev of 15 January. In that Statement the
Soviet Union put forward a large-scale programme to eliminate by the year 2000
all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, and to build a world without nuclear
weapons. This programme has been largely recognized as an example of new,
dynamic political thinking, as an expression of determination to undertake
radical steps called for by the nuclear-space age.
In 1986 silence continued to reign at the Soviet nuclear-test sites. The
Soviet unilateral moratorium on all nuclear explosions was an important
gesture of political goodwill. It had no other aim than to create the most
propitious conditions for solving one of the most urgent tasks of our time:
the achievement of an agreement on a comprehensive ban of nuclear-weapon tests.
An event of great political importance was the Summit Meeting in
Reykjavik. It demonstrated once again the necessity of bold, non-traditional
approaches to the solution of the most acute problems of today. What is more,
it proved that it was possible to cut, in a not-so-distant future, through the
Gordian knot of the nuclear-arms race; and to reduce and do away with the
danger of nuclear catastrophe.
In Reykjavik, the Soviet Union made sweeping proposals for a balanced
reduction of nuclear arsenals, to be followed by their complete elimination.
Regrettably, the United States was unable to negotiate its own half of the
way. It remained prisoner to its illusions of reaching military superiority
through the deployment of its Star Wars weapons.
457
r.nnv Aooroved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PSI. 387
14
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
In his message to the United Nations Secretary-General,
President Todor Zhivkov stated, inter alia:
"We all have been deeply impressed by the Reykjavik Meeting between
the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU,
Mikhail Gorbachev, and the President of the United States,
Ronald Reagan. This Meeting has given rise to great expectations in
world public opinion and among the nations of the world. Notwithstanding
the fact that the American side could not muster enough determination to
accept the historic proposal for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the
Reykjavik Meeting will, undoubtedly, remain as one of the most
significant events during the International Year of Peace. We hope that
sound reason will prevail and that the dialogue will continue on from
where it was interrupted."
The International Year of Peace was also remarkable for a number of
important political initiatives: the Budapest proposal by the Warsaw Treaty
Member States on the reduction of armed forces and conventional armaments in
Europe; the Harare Declaration of Non-Aligned leaders; the "Six States"
initiatives; and the proposals of the socialist countries in the
United Nations for the setting up of a comprehensive system of international
peace and security.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Xavier Perez de Cuellar,
rightly pointed out in his message of 3 February to the Conference that the
agreement in Stockholm, the two IAEA conventions concluded in Vienna, the
results of the Biological Weapons Review Conference and the progress made by
the Conference on Disarmament in its negotiations on the chemical weapons ban,
"are noteworthy examples of a constructive approach towards the issues of
disarmament and international security". The recent entry into force of the
South Pacific Nuclear-Free-Zone Treaty was also an encouraging event.
Speaking in terms of disarmament, may I emphasize that 1986 would have
been a better year had the United States Administration joined the Soviet
unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. Nineteen eighty-six would have been
a better year if the United States of America had not rejected all proposals
to start negotiations on a comprehensive treaty to ban all nuclear-weapon
tests. Nineteen eighty-six would have been a better year if the United States
of America had not continued its preparations for waging Star Wars.
Nineteen eighty-six would have been a better year if the United States
Administration had not decided to violate the SALT-2 Treaty.
On 3 February 1987, the very day the Conference on Disarmament began its
annual session, the United States Administration offered an affront to the
international community by conducting its twenty-fifth test since the
beginning of the Soviet moratorium. Thus, the United States Administration
did everything possible to force the USSR to take a decision for resuming its
nuclear testing.
My delegation could not agree more with the phrase that Mr. Adelman
considered it appropriate to repeat so many times in his statement here on
5 February last, namely that "The world expects better than this!".
458
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RnPa9_ni ?. .
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
15
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
The year 1986 confirmed that a new kind of political thinking is
necessary, one that is in line with the new realities of our times. It is
imperative to break with the century-old pattern of thinking and behaviour,
resting on the acceptability and admissibility of war as a means of solving
international disputes. For today, it is widely recognized that a nuclear war
cannot be won and must newer be fought. The world situation must not be
allowed to become such that peace and security no longer depend on the common
sense or will of governments and peoples, that they become hostage of military
and technological logic. This is the reason why we welcomed the
Delhi Declaration, signed by the leaders of the USSR and India, in which it is
stated that "the building of a world free of nuclear weapons and violence
requires a revolutionary restructuring in the minds of men and bringing up
nations in a spirit of peace, mutual respect and tolerance".
The Bulgarian delegation cannot help repeating that, in its view, the
establishment of ad hoc committees offers the best available machinery for the
conduct of multilateral negotiations on items on the agenda of the
Conference. In this vein my delegation believes that it is high time for the
Conference on Disarmament to undertake concrete and substantive work on the
items related to nuclear disarmament.
My delegation attaches highest priority to item 1 of our agenda:
"Nuclear Test Ban". In our submission, the results of the
forty-first regular session of the United Nations General Assembly have
created favourable prerequisites to overcome the stalemate in our work. Any
unbiased analysis of resolution 41/64 A and resulotion 41/47 cannot bflt lead
to the conclusion that there is a convergence and reconciliation of
differences in them. The Bulgarian delegation considers that on the basis of
these resolutions a compromise solution can and must be found, that a
consensus can and must be reached to set up an ad hoc committee with a mandate
which would allow the Conference to proceed to substantive work. The existing
convergence of views must be translated into an agreement, words must be
matched by deeds.
The Soviet Union and the United States bear a particular responsibility
for the cessation of the nuclear-arms race and the achievement of nuclear
disarmament. In Reykjavik, the framework for agreements relating to the first
stage of nuclear disarmament was clearly defined. It is quite natural that so
many hopes are pinned, now, on the Soviet-American negotiations in Geneva.
This, however, does not mean and cannot mean that the Conference on
Disarmament nught to sit idle on its agenda item 2. My delegation believes
that the Conference has to proceed with an in-depth and structured discussion
on all aspects of that issue, including the conditions for adherencP by all
nuclear-weapon States to the efforts aimed at ending the nuclear-arms race and
achieving nuclear disarmament.
In its resolution 41/86 G, the United Nations General Assembly requested
the Conference to undertake negotiations "with a view to achieving agreements
on appropriate and practical measures which could be negotiated and adopted
individually for the prevention of nuclear war". It requested also the
Conference to establish, for that purpose, an ad hoc committee on the
subject. This resolution perfectly reflects the considered view of my
delegation on item 3 of our agenda. At the same time it is appropriate to
459
n,r+
- c.niti7pri nnnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
16
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
note that my delegation's flexibility is well known, both officially and
unofficially. We would like to reiterate our readiness to co-operate in order
to break away with the deadlock on item 3.
As to item 4, my delegation would like to express its satisfaction with
the results achieved by the Conference at its 1986 session and during the
inter-sessional period. Under the able guidance of Ambassador Cromartie of
Great Britain, the Ad Hoc Committee succeeded in resolving a number of
important issues related to the chemical weapons stocks, the chemical weapons
production facilities and the activities not prohibited by the convention.
It is gratifying to note that the progress achieved at informal
consultations warranted an updating of the rolling text of the draft
convention to incorporate the addition of common ground identified during the
inter-sessional period.
We share the view that momentum has been generated, and it must be
sustained. In fact, it is necessary for the Conference to intensify its
efforts by increasing the tempo of its negotiations. We believe that in 1987
our objective should be to finalize the convention on the prohibition of
chemical weapons. While we do not tend to underestimate the remaining
difficulties, we think that this objective is not beyond the reach of the
Conference. There is no doubt in our mind that the Conference made a very
wise decision in giving, at this crucial stage of the negotiations, the
steering wheel of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons into the hands of
Ambassador Rolf Ekeus.
My delegation holds the view that the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention
of an Arms Race in Outer Space should resume its activities as soon as
possible.
There is no lack of valuable ideas and specific proposals in the
Conference. We believe it is important now to focus the Committee's attention
on the elaboration of significant measures conducive to guaranteeing the
peaceful uses of outer space and preventing an arms race in it. This
Conference should concentrate on the elaboration of an agreement or
agreements, for instance on ensuring the immunity of artificial Earth
satellites. In this context, it is warranted to explore the possibility of
elimination of existing anti-satellite systems. In other words, what my
delegation would like to see on item 5 is deeds.
With respect to item 8, the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by
consensus, a decision for the Conference to conclude the elaboration of the
Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament during the first part of its
1987 session, and to submit a complete draft of the Programme before the end
of its forty-first regular session.
Having co-sponsored this decision, my delegation would like to assure the
distinguished Chairman of our Ad Hoc Committee, Ambassador Garcia Robles, that
he can rely on our full support and co-operation in the work on the
Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament.
460
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
17
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
The United Nations General Assembly has already taken a decision to
convene its third special session devoted to disarmament. At the first
plenary meeting of the Conference, the distinguished representative of Mexico
rightly recalled that for nine years now the Conference on Disarmament has
been unable to adopt even a single treaty, even a single convention.
We are afraid that it might be a fatal blow to the credibility of this
Conference, if it presents to the third special session devoted to disarmament
a report along the lines of the reports it has been submitting to the regular
sessions of the General Assembly during the past nine years. It is high time
for the Conference to make a breakthrough. We must find a way out of the
vicious circle with respect to nuclear disarmament and proceed to
business-like negotiations on a nuclear-test ban. We must have no less an
objective than to agree upon a convention which would ban the chemical
weapons. We must adopt a Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament. To put it
in a nutshell, we all must move forward at the 1987 session of the Conference
on Disarmament.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Bulgaria for his statement and for his kind words addressed to the President,
and to the country the President represents. I now give the floor to the
representative of Peru, Ambassador Morelli Pando.
Mr. MORELLI-PANDO (Peru) (translated from Spanish): Mr. President, at
the outset I wish to congratulate you and express my delegation's pleasure at
the fact that a person of such great eminence should be presiding over this
session, representing a country of such great world influence as China. It
gives me particular pleasure to express my delegation's satisfaction at the
work done by the distinguished representative of Canada as President of thiE
Conference. I wish to extend to the delegation of the United States the
condolences of my delegation at the premature and highly regrettable loss
occasioned by the decease of Ambassador Lowitz for his country and for all of
us who knew him. I extend a welcome to the distinguished delegates of
Algeria, Brazil, France, Italy, Japan, Romania, Yugoslavia and the Soviet
Union.
Year after year, ever since it received its mandate from the
Final Document of 1978, this Conference has been going through a ritual of
good intentions every February and a great chorus of frustration every August,
and it is well known that, as in other disarmament forums, that ritual tends
to follow the mercurial changes in relations between the major Powers,
particularly the super-Powers. As we begin the 1987 session, the question
arises this year, as in so many other years: is February going to be a season
of good intentions? That question is especially relevant today in the light
of the Reykjavik Summit. The meagre results of bilateral summits in recent
years have become habitual, indeed predictable. This time it is understood
that Reykjavik will go down in history as significantly different from
previous summits, but it is not yet known whether that difference will in the
final analysis have a positive sense and, if so, what its scope will be.
46
_ - D,r+ - Caniti7Pri r.013V ADDroved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
18
(Mr. Morelli-Pando, Peru)
Another question therefore arises, as to whether this Conference, as the
sole multilateral negotiating forum, is going to receive the same information
as was received by the General Assembly concerning what occurred at
Reykjavik. If that is the case, if we are going to receive partial and
mutually divergent reports about the achievements of the latest summit, then
the proposal of the Group of 21 at our previous session that the Conference
should be informed in February 1987 of the results of the bilateral
negotiations that have taken place and any others that may be under way will
not have been heeded. Obviously that proposal provided and continues to
provide coherent, reliable and realistic foundations for multilateral
negotiations which cannot be avoided and which we must not continue to
postpone. Some statements in the plenary meeting last Thursday illustrate
the difficulties faced by the Conference on Disarmament with respect to what I
have said and with respect to other disturbing developments. And it was no
coincidence that the Group of 21 at that same meeting expressed its view on
the sensitive and urgent item of nuclear-weapon tests.
That statement of the Group of 21 significantly took into account the
resolutions of the General Assembly as well as the Non-Aligned Statement of
Harare and the more recent statement of the six Heads of State or Government,
and concluded, in conformity with those documents, by voicing an explicit and
significant demand that the Conference on Disarmament should negotiate and
conclude a treaty on this issue which is of the highest priority. As
requested in General Assembly resolution 41/46 A, opportunely commented on and
highlighted at our inaugural meeting by the distinguished Ambassador of
Mexico, Ambassador Garcia Robles, the creation of an ad hoc committee to
address the question of a nuclear-weapon-test ban would be a major step
forward and in the present circumstances would allow some hope of a
convergence in the determination of the super-Powers to seriously negotiate a
process which, in the final analysis, is a multilateral concern. Needless to
say, other multilateral efforts should take place side by side with the
Conference on Disarmament, in the context both of the Moscow Treaty of 1963
and of the Non-Proliferation Treaty whose preamble contains an undertaking to
put an end to vertical proliferation, an issue profoundly and naturally
linked, with horizontal non-proliferation. The delegation of Peru hereby
reiterates its support for the principles and standards of that Treaty, whose
continuity must be assured and whose acceptance should be extended so that the
credibility of its fulfilment will be enhanced.
Other types of convergent co-operation deserve attention. The six Heads
of State or Government have offered their co-operation for the fulfilment and
verification of general agreements in that area. Peru believes that other
countries should rally to this suggestion, and therefore, within the bounds of
its possibilities and bearing in mind the appropriate training of its experts
in seismology we offer our co-operation as and when it may be required.
In our plenary we have heard the views expressed by the distinguished
representatives of Australia and Mexico with respect to the implementation of
the Treaty of Rarotonga. As the representative of a country which is a full
member of the Tlatelolco Treaty and the only country of the south-east Pacific
area belonging to this forum I also wish to welcome the fact, that despite the
nuclear threat hanging over mankind, it has proved possible, following in the
wake of the Tlatelolco Treaty, to establish a second nuclear-weapon-free zone
in a populated geographical area.
462
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP97-n11RApnnn1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
19
(Mr. Morelli-Pando, Peru)
The link between the two treaties is clear and therefore if they are
fully implemented this will mean, having in mind Ambassador Butler's fine turn
of phrase, a zone of application extending from the west coast of Australia to
the west coast of the corresponding part of Latin America and from the Equator
down to the Antarctic, which in turn is governed by an appropriate
international status.
It is worth emphasizing a process that was begun by Latin America and is
now being continued by the countries of the South West Pacific through the
Treaty which has just entered into force and which fully marks the progress
that was to be expected of non-nuclear-weapon countries 20 years after the
adoption of the Tlatelolco Treaty. I refer to the definition of nuclear
devices and their comprehensive prohibition, and in particular to the
inclusion of a third protocol, relating to nuclear tests vis-?is the five
Great Powers.
Peru, whose legitimate interest coincides with that of other countries of
the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific has a clear position on nuclear
tests.in that area, specifically with a view to the preservation of vital
marine resources. But Peru also believes that these problems cannot. be
conceptually divorced from the highly qualitative competition in testing which
has existed and may continue to exist between the super-Powers. Likewise we
must bear in mind that what occurred, vis-A-vis the nuclear Powers, with the
two additional protocols of the Tlatelolco Treaty may now begin to happen with
the additional protocols of the Rarotonga Treaty: I refer to the highly
qualified statements made by those Powers when they subscribe or ratify these
additional instruments. The Tlatelolco Treaty expressly affirmed in its
preamble that it did not constitute an end in itself. It could not, since to
a great extent it depends for its refinement and full application upon the
respect and support of the nuclear Powers. We may assume that this will also
be the case as regards the Rarotonga Treaty.
The delegation of Peru hopes that, in line with the possible advances in
the prohibition of nuclear tests, we may also make progress on the items
concerning the cessation of the nuclear-arms race and the prevention of
nuclear war, as the Group of 21 has tirelessly been proposing. We hope for a
positive increase in the exchange of views which is already being reflected in
our report to the General Assembly, with a view to reaching tangible results
at this Conference.
With respect to the established continuity of the ad hoc committees on
items 4 and 8 of our agenda, my delegation wishes to state the following.
With regard to the prohibition of chemical weapons, we once again express our
hope that the efforts currently under way to achieve a comprehensive and
global treaty in this field may be completed this year, as has continually
been requested by the competent international forums and also significantly
and recently, by the Second Review Conference of the Treaty prohibiting
biological weapons. Recognition should be given to the work done recently by
the Ad Hoc Committee under the expert guidance of the distinguished
representative of Great Britain, and now entrusted to the distinguished
representative of Sweden, from whose guidance we may hope for very good
results.
463
Dnr+ - gnniti7Pd Cony Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
20
(Mr. Morelli-Pando, Peru)
With respect to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Comprehensive Programme of
Disarmament, we again express our hope that under the prestigious leadership
of Ambassador Garcia Robles it may fulfil its mandate to submit the draft
programme, as desired and expected, to the forty-first session of the
General Assembly.
The delegation of Peru will adhere to the position formulated by the
Group of 21 with regard to the re-establishment of the committees on items 5,
6 and 7 of the agenda.
With respect to the first, item 5, prevention of an arms race in outer
space, we are prepared to participate actively in discussing and considering
this increasingly urgent priority item of the Conference on Disarmament,
chiefly in the light of the concept of the peaceful uses of space and the
possible analogies between such uses of outer space and the uses contemplated
in the Convention on the Law of the Sea. The delegation of Peru firmly
believes that this year the Ad Hoc Committee should be given a broader mandate
than last yea's which was its first, and an appropriate programme of work.
The prospects that lie before the Conference on Disarmament this year are
uncertain because of the state of world affairs and because of the record of
its own activities in recent years, with such scant results. But even though
there are some auspicious signs, in this forum, will it be enough to achieve
some additional partial results for us to be able to say that our annual work
has been done? In my delegation's judgement, the time has come for some
far-reaching thinking about the purposes of this Conference, thinking that
will lead to conclusions worthy of being included in our report to the
General Assembly.
For example our work, as is natural, is governed by our agenda, but the
latter does not take into account the interrelationship that exists between
those items, as if they existed in their own airtight compartments. It does
not seem acceptable that the obvious need to have ad hoc committees should
rule out a comprehensive yearly deliberation.
As I ventured to point out in August last year, we have systematically
been excluding from our agenda certain items which the General Assembly
entrusted to us. It is true that these items do not yet deserve the
establishment of ad hoc committees, but nothing would prevent us from being
truly comprehensive in our yearly deliberations, and not excluding those items
that have so far been postponed.
Along the same line of thinking, and bearing in mind the request made in
this Conference that it should be informed about the bilateral negotiations,
we should establish whether we are talking only about bilateral negotiations
and only with respect to the items specifically included in the present
agenda. My delegation believes that this Conference should also be informed
about regional negotiations on the reduction of military forces and the
implementation of confidence-building measures, that is, items which, like the
question of conventional weapons, are specifically included among those
entrusted to us by the General Assembly.
464
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
21
(Mr. Morelli-Pando, Peru)
The distinguished representative of Argentina has very rightly pointed
out that this year the Conference on Disarmament should give due attention to
the third special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament
scheduled for 1988. My delegation believes that this is exactly what is
needed with a view to this very important event, as well as in relation to
other related ones. We regret that in 1986 our Conference did not show
interest in another item that has been postponed, the issue of disarmament and
development, which should be dealt with this year at the conference referred
to by several General Assembly resolutions.
Mr. President, the delegation of Peru once again expresses its best
wishes for your success in the important tasks entrusted to you in this
initial period, in the belief that they will lead to tangible and auspicious
progress in this eminent negotiating forum.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Peru for his statement and I thank him for the kind words addressed to the
President himself and to the country which the President represents. I now
give the floor to Ambassador Butler, the Ambassador of Australia.
Mr. BUTLER (Australia): At our first plenary meeting this year, on
3 February, I had the honour of joining with the representative of the
delegation of New Zealand in circulating to the Conference the final text of ?
the Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga, a Treaty which had then entered into
force. May I say just quickly that I am very grateful to the distinguished
Ambassador of Peru for the references that he has just made to the Treaty of
Rarotonga and for the analysis of its importance which he shared with us.
When we circulated those Protocols, we were able to announce that Protocols 2
and 3 had been signed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I thought
it would be interesting if I reported briefly to the Conference this morning
that at 10 o'clock Suva time today, 10 February 1987, Protocols 2 and 3 of the
Treaty of Rarotonga were signed by your country, Mr. President, by the
People's Republic of China. The Protocols were signed by
Ambassador Ji Chaozhu in Suva, that being the place where the Treaty of
Rarotonga is deposited. May I take this opportunity, Mr. President, of saying
to you personally that Australia, and I am sure I can speak for New Zealand in
this context, very much welcomes the action that your Government has taken.
Thank you.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Australia for his statement. That concludes my list of speakers for today.
Does any other member wish to take the floor? I see none.
As announced earlier and agreed at our last plenary meeting, I intend now
to postpone the plenary meeting and convene, in five minutes' time, an
informal meeting of the Conference to consider the re-establishment of the
Ad Hoc Committees on "Effective international arrangements to assure
non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons"
and on "Radiological weapons", as well as requests from non-members to
participate in the work of the Conference.
The plenary meeting was suspended at 12.15 p.m. and resumed at 12.25 p.m.
465
r.nnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
22
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): The 387th plenary meeting of
the Conference on Disarmament is resumed.
As a result of our discussions at the informal meeting, I wish first to
put before the Conference for decision document CD/WP.253, dealing with the
re-establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on "Effective international
arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of
use of nuclear weapons". If I hear no objection, / shall consider that the
Conference adopts the draft decision. 1/
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): May I now turn to
document CD/WP.245, relating to a draft decision on the re-establishment of
the Ad Hoc Committee on Radiological Weapons. If there is no objection, I
shall take it that the Conference adopts the draft decision. 2/
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I suggest now that we take up
those requests contained in documents CD/WP.255 to 266, containing draft
decisions on the participation of Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Portugal,
Turkey, Zimbabawe, Viet Nam, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Spain and Bangladesh.
Since consensus was noted at the informal meeting on each of the requests
received from non-members to participate in the work of the Conference, we
agreed to take up at the resumed plenary all draft decisions together. If
there is no objection, I shall take it that the Conference adopts the draft
decisions. 3/
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): As there is no other business
to consider, / intend now to adjourn the plenary meeting. The next plenary
meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be held on Thursday,
12 February 1987 at 10.30 a.m.
The meeting rose at at 12.50 p.m.
466
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDPg7_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
23
Notes
1/ Later issued as CD/737.
2/ Later issued as CD/738.
3/ CD/WP.255:
"In response to the request of Norway and in accordance with rules 33
to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the present to
invite the representative of Norway to participate during 1987 at plenary
meetings of the Conference and in the subsidiary bodies established under
items 4, 6, 7 and 8 of its agenda."
CD/wP.256:
"In response to the request of Finland and in accordance with rules 33
to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the present to
invite the representative of Finland to participate during 1987 at plenary
meetings of the Conference and in the subsidiary bodies established under
items 4, 6, 7 and 8 of its agenda."
CD/WP.257:
"In response to the request of New Zealand and in accordance with
rules 33 to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the
present to invite the representative of New Zealand to participate during 1987
at plenary meetings of the Conference and in the subsidiary body established
under item 4 of its agenda."
CD/WP.258:
"In response to the request of Portugal and in accordance with rules 33
to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the present to
invite the representative of Portugal to participate during 1987 at plenary
meetings of the Conference and in the subsidiary bodies established under
items 4, 6, 7 and 8 of its agenda."
CD/WP.259:
"In response to the request of Turkey and in accordance with rules 33
to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the present to
invite the representative of Turkey to participate during 1987 at plenary
meetings of the Conference and in the subsidiary bodies established under
items 4, 7 and 8 of its agenda."
CD/WP.260:
"In response to the request of Zimbabwe and in accordance with rules 33
to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the present to
invite the representative of Zimbabwe to participate during 1987 at plenary
meetings of the Conference and in the subsidiary bodies established under
items 4, 6, 7 and 8 of its agenda."
467
- Qrifi7C1 nom/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.387
24
CD/WP.261:
"In response to the request of Viet Nam and in accordance with rules 33
to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the present to
invite the representative of Viet Nam to address during 1987 the plenary
meetings of the Conference on item 8 of its agenda."
CD/WP.262:
"In response to the request of Austria and in accordance with rules 33
to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the present to
invite the representative of Austria to participate during 1987 at plenary
meetings of the Conference and in the subsidiary bodies established under
items 4, 6, 7 and 8 of its agenda."
CD/WP.263:
"In response to the request of Denmark and in accordance with rules 33
to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the present to
invite the representative of Denmark to participate during 1987 at plenary
meetings of the Conference and in the subsidiary body established under item 4
of its agenda."
CD/WP.264:
"In response to the request of Greece and in accordance with rules 33
to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the present to
invite the representative of Greece to participate during 1987 at plenary
meetings of the Conference and in the subsidiary bodies established under
items 4, 6, 7 and 8 of its agenda."
CD/WP.265:
"In response to the request of Spain and in accordance with rules 33
to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the present to
invite the representative of Spain to participate during 1987 at plenary
meetings of the Conference and in the subsidiary bodies established under
items 4, 6, 7 and 8 of its agenda."
CD/WP.266:
"In response to the request of Bangladesh and in accordance with rules 33
to 35 of the rules of procedure, the Conference decides for the present to
invite the representative of Bangladesh to participate during 1987 at plenary
meetings of the Conference and in the subsidiary bodies established under
items 6 and 8 of its agenda."
468
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RnPq7_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.388
12 February 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-EIGHTH PLENARY MEETING
held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 12 February 1987, at 10.30 a.m.
President:
GE. 87-6O187/5828e
Mr. Fan Guoxiang (China)
469
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I declare open the
388th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
At the outset, I should like to cordially welcome in our midst the
Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs of Finland, His Excellency
Dr. Klaus TOrnudd, who is addressing the Conference today as our first
speaker. In doing so, I also wish to thank him for his interest in our work,
as he has visited the Conference before. In conformity with its programme of
work, the Conference will listen to statements in plenary meetings and
consider the establishment of subsidiary bodies on items of the agenda and
other organizational questions. However, in accordance with rule 30 of the
rules of procedure, any member wishing to do so may raise any subject relevant
to the work of the Conference.
I have on my list of speakers for today, the representatives of Finland,
Romania, New Zealand and Hungary.
I now give the floor to the first speaker on my list, the Under-Secretary
of State for Political Affairs of Finland, His Excellency Dr. Klaus Tornudd.
?4
Mr. TORNUDD (Finland): Mr. President, I wish to begin by expressing my
thanks for the warm words of welcome you addressed to me. May I, for my part,
congratulate you upon your assumption of the Presidency of the Conference on
Disarmament for the month of February. I am sure that your well-known
experience and skill will guide the work of the Conference in the most
efficacious way. May I also offer our heartfelt condolences to the
United States delegation, and through it, to the family of
Ambassador Donald Lowitz. The sudden passing away of Ambassador Lowitz, whom
I had the honour to meet on several occasions, has deprived the United States
of an educated public servant, and the Conference of an able negotiator.
The Conference on Disarmament is resuming its work at a time of uncommon
flux in international disarmament efforts. Much has happened since the
Conference last assembled in this Chamber less than six months ago.
The Reykjavic summit meeting showed that there is indeed a real
possibility of radical reduction of nuclear weapons. After so many years of
fruitless effort, bilaterally and by this Conference, Reykjavik is a harbinger
of hope despite its immediate outcome.
The Stockholm Conference showed that patient and painstaking multilateral
negotiation of complex and militarily significant issues can pay off. The
achievement of a new regime of confidence- and security-building measures in
Europe has already inspired initiatives designed to move Europe towards lower
levels of conventional forces and armaments on a regional scale.
Finland welcomes the fact that, after Reykjavik, both the Soviet Union
and the United States have reaffirmed their commitment to a continued search
for agreement on the outstanding issues dividing them. Effective and
470
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-ni1 RR nnn nn innnn4 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/Pv.388
3
(Mr. Tornudd, Finland)
verifiable agreements on reducing nuclear weapons and preventing an arms race
in outer space between the two Powers with the largest arsenals would truly
enhance their security and that of everyone else.
We note with satisfaction the extension of the United States-Soviet arms
control dialogue to new areas. The formal negotiations that began last month
on establishing nuclear risk reduction centres in Moscow and Washington deal
with an aspect of the nuclear equation that is often overlooked in discussion
of the ways and means to prevent nuclear war. In the final analysis,
preventing nuclear war from arising by miscalculation or misunderstanding is
no less important than preventing it from arising by calculation or design.
In our view, efforts to reduce nuclear weapons and prevent their
accidental or deliberate use would be greatly assisted by an equal effort to
end their testing. A comprehensive nuclear-test ban treaty would do much to
retard and eventually end the development of ever more sophisticated nuclear
weapons. Moreover, it would put pressure on those who might still harbour
nuclear ambitions to desist from their folly, thus strengthening one of the
key instruments of international security, the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
We regret the fact that the unilateral Soviet moratorium on nuclear
testing did not lead to the start of negotiations on a comprehensive test-ban
treaty, bilaterally or by this Conference.
We continue to believe that a comprehensive test-ban treaty with adequate
verification provisions is achievable right now. However, we also recognize
that, even on this important question, the best should not be the enemy of the
good. At the present juncture, step-by-step negotiations, firmly geared to
the generally accepted goal of ending all nuclear tests in all environments
for all time, would seem to offer the best available means out of the
deadlock. We welcome the willingness of both sides to explore a gradual
approach to this important issue.
The Conference on Disarmament has already done a considerable amount of
useful work on the subject of a test ban. That work needs to be continued
bearing in mind the possibility of interim steps. One such step might well be
the establishment by the Conference of an international seismic monitoring
network based on existing facilities around the world, as recently recommended
in General Assembly resolution 41/47.
Clearly, confidence in a comprehensive test ban requires that it be
verifiable. Mandated by this Conference, the Ad Hoc Group of Scientific
Experts has done valuable work in laying the necessary technical groundwork
for reliable monitoring of seismic events for verification of a test ban. We
welcome the steps toward developing an international data exchange system now
underway. This work would be further assisted if all States conducting
nuclear explosions were to provide the Secretary-General of the United Nations
with information concerning these explosions as requested by General Assembly
resolution 41/59 N.
477
Dmrl? - aniti7Rd CODV Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
4
(Mr. Tornudd, Finland)
Finland participates actively in the work of the Group of Scientific
Experts. With government funding, the University of Helsinki has for some
years conducted a special seismological project for this purpose. In view of
the new and demanding tasks the GSE set for itself at its last meeting, the
Government of Finland has recently decided to allocate considerable additional
resources to the project as of this year.
Since 1980, Finland has co-operated with Zambia in establishing a seismic
network there and training Zambian personnel to operate it. Zambia
participated with success in the Level I data exchange experiment organized by
the GSE in 1984. We look forward to Zambian participation in the even more
complex Level II data exchange experiment scheduled for 1988.
Since I last spoke from this rostrum one year ago, considerable progress
has been achieved with regard to another priority item on the agenda of this
Conference, the elaboration of a convention to ban chemical weapons. Although
a number of critically important issues remain to be settled, the pace of
progress over the past year gives rise to the hope that the remaining
problems, too, can be solved in the not too distant future. We wish the new
Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons, Ambassador Ekeus of
Sweden, every success in his important task.
Challenge inspection is undoubtedly the major unresolved issue at this
point. We are glad to note that, as last year's Chairman of the
Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons, Ambassador Cromartie of the
United Kingdom, noted in his report to the Committee, a convergence of views
now exists on at least four points. Enlarging this common ground to the point
of consensus -- by working out the appropriate detailed procedures to
everyone's satisfaction -- poses a challenge of its own. Perhaps
differentiation by types of challenge inspection objects and accumulating
experience from on-site inspections might help to solve this problem.
We are heartened by the progress made in developing regimes for the
verification of various categories of chemicals relevant to the convention.
For the first time, there is now a provisional list of at least nine known
chemical warfare agents which will be banned, except for small-scale
production for research, medical or protective purposes. Important work has
also been done in developing detailed verification measures for such
production. We believe that in perfecting these measures care should be taken
not to hamper basic research routinely undertaken in university laboratories
or elsewhere.
It is clear that effective verification of the chemical weapons
convention requires, in addition to data reporting, both on-site inspections
and the use of modern monitoring equipment.
Monitoring equipment for verification purposes has been studied and
tested by the Finnish chemical weapons verification project since 1972. As
part of our continuing effort to help to provide the necessary technical means
for assuring confidence in the convention, the Finnish project is hosting,
tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, a special workshop in Helsinki. The
472
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-Rnpcy,_ni ? - - -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
5
(Mr. Tornudd, Finland)
workshop, convened at expert level, will address questions of automatic
monitoring in terms of detection of alleged use, verification of destruction
and verification of non-production. The results of the workshop will be
communicated to all members of the Conference on Disarmament in written form
as soon as they are available.
We welcome the fact that the Conference on Disarmament will continue to
deal with the question of preventing an arms race in outer space.
Substantive, although rather preliminary, discussions have already been held
in the past. Bearing in mind the fact that the extensive use of outer space
for some military purposes, such as early warning and verification, clearly
contributes to international security, continued discussion should, in our
view, focus on preventing the weaponization of outer space. A ban on
anti-satellite weapons should be a priority objective in this context.
Multilateral efforts at this Conference would thereby complement, for the
common good of all, the bilateral effort of those two who bear the primary
responsibility for preventing an arms race in outer space.
The Conference on Disarmament could also play an important role in
furthering naval disarmament. This aspect of disarmament has for too long
been overlooked. We are encouraged by the fact that the idea of bringing the
burgeoning naval arms race under closer scrutiny, and eventually control, is
gaining momentum. The United Nations Disarmament Commission will deal with
this question again at its next annual session in May. As the single
multilateral negotiating body for disarmament, this Conference could
complement the work of the UNDC by taking up, in an appropriate manner, some
aspects of this problem for more concrete action. Finland has recently drawn
attention to the importance of naval confidence-building measures in her own
region, Northern Europe, where the adjacent sea areas are the scene of growing
military activity.
Finally, as a representative of a non-member State I wish to take this
opportunity to re-empbasize the continuing active interest of my country in
the work of the Conference on Disarmament. We hope that our contributions
have been useful and we look forward to all new opportunities to participate
in disarmament efforts in the future as well. We remain ready to assume
membership in the Conference on Disarmament.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank His Excellency the
Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs of Finland for his statement
and for the kind words addressed to the President.
I now give the floor to the representative of Romania, Ambassador Dolgu.
Ambassador DOLGU (Romania) (translated from French): Comrade President,
it is with great pleasure that I associate myself with previous speakers in
extending to you my warmest congratulations on your accession to the
Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament in this month that begins our
session, a month that is so important for the subsequent pursuit of our work.
Our satisfaction is all the greater in that you are the representative of the
473
nni-laccifiPri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
6
(Ambassador Dolgu, Romania)
People's Republic of China, a great socialist State with which the Socialist
Republic of Romania has close and exemplary relations of friendship and
co-operation in every field. We are confident that given your abilities in
the conduct of our work, the Conference will have the most auspicious
conditions for accomplishing its duties. Mr. President, through you I should
also like to pay tribute to the outgoing President, Ambassador Alan Beesley of
Canada, for the excellent work that he did and express to him my delegation's
gratitude. I thank you, Comrade President, for your words of welcome for
those of us who are taking our seats at the heads of our delegations for the
first time here and through you I also thank the other colleagues who extended
their welcome to me. It is a painful duty for me to convey my very sad
condolences to the delegation of the United States on the untimely death of
Ambassador Donald Lowitz.
I wish to take this opportunity to share some thoughts reflecting the
position of Romania, the view of President Nicolae Ceauiescu, on the problems
of halting the arms race and of disarmament, problems which are included in
the agenda of this forum.
The effort and concern to participate in the solution of these problems
are an essential component of my country's foreign policy. An essential
component because the problem of halting the arms race and moving on to
disarmament is, as we see it, in itself the fundamental problem of the
contemporary world.
Because of the events which marked it, last year was not the year of
peace as our peoples had proclaimed through the United Nations.
International relations continued to be characterized by particularly serious
tensions, because all the negative processes and phenomena that feed these
tensions persisted. But last year did not elapse without leaving some
lessons behind. It led us to reconsider some of the basic ideas that have
underpinned military and political thinking in the post-war period. It has
become clear, for example, that a nuclear war cannot be waged without ending
in the annihilation of civilization and of the very conditions for life on our
planet. Last year also led us to a better understanding of the disastrous
impact of the arms race on the state of health of the world economy. And
again, last year, developments led us to realize ever more forcefully that in
the suspicion-arms race spiral each of the two terms is both a cause and an
effect and that the vicious circle they constitute can be broken, as the
outcome of the Stockholm Conference showed, when all States display political
will. All States, be they large and powerful and endowed with nuclear weapons
or small or medium-sized and with limited military potential, all States, I
say, have the right to be involved and to become involved in efforts to build
a world without nuclear weapons.
If we wish to survive, it is essential to give up the time-worn idea that
nuclear arms strengthen defence capacity and thereby contribute to maintaining
peace, and we must move on to the adoption and application of real nuclear
disarmament measures. The most fruitful approach -- the one that we
support -- is the comprehensive approach to disarmament problems: nuclear
disarmament measures should be accompanied by a substantial reduction of
474
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDPg7_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
7
(Ambassador Dolgu, Romania)
conventional arms, troops and military expenditure. The latter, in Romania's
view, should be reduced by at least 50 per cent by the year 2000. An initial
step in that direction could be the implementation of the proposal contained
in the Appeal and programme of the States members of the Warsaw Treaty for a
25 per cent reduction in arms, troops and expenditure by the end of the next
decade. By simultaneously tackling nuclear and conventional disarmament in
the framework of a comprehensive programme, this approach covers the complex
realities of our world and the security perceptions of different States.
As regards arms control and disarmament, there is no lack of ideas and
proposals for action. What is lacking is action. More than ever, what is
needed is to move from words to deeds. Having this in mind, and prompted by a
desire to make at least a modest and symbolic contribution to this difficult
transition, my country has set itself the task of unilaterally carrying out a
5 per cent reduction of its arms, troops and military expenditure. This
measure was adopted by a popular referendum last November. It would have been
desirable for such a reduction to take place on a multilateral basis, but
given the enormous scale of destructive potentialities, such unilateral
actions seem possible to undertake without hurting the security interests of
the States concerned. Measures of this kind may contribute to building
confidence and to establishing the right climate for halting the arms race and
moving on to real disarmament measures.
This decisive moment in the evolution of international life requires that
all States step up their efforts and give new dynamism to the activities of
organs and conferences in the field of disarmament and the activity of the
entire system established for negotiations on disarmament. It goes without
saying that by the military potential they possess the United States, the
Soviet Union and the other nuclear Powers have a special responsibility in
beginning and fostering the disarmament process. It is therefore natural to
expect negotiations and meetings between the Soviet Union and the
United States to lead to substantial and rapid results. But other States
whose existence is also threatened and which are also directly affected by the
political, economic and social consequences of the arms race cannot confine
themselves to the role of spectators. With regard to the foremost problem of
our day halting the arms race and moving on to disarmament, they should be
able to express their views and they should be able to make their
contribution.
The Conference on Disarmament has a unique, leading role in the
negotiating system on disarmament. It is the only multilateral negotiating
organ of which all the nuclear-weapon States, as well as the principal States
having considerable military potential, are members.
Unfortunately we must observe, as other speakers before me have done,
that in the period since its creation the results achieved by the Conference
have been minimal. It is imperative that the potential of the Conference be
more effectively used and that it apply itself to the drawing up of concrete
agreements in the field of disarmament so that it can truly become a
negotiating forum. In this regard we share the view that negotiating
475
Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
8
(Ambassador Dolgu, Romania)
structures, i.e. ad hoc committees should be set up for each priority
disarmament issue. Finally, what is of the essence is to begin a concrete
dialogue on all the questions on the Conference's agenda.
In view of the importance of disarmament problems in the sessions of the
United Nations General Assembly, in view of the great number of resolutions
adopted on these issues, many of them touching directly upon the activity of
this Conference, we feel that the Conference's work should be based to a
greater extent on the relevant United Nations resolutions which are the
embodiment of the will of the overwhelming majority of the States of the
world.
As regards the specific items on the Conference's agenda, the Romanian
delegation wishes to make the following comments and proposals at this stage:
As regards nuclear disarmament, these issues are at the forefront, quite
rightly, of the Conference's agenda. As I have already stressed, due to its
view of disarmament, Romania places nuclear disarmament at the forefront of
its concerns. On the basis of this absolute priority, my country has always
favoured effective negotiations aimed at ending the nuclear arms race and for
the conclusion of agreements on the halting of production and development, on
the reduction and finally on the elimination of nuclear weapons. In this
spirit Romania welcomed and supported the proposals of the Soviet Union
regarding the stage-by-stage elimination of all nuclear weapons by the
year 2000. We feel that new efforts should be undertaken on the basis of the
proposals submitted at the Soviet-American summit in. Reykjavik in order to
achieve as soon as possible appropriate agreements for a halt to the arms race
on Earth and in space.
As a European country, Romania attaches special importance to the need to
achieve this year an agreement, even one that is separate from the overall
"package", for the elimination of medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe,
with a view ultimately to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the
European continent.
Similarly, as a country situated in the Balkan region, Romania favours
and is working for the transformation of that part of the continent into a
zone free of nuclear and chemical weapons and of foreign military bases. At
the same time we support the creation of such zones in the north and centre of
Europe as well as in other continents. In that spirit we welcome the recent
entry into force of the Treaty of Rarotonga establishing a nuclear-weapon-free
zone in the South Pacific.
As regards the work of the Conference, we believe it is high time for us
to cease dealing with nuclear questions in very general terms, and for these
issues to become the specific subject of negotiations. Romania attaches a
particular importance and high priority to the cessation of all nuclear
testing which could and should constitute a first step in the direction of
nuclear disarmament. Public opinion in my country learned with legitimate and
deep concern of the new underground nuclear tests conducted by the
United States and expressed its firm disapproval of this event. Romania,
A A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RnPQ9_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
9
(Ambassador Dolgu, Romania)
which welcomed the Soviet Union's decision to institute a unilateral
moratorium on its nuclear tests, considers it of the greatest importance that
the United States should join in that measure. Such an act would be an
important step towards creating the necessary conditions to move on to
negotiations designed to conclude an agreement capable of ending nuclear
tests. The establishment of such a moratorium by both parties as well as by
the other nuclear Powers would constitute evidence of their willingness
effectively to embark upon the path towards the cessation of the arms race and
progress towards disarmament. In the present international circumstances,
where there is a real risk of the annihilation of our civilization and of life
itself on our planet it is more necessary than ever to refrain from any action
which could increase tension and unleash a further arms build-up.
The Romanian delegation firmly advocates that the problem of prohibition
of nuclear testing should occupy a central place in the work of this session.
We therefore favour the establishment of an ad hoc committee on this item. In
view of the importance and gravity of this problem of nuclear tests, Romania
proposes the convening of an international conference on a nuclear-test ban.
Such a conference could be entrusted with debating all aspects involved in
this problem, including the role of non-nuclear-weapon countries in the
negotiation of an international nuclear-test-ban treaty and the application of
a reliable and effective system of monitoring the provisions of such a
treaty. The Conference on Disarmament could be the appropriate betting for
the preparation of such a conference. As an interim step the Conference could
also call for the establishment of a moratorium on all nuclear tests.
Romania welcomes the idea of the creation of a network of seismic
stations in different countries which, through the exchange of data and
information, could contribute to monitoring the implementation of a future
treaty banning all nuclear tests. We are prepared to participate in this with
the technical means available to us.
In the view of the Romanian delegation, the prevention of an arms race in
outer space should also constitute a priority objective of negotiations in the
Conference. Of considerable practical importance would be the prompt
re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee entrusted with dealing with all
aspects of the prevention of an arms race in outer space and the beginning of
negotiations on this issue. In our conception it is necessary that priority
be given to the cessation of all actions militarizing space, the convening of
an international conference and the conclusion of a general treaty on the use
of space exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Romania attaches great importance to the total prohibition and final
elimination of chemical weapons, and thus to the preparation by the Conference
of a draft convention. The results achieved to date by the Ad Hoc Committee
on Chemical Weapons under the skilful guidance of Ambassador Cromartie to whom
we wish to express the Romanian delegation's gratitude, represent remarkable
steps towards the elaboration of the text of the convention. Several
delegations that have already spoken have stressed the importance and urgency
of developing a text of this convention as well as their willingness to exert
the necessary efforts for resolving the problems or issues that remain
477
Cnnifi7ari r.npv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
10
(Ambassador Dolgu, Romania)
pending: notably verification of non-production of chemical weapons by
civilian industry, challenge inspection, declaration and verification of
stocks of chemical weapons and other problems. In all these areas,
verification remains the key problem. The agreed measures should be such as
to inspire confidence that the provisions of the convention will be respected
by all States parties. It is on that aspect in particular that we shall have
to focus our attention during the process of searching for generally
acceptable solutions. As regards the verification provisions, especially
on-site inspection, we suggest using the formulas contained in the document oE
the Stockholm Conference. In our view, the monitoring system agreed upon
should not in any way affect the development of the chemical industry for
peaceful purposes, or the enhancement of the technical and scientific
potential of each country.
Like other delegations, we hope that under the skilful chairmanship of
the distinguished representative of Sweden, Ambassador Ekeus, the
Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons will this year be able to carry to its
conclusion the task entrusted to it.
Romania favours the stepping up of negotiations aimed at the drafting of
a convention prohibiting radiological weapons as part of the efforts towards
nuclear disarmament. Such a convention could at the same time facilitate
co-operation between States in the peaceful use of radiation and radiation
sources while providing a suitable verification system with the participation
of all States. We favour the achievement of an agreement containing a
commitment by States not to resort to attacks against peaceful nuclear
facilities likely to produce radiation and endanger the areas concerned. A
subject that also deserves attention in our view is the need to ensure the
safe operation of all peaceful nuclear facilities. Likewise, our delegation
is in favour of the Conference addressing all aspects of the production of new
types of weapons of mass destruction, and concrete measures for prohibiting
them.
I shall not dwell on the importance of the Comprehensive Programme of
Disarmament. I have already stressed that in Romania's view true movement
towards disarmament can emerge only from an integrated approach to all its
aspects. I will therefore confine myself to expressing the hope that under
the chairmanship of the distinguished representative of Mexico,
Ambassador Garcia Robles, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Comprehensive Programme
of Disarmament will be able to fulfil its tasks during this year. The
drafting of the text of the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament will
constitute a concrete contribution by the Conference on Disarmament to
preparations for the third special session of the General Assembly devoted to
disarmament.
To conclude I wish to quote some words recently pronounced by
President Nicolae Ceaupscu. They seem to me particularly significant in this
forum.
478
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDPg9_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
11
(Ambassador Dolgu, Romania)
"Present international circumstances are such that nothing can be
more important today than moving on to concrete disarmament measures, to
the adoption of measures capable of freeing mankind from the danger of a
world war of annihilation. It is essential that we should do everything
possible to halt the arms race, and above all the nuclear arms race, in
order to ensure peace, the vital right of all peoples to existence, to
freedom, to life and to peace."
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Romania for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the President
and to the country that the Chair represents.
In accordance with the decision taken by the Conference at its
387th plenary meeting, I now give the floor to the representative of
New Zealand, Mr. Graham.
Mr. GRAHAM (New Zealand): Mr. President, my delegation extends its
congratulations to you on your election to the Presidency of this important
body. We hope that under your early guidance, the Conference will realize its
potential this year in contributing to a saner and more stable security order.
New Zealand has jointly submitted with Australia the final text of the
Protocols to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The Protocols were
finalized over the past year following consultations with each of the
nuclear-weapon States. They were adopted in final form by the South Pacific
Forum last August and opened for signature on 1 December.
It is gratifying to see that, with Australia's ratification, the Treaty
of Rarotonga has now entered into force. A majority of South Pacific Forum
countries now constitute the Zone.
The adherence of China and the Soviet Union to Protocols 2 and 3 is also
welcomed. The Treaty and its Protocols meet the basic criteria for
nuclear-free zones stipulated by the major nuclear Powers. New Zealand trusts
that the sincerity with which the zone States have undertaken their
obligations will be acknowledged by all nuclear Powers. We believe they will
do so, and we look forward to their eventual adherence to the Protocols.
The South Pacific region, which covers one sixth of the surface of the
planet, is now nuclear-free in the accepted United Nations definition of the
term. Together with the contiguous zones of Latin America to the east and the
Antarctic to the south, a very sizeable part of the Earth's
surface -- 40 per cent -- is free from the permanent deployment of nuclear
weapons. The zones established by the Antarctic and Tlatelolco Treaties
served as admirable precedents for our work, and we pay tribute to those who
had the wisdom and foresight to conceive and negotiate those treaties.
The South Pacific is relatively fro fr= strategic rivalry and
confrontation. It is this situation which we seek to preserve as a strong and
vital endowment to future generations. The Treaty is an arms control
agreement not only of regional but also of global importance. The world has
479
- -1- Conr+ - Rrufi7d COM/ ADproved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
12
(Mr. Graham, New Zealand)
changed dramatically in recent decades, and global security has become an
interwoven tapestry of security commitments and relationships that form an
indivisible whole. All countries of our world community, whether related in
adversarial terms or not, are now mutually dependant upon one another for
their common security and survival. In the South Pacific we have made a
solemn security commitment by renouncing the possession and testing of nuclear
weapons and their deployment in our territories. Nuclear weapons have no part
to play in the security of the South Pacific. They offer no defence and their
presence itself is destabilizing. We have made a common recognition that
nuclear weapons provide an illusory protection, and that the survival and well
being of our planet depends upon a lesser reliance on such weapons than that
which prevails today.
We in New Zealand seek an alternative to the system of nuclear deterrence
at some future stage as the basis of international security. A global
security system can only rest on something other than the threat of planetary
degradation and our collective self-extinction. The risk of nuclear
deterrence failing gives us all limited time in which to work. For our part,
we will see to it that nuclear weapons stay out of New Zealand. We have
declared that we do not wish to be defended by nuclear weapons. We see the
Rarotonga Treaty as a small but significant step towards greater global
security. It is New Zealand's hope that the Conference on Disarmament this
year will reflect the same sense of urgency that galvanized our work in the
South Pacific and that we shall see substantive progress during the session
this year.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of New Zealand for his
statement and for the kind words addressed to the President.
I now give the floor to the representative of Hungary,
Ambassador Meiszter.
Mr. MEISZTER (Hungary): Mr. President, please allow me to express to you
the congratulations of my delegation on your assumption of the responsible
office of the President of the Conference on Disarmament. I am especially
honoured to welcome in the Chair the representative of a State with which my
country has increasingly good relations in all fields of social activity, the
representative of a State which displays profound interest in an ongoing
contribution to the cause of making disarmament efforts more efficient. I am
confident that your patient guidance and diplomatic skills will help our
Conference to break the vicious circle of feverish activities on one hand and
fruitlessness on the other prevailing in this body during the past years. My
words of appreciation go also to Ambassador Beesley of Canada who presided
over our proceedings in an exemplary way during the closing month last year.
The composition of this body has considerably changed since we closed our
session last August. Some colleagues have left us to take up other
responsibilities somewhere else, or departed under tragic circumstances like
Ambassador Donald Lowitz, a man whose personal integrity, correctness and
human warmth will leave a feeling of emptiness in us. May I express my
profound condolences and sympathy over the sudden demise of our respected
colleague, and request the delegation of the United States to transmit the
480
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RniDa9_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
13
(Mr. Meiszter, Hungary)
same to the Government of the United States, to Shana Lowitz and to her
mourning family. I would like to join other representatives speaking before
me and welcome our newly arrived colleagues, the representatives of Algeria,
Brazil, France, Italy, Japan, Romania, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia,
offering to them friendship and co-operation as we had with their respective
predecessors. I feel privileged to welcome again in our midst the
Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Klaus Tiirnudd of Finland, and
to welcome as well Mr. Graham of New Zealand, and express my appreciation over
their interest displayed and contribution made to the work of this Conference
which will certainly be carefully studied by my delegation.
Mr. President, at the beginning of this session I feel it appropriate to
have a glance at the international situation. Our work is conducted under its
conditions and is expected in its turn to produce a favourable feed-back
effect on it.
Approximately a year ago, when making my statement before this body on
the same occasion, I characterized the international conditions prevailing at
that time as "a shade clearer" than it had been in the preceding years. I
attributed this to the fact that the results of the Summit Meeting in
November 1985 between General Secretary Gorbachev and President Reagan were
significant and had some favourable influence on the general atmosphere of
international relations. Now, a year later, one can see -- fornately -- the
continuation of that promising tendency. Significant events have taken place
in the international arena, which have contributed to improving the situation,
even if not to the extent hoped or desirable. Elements of detente and
confrontation continue to co-exist, and our task is consequently to decrease
the confrontational element.
An outstanding event of high-level diplomacy was the Reykjavik meeting
between General Secretary Gorbachev and President Reagan. The understanding
in Reykjavik proved that courageous initiatives pursued with vigour and fresh
thinking may produce results which had seemed unrealistic before. There are
results from Reykjavik, even if not in the form of international written
instruments. The understanding on the 50 per cent reduction of strategic
nuclear arms and the accord reached on the elimination of United States and
Soviet medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe and on a radical cut in
missiles of this type in Asia are all elements of such importance that they
can hardly be overestimated. The proposal of the Soviet side to consolidate
the regime of the ABM Treaty and the initiation of full-scale talks on a total
nuclear-test ban added special significance to the above-mentioned meeting.
The greatest importance of the accords reached in Reykjavik is that they
proved that nuclear disarmament is a real possibility. Mutually agreed
elements of the Reykjavik accords are being followed up here in Geneva at the
bilateral talks, hopefully with concrete results.
Another instance of the favourable trend is the successful completion of
the Stockholm Conference on Confidence- and Security-building Measures and
Disarmament in Europe. The document concluded there carries a reaffirmation
of the commitment by the participating States to refrain from any use of armed
481
ConrF - Ca niti7Pri Cony Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
14
(Mr. Meiszter, Hungary)
forces inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, and contains
far-reaching measures on confidence-building coupled with real provisions for
verification, including inspections carried out on site.
One can say even more. Despite its evident shortcomings we consider that
the communique issued at the ministerial session of the North Atlantic Council
of 12 December 1986 carries a possibility of negotiating on the proposals put
forward in the Budapest Declaration of June 1986. Let me remind the
distinguished colleagues that the text of the Budapest declaration was
submitted to the attention of this body last June by my delegation.
These are but a few positive aspects of the present situation. They do
not imply in any way that we forget that the controversial international
situation is fraught with grave tensions. They only mean that the world is
becoming increasingly aware of the fact that contradictions and problems
cannot be solved by the policy of force, but rather through co-operative
efforts and readiness for mutual accommodation.
It means further that the awareness of the mutual interdependence of
States has deepened to an extent never seen before. A number of problems have
emerged -- partly as a consequence of the continuing arms race -- the solution
of which is unimaginable in the framework of national policies alone.
Problems and dangers threatening mankind have a global dimension, and
consequently they lend themselves only to a treatment that is global in
character.
It is also becoming evident that security cannot be ensured by military
means only. Even the most powerful States, those possessing the most
destructive weapons, cannot feel secure if they represent a menace to any
other State's national security. National security cannot be ensured
unilaterally, it is more and more interrelated with international security.
To put it shortly: security has become indivisible, it can only be universal
and equal for all. That necessarily implies that the security of no State can
be ensured to the detriment of that of others. Security policies should be
pursued on the basis of co-operation, keeping in mind the security interests
of others also.
Another relevant and important recognition of our times is the broadening
of the concept of security. Security is not just a question of military
balance, but the elimination of imbalances in the world economy and joint
solutions for the problems of mankind: economic co-operation, opportunities
for contacts among peoples, respect for human rights and for the basic rules
of civilized conduct of States in international relations.
On the basis of such considerations, the delegation of the Hungarian
People's Republic proposed in the name of its allies in the Warsaw Treaty
Organization the idea of the "Establishment of a comprehensive system of
international peace and security" at the forty-first session of the
United Nations General Assembly.
482
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
15
(Mr. Meiszter, Hungary)
The aim of launching this idea has been to initiate a process of
collective thinking, to hear the views and ideas of our partners. We started
with the understanding that such a system could only be the product of
collective thinking. Proceeding on this basis we hopefully can arrive at
collective actions on this crucial issue too.
In our view, the establishment of a comprehensive system of international
peace and security calls for an ever deepening international co-operation in
all fields of international relations. The immediate aim of such co-operation
is to prevent the danger of nuclear catastrophe threatening the very existence
of mankind, and to promote arms control and disarmament. It is indispensable
in this context to establish an appropriate system for harmonizing different
interests, to adjust the character, aim and level of military forces to the
criterion of adequate security, and to effect a radical reduction in the
accumulated arsenals of military hardware.
This line of thinking leads me to the actual tasks of the Conference on
Disarmament, which has a role to play in one of the vital aspects of the aim I
mentioned a minute ago. The priorities in our work here are apparently agreed
to by almost all: nuclear test ban, prohibition of chemical weapons,
prevention of an arms race in outer space'.
There is a growing international consensus that nuclear-weapon testing
should be banned once and for all. My delegation is certainly of this view.
Nuclear testing is the engine of the arms race in the so-called "conventional
nuclear field" as well as in the development of the new "exotic types" of
third-generation categories. With nuclear testing going on, any effort in the
field of nuclear disarmament may well prove a futile exercise.
The proceedings of the First Committee and the resolutions adopted there
indicate a certain convergence of views which calls for an appropriate
follow-up here in the Conference also. In our view it is imperative for the
Conference to set up an ad hoc committee and to proceed to practical work
without delay, with the aim of preparing a treaty that would effectively ban
all test explosions of nuclear weapons by all States everywhere and would
contain provisions, acceptable to all, preventing the circumvention of this
ban by means of nuclear explosion for peaceful purposes. The negotiations
should comprise all relevant aspects of the future treaty including scope and
verification.
The 18-month unilaterial moratorium by the USSR laid the groundwork for
the successful achievement of the aim of a CTB. It is unfortunate and
deplorable -- to say the least -- that the United States responded with a
nuclear-weapon test to the calls of the international community on the very
opening day of this Conference.
The prohibition of chemical weapons figures high among the priorities of
our agenda. It is a subject where the Conference could produce a tangible
result this year, restoring its worn prestige.
4C3
rIfd in Darf - Aniti7ed CODV Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
16
(Mr. Meiszter, Hungary)
Last year's work in the Ad Hoc Committee, and complemented by the two
rounds of intersessional work, yielded a reliable basis which offers a real
possibility for a breakthrough. In saying that, I would like to express my
delegation's appreciation to Ambassador Cromartie of the United Kingdom for
the able guidance he rendered to the work of the Ad Hoc Committee.
Major issues related to verification in the field of CW stocks and their
destruction, CW production facilities and the non-production of chemical
weapons are generally agreed upon, and the main lines of methods of
verification have been drawn up.
On-challenge inspection has been generally accepted as part of the
international verification system. Realistic guidelines have been spelled out
for conducting such an inspection. Many delegations, including those most
concerned, accepted the British proposal as a basis for work.
In our view all the necessary prerequisites are at hand now to accomplish
the work on the convention this year. What is needed is a firm determination,
and a good deal of efficient diplomatic professional work. It is encouraging
to know that Ambassador Ekeus of Sweden has already made the first steps to
gear the work of the Ad Hoc Committee to a higher level of efficiency.
The degree of priority of the problem of preventing an arms race in outer
space has greatly increased in the face of the events taking place in the
development of new weapons systems designed for operation in outer space. The
work done last year by the Ad Hoc Committee has produced fairly good results.
The exchange of views proved that there is a need and room for developing
further the international legal regime for keeping the arms race out of this
area. The present system of international legal instruments is evidently not
sufficient to prevent the technological arms race from moving into the outer
space. It needs to be complemented. We are of the opinion that the
Conference is an appropriate place to do this work, parallel with efforts made
at other forums. The Ad Hoc Committee on Outer Space should be re-established
without wasting time on procedural aspects, and should start working with a
view to concrete measures. It should concentrate on such particular issues as
banning the use of force in outer space, space weapons, prohibiton of ASAT
weapons systems and the protection of satellites.
Dwelling only on the three priority issues before our Conference does not
in any way mean that we disregard other subjects on our agenda. I will return
to them later at the appropriate time as our work moves on.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative for
his statement and for the kind words addressed to the President and to the
country that the President represents.
That concludes my list of speakers for today. Does any other member wish
to take the floor? I see none. Now we will proceed to other proceedings.
484
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP97-ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.388
17
(The President)
Before we adjourn, I should like to turn to another subject. As you are
aware, at its 9th plenary meeting on 8 February 1979, the then Committee on
Disarmament decided to hold its plenary meetings on Tuesdays and Thursdays,
beginning at 10.30 a.m. The Secretary-General of the Conference held
consulatations with the co-ordinators of the various groups and reported to
them on certain additional measures that could be taken to make maximum use of
the resources allocated to the Conference. As a result of his consultations,
a consensus has emerged on two questions which may lead to additional
economies by the Conference.
The first aspect requires a decision by the Conference in order to ensure
that there is agreement in changing the times established by the
1979 decision. In this connection, I should like to propose that we begin the
plenaries and other meetings of the Conference at 10.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m., so
that we could use the maximum three hours which are normally allocated for
meetings wth full services. In doing so, I wish to note that we will be
receiving a high-level visitor on Thursday, 19 February, and that arrangements
have already been made in connection with that visit. On that particular
occasion, we shall start the plenary meeting at 10.30 a.m., in order to avoid
any disruption in the programme of activities of such a distinguished
visitor. With that exception, I believe that we could now agree that all
meetings of the Conference, be they plenaries or meetings of subsidiary
bodies, should start at 10.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): The second aspect relates to
the need to start punctually each plenary meeting. You will recall that,
already at the Group consultations, I noted that in previous years it was the
practice of the negotiating body to open its plenary meetings not later than
five minutes after the scheduled time. I do hope that we can reach an
understanding to the effect that this practice is adhered to.
The Secretariat is circulating, at my request, an informal paper
containing a timetable for meetings to be held by the Conference and its
subsidiary bodies during the coming week. As usual, the timetable is merely
indicative and subject to change, if necessary. On that understanding, if
there is no objection I shall take it that the Conference adopts the timetable.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): Does any member wish to take
the floor? I see none.
The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be held on
Tuesday, 17 February, at 10.00 a.m.
The meeting rose at 11.55 a.m.
485
Dnrf - Caniti7Pd Cony Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.389
17 February 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-NINTH PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 17 February 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
GE. 87-60205/7218E
Mr. Fan GUOXIANG (China)
4E 6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I declare open the
389th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
In accordance with its programme of work, the Conference starts today its
consideration of agenda items 1, entitled "Nuclear Test Ban" and 2, "Cessation
of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament".
In conformity with Rule 30 of the rules of procedure, however, any member
wishing to do so may raise any subject relevant to the work of the Conference.
I have on my list of speakers for today the representatives of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Sri Lanka, the Federal Republic
of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, Mongolia and Egypt.
I now give the floor to the first speaker on my list, the representative
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Ambassador Nazarkine.
Mr. NAZARKINE (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): Thank you, Comrade President. As you know, yesterday, 16 February,
Mikhail Gorbachev, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union addressed the participants in the
International Forum for a Nuclear-Free World for the Survival of Humanity, in
Moscow. The text of this statement has been distributed in a press release
and any delegation that so wishes has the opportunity of reading it.
Speaking on the reorganization of society which is under way in my
country, Gorbachev emphasized that for the Soviet Union, in order to
concentrate on the constructive endeavours to improve the situation in our
country, peace is necessary. Our desire to make our country better will hurt
no one, with the world only gaining from this. Reorganization, to stress its
international aspect, is an invitation to any social system to compete with
socialism peacefully for the benefit of general progress and world peace. But
for such competition to take place and unfold in civilized forms worthy of
mankind in the 21st century, we must have a new outlook and overcome
mentalities, stereotypes and dogmas inherited from a past which is gone, never
to return.
We have come to the conclusion, said the Soviet leader, that in today's
complex and contradictory world, new approaches and methods are required for
solving international problems. These conclusions make us reconsider
something which once seemed axiomatic, and fully realize that with the advent
and improvement of nuclear arms the human race has lost its immortality. It
can only be regained by destroying nuclear weapons. The nuclear Powers must
go beyond their nuclear shadow and enter a nuclear-free world, thus ending the
alienation of politics from the general human ethical norms. A nuclear
tornado, said General Secretary Gorbachev, will sweep away both socialists and
capitalists alike, the just and the unjust alike.
Referring to the Soviet disarmament initiatives, the Soviet leader noted
that none of our proposals attempts to leave out any of our weapons from the
negotiations. Our principle is simple: all weapons must be limited and
42)1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-0116RRnnninnl nnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
3
(Mr. Nazarkine, USSR)
reduced, and those of wholesale annihilation eventually scrapped. He
stressed, in particular, that the Soviet Union had expressed its readiness to
have chemical weapons totally abolished.
Comrade President, negotiations on a chemical-weapons ban have a long
history, but only recently did the prospect of a successful conclusion already
in the very near future become evident. This is an important result of
constructive initiatives and efforts made by many countries including Poland,
the German Democratic Republic, Bulgaria, Sweden, Pakistan, Indonesia,
Great Britain, Australia and other countries, and by the Chairmen of the
Ad Hoc Committee and its Working Groups. A breakthrough in the negotiations
became apparent last year, when the Soviet Union, building upon the
fundamental provisions of the statement of 15 January 1986, put forward
several series of proposals which contributed to accelerating the negotiations
and reaching agreement on quite a number of sections of the future convention.
I believe there is every reason to regard the current session of
negotiations as a decisive one. What we have now is not just the framework
for a future convention but also solutions to most of the fundamental issues
and, moreover, agreed texts of many provisions of a future convention.
At the same time, a number of questions are yet to be resolved. Among
them I would mention declaration and verification of chemical-weapon stocks
and challenge inspections. Further work is required on provisions relating to
non-production of chemical weapons in commercial industry, the definition of a
chemical-weapons production facility and elimination measures, the scope of
the prohibition and various others. The "procedural" articles of the
convention too, are not to be forgotten -- the procedure for the signing of
the convention and its entry into force, its depositary, etc. We are
therefore required to act most promptly and comprehensively so as to reach
agreement on all outstanding issues and finalize the text of the convention
and open it for signature.
We agree with Ambassador Butler, the head of the Australian delegation,
who said on 3 February 1987, referring to the objectives currently facing the
participants of the negotiations, that "we must increase the tempo of our
negotiations during 1987 so that the opportunity which clearly exists of
concluding a convention this year may be realized".
The only way to succeed is to seek mutually acceptable solutions and to
negotiate, taking into account each other's legitimate concerns.
The Soviet delegation commends the energetic efforts of Ambassador Ekeus,
the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, aimed at a successful conclusion of the
negotiations.
In the inter-sessional period of the work of the Conference on
Disarmament, the Soviet Union explored in depth all aspects of the state of
affairs of the negotiations; its own position on the outstanding questions
and the way other countries approach them. In doing so we looked above all
for possible solutions to these questions and instructed our experts to act
accordingly.
48C
im,,,Inecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
4
(Mr. Nazarkine, USSR)
In today's statement the USSR delegation wishes to present its proposals
and ideas on the solution to a number of questions concerning the future
convention with a view to facilitating more intensive negotiations and further
progress therein.
I have already referred to chemical-weapon stocks. They are the subject
matter of Article 4, "chemical weapons", of the draft convention which is now
under discussion and negotiation. Agreement has already been reached on a
number of important provisions of that article, including those relating to
declarations of volumes of stocks, their methods of destruction, and
verification of operations of chemical-weapon destruction facilities. So far,
however, it has not been possible to come to an agreement on the provisions in
the convention relating to declarations of locations of chemical-weapons
stocks and to international verification of such locations. Agreement has
been hampered by a number of perfectly legitimate national security concerns
expressed, for example, by the delegation of France and my delegation. We,
for our part, have once again weighed up all the factors, viewed them in the
context of the need for speedy progress at the negotiations and the concerns
expressed by a number of countries, including the United States, which attach
particular importance to finding a solution to this very question as rapidly
as possible.
As a result, we have come to the conclusion that with a view to finding a
speedy solution to this question it would be advisable to agree to the
proposal to provide, immediately after the convention enters into force,
access to chemical weapons for the purposes of systematic international
on-site verification of declarations of chemical-weapon stocks.
In our view each State party to the convention should, not later than
30 days after its entry into force, make a declaration containing detailed
information on the locations of chemical-weapon stocks (storage facilities) at
the time of the convention's entry into force, both in its national territory
and elsewhere under its jurisdiction or control. Such a declaration,
inter alia, would specify the precise location of each storage facility, the
quantity and composition of the chemical weapons in each location, methods of
storage indicating the name of each chemical, munition types and calibres,
etc. A State party should, within 30 days after the convention enters into
force, take measures to ensure a closure of chemical-weapon storage facilities
and prevent movement of stocks other than movement for their elimination.
For the purposes of effective verification of closed chemical-weapon
storage facilities, it is necessary to provide for systematic international
verification with permanent use of instruments, including verification of the
correctness of declarations, closure of storage facilities, installation by
inspectors of devices for this purpose and periodic checks on such devices,
presence of inspectors at the time when chemical weapons are moved out of the
facility for elimination, sealing of the means of transport, etc. Upon
complete removal of all chemical weapons from the facility, an international
inspection team would draw up a statement certifying this fact.
We expect that the proposals we have presented will enable us to agree
promptly and without delay on the provisions relating to declarations of
chemical weapons.
489
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Rnnninninnnrm_A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
5
(Mr. Nazarkine, USSR)
A number of other issues relating to Article 4, "chemical weapons", of
the convention, are to be considered in the near future. We express our
willingness to reach agreement on all outstanding issues in that article,
including those related to the time-frame, order and methods of elimination.
Bearing in mind that the proposal that a State party should have the right to
divert chemical weapons has caused difficulties, we have carefully weighed up
all the pros and cons of the proposal: we now proceed on the assumption that
all chemical weapons are to be destroyed.
The Soviet delegation hopes that our flexible approach will make it
possible to find solutions to the above-mentioned issue and will help
accelerate the negotiations. We also call upon other delegations to join in
these efforts and to present concrete proposals for mutually acceptable
solutions.
In his statement yesterday, General Secretary Gorbachev, referring to
problems of verification, said inter alia: "Now that we are coming to
consider major measures for actual disarmament affecting the most sensitive
area of national security, the Soviet Union will be pressing for the most
stringent system of supervision and verification, including international
verification. There must be complete certainty that the commitments are
honoured by all."
That is precisely why the Soviet Union gives priority to negotiating an
agreement on effective international verification of compliance by all States
parties with their obligations under the convention. Such verification should
not only effectively ensure confidence in the destruction of chemical weapons
and facilities for their production but also effectively preclude any rebirth
of chemical weapons anywhere and in any country.
The negotiations on verification machinery are based on a general
understanding that the basis will be a system of "routine" international
inspections. On the other hand, it has also been recognized that such
international inspection should be complemented by on-site challenge
inspections so that the whole verification mechanism of the Convention may be
particularly reliable. Thus challenge inspections would serve above all the
purpose of preventing breaches of the convention. Ultimately they would
ensure the possibility of implementing international verification with regard
to any activities relevant to the convention on the prohibition of chemical
weapons. These principles should be taken fully into account in elaborating
specific procedures for such challenge inspection.
We cannot close our eyes to the fact that the participants in the
negotiations, despite agreement on a number of important aspects, still
encounter great difficulty in finalizing agreements on challenge inspection.
We believe that basically these difficulties have a perfectly objective and
real basis: States may indeed have certain locations and facilities which are
not relevant to the convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons. Access
to such locations and facilities, due to their particularly sensitive nature,
is normally prohibited or restricted. One cannot therefore exclude the
possibility of a State having the right to refuse a challenge inspection in
exceptional cases when its supreme interests are jeopardized. The existence
of such areas and sensitive points have by the way been recognized in the
490
nna-Inecifiarl in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
6
(Mr. Nazarkine, USSR)
document of the Stockholm Conference on Confidence- and Security-Building
Measures and Disarmament in Europe. In this context we consider that the view
expressed by Ambassador Dolgu, Head of the delegation of Romania, was quite
justified, namely that it would be advisable to use the provisions of that
document at the negotiations on the convention on the prohibition of chemical
weapons.
The participants in the negotiations have different views on solutions to
the issue of challenge inspections at the present time. Some propose that the
Executive Council be involved. Others, while in favour of providing access to
a number of sensitive locations and facilities automatically, immediately upon
request, make exemptions for private premises. Moreover the procedure for
implementing challenge inspections envisaged under these proposals while
securing the interest of the major Powers and members of military alliances,
gives a small number of States certain rights of which practically all the
other parties to the convention are deprived of. There is also a proposal to
the effect that in the event of a challenge, the challenged State should have
the right to propose alternative measures which should satisfy the challenging
State.
In view of these various proposals and approaches, movement towards
agreement apparently might be initiated by defining a number of cases where
refusal of an inspection on the requested scare would not be allowed: for
example, in the event of suspected use of chemical weapons, or inspection of
locations and facilities declared under the convention. It appears this idea
en-joys wide support at the negotations, and understandably so, for we are
dealing with the cases and facilities which are most directly relevant to a
convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons, and consequently there
should be no reason for refusing an inspection.
As for other cases and other locations and facilities, in elaborating
agreement on challenge inspections the idea of using alternative measures, up
to viewing the facility from without and collecting chemical samples near the
facility, might be helpful. Such a differentiation would, in our view, ensure
progress towards agreement on this issue which, while unresolved, hampers
agreement on other issues of the convention.
Of course, there remains the difficult problem of what should be done if
the alternative measures still do not satisfy the challenging State.
We share the hope expressed by the head of the Swedish delegation,
Ambassador Theorin, that the "general narrowing of positions on verification
that has been demonstrated lately should help to facilitate agreement on this
issue" -- i.e. international challenge inspection. The Soviet delegation
declares itself ready to seek actively for mutually acceptable solutions on
the basis of any positive ideas and suggestions which are on the negotiating
table.
We have been asked by a number of delegations to explain what is meant by
permanent international verification which the Soviet Union proposes applying
to chemical-weapon destruction facilities, specialized facilities for the
production of category I chemicals for permitted purposes and to a certain
number of facilities producing key precursors. I would like to explain our
491
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000inninnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
7
(Mr. Nazarkine, USSR)
understanding of permanent verification. In our view, such verification can
be implemented either through the permanent presence of international
inspectors at facilities or through visits to facilities by international
inspectors in combination with permanent use of control and measuring
instruments at facilities, including remote monitoring. As for the order and
modalities for the use of such instruments, helpful solutions in our view
might be prompted by the experience in the implementation of
International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Identification of "important"
(in terms of verification) points at the facilities, sealing of certain units,
installation of photo and video equipment, measuring devices in agreed
sections of the technological process, maintenance of international
verification instruments by international inspectors, etc.
As for systematic international inspection, we propose that their
frequency and timing be determined by the Consultative Committee on the basis
of the risk posed to the convention by a given chemical or facility. In
working out the details of systematic international inspections, we could also
draw on the experience and practices of the IAEA, in particular with regard to
providing the different types of systematic inspections, (routine and
special), the frequency and time-frame of inspections, and the right of the
IAEA to determine the facilities to be inspected at a given time. We believe
that the experience and practices of the IAEA might also prompt us to the
right solutions on other questions of verifying compliance with the chemical
weapons convention. They might be drawn upon in working out an agreement on
the activities of the inspectorate too, that is the appointment of inspectors,
their privileges, inspection procedures, etc.
On the basis of the provisions included in the convention, it would be
advisable to elaborate subsequently, along the lines of the IAEA, a model
agreement between a State Party and an appropriate body of the Convention
which would govern the practical aspects of implementing international
verification at facilities (the verification procedure, specific measures for
the closure of facilities, etc.)
When the convention is in effect, specific measures of verification with
regard to chemical-weapon production facilities and chemical-weapon
destruction facilities would be agreed upon by a State Party and the
Consultative Committee and included in the relevant plans for the elimination
of stocks and facilities.
The emerging prospect of the conclusion of a convention puts on the
negotiating agenda the question of interaction of States under the new
conditions where chemical weapons have been banned. The Soviet Union is
strongly in favour of implementing wide international co-operation on an equal
and mutually beneficial basis in the developments of peaceful chemical
industry as an alternative to the development, production and stockpiling of
chemical weapons. One cannot but agree with the view that without provisions
to this effect a future convention would be weakened. A convention on the
prohibition of chemical weapons can, in our opinion, become an example of
practical implementation of the agreed principles of "disarmament for
development".
492
- c.niti7a1 r.onv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
8
(Mr. Nazarkine, USSR)
The negotiations on the prohibition of chemical weapons have gained
momentum and it is our hope that the proposals we have presented today will
contribute towards speedy agreement on the convention. However, we cannot
remain impassive in the face of certain statements which are in fact aimed at
creating difficulties in the negotiations.
The British magazine, Jane's Defence Weekly, recently published an
article on chemical-weapon issues by K. Adelman, Director of the United States
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency -- incidentally, this article has been
reprinted in our newspaper, Pravda. In that article, Mr. Adelman writes: "To
have a chance of achieving that (a chemical-weapons ban), we need to ensure
that our negotiators' hands are not empty. Congress, therefore, should fund
the Administration's request for binary chemical weapons production". In our
view this logic is strange, to say the least. It reminds me of a satirical
story by the well-known Czech writer, Janislav Hasgek, about the Conference on
Disarmament at the time of the League of Nations. That Conference literally
blew up as a result of careless handling of a new explosive, "Washingtonite",
by a representative of the military business who stood waiting at the entrance
to the conference room with samples of his product to offer the participants
of the Conference.
It is simply regrettable that the negotiating portfolio of the
United States delegation is still being replenished not with compromise
proposals but with new types of chemical weapons, which can only poison the
atmosphere at the negotiations.
The Soviet delegation has today expressed certain views on ways of
reaching agreement at the next stage of negotiations. We intend to continue
to work actively for the elaboration of the convention on the prohibition of
chemical weapons this year. The positive effects of the conclusion of such
convention would be of great significance, and not only in the military field.
Its conclusion would demonstrate that it is practically possible to find
solutions to the complex problems of disarmament through the joint efforts of
States, and would contribute to creating a more positive political climate.
This is the aim of the new Soviet proposals, and we expect similar steps on
the outstanding issues from other participants in the negotiations.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for his statement. I now give the
floor to the representative of Sri Lanka, Ambassador Dhanapala.
Mr. DHANAPALA (Sri Lanka): Mr. President, the friendship between our
two countries extending over so many centuries has resulted in a uniaue
relationship as equal sovereign States despite vast disparities in size,
population and power. In the field of disarmament we have respected your
principled approach and your many initiatives including the declaration of
non-first use of nuclear weapons, the unilateral reduction of your army by
1 million, your decision not to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere and
your consistent policy that disarmament is the concern of all nations
irrespective of size and might, as mentioned in your distinguished Foreign
Minister's message to our Conference on 3 February. As an outstanding
representative of your country we are confident that you will conduct our work
in the first month of the 1987 session so as to create the necessary impetus
to carry us forward in our task of negotiating for disarmament.
493
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-ni 1RRRnnni nninnnn4 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
9
(Mr. Dhanapala, Sri Lanka)
We would like to take this opportunity of thanking
Ambassador Alan Beesley of Canada for having presided so competently
over our work in August 1986 and in the inter-sessional period.
My delegation extends its sincere condolences to the delegation of the
United States of America and to the family of the late
Ambassador Donald Lowitz. We have lost a friend and a colleage whose
outstanding personal qualities will long be remembered. As we begin a new
session in our Conference my delegation would like to acknowledge the
contribution made to our forum by Ambassador Sutowardoyo of Indonesia,
Ambassador Franceschi of Italy, Ambassador Issraelyan of the USSR and
Ambassador Vidas of Yugoslavia, who have left us. At the same time we welcome
Ambassador Hacene of Algeria, Ambassador Barbosa of Brazil, Ambassador Morel
of France, Ambassador Pugliese of Italy, Ambassador Yamada of Japan,
Ambassador Dolgu of Romania, Ambassador Nazarkine of USSR and Ambassador Kosin
of Yugoslavia. My delegation was especially touched by the poignant statement
last week of Ambassador Yamada speaking as a survivor of the Hiroshima
holocaust. The words on that monument in Hiroshima "Let it never happen
again" should indeed be in our minds at all times during our important work in
this Conference to ensure their realization in our time. Nuclear deterrence
theory based on the continuity of adversarial relationships and the
credibility of the threat that it will happen again has only led to greater
arsenals of nuclear weapons with an explosive power of over 1 million
Hiroshima bombs, and greater insecurity.
Despite its being the International year of Peace, the events of the last
year did not fulfil the deeply-held aspirations of the people of the world in
terms of concrete agreements on disarmament. We recognize, however, that a
significant improvement in the international climate for disarmament
negotiations has continued since 1985. Reykjavik was a missed opportunity
where this improvement could have culminated in a radical change for the
better. To the extent that the participants at Reykjavik are ready to carry
forward its lessons will depend the real historical significance of that
weekend's discussions. The reports we have had so far are not encouraging.
The leaders of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation who held
a Summit Meeting in Bangalore on 16 and 17 November 1986, stated their view on
Reykjavik in the following terms:
"The Heads of State and Government noted with deep disappointment
that the promise held out by the Reykjavik Summit could not be realized.
They, however, noted with satisfaction that the proposals made at the
Summit were still on the table. They expressed the earnest hope that the
negotiations would be resumed without delay so that a decisive step could
be taken towards realizing the ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear
weapons altogether."
For Sri Lanka as a founder-member of the Non-aligned Movement and one of
its former Chairmen, the Harare Summit of non-aligned leaders represented an
important event in the International Year of Peace. The Declaration issued at
Harare contained the main principles and policies of 101 non-aligned countries
in the field of disarmament and international security. Basic to these is the
non-aligned concept of global security which the Harare Declaration expressed
in the following words:
494
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
10
(Mr. Dhanapala, Sri Lanka)
"Historically, States have considered that they could achieve
security through the possession of arms. The advent of nuclear weapons,
has however, radically changed this situation. Nuclear weapons are more
than weapons of war; they are instruments of mass annihilation. The
accumulation of weapons, in particular nuclear weapons, constitutes a
threat to the continued survival of mankind. It has therefore become
imperative that States abandon the dangerous goal of unilateral security
through armament and embrace the objective of common security through
disarmament."
Many speakers in our current session have noted the achievements
registered in the First Committee of the forty-first session of the
United Nations General Assembly. The distinguished Ambassador of Mexico has
set out in detail the resolutions adopted in respect of some of the more
important issues including the priority nuclear subjects. My delegation was
also encouraged by the atmosphere that prevailed and the voting patterns which
implied a broader area of agreement on the substantive disarmament issues. We
now face a crucial test as we attempt to transfer those resolutions into the
negotiating context of our Conference. Convergence in the deliberative
United Nations bodies devoted to disarmament cannot cohere with divergence in
this sole negotiating body. The hopes that have been expressed for positive
developments in our 1987 session are therefore justified and the Sri Lanka
delegation will strive together with others to ensure their realization. A
related development which we welcome is the entry into force of the Treaty of
Rarotonga and the signature of the relevant Protocols by two of the
five nuclear Powers.
With 1987, the Year of Peace has yielded to the Year of Shelter for the
Homeless designated as such by the United Nations on a proposal made in 1980
by Prime Minister Premadasa of Sri Lanka. This focus on a core issue of
development as an investment in mankind is also a reminder to all of us of the
relationship between disarmament and development. The global expenditure of
almost a trillion dollars a year on armaments, both nuclear and conventional,
is by all empirical standards inconsistent with stable and balanced social and
economic development and contributes to distortions and imbalances in the
world economy. The International Conference on the Relationship between
Disarmament and Development rescheduled for this year and to be held in
New York can, with universal participation and intensive preparation, result
in an agreed programme of disarmament measures releasing resources for
development purposes.
Another forthcoming event which impinges on the work of our Conference is
the convening of the third special session of the General Assembly devoted to
disarmament in 1988 and its preparatory process beginning this year. The
approach of the third special session devoted to disarmament must necessarily
lend a sense of urgency to our work. We have within our grasp the completion
of a convention on chemical weapons and the Comprehensive Programme on
Disarmament before the third special session. In addition we can and must
show progress in the nuclear issues and especially on item 1 of our agenda,
Nuclear-Test Ban.
495
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Rnnni nni nnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
11
(Mr. Dhanapala, Sri Lanka)
We have entered the ninth year of our existence as the single
multilateral negotiating body. The agenda before us is dictated by the needs
of our common security and not by the national interest of individual nations
alone. Our failure to act on this agenda is a common failure but the
responsibility for that failure cannot be shared knowing as we do the relative
capacity of the members of this body to contribute to disarmament. We have
begun this year with the re-establishment of two Ad Hoc Committees which have
begun functioning without delay and the setting up of two further ad hoc
committees which we hope will commence work soon. There are two agenda items
in which my delegation has a particular interest in seeing some forward
movement while emphasizing the need to make progress on all agenda items.
We have in this Conference remained far too long in a stalemated position
on item 1 -- Nuclear-Test Ban. The need for the Conference to work on this
important agenda item is self-evident. Self-evident too is the impact of
external developments. The rejection of the offer of converting a unilateral
moratorium on nuclear testing into a bilateral moratorium; the dilatory
linkage being established between bilateral negotiations for a reduction in
the yields and the numbers of nuclear tests with bilateral negotiations for
reductions in nuclear weapons; the Six-Nation Mexico Declaration of
7 August 1986, with its practical proposals on the verification of a test
ban; and the overlap in content and similarity of voting patterns on
General Assembly resolutions 41/46 A, which Sri Lanka co-sponsored, and 41/47,
on which we voted affirmatively, are some of these developments. The impact
of some of them is clearly negative and while we cannot ignore their reality
we can seek to build on the positive developments for our work here.
The distinguished Ambassador for Mexico has indicated a possible way to
further our work by setting up an ad hoc committee with a mandate acceptable
to all. The distinguished Ambassador of Japan also made an important
contribution by noting that the gap we have to bridge is indeed not so wide as
to daunt us in our diplomatic efforts. Our purpose in wanting to see an
ad hoc committee set up on item 1 is not a window-dressing effort to make the
Conference appear to be working towards a nuclear-test ban so as to placate
international public opinion, mollify domestic lobbies or stall other moves to
achieve a comprehensive test ban. We want to see real work begin on practical
steps or interim steps including on an international seismic monitoring
network with the active participation of all delegations. But the steps must
lead to the objective clearly set out in both General Assembly
resolutions 41/46 A and 41/47 -- a comprehensive nuclear-test ban treaty. We
recognize and indeed respect the differences that exist among us for the
moment about the pace at which we should progress towards a Comprehensive
Test-Ban Treaty. The objective however remains a common one and our
differences should not be an impediment towards practical work in an ad hoc
committee in this Conference. Statements made here on verification clearly
indicate that there is a common approach. Work in an ad hoc committee can
demonstrate the reality of this. We shall soon be observing the first death
anniversary of the late Olof Palme who campaigned so long and so hard for an
end to nuclear testing. The Palme Commission pamphlet on a comprehensive test
ban published recently in pursuance of his wishes and dedicated to his memory
concluded: "Together with measures to reduce significantly the size of
existing nuclear 'arsenals and to limit the characteristics of new nuclear
496
im,,,Inecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
12
(Mr. Dhanapala, Sri Lanka)
weapon systems, a comprehensive test ban could constrain nuclear capabilities
and help to create a new political atmosphere in which the danger of nuclear
war would be greatly reduced".
Over recent years there has been a steady swell of support for the
non-aligned resolution in the General Assembly initiated by Egypt and
Sri Lanka on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, which has emerged
as the only resolution on this crucial issue. Last year, resolution 41/53 was
adopted by a record vote of 154 for, with one sole abstention, and no votes
against the resolution. Once again it seems to be a situation where there is
a common objective shared by us all -- the prevention of an arms race in outer
space -- which, as the province of all mankind, cannot be an arena for the
threat or use of force and must be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.
While the resolution acknowledges the primary role of the Conference on
Disarmament in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements, as
appropriate, on this issue differences exist on what steps are necessary now
for this body to achieve these objectives. Since 1985 we have had an Ad Hoc
Committee mandated with the deliberately circumscribed task of exploring
relevant issues. Last year my delegation was encouraged by the efforts of
some delegations to advance the work of the Ad Hoc Committee by attempting to
agree on definitions of important concepts and terms relevant to this agenda
item. We regret that the participation in this important aspect of work was
limited. We would like to see the Ad Hoc Committee re-established with the
minimum delay possible and as an earnest of its sincerity the Group of 21 has
made a very modest proposal for a mandate which we trust will be accepted. No
one can be so wedded to the status quo as to object to the addition that has
been proposed, bearing in mind paragraph 80 of the Final Document as
reiterated in General Assembly resolution 41/53. The message of the
distinguished Secretary-General of the United Nations to this Conference
enjoined us "to create conditions for negotiating agreements on this vital
matter". That is our modest goal for this session.
We hear, meanwhile, disturbing calls for an early deployment of
space-based ballistic missile defence systems which were until recently
described to us as research programmes. They will, if heeded, inevitably
involve non-compliance with existing treaties which even the most elastic
interpretation will not conceal. Whether ballistic missile defence systems
are being researched and developed in the full glare of media attention or in
clandestine, they represent generically a dangerous new phase in the arms
race. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that our discussions here are taking
place while irreversible steps are being planned to place weapons in space. A
balanced and even-handed non-aligned attempt in pursuance of the Harare
Declaration to ban such obviously offensive weapons in space as dedicated
anti-satellite weapons met with the strongest opposition from those who have
crafted the most elaborate arguments to justify defensive systems. As the
Harare Declaration noted "Measures aimed at developing, testing or deploying
weapons and weapons systems in outer space could, through a constant chain of
action and reaction, lead to an escalation of the arms race in both
'offensive' and 'defensive' weapons thus making the outbreak of nuclear
conflict more likely". There is an obvious inconsistency in seeking a world
free of ballistic missiles and proceeding to erect shields against them which
the overwhelming body of scientific opinion assesses as being vulnerable and
therefore only functional as part of a first-strike capability. The
497
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
13
(Mr. Dhanapala, Sri Lanka)
deployment of weapons in space must be prevented in our common interest. The
attractions of hi-tech warfare and an interlocking programme of lucrative
research contracts should not divert us from the dangers of an arms race in
space and the need to prevent it going beyond the research stage. This task
cannot be left exclusively to bilateral negotiations. It also requires the
establishment of a group of scientific experts within this Conference so that
multilateral expertise can be pooled on the technical issues relevant to
preventing an arms race in outer space. My delegation therefore supports the
proposal made by the Swedish delegation and calls for an early agreement on
the mandate and composition of such a group.
The discussions at Reykjavik gave us all a glimpse of a nuclear-free
world as a realistic possibility seriously contemplated by the leaders of the
two nations accounting for 95 per cent of nuclear weapons in the world.
Non-aligned countries like Sri Lanka would like to encourage these nations to
pursue this goal in their bilateral negotiations. We are disturbed however by
those who seek to obstruct this, arguing the need for nuclear weapons on the
basis of an alleged inferiority in conventional arms. The goal of nuclear
disarmament must be pursued if the spirit of Reykjavik is to inform the
bilateral discussions taking place and lead to agreements in all disarmament
forums including the nuclear and space arms talks in Geneva, as well as the
MBFR and CSCE. That goal is a priority issue in this multilateral negotiating
body.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Sri Lanka for his statement and for his kind words addressed to the President
himself and the country that the President represents. I now give the floor
to the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Ambassador StUlpnagel.
Mr. von STULPNAGEL (Federal Republic of Germany): Mr. President,
speaking for the first time in this year's session of the Conference on
Disarmament, it is a particular pleasure for me to congratulate you to the
assumption of your office. At this point in time we can already note how
brilliantly you discharge your duties, doing it with diplomatic skill,
friendliness and resolution.
In this family of nations which constitute the Conference on Disarmament,
we all feel deep sorrow for the loss of an eminent colleague who had been with
us for two years. With Don Lowitz my delegation has lost a friend, the
Conference has a lost a warm hearted, politically engaged and professional
dynamic personality. We are grateful to have known him.
We have new colleagues among us. I welcome Ambassadors Pierre Morel of
France, Aldo Pugliese of Italy, Chusei Yamada of Japan, Ambassador Hacene of
Algeria, Ambassador Barbosa of Brazil and Ambassador Kosin of Yugoslavia. My
delegation looks forward to working closely with all of them.
Any observer with sufficient interest in our proceedings would, from a
most perfunctory study of statements during the first two weeks of our work
this year, certainly recognize the importance and prominence of emphasis that
item 1 of our agenda, nuclear test ban, has been given in many interventions.
Some of the speeches did not fail to paint a very sombre picture of the
498
D,r+
- Caniti7Pri C;OnV ADDroved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
14
(Mr. von STaPNAGEL, Federal Republic of Germany)
situation the Conference finds itself in with regard to the work on a CTB;
neither was there a lack of pre-emptive accusations, which were visibly aimed
at one group.
I cannot share the speculative pessimism of some of our colleagues;
quite the contrary: an impartial and detached analysis both of the work the
Conference achieved last year on the subject and of the developments that took
place since it adjourned at the end of August lead me to believe that the
circumstances are most propitious for the establishment of an ad hoc commitee
and for positive and meaningful results to be achieved by it.
The controversy concerning the formulation of those parts in last year's
report of the Conference on item no. 1 tends still to obscure the view of what
has already been achieved in terms of a considerable narrowing of differenc(?s
in an important field of the CTB discussion, i.e. the question of
verification. In our view the Conference has reached a remarkable momentum
towards general acceptance of an effective international monitoring and
verification system. This promising development, as WP see it, is due to the
efforts of many delegations who have contributed important elements to a new
and more refined view of test-ban safeguards. Needless to say, the conceptual
accomplishments that have enlarged the common ground on which to build could
only be achieved on the basis of the purposeful contribution by the
Ad Hoc Group of Seismic Experts over nb- last 10 years, and especially by its
last progress report, CD/721, which has open remarkable new perspectives
towards the realization of an inPrnational seismic monitoring system by
detailing plans to integrate the exchange of level II (waveform) dat:i th
next international seismic data exchange experiment.
We consider hallmarks SOMP of the contributions of indivi-aual
during last year's session of the Conference. There is, for one, tht-
Working Paper CD/712, representing an admirabl and knowledgeable comni-?
of present insights into the rv,quirements of a global seismic netoor'c;
calling for the definition and development of prototype monitorina stz3t,
this paper further develops a proposal my delegation had alre7,6
Working Papers CD/612 and CD/24.
Norway's contribution, in this Working Paper CD/714, was particularly
significant in that it explores the interaction of regional small-apertur
seismic arrays with a global network incorporating a number of such arrayc.
The practical experiences with the Norwegian regional seismic arrny system
NORESS provide an Indispensable input for the operationality and tn.
continuous improvement of an effective global system.
The most unambiguous demand for an early instal'ation of a
seismic monitoring network along the lines of the working papers of irv
delegation I already mentioned is contained in the Autralian Wonn Paer.
CD/717, which clearly ocints out the adnnntace no ,ne harYestd by :wift
enactment of the proposals scantaled in it: in's- e:it. a
global seismic monitoring network bed initially on the PT:ist
499
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
15
(Mr. von STULPNAGEL, Federal Republic of Germany)
In keeping with the advances of seismic technology, experience could be
gained with long-term operations and the system could be perfected in such a
way that, on the very entry into force of a CTBT, the comprehensive monitoring
devices could at once become a truly safeguarding system.
Among other valuable contributions of individual delegations one has
certainly to count Working Paper CD/724 by the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, in which it formalized a change of position concerning the
inclusion of the level II data exchange in further discussions.
This brief review of some of the proceedings of our Conference during its
1986 session amply substantiates my initial claim that substantial progress
towards common concepts, common methodology, has been achieved during last
year's session in spite of some attempts to the contrary. In the view of my
delegation the time has come to discuss inter alia,those common concepts
within an ad hoc committee on a CTB, to be established at the earliest
possible juncture. The work of the Committee should help us to reach
practical and universally acceptable solutions in our quest for a
comprehensive, fully verifiable test ban; it is our firm belief that this
should be possible on the basis of the working programme proposed in CD/621
and within the confines of a mandate as contained, for instance, in CD/521.
Certainly, if an ad hoc committee were instituted, its discussions would
not be exhausted in merely technical deliberations; a comprehensive and fully
verifiable test ban would, if agreed upon, be of eminent importance for the
security policies of States world wide. It is exactly for this reason that
the topic of a CTB cannot be discussed by the Conference without paying due
attention to its general implications in the nuclear age. The Federal
Government believes that the goal of agreement on a reliably verifiable
comprehensive nuclear test ban at the earliest possible juncture can be
realized gradually. This should be achieved by reducing allowed testing to
agreed and defined intervals of time and by consecutively refraining from
testing altogether in the framework of agreed reductions of nuclear weapons.
While my delegation wishes for timely results from the bilateral talks
which the United States of America and the Soviet Union are holding here at
Geneva about questions relevant to test limitation in all its aspects and
which are scheduled to enter into a new round in the middle of March, my
Government has never hesitated to express its view that there are more than
bilateral aspects to the problem of a CTBT. The community of States can
indeed contribute substantially to the solution of those problems which still
stand in the way of an agreement.
We do not agree, though, with some delegations which content themselves
with dwelling lengthily on their finding that the verification problems still
facing us can be solved -- and indeed some went as far as to imply that they
were already solved. In our view attention should be drawn to the numerous
prerequisites listed in the Swedish Working Paper CD/712 to ensure the
incorporation of state-of-the-art technology into a global monitoring network
that does not yet exist and has only once been tested in a most elementary
form. A great number of stations that participated in the 1984 GSETT, though
already representing a high level of technological achievement in themselves,
would not match the definitions given in the last chapter of CD/712 for the
500
npriaccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
16
(Mr. von STULPNAGEL, Federal Republic of Germany)
prototype of a CD monitoring station. Although individual seismographic
stations, even if they fell short of the aforementioned demands concerning
their equipment, might work effectively, the task of operating in a reliable
manner an interlinked system of as much as 50 to 100 seismic stations based in
different countries and run by many nations, as well as the task of
communicating the data derived from these stations to and from international
data centres -- possibly in real time -- has not yet been satisfactorily
resolved, as the report of the GSE on the technical test run in 1984 has
demonstrated. Furthermore, CD/712 proposes as an additional measure for the
analysis of doubtful seismic events to combine the findings of the
international seismic monitoring network with data derived from satellite
inspection. The realization of this proposal would indeed greatly enhance
verification capabilities and most probably resolve most of the outstanding
verification problems; but no multilaterally accessible satellite system for
vatification purposes exists as of today or oftomorrow. And we do not know
that even ti most ardent NTB proponent has volunteered with a corresponding
effer. 're conclusion we draw from this is that we should do everything
z)OFSiblP to improve the global seismic monitoring system until the possibility
depicted in the Swedish Working Paper may come true.
My Government has noted with great pleasure that the six Heads of State
or Government, of the New Dehli initiative, at the meeting in Mexico on
7 August 1986, have expressed their readiness to actively participate ir
surmounting the outstandinc verification problems of a future CTBT. Ne waule
welcome it if, besides Swesden, also other States participating in the
initiative would see fit to senn their experts to the GSE, especially wit'e
regard to the new test run of the global monitoring system envisaged for
My Geeernment has repeatedly declared that it considers a CTP as or
rne main 7r)als of its sarmament and arms control policy. And jf w tLin
tree we still se=, some diffieulties in tne feld of eerification, we do eer
ant to nivr. room to any doubt that we will activeleo pursue a course aier at
clearinn rceay these obstacles, -,Jaich in any case we de not find insicmener2rs
As a step towards substantiating its OW7 commitment to this global
system, the Federal Government decided to intensify its cceoperatve on::
in tne field of fast and re2iable data exchanae and storage of acquire
2eismic data. It therefore finances t.ee continuous operation of a seiemic
data anlysis centre installed at the Federal Institute for Geosciences and
Nararal Resources in Hannover. The Institute, by way of direct
ocput4,r-toecomputer links with other countries, is in a position to stere 3;"1]
ro exchange all relevant seismic data includ;ng level II (waveform, data.
r/ concentrated concentrated our research in the field of designing the hardware and
software necessary to acquire, analyse and transmit seismic data including
waveform data on direct computer-to-computer links. Our seismic data centres,
specifically and from ':he outset, are designed for open access and remote ,ata
treatroent via telecommunication links so as to freely share our specific
knowledge in this field with interested seismic scientists. We expl:cinly
request all members of ?ce Conference to make Use of this hitherto singular
ea:rviee, two demonstrations of which will be (liven to interested heads of
delegations and to the experts of the GSE on 5 and 6 March 1987 here in
Geneva. The data centre described above in our view constitutes an important
step forward on the way to the creation and reliable operation of an
international seismic monitoring network.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
17
(Mr. von STULPNAGEL, Federal Republic of Germany)
Mr. President, let me now turn shortly to other subjects on our agenda.
In our view the negotiations on a world-wide ban of chemical weapons command
high priority. In document CD/734 we have the outlines of a treaty which, in
important parts, is already well developed. The Conference on Disarmament has
before it the task of solving the questions still open, especially in the
field of verification, as rapidly as possible.
Concerning the verification of non-production, it is in our view
important that the selection of substances which are to be forbidden or
controlled should satisfy the criteria of possible use, or better misuse, for
military purposes. It would not be a sensible contribution to the solution of
that problem if we included in that selection substances which are militarily
irrelevant.
As to challenge inspection, we still see in CD/715 the model which could
finally satisfy all interests. We appeal to our partners in this negotiation
to co-operate in the search of a solution because it is this co-operation
which is the true expression of credibility of negotiating partners.
Readiness to adopt CD/715, as expressed in principle by formerly hesitant
delegations, is welcome as long as the conceptual approach of this proposal is
not diluted. We will, in this context, screen carefully what the Soviet
delegation has said this morning, which lends itself to the interpretation
that the Soviet delegation now accepts the principle of mandatory or
obligatory challenge inspections; but as I say, we will have to look at the
text very closely and see what the other conditions which go along with it
will mean. A procedural arrangement for example prior to an
on-challenge-inspection that would put into question the inspection itself, or
in any case delay it, is not acceptable to us. We are convinced that an
effective verification of a chemical-weapon ban is attainable if the controls
on non-production and challenge inspections are adequately formed. What has
to be secured is that the Convention can reliably prevent that militarily
significant amounts of chemical weapons or their precursors from being
produced or stocked secretly. The methods and volume of the controls must be
realistic, credible and effective. These are the essentials and we think that
within the near future we could make decisive progress in this field. We are
ready to co-operate.
My delegation welcomes the long-established Finnish initiative to provide
advice for the necessary monitoring equipment and technical means for
verification purposes. I understand that the recent special workshop on
automatic monitoring in terms of detection of alleged used, verification of
destruction and non-production in Helsinki is another step towards the common
goal of effective verification. My Government looks forward to the
communication of the results of this workshop.
We noted with interest the reference which the Romanian delegation made
in our CW negotiations to the Document of the Stockholm Conference which was
taken up today. Indeed, the most important aspect of the Stockholm Conference
is the agreement on on-site inspections without refusal. Thereby, obligatory
on-site inspection has been recognized as an essential element of effective
verification for any arms control and disarmament agreement. We think this is
an essential breakthrough to which we attach great importance in light of the
whole arms control process. But then, Stockholm is not part of the true arms
502
npriaccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
18
(Mr. von STI.JLPNAGEL, Federal Republic of Germany)
control process. It is a measure of confidence-building measures, and not
what we are doing here in the realm of chemical weapons, disarmament
measures. As my delegation pointed out in our Plenary Statement of 5 February
of this year already challenge inspections should cover all possible
installations and all locations -- they all must be "challenge inspection
objects", and there we differ from what we have heard this morning.
My delegation hopes that it will be possible to agree on a mandate for
our discussions about space and the possible arms race in space. We think it
useful to screen all aspects even more profoundly than we did last year.
Concerning radiological weapons, we think that after the reinstitution of
our Ad Hoc Committee what is needed now is informal consultations, to enable
us to find out how our work in both tracks, A and B, could possibly proceed.
If it proves that the forced merger of the two tracks renders us unable to
speak at all about those aspects of the problem which might otherwise be
solvable, then we should find a way to address the unitarian approach. The
public in all our countries justifiably awaits answers from the Conference on
Disarmament on this issue.
In iccordance with the unanimously adopted resolution 41/421 of the
First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly all delegations should
now endeavour to contribute in a realistic way to the finalization of the
Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament, if possible in the given time-frame.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of the Federal Republic of
Germany for his statement and for his kind words addressed to the President.
I now give the floor to the representative of the German Democratic Republic,
Ambassador Rose.
Mr. ROSE (German Democratic Republic): Comrade President, I have already
had an opportunity to congratulate you, on behalf of my delegation, on your
assumption of the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. Allow me to
extend a warm welcome to the newly arrived Ambassadors of Algeria, Brazil,
France, Italy, Japan, Romania, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. I wish them
all the best in their office as Heads of their countries' delegations to the
Conference on Disarmament. On behalf of my delegation, I should like to
express our deepest sympathy to the United States delegation on the unexpected
passing away of its chief delegate, Ambassador Donald Lowitz.
A comparison of the initial situation at this session with that of last
year reveals new elements propitious to our work. At the same time, we are
compelled to note that the arms race has not slowed down and that arsenals
have not become smaller. The entire international situation remains
exceedingly complex and tense. In order for it to be markedly improved, much
greater efforts are needed. With this aim in mind, socialist countries
proposed at the last session of the United Nations General Assembly that all
nations should jointly commence work on a comprehensive system of peace and
international security. The system should embrace the most important areas of
Government-to-Government relations and their interaction and bring about a
world in which peoples can look to the future without having to worry about
their existence and without the tremendous burden of armaments on their
shoulders.
503
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000inninnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
19
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
The main thrust of this great project is to free mankind, even during
this century, from nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction, as
suggested by the Soviet Union at the outset of the Year of Peace. This
initiative goes hand-in-hand with the Budapest Appeal, which calls for a
dramatic cut in conventional forces and armaments in Europe.
In this context, we attach great importance to the decisions taken by the
non-aligned movement and the signatories of the Delhi Declaration, which aim
in the same direction.
Behind all these endeavours, there is the recognition that a joint
political effort will be required and that national interests must honestly
and reciprocally be respected if the security of peoples and countries is to
be guaranteed in the nuclear and space age. As far as we are concerned, this
is what the call for a fresh approach to international relations is all about.
We know full well how far some circles are from this mode of thinking.
Yet in the final analysis, they will have to meet this historic challenge,
since there is no other alternative in the face of the threatened annihilation
of the human race. In yesterday's address to the International Forum for A
Nuclear-Free World, General Secretary Gorbachev put it in this way: "The
question is like this: either the political mentality is geared to the
requirements of the times, or civilization and life itself on Earth may
perish".
Naturally, the socialist countries' initiatives do not only seek to
brighten the horizons for future development. They must also be considered as
offers of practical measures to be tackled right now.
Seen in this light, the Reykjavik meeting was an especially outstanding
event. It is among the first things to be mentioned whenever reference is
made to new elements. The emerging possibility of radical disarmament
measures is an encouraging sign and fosters determination to labour still more
committedly for the cessation of the insane arms race. However, irritation on
the part of certain quarters has not escaped our attention either. Those
concerned regard Reyjavik as an accident and long to return to the
status quo ante. What we, in turn, urge countries to do is to build on the
results achieved in Reyjavik and translate them into concrete agreements. In
particular, the aim must be to reduce strategic weapons by 50 per cent within
the next five years, to eliminate medium-range weapons in Europe and to
strengthen the ABM regime. The German Democratic Republic has declared on
this score that the countermeasures taken on its territory could be reversed
once medium-range missiles are removed.
The results attained in Stockholm and at the Conference that reviewed the
Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons are unanimously judged as
an indication of broader readiness for constructive dialogue. May these
examples, showing that problems can be resolved if reason and goodwill
prevail, have a favourable impact on our forum. The same is to be hoped for
the relevant resolutions adopted at the forty-first session of the
United Nations General Assembly.
504
npclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
20
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
We are watching with keen interest and with particular satisfaction the
growing efforts aimed at curbing the arms race regionally. One such instance
is the ratification of the treaty on the nuclear-free zone in the
South Pacific. Inspired by the same principal objective, the German
Democratic Republic has proposed regional arms limitation measures in Europe,
notably a nuclear-weapon-free corridor and a zone free of chemical weapons in
central Europe. As for the reduction of forces and armaments in Europe, it is
our hope that the current talks between the members of the Warsaw Treaty
Organization and NATO may very soon lead to successful negotiations by the
parties concerned.
We would end up with a one-sided picture, if we left out of consideration
the developments running in the very opposite direction. They are alarming
indeed. The deviation from the Salt II Agreement, the mounting intensity of
attacks on the ABM Treaty and the refusal to give a positive response to the
Soviet Union's moratorium on nuclear-weapon tests are a clear indication of
the intention to continue and fuel the arms race in all fields and to extend
it to outer space.
The bilateral negotiations and talks between the USSR and the
United States appear to be making no progress on matters of substance, either
on nuclear and space arms or on the cessation of nuclear weapons testing.
These are, in brief, the conflicting circumstances under which the
Conference has begun its 1987 term. We believe whatever positive element
there is should be used to bring differing positions closer together and to
seek progress with even greater tenacity in all the fields of interest to the
Conference. This is precisely what the Deputy Foreign Ministers of socialist
countries were guided by when they met in Berlin a few weeks ago to deliberate
issues of relevance to the Conference on Disarmament. In this context, I wish
to point out that the delegation of the German Democratic Republic considers
as priority items a comprehensive ban on nuclear-weapon tests, the prohibition
of chemical weapons and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.
Certainly, we are also aware of the importance of the other subjects on the
agenda, including the call for a comprehensive disarmament programme to be
submitted to the United Nations General Assembly at its resumed
forty-first session.
Of special urgency now is that a fresh start be made on the drafting of a
treaty that provides for the complete cessation of all nuclear weapons
testing. Both the pertinent resolutions of the General Assembly and the
statements we have heard so far during the plenary debate give evidence of
broad readiness to move ahead. No doubt, the fastest way to arrive at a
treaty would be through regular negotiations. For this reason, my delegation
would prefer an appropriate mandate for a committee. In order to help prepare
the ground for an accord, it would be equally ready, however, to take part in
goal-oriented discussions about problems to be resolved. Without going into
details, I would like to point out some of the aspects which, in our
judgement, will have a major bearing on the practical approach to be chosen.
505
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
21
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
Firstly, the cessation of all nuclear-weapon tests will remain an
international task of utmost urgency. Achieving it would impact very
favourably on the entire disarmament process, and appropriate disarmament
forums should be used to pursue this goal. This Conference, however, seems to
us particularly capable of working out a universal treaty.
Secondly, we believe in the possibility of intermediate measures in the
event that a comprehensive ban on nuclear-weapon tests is recognized and
formulated as an explicit commitment.
This idea is not new to socialist countries. Just take the
Threshold Treaties of 1974 and 1976, the Soviet programme of 15 January 1986
and the proposals put forward by the USSR in Reyjavik. Clearly, a moratorium
by the Soviet Union and the United States, to which the USSR has not slammed
the door after all, would be particularly effective. It will be of crucial
importance in this regard that any partial step be geared to a comprehensive,
legally binding ban.
Thirdly, it appears indispensable to us to discuss all the elements of a
future treaty in their complexity. Any selective approach is liable to leave
out of consideration the interrelated nature of the subjects involved and
would thus not yield the desired result.
Fourthly, it will be necessary to rid the verification issue of all
political encumbrances and to resolve it in a constructive manner, in line
with the requirements of the treaty. Whatever it may take to do that is
there. We need parallelism beween the Committee's activities and the Group of
Scientific Experts, which should expeditiously prepare the level-2 data
experiment to be carried out in 1988.
My delegation takes the view that a committee should be set up as quickly
as possible. We second the proposal that two working groups should be
created -- one on matters of contents and scope of the treaty, and the other
on compliance and verification.
If we manage to establish a committee in which business-like discussions
are conducted, we must make clear their pertinence to future negotiations and
that we expect all the sides concerned to strive for real results. There must
not be repetition of some of the practices in which the 1983 working groups
indulged.
Considerable headway has been made in drawing up a convention on the
prohibition of chemical weapons, not least thanks to the laudable efforts of
the Committee's former chairmen, Ambassadors Turbanski and Cromartie. The
goal of finalizing the convention this year -- something that presents itself
as the logical consequence of this development -- is very exacting but
realistic. We fully concur with Ambassador Ek4us, Chairman of the Committee
on Chemical Weapons, that there is a positive chance right now for eliminating
chemical weapons from the globe once and for all. It must not be passed up.
A new round in the chemical arms race would all of a sudden move to a distant
future the attainment of results which we are so close to now. In fact, this
is what bad experience has taught us.
506
npriaccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
22
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
Given strong commitment to accommodation and dedicated work, we could
well rise to the occasion. The far-reaching proposals which the Soviet
delegation has just tabled are of special significance in this context and we
welcome them as yet another exemplary contribution to our work. Solving the
remaining issues of substance would speed up the negotiating process. This is
particularly true of challenge inspection, the locations of stocks and their
verification, and matters relating to the non-production of chemical weapons
in civil industry. Results are possible on the basis of existing proposals.
Once this and other blanks in the text of the convention are filled, it
will be a lot easier to work out details. We are convinced of the possibility
of an understanding on what is needed now and what could be completed at a
later stage.
We support the Chairman's desire to streamline operations of the
committee so that it is able to perform its current duties. Apart from the
efforts undertaken at the Conference proper, everything should be done to
maintain and improve the atmosphere needed for constructive work. The USSR
has suggested an agreement under which chemical weapons would be neither
produced nor deployed. Such a step would give a fresh impetus to the present
negotiations.
My delegation is gratified to note the interests evoked by the seminar on
the prohibition of chemical weapons to be organized by the German Democratic
Republic's National Pugwash Group next month. The event will focus on the
verification of the non-production of chemical weapons. The Government of the
German Democratic Republic is doing its utmost to make that seminar a success.
During the forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly,
154 countries reiterated their opposition to an arms race in outer space and
called for relevant agreements. The Conference on Disarmament has the duty to
answer this call. Reason and realism are utterly incompatible with the
strange logic that wants to eliminate weapons on Earth and, at the same time,
put most modern means of destruction in space. Hence the world-wide
resistance to the Star Wars plans. Time is pressing, as the champions of SDI
are doing everything to get weapons deployed in outer space and to create
faits accomplis. Attacks on the ABM Treaty are increasing in number. It is
thus no longer sufficient for the Conference simply to continue last year's
exchange of views. Rather, it must start direct work on practical measures
designed to head off the spread of the arms race to outer space and ensure
that space is used peacefully, for the good of all mankind. My delegation
advocates the early establishment of a committee with a relevant mandate.
In view of the fact that bilateral and multilateral negotiations
complement and stimulate each other, the following projects could, in our
opinion, be envisaged: prohibition of the use of force in outer space, as
well as from space against the Earth and vice versa; protection of satellites
and prohibition of anti-satellite weapons; and verification measures.
In conclusion, let me give you, Comrade President, the assurance that the
delegation of the German Democratic Republic is prepared and willing to do its
very best in order that the Geneva Conference on Disarmament may conclude this
year's sessions with tangible results.
507
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001_4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
23
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
the German Democratic Republic for his statement. I now give the floor to the
representative of Mongolia, Ambassador Bayart.
Mr. BAYART (Mongolia) (translated from Russian): Thank you,
Mr. President. Since this is the first time I am taking the floor allow me to
congratulate you sincerely on your assumption of the post of the President of
the Conference on Disarmament for the month of February. I wish you success
in fulfilling the important functions incumbent upon you, and I can assure you
of our aspiration to give you every help in this task. Allow me also to
express our gratitude to the distinguished representative of Canada,
Ambassador Beesley, for his able and competent leadership of the work of the
Conference last August and during the inter-sessional period. I am taking
advantage of this opportunity to associate myself with the words of welcome to
our new colleagues, the heads of the delegations of France, Romania, Japan,
Algeria, Yugoslavia, Brazil, Italy and the Soviet Union, and we wish them all
every success. We ask the delegation of the United States of America to
accept the deep condolences of the Mongolian delegation on the untimely death
of Ambassador Lowitz and to pass on to his family and friends our sincere
sympathy.
We are satisfied to note that the Conference has succeeded, as it did
last year, in adopting the agenda and programme of work and also a decision on
the creation of certain subsidiary bodies right at the start of the session.
It is to be hoped that the coming weeks will be just as productive from the
point of view of dealing with organizational questions and questions of
substance.
Since the beginning of the activities of the multilateral negotiating
body on disarmament, today known as the Conference on Disarmament, practically
a quarter of a century has passed. Possibly this date does not have any
particular meaning for the activities of the Conference on Disarmament but,
nonetheless, it is worth mentioning, not only as a reason for reviewing the
results already achieved, but rather and mainly as an encouragement for
further efforts which must be made in negotiations on disarmament. In this
respect we must admit that, with regard to the main aims of disarmament, We
have still been unable to justify the hopes of the peoples of the world and,
particularly in recent years, solutions to many vitally important and pressing
problems facing this negotiating body have been bogged down without
justification. It is high time, as stated in the appeal of the United Nations
General Assembly resolution 41/86 M, adopting the report of the Conference on
Disarmament, "to adopt concrete measures on the specific priority issues of
disarmament on its agenda, in particular those relating to
nuclear disarmament". Appeals to the Conference to fulfil its mandate in
holding negotiations in the field of disarmament are contained in many other
resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly too. To ignore these
resolutions reflecting the demands of the world's community is inadmissible,
and we are of the view that this year it is necessary to take decisive action
to speed up the work of the Conference, to achieve solutions, based on new
political thinking, which would direct its efforts towards the elaboration of
concrete agreements on problems which are ripe for such agreement.
50C
npclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
24
(Mr. Bayart, Mongolia)
The Reykjavik meeting of the heads of the world's two leading Powers and
the virtual agreements reached there, thanks to the constructive efforts by
the Soviet Union in its position on the most important questions of limiting
and eliminating nuclear arsenals in a short period, have confirmed the truth
that there are no issues in world affairs on which it is impossible to achieve
mutually acceptable agreement if there is common sense, political realism and
a feeling of responsibility for the peaceful future of mankind. This meeting
opened up a qualitatively new stage in the fight for nuclear disarmament and
has given it powerful impetus. Now the main thing we have to do is to go
forward in strengthening and developing the new situation that has come about
following the meeting in Iceland so that the spirit of Reykjavik is fully
reflected in disarmament negotiations in various forums.
The continuation of the arms race is showing itself more and more to be a
dead-end leading only to a destabilization of the situation, a pointless waste
of resources, and an increased military danger for everybody, including its
proponents. In order to stop and reverse around, practical measures are
urgent. One such measure, and one of the most important and most urgent in
our conviction, is the prohibition of nuclear tests. This question, as it
certainly deserves, has been right from the beginning of the session in the
centre of the attention of the Conference. In this connection we would like
here and now to express the hope that the new efforts being made will make it
possible finally to get this question out of its deadlock and create a
subsidiary body with a proper mandate intended to start practical work on an
agreement on a nuclear-test ban. In an atmosphere of growing general concern
about nuclear explosions, it is unacceptable that the Conference on
Disarmament should fail to deal seriously with this problem.
A few days ago we witnessed two nuclear tests carried out by the
United States. Thus, the United States has taken the step that brings about
the ending of the unprecedented USSR moratorium on all nuclear explosions.
That moratorium has quite clearly confirmed that it is possible to take
measures that can set up a firm barrier against the nuclear arms race. The
Soviet moratorium made a significant contribution to nuclear disarmament and
was a sign of new political thinking and responsibility. The moratorium has
in a sense overturned the old thesis that both the super-Powers were equally
responsible for the arms race.
Speaking at the plenary meeting of the Conference on 5 February, the head
of the Soviet delegation, Ambassador Nazarkine, stated that as a result of
events in Nevada, the Soviet Union no longer feels bound by its unilateral
moratorium on all nuclear explosions and will, in due course, begin carrying
out its own programme of nuclear tests. As you know, the Soviet Government
has repeatedly stated, including in its statement on 18 February last year,
that the Soviet Union will be obliged to renew its nuclear test after the very
first nuclear explosion by the United States in 1987. Mongolia understands
this position on the part of the Soviet Union, a position dictated exclusively
by the security interests of the Soviet Union and its allies. In this
connection one cannot but stress the obvious fact that the gap between the
number of nuclear explosions carried out by the United States and the USSR has
increased in the favour of the United States by 26 since the
Soviet moratorium. Moreover, it is no secret that the continuation of nuclear
tests in the United States of America is not aimed at keeping the nuclear
509
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
25
(Mr. Bayart, Mongolia)
arsenal in a state of readiness for war or at carrying out the doctrine of
"deterrence", but rather primarily at developing completely new forms and
types of nuclear weapons, at creating the third-generation nuclear weapons.
Mongolia is happy to note the readiness of the Soviet Union, on a basis of
mutuality, to stop carrying out its nuclear test programme at any time, and
expresses the hope that the leadership of the United States will see the need
to respond positively to the Soviet Union's goodwill.
Questions of nuclear disarmament and prevention of nuclear war continue
for us to be extremely important and have high priority. A resolution adopted
at the forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly on these
issues once again emphasized the urgent need for the Conference to begin
multilateral negotiations on them. The programme put forward by the
Soviet Union more than a year ago for the stage-by-stage complete elimination
of nuclear weapons by the year 2000, with an agreement on the prohibition of
the development, testing and use of space strike weapons, is just as relevant
today and could be the basis for consideration of nuclear disarmament issues
by the Conference on Disarmament. One of the most important measures intended
to prevent nuclear war, as we see it, remains the adoption by all nuclear
States of an undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. It
should be emphasized in this connection that the United Nations
General Assembly in its resolution 41/86 B asked the Conference on Disarmament
to examine the question of the elaboration of an international instrument of a
legally binding character which would contain a formulation of such an
obligation.
Mongolia is happy to note that the Soviet Union and your country,
Mr. President, the People's Republic of China, have assumed the obligation not
to be the first to use nuclear weapons. We can only welcome the fact too that
both these Powers recently signed Protocols II and III of the Rarotonga Treaty
on the creation of a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific, which deserves
general approval. We think that the aim of this Treaty is in keeping with our
proposal for the creation of a mechanism for excluding the use of force among
States of Asia and the Pacific. If these examples were-to be followed by the
other nuclear States, it would really be a concrete contribution to the
strengthening of confidence among States and a reduction of the threat of
nuclear war. Confidence needs to be strengthened by deeds and not by words.
One cannot demand confidence from others if one reserves for oneself the
freedom to continue nuclear tests and to torpedo the most important agreements.
The Reykjavik meeting has confirmed that unless the threat of the arms
race spreading to space is removed, it is impossible to agree on a reduction
and elimination of strategic nuclear weapons. Thus, the meeting has once
again cast light upon the key significance of the solution to this problem for
preserving and strengthening peace and stability on Earth.
Today, the need to set up a firm barrier against the proliferation of the
arms race into space is stronger than it ever has been. The proponents of the
Strategic Defence Initiative are setting about speeding up the deployment of
the individual elements in space and are trying in this way to shift to a
broad interpretation of the ABM Treaty. In General Assembly resolution 41/53
the international community once again unambiguously expressed itself in
favour of preventing the arms race in space and the holding of negotiations on
510 .
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
26
(Mr. Bayart, Mongolia)
the conclusion of an agreement or agreements on this question. It is
essential now to start negotiations urgently on specific aspects of this
problem, bearing in mind the final aim of the non-admissibility of arms in
space. The proposal concerning the elaboration of an international agreement
on ensuring immunity for artificial Earth satellites and the prohibition of
the development, testing or use of anti-satellite systems, and the elimination
of existing systems of that kind, seems in our opinion to be extremely
realistic and fully in accordance with the general aspiration to keep space
free from weaponry and to use it for peaceful and creative purposes.
We must as soon as possible re-establish the Ad Hoc Committee on
Outer Space this year, and avoid creating a situation like the one which arose
in the past, where the whole of the first part of the session was wasted on
agreeing on the mandate and the programme of work of the Committee.
We are inspired by the general aim to complete this year the elaboration
of a convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons. The course of the
negotiations warrants our iudgement that this optimism is not built on sand.
The inter-sessional consultations last year and the session of the Ad Hoc
Committee in January this year have been very productive from the point of
view of dealing with several complicated technical questions. Taking this
into consideration, and taking into account the recommendation of the
consensus resolution 41/58 D of the United Nations General Assembly, the
Ad Hoc Committee could work without interruption to achieve the conclusion of
the convention.
And now, in order to turn the possible into the real, and hopes into
practical deeds, what is needed, as was very accurately and rightly stated by
the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Prez de Cu4llar, in his
message to the Conference, are political compromises. An example of this kind
of political compromise, of a constructive search for mutually acceptable
solutions, is the new and important proposals by the Soviet Union, described
by Ambassador Nazarkine in his statement today, to deal with various important
questions of the future convention concerning the prohibition of chemical
weapons. These proposals, in our opinion, will no doubt encourage further
progress at the negotiations to find a way to deal with the outstanding
issues. They go a long way to taking account of the positions and the
interests of the various partners and reflect the responsible approach of the
Soviet Union in expressing new political thinking with regard to the cause of
peace and disarmament. We hope that other participants in the negotiations
will show the same readiness for compromise, so that, as far as possible, in
the very near future the drafting of the convention will be completed.
In our opinion, the Ad Hoc Committee can achieve success in the
outstanding issues of principle such as non-production of chemical weapons in
commercial industry, procedures for the destruction of the CW production base
and the question of challenge inspection, if it avoids wasting valuable time
in discussing technical details of a secondary nature. After the questions of
principle have been resolved, such technical details could be relatively
easily settled.
511
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
27
(Mr. Bayart, Mongolia)
We, like other delegations, highly appreciate the contribution made by
Ambassador Turbanski and Ambassador Cromartie in achieving the successes which
have been obtained thus far, and we are convinced that under the guidance of
the new Chairman, Ambassador Ekeus, the Ad Hoc Committee will achieve further
decisive progress.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Mongolia for his statement and for his kind words addressed to the President.
I now come to the last speaker on my list for today, the representative of
Egypt, Ambassador Alfarargi.
Mr. ALFARARGI (Egypt): Mr. President, allow me first to express to you
our happiness to see you presiding over the Conference on Disarmament at the
start of its 1987 session. I would like also to voice my appreciation for the
way you are directing its work. This comes as no surprise from an able
diplomat like yourself, and from a State like China, which you represent, and
because of the special iesponsibility it carries as one of the Great Powers
and because of its unique status within the Conference. I am confident that
this status will enable you to present many initiatives to allay the
difficulties slowing the pace of the work of the Conference.
Permit me also to avail myself of this opportunity to express our
gratitude to Ambassador Alan Beesley, the representative of Canada, for his
efforts during August 1986, and throughout the inter-sessional period.
I am saddened today by the absence from our midst of
Ambassador Donald Lowitz, the representative of the United States of America,
whose untimely death is a loss for his country, the Conference and his friends
who worked with him and came to be closely acquainted with his noble
qualities. I kindly ask the United States delegation to convey my heartfelt
condolences to his widow and to the other members of his family.
It gives me pleasure to welcome the new representatives who joined the
Conference, Ambassadors Youri Nazarkine of the Soviet Union, Aldo Pugliese of
Italy, Rubens Antonio Barbosa of Brazil, Jorge Morelli of Peru, Kamel Hacene
of Algeria, Gheorge Dolgu of Romania, Pierre Morel of France, Chusei Yamada of
Japan and Marko Kosin of Yugoslavia. I am confident that each one of them
will bring his own positive contribution to the work of the Conference.
Normally, a new session of the Conference on Disarmament is opened
against a background of optimism, of looking forward with hope to the
possibility of achieving progress in the work of the Conference. But how can
this be the case today when we see the start of this session coinciding with
the continuation and escalation of both the nuclear and the conventional arms
race; when we see the persistence of the trend to extend it from land, sea
and air into outer space and a continuation of the attempts to achieve
military superiority and nuclear deterrence. All this goes on without regard
to the existing arms limitation and disarmament treaties, whether they be
bilateral or multilateral; without feeling bound by the pledges already made
in the Geneva Joint Statement of January 1985, or those made at the Geneva
Summit November 1985, where it was pledged to prevent an arms race in outer
space and to terminate it on Earth, not to seek military superiority, and
acknowledged that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. All
512
neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
28
(Mr. Alfarargi, Egypt)
this is happening without any consideration to the security of the great
majority of States or their interests, a great majority of States that find
themselves drawn forcibly into untold dangers and threatened with annihilation.
The situation we face today must give rise to pessimism and generate a
feeling of frustration. There is simply no other way out of this sad state of
affairs but to comply with existing treaties on arms limitation and
disarmament, both in letter and spirit. We have to strengthen such treaties
through the conclusion of yet more treaties. This necessitates generating
momentum in the bilateral negotiations in response to the high hopes pinned on
them. The spirit of Reykjavik must be maintained. This also requires
enabling the Conference on Disarmament to break out of the state of paralysis
it has reached, by making it possible for the Conference to undertake the
tasks entrusted to it instead of persisting to raise doubts about the scope of
its mandate or continuing to obstruct its work. Bilateral and multilateral
negotiations are not alternatives to one another but rather complement and
sustain each otheD. Such efforts must be guided by the world conscience and
the international will as reflected in the resolutions of the United Nations
General Assembly. They must respond to the appeals contained in the
declarations of the Non-Aligned Movement and the six countries representing
the five continents.
Like the majority of States we are of the view that a nuclear-test ban is
a necessary first step if we are really serious in our attempt to prevent the
vertical and horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons and to achieve
nuclear disarmament, thus protecting the world from the scourge of a nuclear
war. Hence our increasing concern about the insistence of some nuclear-weapon
States to persevere in their nuclear tests usina, as a pretext, the arguments
of maintaining their capacity of nuclear deterrence, to ensure the worthiness
of their nuclear weapon stocks, and their doubts about the effectiveness of
verification procedures under the technology presently available. All these
arguments are not valid. They are merely used to justify the continuation of
nuclear tests. They were refuted by many previous speakers in this same
room. It is regrettable that some of these States are parties to, even
depositaries of, both the treaties on the partial ban of nuclear testing and
the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. These States have pledged to work
towards a comprehensive test ban, the cessation of the nuclear-arms race and
nuclear disarmament. They were expected to lead the way towards a
consolidated non-proliferation regime and thus encourage the States not
parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to accede to
it. But the same States, by their present conduct, can lose their credibility
as an ideal to be followed. In fact they are encouraging the States not
parties to remain outside the Treaty, and worse, to develop further their own
nuclear capabilities. And this is another cause for our concern, particularly
when we know that among such States some are situated in the Middle East, and
the racist regime in South Africa. By remaining outside the NPT and
developing their nuclear capabilities they threaten to engulf the two regions
in a nuclear conflict. This would have grave consequences not only for the
two regions, but for the world at large.
In this context, we welcome every step which would help to achieve the
objective of a nuclear-test ban. We object to every action that diverts us
from this goal. Once more we welcome the decision by the Soviet Union to
513
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
29
(Mr. Alfarargi, Egypt)
impose a unilateral moratorium on its nuclear tests as of 6 August 1985. We
welcome their decision to renew this moratorium repeatedly. We regret that
the other nuclear States, particularly the United States, did not respond in
kind, and all the more so in view of the fact that nobody raised doubts about
the sincerity of the Soviet Union in honouring its decision. We understand
the Soviet Union's decision not to be bound by the unilateral moratorium any
longer. We still deem it necessary for the nuclear States to declare a
moratorium on their nuclear tests, thus creating the required climate to
negotiate a nuclear-test-ban treaty.
We also welcome the decision by the United States Administration to
transmit to the Congress, for ratification, the two draft treaties on
threshold and peaceful nuclear explosions. This came after a long wait. But
we hope that they will be ratified at the earliest possible opportunity. We
feel satisfied at the news that President Reagan and General Secretary
Gorbachev touched upon the issue of a nuclear-test ban during their last
meeting in Reykjavik, considering the possibility of an agreement on the
reduction of the number and yield of nuclear tests and appropriate
verification procedures.
But while welcoming all these steps our objective will remain that of
concluding a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty. The Conference on
Disarmament will remain the optimum framework to conclude such a treaty,
giving it the universality we all hope for. That is why we regret the failure
of the Conference on Disarmament, during its last three sessions, to
re-establish the Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Test Ban, in spite of the many
attempts made to reach a compromise. We hope that the Conference will succeed
in its present session in re-establishing the Ad Hoc Committee and in ending
the deadlock on this issue. Undoubtedly General Assembly resolution 41/46 A
provides a good basis for such an action. It contains many concessions that
were described to us in the past stages of the work of the Conference as
conducive to a softening in the position of the objecting States. The
resolution also reflects the extent of flexibility of the States that
sponsored and voted in favour of it. This is a positive development that
should not be underestimated and should meet with a positive response.
Egypt was one of the first States to accede to the Geneva Protocol of
1925 for the prohibition of the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
Egypt was at the forefront of the States that signed the convention on the
prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological
weapons and on their destruction, although the circumstances prevailing in our
region prevented us from speeding up its ratification. From this background
and in the framework of the continuity of Egyptian policy, we fully support
the current efforts to conclude a treaty on the prohibition of the
development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons and on their
destruction.
Egypt will not hesitate to exert every effort to achieve this objective.
We look forward to a treaty that fully and effectively bans the development,
production and stockpiling of chemical weapons and their destruction; a
treaty that does not, however, impede the peaceful chemical activities. We
aspire to a treaty which includes effective verification provisions without
such procedures that would exceed the actual requirements of the treaty, or be
514
narlaccifipn in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
30
(Mr. Alfarargi, Egypt)
used as an indirect means to threaten the national security of the States
parties. We believe that acceding to the treaty will depend to a large extent
on the provisions it contains providing for international co-operation to
develop the peaceful uses of chemical industries. In this context we welcome
the decision by the Ad Hoc Committee to consider this aspect of the treaty
during its current session. Lastly, I would like to mention the fact that
concluding a treaty which is acceptable to all parties and to which all would
accede is one of the prerequisites for its acquiring universality.
Allow me on this occasion to express my thanks to Ambassador Cromartie,
the representative of the United Kingdom, for his efforts during his
chairmanship of the Ad Hoc Committee in the previous session. May I also
congratulate Ambassador Ekeus, the representative of Sweden, on his assumption
of the Chairmanship of the Ad Hoc Committee in the present session. We all
know the role played, and being played, by the delegation of Sweden,
particularly by Ambassador Ekeus personally, in the ongoing negotiations to
conclude a treaty banning chemical weapons. We wish him all success in his
task. We hope that the Ad Hoc Committee will conclude the draft treaty in
time to present it to the United Nations General Assembly at its
forty-second session in accordance with its resolution 41/58 B.
The progress we have achieved in the realms of science and technology is
an indisputable fact. What is more, it is an ongoing phenomenon, day after
day. Space technology available today represents the new link in the chain of
evolution and advancement with both its useful and harmful facets affecting
humanity. It has useful aspects, because each addition to the technological
discoveries and inventions represents a new victory, increasing the welfare of
the human being by what it provides to fulfil his aspirations to prosperity
and the raising of his living standards. It has also harmful facets, by what
is achieved by its military facet, the destructive power in the service of the
selfish tendencies of the States able to exploit this technology militarly to
impose their hegemony and to introduce it in the arms race, thus escalating
the race to extremely dangerous heights, where security and serenity are
neutralized, even for the States that do not take part in the race.
This explains why the prevention of an arms race in outer space is
imposing itself as a priority item on the agenda of all international forums
and meetings dealing with arms limitations and disarmament. This is
particularly true since the United States declared its Strategic Defence
Initiative. Today there is quasi international consensus that the extension
of the arms race to outer space and the implementation of the SDI are a
serious escalation of the arms race that will have grave consequences in all
fields, political, military and economic.
If we spoke a few years ago about the possible availability of the
necessary technology for the development and production of space weapon
systems, and if we had tried then to imagine the dangers that would attend
such a development, it therefore becomes a source of deep concern when we hear
today that it has proved possible to achieve such progress in acquiring the
necessary technology for the production of such weapon systems. We are
worried to hear those who call for hastening the production and deployment of
the said systems, in such a way that the danger becomes an actual reality,
where it was but a mere possibility in the past.
515
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001 onnni-et
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
31
(Mr. Alfarargi, Egypt)
What complicates the issue even more is the seeking of some States to
participate in the SDI. If the avowed objective of their action is to extract
purely commercial profits, we are sure that the participation of other States
in this programme will provide them with advanced technology which will help,
sooner or later, to proliferate space weapons and will contribute, directly or
indirectly, to improving the performance level of a conventional weapon
system. The matter becomes more serious when, among such States, we find Some
that are situated in areas where tension prevails already, particularly when
previous efforts to bind such States to one or more of the treaties on arms
limitations and disarmament have already failed.
How we wish that the mastering of space technology and the new horizons
it conquered will remain confined to serving humanity and increasing its
welfare! How we wish that outer space, as a common heritage of humanity, may
be explored and exploited exclusively for peaceful purposes!
If in the past we called for the possibility to conclude an agreement or
agreements for the prevention of an arms race in outer space, this call
becomes more urgent in the light of the current developments. Undoubtedly,
the prevention of an arms race in outer space is easier at present, before the
space Powers multiply and militarize outer space in such a way as to impede
the efforts in the field of arms limitations and disarmament, if it does not
destroy the whole fabric. Here, we are at a loss as to how to perceive the
fact that the declared objective of the bilateral negotiations between the
two super-Powers is to prevent an arms race in outer space, while at the same
time the United States is developing, with the purpose of their deployment,
space weapon systems about which negotiations are going on for their
prohibition and the destruction of existing systems.
Here again, if there are priorities to be set, in the light of the
present developments, we deem it necessary to take action to achieve: first,
the halting of the development of anti-satellite weapons and the dismantling
of the existing systems; second, the prohibition of the introduction of new
weapons systems into outer space; and third, ensuring that the existing
treaties safeguarding the peaceful uses of outer space, as well as the
1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Antiballistic Missile Systems are fully
honoured, strengthened and extended as necessary in the light of recent
technological advances.
In the face of the present situation with all its ramifications, we
cannot but express our dissatisfaction with the attempts to raise obstacles to
prevent the Conference on Disarmament being entrusted with carrying out the
required negotiations to conclude an agreement or agreements, as appropriate,
to prevent an arms race in outer space, particularly bearing in mind that the
record of the bilateral negotiations gives no cause for optimism, since they
have failed to achieve any progress until the present. What is more, this
failure in the item on outer space resulted in impeding the possibilities of
agreement in other areas. General Assembly resolution 41/53 reaffirms the
primary role of the Conference on Disarmament in negotiating a multilateral
agreement or agreements, as appropriate, on the prevention of an arms race in
outer space in all its aspects. Notwithstanding the important work done by
the Ad Hoc Committee during the last two sessions, there must be a more
specific link between the Committee's work, in any particular stage, and the
516
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
32
(Mr. Alfarargi, Egypt)
final objective unanimously endorsed by the international community, namely to
conclude an agreement or agreements for the prevention of an arms race in
outer space. We hope that the Ad Hoc Committee will speedily overcome the
procedural difficulties concerning the agreement on an appropriate mandate and
a programme of work that ensures that its work will take the right direction
towards the final objective of its activities.
It was not by coincidence that the issue of the prohibition of attacks on
nuclear facilities, within the framework of the item on the prohibition of
radiological weapons, received such attention by the great majority of States
members in the Conference. This is an expression by these States of the
interests of the greater part of the world community. This fact has been
reflected by many United Nations General Assembly resolutions, the last of
which is resolution 41/59 I, and by resolutions of other international
groupings. This concern arises from the desire of many States to build
nuclear reactors in order to benefit from nuclear technology for peaceful
purposes. At the same time, the same States are keen that such an action on
their part will not make them hostages to the dangers of nuclear radiation
resulting from any attack on their facilities.
The Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear reactor was a living
example of what nuclear facilities could be subjected to. The Chernobyl
accident was another case in point of the dangerous effects of nuclear
radiation on environment and population. We thought that the two incidents
were ample evidence to validate our view about the importance and the need for
the Conference on Disarmament to deal with the issue of prohibition of attack
on nuclear facilities, particularly since many other international forums have
transmitted the subject to the Conference for consideration. That is why we
are concerned about the persistence of some members in voicing doubts about
the competence of the Conference to consider this issue. We regret to have to
note a clear regression in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee during its past
session. If we are keen about the consideration of this issue by the
Conference, at the same time we do not underestimate the difficulties and
varying security considerations of the member States, nor the necessity of
reaching solutions that are satisfactory and acceptable to all. We are of the
view that the right way is through further negotiations. We have to explore
new approaches and proposals to deal with this issue. But the way does not
lie in some members deliberately raising obstacles to the work of the
Ad Hoc Committee, even going so far as preventing its re-establishment.
The importance we attach to the prohibition of attacks on nuclear
facilities should not be interpreted as an attempt to diminish the importance
of the issue of prohibition of radiological weapons. We believe that if it is
unacceptable to some to concentrate on the prohibition of attacks on nuclear
facilities, then, and regardless of the fact that we do believe that
prohibition of an actual threat has priority over the prohibition of a
potential threat, let us at least consider both issues simultaneously.
Needless to say, my referring to a limited number of the items on the
agenda of our Conference in my statement, and my having specified Egypt's
position regarding them, does not in any way diminish the importance we attach
to the other items. We hope that the Ad Hoc Committee on the Comprehensive
Programme of Disarmament, under its able Chairman, Ambassador Garcia Robles,
517
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001_4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
33
(Mr. Alfarargi, Egypt)
the representative of Mexico, will succeed in preparing the draft before the
end of the first part of the present session so as to present it to the
forty-first session of the General Assembly. We are confident that this is
possible provided there is the political will and if the positions of the
different States are adequately flexible, particularly concerning the nuclear
paragraphs of the programme, the stages of implementation and the time-frame.
We agree with the view of the members who called for the necessity that
the item on negative security assurances be given the importance it deserves
by the Conference. We believe that the provision of such guarantees in a
legally binding international document, with no conditions attached, is a
legitimate and just demand on the part of the non-nuclear States. We are
confident that the Ad Hoc Committee, if reactivated, will be able to reach the
appropriate formula to satisfy this demand.
We also think that the establishment of ad hoc committees, with
appropriate mandates, is the best framework to consider both the items on the
cessation of nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, and the prevention of
nuclear war including all related matters, in accordance with the relevant
resolutions of the General Assembly.
We do not deny that the international climate and the relations between
the two super-Powers in general, and the stages reached in their bilateral
negotiations in particular, have their impact, whether positive or negative,
on our Conference. But regardless of our apprehension of the effect of these
factors, we deem it necessary for the Conference to succeed in generating its
own momentum for its work. This must be done in such a way that the
Conference is able to carry out the tasks specified to it by the Final
Document of the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to
disarmament. It is our view that the holding of the third special session in
1988 is an opportunity for the Conference to confirm its credibility by
presenting to that session specific draft treaties on arms limitations and
disarmament, treaties that would provide the peoples of the world with peace
and security through which they can achieve progress and enjoy prosperity.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Egypt for his statement and for his kind words addressed to the President and
for the country that the President represents. That concludes my list of
speakers for today. Does any other member wish to take the floor? I now give
the floor to the representative of Mexico.
Mr. GARCfA ROBLES (Mexico) (translated from Spanish): The distinguished
representatives will have received today the document that has been circulated
under number CD/739. This contains a letter signed by four permanent
representatives, those of Argentina, India, Sweden and Mexico, containing a
request that the Conference publish and distribute as a document of the
Conference the joint statement that the leaders of six countries, the authors
of the Initiative for Peace and Disarmament, issued on the eve of the
New Year. In this joint statement, there is one paragraph -- that is,
paragraph 6 -- which refers specifically to the question of a moratorium that
might serve as a first step towards achieving a treaty putting an end to
nuclear tests. I felt that since that subject is specifically on the agenda
of this Conference it was relevant for me to read out the part that seemed
518
neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.389
34
(Mr. Garcia Robles, Mexico)
most relevant. It reads as follows: "There is no justification for nuclear
testing by any country. We appeal once again to the United States to
reconsider its policy on nuclear testing so that a bilateral moratorium can be
established. Our offer to help ensure adequate verification of such a
moratorium remains valid. We are ready to start implementing it at any
moment."
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of Mexico for his statement.
Does any other member wish to take the floor? And I see none. You will
recall that as an exception to the agreement reached at our last plenary
meeting, the Conference will hold its next plenary meeting on Thursday,
19 February, at 10.30 a.m. On that occasion we might need to have a brief
informal meeting once the list of speakers is exhausted, to consider a request
from a non-member to participate in the work of the Conference. As there is
no other business to consider, I intend now to adjourn the plenary meeting.
The plenary meeting stands adjourned.
The meeting rose at 12.45 p.m.
519
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001_4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.390
19 February 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND NINETIETH PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 19 February 1987, at 10.30 a.m.
President:
GE.87-60223/7254E
Mr. Fan Guoxiang (China)
520
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I call to order the
390th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
First of all, I wish to extend a warm welcome on behalf of the Conference
to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, His Excellency Mr. Jean-Bernard
Raimond, who will be the first to address this plenary today. The Minister is
a distinguished career diplomat who has served his country in several
important diplomatic posts in Member States of this Conference. It may be
fitting to recall that His Excellency is no stranger to Geneva and the
Palais des Nations, as he was a member of the French Delegation to the
Conference of Experts on the Prevention of Surprise Attack, held here in
1958. I am sure that all members join me in expressing our appreciation to
him for finding the time to come here to convey the views of his Government on
the issues of disarmament, in spite of a very heavy schedule. His very
presence here is a clear indication of the importance the Government of France
attaches to matters concerning disarmament. In conformity with its programme
of work, the Conference continues today its consideration of agenda items 1,
"Nuclear-Test Ban" and 2, "Cessation of the Nuclear-Arms Race and Nuclear
Disarmament". In accordance with rule 30 of the rules of procedure, however,
any member wishing to do so may raise any subject relevant to the work of the
Conference. I have on my list of speakers for today the representatives of
France and Czechoslovakia. I now give the floor to the first speaker on my
list, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, His Excellency .
Mr. Jean-Bernard Raimond.
Mr. RAIMOND (France) (translated from French): Mr. President, allow me
at the outset to tell you how happy I am to be taking the floor today before
the Conference on Disarmament. I would like to take this opportunity to
associate myself with the tribute paid by all delegations to the memory of the
representative of the United States to the Conference, Mr. Lowitz. I am happy
that as chance would have it, China is presiding over our work today. This
circumstance gives me the opportunity to greet the representative of a great
country which is the friend of France. Its foreign policy is based, like
ours, on independence of action. Its security policy, like that of France,
rests on exclusive control over its forces. China is, like my country, a
nuclear and space Power. I do not hesitate to say here that in this capacity
too she, for her part, is contributing to the balance of force, and therefore
to peace. Like France, China decided eight years ago to participate in the
new Committee on Disarmament which has since become the Conference.
The last address delivered by a member of the French Government before
your Conference dates back to 1979. At the time We were marking the
transformation of a sui generis institution organized around the
co-chairmanship of the Soviet Union and the United States into a multilateral
negotiating body. This change, and in particular the abolition of the
co-chairmanship, was something which in 1978 France had made the condition for
its participation in the new institution.
The question facing us at the time was whether there was room for
multilateral negotiations in parallel with the bilateral Soviet-American
negotiations. There were some who invoked the so-called law attributed to
George Kennan according to which the chances of negotiations achieving
anything are in inverse proportion to the number of participants involved, and
521
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
3
(Mr. Raimond, France)
argued that any multilateral forum dealing with disarmament would be
inefficient or indeed useless. I would like to recall here that this is not
France's position.
The work being done by your Conference in the field of chemical weapons
is second to that of no other forum as regards the seriousness of its approach.
On the question of conventional weapons, last September's success at the
Stockholm Conference, in another framework, that of the CSCE, showed that
there is no need to be only two parties in order to complete and conclude the
first agreement between East and West for a decade. Certainly,
confidence-building measures are a limited sphere; however, nobody would
underestimate their implications for Europe, nor their significance for arms
control, inasmuch as they have endorsed the principle of on-site inspection.
The day before yesterday, in Vienna, there was a meeting in the French
Embassy -- the first in a series of informal consultations -- to find out
whether it is possible to build on the achievements of Stockholm in the field
of conventional disarmament at the same time as in that of confidence-building
measures. Here again my country insists that each participant in the CSCE
should speak on its own behalf and that negotiations should not turn into a
bloc-to-bloc confrontation.
France is in favour of disarmament agreements which are verifiable and
part of a progressive process. The maintenance of the right to security of
each State throughout this process is in our view its necessary corollary.
France will therefore never accept that its forces or its territory should be
affected by any negotiations to which France is not a party or in which she
has not spoken on her own behalf. This right which she claims for herself she
naturally recognizes for other countries.
At the opening of this new session of the Conference there is a
prevailing feeling that negotiations on arms control and disarmament are at a
turning point. The resumption of the Soviet-American dialogue in 1985 led,
four months ago, to the Reykjavik meeting. That meeting left many observers
bewildered.
As I had occasion to say in December, from the Reykjavik talks public
opinion noted, rightly or wrongly, that the United States could, if necessary,
change its strategy, give up its ballistic missiles in Europe and, more
particularly, bring about an evolution in its contribution towards deterrence
in which recourse to conventional means would play a greater part. It also
noted from this meeting that the USSR stated that it was prepared to rid
itself within 10 years of the strategic investment which it has been making
continuously for a quarter of a century. There is nothing intrinsically wrong
with conjuring up new worlds, which one would naturally hope would be better
ones. It can be intellectually stimulating to imagine the adoption of new
strategies for tomorrow or the day after.
In Reykjavik the United States and the Soviet Union exchanged proposals
and counter-proposals concerning remote, probably utopian, horizons; but we
should be careful not to endanger the foundations of our security today.
522
nna-Inecifiari in Part - sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
4
(Mr. Raimond, France)
As many European leaders emphasized, in the disarmament field, we must
now concentrate on what is realistic, possible and desirable.
For us, specifically, this can be summarized in three points.
First, we hope that the objectives agreed upon by the Soviet Union and
the United States in Reykjavik can be achieved, that is, the reduction of
50 per cent of their strategic arsenals over five years. It goes without
saying that this would be a considerable result, without equivalent in the
history of arms control negotiations, and obviously we would be extremely
happy about it. In that case why, paradoxically, detract in advance from this
five-year objective by setting up against it much more doubtful 10-year
objectives?
Secondly, we should ensure the maintenance of the ABM Treaty for a
mutually agreed period, followed by a period in which, if appropriate, it
would be changed by negotiation, as was sought in Reykjavik.
At present, as everybody knows, a debate is underway on the problem of
interpreting the ABM Treaty in relation to the research programmes being
carried out in the United States as well as in the Soviet Union. This is not
a new argument, and should be carefully distinguished from the question of the
early deployment of defensive systems. That would go beyond what was
authorized in 1972, that is, the possibility of deploying a hundred
antiballistic interceptors around a single site, as had been done in Moscow.
My country's position with respect to the interpretation of the
ABM Treaty clauses starts from an obvious point: the ABM Treaty is
essentially bilateral and there has never been any question of considering its
extension to other countries. So, it is up to the two signatory countries to
determine for themselves what today is in keeping with the provisions laid
down in 1972, taking account of new technological developments; what goes
beyond the agreed provisions of the Treaty; and what modalities can or cannot
be used to make changes in the Treaty. Whatever solution may be found, I add
that it would have to be agreed upon bilaterally.
We are attached to maintaining the ABM Treaty, as our representative had
occasion to recall in 1984 before your Conference. We therefore hope to see
it respected by both parties, including with respect to research activities.
These are clearly permitted by the Treaty. To avoid any technological
surprises is an element of the Treaty's stability and thus of its durability.
Finally, a third objective should be the reduction of American and Soviet
intermediate-range missiles in Europe over the same period of five years. The
zero option was implicitly accepted in 1979 by our partners in the Alliance
and explicitly proposed by them in 1981. The political reasons for this are
well known. However, the situation in 1987 is different. In 1981 our
partners in the Alliance had proposed renouncing the deployment announced, but
not yet been carried out, in exchange for a reduction in the number of
missiles existing on the Soviet side. In 1987 there are intermediate-range
missiles on both sides, but not in the same quantities. Therefore, the
523
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001nnnni_A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
5
(Mr. Raimond, France)
implementation tomorrow of such a formula, which in any case would have to be
accompanied by a very detailed timetable and verification measures, must not
lead to a situation of diminished security for Europe.
The implementation of a possible zero option agreement between the
United States and the USSR therefore supposes that the security of Europe
should be perserved. This means, firstly, that the possibility of getting
round the agreement (over or under it) must be avoided. I am thinking more
particularly of the question of shorter-range missiles, a matter of concern,
quite rightly, not only to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
but also to the governments of other European countries. And secondly, it
means that the consequences of the present conventional imbalances must not be
further aggravated. This last point is rather a statement of the obvious, but
we must still not lose sight of it: we do not recall that it was raised at
Reykjavik.
These prospects are of direct concern to Europe and its security.
Europe, as the President of the French Republic observed, "remains divided
between the security it has and the security it hopes for". In his memoirs of
Europe before the First World War, written at a time when a conventional war
was ravaging our continent for the second time, the Austrian writer,
Stephan Zweig, noted that "now that the great storm has long since shattered
it, we know that this world of security was only a dream. And yet our parents
inhabited it as a house of peace."
Today, Europe sees its security assured in a very real way by nuclear
deterrence. It cannot, therefore, consider any evolution in the opposite
direction, which would make conventional and chemical war once again possible
and no doubt probable one day, taking into account the assymetry in the forces
involved, as well as geography. There is, then, no purely conventional
deterrence which could ensure the security of our continent.
France is in favour of a return to a balance of conventional forces in
Europe, if possible at a lower level. We also hope that the Soviet-American
negotiations on strategic arms and intermediate-range missiles will reach a
successful conclusion.
None the less we consider that, as the Prime Minister, Mr. Jacques Chirac,
recalled, as long as we are confronted with the overarmament of the two
super-Powers at the same time as the imbalance in conventional forces in
Europe, our security will lie in nuclear deterrence. My country will
therefore never accept that its nuclear forces should be included, directly or
indirectly, in negotitions in which it does not intend to participate as long
as the conditions it has set have not been met. France, through the voice of
the President of the Republic, made known in September 1983 and June 1984 the
conditions which would enable it to make its contribution to an effective and
verifiable process of nuclear disarmament:
First, that the gap between the nuclear arsenals of the two Great Powers,
on the one hand, and that of France, on the other, shall have changed in
nature. Second, that the great imbalances existing in conventional arms shall
have been corrected and the elimination of the chemical threat become a
524
neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
6
(Mr. Raimond, France)
reality. And third, that no new defensive system leading to a destabilization
of the present foundations of deterrence and therefore of peace, shall have
been brought into use.
The problem of third forces in the process of nuclear disarmament should
be brought into proportion. The French strategic nuclear forces today
represent less than 2 per cent of the comparable potential of the
United States or the Soviet Union.
What then, finally, is the situation four months after the Reykjavik
meeting? I would say that today there is a possibility and even a hope of
managing to rebuild a disarmament and arms control policy on more realistic
bases. To swap the aspiration of a denuclearized world for that of a world
without ballistic weapons leads to a dead end.
The way, therefore, in which both Washington and Moscow return to a more
accurate assessment of what is really possible and desirable in negotiations
will determine what real progress can be made in the limitation of nuclear
arms. This is true not only for 1987 but also for coming years.
The reason why I have talked at length about the "post-Reykjavik"
prospects and nuclear disarmament negotiations is that I know how much
attention is being given to these issues by delegations at the Conference.
But the Conference equally has its own concerns and tasks, I mean nuclear
testing, chemical weapons and space.
We are aware of the importance attached by most members of this
Conference to a total nuclear-test ban. The later is in part the continuation
of a concern which, in the 1960s, was more a matter of the environment than of
disarmament. It also results from commitments made within the framework of
disarmament agreements in which France did not wish to participate: on the
one hand, the 1963 atmospheric test-ban Treaty, and on the other, what a
French expert described as a "disarmament agreement of the unarmed countries",
that is, the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
France does not consider today, any more than yesterday, that stopping
tests is a pre-condition for progress towards nuclear disarmament. It
maintains that, on the contrary, the stopping of tests could become
significant at the end of a long-term process resulting in real and effective
nuclear disarmament.
There is, therefore, an important difference with a number of countries
represented here concerning the desirable sequence of disarmament measures. I
think it is honest to recognize it, and that clarity in these matters is more
useful than ambiguity.
Over and above these considerations of principle, there is the fact that
France has not carried out one tenth of the nuclear explosions conducted by
the two Big Powers. It does not carry out tests over the 150 kilotonne
threshold, so often and so long discussed and today apparently so difficult to
verify accurately. Finally, it sees no reason to agree to the planned
obsolescence of its deterrent.
525
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
7
(Mr. Raimond, France)
For all these reasons, we informed the Soviet Union that we had no
objection to the moratorium it proposed and introduced, nor, however, did we
see any advantage in it. We may note in any case that through
Marshall Akhromeev on 25 August last, the Soviet Union recognized that nuclear
tests did not have only negative effects. The Army Chief of Staff and Deputy
Minister of Defence admitted that a high percentage of them served to test the
reliability of existing arms. This observation has also been made by the
American side. Now, in a world in which the number of nuclear warheads were
reduced by half, the reliability of the existing weapons could only be yet
more important. This is a problem that cannot be indefinitely ignored.
The work of this Conference with a view to elaborating an international
convention on the prohibition of the manufacture of chemical weapons and the
elimination of stocks is certainly one of the most delicate tasks to which it
has addressed itself.
The effort made has enabled us to find some significant points of
convergence on the shape and a number of important elements of the future
convention. It remains true that as the work progresses the real difficulties
come to light. This stems from the natural course of negotiations in such a
complex field, but it also means that a number of choices have to be made.
First, do we want a convention which, like the one on biological weapons,
simply postulates that chemical weapons should be banned, without really doing
anything about the effectiveness of such a prohibition and its verification?
Or do we consider that these are weapons whose military effectiveness
unfortunately has less and less to be demonstrated and which therefore are
likely to become commonplace? Results achieved step by step, and limited not
geographically (because the ease with which such arms can be transported would
make such an approach utterly meaningless) but in terms of stockpiles, would
surely already be a considerable achievement.
Secondly, do we want verification measures to be aimed at putting
permanent pressure on any possible cheating, or are we prepared to settle for
imperfect verification because nobody will ever know whether clandestine
stocks have been reconstituted or hidden?
Third, what links should be established between the future convention and
the provisions of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 concerning the use of chemical
weapons?
Fourth, should we concentrate our efforts mainly on conventional chemical
weapons, those which could be described as "bottom of the range" and
accessible to most countries with industrial facilities? Or on the contrary,
do we mean to give priority to the most modern chemical warfare agents or even
prevent the appearances of future technologies in these areas? Is such an
ambition even realistic?
These discussions underly the work of your Conference. They explain
their complexity and therefore their inevitable slowness.
526
npclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
8
(Mr. Raimond, France)
My country wishes to achieve results, even if they prove to be limited,
in an initial stage, for example, to the progressive destruction of stocks and
production facilities during a period to be determined.
This same stage-by-stage approach could be used with respect to the
solution to be found for the problem of the lists of supertoxic agents. We
know that it is difficult at this stage to identify the possibilities of
military use of some of them which are already being used in civilian
industry, for example in pharmaceutical products. It should be possible to
ask the Consultative Committee envisaged by the convention to determine the
regime during a later stage of the negotiations, or during the implementation
of the convention. The French delegation will put forward proposals along
these lines. Generally speaking, quite obviously, it will spare no effort to
ensure that concrete results are achieved, including during this session.
Nevertheless, it is in the light of these uncertainties in the
negotiations that France does not rule out the possibility of acquiring a
limited and purely deterrent capability in this area. In accordance with the
commitments assumed by France when signing the Geneva Protocol of 1925, this
would only be used for retaliation and not for a first attack. In any case,
the current negotiations, to which we continue to attach very high priority,
could not constitute a moratorium for France, nor for that matter for any
other country.
Everybody here knows that side by side with the discussions which this
Conference is to pursue concerning measures to contribute to the prevention of
the arms race in outer space, negotiations are going on on a bilateral basis
in this same city between the Soviet Union and the United States. Our
objective cannot be to give preference to one or other of these approaches, or
to cause them to hinder one another.
It remains true that in the mid-1980s the international community
included among its concerns the problems of the military use of space in the
same way as in the mid-1950s it recognized that the problems of the nuclear
age could not be a matter of indifference to it, even though the possession of
nuclear weapons was at the time limited to two countries. In 1978, when
proposing the establishment of an International Satellite Monitoring Agency,
and then in 1984, through the proposals it put before this Conference, France
emphasized that these problems could not be excluded from the multilateral
debate.
We naturally attach the greatest importance to the Outer Space Treaty
of 1967. It remains true, as your work has clearly shown, that the present
regime seems inadequate, particularly with respect to the immunity of
satellites of third parties. France will submit, within the framework of the
work of the Ad Hoc Committee, proposals which take account of the difficulty
of formulating a regime based solely on the definition of an anti-satellite
weapon.
In fact there is no single way of destroying satellites, and it would
therefore not be realistic to found an international regime on the prohibition
of ASAT systems, which could only be incomplete. What does seem to be a
matter of priority is to implement the fundamental principles of the present
527
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
9
(Mr. Raimond, France)
space regime, that is, its utilization under conditions of equality,
non-discrimination among States, and non-appropriation of space. If such an
approach is adopted, a number of specific measures can be considered
concerning the registration and notification of space objects, as well as the
multilateral code of conduct applicable to space activities.
At the institutional level, the idea of entrusting responsibility for
seeing to the application of transparency measures and the code of conduct for
space activities to the International Satellite Monitoring Agency might be
considered.
All too often in the field of disarmament we have to admit, at the risk
of causing disappointment or being misunderstood, that nothing will ever be as
easy, completely satisfactory or rapid as we might hope. In the complicated
and changing world which we have irreversibly entered for more than half a
century, the threat has become more diverse. Paradoxically, the most modern
weapons are also those which will apparently be the least used. How then can
we be suprised when reason falters in the face of suspicion?
France wishes to contribute to disarmament, but like any other State it
considers that the negotiations should first serve the security of each and
every one. If, furthermore, disarmament can contribute to the enterprise of
development, France would naturally be the first to be delighted. It is from
this point of view that we consider that the United Nations meeting on the
relationship between disarmament and development, which it proposed in 1983
and which is to take place in New York this summer, is extremely important.
We all know how far arms control represents a necessary effort to ensure
foreseeability and stability in an international environment whose
technological evolution constantly challenges its structures.
The nightmare of seeing progress in arms overtaking negotiations, which
sums up the arms control dilemma, is nothing new. In the field of nuclear
weapons in particular, for almost 20 years the negotiators, like the young
Tancredo in "The Leopard", would like to agree "that everything should change
only if, afterwards, everything remains the same as before". It is
inevitable, in this context, that public opinion should be concerned more with
wars that are going to change, rather than the wars which are going on. And
yet we know very well that if it is weapons that kill, it is men that start
the conflicts. Modern arms are not the first cause of tensions; they are the
result of older antagonisms, of longstanding conflicts of interests, which
patient diplomacy must reconcile.
A disarmament and arms control policy that only deals with the
consequences and not the causes of tension and the absence of confidence among
nations cannot lead to lasting results, that is, to the security to which each
of our nations aspires. Nothing is more difficult, we know full well; and
therefore nothing is more worthy of our efforts.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank his Excellency the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of France for his statement and for his kind
words addressed to me and to my country. I now give the floor to the
representative of Czechoslovakia, Ambassador Vejvoda.
528
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
10
Mr. VEJVODA (Czechoslovakia): Comrade President, we welcome you
wholeheartedly to the chair of the Conference on Disarmament during this
opening month of our present session. Your great socialist country has
contributed a lot to the work of this Conference since it joined it in 1978.
Your wise presidency is another specific contribution of China to the
Conference on Disarmament at a time when we are all trying to invigorate its
work, to effectively meet the requirements addressed to this multilateral
negotiating body. My delegation pledges you full support in the remaining
part of your presidency. Let me also thank Ambassador Beesley of Canada for
the able guidance he offered to us in the concluding part of last year's
session. It is with pleasure that I welcome the new representatives to this
Conference -- Ambassador Nazarkine of the Soviet Union, Ambassador Pugliese of
Italy, Ambassador Hacene of Algeria, Ambassador Dolgu of Romania,
Ambassador Morel of France, Ambassador Yamada of Japan and Ambassador Kosin of
Yugoslavia.
Let me also express once again the deepest sympathy of my delegation to
the delegation of the United States and to the family of Ambassador Lowitz
with whom we had excellent working and social relations. At the same time I
would like to welcome in our midst the Deputy Head of the United States Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, Ambassador Hansen, as Acting Head of the
United States delegation.
(spoke in French)
We listened most attentively to the statement of the Foreign Minister of
France, Mr. Raimond. His presence here at our session is evidence that his
country considers the work of the Conference to be highly important. We were
also able to note France's keen interest in the problems of international
security during the recent visit to Paris of our Foreign Minister,
Bohuslav ChYoupek. That visit was considered most useful by the authorities
in Prague, as it contributed not only to Franco-Czech relations but also to
highlighting the need for greater European co-operation as launched 12 years
ago in Helsinki.
(continued in English)
Throughout the history of mankind, nations and groups of nations have
always had to fight for their security. Peace, when it came here and there,
was usually at the price of a hard and bloody struggle. This is true not only
of distant but also of quite recent history of Europe, and it is not yet past
history in many regions of the world today. In the process, means of war
improved constantly until personal arms were replaced by automatic machines
for annihilation and the present weapons of mass destruction. Peace and
security cannot be won by these weapons, since their destructive nature
prevents them from being used rationally, even from a purely military and
technical viewpoint. Peace and security today have to be built otherwise.
It is one of the far-reaching political conclusions of our times that
international peace and security have to be put on a wider and more stable
basis than in the past. This basis cannot be established other than by all
States which want to build their relations with neighbours and other countries
not on force but through peaceful co-operation in conditions of firm
529
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
11
(Mr. Vejvoda, Czechoslovakia)
international security. That is what the sponsors of the United Nations
General Assembly resolution 41/92 on the establishment of a comprehensive
system of international peace and security had in mind in advancing their
initiative.
The cessation of the nuclear-arms race and measures of real disarmament
will have to constitute the backbone of such a comprehensive system.
Nuclear disarmament is of highest priority in this regard. The treatment
nuclear weapons deserve was very accurately described by Mikhail Gorbachev
when he spoke on Monday to the participants in the International Forum for a
Nuclear-Free World and for the Survival of Humanity in Moscow. I quote from
his statement: "We rejected any right for the leaders of a country, be it the
USSR, the United States or any other, to pass a death sentence on mankind. We
are not judges, and the billions of people are not criminals to be punished.
So the nuclear guillotine must be broken."
We followed with great attention the Soviet-American meeting in Reykjavik
last October. Even if some political "experts" subsequently described the
meeting as a failure, we did not share that view. On the contrary, we
witnessed, for the first time, a direct attempt to break the "nuclear
guillotine". Even if that was not possible on that occasion, and I will not
discuss the reasons for it, the meeting in that calm, northern island has left
a permanent mark and the nuclear arsenals will never again seem as untouchable
as they still seemed to be in the recent past.
Our Conference is a highly representative body, with all nuclear
countries taking part in its work. It should therefore, also contribute to
the solving of a number of issues related to nuclear disarmament which are
very clearly inscribed on its agenda. We reject the notion that the
Conference should address only some of its agenda items while others should be
left to bilateral or some other limited fora. This applies especially to the
first three items, which deserve our permanent attention.
Whether some like it or not, the NTB has been not only at the top of our
agenda but also at the centre of international attention for quite some time.
One of the two major nuclear Powers gave us, during the previous almost
19 months, convincing proof of its readiness to stop nuclear testing. The
Soviet Union did all in its power to continue its moratorium, and if it was
interrupted that was done by the United States, by carrying out its nuclear
explosion on 3 February.
In our understanding, its willingness to refrain from nuclear testing
shows not only that the Soviet Union is ready to achieve a nuclear-test ban
but also that it is prepared effectively to address nuclear disarmament in all
its aspects. Such a concrete step as the unilateral moratorium on nuclear
testing is much more convincing proof of good political will than loud
peaceful rhetoric and declarations of good intentions.
530
nna-Inecifiarl in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
12
(Mr. Vejvoda, Czechoslovakia)
We fully associate ourselves with those who call for the establishment of
a working body for the NTB. There is a lot to be done in this area, including
on verification. In our opinion, active and purpose-oriented work of such an
organ could clearly demonstrate the following.
First, the achievement of the NTB is an urgent measure which could
substantially contribute to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and create
an atmosphere conducive to successful negotiations on measures of nuclear
disarmament.
Second, the overwhelming majority of States are in favour of the
cessation of nuclear testing and realize that the universal test ban would
correspond to their vital security interests.
Third, there are all necessary ingredients for-an effective NTB to be
negotiated, including its verification machinery.
Fourth, there is a need to consider, in a businesslike manner and in one
forum, numerous proposals concerning the scope and nature of the NTB, possible
partial measures, various approaches towards verification, including
individual offers of States or groups of States, so as to combine them into
one system, ensuring, in the most effective way, full compliance with the test
ban.
Fifth, the Ad Hoc Committee on the NTB could also constitute a necessary
bridge between the useful work of the Ad Hoc Group of Seismic Experts and the
actual state of efforts aimed at the achievement of the NTB. That link would
be useful, inter alia, for putting the results of the planned test of level II
seismic data transmission next year into a proper perspective.
Fruitful work by the NTB Ad Hoc Committee can also give us the necessary
specific criteria for consideration of the utility of establishing a permanent
international system for the exchange of seismic data.
Thus, we see a number of valid arguments in favour of the establishment
of an Ad Hoc Committee on the NTB. My delegation would be ready to
participate in its proceedings actively and to display the necessary
flexibility so that the Conference can, finally, undertake some specific steps
towards the nuclear-test ban.
It is our hope that the Ad Hoc Committee for the prevention of an arms
race in outer space is going to be re-established shortly. The Conference
should not close its eyes to the danger of outer space being completely
militarized. The Committee's mandate should reflect the objective necessity
to establish quite clearly, and in a more conclusive form, the impact of the
present legal regime for outer space and to define what additional measures
are needed. At the same time we do not consider that a mandate, thus
conceived, should prevent us from an exchange of views on specific proposals
which already have been, or might be proposed in the coming months. In this
respect we were attracted by the statement of the First Deputy Foreign
Minister of the USSR, Yuli Vorontsov, containing, inter alia, the proposal to
establish an international inspectorate to verify that arms are not being
531
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001_4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
13
(Mr. Vejvoda, Czechoslovakia)
placed on objects launched into outer space. This is a new, far-reaching and
radical measure which could, in our opinion, represent a solid barrier against
the direct militarization of outer space.
There is no need to stress further the urgency of measures to prevent an
arms race in outer space since it is sufficiently displayed in the course of
the present debate in the United States on the deployment of a first phase of
the SDI. It seems that supporters of this allegedly defensive programme are
becoming somewhat impatient. They see important changes in the world and
finally realize that even the nuclear threat, on which they calculated heavily
in their "mission to save the world", as they say might not be here
indefinitely. For this reason it is necessary to launch the practical
implementation of the SDI, to invest huge financial resources as soon as
possible, to make the SDI irreversible. If they succeed, they will assure
huge profits for the American military-industrial complex for many years to
come. But what is more important, the SDI will become a limitless laboratory
for the transition from "dirty" and indiscriminate nuclear weapons to equally
efficient, but more "handy" and "practical" weapons based on directed energy.
Space is considered wide enough to absorb the effects of nuclear explosions,
which are difficult to control on Earth. Certainly, the chosen objects on
Earth will be spared the long agony of nuclear destruction. Instead, they
will be blown away in a clean, fast and "civilized" manner.
Anyone who is sufficiently acquainted with the provisions of the
ABM Treaty and its spirit cannot take seriously any talk of its "broad
interpretation". The only real meaning of such an interpretation is that the
ABM Treaty is an obstacle to the SDI and will have to be forgotten. And that
will be the first real step opening the way to complete militarization of
outer space.
Our delegation welcomes the fact that the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical
Weapons has promptly been re-established under the able guidance of
Ambassador Ekeus of Sweden. 'This early commencement, as well as a new,
purpose-oriented approach, gives us a guarantee that the Conference will try
to use its potential fully and that everything will be done so that the
CW convention is finalized already this year. Nothing can prevent us from
solving the remaining political and technical aspects of the prohibition of
chemical weapons providing there is the political will to do so. Just
two days ago the Conference witnessed another good example of the required
constructive approach when the Head of the USSR delegation,
Ambassador Nazarkine, spoke on the problem of location of chemical weapons
stocks, on the question of destruction versus diversion, and some aspects of
verification on challenge. We consider that all the proposals advanced reveal
genuine interest in speeding up our work on the CW convention and should be
approached seriously. Any hasty conclusions, especially if they are rather
beside the point, are somewhat out of place. We would like to hope that the
suggestions made by Ambassador Nazarkine will be discussed thoroughly on an
appropriate working level.
We follow attentively the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on the problem of
non-production of chemical weapons and on challenge verification. During the
brief sessions in autumn of last year and in January we noticed that
divergencies in the positions of various countries were being gradually
532
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
14
(Mr. Veivoda, Czechoslovakia)
reduced. It is a delicate process which should be further pursued in a calm,
businesslike manner. We are confident that by the end of this year's session
the remaining differences will have been narrowed down sufficiently in order
to permit us to formulate what, for the purposes of the convention, could be
considered as essentially common positions also on articles VI and IX.
The CW convention is, unfortunately, not yet definitely agreed upon. But
it is clear that its basic outline has already evolved and one may already
have quite an accurate idea of the basic provisions of its individual
articles. Verification will be extensive, covering a large number of
activities right from the entry into force of the convention, through the
destruction of CW stocks and facilities for their production, as well as with
a view to permanent assurance that the convention is fully complied with in
the future. Such a wide verification system is a sort of acknowledgement that
the elimination and prohibition of chemical weapons is an ambitious and
difficult task. We consider that it would be fully in compliance with this
ambition to try to cover the whole road which substances have to travel before
they become chemical weapons. Everyone would apparently agree that the first
step to create a toxic substance is a synthesis. The only places where this
may happen are laboratories. Let us recall that such first category
substances as tabun, sarin or soman were also the results of laboratory
research. We therefore support the idea that this first step in the creation
of chemical weapons should be recognized and dealt with by the convention.
It would be futile to try to control regularly all existing laboratories, but
it would be a grave mistake to ignore that new supertoxic lethal chemicals of
category I may permanently be synthesized in the laboratories, whether
deliberately or by coincidence. The number of relevant laboratories is
relatively limited in each country and their declaration, with a possibility
of inspection on challenge, should not represent an extraordinarily heavy
burden. Smooth application of such procedures could create the necessary
confidence and would represent a kind of introduction to the effective
verification of non-production of chemical weapons in the civilian chemical
industry.
The comprehensive Programme of Disarmament has been on our agenda since
the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament in
1978. During the period of almost 10 years a lot of provisions for the
Programme have been agreed upon. There are now just a couple of items that
remain open but they, somehow, seem beyond our reach.
The Ad Hoc Committee on the CPD has already resumed its work under the
continued, dedicated chairmanship of Ambassador Garcia Robles of Mexico. We
are confident that he will do all in his power to finalize the draft Programme
soon, in accordance with the decision of the United Nations General Assembly
and we will offer him our most active co-operation. But the key to the CPD is
in the hands of those who fail to display a minimum of flexibility with
respect to a number of priority items, among which the NTB is an outstanding
issue.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Czechoslovakia for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the
President and to the country that the President represents.
533
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.390
15
(The President)
That completes my list of speakers for today. Does any other member wish
to take the floor? That does not appear to be the case.
I now intend to suspend briefly the plenary meeting and to convene, as
announced last Tuesday, an informal meeting of the Conference to deal with a
request from a non-member to participate in the work of the Conference. Once
we have considered that request, we shall resume the plenary meeting in order
to formalize any decision reached at the informal meeting, as well as to adopt
the timetable for the activities of the Conference during the coming week.
The plenary meeting is suspended.
The meeting was suspended at 11.35 a.m. and resumed at 11.36 a.m.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): The 390th plenary of the
Conference on Disarmament is resumed.
I wish to put before the Conference for decision document CD/WP.267,
dealing with a request from Senegal to participate in the work of the
Conference. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Conference
adopts the draft decision.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): The secretariat has circulated
today, at my request, an informal paper containing a timetable of meetings to
be held by the Conference and its subsidiary bodies during the coming week.
The timetable has been prepared in consultation with the Chairmen of the
Ad Hoc Committees. As usual, it is merely indicative and subject to change,
if necessary. If there is no objection, I shall consider that the Conference
adopts the timetable.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I should like now to make an
announcement: The Chairman of the United Nations Disarmament Commission will
hold open-ended consultations on the next session of the Commission in
Conference Room III on Friday, 27 February, at 3 p.m. Those consultations
will be held with full services. As there is no other business to consider, I
intend now to adjourn the plenary meeting. The next plenary meeting of the
Conference on Disarmament will be held on Tuesday, 24 February, at 10 a.m.
The meeting stands adjourned.
The meeting rose at 11.40 a.m.
534
neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.391
24 February 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY-FIRST PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 24 February 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
GE.87-60236/7280E
Mr. Fan Guoxiang (China)
535
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I declare open the
391st plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
Consistent with its programme of work, the Conference will continue today
its consideration of agenda items 1 and 2 entitled "Nuclear Test Ban" and
"Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament" respectively.
In conformity with rule 30 of the rules of procedure, however, any member
wishing to do so may raise any subject relevant to the work of the Conference.
Today, I have on my list of speakers the representatives of Yugoslavia,
the United States of America, Kenya and Nigeria.
I now give the floor to the first of those speakers, Ambassador Kosin of
Yugoslavia.
Mr. KOSIN (Yugoslavia): Thank you Mr. President. May I first of all
join other delegations in congratulating you, the representative of the
People's Republic of China, a country with which Yugoslavia maintains close
and friendly relations, on your assumption of the Presidency for the month of
February. I wish you success in the discharge of this important function.
The excellent way in which you have guided the Conference so far has enabled
substantial work to be achieved at the outset of the 1987 session. Knowing
your competence and experience I am sure that the Conference will continue to
benefit from your able guidance. I would also like to take this opportunity
of thanking you, Mr. President, for the kind words addressed to my
predecessor, Ambassador Vidas, and for your warm welcome to me. I am grateful
to my distinguished colleagues too for welcoming me here in the Conference on
various occasions. I would like to express as well, on behalf of my
delegation, appreciation to the outgoing President, Ambassador Beesley of
Canada, who so skilfully steered the Conference during the month of August and
in the period preceding the 1987 session. I wish to take this opportunity
too, to express through the good offices of his Personal Representative,
Ambassador Miljan Komatina, our gratitude to the United Nations
Secretary-General Mr. Perez de Cuellar for his message to this Conference. We
found it particularly encouraging to hear in his message that the tasks before
the Conference "are indeed difficult but in no way insurmountable, given the
universal desire for a more secure world in which our scarce human and
material resources could be utilized for the fullest economic and social
development of all societies".
I avail myself of this opportunity to express once again our most
profound condolences on the untimely death of the distinguished representative
of the United States, Ambassador Donald Lowitz, and to ask the
United States delegation to convey our deep sympathies to the United States
Government and to the bereaved family.
The past year has offered a few reassuring elements through
intensification of dialogue, far-reaching initiatives and proposals, and the
growing awareness of the need for reaching agreements and understandings.
On the other hand, 1986 showed that the arms race, instead of being
restrained, had intensified, thus rendering the overall process of
negotiations and agreement-reaching more complex. This clearly demonstrates
536
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
3
(Mr. Kosin, Yugoslavia)
that the political ground for accord is insufficiently broad, and still
fragile. Therefore, the Conference should strive not only to overcome the
oasic differences in positions on disarmament but also to win the race against
time, for every opportunity missed renders our task more difficult and complex.
We have thus begun our deliberations at the 1987 session with mixed
feelings. While the dialogue at the multilateral, regional and bilateral
levels has been broadened and intensified, no new agreements have emerged and
the existence of some of them has even been called into question.
The year 1986 was also marked by numerous messages testifying to the fact
that the international community is not reconciled to the prevailing situation
of stagnation and is willing to reverse it through political dialogue and
meaningful negotiations on disarmament. That was the main characteristic of
1986 as the International Year of Peace.
The non-aligned countries, since their first Summit Conference in
Belgrade a quarter of a century ago, have always considered disarmament a
politically comprehensive and priority issue of peace and security. Such an
approach dominated their meetings held in the course of last year, in
particular the Eighth Conference of Heads of State or Government, held in
Harare, Zimbabwe, in September 1986. The more than 100 Heads of State or
Government of non-aligned countries assembled there have -- in their
Political Declaration -- spelt out their views about the issues on the agenda
of our Conference.
They emphasized the extreme urgency of adopting measures for the
prevention of nuclear war and for nuclear disarmament, and in that context,
they called for the conclusion of an international agreement banning the use
or threat of use of nuclear weapons, pending the achievement of nuclear
disarmament.
They pointed to the pressing need to negotiate and conclude a
comprehensive multilateral nuclear-test-ban treaty prohibiting all
nuclear-weapon tests by all States in all environments for all time.
They called on the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations
urgently to conclude an agreement or agreements to prevent the extension of
the arms race in all its aspects into outer space.
They also called upon the Conference on Disarmament to make all efforts
to adopt the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament during the first part of
its 1987 session, and to submit it to the General Assembly.
They called for negotiations to proceed without delay for an
early conclusion of a binding international instrument to assure the
non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
They urged all States to abstain from any action that could impede an
early conclusion of a chemical weapons convention.
The Heads of State or Government of non-aligned countries emphasized also
that, together with negotiations on nuclear disarmament, measures for the
537
in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
4
(Mr. Kosin, Yugoslavia)
limitation and gradual reduction of armed forces and conventional weapons
should be pursued resolutely within the framework of progress towards general
and complete disarmament.
The general thrust of the Eighth Non-Aligned Summit Conference was
reflected in the general debate at the forty-first session of the
United Nations General Assembly.
The debate itself was constructive and led to the adoption of more
consensus resolutions than before, especially those that leave room for a
fresh approach on our part.
Of special relevance to us here is the fact that the General Assembly at
its forty-first session adopted more than 20 resolutions relating to specific
responsibilities of the Conference on Disarmament.
The meeting between United States President Ronald Reagan and
Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik, in
early October 1986, showed that there is no alternative to dialogue, that it
is changing in nature and that the views of the two major Powers converge in
some areas that bear on their special responsibilities in the nuclear age.
What is encouraging, to us, is the fact that the Reykjavik proposals are still
on the negotiating table. Nevertheless, we should bear in mind that the
Reykjavik Summit failed to respond to the needs of the international
community, which had expected some specific agreements and a higher degree of
understanding, so necessary at this critical juncture for international
relations. Therefore, the world community appeals to both Powers to speed up
their moves towards agreement.
The successful conclusion of the Stockholm Conference on Confidence- and
Security-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe has resulted in the
adoption of important confidence-building measures as well as those for the
verification of military activities. The Stockholm Conference demonstrated in
practice the active role played by all States, irrespective of their Size,
population or military might, and their legitimate interests in contributing
towards resolving the problems related to confidence-building, and towards
halting and reversing the arms race.
The success of the Stockholm Conference, which began its deliberations in
extremely unfavourable international circumstances, is an undeniable proof of
the importance and vitality of multilateral negotiations.
As a non-aligned European country, Yugoslavia has undertaken to translate
its long-term policy choices at the global level into a coherent concept at
the regional level, too. Along these lines it actively participates in
various initiatives, together with other non-aligned and neutral countries of
Europe.
Within this framework, and in pursuance of good-neighbourly co-operation,
Yugoslavia advocates the transformation of the Balkans into a zone of peace
and co-operation, free from weapons of mass destruction.
538
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
5
(Mr. Kosin, Yugoslavia)
The necessity of multilateral negotiations was also confirmed by such
tragic events as the Chernobyl accident and the Challenger explosion. State
and continental boundaries have proved to be incapable of averting the dangers
hanging over mankind, the dangers which the most sophisticated technologies,
if uncontrolled, increase rather than prevent. It has become clear that
international co-operation in most advanced and sophisticated technologies is
a necessity. It is encouraging in this regard that the International Atomic
Energy Agency, in a relatively short period of time, managed to adopt two
international conventions to that effect.
In planning our activities this year we should. take account of the fact
that the international involvement and the agreement-oriented approach have
generated a more favourable climate for the work of our Conference, and for
addressing the issues on its agenda substantively.
We expect that the work of the Conference -- which last year proceeded in
a very business-like atmosphere on constructive and concrete approaches to
individual agenda items, and on substantive and accelerated negotiations as
regards the chemical-weapons ban -- will in 1987 become more intensive and
meaningful. Yugoslavia, for its part, and in accordance with its views and
positions of principle, will make every effort to have the Conference attain
these goals.
Given the prevailing situation in international relations, the Conference
on Disarmament as the single multilateral negotiating forum in the field of
disarmament, is gaining in importance on the global level. For multilateral
negotiations, in our view, constitute the corner-stone of multilateral
dialogue, in which the Conference on Disarmament has a major role to play.
Multilateral and bilateral negotiations complement each other. This does
not mean that multilateral negotiations should wait for the completion of
bilateral negotiations; multilateral negotiations are irreplaceable in
addressing all disarmament problems.
The agenda of our Conference includes all key disarmament issues. Among
them, the most pressing ones are those that require urgent solutions,
including, of course, those issues the solution of which is most directly
linked to the Conference on Disarmament.
Within the framework of nuclear disarmament issues, we devote special
attention to a comprehensive nuclear-test ban (CTB). The argument that the
objective of a CTB is a long-term one is unacceptable to us. It is not
accidental that this question has been the focus of interest of the entire
international community for a quarter of a century already, with virtually
unanimous calls for a test ban. Hence, a CTB would both have practical and
symbolic value. It represents, in effect, the most important individual step
towards curbing the nuclear-arms race and arresting the development of new
generations of deadlier and deadlier nuclear weapons.
There is no need to repeat that the nuclear-weapon States themselves have
undertaken the obligations under existing international agreements, including
some signed but unratified treaties between the United States and the
Soviet Union. Of no less significance in this connection is the fact that
539
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
6
(Mr. Kosin, Yugoslavia)
practical behaviour has proved that even the on-site inspections of nuclear
testing grounds are acceptable.. We hope therefore that the United States
will join the Soviet Union which has already expressed its readiness for a
bilateral moratorium on nuclear tests.
Thus, there exist, in our opinion, all the necessary political, technical
and procedural pre-conditions for our Conference to undertake substantive work
aimed at negotiations on this subject. It goes without saying that the
practical approaches will differ. That of my delegation is a flexible one
and takes account of the ultimate objective of reaching a comprehensive
nuclear-test-ban treaty.
Such a treaty would, at the same time, be the test of the worthiness of
the jointly declared objective in the United States-Soviet negotiations of
eliminating all nuclear arms on Earth. This and the common view of
both Powers that nuclear war must never be fought, as well as the stand of the
non-aligned movement that the use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against
humanity, is, in our opinion, the basis upon which it is possible to negotiate
more effective arrangements and instruments for the prevention of nuclear war
and for nuclear disarmament.
However, in making references to nuclear weapons and recognizing its
priority, we should not lose sight of conventional weapons, which continue to
absorb most of the resources spent on arms, and which take a heavy toll of
human life in so-called local wars. Moreover, the development of conventional
weapons systems makes these weapons increasingly dangerous and almost as
destructive as nuclear weapons. This seriously threatens to lower the
threshold of eventual use of nuclear weapons. It requires, as stated in the
Final Document of the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to
disarmament, that parallel efforts be made to reduce the armed forces and
conventional weapons, and to narrow the scope -- through regional and
international agreements -- for this dimension of the arms race. The
complexity of the strategic equation and the actual situation in the world
command a comprehensive approach to the totality of disarmament issues.
Yugoslavia has always opposed the extension of the arms race to other
areas, in particular to outer space. Outer space is the area where
international co-operation could be to the benefit of all mankind. Extension
of the arms race into outer space would have a destabilizing effect on
international security and co-operation, and would undermine the efforts aimed
at disarmament. It would also consume vast material resources and the
potential needed to meet the basic subsistence and development requirements of
the majority of mankind.
Outer space is obviously a global problem. It concerns all countries,
whether from the political, security, economic, technological or any other
point of view. That is why multilateral negotiations are so indispensable in
this area.
Consequently, the Conference should tackle this problem in a substantive
way, without, of course, diminishing the importance of bilateral negotiations
between the United States and the USSR.
540
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
7
(Mr. Kosin, Yugoslavia)
The work on the elaboration of the chemical weapons convention in the
course of the 1986 session of the Conference provides, in many respects, an
example of how we should proceed on other agenda items. The outgoing Chairman
of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons, Ambassador Cromartie of the
United Kingdom, and the Chairmen of the Working Groups deserve the credit for
the results presented in the report adopted by the Conference. But despite
these significant steps, progress is still very slow on a number of major
issues and some key problems remain outstanding. We expect, therefore,
that the incoming Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, Ambassador Ekilus of
Sweden -- whose ability and competence are well known -- together with all the
delegations will make a constructive effort to speed up the negotiations. In
my view, the conditions for this do exist, even concerning the most sensitive
issues, such as verification. We consider that the proposals presented so far
offer a solid basis for negotiated solutions.
We must be aware that expectations are especially high in this field:
all the more so, as six decades have elapsed since the chemical-weapons ban
was introduced for the sake of humanity and human dignity, and we can no
longer make excuses for further delays.
Greater involvement on the part of all of us is an imperative today.
In addition, we should pledge outselves to adopting the
Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament during the first part of the
1987 session. The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Comprehensive
Programme of Disarmament, the distinguished representative of Mexico,
Ambassador Garcia Robles, will surely do his utmost to succeed in this
endeavour. The numerous initiatives and proposals put forward in 1986 and the
results already achieved, as well as consistency in the publicly proclaimed
objectives of the members of the Conference, provide a reasonable basis on
which to build this Programme. At the same time, that would be a concrete
contribution to the third special session of the United Nations
General Assembly devoted to disarmament.
The arms race has a negative impact on all spheres of human life, in
particular the economic one. It wastes enormous resources, the total annual
level of which is equivalent to the overall debt of developing countries.
This terrible waste of resources is taking place against the background of a
crisis in the world economy which particularly affects the developing
countries. Therefore, we attach particular importance to the forthcoming
Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development as a way to
reverse the arms race and create conditions conducive to sustained development
of the world economy as a whole, and to the more rapid development of
developing countries, in particular. We should not harbour illusions that a
stable world can be built on inequities and injustices, and that the bare
necessities of hundreds of millions of human beings, lacking even the basic
conditions for existence, can be ignored.
The third special session of the United Nations General Assembly on
disarmament will be held next year. It is hoped that it will further develop
the views and recommendations put forward at the previous sessions, and take
steps to implement them. This will open up new avenues for co-operation in
curbing the arms race, as well as for disarmament negotiations.
541
nprdaccified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
8
(Mr. Kosin, Yugoslavia)
Therefore, we all at the Conference are expected to contribute to the
successful outcome of the forthcoming international gatherings. No Government
can stand by and escape responsibility for failing to contribute. It is
our duty to do all we can to live up to the letter and spirit of the
United Nations Charter, which clearly does not advocate a world based on
balance of terror or fear of destruction, nor can that be accepted as an
alternative. Our Conference, as the single multilateral negotiating body in
the field of disarmament, must be given new impetus and substance. But in
order to achieve this, it will be necessary to take concrete steps towards
prompt and complete fulfilment of the tasks facing it. We cannot hide behind
the rules of procedure and use them to cover up our failures. The rules of
procedure are relevant only if they ensure progress towards substantive work.
The Conference should devise ways to assure continuity in dealing with
all issues on its agenda in a substantive manner. A phased approach to a
chemical-weapons ban discussed during the course of the 1986 session is an
obvious example of the evolution of our activities. Practical approaches to
substantial issues should thus, in our view, be given priority over procedural
discussions on the mandates of the subsidiary bodies of the Conference,
i.e. the ad hoc committees. The negotiating mandates of these bodies stem
from the mandate of the Conference itself and cannot be questioned. Briefly,
the methods of work should be improved in order to enable successful
deliberations at the Conference as a whole. In doing so, the Conference
should always keep in mind its principal objective: the reaching of a
disarmament agreement. The debate on the negotiating mandates should, as
appropriate, be replaced by efforts to intensify the work of the Conference by
elaborating concrete programmes of work for the conclusion of agreements or
for their drafting. That would help bridge the differences and ensure the
convergence of views, enhancing the role of our Conference in international
dialogue.
In conclusion, I would like to express the hope that all of us engaged
in the work of the Conference will help to attain our aims and objectives in
disarmament, and make every effort so that the results of the Conference could
meet the legitimate interests of the whole international community, and that a
world free from weapons of mass destruction, or with fewer of them, a world of
peace and co-operation, may become a reality.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Yugoslavia for his statement and for the kind words he expressed to the
President and to the country that the President represents. I now give the
floor to the next speaker on my list, the representative of the United States
of America, Ambassador Hansen.
Mr. HANSEN (United States of America): Mr. President, allow me, through
you, to express the gratitude of the United States delegation for the many
continuing expressions of condolence occasioned by the sad and untimely death
of Ambassador Don Lowitz. They are a source of comfort and support to us.
Ambassador Lowitz was my colleague and my friend. I shall miss him.
Pending the appointment of a permanent replacement for Ambassador Lowitz
I have been requested to serve as the acting United States representative to
542
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
9
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
the Conference on Disarmament. I accept this responsibility with a
recognition of the debt my delegation owes to Donald Lowitz, and conscious of
the importance of the work of the Conference.
On 5 February, the Director of the United States Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency, Ambassador Kenneth Adelman, addressed the Conference,
conveying a message from President Reagan. In addition to reaffirming our
commitment to negotiations on a complete and verifiable ban on chemical
weapons, the President stated that the United States is committed to working
with the members of this Conference in achieving responsible solutions to the
problems of reducing the world's arms. Mr. Adelman discussed the importance
of real openness to the success of these efforts.
Three basic themes are contained in the President's message and in
the remarks of Mr. Adelman: first, the significance of furthering the
negotiations on a chemical-weapons ban; second, finding responsible solutions
to the problems of reducing the world's arms; and third, the importance of
real openness in achieving progress.
Today, I would like to note that the work of the Chemical Weapons
Committee is off to a good start under the able chairmanship of
Ambassador Ekeus of Sweden. It is important as well to express appreciation
to Ambassador Cromartie of the United Kingdom for his efforts in guiding the
work of the Committee during the 1986 session. Ambassador Cromartie also gave
impetus to an extended period of inter-sessional work last fall as well as
during the January meetings of the Committee. His endeavours and achievements
were substantial; we commend him and his delegation.
My delegation has taken note of the important statement made at the
17 February plenary meeting by the distinguished representative of the
Soviet Union, Ambassador Nazarkine. We judge it to be an important
contribution to the work of the Conference, and will return to issues related
to the banning of chemical weapons in a future intervention.
I would like to begin my discussion of the first three items on the
agenda of this Conference with some observations concerning the framework of
the agenda and the objectives pursued by the Conference. Since 1945 not one
human being has been killed by a nuclear device used for military purposes.
President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev agreed in November 1985
here in Geneva that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
Certainly, all other States possessing nuclear arms share that conclusion.
Military strategists in both East and West agree that a nuclear war must never
be fought.
Europe has been free of major war since 1945. There has not even been a
military skirmish between East and West, even though there have been periods
of crisis or near-crisis and regrettable military action in Hungary and
Czechoslovakia. Forty-one years have elapsed without a major war on the
territory of Europe. Yet, twice in the first half of this century, American
soldiers crossed the Atlantic to fight and die in wars on European soil.
Today, the prospect of even one major war in Europe in the second half of this
century is unthinkable.
543
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
10
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
Whatever the perceptions of States represented here, whatever conclusions
each reaches on the basis of its own analysis, whatever its political ideology
or objectives, none can disprove the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence in
preventing war and preserving peace in Europe.
And deterrence is not a Western phenomenon. It is not the invention of
undisciplined strategists. Rather it is a fact of life and a key element in
the military doctrine of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. True, great
contempt is sometimes expressed by Soviet commentators for the word
deterrence, but the concept is deeply embedded within the Soviet military
thinking, and some Eastern spokesmen have even spoken publicly in defence of
nuclear deterrence. Those who criticize deterrence do so without a full
appreciation of its character or of the contribution it has made to East-West
stability.
While none of the States possessing nuclear weapons is engaged in
military conflicts with each other, some States which are participants in this
Conference are currently engaged in one kind or war or another. Human beings
are being killed -- most with conventional weapons, some with chemicals.
Would not this forum risk becoming the theatre of the absurd if it were
to devote much time to addressing the prevention of nuclear war, something
ITuite unlikely -- and which in any case is being addressed by those most
..:irectly involved and responsible -- while ignoring the fighting and killing
which is actually taking place in so-called conventional conflicts?
Where on the programme of work for 1987 is there provision for this
-,nference to undertake arms control and disarmament efforts which might
pntribute to the ending of the destruction, pain and suffering now taking
.iace in diverse parts of the world because conventional weapons are being
ised?
In his address to the Conference on Disarmament on 19 February, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of France alluded to the lack of confidence among
States as the real source of international security problems. He also spoke
of the significance of the Stockholm Accords and the fact that they were
achieved in a multilateral negotiation. In Stockholm, 35 States agreed to
exchange in November of each year an annual calendar of their planned military
exercises, which involve at least 13,000 troops, for the coming year.
Observers from all other participating States are to be invited to each
military exercise involving more than 17,000 troops. Furthermore, each State
accepted that other States have the right to conduct an on-site inspection
whenever there are doubts about a State's compliance with agreed provisions.
The major objective of these and other provisions of the Stockholm
document is to build confidence among States as a method to prevent war, not
only nuclear war, but war.
Mr. President, allow me briefly to cite some additional efforts being
undertaken which are relevant to the Conference agenda. On 20 December, the
United States and the Soviet Union activated a third direct communications
system, a so-called "hotline" circuit. This provides the capability to
544
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
11
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
transmit facsimile documents between Washington and Moscow and completes the
implementation of the 1984 agreement between the United States and the
Soviet Union to supplement the previously existing system.
On 20 January negotiations took place here in Geneva between Soviet and
American representatives on the establishment of nuclear risk reduction
.centres in Washington and Moscow.
These two developments -- improvements to the hotline and negotiations on
the establishment of nuclear risk reduction centres -- are part of the overall
approach taken by my Government to reduce the risk of war.
Having argued that nuclear weapons have played an important part in
preventing the occurrence of a major war in Europe for more than four decades,
I mean in no way to detract from the final essentiality that the international
community, over time, find other means to guard its security. One cannot
but be moved by the living witness that Ambassador Chusei Yamada, the
distinguished representative of Japan, has given to the hell that the use of
nuclear weapons represents. The United States delegation will do its part to
fulfil the inscription, "let it never happen again", on the monument of which
Ambassador Yamada spoke.
The items I have referred to above, as well as the meeting in Reykiavik
last October between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, have
significant implications for the first three items on the agenda of this
Conference for 1987.
As regards the reductions of nuclear weapons, Director Adelman noted in
this Council Chamber, on 5 February, that the bilateral negotiations between
the United States and the Soviet Union are focusing, really for the first
time, on radical reductions of nuclear weapons. These intricate and delicate
negotiations have significance for the future stability and security of much
of the world. Each side must weigh carefully the potential effects of an
agreement on its own security as well as that of its allies and friends.
For its part, the United States remains cautiously optimistic that
responsible, realistic and significant agreements on reductions are possible
which will build upon the discussions held at Reykjavik.
Frankness and honesty are often the best ingredients of diplomatic
intercourse. I wish to employ both in addressing the first item on the
agenda, that of a nuclear-test ban.
The United States sees a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing as a
long-term objective which must be viewed in the context of a time when the
United States and its allies do not need to depend on nuclear deterrence to
ensure international security and stability. This condition does not exist
now and will not exist during 1987. This condition cannot come into being
without deep reductions in nuclear arms, substantially improved verification
capabilities, expanded confidence-building measures and greater balance in
conventional forces.
545.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
12
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
Nevertheless, my Government has begun a process which should proceed in
an orderly, step-by-step fashion. The first priority is improved verification
of the Threshold Test Ban and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaties. The
kinds of questions both parties to these Treaties have raised concerning the
other's compliance indicate that an agreement on improved verification is
clearly warranted. Once agreement is reached on direct measurement to ensure
that the yield limits of these Treaties are being respected, the United States
intends to ratify them. Immediately thereafter, we are prepared to enter into
negotiations on ways to implement a step-by-step parallel programme -- in
association with a programme to reduce and ultimately eliminate all nuclear
weapons -- of limiting and ultimately ending nuclear testing.
This policy is being implemented. President Reagan has informed the
United States Senate of his willingness to ratify the Treaties once
verification improvements have been agreed; the Senate is now taking
appropriate action.
Also in accordance with this policy, Soviet and United States experts
have been meeting here in Geneva to agree on the agenda for bilateral
negotiations on nuclear testing issues. The last round of these meetings is
now in a working recess; experts are preparing to meet again on 16 March.
The United States is prepared to engage in this process with utmost
seriousness and solemnity. However, this process must build on a series of
key understandings reached between the States most intimately involved.
This Conference can neither replace nor duplicate the delicate work which
is just getting under way bilaterally. Nevertheless, this Conference can
usefully consider and work on a number of nuclear testing issues, including
compliance and verification issues essential to any future accord. The
Conference on Disarmament can make contributions on these and other test-ban
issues of particular importance. Bearing in mind the ultimate obiective of
banning nuclear tests, the delegation of the United States is prepared
therefore to resume work on nuclear-test-ban issues in a committee with an
appropriate non-negotiating mandate as proposed by members of the Western
group.
The United States welcomes the plans of the Group of Scientific Experts
to carry out further experiments aimed at the application of advanced
techniques to the collection and exchange of seismic data useful for
monitoring against possible underground nuclear explosions. This work should
significantly increase the contribution that a global network of seisometers
could make to the monitoring and verification of an eventual agreement on
nuclear testing. We particularly welcome the fact that the Soviet Union has
withdrawn its opposition to work on the exchange of so-called level II, or
full waveform, seismic data. And we look forward to the demonstration
relating to seismic monitoring which is to be given by authorities of
the Federal Republic of Germany.
In subsequent interventions, my delegation intends to contribute to work
on other items on the agenda for 1987. In closing today, however, I would
like to summarize the approach of my Government to agenda items 1, 2 and 3.
546
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
13
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
The United States seeks significant progress in the bilateral nuclear and
space talks. We are working for the implementation of steps which lower the
risk of accidental or inadvertent conflict, which could employ either nuclear
or conventional means. We are convinced that the steps we have taken and are
taking to prevent war are responsible acts of government in areas which are in
our competence. The United States seeks to engage in a process which will
result in practical and realistic steps in the area of nuclear testing. My
delegation does not concur in the need to alter an adequate mandate text that
would enable practical work to begin now. Such action has the almost
inevitable result of delaying or preventing agreement on establishing the
relevant committee, thereby thwarting the work of the Conference.
Finally, Mr. President, let me congratulate you on the significant
progress made already during only the opening month of this year's session of
the Conference. It must not be by chance alone that three Ad Hoc Committees
have been constituted thus far during your Presidency. With a commitment by
all members to progress rooted in advancing the security interests of all
nations, this Conference should witnes substantial progress in its work during
1987.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I'thank the representative of
the United States of America for his statement and I now give the floor to the
representative of Kenya, Ambassador Afande.
Mr. AFANDE (Kenya): Mr. President, allow me, at the outset, and on
behalf of my delegation, to express my warm congratulations to you on your
assumption of the important post of President of the Conference on Disarmament
for the first month of the 1987 session. We are confident that with your
experience and expertise in disarmament negotiations the Conference will be
able to progress in its work. Mr. President, you represent a great country
with which Kenya enjoys very friendly relations. My delegation therefore
declares its commitment to co-operate with you in your difficult task.
My delegation would also like to register our gratitude to
Ambassador Beesley, the distinguished representative of Canada, who presided
over the work of this Conference for the month of August 1986, and during the
recess period until the opening session of the Conference in 1987. We commend
him for the qualified manner in which he skilfully guided the work of the
Conference and his commitment to disarmament affairs.
The absence of Ambassador Donald Lowitz following his untimely death is a
great loss not only to his family and country but also to this Conference. He
was a dear friend and colleague whose charm and contribution in the Conference
on Disarmament will long be remembered. My delegation sends its heartfelt
condolences to his widow, Mrs. Shana Lowitz, his family and the United States
delegation.
I would also like to welcome our new distinguished colleagues who are
participating for the first time in the Conference on Disarmament, namely
Ambassador Hacene of Algeria, Ambassador Barbosa of Brazil, Ambassador Morel
of France, Ambassador Yamada of Japan, Ambassador Pugliese of Italy,
547
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
14
(Mr. Afandc., Kenya)
Ambassador Dolgu of Romania, Ambassador Nazarkine of the USSR and
Ambassador Kosin of Yugoslavia. I also welcome the acting United States
representative to the Conference on Disarmament, Ambassador Hansen.
The year 1986 proclaimed as the International Year of Peace by the
United Nations General Assembly, sadly witnessed the continuation of regional
conflicts in various parts of the world. It was expected that the various
adversaries in these regional conflicts would observe the year as such and
give peace a chance in resolving their divergent conflicts. But sadly this
was not the case. If anything, the intensity of some of these conflicts
increased with regrettable vigour. However, the year was climaxed with a
serious search for peace between the two super-Powers, the United States
and the USSR, when President Ronald Reagan, and General Secretary
Mikhail Gorbachev, met in Reykjavik in October last year. There is no
consensus on the final results on the achievements of the Summit Meeting,
which regrettably indicates that it was not a success. It appears that the
two super-Powers .are far from entering into any binding agreements on
disarmament questions. It is clear that both super-Powers are concerned about
safeguarding their own security from the threat of attack with offensive
nuclear weapons, especially inter-continental ballistic missiles, launched by
either side against the other. It is indeed proper for the two super-Powers
to negotiate and make proposals as well as raise objections in efforts geared
towards enhancing their mutual security and in a wider sense the security of
the whole world.
We have remained steadfastly convinced that bilateral arms limitation and
disarmament negotiations should be complementary to multilateral negotiations
in arms limitation and disarmament, especially in the Conference on
:Disarmament, which is the single multilateral negotiating forum.
The bilateral disarmament negotiations between the two super-Powers have
cesumed in Geneva on an emphatic note with both the United States and the USSR
Governments demonstrating a willingness to negotiate earnestly with a view to
achieving success in these negotiations. We hope that both the delegations
from the United States and the USSR will strive towards harmonizing their
different approaches to the various complex issues in this renewed round of
bilateral negotiations. The other nations of the world are anxiously waiting
for success in these bilateral talks and such anxiety arises from the
justified rationale that international peace and security is the concern of
all countries small and big alike.
Turning to issues that are directly relevant to the Conference on
Disarmament, my delegation notes that the agenda for the 1987 session of
this Conference remains the same as that of the 1986 session which, to my
delegation, is an indication of the continuity of the work of the Conference
and also of the desire by all member States of the Conference to tirelessly
work towards furthering the negotiations aimed at reaching concrete and
tangible results in solving the difficult problems in arms limitation and
disarmament negotiations.
The agenda item on a nuclear-test ban is highest on the agenda and still
creates grave concerns not only with my delegation but also with many other
delegations represented in this Conference. Nuclear-weapon States especially
546
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
15
(Mr. Afande, Kenya)
the two super-Powers, the United States and the USSR, have conducted numerous
nuclear tests in the years gone by with only brief non-binding respites in
such tests. We have taken note of the circumstances which have made the USSR
declare the termination of its unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests after
the test conducted by the United States on 3 February this year. We regret
that the efforts to achieve a bilateral moratorium were unsuccessful. It is
in this context that my delegation welcomes unilateral declarations suspending
such tests by any nuclear-weapon State but is of the view that the ultimate
requirement on this crucial matter should be a concerted effort by all
nuclear-weapon States to for ever prohibit nuclear tests.
It is factual to state that these tests are conducted to determine the
reliability and effectiveness of such petrifying weapons as well as to develop
new categories of weapons. We are convinced that the Conference on
Disarmament has a moral obligation to carry out negotiations on this very
important item and my delegation appeals to all groups represented in this
Conference to support the establishment of an ad hoc committee in order to
facilitate meaningful negotiations on elaborating a treaty banning all nuclear
tests.
My delegation remains convinced that all problems related to the
prohibition of nuclear tests, be they on verification or on other concerns,
can be comprehensively discussed in such a subsidiary body established by the
Conference. The draft mandate for the Ad Hoc Committee on a Nuclear Test Ban
proposed by the Group of 21 in document CD/520/Rev.2 of 21 March 1986, offers
a realistic basis for establishing a mandate on negotiations on this item.
This should be complemented by resolution 41/46 A adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly at its forty-first session entitled "Cessation
of all Nuclear Test Explosions".
In discussing the item on a comprehensive test-ban treaty, the Conference
on Disarmament should not forget the continued appeals made by the Heads of
State or Government of Argentina, India, Greece, Mexico, Sweden and Tanzania
on the urgency to halt nuclear-weapon testing prior to the formulation of a
comprehensive test-ban treaty. In the Mexico Declaration, adopted by the
leaders of these six countries on 7 August 1986, it is stated that "they
remain convinced that no issue is more urgent and crucial today than bringing
to an end all nuclear tests", and in addition, "Both the qualitative and the
quantitative development of nuclear weapons exacerbate the arms race, and both
would be inhibited by the complete abolition of nuclear weapons testing". The
Joint Statement made by the six leaders on the eve of the New Year -- 1987 --
underlines the views which are also held by my delegation that there is no
justification for nuclear testing by any country.
My delegation is concerned over the reports that South Africa is
developing facilities, on Marion Island in the Antarctic, capable of testing
nuclear weapons. South Africa's nuclear weapon capability is threatening the
African countries in general, and the front-line States in particular, with
nuclear annihilation should African States persist with efforts to achieve
freedom and justice for the black majority in South Africa. It goes against
the proposal made in Cairo in 1964 by the Heads of State of the Organization
of African Unity calling for the denuclearization of Africa.
549
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
16
(Mr. Afande, Kenya)
My Government has urged countries that have aided South Africa in
developing a nuclear weapons capability to halt all such activities in the
interests of international peace and security and also to enable the
implementation of the call for the denuclearization of Africa. All Member
States of the United Nations Organization should adhere to United Nations
General Assembly resolutions 41/55 A and B adopted during the
forty-first session of the General Assembly in 1986 entitled "Implementation
of the Declaration on the Denuclearization of Africa" and the "Nuclear
Capability of South Africa" respectively.
Delegations in the Conference on Disarmament have informally and formally
expressed positive projections that the Conference will be able to finalize a
draft chemical weapons convention in its 1987 session and be in a position to
present it to the forty-second session of this year's United Nations
General Assembly. This optimism can only be manifested if all delegations
work towards resolving the outstanding issues hampering the drafting of a
chemical weapons convention.
The re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons will
indeed hasten the consultations in this very important area. The keen
interest of my delegation in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical
Weapons stems from the conviction that chemical weapons, some of which do not
require a sophisticated technological base to produce, and can, indeed, be
produced by any country, should for ever be banned from the arsenals of States
possessing these horrifying weapons.
My delegation would like to sincerely thank Ambassador Cromartie, the
distinguished representative of the United Kingdom, for steering the work of
the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons as its Chairman for the 1986 session
in a most commendable and satisfying manner. We also take this opportunity to
congratulate Ambassador Eketus, the distinguished representative of Sweden, on
his being appointed as the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical
Weapons for the duration of the 1987 session of the Conference on
Disarmament. We have great confidence in his experience and we trust that
under his direction the Ad Hoc Committee will be in a position to continue and
initiate new approaches to resolve all outstanding problems hampering the
conclusion of a draft chemical weapons convention by the end of the 1987
session of the Conference.
My delegation recalls quite clearly that after the Summit Meeting between
the two super-Powers in Geneva, in 1985, a Joint Statement issued by
the United States and the USSR truthfully declared that a nuclear war cannot
be won and must never be fought. We were reassured by this statement as it
indicated that it was not to the interest of the super-Powers to engage in a
nuclear war. But we would be even more reassured if this joint declaration
could be enhanced by immediate and concrete measures to halt and reverse the
nuclear-arms race not only in bilateral negotiations between the two
super-Powers but also in the Conference on Disarmament.
The prevention of nuclear war is indeed a vital task and no energies
should be spared in launching negotiations to realize this objective. We
appeal to all delegations to work together towards establishing an appropriate
body to consider this very important matter.
550
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
17
(Mr. Afande, Kenya)
My delegation supports all efforts aimed at establishing nuclear-free
zones. In this regard, we commend all the States Parties to the Treaty of
Rarotonga which has declared a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, stretching
from the Equator in the North to the Antarctic in the South and from the
West Coast of Latin America to the West Coast of Australia.
In calling for the prohibition of nuclear war including all related
matters, non-nuclear-weapon States have, rightfully, proposed that the
nuclear-weapon States should categorically assure them against the use of or
threat of use of nuclear weapons or any one of them. It would be morally
unjustified for any nuclear-weapon State to use or threaten to use nuclear
weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State.
The complete prohibition and destruction of nuclear weapons would provide
this basic assurance required by non-nuclear-weapon States, as the effects of
nuclear weapons once unleashed would not distinguish between nuclear-weapon
States or non-nuclear-weapon States.
The realm of outer space, which has been referred to as the common
heritage of mankind and should be confined exclusively for peaceful purposes
to promote the scientific, economic and social development of all nations, has
proved vitally useful in the sense that civil space satellites have proved
crucial in communications, navigation, weather-forecasting and remote-sensing,
among other vital uses. Regrettably, this realm has become militarized and
the super-Power arms race has been extended into outer space.
It is in the general interest of all mankind that space should not be
used to further any aggressive military interests of any State especially
those of the two super-Powers and their allies. To do so would threaten the
security of the whole world from space as well as efforts to terminate
the arms race on Earth. We are hopeful that the re-establishment of
the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space for the
1987 session of the Conference will be able to address the problems related to
this agenda item.
We also believe that the re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Radiological Weapons for the 1987 session will provide a necessary forum for
further progress in efforts aimed at reaching agreement on a convention
prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of radiological
weapons.
The Conference on Disarmament is expected to submit to the United Nations
General Assembly a complete draft of the Comprehensive Programme of
Disarmament before the close of its forty-first session, and we hope that all
delegations will extend to Ambassador Alfonso Garcia Robles, the distinguished
representative of Mexico, who is Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the
Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament, the necessary co-operation in efforts
towards realizing this required objective. On its part, my delegation, will
extend its necessary co-operation to ensure progress in the work of this
Ad Hoc Committee.
I cannot conclude my statement without mentioning the forthcoming
Conference on the question of the relationship between disarmament and
551
neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
18
(Mr. Afande, Kenya)
development, to be held in New York in August this year. Although the
Conference is of particular importance to developing countries, my delegation
considers that all countries, developed and developing, are affected in one
way or another by the nuclear and conventional arms race.
Military expenditures are increasing with the progression of time and thF?
nuclear-weapon States and their allies account for a large proportion of this
expenditure, on the one hand. On the other hand, developing countries also
contribute a substantial proportion to the continued rise in military
expenditures, which is a saddening fact as such resources could be usefully
invested in improving the lagging social and economic sectors of these
countries.
Many resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly have
often expressed the concern of this world body for reducing and restraining
military expenditures and for creating increased possibilities for
re-allocating released resources towards socio-economic development,
particularly for the benefit of developing countries. Kenya, as a developing
country attaches great importance to the forthcoming Conference and appeals to
some developed countries which have expressed doubt on the effectiveness of
the Conference to attend it and contribute to the achievement of its desired
objectives.
Finally, the Conference on Disarmament has in its agenda indicated the
major issues in disarmament which need to be addressed and negotiated upon in
order to create a safer, freer and peaceful world. It cannot be denied that
the non-aligned and neutral States in this Conference have made all efforts
within their capability to bring about effective measures in the field of
disarmament negotiations. These efforts, which are on record, have been aimed
at initiating new approaches to all the questions before the Conference on
Disarmament. Sadly, most of these efforts have not achieved any great Success
within the Conference. The non-aligned and neutral States, in formulating new
approaches and initiatives on disarmament questions, have always done so with
the objective of fulfilling the dictates not only of the Charter of the
United Nations but also of the Final Document adopted after the first special
session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament held in 1978, which in
essence advocate complete and effective disarmament measures.
We note that the third special session of the General Assembly, wholly
devoted to the question of disarmament, is scheduled to take place in 1988.
This will be 10 years after the first special session of the General Assembly
devoted entirely to the same question. As at present position, the Conference
on Disarmament will not have made any major achievements in negotiations
manifesting in any disarmament treaty. Certainly, the expectations of the
other participating member States in the third special session will be
dampened when this fact is brought to their attention. We have one year to
show to the world that the deliberations of the Conference on Disarmament can
produce tangible results. My delegation hopes that the Conference on
Disarmament will adequately respond to this challenge by action and not by
mere words.
552
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
19
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Kenya for his statement and for the kind words he addressed to the President
as well as to the country that the President represents. I now give the floor
to the last speaker on my list for today, the representative of Nigeria,
Ambassador Tonwe.
Mr. TONWE (Nigeria): I thank you Mr. President. I would also like to
congratulate you on your assumption of the Presidency of the Conference on
Disarmament for the crucial month of February 1987. The skilful manner in
which you have conducted the affairs of the Conference during the last few
weeks has produced the positive results we have obtained so early in the
session. I wish to assure you and the delegation of your great country that
you can count on the continued support of the Nigerian delegation. May I also
congratulate Ambassador Alan Beesley of Canada for the efficient way he
presided over our deliberations in the month of August and during the
inter-sessional months.
I cangot continue this statement without first paying tribute to a
distinguished colleague and friend, Ambassador Donald Lowitz of the
United States, whom the cold hand of death so prematurely took away from us
at the beginning of the session. Ambassador Donald Lowitz was an affable
diplomat who defended the interests of 'his great country convincingly, and, at
the same time, demonstrated his respect for the interests of other nations,
as they were conveyed by their representatives. Indeed, by his words,
comportment and friendship, he made one feel that the arms race, which we are
gathered here to try to stop, was a phenomenon that was out of character, even
for the rival Powers. The loss of Ambassador Lowitz is tragic and I would
like to convey through you, Mr. President, the heartfelt condolences of the
Nigerian delegation to the United States delegation, to Shana Lowitz and to
the entire family of the deceased.
Permit me, Mr. President, to welcome the representatives of member States
who have recently been appointed by their respective Governments to lead their
delegation to the Conference.
The statements made this morning by the distinguished representatives of
Yugoslavia, the United States and Kenya, have given us a lot of food for
thought -- some of it quite appetizing, other parts quite provocative. I am
convinced that we would all like to reflect seriously on the propositions we
have heard. I would not like here to go into details. I would only like to
say that some of the things we have heard incite some reservations.
We cannot today look at the topography of the disarmament field without
being struck by a number of features and dates which have far-reaching
consequences for our deliberations and negotiations at this Conference:
November 1985, Reykjavik, 1993, 3 February 1987, etc.
November 1985 and Reykjavik recall summits of hope, which, unfortunately,
rapidly fizzled away. Nineteen-ninety-three and 3 February 1987 are dates
which must remind us of national idiosyncracies and a determination we cannot
ignore.
The ideological schism, the ambitions, strategies, fears and divergences
which paralyse summits, or fuel the arms race in rival States or alliances,
553
nprinqcifipci in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
20
(Mr. Tonwe, Nigeria)
impose a tremendous responsibility on the Conference on Disarmament in
Geneva -- the unique multilateral negotiating forum. Consequently, instead of
despair when we hear what we do not want to hear, the Conference will have to
draw on its reserve of optimism, perseverance and creativeness.
The Nigerian delegation recognizes the indispensability of bilateral
talks on disarmament, but it does also believe that these talks do not in any
way reduce the tremendous value of the role of the unique multilateral forum.
We further recognize that disarmament has to be carried out by those who have
amassed arms, especially the super-Powers; but we are also convinced that the
enterprise is extremely important for the survival of all nations, big or
small. It is, therefore, the duty of the Conference on Disarmament to see to
it that the course of negotiations reflects the conscience of humanity. The
Conference on Disarmament, having been duly mandated to act in the field, must
not lose the right to take initiatives, nor relent in its endeavour to be kept
fully informed about the substance of bilateral or regional disarmament
negotiations.
The Conference on Disarmament has been around long enough to know that
relations between the super-Powers are often bedevilled by various subjective
factors which exacerbate their fears and rivalry. As the Washington-based
"World Priorities" put it:
"Distrust between the two (super-Powers) has been fanned by exaggerated
fantasies on both sides (and) mutual antagonism has created (in that
context) a symbiosis which is as effective in driving the arms race as
any co-operative agreement could be.".
We do not need to have read the Prince to know that the said symbiosis is not
entirely new. Competition is an important ingredient of any living organism,
rivalry is the hallmark of Great Powers. If Great Powers had no rivals, they
would invent them and if they were not opposed, they would develop into
tyrants and oppress the people. The Nigerian delegation welcomes a healthy
competition among the Powers, but would never support those who nourish
inordinate ambitions.
One such ambition, in our time, is the desire of States to establish a
permanent military superiority, political and economic hegemony over the rest
of the world, for all time. History is replete with cases of the rise and
fall of Powers and Empires. The process, and the circumstances, of ascendancy
and decline might differ in each case, but the basic human qualities and
shortcomings which bring them about have, all through the ages, remained much
the same. As a philosopher explained it, "those who do not study the past
will repeat its errors, and those who do will find other ways to err".
We must not surrender to the basic instincts of man, in the crucial field
of disarmament. We must not find other ways to err. If we did, it would be
because we have denied ourselves the creative genius of man. Those who have
done so much to conquer their physical environment can no doubt do something
to design solutions, albeit dynamic, to their socio-political problems.
Time is not irrelevant. In the 1920s, disarmament negotiations collapsed
ostensibly because the Powers could not agree on the relative weight to be
attributed to the different weapons. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear
554
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
21
(Mr. Tonwe, Nigeria)
weapons became the principal obstacle. Our planet is today threatened by the
massive build-up of nuclear-weapon arsenals, and the overwhelming majority of
mankind wishes to see this weapon banished for ever. But time is running
out: When the super-Powers, two today, three, four tomorrow, have acquired
"Star Wars" capabilities, only the strategy of massive retaliation would be
perceived by other nuclear-weapon States to provide a minimum deterrence.
Consequently, if this Conference still wishes to give priority to nuclear
disarmament in the future, now is the time to concentrate its efforts on
stopping the dangerous attempt to transfer the arms race to outer space. If
we cannot acquire the moral force to dissuade the protagonists of Star Wars
from militarizing outer space, we will have lost the battle for nuclear
disarmament on Earth.
The Nigerian delegation sincerely hopes that the prevention of the arms
race in outer space will henceforth be placed in the foreground of our
preoccupations at this Conference. My delegation would like to see a
subsidiary body established without further delay, with a mandate that is
meaningful and flexible and would lead progressively to an agreemeni.
As a corollary of steps to be taken to halt the imminent militarization
of outer space, the Conference must tackle the problem of eliminating the
factor which generates mutual distrust and insecurity, which, in turn, fuels
the desire to acquire some invulnerable weapon up there in outer space. The
Nigerian delegation continues to believe that the first step in this direction
is a nuclear-weapon-test ban. This should be followed by a freeze of all
nuclear-weapon arsenals. Thereafter, negotiations to reduce and eliminate
nuclear weapons can seriously begin.
The argument that tests do not prevent an acceptable, and therefore
verifiable, agreement on nuclear-weapon cutbacks is not at all convincing. It
is now common knowledge that testing permits nuclear-weapon States to refine
and modernize their arsenals and thus aggravate the crisis of confidence.
This cannot be said to support the aim of our negotiations. The argument
about detection difficulties no longer holds. Scientists on both sides have
confirmed that they can detect, by national means, nuclear explosions with
yields of even less than 1 kiloton. In this connection, we welcome the
indications that seismologists of the super-Powers have been exchanging data
and visits. This should be intensified, as it would create the understanding
and trust needed to produce and hold an agreement.
To further improve the psychological and political environment for
nuclear disarmament negotiations, the nuclear-weapon States should be prepared
to give a legally binding undertaking not to use or threaten to use nuclear
weapons against States which do not possess such weapons. We make this
proposal because we realize that some nuclear-weapon States will probably
reject out of hand our previous suggestion that all States should renounce the
use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. The Nigerian delegation still
cannot understand, having regard to the disastrous consequences of a nuclear
war, nuclear winter and all that, that our proposal was rejected by some
Powers, which, none the less, implore the Conference to give priority to
negotiating a ban on chemical weapons. And yet nuclear weapons are a greater
threat to human survival than are chemical weapons; and there is no choice to
be made between death by physical annihilation and death by asphyxiation.
555
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
22
(Mr. Tonwe, Nigeria)
Several arguments have been advanced for holding back on giving the type
of undertaking we envisage, or for imposing conditions. The Nigerian
delegation appreciates that there are certain problems that have to be
resolved. For example, what proviso would apply to States which are members
of military alliances equipped with nuclear weapons; or States which have
nuclear weapons on their.territory; or States which have no nuclear weapons
but may exercise some discretion as to the use of those stationed on their
territory. All these are questions which deserve special attention and would
require special treaty provisions. The Nigerian delegation has no doubt that
such provisions, which meet the legitimate concerns of all States, can be
designed by the Conference.
In this connection, the Nigerian delegation is highly encouraged by the
prompt decision of the Conference to set up an Ad Hoc Committee on the
so-called negative security assurances.
We sincerely hope that the Committee will soon be able to commence
concrete work on the text of a legal instrument that is generally acceptable.
Having said that, the Nigerian delegation would like to say how pleased
we are to note the amount of progress that has been made in the last year on
the convention to ban chemical weapons. We would like to congratulate
Ambassador Ian Cromartie of the United Kingdom for the significant work
done in this respect under his chairmanship. We are glad that
Ambassador Rolf Ekeus of Sweden, our dedicated colleague, has been elected to,
hopefully, conclude the good work that has been done in this field so far.
The prospect of a chemical weapons convention in the near future is, for
my delegation, a source of confidence in the future of our disarmament
negotiations. If it materializes, the convention would, in itself, be
historic: it would be the first major disarmament agreement. Above all, it
would demonstrate, once again, on a multilaterally significant issue, that the
major Powers can co-operate intensively in diverse areas, if their national
interests, or their perceptions of international problems, converge. It would
further confirm our belief that given the political will, the Conference on
Disarmament could make rapid progress in other areas.
My delegation would like to reiterate the views we have expressed in the
past that the final text of the chemical weapons convention should ensure that
the destruction of all stockpiles and facilities would be done in such a
manner that the present chemical-weapon Powers would not in any way be in a
position to exploit their position during the transition period. Furthermore,
it would have to guarantee in no uncertain terms, to the non-chemical-weapon
Powers, the right to unfettered development of their budding chemical
industries for peaceful purposes.
The Nigerian delegation is glad to note that the Ad Hoc Committee on the
Compretiensive Programme of Disarmament, under the distinguished chairmanship
of Ambassador Garcia Robles, has been relaunched. Given the energy and
dedication of the Chairman, and the concern of all delegations to meet
the deadline quite rightly set by the General Assembly, we believe that
substantial progress can be made towards agreeing on a comprehensive programmP.
5S6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.391
23
(Mr. Tonwe, Nigeria)
The work of the Conference this year is particularly crucial for the
future of disarmament negotiations. Next year, the third special session on
disarmament should be held. The Conference on Disarmament will then have to
give an account of itself. Unless it can show evidence that its structure,
procedures and results deserve an unqualified extension of its mandate, the
Conference might have to face some unpleasant surprises.
The Conference on Disarmament has a mandate from the United Nations. The
same body has determined in various resolutions which areas should be given
priority. It is wrong for certain States to seek to impose other priorities
on the Conference, in disregard of the resolutions of the overwhelming
majority of the international community. We must, therefore, at this
Conference, give priority to nuclear disarmament and for that purpose put the
non-militarization of outer space first. That is the best way to move ahead.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Nigeria for his statement and for his kind words addressed to the President
and to the country that the President represents.
This concludes my list of speakers for today. Does any other member wish
to take the floor? I see none. As there is no other business, I intend now
to adjourn the plenary meeting. The next plenary meeting of the Conference on
Disarmament will be held on Thursday, 26 February, at 10 a.m. The plenary
meeting stands adjourned.
The meeting rose at 11.40 a.m.
557
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
,
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.392
26 February 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SECOND PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 26 February 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
GE. 87-60254/7417E
Mr Fan Guoxiang (China)
558
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I declare open the
392nd plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
According to its programme of work, the Conference will today continue
its consideration of agenda item 1, "Nuclear Test Ban" and item 2 "Cessation
of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament".
Following rule 30 of the rules of procedure, however, any member who
wishes to do so may raise any subject relevant to the work of the Conference.
On my list of speakers for today, I have the representatives of India,
Poland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
I now give the floor to the first speaker, the representative of India,
Ambassador Teja.
Mx. TEJA (India): Mr. President, permit me to take this opportunity to
extend to you the felicitations of my delegation on your assumption of the
Presidency for this crucial month of February, the opening period of the
spring session of the Conference on Disarmament. The manner in which the work
of the Conference has got off to a smooth start bears eloquent testimony to
your diplomatic skills and capabilities. I should like to assure you of my
delegation's full co?operation in the discharge of your responsibilities. I
would also like to avail myself of this occasion to convey our gratitude to
Ambassador Beesley of Canada for having presided over the Conference in a most
competent and exemplary manner during the important month of August and in the
intersessional period.
My delegation wishes to extend its sincere condolences to the delegation
of the United States of America and to the family of the late
Ambassador Donald Lowitz. In his untimely demise, we have lost a colleague
whose professional skills and high personal qualities will be long remembered
by all of us.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend a warm welcome to our new
colleagues who have joined the Conference on Disarmament: Ambassador Hacene
of Algeria, Ambassador Morel of France, Ambassador Pugliese of Italy,
Ambassador Yamada of Japan, Ambassador Kosin of Yugoslavia and
Ambassador Nazarkine of the Soviet Union. Since I am substantively
participating in the Conference for the first time, I greatly look forward to
working closely with all of them and of course with other colleagues.
The third special session of the General Assembly devoted to
disarmament -- SSOD?III -- to be held next year, provides us with an
appropriate moment to make an honest appraisal of our collective effort in
this area and to take stock, briefly, of the successes and failures of the
Conference on Disarmament during the last nine years. A careful analysis
reveals that the achievements could have been more substantial but the fault
surely does not lie in the charter of the Committee but rather in the lack of
political will which, in turn, had a cumulative effect on the functioning of
this sole multilateral negotiating forum in the field of disarmament. The
priorities established by the Final Document have unfortunately been distorted
and almost reversed. There have been no meaningful negotiations on such
559
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R0001nninnnni_A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
3
(Mr. Teja, India)
critically important items of our agenda as Cessation of the nuclear arms race
and nuclear disarmament, Prevention of nuclear war, Nuclear test ban and
Prevention of an arms race in outer space. No subsidiary bodies have been set
up on halting the nuclear arms race or prevention of nuclear war. On a
nuclear-test-ban treaty, which has long been considered as the crucial first
step in ending the nuclear arms race, it was not possible to agree on an
adequate negotiating mandate for an ad hoc committee. On the Prevention of an
arms race in outer space, the Ad Hoc Committee has found itself hampered in
its work, again because of the absence of a negotiating mandate. We draw
attention to these flaws not to detract from the achievements of the
Conference but to highlight the lamentable fact that lack of political will
cannot but lead to a loss of urgency and hence momentum. One must therefore
hope that in the year just before the SSOD-III, the Conference will focus on
re-establishing the priorities in disarmament to enable itself to undertake
negotiations on the critical items, as we -- all of us around this
table -- had originally intended in 1978.
The present session of the Conference on Disarmament takes place against
the backdrop of Reykjavik. When we reflect that the United Nations had
declared 1986 as the International Year of Peace, we cannot but conclude that
Reykjavik meeting became a lost opportunity. None the less, we would like to
be optimistic and consider it a positive development, in the sense that it
indicated that a nuclear-free world can become a reality if the necessary
political will can be mustered. Equally importantly, Reykjavik demonstrated
that it is possible to overcome mutual fear and suspicions which have fuelled
the arms race. It was not, of course, an isolated or sudden event. An
earlier summit between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev in
November 1985 had led to their important joint conclusion that a nuclear war
cannot be won and therefore must never be fought. The two leaders accepted
that their countries would not engage in conventional or nuclear war or seek
to achieve military superiority. It is to be hoped that after Reykjavik it
will now be possible at the ongoing bilateral consultations taking place here
in Geneva to make substantial progress towards translating these joint
conclusions into legally binding instruments.
While we welcome any progress in bilateral talks, this need not imply
that the Conference on Disarmament can or should have no meaningful role. It
has been unambiguously mandated to undertake negotiations on the fundamental
aspects of nuclear disarmament. In the face of the universal concern about
the danger of a nuclear war and its consequences for mankind, a multilateral
approach is both logical and democratic. It would be a positive step if this
Conference could establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate on item 2 of our
agenda. The Final Document of SSOD-I has already provided us with the
framework of the stages involved, commencing from cessation of improvements or
development of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems and leading to
reductions in the existing stockpiles with a view to their ultimate
elimination.
The cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament is closely
linked to another item on our agenda: the prevention of nuclear war. We
believe that nuclear weapons are not merely weapons of war but weapons of mass
560
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
4
(Mr. Teja, India)
annihilation. The use of these weapons cannot be countenanced on any grounds
whatsoever, least of all on abstractions based on esoteric doctrines of
security. It is a cause for concern that so far it has not been possible to
establish an ad hoc committee to consider appropriate and practical measures
for the prevention of nuclear war. The Harare Declaration of the
8th Non-Alighed Summit reiterates that "the use of nuclear weapons besides
being a violation of the Charter of the United Nations, would also be a crime
against humanity". This is in recognition of the fact that the prevention of
nuclear war is not only a moral imperative but linked to the survival of the
human race. The Summit accordingly urged the nuclear-weapon States to agree,
pending the achievement of the nuclear disarmament, to the conclusion of an
international treaty on the prohibition of the use or threat of use of nuclear
weapons. It would contribute to the success of negotiations on item 3, if the
Conference on Disarmament can undertake substantive work to develop a
convention to forswear the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons on lines
similar to General Assembly resolution 41/60 F which has been adopted by
overwhelming majority year after year since 1982. The Annex to this
resolution provides for a draft convention on the prohibition of the use of
nuclear weapons which is based on the principles enshrined in the Charter of
the United Nations. A legally binding commitment banning the use of nuclear
weapons is therefore a logical step in the right direction.
Twenty-seven years ago, Jawaharlal Nehru proposed a standstill for the
suspension of nuclear-weapon testing, until an agreement on the control and
prohibition of nuclear weapons could be achieved. India, therefore, attaches
particular importance to the nuclear-test ban. We believe that a
comprehensive treaty on the complete prohibition of tests of all types of
nuclear weapons in all environments by all States is a prerequisite to halting
the arms race. It is self-evident that unless we all agree to putting an end
to nuclear-weapons tests, we shall not be able to achieve our goal of nuclear
disarmament and the dangers of nuclear war will increase. It is this
conviction which motivated the leaders of the Five-Continent Peace Initiative
to call for an end to all nuclear testing, first in the Delhi Declaration and
more recently in the Mexico Declaration. The 8th Non-Aligned Summit also
addressed itself to this important issue in an unambiguous manner. The Harare
Declaration states that a comprehensive test ban is a matter of the highest
priority for the non-aligned countries. It emphasizes the "pressing need to
negotiate and conclude a comprehensive multilateral nuclear test ban treaty
prohibiting all nuclear weapons tests by all States in all environments for
all time". The alternative before us is this: a negotiated comprehensive
test-ban treaty to de-escalate the nuclear-arms race and reduce the risk of
nuclear war or a situation of non-negotiation in which continued
nuclear-weapon testing accelerates the arms race and increases the danger of
nuclear war. Our choice is clear!
How can we achieve this objective? By merely talking about it or by
making concrete efforts to reach agreements? The Conference on Disarmament is
a negotiating body on disarmament, not a deliberative organ which task has
been entrusted to the Disarmament Commission by the General Assembly. It is
important to recall this distinction because any attempt to confuse the tasks
of the deliberative and negotiating organs of the United Nations will only
561
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
5
(Mr. Teja, India)
impede our work and will not be conducive to achieving constructive results.
The Conference on Disarmament cannot therefore content itself by setting up a
subsidiary body which has no authority to negotiate but only discuss.
The approach to item 1 of our agenda has therefore to be one of
negotiations, not that of non-negotiations. The Final Document of the first
special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament which was
adopted by consensus nine years ago, has clearly stated that the cessation of
nuclear-weapon testing by all States within the framework of an effective
nuclear disarmament process would be in the interest of mankind. The same
Declaration had also referred to the need to conclude urgently the
negotiations which were then in progress on a "treaty prohibiting
nuclear-weapon tests". This effort was unfortunately abandoned soon after the
adoption of the consensus document. It cannot remain in that limbo and must
be rescued from its position of obscurity.
Basing ourselves on the deeply held and publicly stated position of
non-aligned nations to which I have referred a little while ago, the Group
of 21 in the Conference on Disarmament adopted by consensus an approach which
is contained in document CD/520/Rev.2. This document clearly states our
desire to establish an ad hoc committee on a nuclear-test ban "to initiate the
multilateral negotiations of a treaty for the prohibition of all nuclear
weapon tests". This position remains on the table. The position of the
Western Group, as far as I am aware, is contained in document CD/521.
We have recently heard arguments, some of them quite eloquent, that
despite the serious differences in approach, the Conference should consider
the setting up of an ad hoc committee without undertaking negotiations. It
has been suggested that what is important is not the mandate but "practical"
work and that certain shifts in the voting pattern on certain resolutions in
the General Assembly are indicative of the growing convergence between the
opposing views. With due respect and the best of goodwill, we find it
difficult to agree with this proposition or with the suggestion that the basic
issues of negotiations should be set aside. One delegation has
authoritatively stated that on some nuclear-testing issues, it is prepared to
resume work in a committee with "an appropriate non-negotiating mandate".
Some delegations have raised the question of whether a negotiating mandate is
absolutely necessary at the present time. Still others feel that the ad hoc
committee could profitably concentrate on such issues as verification and
compliance, a subject which has been under discussion by the Ad Hoc Group of
Scientific Experts for the last 10 years. We are not convinced that piecemeal
approaches with frequently shifting preferences can provide the answer to this
problem.
Since 1979, the year after the Final Document of SSOD-I was adopted,
there have been 364 or 365 nuclear tests, as has been recorded by the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The moratorium on nuclear
testing which was being unilaterally observed by one of the super-Powers has
been abandoned for reasons which are well known to the Committee. Nearly
25 years after the call given by the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty that as a
provisional measure all nuclear test explosions should be halted, the tests
562
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
6
(Mr.
Teja, India)
have unfortunately continued. Under such circumstances, when
confronted with an indefinite prospect of more nuclear tests,
more nuclear tests, should this Conference be asked to set up
committee to do less than what many of us have advocated over
tests are conducted not merely to update the existing nuclear
develop new weapon systems, when testing is justified not only on the
perceived inadequacy of verification and compliance but on the more basic
ground of national security, when the priority attached by some to a
nuclear-test ban has been virtually reversed so that a test-ban treaty would
come towards the end rather than in the earlier stages of the disarmament
process, should the role of the Conference on Disarmament -- the sole
multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament -- be confined to an airy
discussion of the issues, without any authority to engage in meaningful
negotiations on the vital issues of the day.
we are
and I repeat,
an ad hoc
the years? When
arsenals but to
The answer to these questions is clear in so far as we are concerned.
The setting up of an ad hoc committee under item 1 without the mandate to
initiate multilateral negotiations of a treaty for the prohibition of all
nuclear-weapon tests will defeat the very objective which we all wish to
achieve. It may create an illusion of movement without any real movement and
arouse false hopes that the Conference had broken new ground when nothing of
that sort may in fact have happened. It would be tantamount to legitimizing
nuclear-weapon tests and by implication the nuclear-arms race for an
indefinite period. My delegation would be reluctant to take on such an
onerous responsibility. We would therefore once again urge in all sincerity
that the question of a negotiating mandate should be addressed with due
deliberation and with more effort to persuade those who have not been in
favour of it. This way, we would at least know the future direction in which
we are moving even though the road may sometimes be hard and difficult. To do
otherwise would mean obscuring our vision and getting lost among the footpaths
of side issues without reaching the principal destination.
I would now like to turn to item 5 of our agenda -- Prevention of an arms
race in outer space -- which has all too obvious a relationship with the
nuclear issues. The Six-Nation Initiative has placed particular emphasis on
this question. The Delhi Declaration calls for the prohibition of the
development, testing, production, deployment and use of all space weapons
The Harare Declaration calls on the Conference on Disarmament to commence
negotiations urgently to conclude an agreement or agreements, as appropriate,
to prevent the extension of the arms race in all its aspects into outer space
and thus enhance the prospects of co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer
space.
The Ad Hoc Committee, which has been obliged to function so far within a
limited mandate, has reached certain conclusions which are reflected in last
year's report contained in CD/726. This document concludes that the Ad Hoc
Committee has examined and identified the need to reinforce the legal regime
applicable to outer space; that the Ad Hoc Committee has examined and
identified the need for strict compliance with existing agreements; and that
the Ad Hoc Committee recognized the interest of mankind in the exploration and
use of outer space for peaceful purposes.
563
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
7
(Mr. Teja, India)
What is therefore needed now is to undertake negotiations to reinforce
the regimes by developing new agreements or agreement. The issue assumes
greater urgency in view of the reports about the possibility of early
deployment of the first phase of the ballistic missile defence foreseen in the
Strategic Defence Initiative. The Conference was not in existence when
nuclear weapons began to be developed. It would however be tragic if our
Conference merely engages itself in discussion while development and
deployment of space weapons takes the arms race into yet another dimension
undermining the existing network of arms control agreements. This cannot but
aggravate the threat of a nuclear war. The Conference must therefore address
itself to the issue without further delay.
My delegation is pleased to note the high priority attached to
item 4 -- Chemical Weapons -- by the members of the Conference, especially the
United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Encouraging trends were noticed during 1986 and a fair amount of progress was
achieved in refining the language of the draft convention. For this, I would
like to express our sincere gratitude to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee,
the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom, and also the Chairmen
of three Working Groups. We share the optimism expressed by some delegates
about the possible conclusion of the Convention by the end of 1987 and are
prepared to co-operate fully with the new Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee,
the distinguished representative of Sweden, to achieve this goal.
It is already possible to visualize the final form of the CW Convention
and it would be no exaggeration to state that it will be the most complex
disarmament instrument that we have negotiated to date. Presently, the
negotiations are at a delicate stage. It is therefore necessary that we
organize our work in a manner that would enable us to deal most effectively
with the pending issues. I would suggest that we occupy ourselves with the
issues of principles while leaving the experts to iron out the technical and
procedural questions. In this connection our delegation has attempted in the
following paragraphs to indicate some of the priorities.
The definition of a chemical weapon is a fundamental issue and a
complicated one. The present definition based on toxicity has helped the
Ad Hoc Committee in its deliberations but it is now widely felt, especially
taking into account the consideration of non-prohibited activities, that this
definition needs to be refined by incorporating other elements based on
characteristics of chemical weapons and, therefore, the danger that they might
pose to the Convention. Another area which is related to this issue is the
classification of chemical products into different categories and the
rationale for doing so. In this exercise, our delegation feels, we must not
lose sight of the fact that the Convention is aimed at banning chemical
weapons and not inhibiting the growth of chemical industry for peaceful
purposes. Accordingly, the importance of Article XI of the Convention cannot
be overlooked. It is our strong conviction that provisions for implementing
international co-operation for economic and technological development of
peaceful chemical industry will only serve to strengthen the Convention and
its fundamental objectives.
564
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
8
(Mr. Teja, India)
The issues relating to organizational aspects and the structure of the
authority which will be responsible for the implementation of this Convention
also deserve urgent and thorough consideration. Given the unique nature of
this instrument, it is necessary to design new solutions to meet the
requirements of the Convention.
Finally, while still on chemical weapons, another significant aspect is
that of the challenge inspection regime. It is heartening to note that there
is now a convergence on the basic concepts underlying this measure and we hope
that it will soon be possible to convert it into an agreement on the details
of this exercise. An early resolution of this issue will go a long way in
strengthening our determination to conclude the Convention by the end of 1987.
In accordance with the decision of the General Assembly, the Conference
is expected to present a comprehensive programme of disarmament before the end
of the forty-first session. It is expected that the successful elaboration of
this programme, which was to have been initially completed in 1982 for
SSOD-II, will help reaffirm the priorities clearly established in the Final
Document of SSOD-I. Some nuclear-weapon States have in the past refused to
agree to specific measures as well as to a time-frame for these stages. It
will be our effort to ensure that the Ad Hoc Committee on Comprehensive
Programme of Disarmament under the able guidance of Ambassador Garcia Robles
will be able to fulfil its mandate in accordance with the final objective of
general and complete disarmament under effective international control.
My delegation is pleased to note that it has been possible to set up
during the first month itself, Ad Hoc Committees on items 6 and 7 -- dealing
respectively with effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear
weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and new
types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons including
radiological weapons. We hope that these Committees can begin their work soon.
Before concluding, I should like to briefly touch upon the work which is
to be carried out in the forthcoming Conference on Disarmament and Development
later this year. The Conference will provide all members with a historic
opportunity to come to substantial agreement on this important issue. The
Conference should avoid controversy and focus instead on the universally
important subject in a positive manner. My delegation hopes that the
successful conclusion of this Conference will provide a useful and significant
impetus to our efforts in achieving the goal of general and complete
disarmament.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
India for his statement and the kind words he addressed to the President.
I now give the floor to my next speaker, the representative of Poland,
Ambassador Turbanski.
565
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
9
Mr. TURBANSKI (Poland): Comrade President, it has been repeatedly
stressed in this room that the Conference on Disarmament is a sole or a unique
multilateral negotiating body of 40 States of all regions of the world,
different political systems, large, medium and small, non-nuclear and nuclear,
members of political and military alliances and non-aligned. This, no doubt,
creates strong potential for producing concrete, effective results. The fact
is, however, that this potential is still not fully awakened to become a
leading force in working out real, effective measures for decreasing step by
step the world's military arsenals, especially of weapons of mass destruction,
until their final elimination.
With a feeling of disappointment one has to admit that, though some
progress has been made by the Conference on Disarmament every year, especially
on chemical weapons prohibition, unfortunately so far no results have been
achieved which could be translated into real disarmament measures.
It is true that the work of this body depends to a large degree upon the
state of the world political situation. I share the feeling which seems to
prevail that though still far from being satisfactory, the overall political
climate is now more propitious for substantial results to be achieved by the
Conference than it was some years ago.
The past year was proclaimed the International Year of Peace. Although
there was not peace everywhere in the world this was a year of great
significance for the future, for better prospects of lasting peace, based on
far-reaching disarmament rather than the arms race.
It was the year of the great Soviet initiative to free the world of
nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction before the turn of the century.
This was not a programme addressed to a specific forum or nation. It was a
programme addressed to all nations, to all disarmament forums. It was quite
natural that also here, at the Conference on Disarmament, it occasioned not
only significant interest, as it deserved, but also stirred up useful
discussion and exchange of views. This programme still remains, as we call it
in conference language, on the negotiating table, as was the case also during
the Reykjavik Summit Meeting. That Meeting now belongs to history. It has
heralded new hopes of a nuclear-free world. The positive results were,
however, far less than they could have been. The far-reaching, bold Soviet
proposals for reduction and subsequent elimination of nuclear weapons were
again not matched by a similar willingness of the other major Power to
promptly do away with nuclear weapons and prevent an arms race in outer space.
The bilateral USSR-United States talks here in Geneva continue. We
strongly believe that they will be carried on successfully and will bring
concrete, positive results.
Nineteen eighty-six -- the International Year of Peace -- was also a year
of silence at the Soviet nuclear-test sites. This silence could have
continued permanently if the United States had not chosen to carry on with its
programme of nuclear testing. No matter whether it was a coincidence or
566
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
10
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
wilful and careful planning, the first American nuclear test this year -- on
3 February, the opening date of the Conference's session -- was a challenge to
world public opinion and a sign of disregard for the efforts of this
Conference.
The Stockholm Conference on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures
and Disarmament in Europe resulted in the adoption of a document which is
widely considered a convincing demonstration of a very concrete contribution
to the strengthening of international stability and security. In many
respects it could serve as a good example that intensive efforts and the
spirit of compromise can lead to substantial results, that progress is
possible even in a complicated international situation.
In making this short overview of the main developments in the area of
international security and disarmament in the past year I would like also to
mention the important proposal of the socialist countries at the
forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly on the
establishment of a comprehensive system of international peace and security.
Such a system is indispensable in a modern world, as we approach the
twenty-first century.
This is meant to be not only a system of peace and security but a system
of collective thinking and mutual responsibility for the future of mankind, a
system embracing not only political and military aspects but also economic,
humanitarian, social and other important areas of international relations.
Important political initiatives and proposals came from the non-aligned
countries. I have especially in mind the Harare Declaration and the
declarations of the leaders of the six States.
At their Budapest summit meeting, the Warsaw Treaty member States put
forward the idea of the reduction of armed forces and conventional armaments
in Europe.
And last but not least, my country came forward with an important
initiative at the Vienna CSCE follow-up meeting to complete the mandate of the
European Conference on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures and
Disarmament so as to enable it to consider and to undertake steps toward
reduction of armed forces and conventional armaments in Europe.
These two last initiatives, though regional in scope, have broader,
extraregional significance from the point of view of international security,
confidence and stability.
I have recalled only some examples of developments of the last year.
They do not mean, however, that tensions in the international situation ceased
to exist, that the arms race has stopped, or that the danger of nuclear
holocaust has disappeared. Not at all.
561
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
11
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
Though some of us do not like any time limits to be put before the
Conference, it is worthwhile reiterating that in 1988 the third
special session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to disarmament
will be convened.
I fully agree with Ambassador J. Dhanapala of Sri Lanka that "the
approach of SSOD-III must necessarily lend a sense of urgency to our work".
It would be a political setback for the Conference, for all of us to come to
the SSOD-III without substantial results.
The agenda of the Conference on Disarmament has consisted of the same
items for years. The same also applies to priorities. The only difference is
that they are becoming more and more urgent every year. The whole complex of
nuclear issues -- nuclear-test ban, cessation of the nuclear-arms race and
nuclear disarmament, prevention of nuclear war, though enjoying the highest
priority among the vast majority of Conference members, has not yet received
actual priority treatment by the Conference.
It remains the firm belief of Poland that the solution of these issues is
of fundamental importance for the security of all States and of all mankind.
Poland has consistently considered the nuclear-test ban as a very
important step towards the cessation of the nuclear-arms race, as a measure
facilitating nuclear disarmament, and substantially contributing to
international security and mutual confidence. The utmost urgency of the
prohibition of nuclear testing was strongly emphasized during the
forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly, which adopted four
resolutions on this subject.
Poland was among the vast majority of countries who voted for the
adoption of all these resolutions. We hope that States members of the
Conference on Disarmament which were not ready to join any of these
resolutions will rethink their position so as to enable the Conference to
start effective and business-like work on this item.
We respect the security concerns of every country, but there is, in the
nuclear age, only one security for all of us. That is why it was dispiriting
to hear again that France, a country whose participation in the building of
European and world security is so important, continues to be of the opinion
that the cessation of nuclear testing does not constitute "a pre-condition for
progress towards nuclear disarmament".
Most of the speakers in the first month of the 1987 session have
emphasized a nuclear-test ban as a matter of the highest priority and urgency,
with substantial implications for the security of all States. Now, this first
month is over but the Conference is still unable to move toward establishing
an ad hoc committee on agenda item 1. Interpretations of this fact could
differ, but there is only one sad reality -- no substantial work is being done
by the Conference on a nuclear-test ban.
568
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
12
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
This deplorable situation must be changed. We should again join our
efforts and more courageously search for a compromise formula of a mandate for
the committee. We should not forget, however, that the mandate, though
important, is not an aim in itself.
The Group of Scientific Experts which over the years of its activity, and
especially by the last progress report, has demonstrated its significant
contribution to the issue of nuclear-test ban verification is a positive
exception in the overall picture of the Conference's inability to deal
effectively with the prohibition of nuclear testing.
The Group of Scientific Experts will meet again next week to begin its
work on preparation of international experiment on the exchange and processing
of levels I and II seismic data.
Some useful experience was gained by experts who participated in the
Canadian Workshop in October 1986, in which a Polish expert also took part.
May I, Mr. President, use this opportunity to express our thanks to the
Canadian authorities for their organization of this useful meeting.
The importance of exchange of wave-form (level II) data and its
significance for verification of the future nuclear-test ban treaty is obvious
to everybody.
But for the work of the Group to be fully effective and goal-oriented, it
has to be supplemented by concrete proceedings in the ad hoc committee. We
believe that when the Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts meets again in the
summer part of the session, the ad hoc committee will have long been at work.
My delegation is for a prompt establishment of the ad hoc committee
within the framework of which business-like work on the scope, compliance and
verification of a treaty on a nuclear-test ban could be undertaken. Even
those who regard "a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing as a long-term
objective" would agree that neither of these issues could be effectively
solved as a separate, autonomous issue, without due regard for their
interrelationship. That is why we are in favour of work on all elements of a
future treaty, as a complex. We also agree with those delegations who
consider that working groups within the committee might be needed.
We think that different approaches should be considered so as to enable
the committee to make full use of the abundant material at the disposal of the
Conference. More detailed views on possible items to be discussed within the
ad hoc committee are offered in the document submitted by a Group of Socialist
Countries on 13 June 1986 (CD/701). The task before us looms large; the
sooner it is undertaken and accomplished the better for our ultimate goal --
the nuclear-test ban treaty.
The informal meetings held during last year's session on the cessation of
the nuclear-arms race and nuclear disarmament were in our opinion constructive
and useful. This year we should move toward the next step -- more structured
and goal-oriented work preferably in a more formalized form. Poland still
569
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
13
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
considers that the most desirable solution would be to establish a
corresponding ad hoc committee, but we are also open to other constructive
proposals.
Prevention of nuclear war is a problem of global dimensions. It deserves
indeed to be dealt with more seriously by this multilateral body. Here again
we are in favour of the establishment of an appropriate ad hoc committee, but
if this is not possible my delegation would be ready to actively participate
in a structured discussion of the issue at informal plenary meetings or in any
other form leading toward practical work.
In this context I cannot but comment on the statement made at the plenary
meeting two days ago: "Would not this forum risk becoming the theatre of the
absurd if it were to devote much time to addressing the prevention of nuclear
war, something quite unlikely".
I think it could be useful to refer in this context to some opinions of
scientists, including American ones, on the growing danger of accidental
nuclear war, which in their view is not "something quite unlikely".
Let me quote three examples from last year:
First, the Conference on the Risk of Accidental Nuclear War held in
Vancouver, Canada, in May 1986, concluded that the danger of accidental
nuclear war was substantial and increasing,
Second, three prominent American scientists in an article published last
year in Journal of Peace and Research (vol. 23, No. 1, 1986) concluded that
recent developments in strategic weaponry had led to increasing fears that the
danger of nuclear war by accident was growing,
Third, a similar conclusion was reached by the Pugwash Workshop on
nuclear forces and accidental nuclear war held in December 1986.
These are not only theoretical calculations
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail
addressing the participants of the International
reminded them that:
"There are dozens -- I repeat dozens -
moments when the possibility of using such
countries was seriously considered" -- and
to stress once again how close mankind has
point-of-no-return".
. The General Secretary of
Gorbachev, recently
Forum for Nuclear Free World,
- of recorded and acknowledged
weapons against other
he continued "I am saying this
come to the
The greatest danger facing the world today is nuclear war. In fact, it
would be a real "the theatre of absurd" if this forum called the Conference on
Disarmament did not deal with this question.
570
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
14
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
It is true that nuclear and other issues, being on our agenda, are also
the subject of Soviet-American bilateral talks. Poland attaches the utmost
importance to those negotiations. We strongly believe, however, that this
Conference cannot be just an observer of those negotiations. It would be
contrary to its mandate, to the decisions of the United Nations, and to the
expectations of the world community.
The concrete work of the Conference on Disarmament on the items connected
with nuclear weapons should not be impeded by anybody or by any reason. The
problem of nuclear weapons is not the problem of the security of only some
States. It is not even the problem of the security of all of us. It is the
problem of the survival of our civilization. And even if in this train in
which we all travel together there are some more important passengers, there
are also fellow-travellers who have the interest, right and duty to say in
what direction the train should go.
Before I finish I would like to make a short remark on another item of
special interest to my delegation, chemical weapons. It has been so far the
most advanced piece of work done by the Conference. We are very glad to see
the evident progress already achieved during this session.
The recent proposals of the Soviet Union are of great significance to our
work. They open new avenues for making headway, clearly demonstrating the
constructiveness of the Soviet approach and decisiveness to bring our work to
a prompt and successful end. However, a similar approach is urgently needed
on the part of others too, and we would like to see it coming.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Poland for his statement. I now give the floor to the representative of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Ambassador Nazarkine.
Mr. NAzARKINE (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): Comrade President, as has been repeatedly stated by the Soviet
side, our unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing cannot last indefinitely if
the United States does not join in it. The statement issued by the Soviet
Government of 18 December last year said quite explicitly that the
Soviet Union would resume nuclear testing after the first United States
nuclear explosion of 1987. You are well aware of the developments which
occurred early this month -- I am referring to the United States nuclear
explosion on 3 February, followed by yet another explosion. I wish to remind
you that on the occasion of the explosion on 3 February our side stated that
"The Soviet Union no longer considers itself bound by its unilateral
moratorium on all nuclear testing and will begin at an appropriate time the
implementation of its programme of nuclear testing".
Today at 08.00 hours Moscow time the Soviet Union carried out an
underground nuclear explosion of up to 20 kilotons at the test site near
Semipalatinsk.
This explosion was carried out to test research results in the field of
nuclear explosion physics.
571
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
15
(Mr. Nazarkine, USSR)
It must be clear that the resumption of testing is not our choice, but
has been forced upon us. We are well aware that the real reason for the
refusal of the United States side to join the Soviet moratorium or to agree on
a nuclear-test ban is that the United States is openly counting on achieving
military superiority over the Soviet Union and the socialist countries by
developing new types and classes of weapons. The nuclear testing carried out
by the United States involves not only development of new nuclear warheads,
but also the creation under the SDI programme of space-based strike weapons --
X-ray nuclear-driven lasers. Work is under way on a totally new weapon
capable of destroying targets both in space and on Earth. The SDI programme,
therefore, is the major obstacle not only to reducing the nuclear arsenals but
also to ceasing nuclear testing.
We emphasize that we regard a total nuclear-weapon-test ban as a priority
measure -- I stress, a priority rather than a long-term measure -- aimed
towards the limitation of nuclear arms and their subsequent elimination. We
propose finding without delay a solution to this question. I wish to remind
you that the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU,
M.S. Gorbachev, stated in his reply to the leaders of Argentina, India,
Mexico, Greece, Sweden and Tanzania in connection with their Declaration
of 1986, that "Even if we are compelled to resume nuclear testing, we would
work as consistently as we do for a resumption of full-scale negotiations on
the subject, which we are prepared to conduct in any form and in any forum,
but, naturally, with the participation of the United States".
We believe that the Conference on Disarmament, which under its mandate is
a body for multilateral disarmament negotiations, is one such forum. We wish
to emphasize yet again that the States blocking the initiation of negotiations
on the subject assume a serious global responsibility. It is necessary to
begin without delay practical work on a nuclear-test ban in the Conference on
Disarmament, and to establish an ad hoc committee for this purpose.
We also support proposals to take practical steps towards extending the
Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and
under Water to underground nuclear testing.
The Ad Hoc Group of Seismological Experts will shortly resume its work in
the framework of the Conference. The Soviet experts are already in Geneva and
are ready to participate constructively in the Group's work with a view to
developing a system of international seismic level II data exchange and
preparing the international experiment.
There is no need for me to remind you of our proposals on verifying
compliance with a complete nuclear-test ban agreement. Seeking to use every
opportunity to intensify efforts in this field, the Soviet Union has already
expressed its willingness to make use of the proposals by the six leaders to
this effect. The verification problem can no longer be used as an excuse for
avoiding agreement.
572
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
16
(Mr. Nazarkine, USSR)
We wish to reaffirm that if the United States halts its nuclear testing,
the Soviet Union will be prepared to halt on a reciprocal basis the
implementation of its own programme of nuclear testing any day or month.
The Soviet Union remains a staunch supporter of a complete halt to all
nuclear testing as a crucial, top-priority measure for achieving the main
objective of curbing the race in nuclear arms and, subsequently, completely
eliminating them. As before, the Soviet Union will actively work to achieve
this goal.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for his statement. That concludes my
list of speakers for today. Is there any member who would like to take the
floor?
Mr. HANSEN (United States of America): Thank you, Mr. President. I
listened with great care to all of the statements which have been made this
morning and my delegation will indeed give careful consideration to the views
which have been expressed. Of particular interest were the remarks made by
the distinguished representative of the Soviet Union, Ambassador Narzakine. I
would like to make one or two brief comments that I think are useful to us in
this forum, which many of you have said in the last two or three days is the
only multilateral disarmament conference.
I think that every nation, large or small, is, by its constitution,
charged with the responsibility to provide for the defence of its people.
That is certainly the case in my country. My country was not the first one to
venture into outer space with weapons. We have for many years studied and
analysed the questions of defence. We have for many years relied upon a
concept with which many of you have voiced disagreement: the concept of
mutually assured destruction. The President of the United States, as a man of
vision, sought to find a different approach and therefore, as you all know,
has instigated a programme of research which is commonly known as the
Strategic Defence Initiative.
Now, I started by mentioning a State's right and indeed obligation to
provide for its own defence. We question no other country's right to the same
but we demand our own right and of course we consult with friends and allies;
of course, we take into consideration factors relating to balance, stability
and the effect upon peace and security in our world. But the fact remains
that the United States does not now have any defence against ballistic
missiles. That fact often surprises people: that a country as large as mine
would not have a defence against strategic missiles which represent in today's
world the most blatant threat to the security of our country. Now we have
begun a programme of research which has, in our view, shown that stragegic
defence is possible. We are negotiating with the Soviet Union bilaterally, as
you all know, in attempts to try to deal with this problem which has arisen
from the standpoint not only of our own security but from the standpoint of
international stability. We hope those negotiations bring results.
573
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
17
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
Now let me tell you that within the area of nuclear testing, when you
speak of X-ray lasers, less than 10 per cent of those tests deal in any way
with X-ray lasers. The principal objection which is given to you and to the
international media about the United States Strategic Defence Initiative seems
to be based upon the premise that the SDI will provide the United States with
some sort of space strike capability. In that regard, I should like to quote
from a publication resulting from the work and analysis, not of American
scientists, but of Soviet scientists, among them Mr. Velikhov, who is
generally recognized to be the man in the Soviet Union charged with this
particular responsibility. I now quote:
"As regards the possibilities of destroying ground-based targets by
lasers from space, there are even more uncertainties. Space-based laser
weapons, although sufficiently powerful to destroy ICBMs in flight, would
obviously be impotent against a wide variety of hard ground targets, such
as missile silos, strategic command centres, aircraft under hard covers,
and so forth. ... Space-based laser weapons would be extremely sensitive
to the weather conditions over prospective targets. ... These
considerations all strongly suggest that even under favourable weather
conditions, laser systems of a space-based ballistic missile defence seem
to have limited applicability against ground hard targets."
I do not wish to engage in long debates with anyone, and certainly not in
those which have a polemic character, but I do want to make sure that this
body understands that we are not seeking a "space strike capability", and the
best way for me to let you know that, is the fact that scientists agree that
lasers have little potential for such an activity.
Mr. NAZARKINE (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): I am not going to take up much time. I would simply like to say
that in one of our forthcoming statements in the course of this session of the
Conference on Disarmament we were precisely intending to refer to the issue
which was just now mentioned by the distinguished representative of the
United States, Ambassador Hansen, namely the possibilities of the Strategic
Defence Initiative from the standpoint of offensive or strike potential.
Hence I am not going to refer to this issue today but I shall revert to it in
one of my statements.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for his statement. Does any other
member wish to take the floor? I now give the floor to the representative of
Brazil.
Mr. SALLES (Brazil): I just wish to call the attention of the Conference
to document CD/733/Add.1 which has recently been circulated. This is an
addendum to document CD/733 which, as you recall, contained a letter from the
Secretary-General of the United Nations to you, Mr. President, conveying the
text of many resolutions dealing with disarmament as well as information
concerning other resolutions relating to disarmament matters. The
document CD/733/Add.1 gives notice of the inclusion in the information that
the Secretary-General has transmitted to you of resolution 41/11 on the
574
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
18
(Mr. Salles, Brazil)
Declaration of a Zone of Peace and Co-operation of the South Atlantic. I
mention this because my delegation feels that this inclusion was necessary, as
the document did not contain it. As you will recall, this resolution which
was co-sponsored by Brazil and many other delegations from Latin America and
Africa, had an overwhelming vote of approval of 124 votes against just 1 and
8 abstentions. We feel that the Declaration of a Zone of Peace and
Co-operation of the South Atlantic is an initiative representing a very
important contribution to the objectives we are here to promote and implement.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Brazil for his statement. Does any other member wish to take the floor? I
see none. The President has learnt that now we have some other business to
deal with. However, since some delegations need to conduct some
consultations, I suggest that we suspend the meeting for half an hour. If
this can be agreed upon, we can resume here in half an hour. I would also
like to inform you, at the request of its Co-ordinator, that the Group of 21
will meet in room C.108 immediately. The meeting is suspended.
The meeting was suspended at 12 noon and resumed at 12.40 p.m.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): The 392nd plenary meeting of
the Conference on Disarmament is now resumed. We shall now deal with other
matters.
The secretariat has circulated today, at my request, a Working Paper
(CD/WP.268) containing a draft mandate for an ad hoc committee under item 5 of
the agenda, entitled "Prevention of an arms race in outer space". The draft
mandate is identical to the mandate adopted by the Conference last year in
document CD/694.
I have conducted informal consultations with members from different
groups, and in putting this Working Paper CD/WP.268 before the Conference for
decision, I wish to state that, as is known to all members of the Conference
and as reflected in the 1986 report of the Conference to the General Assembly
of the United Nations (CD/732), consideration of proposals for measures aimed
at the prevention of an arms race in outer space is covered by the mandate
contained in Working Paper CD/WP.268.
If there is no objection, I shall take it that the Conference adopts the
draft decision contained in Working Paper CD/WP.268.
Mr. GARCIA ROBLES (Mexico) (translated from Spanish): My delegation
would have preferred a clearer and more categorical text, but it is well aware
that in this case time is of the essence and it would be wrong for your
strenuous efforts, Mr. President, not to receive their due reward through the
adoption of a decision on this basis. My delegation will therefore agree to
our adopting this mandate, with a clear interpretation on the part of my
575
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001onnni_4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
19
(Mr. Garcia Robles, Mexico)
delegation, which we have been told is the interpretation that all groups and
all delegations give to this text. Thus my delegation will accept this text,
and I shall continue in English for greater accuracy:
(spoke in English)
"with the understanding that the mandate we are going to approve covers
measures proposed with the aim of preventing an arms race in outer space".
(continued in Spanish)
As you, Mr. President, and all the other distinguished members of the
Conference will have, noticed, the words I have used are taken from the
penultimate paragraph of the document distributed to us as Rev.1, and from the
words you have just spoken. Mention is made in that paragraph of
"consideration of proposals for measures", etc. Thus my delegation's
interpretation is the one I have just given, which will appear in the record
of this meeting.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Mexico for his statement, and I thank him for his co-operative spirit. I now
give the floor to the representative of Australia.
Mr. ROWE (Australia): Mr. President, I would like to express my
appreciation for the untiring efforts you have made which have led to the
decision that we are about to take, to adopt the mandate for the
re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in
Outer Space. We attach great significance to the early resumption of work in
this Committee on this very important subject, and we are very pleased that it
has been possible to arrive at consensus in the Conference to allow that to
happen. We, of course, fully support the resumption of that work on the basis
of the mandate which, in fact, was in operation last year because we believe
that there is a lot of very useful work which needs to be done before that
mandate could be considered to be exhausted, and we certainly look forward to
actively contributing to the work under that mandate. We also welcome the
statement which you have read out and we certainly accept the terminology of
that statement. We fully endorse the way in which that statement is phrased
because we feel that that is a very accurate reflection of the state of
affairs and of the understandings that certainly we hold about the matters
referred to in that statement. I would like to express once again our
appreciation for your efforts and our support for the re-establishment of the
Ad Hoc Committee under the mandate which is proposed and, of course, taking
full account of the Presidential statement which you have read out.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Australia for his statement, and also for the spirit of understanding he has
displayed. I now give the floor to the representative of Venezuela.
Ms. GONZALEZ (Venezuela) (translated from Spanish): First of all,
Mr. President, I wish to express my delegation's pleasure at seeing you occupy
the Presidency of the Conference of Disarmament for this month. I should also
576
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
20
(Ms. Gonzalez, Venezuela)
like to express our appreciation for the efforts you have made to forge a
consensus on the setting up of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an
Arms Race in Outer Space. Finally, I wish to say that my delegation
associates itself with the interpretation given by Ambassador Garcia Robles of
Mexico, which fully reflects its own position.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Venezuela for her statement, and also for the spirit of co-operation she has
expressed. I now give the floor to the representative of Mongolia.
Mr. BAYART (Mongolia) (translated from French): Mr. President, first of
all I too wish to thank you for the efforts you have made to enable the
Conference to take the decision on the setting up of the Ad Hoc Committee on
the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. I should also like to say that
since the beginning of this session of the Conference the socialist countries
have shown their keen interest for the Conference to take this decision as
rapidly as possible. They have always shown themselves to be very flexible
and most co-operative with respect to the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee, in
order to forge ahead with the Conference's work and not waste precious time, a
very important factor as the distinguished representative of Mexico pointed
out. The socialist countries join in the consensus that is emerging on the
mandate and the Presidential statement on the subject.
I wish to say that the socialist countries are ready and prepared to make
an active contribution, as in the past, to the work of this subsidiary body on
this important and high-priority item of the Conference's agenda, namely, the
prevention of an arms race in outer space.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Mongolia for his statement, and for the spirit of co-operation he has
displayed. I now give the floor to the representative of Peru,
Ambassador Morelli Pando.
Mr. MORELLI PANDO (Peru) (translated from Spanish): On behalf of the
Group of 21, I wish to express our deep appreciation and gratitude for the
efforts you have made for the prompt re-establishment of the highly important
Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): I thank the representative of
Peru for his statement and for the spirit of co-operation he has expressed.
If I see no objection, I shall take it that the Conference adopts the draft
decision contained in Working Paper CD/WP.268.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): A copy of the statement that I
have just made has been distributed to all members.
I have also requested the secretariat to circulate an informal paper
containing a timetable of meetings to be held by the Conference and its
subsidiary bodies during the week 2-6 March. The timetable has been prepared
577
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100ionnn1-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
21
(The President)
in consultation with the Chairmen of the subsidiary bodies. As usual, it is
merely indicative and may be changed, if so required. If there is no
objection, I shall take it that the Conference adopts the informal paper.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Chinese): Allow me now to make my
concluding statement as President of the Conference for the month of February.
In approaching the end of my term of Presidency, I wish to make a few
remarks regarding the work done in the Conference on Disarmament during the
month of February.
Our first order of business for the annual session was to organize our
work in order to begin our consideration of substantive matters without
delay. The Conference was able to adopt its agenda for the 1987 session and
the programme of work for the first part of the session at the very first
plenary meeting. This was a welcome development, which was made possible
thanks to the understanding and co-operation of all members of the
Conference. This positive political atmosphere at the opening of the
Conference also made it possible for us to agree, in accordance with the rules
of procedure, to invite a number of non-members to participate in substantive
questions relating to the work of the Conference.
The Conference had also to consider organizational arrangements for the
substantive items on the agenda. We were able to re-establish at the
2nd plenary meeting during the first week after the opening of the session the
Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons, appoint an able Chairman,
Ambassador Ekeus of Sweden, for that subsidiary body and continue the
negotiating process on that agenda item. During the second week we have also
been able to re-establish the Ad Hoc Committee on item 6, entitled "Effective
international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use
or threat of use of nuclear weapons" and on item 7 "Radiological Weapons".
Today, after intensive consultations during the past week, we have also been
able to reach agreement on the re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on the
Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, under agenda item 5. Consultations
are proceeding for the appointment of their Chairmen. The Ad Hoc Committee on
the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament has also resumed its work under the
Chairmanship of Ambassador Garcia Robles of Mexico, who has been leading that
Committee with his well-known diplomatic competence. The Conference is also
engaged in intensive consultations with a view to starting, as soon as
possible, substantive work on other items on the agenda. Those consultations
show an approximation of positions on organizational arrangements for some of
those items. It will be up to my successor to continue those consultations
and hopefully to succeed in consolidating agreement on those organizational
questions.
However, there is a Chinese proverb which says that a long journey has to
start with the first step. In this connection, it should be pointed out that
the progress achieved by the Conference during the month of February is merely
the beginning of our substantive work for this y5ar. We shall spare no effort
573
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.392
22
(The President)
to reconcile the differences among delegations and various groups, so that the
Conference may discharge its functions as the sole multilateral negotiating
body of the international community in the field of disarmament. A spirit of
co-operation and compromise among delegations is required in the process of
negotiations and consultations and I am sure that all members of the
Conference will continue to show it in the coming months.
From the statements made so far it can be seen clearly that delegations
continue to attach great importance to the Conference on Disarmament as the
multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. On this basis, we shall redouble
our efforts in seeking common ground on various subjects on the agenda so that
the Conference will be able to reach agreements on certain items at an early
date, as the entire international community expects us to do.
May I express my appreciation to all members for their assistance during
my Presidency, and at the same time extend to my successor,
Ambassador Lechuga Hevia of Cuba, my best wishes for success during his
Presidency. He can count on my full co-operation in the discharge of the
duties of the office.
Finally, I would like to express my sincerest thanks to all members of
the secretariat of the Conference for their assistance extended to me during
this month, particularly the Secretary-General of the Conference,
Ambassador Komatina, and the Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference,
Ambassador Berasategui. I wish also to extend my gratitude to all the staff
of Conference Services, the interpreters and translators, for their hard work.
The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will meet next
Tuesday, 3 March 1987. The plenary meeting is adjourned.
The meeting rose at 1.05 p.m.
579
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
6
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.393
3 March 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY-THIRD PLENARY MEETING
held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 3 March 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
GE. $7-60350/7627E
Mr. Lechuga Hevia (Cuba)
580
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
2
The PRESIDENT (Translated from Spanish): I call to order the 393rd
plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament. At the outset, allow me to
make a brief opening statement.
It is, of course, our desire that the Conference on Disarmament may set
up the committees that remain to be established and thus make a significant
step forward along the path to disarmament. We are now in a new year, with a
very special set of circumstances: viable proposals have been put forward
which would appreciably reduce the nuclear arsenals of both sides, and the
possibility has been demonstrated of checking the mad adventure of the arms
race.
The Conference on Disarmament has been given a primary role in this major
undertaking of achieving firm and stable peace. It is the only multilateral
negotiating body, and in it there are represented all the nuclear Powers and
representatives of countries of different sizes and from differing
geographical regions of all the continents and political and economic systems
of the world spectrum. It therefore brings together the optimum conditions
required to carry out such an important task. If it does not achieve its
objectives, that is because the spirit of confrontation and narrow mindedness
will have prevailed over the responsbility placed upon this body by the
international community.
Over the years efforts have been made to guide the work entrusted to the
Conference along the paths of effective negotiations, but further efforts are
now needed in the prevailing circumstances. There are crucial agenda items
which have been the subject of exhaustive debate and analysis and which are
still virtually deadlocked. Others have been given superficial consideration,
with no real advances being made. This position is a sort of stalemate and
stagnation, and it must be overcome, as has been said repeatedly here by
almost everyone who has taken the floor.
The prevailing circumstances of international relations are complex and
dangerous, and daring measures must be adopted to ease and end the existing
tensions. Good faith is also required, to undertake responsible negotiations
that will meet the needs and aspirations of all peoples, since peace is
indivisible. There can be no peace for some and not for others. Hence, we
have to bury the old ideas that have no place in the world of today. We have
to put an end to the illusions of military superiority, which must be replaced
by peaceful relations of equitable co-operation.
To our mind, the waste of material, scientific, human and technological
resources for the manufacture of means of destruction cannot be dissociated
from the growing needs of the vast majority of mankind that calls for the use
of those riches to ease and satisfy their needs in the field of food, health
care and culture. These are needs which it is daily more difficult to meet,
fundamental requirements that cause death and disease and accentuate the
backwardness of millions of people who will never enjoy the benefits of the
scientific and technological advances that are today the privilege of small
strata of the world's population, unless steps are taken to bring about a
radical change in the situation. We would venture to say that it is a truism
that there can be no peace without development, and no development without
peace.
581
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
3
(The President)
Therefore the alternative to general crisis is disarmament, with
everything this involves in terms of confidence and a climate of peace. This
is a key year for this essential task. To promote peace, to establish it as
the normal standard of co-existence, is the goal this Conference can serve.
Thanks to the diplomatic skill of my predecessor,
Ambassador Fan Guoxiang, a number of important organizational issues were
solved during the month of February. We quickly adopted our agenda for the
annual session and the programme of work for the first part of the session.
Two Ad Hoc Committees are working actively and three others have been
established. The only matter pending, for them to start their activities, is
the appointment of their Chairmen. I invite members to consider this matter
as soon as possible in their group consultations, so that we may be in a
position to take prompt action on this question. There are also some other
organizational arrangements which require our active consideration, such as
those relating to agenda items 1, nuclear-test ban, 2, cessation of the
nuclear-arms race agd nuclear disarmament, and 3, prevention of nuclear war,
including all related matters.
We also need to look at various ideas relating to the question of new
types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons, that is,
the first part of agenda item 7. There is also the question of the improved
and effective functioning of the Conference, which we started to consider last
year in informal consultations, and which, as we all agreed at the start of
the session, we should take up again in 1987. I intend to consult members on
all these questions. We know that on some of those issues disagreements still
persist, while for others we should be able to find compromises which,
although not entirely satisfactory for everyone, might help us to advance our
work. I am sure that I can count on the assistance and co-operation of all
the members of the Conference in trying to move on from organizational to
substantive discussions on these questions.
I am ready, in my capacity as President, to offer any assistance which
might be necessary or to take initiatives whenever there are realistic
prospects of success. That concludes my opening statement.
In accordance with its programme of work the Conference begins today its
consideration of item 5, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. In
accordance with rule 30 of the rules of procedure, however, any member wishing
so to do may raise any subject relevant to the work of the Conference. I have
on my list of speakers for today the representatives of the German Democratic
Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I now give the floor to
the first of the speakers, the representative of the German Democratic
Republic, Ambassador Rose.
Mr. ROSE (German Democratic Republic): Comrade President, on behalf of
the delegation of the German Democratic Republic, I should like to
congratulate you on your assumption of the Presidency of the Conference on
Disarmament for the month of March. It gives me great satisfaction to see
that the high office of President of the Conference is now being performed by
the distinguished representative of Cuba, a country with which the German
Democratic Republic has for many years been linked by fraternal relations.
582
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
4
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
What is more, I have always appreciated, Comrade President, our close and
inspiring personal co-operation in the field of disarmament.
Knowing your outstanding qualities as an experienced diplomat, I am
confident that the proceedings of the Conference will be steered by skilful
hands.
At the same time, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the
outgoing President, the distinguished representative of the People's Republic
of China, Ambassador Fan Guoxiang, for the untiring and effective efforts he
made to enable the Conference to quickly engage in practical and meaningful
work.
We have learned with profound sorrow of the sudden death of Norway's
Foreign Minister, His Excellency Knut Frydenlund. With his passing away, the
Norwegian people has lost a statesman of great international repute. I would
like to ask the Norwegian Observer delegation to convey our heartfelt
condolences to its Government.
In my intervention today, I wish to introduce a Working Paper on item 1,
entitled Nuclear-Test Ban, submitted by a group of socialist'countries. The
document will be distributed with the symbol CD/743 in the next few days.
Before coming to that, however, I should like to take this opportunity,
with your kind permission, Comrade President, to draw the attention of the
Conference to a statement jointly issued on I March 1987 by the Politbureau of
the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, the Council of
State and the Council of Ministers of the German Democratic Republic. The
statement is in support of the latest ground-breaking initiative of the
Soviet Union, which calls for the prompt conclusion of a separate accord on
the complete elimination of nuclear medium-range missiles in Europe within the
next five years. Allow me to quote the following passages:
"Inspired by a sense of responsibility and readiness for compromise,
the Soviet Union has responded to wishes and suggestions by leading
Western politicians. There are no more excuses possible now. Words must
be followed by deeds, for Reykjavik already saw a virtually finished
agreement on that subject. It is now feasible, without great difficulty
or delay, to arrive at a finalized accord on medium-range missiles. Such
a bold initial step would bring within reach the vision of a
nuclear-weapon-free Europe and of reducing the stockpiles of nuclear arms
altogether. Like the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic
believes it to be extremely important not to relent in the quest for
agreement on a substantial reduction and the subsequent elimination of
strategic armaments and, in this context, to prohibit any deployment of
weapons in outer space.
"The Party and Government leadership of the German Democratic
Republic puts on record its agreement with the Soviet position that,
immediately after the signing of such an accord, the short-range
intermediate missiles deployed to counter the stationing of Pershing-2
and cruise missiles in western Europe will be removed from the territory
of the German Democratic Republic."
Sg3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
5
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
In this connection, I wish to let you know that Mr. Erich Honecker,
Chairman of the German Democratic Republic's Council of State, has sent a
message to Mr. Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, in
which he has pointed out the historic chance this new Soviet initiative offers
along the road to a world without nuclear weapons.
Also, I wish to emphasize again that, besides the removal of medium-range
and short-range intermediate nuclear weapons, the threat posed by the other
theatre nuclear forces in Europe could be lessened quickly and effectively, if
a nuclear-weapon-free corridor in Central Europe were created, as proposed by
Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic.
I should now like to revert to the introduction of CD/743.
In view of the urgency of the cessation of all nuclear-weapon tests as an
initial step towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, socialist
countries deem it necessary for the Conference on Disarmament to considerably
intensify work on item 1 of its agenda.
Working Paper CD/743 serves this very purpose. It contains a statement
of basic positions and proceeds from the recognition that achievement of an
NTH treaty is a question of political decision-making, since there are no
technical obstacles to an early conclusion of such an accord. It is
deplorable indeed that the historic chance offered by the unilateral Soviet
moratorium on all nuclear explosions has not been seized.
This has forced the USSR to resume testing, the reasons for which have
been well understood by delegations to the Conference. The Soviet Union has,
however, repeatedly declared its readiness to return to the moratorium on
nuclear testing, if the other side halts its nuclear explosions as well. That
position was reaffirmed last Thursday by Ambassador Nazarkin, a fact which is
to be welcomed. Therefore, socialist countries appeal once again to the
United States to reconsider its policy on nuclear testing.
Working Paper CD/743 takes account of the circumstance that the
Conference on Disarmament has before it all the basic materials which may
facilitate substantive work on item 1, e.g., the 1980 report of the trilateral
negotiations, draft treaties on an NTB submitted by two delegations in the
early 1980s, as well as other proposals and working papers. It calls for the
establishment of an ad hoc committee, which should carry out its tasks in two
working groups dealing with contents and scope of the treaty and with
compliance and verification, respectively.
The Working Paper exhorts the Conference promptly to proceed to
negotiations on every aspect of the matter. In order for substantive work to
be commenced, all member States are called upon to display the flexibility
needed to achieve a reasonable compromise on the mandate for an ad hoc
committee.
On the basis of the fundamental positions outlined in CD/743, the group
on whose behalf I am speaking is prepared to present detailed views and
suggestions on the issues relating to an NTBT.
584
npclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
6
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
the German Democratic Republic, Ambassador Rose, for his statement and for the
kind words addressed to my country and to myself. I now give the floor to the
representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Ambassador Nazarkin.
Mr. NAZARKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)(translated from
Russian): Comrade President, I am very pleased indeed to congratulate you,
the representative of fraternal Cuba and an eminent diplomat, on the occasion
of your accession to the post of the President of the Conference on
Disarmament for the month of March. I am confident that the work of the
Conference on Disarmament, in which the delegation of the Republic of Cuba
plays a significant role, will under your guidance be marked by advances on
the issues on its agenda. May I assure you of the readiness of the delegation
of the Soviet Union to co-operate with you in the discharge of your
responsible duties. I am very gratified to note that relations between our
two countries are built on a solid foundation of friendship tested over dozens
of years of understanding and co-operation between the fraternal peoples of
Cuba and the Soviet Union. I should also like to thank the distinguished
representative of the People's Republic of China, Comrade Fan Guoxiang, for
the great efforts he exerted as President of the Conference in the month of
February.
At the request of the Soviet delegation, a statement by
Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the CPSU
Central Committee, dated 28 February 1987, has been distributed as an official
document of the Conference on Disarmament of 28 February of this year
(CD/742). In that statement, Mikhail Gorbachev announced, on behalf of the
Soviet leadership, the Soviet Union's proposal to separate the problem of
medium-range missiles in Europe from the package of other issues and to
conclude without delay a separate agreement on it. For such a step there is
not merely a basis but an agreement that is actually ready. It was agreed in
Reykjavik that the Soviet Union and the United States would eliminate all
their medium-range missiles in Europe within the next five years. Within the
same period, the number of Soviet missiles of this class in the Asian part of
our territory would be cut down to 100 warheads on the understanding that the
United States could leave the same number of medium-range-missile warheads in
its national territory.
Once the agreement on eliminating Soviet and American medium-range
missiles in Europe is signed, the Soviet Union will withdraw from the German
Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia, by agreement with the Governments of
those countries, the extended-range theatre missiles which had been stationed
there in response to the deployment of Pershing II and cruise missiles in
western Europe. As for other theatre missiles, the Soviet Union is prepared
immediately to begin talks with a view to reducing and eliminating them
altogether.
The Soviet Union has tabled these proposals at the Geneva talks with the
United States.
As pointed out by General Secretary Gorbachev, we have been assured more
than once that if the Soviet Union singled out the question of medium-range
5SS
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
7
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
missiles from the Reykjavik package, agreement on their elimination in Europe
would pose no difficulty. A good opportunity is now being offered of proving
that in practice.
General Secretary Gorbachev's statement of 28 February 1987 demonstrates
the Soviet Union's willingness to find a solution to the problem of nuclear
disarmament. This question also has an important place on the agenda of the
Conference on Disarmament. In today's statement the Soviet delegation wishes
to outline its approach to certain aspects of this problem (agenda item 2) and
also to present a number of views on items 3 and 5 of the agenda. These items
are closely interrelated, for in the final analysis they concern ways of
attaining humanity's survival in the nuclear and space era.
I believe we are, at least, all in agreement that a nuclear war cannot be
won and must never be fought. After all, a provision to this effect was
recorded in the joint Soviet-American Statement on the results of the Geneva
Summit in November 1985.
At the same time there are substantial differences of opinion on the
course to be pursued in order to prevent nuclear war, and these differences
are widely reflected in the discussions at the Conference on Disarmament.
Naturally, these differences are also reflected in practical actions, which is
something that is particularly worrying. ?
Before turning to these various views and approaches, I wish to make a
preliminary clarification. Western representatives are inclined to emphasize
that what should be discussed is prevention of any war, and not prevention of
nuclear war. Naturally, we too are against any war: all the more so since a
conventional war can easily develop, in the present conditions, into a nuclear
war. At the same time we lay special emphasis on the fact that it is
precisely nuclear war that should be prevented in the first place, for its
consequences would be fatal for all humanity. I believe that on this question
our differences are only in emphasis, though undoubtedly the underlying causes
are more substantial. It is our view that attempts to equate nuclear war with
conventional war stem from the concept of power politics, which permits the
use of war and military force as a political instrument. I will not venture
to define where this concept stems from -- inertia of thinking, sincere
misconception or a desire to mislead. This concept of a policy of force
mechanically applies the views of the pre-nuclear age to the present
conditions of the nuclear and space era, which can be fatal to humanity for it
poses the risk of war, conventional as well as nuclear. The
position-of-strength policy would not be what it is if it did not permit the
use of force, above all nuclear force.
By contrast, we believe that it must be recognized that today, more
weapons mean less, rather than more, security; and this is the truth. Today,
a global nuclear war cannot be a continuation of rational policy, for it would
put an end to all life, and therefore to all policies. The Chernobyl tragedy
which occurred in my country last year has shown to the entire world the fatal
effects and enormous force of the atom when it has gone out of control; and
after all, this accident is nothing compared to the possible consequences of
the explosion of even the smallest nuclear bomb by today's standards.
586
narlAqcifiAci in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
8
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
The position-of-strength policy, which allows for the possibility of
using nuclear weapons, is also being underpinned in the West by a "theoretical
basis" in the form of the concept of deterrence, according to which it is
necessary for the United States and other Western nuclear Powers to build up
nuclear arms in order to prevent the so-called "spread of communism". I am
not going now to elaborate on the fallacy of the very idea of such deterrence,
for there has been and there is no threat. The ulterior motive of the policy
of deterrence is really quite different.
A large number of United States documents, and, in particular, memoranda
of the United States National Security Council which were declassified some
years ago, have revealed that the United States pursued the objective of
compelling the Soviet Union to change the basis of its foreign and domestic
policies, that is, to cease to exist as the Soviet Union, and of tearing away
parts of its territory. That was the minimum objective, whereas the maximum
objective was as follows: to seek the "total disintegration and elimination
of Soviet power" (National Security Council document NSC 20/1 of
18 August 1948). The declassified documents have revealed the United States
military plans of that time which, proceeding from the possibility of using
nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union, were designed to pursue the above
objective. I am referring to the plans code-named "Half-moon-Fleetwood-
Doublestar" (1948), "Trojan", "Offtackle" (1949) and many others.
President Dwight Eisenhower's documents, published recently, show that in
the 1950s again, the United States leadership, on more than one occasion,
considered using nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. In particular, the
President mentions that at least twice he considered giving the green light to
nuclear bombing raids on the Soviet Union and on both occasions it took him a
long time to decide whether to reject the plan of action or to give it the
go-ahead. And when, in the early 1980s, the United States President,
Ronald Reagan, for the first time referred to the Soviet Union as an "evil
empire" it was a reflection of the self-same approach, of the same concept of
eradicating "evil" by force.
Future historians will probably be able to see United States political
documents and military plans of the 1980s, which will be declassified in due
course when the limitation period expires. That is only, of course, if we
succeed in preventing the implementation of the vicious ideas embodied in
those plans.
I am far from arguing that the United States leadership consciously wants
to unleash nuclear war against us. That would be madness, and this fact is
perfectly well realized by responsible leaders. However, in the political
circles of the United States and its allies, despite their leaders'
declarations of the inadmissibility of nuclear war, the conviction that
nuclear weapons are necessary continues to prevail.
In his statement at the Conference on 24 February last, the United States
representative, Ambassador Hansen, said that deterrence "is not the invention
of undisciplined strategists" but a fact of life. Unfortunately, he is
right. However, this "fact of life" did not arise spontaneously. It stems
from a certain policy, as indeed does the arms race, but if the arms race is a
587
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
9
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
"fact of life", does that mean that we have to reconcile ourselves with this
fact of life? That would mean voluntarily to condemn oneself and all humanity
to inevitable death. Of course, the destructive power of nuclear weapons
deters potential aggressors. That is precisely why we have such weapons.
This is probably what Ambassador Hansen meant when he referred, on
24 February, to the fact that the Soviet Union also relies on the deterrence
factor.
But here I would like to draw your attention to the following
differences. Firstly, on arms questions, we proceed from the criterion of
reasonable sufficiency, tailoring the nature and the level of this limit to
the positions and actions of the United States and its allies. The Western
countries use the "deterrent" nature of nuclear weapons as a basis for their
concept of deterrence, by which they seek to justify the build-up and
improvement of nuclear arms. As a result, deterrence in this Western sense is
conducive to a continued arms race and as nuclear weapons pile up, the
likelihood.that they will remain "obedient" grows smaller. The spread of
those weapons, the sophistication of related technical systems, increased
transportation, the constant risk of malfunction, human weakness or someone's
ill will -- all this put together constitutes a broad range of unpredictable
factors upon which humanity's survivaris dependent.
Secondly, even if we were to follow the concept of nuclear deterrence,
there is no denying that the nuclear safeguard is neither faultless nor
everlasting. At any moment it can become a death sentence for mankind. That
is why we propose eliminating nuclear weapons altogether. To that we receive
the reply that if nuclear weapons were eliminated, this would increase the
risk of conventional war, which, given modern conventional arms, can also
cause great casualties. Supporters of this view are undoubtedly right that
any war, and not only nuclear war, should be prevented, but we do not agree
that this can be achieved with the help of nuclear weapons. We should use
other means than a nuclear guillotine.
As a means to that end, we propose the establishment of a comprehensive
system of international security. This is our theoretical doctrine if you
wish -- our alternative to the concept of deterrence. On the basis of it, the
socialist countries have elaborated a concrete political platform. This
system is based on the principle that one cannot build one's own security at
the expense of the security of others. Its main areas, military, political,
economic and humanitarian, from an organic whole.
We seek to translate this platform into a practical course of action.
You are aware of our programme for eliminating nuclear weapons by the year
2000. This programme should be implemented in stages, and those stages are
interrelated and have clear-cut timeframes. Our Reykjavik initiatives, our
new proposal on medium-range missiles, our proposals presented at the
Conference on Disarmament, including those related to banning chemical
weapons, proposals on arms limitation and disarmament, put forward in other
forums, proceed from our concept of comprehensive security. We are by no
means proposing that disarmament be limited to the nuclear field alone. The
Soviet Union is in favour of disarmament measures in other areas as well,
including the area of conventional arms.
588
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
10
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
We have signed the Delhi Declaration, which brings together our
philosophical and political approaches to building a nuclear-free and
non-violent world and the approaches of that great country, India, and the
thousands of millions of people represented by the non-aligned movement. We
support India's proposal to conclude an international convention prohibiting
the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
We have proposed the concept of international economic security and have
presented new approaches to humanitarian problems of the third basket of the
Helsinki accord.
We are in favour of building policies on the basis of new political
thinking which, as General Secretary Gorbachev pointed out, "means an ability
to listen to the voice of the public, the European and world public, to
understand the concerns and interests of other peoples and not to separate
one's own security from the security of neighbours in our interconnected
world". That is what we propose instead of nuclear deterrence, which even in
its best version of reduced levels of nuclear arms, does not exclude the risk
of a nuclear holocaust and, in its worst version, leads to an accelerated
nuclear-arms race which greatly increases this risk.
I should point out that the fallacy of the concept of nuclear deterrence
was recognized by none other than the United States President, Ronald Reagan,
when arguing in favour of the Strategic Defence Initiative: he stated that
the new ABM system is designed to render nuclear weapons "obsolete and
ineffective". Of course, even if the SDI were to lead to the elimination of
nuclear weapons, that would only come with the elimination of everything else
on our planet, including human civilization. However, the mere fact of
President Reagan's recognizing the need to eliminate nuclear weapons is
important. But what will happen to nuclear deterrence in that case? The
intention is perhaps to replace the nuclear deterrent by space deterrence, but
then, where does the "exclusively defensive" nature of the SDI come in?
On this point I wish to elaborate a little bit further. In his statement
on 26 February, Ambassador Hansen argued that the SDI is designed for
defensive purposes only, and even quoted Soviet Academician E. Velikhov to
support this argument. I have to point out that selective quoting is in
itself a risky business because out of context it can present a distorted
picture.
In fact, objective scientific data indicate that an X-ray laser (referred
to at the 26 February meeting) is characterized by important absorption in all
substances, including air. Laser X-rays, therefore, are absorbed even in the
residual layers of the atmosphere about 150 km above the Earth.
In accordance with the declared goals, the X-ray lasers to be developed
under the SDI are designed to destroy intercontinental ballistic missiles in
the active section of their flight path, that is, already in the upper layers
of the atmosphere. But cannot these same lasers be used against other space
targets? For example, against early-warning satellites with the aim of
blinding the other side in the event of a first nuclear strike against it?
Technically, it would seem to be even easier than to destroy intercontinental
ballistic missiles; but is that defence?
589
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
11
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
On the other hand, objective scientific data quoted by
Academician Velikhov and many other experts, including United States experts
indicate that if a laser beam is powerful enough it can make a hole in the
atmosphere and consequently destroy a target on Earth. I can refer, for
example, to data provided by a United States expert Robert English, published
very recently in the International Herald Tribune, on 19 and
20 February 1987. Based on an analysis of the technical possibilities of
space laser weapons and of current thinking in the United States
Administration, the author comes to the conclusion that the SDI involves the
development of space weapons for destroying targets on Earth as well.
Finally, I have to point out that the division of arms into "offensive"
and "defensive" weapons is in itself very relative. Basically, only
absolutely passive means of defence can be regarded as purely defensive. If a
defence system contains active destructive elements it can always, with a
varying degree of effectiveness, be used as an offensive means. At the same
time, even passive means of defence increase the effectiveness of destructive
means. For example, how should we classify tanks, as offensive or defensive
weapons? On the one hand, they have fire-power enabling them to hit targets
and on the other hand, strong armour protecting their crew from destruction --
so what is a tank?
The answer is probably to be found not in the military and technical
characteristics of a given type of weapon but in the political philosophy of
those who possess it.
As for the balance of forces, it is determined by both offensive and
defensive arms and that is why it is absolutely incorrect to say that one type
of weapon is bad because it is offensive and another is good because it is
defensive. If, hypothetically speaking, each of the two sides possesses
one hundred offensive missiles, that is, a ratio 1:1, and then one of the
sides creates defensive means which can neutralize 50 per cent of the
offensive missiles of the other side, it is quite obvious that the balance of
offensive weapons will change to become a ratio of 1:2 in favour of the side
which has the so-called defensive means.
The SDI programme, whatever defensive labels it may be given, is designed
to alter the balance of forces to the advantage of the United States.
However, it is not just a question of changing the balance of forces.
The implementation of this programme would completely destabilize the military
and strategic situation in the world as a whole and create a situation where
the question of whether a war is "to be or not to be?" would be decided in a
matter of seconds; and the human will's part in this decision would be
reduced to a minimum: the decision would essentially be left to computers.
We make no secret of the fact that we regard the SDI as an attempt to
draw the Soviet Union into a qualitatively new arms race -- the laser-weapons
race. Through the SDI the United States is trying to find a way out of the
nuclear deadlock, to acquire these weapons which, while matching nuclear
weapons in effectiveness, unlike nuclear weapons would, if used, leave the
590
nni-laccifiinri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
12
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
attacker unharmed. These qualitatively new weapons would make it possible to
deliver extremely accurate "surgical" strikes on the most vital targets of the
other side. This, according to the plans of SDI supporters, would make it
possible, to dictate one's will to other countries while pointing the laser
beam at them, and also to avoid the unacceptable consequences of the use of
nuclear weapons -- nuclear winter, widespread radiation, adverse genetic and
other consequences. This will be a weapon for the rich, available only to the
select few. These seem to be the plans.
Lately, there have been attempts by the United States Administration to
adopt a so-called broad interpretation of the 1972 ABM Treaty. These attempts
are nothing more than a desire to justify, with the help of legal casuistry,
the policy of circumventing and violating the above Treaty with a view to
speeding up SDI development, making it irreversible, leaving future
United States Administrations incapable of modifying their position on the SDI
for many years to come.
The Soviet Union has been and continues to be in favour of preserving the
ABM Treaty, strengthening the regime established by it, and abiding by the
generally-recognized traditional interpretation of all its provisions. At the
same time, without abandoning our fundamental position on preventing an arms
race in outer space, we are prepared to seek mutually acceptable agreements
with the United States, taking into account the commitment of the present
Administration to the SDI programme. Our proposal on strengthening the regime
of the ABM Treaty by way of a mutual undertaking not to withdraw from the
Treaty for 10 years along with strict compliance with all its provisions, goes
in this direction. We propose agreeing on the dividing line between
activities that are prohibited or permitted under the Treaty.
Today I have touched upon a number of important issues under discussion
in the Conference of Disarmament, proceeding from our philosophy of a secure
world, as we envisage it. In concluding, I wish to point out that, naturally,
the rebuilding of international security anew can only be based on
confidence. Of course, the path is not easy. I will not elaborate on the
reasons for the acute lack of confidence we are facing today. I believe that
it is best to look into the future, rather than to turn to or be bound by the
past. It is necessary to analyse the past, but we should not be its
prisoners. Confidence can be built on the basis of co-operation, getting to
know each other, finding solutions to common problems. We cannot accept the
argument that confidence comes first and only then everything else, including
disarmament. We are in favour of advancing towards the building and
strengthening of confidence through common endeavours; and each of us should
set about this task for himself.
That is what we are doing, and that is why we are doing so.
Mikhail Gorbachev's proposals on the medium-range missiles put forward on
28 February are the most recent confirmation of this line of action. But the
path to confidence, like the path to disarmament, is a two-way one, requiring
reciprocal steps.
Sc;
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001 onnni-et
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
13
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for his statement, and for the kind
words addressed to my country and to the Chair. I have no more speakers on my
list for today. Does any other member wish to take the floor? I call on the
representative of the United States of America.
Mr. HANSEN (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I, too,
would like to extend the congratulations of my delegation to yourself as you
occupy the chair of President of this Conference. my delegation will work
closely with you in a co-operative mode to further the work in which we all
have an interest. It is appropriate as well to extend once again our
appreciation to Ambassador Fan for the work which he accomplished during his
tenure as President of the Conference.
I do not have prepared remarks today, but I should like nevertheless to
make a few comments that I trust will be of use to all of our delegations in
the contemplations which we must make as part of the deliberative process of
the Conference.
May I begin by making two observations. First, the President of the
United States, Ronald Reagan, stated on 11 November 1981 that the objective in
all arms control and disarmament negotiations should be deep reductions,
significant reductions of military capabilities. That programme, chat
philosophy, is starting to be reflected in our bilateral negotiations with the
Soviet Union on nuclear issues. The second observation I would wish to make
is that the very idea of zero intermediate-range nuclear missiles originated
with my Government in concert with consultations with those countries in
Europe with whom we are joined in alliance. It was in fact an approach which
sought to prevent deployment of further systems, to bring about some greater
stability in the question of nuclear forces. It is proper to note as well
that at Reykjavik the agreement to reduce intermediate-range nuclear weapons
was at hand. It was not the United States which wrapped the package and tied
the bow. That this package is now being untied, we regard as a positive
development.
The United States has long believed that progress in one area of
negotiations regarding nuclear weapons should not be held hostage to progress
in other areas. We, and our allies, have consistently urged that we seek
early progress on reductions in offensive nuclear forces in both the strategic
negotiations and in those dealing with intermediate-range nuclear forces.
Thus, we do welcome this apparent Soviet willingness to move forward in the
INF negotiations for which we have been ready since the Geneva Summit of
November 1985. We note that the General Secretary has said that proposals are
to be placed on the table in Geneva. We have seen these proposals and we
welcome them. And it is, in fact, our view that we look to progress in the
negotiations themselves rather than in public statements.
We want to make progress a real possibility. We intend to make our
readiness for that progress concrete by tabling specific treaty language in
the very near future.
592
ilprlaccifiAci in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
14
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
I should not have taken the floor today at all if it were not for one
statement made by my distinguished colleague from the Soviet Union,
Ambassador Nazarkin. Much of what has been said has been said before in one
form or another and I should suspect that you may be somewhat bored with the
discourse between the United States and Soviet delegations which has often
taken place in this hall. I should like to refer to the statement by
Ambassador Nazarkin, which I find particularly unfortunate, on page 11 of the
English text. This statement indicates in one way or another, and I should
add probably most directly, that the United States has the desire to dictate
its will to other countries. This is patently false. It is counter to our
political system. It is counter to our political ideology. It is counter to
our basic understandings of democracy and government.
But the statement contains another fallacy. That fallacy relates to the
idea that one might even be able to achieve something by pointing a laser from
outer space at someone or something on Earth. Even the distinguished
representative of the Soviet Union pointed out in his intervention today that
the properties of lasers are such that their efficiency as a weapon is almost
exclusively limited to space. Therefore it becomes difficult to understand
how such a weapon, despite articles in the free press, could be used against
States to dictate one's will.
During the last plenary session I quoted from a Soviet study, not an
American study, not done'by political commentators but by scientists. I
quoted from this study to show the universality of understanding among
scientists. I should like to quote again:
"Kilovolt X-rays are strongly absorbed in all substances including air."
(Atmosphere, ladies and gentlemen, is generally composed of air.) "And so a
kilovolt X-ray beam is absorbed in upper atmosphere (higher than 100 km).
True, if the laser beam is sufficiently powerful, it might 'drill' through the
atmosphere. But this property of X-ray lasers is best exploited by firing not
downwards from space but upwards from an altitude of 80-90 km from under a
relatively thin atmospheric layer when the target is in space."
I do not regard this as a selective quotation. I regard this as a
statement of scientific fact which is relevant to issues under consideration.
I think that we all recognize that this Conference deals with issues which are
both scientific in their essence and political in their manifestation. We
must learn to deal with both of these manifestations, both of these elements,
in the most objective, dispassionate manner. If we do this, then we enhance
our opportunities to make progress.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the distinguished
representative of the United States of America for his statement and for what
he said about supporting the work of the President. Now, you will remember
that at the last plenary meeting the Conference adopted a decision
re-establishing the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in
Outer Space. A number of non-members have already requested to participate in
the work of that Ad Hoc Committee. Requests have been received from Norway,
Finland, New Zealand, Portugal, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Austria, Denmark, Greece,
593
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001_4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
? r? _ _11
CD/PV.393
15
(The President)
Spain and Senegal. As no objection has been raised to those requests for
participation which were communicated to all members earlier during the
session, I suggest that we hold an informal meeting next Thursday, after the
list of speakers had been exhausted, in order to consider those requests. We
will afterwards resume the plenary meeting and formalize the relevant draft
decisions. If there is no objection I shall consider that the Conference
agrees to hold the aforementioned informal meeting on Thursday.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): Are there any further
speakers? The distinguished representative of the Soviet union has the floor.
Mr. NAZARKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): First of all I should like to express my satisfaction at the
positive assessment of our recent proposal on medium-range missiles that has
just been voiced by the distinguished representative of the United States,
Ambassador Hansen. Secondly, I should like to make a number of comments on
his reaction to my statement today. First of all, as far as his reaction to
the part of my statement referring to plans to turn the SDI into a weapon
which could enable its possessor to dictate to others. At the beginning of my
statement I referred to a whole series of documents of the United States which
were declassified and which prompted me to draw the conclusion I did draw.
Indeed, the fact remains a fact that the military plans which were developed
and which did exist in the United States, and which then subsequently became
public when they were declassified, were based on intentions to carry out a
nuclear strike against our country; this is an objective fact,
unfortunately. Consequently, of course, I cannot accept the harsh words which
Ambassador Hansen used regarding this assumption of mine, as the general
policy based on the concept of so-called nuclear deterrence has not changed.
At this time today we sense and observe a businesslike approach to political
problems.
As for Ambassador Hansen's reaction to my comments regarding the SDI, I
do not see any contradiction here, quite frankly, between the fact that he
today referred to the statement of scientific experts of 26 February and what
I myself said; but he just cited a part of the full picture. I should like
just to reaffirm this once again. X-ray lasers are absorbed in various
substances, including the atmosphere of the air. So, to be sure, an X-ray
laser is more effective when used against targets which are not separated from
the laser beam source by air, and particularly if they are on the Earth. But
in my statement I referred to the possibility of using lasers against
satellites and to this I can add the possibility of using laser weapons
against aircraft in the upper layers of the atmosphere. Finally, I did cite
considerations with respect to the general balance of forces, which is
determined by offensive and defensive weapons. I think that after
Ambassador Hansen has studied our statement today more carefully we will have
the chance to exchange views on this issue in a more thoroughgoing manner.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
the Soviet Union for his statement. Are there any further speakers? Before
594
r.nnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.393
16
(The President)
adjourning, I should like to express my condolences to the distinguished
representative of Norway on the passing away of the distinguished Minister of
Foreign Affairs of that country.
The next plenary meeting will be held on Thursday, 5 March, at 10 a.m.
The meeting is adjourned.
The meeting rose at 11.25 a.m.
595
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001oninnnni_a
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.394
5 March 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOURTH PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
on Thursday, 5 March 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
GE. 87-50370/6029e
Mr. Lechuga Hevia
(Cuba)
596
nprlacRified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I declare open the
394th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament. In accordance with
its programme of work, the Conference today continues the consideration of
agenda item 5, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. In accordance with
rule 30 of the rules of procedure, however, any member wishing to do so may
raise any other matter related to the work of that Conference.
Once we have heard all the speakers on my list for today, I intend to
suspend the plenary meeting in order to consider the requests by non-member
States to participate in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee re-established under
agenda item 5, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. Immediately after
the informal meeting, we shall resume the plenary meeting to formalize any
agreements we have reached informally.
On my list of speakers for today I have the representatives of Italy, the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Czechoslovakia and Australia. I now give
the floor to the representative of Italy, Ambassador Pugliese.
Mr. PUGLIESE (Italy): Mr. President, please allow me at the outset to
associate myself with the warm congratulations and good wishes that have been
extended to you on your taking over the high office of President of the
Conference on Disarmament for the month of March. We are all confident that
under your guidance the Conference shall be able to successfully move into the
substantive phase of our deliberations. I wish, at the same time, to
associate myself with all the delegations in expressing all our appreciation
to Ambassador Fan Guoxiang of China who had the difficult task of presiding
over this Conference during the month of February, a time of particular
significance for the work of the entire session. Thanks to his intelligent
and constructive action and to the dynamism with which he carried out his
duties, considerable progress has already been made. We all owe to
Ambassador Fan Guoxiang the achieving of the very impressive outcome of
re-establishing in the very first month of our work a total of five
ad hoc committees on some priority items of our agenda. May T also take this
opportunity, being myself a newcomer, to welcome other colleagues who have
recently joined us, and thanking my other distinguished colleagues for the
warm welcome they have extended to me. I wish to assure you all of the full
co-operation of the Italian delegation. It is also my desire on this occasion
to remember Ambassador Donald Lowitz whom I had the chance to meet only too
briefly. Nevertheless, I could fully appreciate his human and professional
qualities. I wish to reiterate, through you, Mr. President, the sincere
condolences of the Italian delegation to his family and to the United States
delegation.
The practice of prefacing statements in the general debate of the
Conference with comments on the international political situation and on the
state of the East-West dialogue, particularly in the field of disarmament,
reflects the awareness that our work is certainly not taking place in a
vacuum, but instead is influenced by various intertwined developments.
597
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDIDg2_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
? r? _ _11
CD/PV.394
3
(Mr. Pugliese, Italy)
On the one hand, it is the view of my Government that we have ground for
feeling encouraged by the latest developments in the US-USSR nuclear and space
talks and that, in particular, the Reykjavik meeting between President Reagan
and General Secretary Gorbachev allowed significant progress to be made and
opened new possibilities of great interest. We hope that difficulties in the
way of concrete agreements will soon be overcome and that this will grant a
radical reduction of nuclear arsenals, in line with the expectations of all
peoples of the world.
In this framework, we are of course aware of the interconnections
existing between various aspects of the strategic equation. But we also
recognize the enormous difficulties involved in trying to deal with, and agree
on, solutions for all such aspects at the same time. This is why the
Italian Government is in favour of a pragmatic approach that should make it
possible to keep separate questions that are not homogeneous, and to conclude
concrete agreements for the reduction of arsenals in a context of stability,
whenever that may be possible.
On the other hand, the sinister echo of gunfire continues to be heard in
many regions of the world and that reminds us, all too sharply, that the world
situation is fraught with great uncertainty and that the arms race is the
practical expression of feelings of insecurity and distrust.
Men and women throughout the world long for peace. But well-turned
speeches and proclamations of good intentions are useless if in practice they
are contradicted by recourse to force and the open flouting of international
law.
The Italian Government has always endeavoured -- and intends to spare no
effort -- to ensure the elimination of all obstacles and all threats to peace.
Peace in a context of security is a fundamental cornerstone of our
foreign policy, and we are committed to working towards this goal by a
continuous process of consistent and responsible decisions and conduct. This
is the purpose of our loyal participation in the Atlantic Alliance, a
defensive community which has provided a significant contribution to the
maintenance of peace and security in the world in recent years. The same
peaceful approach underlies our membership to the European Community, an
association of free peoples sharing a common heritage of traditions and
culture.
Italy believes that the achievement of general and complete disarmament
under effective international control, in a framework of stability,
transparency of intentions and capabilities and of general respect for the
principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, is the basic condition for
a true and positive peace. That must be and remain our final goal and we must
make every effort to gradually achieve it, if we really want to prepare a
better future for mankind. Intermediate goals with a view to that final
result might be represented by the establishment of a balance of forces, both
598
r.nnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
4
(Mr. Pugliese, Italy)
in the nuclear and conventional field, at lower and lower, indeed at the
lowest possible, levels of armaments to ensure the maintenance of defence
capabilities and stability.
We acknowledge that security perceptions and requirements differ in the
various regions of the world, they differ indeed from country to country. We
respect all approaches to security issues by all countries since we believe
that only through the preservation of security it is possible to undertake
collective steps toward effective disarmament. At the same time we feel
entitled to respect for our own policy which, while looking upon deterrence as
an essential element to our national security, does pursue security and
equilibrium at the lowest levels of all types of armaments.
For many years the question of the ban on nuclear testing in all
environments has been one of the main issues on the agenda of the Conference
on Disarmament. It is therefore regrettable that this forum has been unable
to find a way out of the procedural "imbroglio" which has prevented it, for
more than two years now, from continuing practical work on this matter.
My Government remains firmly committed to the pursuit of a verifiable
comprehensive test ban.
As this delegation has often reiterated, the Italian Government is in
favour of a CTBT and attaches great importance and significance to the
accomplishment of progress towards such an objective. Naturally we do not
ignore that the problem of a comprehensive test ban cannot be discussed
separately from other issues concerning disarmament and strategic stability.
Therefore it is our view that positive results would best be achieved through
a step-by-step approach, and that a solution would be easier if substantial
and balanced reductions in number and quality of offensive weapons could be
agreed upon and implemented.
Another important aspect of this problem is verification. In fact, Italy
believes that a test-ban treaty would be unacceptable unless it contained
adequate provisions for verification to ensure compliance by all parties.
This issue is really a key one, because clandestine nuclear testing might have
far-reaching consequences for the general framework of international security
and stability. In our opinion, verification problems can be gradually solved
also through improved technology, and allow for the implementation of a
step-by-step approach to a CTB. In this context a first significant step
would certainly be represented by the ratification of the TTB Treaty of 1974
and of the PNE Treaty of 1976. The Italian Government has been encouraged by
the talks held between the United States and the USSR in Geneva on the
possibility of limitations on tests and considers this to be of good omen also
for the work of this Conference on this specific issue.
My delegation remains convinced of the value of further concrete work
towards a comprehensive test ban at this Conference. Several substantive
Working Papers on behalf of a group of Western States members of the
Conference have been tabled on various aspects of a CTB and have not yet been
discussed. thoroughly.
59C
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-n11RRIPnnni nn innnn4 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
5
(Mr. Pugliese, Italy)
My delegation is therefore eager to resume our practical work on all the
substantive aspects of a CTB and in particular on such key issues as scope,
verification and compliance, in line with our commitment to make any possible
effort towards the goal of bringing about a cessation of all nuclear tests.
We have pointed out many times our willingness to begin work immediately on a
concrete examination of essential issues that would be involved in a
comprehensive test-ban treaty. The draft mandate contained in document CD/521
is a proposal by which we continue to stand. In our firm view, that mandate,
if adopted, would lead immediately to the creation of a subsidiary body in
which a substantive examination of central issues relevant to the formulation
of a CTBT could be undertaken with a view to negotiation of a treaty on the
subject. We have further exemplified our position on this item in a detailed
way by presenting a suggested programme of work for an ad hoc committee under
item 1, which is included in document CD/621.
My Government recognizes also that these issues are complex and difficult
to solve and that they should be thoroughly examined in a constructive way,
i.e., by sitting down together, in a properly mandated ad hoc committee, and
working together to try to resolve them.
The negotiation of a global ban on the development, production,
acquisition, stockpiling, transfer and use of chemical weapons, which seems to
us one of the most important and urgent disarmament goals, has achieved
encouraging progress during the 1986 session. Steps forward have been made
regarding a more efficient compilation of Articles III, IV and V; a great
amount of work was also accomplished by Working Group A with regard to
Article VI, in connection with the criteria and the listing of the various
categories of chemicals. As for Article IX, we wish to express our
appreciation and thanks to Ambassador Cromartie of the United Kingdom and to
Mr. Wisnoemoerti of Indonesia: the four points on which Ambassador Cromartie
detected a convergence of views constitute, in the opinion of the
Italian delegation, a sound basis for a solution of the key issue of
on-challenge verification.
Indeed, while not minimizing the importance of other outstanding items, I
believe that, after all, the success of our work depends largely on our
capability to reach an agreement on a convention banning chemical weapons and
that consequently we should aim at conclusive results during this year. The
main difficulties lying ahead in this context are still connected with the
problem of verification which, indeed, is not simply a technical one. It is a
problem having an obvious political dimension; admittedly, verification can
also have a confidence-building effect.
By envisaging a verification system for a convention banning all chemical
weapons and prescribing their removal from the military arsenals we believe
that the Italian delegation is aware that "intrusive" and stringent forms of
verification may sometimes be seen by some as restraining national sovereign
discretion to a certain extent, or as being prejudicial to the protection of
national industrial and commercial secrets. However, we are convinced that
such concerns should be overcome through a careful assessment and a better
knowledge of the implications of different types of verification, in a spirit
600
Cnnifi7ori rnpv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
6
(Mr. Pugliese, Italy)
of mutual co-operation and goodwill. Moreover, we believe that the
elimination of such a hideous category of weapons and the confidence that an
eventual ban is being loyally complied with, are priority goals for all
countries and, especially, for those, such as Italy, which have long renounced
the chemical military option.
It is vital to ensure that prohibited chemicals are neither manufactured
in previous production facilities, nor in new ones; that States should not
manufacture "single purpose" chemical warfare agents or their precursors and
that "dual-purpose" agents or precursors should not be diverted to warfare
purposes.
We are convinced that an effective verification system should include
systematic inspections and "on-challenge" inspections of a stringent nature.
On this question, there are two Western Working Papers on the table: CD/500
by the delegation of the United States and CD/715 by the delegation of the
United Kingdom. My Government considers it essential that a verification of
compliance should represent a basic obligation. On the other hand States
signing the Convention have also the right to demonstrate their compliance
with it, when they are faced with a challenge. In this respect the Italian
delegation considers that the recent proposals made by the USSR delegation on
17 February last, while still requiring some expansion of their scope,
represent an interesting contribution and may hold promise of constructive
negotiations.
My delegation shares with others the awareness of the importance and
urgency attached to agenda item 5, concerning the prevention of an arms race
in outer space. Indeed, my Government addresses this issue with the highest
interest and sense of priority. Therefore we wish first of all to express our
deepest satisfaction for the re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee almost
at the very beginning of this session of the Conference.
My Government believes that an arms race in outer space should be
prevented, that in the context of a general and complete disarmament outer
space should be devoted to preaceful activities, and that the exploration and
use of outer space should be carried out for the benefit of all countries,
irrespective of their degree of economic and scientific development.
In this respect the two major space and nuclear Powers share the greatest
responsibility in the search for effective and verifiable agreements on the
prevention of an arms race in outer space. I believe that there is a general
awareness that a competitive drive towards the deployment of armaments in
outer space would be a costly and undesirable endeavour.
Current trends in the bilateral talks here in Geneva allow us to hope for
a constructive approach in spite of the complexities of the issues involved.
In this context we believe that it will be most important for the major space
Powers to agree on a common approach in dealing with these problems, including
those connected with the offence-defence relationship.
601
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP97-ni1RRPnnni f1/14 nr?nrs A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
7
(Mr. Pugliese, Italy)
It is of the utmost importance to make sure that space research and
activities are consistent with the principles and purposes of the
United Nations Charter and that they are aimed at solely defensive purposes.
This Conference can play an important and useful role in the issue of the
prevention of an arms race in outer space which has an essential interest for
all States. During the last session, the Ad Hoc Committee, despite a
regrettable delay in getting down to substantive work, was able to clarify
some important aspects concerning the existing legal regime in relation to
arms control in outer space, to consider some relevant issues, and to examine
some of the activities which are currently being carried out in outer space.
We hope that this work will be continued, with renewed energy this year and
that further progress in the examination of the complex and various issues
connected with this item will be achieved.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the events of the past
months have shown to be full of promise for our work in this Conference. We
want to foster our efforts in order to build on what has so far been
accomplished. For this purpose we shall try to take advantage of all
available avenues constantly bearing in mind the essential requirements of
international security and stability.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
Italy for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the Chair. I now
call on the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
Ambassador Nazarkin.
Mr. NAZARKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): On 4 March the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons completed, as
you know, the consideration of a cluster of issues relating to chemical weapon
stockpiles. This offers an opportunity to take stock of the first results of
this year's negotiations on a convention banning chemical weapons.
On the whole we are satisfied with the intensive start made in the
negotiations in the Ad Hoc Committee under the Chairmanship of
Ambassador Ekeus. It is our hope that in future this momentum will be
maintained in the negotiations.
In its statement in the plenary of the Conference on 17 February, the
Soviet delegation, wishing from the outset to give a fresh impetus to the
negotiations, outlined a number of proposals with a view to reaching a speedy
agreement on the question assigned to the first cluster for discussion. These
proposals contained comprehensive provisions for declarations to be made by
each State party to a future convention specifying detailed information on
locations of chemical weapon stocks (storage facilities) at the time the
convention enters into force; for closure of storage facilities and
prevention of movement of stocks; and for effective verification of the
closed storage facilities on the basis of systematic international inspections
along with permanent use of instruments. The positive significance of these
proposals has just been noted by the distinguished representative of Italy,
Ambassador Pugliese.
602
im,,,Inecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
8
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
Until recently, the fact that the question of declarations of storage
facilities remained unresolved gave rise to a pessimistic view of the
prospects for a speedy conclusion of the convention. In presenting its
proposals the Soviet Union proceeded from the interest of finding without
delay a solution to this question. We are satisfied that these proposals of
ours have made it possible to take a major step forward at the negotiations
and we hope that progress on the question of declaration and international
verification of chemical stockpile locations will have a positive effect on
the work on other subjects and on the whole process of the subsequent
negotiations.
Wishing to maintain the momentum in our work, the Soviet delegation is
making a proposal for a resolution to the question of a time-frame for
elimination of chemical weapons, in view of the situation which has emerged at
the negotiations. As you know, the Soviet Union's earlier proposal, motivated
by the desire to see the process of chemical weapon destruction initiated as
quickly as possible, was that this destruction should begin not later than six
months after the convention enters into force. That proposal met with
objections, in particular from the United States, which stated that it was not
ready to proceed to the elimination of chemical weapons shortly after the
convention entered into force. In view of this fact, we are prepared not to
insist on our proposal which, of course, remains valid, and we do not object
to beginning the destruction of chemical weapons not later than after one
year. We are also prepared, taking into account that the convention would
provide for permanent international verification of chemical weapon
destruction facilities and the full responsibility of States for the way those
facilities operate, not to insist that such facilities should in all cases be
State-owned. We expect that these additional proposals will make it possible
to find appropriate solutions.
As the documents of the Ad Hoc Committee indicate, a number of provisions
of article 4 ("chemical weapons") and Annex 4 have not been finalized yet.
There are naturally various reasons for that -- objective difficulties and
complicated technical issues which have yet to be resolved -- but we cannot
ignore the obstacles which might very well not have been there had all
delegations adopted a constructive approach.
This applies above all to the question of destruction of chemical
weapons. On 17 February the Soviet Union proposed that all chemical weapons
should be destroyed. In presenting that proposal we took into account the
difficulties referred to by the United States delegation which had for a long
time been opposed to the very concept of diversion of chemical weapons for
permitted purposes. Wishing to meet the concerns of our partners in the
negotiations we withdrew our requirement that a State should have the right to
decide on the ways of eliminating chemical weapon stockpiles, although I
should point out that our arguments that diversion might be economically
justified remain valid. It appeared that since we accepted the United States
position agreement was at hand. However, the United States delegation has
again blocked agreement and, quite contrary to its previous position, has
suddenly begun to insist on diversion of chemical weapon stocks. This fact is
of course regrettable. The Soviet delegation reaffirms its willingness to
603
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100irmni-et
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
9
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
seek a solution to the question of the elimination of chemical weapons. That
requires now, above all, that the United States delegation should present
concrete proposals on the types and quantities of chemical weapons the
United States would like to divert.
One of the most difficult of the outstanding questions is the problem of
the order of elimination of chemical weapon stocks. Discussions on the
question have shown above all the technical difficulties involved in working
out a so-called equivalent unit for comparing various categories of
chemicals. In view of this fact and of possible differences in the
composition of chemical weapon stockpiles we would like to propose that the
following order of elimination of chemical weapon stockpiles be discussed.
Firstly, the whole elimination period shall be divided into nine one-year
periods. Secondly, within each one-year period a State party shall eliminate
one-ninth of its chemical-weapon stockpiles in each of the existing
categories. Thirdly, a State party may carry out the elimination of chemical
weapons at a faster pace than under the agreed order of elimination.
We would be interested to hear the views of other delegations on these
questions. The Soviet delegation is prepared, in the course of further ,
negotations, to seek mutually acceptable solutions on the question of the
order of elimination of chemical weapons. It is our hope that by the end of
the spring session of the Conference the full text of Article 4 and Annex 4
will be finalized.
The Soviet Union is in favour of achieving, as a matter of principle, the
prompt and complete elimination of chemical weapons and the industrial base
for their production. The Soviet side has made repeated statements to this
effect on a number of occasions, including at the highest level. In this
context we should like once again to draw your attention to the statement of
General Secretary Gorbachev of 15 January 1986, in which it was stated
inter alia that "We are prepared to ensure a timely declaration of the
location of enterprises producing chemical weapons and the cessation of their
production, and we are ready to start developing procedures for destroying the
relevant industrial base and to proceed, soon after the Convention enters into
force, to the elimination of the stockpiles of chemical weapons".
This statement makes it clear beyond any doubt that in pursuing chemical
disarmament we do not seek unilateral disarmament of the other side. In case
such a convention is concluded chemical weapons and the production base for
their manufacture are to be destroyed by all States possessing such weapons,
including both the Soviet Union and the United States.
The Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons is now proceeding to the
consideration of the cluster of questions relating to non-production of
chemical weapons in the commercial (civil) industry. This, if anything, is
the most difficult aspect of the convention. In November 1986 the
Soviet Union made a series of proposals on the subject which, as is widely
recognized, have considerably advanced the negotiations. Today we would like
to present some new ideas on this question.
604
Ar,r,rnved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
10
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
Important work lies ahead in order to finalize the lists for various
categories of chemicals which would be subjected to different regimes of
limitation and verification. We expect category I, along with super-toxic
lethal chemicals possessing a set of properties characteristic of chemical
warfare agents and key components of binary chemical weapons, to cover
incapacities as well.
The viability of a future convention will be ensured only when it is able
to keep pace with the times and the achievements of applied and fundamental
chemistry and to prevent the development of chemical weapons. This purpose
could be served among other things by basic guidelines for revision of the
lists of chemicals which would be initially included in the convention. We
propose that such a revision be carried out both on a periodical (annual)
basis and at the request of any State party as new chemicals appear, as the
production technology for such chemicals develops, and on the basis of the
declarations by States of their chemical weapon stockpiles.
One of the possible loop-holes for breaching the convention might be
through the commercial production of super-toxic lethal chemicals. Nobody
denies the risk to the convention posed by the high level of toxicity of these
chemicals, for toxicity is the determining property of a chemical warfare
agent. Consequently there should be a general interest in removing this
risk.
As you know, at one time the Soviet Union proposed applying most
stringent prohibition measures to the production of super-toxic lethal
chemicals. This position, however, met with objections from a number of
parties to the negotiations, based on commercial consideration, who argued in
favour of preserving the procedure and methods of production of these
chemicals in the commercial industry existing in their countries. Back in
1985, at the initiative of Western delegations, provisions were developed for
a division of super-toxic lethal chemicals into two categories: super-toxic
lethal chemicals used in chemical weapons and super-toxic lethal chemicals
which cannot be used in chemical weapons. At the time this agreement which
provided for international on-site verification of the production of these
chemicals was welcomed by Western countries as a major success in the
negotiations.
In preparing its proposals which were presented in November 1986 the
Soviet Union took into account the position of Western countries and agreed to
divide super-toxic lethal chemicals into two categories and spelled out
specific ideas on a regime for permitted production of such chemicals. The
way to work the finalization of the relevant provisions of the convention now
seemed open. However, the issue of permitted production of super-toxic lethal
chemicals began to slide: one would not wish to believe that in the place of
progress towards agreement there might be backward movement on the question
which appeared to be ripe for a final solution.
With a view to contributing to the success of the work on the question of
non-production of chemical weapons in the commercial industry and in
particular facilitating progress towards agreement on regimes for the
605
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 niA_Rnock," hA 4?---
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
11
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
production of super-toxic lethal chemicals which do not possess a set of
properties characteristic of chemical warfare agents, that is category 2
chemicals, we are presenting an additional proposal on the threshold for
annual capacity above which facilities for the production of such chemicals
are to be declared and subjected to systematic verification. The annual
volume of production of each such chemical included into the list for this
category would be set at 10 kilograms according to our proposal. The
frequency and timing of systematic international inspection would be
determined by the Consultative Committee taking into account the risk to the
convention posed by a given chemical or facility.
The question of challenge on-site inspection undoubtedly deserves the
special attention of the parties to the negotiations. The fact that there is
no agreement on this essential element of the verification mechanism of a
future convention hampers agreement on quite a number of other issues relating
to a comprehensive and total chemical-weapons ban.
The Soviet Union, in the course of negotiations, has presented some ideas
which, taking into account the position of other States, are aimed at bringing
closer the positions of the parties to the negotiations. Progress towards a
mutually acceptable agreement has also been facilitated by the proposals of
the United Kingdom, Pakistan and the paper of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc
Working Group, Ambassador Wisnoemoerti of Indonesia. The result has been
that it has been possible for the first time to register some areas of
convergence on the question of challenge inspections which are outlined in the
report of the Ad Hoc Committee, document CD/734. In particular, there is
general agreement that the procedure for processing a challenge should ensure
that inspections be carried out in the shortest time-frame.
It would be fair to say as well that the parties to the negotiations
recognize that the locations and facilities to be subject to challenge
inspections differ, and that that difference is based not on ownership of such
locations and facilities but on their objective relevance to the scope of the
convention. No one disagrees that in certain cases no refusal of an
inspection to the full extent requested would be permitted -- for example, in
the event of suspected use of chemical weapons and inspections of locations
and facilities declared under the convention. At the same time, it cannot be
ignored that there might be exceptional cases when the conduct of an
inspection could jeopardize the supreme interests of a State party. In those
cases, carefully considered means are required which, on the one hand, would
ensure the integrity of the convention and confidence in compliance with it,
and on the other hand would take into account the legitimate interests
(political defence, economic, etc.) of a State party. It is our view that in
this respect a good balance was struck in the British paper. We believe we
should make maximum use as a basis for agreement of the idea of using
alternative measures in cases where a State deems access of inspectors to the
location unfeasible, an idea contained in that paper.
?
606
C,--,;+;-,.,-irnnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
12
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
The Soviet delegation is in favour of an active search for mutually
acceptable solutions on challenge inspections, and intends actively to
participate in this process. We call on all parties to take the same course
of reasonable compromise.
The current spring part of the Conference's session is to a large extent
decisive for negotiations on a chemical weapons convention. The Soviet
delegation will continue to work actively and consistently for overall
progress in the negotiations, to seek mutually acceptable solutions and a
speedy conclusion of a convention banning chemical weapons.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for his statement. I now call on the
representative of Czechoslovakia, Ambassador Vejvoda.
Mr. VEJVODA (Czechoslovakia): Comrade President, my delegation is deeply
satisfied in welcoming you, the distinguished representative of revolutionary,
socialist Cuba, to the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. The ties
of friendship and close co-operation between our two countries will
undoubtedly be extended to your Presidency, and you can count on the fullest
support' and assistance of my delegation in your effort to complete the
establishment of a number of working bodies of the Conference and to start
their practical work. We again congratulate your predecessor,
Ambassador Fan Guoxiang of China, who presided with success over our work in
the opening month of this session.
My delegation joins those who expressed condolences to the delegation of
Norway in connection with the passing away of the Norwegian Foreign Minister,
Knut Frydenlund. Let me also express my personal sympathy to the delegation
of Hungary in view of the untimely demise of the ambassador to Switzerland,
Ambassador Komives. He was the first representative of his country in the
Conference on Disarmament, actually at the time of the ENDC, and fulfilled his
task here twice. We knew him as a dedicated representative of his country and
an excellent colleague.
The agenda of this Conference contains a number of items related to
nuclear disarmament as well as to the prevention of an arms race in outer
space. It is thus only natural that participants in the Conference follow
with keen interest the current bilateral negotiations on nuclear and space
weapons between the Soviet Union and the United States. Developments at these
negotiations have always found a certain echo in this room, especially if
these developments were encouraging.
An important milestone in this regard was the Soviet-American meeting in
Reykjavik in October of last year. A number of delegations, including my own,
have already given their assessment of the results of that meeting. For us
the basic criterion was that all positive elements which were achieved in
Reykjavik should be maintained and developed further, instead of being
reversed and forgotten.
607
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
13
(Mr. Vejvoda, Czechoslovakia)
On 28 February the Soviet Union advanced proposals which built on the
achievements of Reykjavik and at the same time create favourable conditions
for further agreements to be achieved. The statement of the General Secretary
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, contains a
proposal to eliminate medium-range missiles in Europe and to conclude the
relevant agreement separately from other issues. This proposal is based on
the agreement reached in Reykjavik that the USSR and the United States
eliminate all their medium-range missiles in Europe within the next
five years. The remaining missiles of this class would be limited to
100 warheads on both sides. In the case of the Soviet Union these will be
deployed in the Asian part of the territory, while the United States will have
all its respective missiles deployed on its national territory.
The immediate impact of such an agreement and its implementation would be
a substantial reduction of the danger of military confrontation in Europe and
adjacent regions which Czechoslovakia, a country in the centre of Europe,
welcomes most heartily. When NATO started the implementation of its 1979
decision on the deployment of Pershing-2 and cruise missiles in Western Europe
the Government of Czechoslovakia, mindful of a qualitatively new, direct
threat to its security, concluded an agreement with the Soviet Union on the
stationing of longer-range theatre missiles on Czechoslovak territory. It was
stressed then and repeated, that this measure was in reply to the NATO
deployment and that if Pershing-2 and cruise missiles were removed :rom
Europe, there would be no need for the longer-range theatre missiles to be
maintained on Czechoslovak territory. It was a position of principle and in
the statement of General Secretary Gorbachev it is clearly said that as soon
as the agreement on the elimination of Soviet and American medium-range
missiles in Europe is signed, the Soviet Union will withdraw from the German
Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia, on the basis of agreement with the
Governments of those countries, longer-range theatre missiles. In other
words, once the threat which caused the stationing of these weapons is
removed, there will be no need to keep them on the territory of the German
Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia any longer.
The recent Soviet proposal has met with considerable interest and highly
positive reactions from many countries. It is thus justified to hope that it
could lead to some concrete, tangible results in the near future. Apart from
improving the political climate in Europe, the elimination of medium-range
missiles from that continent would represent an important sign of political
will and readiness to engage in the process of nuclear disarmament and would
give us realistic hope that the key problems of nuclear disarmament on the
agenda of our Conference would finally be addressed in a constructive,
business-like manner.
One of the essential prerequisites for the radical and definite solution
of the problem of nuclear disarmament -- the complete elimination of nuclear
arsenals -- is the willingness of States, especially those owning nuclear
weapons, to address the problems of war and peace, of security of States in
its complexity. And this complexity today is much deeper and wider than it
was still some years ago. During the Second World War old, so to speak
classical, concepts of military thinking still could be applied, when the
issues of individual battles were decided mainly by one side's capability to
608
- rifi7d Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
14
(Mr. Vejvoda, Czechoslovakia)
mobilize in certain regions at a certain time a prevailing quantity of armed
forces and military hardware and by using them skilfully. But with the
appearance of nuclear weapons this concept gradually became obsolete since
huge nuclear stockpiles and their fast means of delivery will quickly
transform any limited conflict into a world conflagration. In the final
analysis, the Earth as a whole has become one military theatre and could be
easily turned into a battlefield without any limitations. Rather, there would
be one limitation -- all military operations would be carried on on the Earth
or in the air, with all weapon systems being launched from the Earth or from
the air.
But from the beginning of the 1980s we have witnessed an effort to remove
even this last limitation. Any attempt to bring the arms race into outer
space, to deploy weapons there, irrespective of whether we fix on them a
defensive or offensive label, would represent a qualitatively new threat
against the Earth.
During our last two plenary meetings an exchange of views developed with
respect to directed-energy weapons and their possible use in space and from
space against the Earth. Ambassador Hansen of the United States tried to
explain that, for example, laser weapons could only be used beyond atmosphere,
against ballistic missiles during their trajectory through space.
Ambassador Nazarkin then drew our attention to the fact that lasers could
already now be used in outer space also for offence against other objects,
e.g. early-warning satellites, and that with sufficient concentration of
energy they could also penetrate, to some extent, through the atmosphere and
attack aircraft, for example, in its upper layers. Even Ambassador Hansen
then agreed that lasers could drill through atmosphere, even if he preferred
the upward drill. In connection with this exchange my delegation would like
to stress just one more aspect. What was discussed were more or less existing
or near possibilities of lasers. But what is going to happen 20 to 30 years
from now, once weapons have been permanently installed in outer space? We are
confident that the present arguments about how lasers cannot penetrate through
the atmosphere will seem, to future analysts, rather obsolete, if not
ridiculous. And we should not forget that directed-energy weapons represent
only one form of possible weapons to be installed in outer space. Already now
various other types are mentioned, and it might be safely presumed that
several decades from now, if human civilization survives, a whole panoply of
strike space weapons could be developed. And it is now for us a high-priority
task to stop the penetration of weapons into outer space, and to make it
impossible to develop new and highly destructive space weapons.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
Czechoslovakia for his statement and the kind words addressed to my country
and to myself. Ambassador Vejvoda has just made reference to the sad demise
of Ambassador Imre Komives of Hungary, who was during two different sessions
the representative of his country in this negotiating body, Chairman of the
then Committee on Disarmament and also of the Ad Hoc Working Group on
Radiological Weapons. He served with distinction the multilateral disarmament
negotiating body and was an outstanding representative of his country,
Hungary. He was also the friend of many of us here. I personally remember
him with great respect as we were companions during my first tour of duty in
609
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-o11ARPnnninninnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
15
(The President)
Geneva. May I, on behalf of the Conference, transmit our deep condolences to
the delegation of Hungary and to the family of Ambassador Komives. I now call
on the distinguished representative of Australia, Ambassador Butler.
Mr. BUTLER (Australia): Mr. President, I welcome you to the Chair of
this Conference for the month of March and heartily express the willingness of
my delegation to co-operate with you fully as you preside over this important
Conference.
Last month we made splendid progress and for this we are deeply indebted
to your predecessor, Ambassador Fan Guoxiang of the People's Republic of China.
In the statement I made on the opening day of the Conference I said that
Australia had great hopes for the Conference in 1987. I also said that one of
the reasons for our optimism was that the opening month of the Conference
would be in Ambassador Fan's hands. Our optimism has already been justified
and the reasons for it were more than fulfilled, and we thank Ambassador Fan
for this.
The wisest and most experienced amongst us, Ambassador Garcia Robles of
Mexico, pointed out on an informal occasion last week that if one looks at our
agenda and sets to one side the final item, that of the drafting of our
report, one is left with eight other substantive items. In his remarks he
noted that if agreement were reached on the establishment of an ad hoc
committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space and other
arrangements for specific handling of two other items were agreed to, then
there would remain only one item on which enabling action was required, and
then we would be at work on all items.
Last week the Ad Hoc Committee on Outer Space was established, and today,
I understand, we will appoint the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee,
Ambassador Aldo Pugliese of Italy.
I think it is also true that the specific arrangements for items 2 and 3
of our agenda are in train.
So, as is usual, Ambassador Garcia Robles' analysis of the situation is
correct. Putting it simply, we are under way for 1987 and the deck has been
cleared for agreement on getting work started under that last item, in fact
the first item of our agenda -- nuclear test ban. And this item is the
subject of my statement today.
This truly gratifying set of developments rests, I believe, on the active
influence within our Conference during these opening weeks of a word, a
concept, which has been on everyone's lips -- convergence. On the very first
day of our Conference, on 3 February, this concept, this phenomenon and its
desirability, was referred to frequently. Since then we have seen it applied
in action with excellent results. I believe it can serve us well now with
regard to item 1 of our agenda, an item to which every delegation in this room
attaches undoubted priority importance.
610
- cminiti7pri r.onv AoProved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
16
(Mr. Butler, Australia)
To demonstrate this point I would like briefly to remind the Conference
of some of the statements that have already been made on item 1. I hasten to
say, as all will appreciate, that making a choice between various statements
is always a difficult business. So I want this to be clear.
The only motive I have had in making the following choices is to give
fair evidence of the existence of convergence with respect to item 1 of our
agenda.
On 3 February, in the first statement made at this year's session of the
Conference, Ambassador Garcia Robles said this:
"The need this year, (is) to establish without further delay an ad hoc
committee with the objective of ... carrying out the multilateral
negotiations of a treaty on the complete cessation of nuclear test
explosions."
On the same day the Chairperson of the Swedish delegation, Ambassador Maj
Britt Theorin, said:
said:
"It is time for the convergence in the General Assembly to be translated
by us into a mandate for an ad hoc committee on a nuclear test ban ... it
is time for the Conference on Disarmament to start practical work on its
first agenda item. All relevant matters should be addressed: scope and
content, as well as compliance and verification."
On 26 February, the leader of the Soviet delegation, Ambassador Nazarkin
"It is necessary to begin without delay practical work on nuclear test
ban in the Conference on Disarmament and to establish an ad hoc committee
for this purpose."
A statement of very great significance was made by the leader of the
United States delegation, Ambassador Hansen, on 24 February. He said:
"This Conference can neither replace nor duplicate the delicate work
which is just getting under way bilaterally. Nevertheless, this
Conference can usefully consider and work on a number of nuclear testing
issues, including compliance and verification issues essential to any
future accord. The Conference on Disarmament can make contributions on
these and other test ban issues of particular importance."
These statements demonstrate convergence that is clear, but it would be
misleading to gloss over differences of view that have also been expressed.
For example, on 26 February the leader of the delegation of India,
Ambassador Teja, expressed reservations about the establishment of an ad hoc
committee unless it had a negotiating mandate, and was directed specifically
to nuclear-weapon tests.
611
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-ni 1RRpnnninninrIllf14 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
17
(Mr. Butler, Australia)
Ambassador Teja said that unless this approach were taken we might
"create the illusion of movement without any real movement and arouse false
hopes that the Conference on Disarmament had broken new ground when nothing of
that sort may in fact have happened".
He said that if his approach were accepted "we would at least know the
future direction in which we are moving even though the road may be sometimes
hard and difficult. To do otherwise would mean obscuring our vision and
getting lost among the footpaths of side-issues, without reaching the
principal destination".
This concept of the "principal destination" is of course the central one,
and it is here that I believe we also are witnessing convergence.
For example, I return to Ambassador Hansen's statement, which designated
specifically that "the ultimate objective is that of banning nuclear tests".
By the way, not nuclear-weapon tests, nuclear tests, all tests. He went on:
"The United States seeks to engage in a process which will result in practical
and realistic steps in the area of nuclear testing".
Be went on to state the United States view of what it sees to be certain
key relationships, such As between cuts in nuclear weapons, improved
verification capabilities and what the United States calls (and oe---.r6 may not
agree) the long-term objective of a comprehensive nuclear-test ban treaty.
With all respect to my Indian friend and colleague, I cannot agree that
to start practical work now would in any way sidetrack us from the real issue,
what he himself has called the principal destination -- how could it? He says
his Government is committed to that destination, although possibly qualified
by the Indian use of the term weapons testing. Nevertheless that principal
destination is one to which he says, and all of us around this table say, we
are committed.
We all know, as the Indian Ambassador has pointed out, that the way ahead
is difficult and that there are areas of disagreement but to say as he does,
that because of these difficulties we should not even start our work, is a
logic my delegation cannot support.
Our concern is that while bilateral discussions continue between the
major nuclear-weapon States both on nuclear-weapon reductions and on the issue
of reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear testing, this vital body, our
Conference, should deny itself the role and influence it can and must have on
these issues: we should not deny ourselves that role.
Both super-Powers in their recent statements on this subject have allowed
and admitted that role and that influence to this Conference. They have both
endorsed it.
We all often stress the urgency and importance of this Conference playing
its proper role especially on the nuclear-testing issue. we can do it.
612
nnrnved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
18
(Mr. Butler, Australia)
Convergence is at hand. The gaps between us are in fact small, as I hope
the citations I have made have indicated, we should act now.
This practical, sober and realistic approach, if I may be allowed to say
so, was probably put most clearly, indeed I thought it was put brilliantly, by
the leader of the Japanese delegation, Ambassador Yamada, in his statement of
10 February.
He emphasized the existence of common purpose and perception on the
nuclear-testing issue which had been revealed at the last General Assembly and
is now evident in this Conference.
He said: "There is common perception of the subject matter of the work.
There is recognition of the importance of verification and willingness to
participate in its implementation. Now is the chance to resume substantial
work on a CTB".
With regard to the mandate language having reviewed the existing drafts
and relevant recent resolutions of the General Assembly, he noted "that there
can be much in common" between the words "with a view to the negotiation of a
treaty" on the one hand and the words "with the objective of carrying out the
multilateral negotiation of a treaty".
Above all, he said these words and they are words with which my
delegation heartily agrees:
"It must be possible for us to proceed in a spirit of co-operation to
establish an ad hoc committee with an appropriate mandate to commence
substantial work on a comprehensive test-ban treaty at the beginning of
this session. Indeed, it would be our collective responsibility to do
so."
In conclusion, one of my Government's abiding concerns is the question of
where would we be, in the pursuit of this vital objective of an end to all
nuclear testing, if we failed again this year to have this Conference play its
proper role? Why should we sit and let time pass when other relevant
negotiations are taking place, when we have a role to play in assisting
negotiations? What would we say to ourselves if the time came, next year or
the year after, when the States possessing nuclear weapons or conducting
nuclear tests said "We are ready, we have got a treaty, where are the means of
verification, how can we put this into action, what has the Conference on
Disarmament done?"; and the answer is, "We have sat on our hands, we have not
done the work, we were waiting". Our Australian concern is that we do this
work now so that when the treaty required to bring about an end to all nuclear
testing by all States in all environments for all time is ready and open for
signature and implementation, we are there with the technical means, the means
of verification, to bring that treaty into action, and not have to say "we sat
on our hands for five years, give us another three or four years while we work
out what you need to make that treaty come into force." That work can be done
now. With the current convergences we should be able to agree, as
Ambassador Yamada has said, to an appropriate mandate to start that work now.
613
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
4b
?r:-
CD/PV.394
19
(Mr. Butler, Australia)
Technical aspects of it are under way, in the view of the scientific
experts -- they are meeting now. We have proposed in Working Paper CD/717
that this Conference should decide to establish a global seismological
network: the elements, the bones, the fabric of it are already there, but we
have proposed putting it into place now, so that when the treaty is ready
either through this Conference, through bilateral negotiation, or a
combination of both, that network will be in operation and thus the treaty
will be in operation on the earliest possible day. We are not alone -- others
have made proposals, some similar, some complementary. The materials we
require are at hand. Convergence is with us and I appeal to this Conference
to bring to a conclusion, without further delay, a decision on the
establishment of an ad hoc committee under item 1 of our agenda.
Spanish): I thank the representative of
the kind words addressed to the
on my list for today. Does any other
I give the floor to the representative of
The PRESIDENT (translated from
Australia for his statement and for
President. I have no more speakers
delegation wish to take the floor?
Hungary, Ambassador Meiszter.
Mr. MEISZTER (Hungary): Mr. President, allow me to thank you and those
who expressed words of sympathy and condolence on the occasion of the untimely
demise of my compatriot, the late Ambassador Imre Komives, who served with
devotion the same cause we are striving for. My delegation will convey their
words to the Hungarian Government and to the grieving family of
Ambassador Imre Komives.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): As announced at the beginning
of this plenary meeting, I shall now suspend the meeting and convene in five
minutes' time an informal meeting of the Conference in order to consider the
various requests from non-member States to participate in the work of the
Ad Hoc Committee established under agenda item 5. I also wish to announce
that the consultations on the appointment of the Chairman of that Ad Hoc
Committee have come to a successful conclusion, and when we resume the plenary
we can formalize the appointment of its Chairman.
The plenary meeting was suspended at 11.25 a.m. and resumed at 11.45 a.m.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): The 394th plenary meeting of
the Conference on Disarmament is resumed.
As a consequence of the results of the informal meeting we have just
held, the Conference will proceed to consider the requests from non-member
States to participate in the Committee established under agenda item 5,
Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. In accordance with the practice
established by my predecessor during the month of February, I suggest that we
consider the requests together, as there have been no objections to Working
Papers CD/WP.269 to 279, containing the draft decisions on the participation
of Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Portgual, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Austria, Denmark,
Greece, Spain and Senegal. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the
Conference adopts the draft decisions.
It was so decided.
614
r.npv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.394
20
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I now wish to refer to the
question of the appointment of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the
Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. The consensus we have reached is
to appoint Ambassador Aldo Pugliese of Italy as Chairman of the Ad Hoc
Committee. I shall therefore take it that the Conference agrees to that
appointment.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I should like to congratulate
Ambassadore Pugliese, on behalf of all members of the Conference as well as
myself, on the appointment on which we have just decided. Naturally, I wish
him every success in his important duties, which I am sure he will carry out
efficiently, given his well-known diplomatic ability. I give the floor to
Ambassador Pugliese.
Mr. PUGLIESE (Italy): Mr. President, I would simply like to thank you
and, through you, to express my gratitude to all the distinguished members of
the Conference on Disarmament for the confidence they have placed in the
Italian delegation by agreeing that I should serve as Chairman of the Ad Hoc
Committee that will be dealing with the prevention of an arms race in outer
space.
?
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): The secretariat has today
circulated at my request a timetable of meetings for the Conference and its
subsidiary bodies for next week. As usual, the timetable has been prepared in
consultation with the Chairmen of the various Ad Hoc Committees; it is
tentative and may be altered if necessary. In this connection, the Chairman
of the Ad Hoc Committee under agenda item 5, Ambassador Pugliese, will begin
consultations on the most suitable date for the subsidiary body to begin its
work. Once he has completed his consultations, the timetable will be revised
and circulated once again if the Committee is to meet next week. If there is
no objection I shall take it that the Conference adopts the timetable.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I now intend to adjourn the
plenary meeting if no other member wishes to take the floor. The next
plenary meeting on the Conference on Disarmament will be held on Tuesday,
10 March, at 10 a.m. The meeting is adjourned.
The meeting rose at 11.50 a.m.
615
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.395
10 March 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY-FIFTH PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 10 March 1987, at 10 a.m.
President: Mr. Lechuga Hevia
GE. 87-60384/7611E
616.
(Cuba)
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.395
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I declare open the
395th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
First of all, I should like to extend, on behalf of the Conference, a
warm welcome to the Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs,
Mr. Yasushi Akashi, who is present here today at this plenary meeting. I
also wish to convey to him the best wishes of all members of the Conference
for success in the performance of his duties. In his message to us
immediately after he assumed his important duties as Under-Secretary-General
in the Department of Disarmament Affairs, Mr. Akashi recalled the great
importance which the Secretary-General attaches to the significant role played
by the Conference on Disarmament, and expressed his personal concern that the
Conference's needs should be entirely satisfied by the Department of
Disarmament Affairs. I am sure that all members will appreciate Mr. Akashi's
comments, which reflect his commitment to the important duties he is now
discharging.
In accordance with its programme of work, the Conference today continues
the consideration of agenda item 5, Prevention of an Arms Race in
Outer Space. In accordance with rule 30 of the rules of Procedure, however,
any member wishing to do so may raise any other matter related to the work of
the Conference.
I note the presence in the public gallery today of the participants in
the Conference of Women with the United Nations for Disarmament,
Understanding, Co-operation and Action, currently being held in the
Palais des Nations. This Conference coincides, significantly, with
International Women's Day and so I should like to convey our congratulations
to all the women who, from different positions, participate in the affocts
aimed at disarmament and arms limitation. I therefore welcome today the women
in the public gallery of the Conference on Disarmament. Furtherwre, today is
an exceptional day: I must announce that we have no speakers. I think this
is the first time in two years that there ha,7e been no speakers in zni
Conference. However, in accordance with the practice of the Conference 1
would like to ask if any delegation wishes to take the floor. I see none, and
therefore we shall adjourn the meeting. The nest plenary meeting of the
Conference on Disarmament will be held on Thursday, 12 March, at 10 a.m. The
meeting is adjourned.
The meeting rose at 10.25 a.m.
617
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-ni iRRRnnni nni (Inn/14 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.396
12 March 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SIXTH PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 12 March 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
GE.87-60398/7657E
Mr. Lechuga Hevia
618
(Cuba)
im,,,,Inecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.396
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I declare open the
396th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
In accordance with its programme of work the Conference today continues
the consideration of agenda item 5, "Prevention of an arms race in outer
space". In conformity with rule 30 of the rules of procedure, however,
members may raise any other matter related to the work of the Conference.
I have on my list of speakers for today the representative of
the Netherlands, Ambassador van Schaik, to whom I give the floor.
Mr. van SCHAIK (Netherlands): Thank you, Mr. President. Allow me to
congratulate you on your presidency in the month of March. Your nation has in
its coat of arms the rising sun, as a symbol of hope, a key that opens doors
to find solutions and a palm tree with fruit, as the symbol of the
fruitbearer, from which we all hope to reap. All of this, I hope augurs well
for our work this month under your able and experienced chairmanship.
I wish to thank Ambassador Fan Guoxiang of the People's Republic of China
for the very able way in which he guided the Conference in February. The
Chinese philosopher K'ang Yu Wei once remarked: "Going froth the level plain
to the mountain peak, we must pass by the foothill slopes before we can
ascend". Ambassador Fan has in fact guided us in passing the foothill slopes.
We will remember Ambassador Don Lowitz as an eminent colleague and a good
friend. Responding to Mrs. Lowitz' letter to the members of this Conference,
I can assure her that it was for us really a joy and a privilege to have known
him.
Allow me to welcome the newly appointed Under-Secretary-General for
Disarmament Affairs, Mr. Yasushi Akashi. / also welcome the Ambassadors who
arrived since I last spoke in July: Ambassadors Morelli Pando of Peru, Teja
of India, Hacene of Algeria, Morel of France, Dolgu of Romania, Yamada of
Japan, Pugliese of Italy, Kosin of Yugoslavia, Nazarkin of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics and Hansen of the United States. We are grateful for the
contributions made by their predecessors, whom we wish well.
First, I wish to make a brief remark on the overall setting in which we
have resumed this year's spring session. The Reykjavik Summit has placed
East-West relations in a new perspective. It was undoubtedly a milestone on
the road towards arms control and disarmament. There was, and fortunately
still is, a prospect for arms-control agreements of potentially major
significance.
We are satisfied to note that the United States and the Soviet Union are
building further on the foundations that were laid at Reykjavik. We are
encouraged that recently an important stumbling block on the road to further
progress has been removed, as the Soviet Union has accepted the delinkage of
outer space issues from the negotiations on intermediate-range ballistic
missiles.
619
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RnPq9_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.396
3
(Mr. van Schaik, Netherlands)
We are confident that movement in the bilateral talks will also favour
the climate in which this Conference will work. I am thinking not only of the
most important issue which the Conference considers, the establishment of a
chemical-weapons convention, but also of the complementary role the Conference
can play on issues related to those that are the subject of negotiations
between the two major nuclear and space Powers.
In July last year I addressed some substantial issues with regard to a
nuclear-test ban. Needless to say, the Netherlands Government is, as it has
always has been, in favour of a CTB and has considered its realization an
important goal to be achieved. Regrettably, progress on the road towards a
CTB has been slow. But we see it as a positive sign that currently talks are
being held by Soviet and United States experts on the subject of nuclear
tests, in particular on the verification of the TTBT and PNE Treaties. We
look forward to the ratification of these Treaties as a step on the road to a
comprehensive ban. We also welcome the discussions being conducted by
United States and Soviet experts on the idea of interim steps with respect to
nuclear tests, to which I shall return in a moment.
We are encouraged by the increasing awareness, as demonstrated in the
international debate on the test-ban issue, that an effective test-ban
agreement requires a stringent verification regime and -- and this is very
important -- that such a regime should be technically feasible. At their
Ixtapi meeting, the countries of the Five Continents Initiative, the
New Delhi Six, rightly recognized in their statement that verification is an
important issue and accordingly forwarded useful proposals to enhance
verification capabilities. Verification no longer seems an issue that, as
such, divides us, although, of course, a great deal of work still has to be
done.
It is encouraging that the Soviet delegation has accepted so-called
level II data exchange and is ready to participate in a practical test
envisaged for 1988 on the basis of such data during a test run. We also took
note of Soviet declarations to the effect that the USSR is open to the most
strict forms of verification, such as on-site inspection and the use of all
possibilities of seismology. We regret that such on-site inspection was not
permitted during the recent Soviet test on 26 February and, as I said earlier,
that the Soviet Union did not accept the invitation of the United States
Government to observe and monitor a test at the Nevada site.
With a view to bringing about the cessation of nuclear testing, we wish
to reiterate our hope that the two major nuclear Powers will continue to
explore the possibilities of reducing tests, both quantitatively and
qualitatively, in relation to the reduction of arsenals. Fewer nuclear
weapons, few nuclear tests; and depending on the scope of the arms control
agreement, no tests for certain types of nuclear weapons. In this context, we
recall the statement of Ambassador Rose of the German Democratic Republic on
17 February, in which he said that the concept of interim steps has always
been part of the socialist approach to a CTB.
620
in Part - Sanitized CODV Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.396
4
(Mr. van Schaik, Netherlands)
If, as we hope, such steps lead the major nuclear Powers on the road
towards a CTB, it would be a great pity that the Conference should remain an
impotent observer. As long as we cannot negotiate on the treaty itself, we in
the Conference should do everything feasible that will bring us nearer to the
goal. That includes work that can be undertaken under the mandate proposed by
a group of Western countries (CD/521). It seems of little interest to us
whether that work will be granted the title of "negotiations". It is not on
the basis of such labelling that major nations can be forced to negotiate on a
final treaty banning all testing. In fact, we hope that such practical work
will also bridge differences that separate those who consider a CTB an
immediate objective and others who, for the time being, consider it from a
different perspective.
Let us, on the basis of CD/521, finally resume the substantive work on
scope, verification and compliance related to a comprehensive test ban. For
too long we have been waiting for a thorough discussion of the many
interesting papers that have been submitted, such as the ones presented by the
Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Norway and Australia. As
Ambassador Turbanski of Poland underlined in his intervention on 26 February,
it is unfortunate that more than a month has passed and that we are unable to
do substantial work on the subject. We wish to echo the Polish Ambassador's
reminder that the mandate, though important, is not an aim in itself.
Let me also say something on the objective as such of a CTB. We believe
that we must, with respect to the objective of a CTB, be realistic. A CTB
remains in our view an important tool to slow down the nuclear-arms race. It
would also have great political significance, and as such set an example to
nations that possess -- or are on the verge of acquiring -- a nuclear
explosive capability. However even in a world in which a CTB would reign,
this would unfortunately not put a definite end to the nuclear-arms race. A
CTB can never be a substitute for deep cuts in nuclear arsenals.
We fail to understand those who argue that a comprehensive test ban is
even a prerequisite to halting the arms race. Some have said here in this
room that, unless we all agree to putting an end to nuclear-weapon tests, we
shall not be able to achieve our goal of nuclear disarmament; that without a
CTB the dangers of nuclear war will even increase. We on our side are more
optimistic about the perspectives of the bilateral nuclear talks going on
elsewhere in Geneva.
In short, for my Government, which attaches very high priority to the
question of the test ban, the reduction and the ultimate abolition of nuclear
arsenals, is of even greater importance.
The cessation of the nuclear-arms race and nuclear disarmament are, of
course, major issues. The Conference should certainly address these issues.
But can we consider those themes completely separate from the question of
conventional arms control? Various resolutions accepted at last year's
General Assembly, in particular resolutions 41/59 C and 41/59 G, point out, in
fact, the importance to be attached to conventional arms control and
disarmament.
621
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001nnnn1_4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.396
5
(Mr. van Schaik, Netherlands)
We agree with Ambassador Kosin of Yugoslavia, when on 24 February, he
underlined the importance of conventional weapons that continue to absorb most
of the resources spent on arms and take a heavy toll of human life in
so-called local wars. The development of conventional weapons systems is
indeed making those weapons increasingly dangerous and very destructive.
The Atlantic Alliance agreed in Halifax on the objective of the
establishment of a comprehensive, verifiable and stable balance of
conventional forces at lower levels in the whole of Europe. The Warsaw Pact
expressed its interest in conventional arms reductions as well. The
elimination of conventional disparities in Europe will certainly be conducive
to future nuclear disarmament.
My Government hopes that a systematic exchange of views in the Conference
on Disarmament on the cessation of a nuclear-arms race and nuclear disarmament
will be continued. But as Ambassador Hansen of the United States rightly
asked: "Where on the programme of work for 1987 is there provision for this
Conference to undertake arms control and disarmament efforts which might
contribute to the ending of the destruction, pain and suffering now taking
place in diverse parts of the world because conventional weapons are being
used?". We all know there are countries that are vocal when it concerns
nuclear weapons -- which they do not possess -- but that are often tacit on
conventional weapons -- which they do possess. We fully respect the deeply
felt concern of those delegations about the threat of nuclear war. However,
we do think that a more balanced approach, reflecting also the anxiety about
actual and often very indiscriminate killings by conventional weapons, would
be a more proper response to our common aspirations. A more balanced approach
is also required if we take into account the urgent need for scarce resources,
in particular in developing countries, whose plight is a matter of great
concern to my Government, as it is to the international community as a whole.
My Government considers the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons
within certain areas through the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones to
be of great importance. Such zones are conducive to stability and security in
the respective area. They also tend to set an example for countries in other
areas, although we acknowledge that the establishment of such zones is less
complicated in areas where up to now nuclear weapons have not been introduced.
My Government feels that certain conditions should be fulfilled to make
such regional endeavours successful, also in the longer run. The agreements
reached should be the fruit of initiatives from within the region, which
itself should be clearly defined. Preferably all countries in the region must
be prepared to join and the agreement should be supported by an adequate
verification regime. The agreement should include guarantees from the nuclear
Powers. Generally speaking, it is, of course, of great importance that all
participating countries pay attention to the effective functioning of the
nuclear-free zone. It is in this spirit that my Government appreciates the
establishment of the Treaty of Rarotonga on a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone,
on which the distinguished Ambassador of Australia, Richard Butler, gave us
interesting information in his speech on 3 February 1987.
622
n.rincQifipri in Part - Sanitized Coov Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.396
6
(Mr. van Schaik, Netherlands)
Since the beginning of the space age, technology has made progress with
gigantic steps and space has become an aspect of our daily life. The
Soviet Union, the United States, China, India, Japan and the countries working
together in the European Space Agency have placed satellites in orbit and
other countries will certainly follow suit.
Almost from the start there has also been a steady increase in military
activities in space. In the 1970s the borderlines between civil and military
use of space became vaguer. Now, up to approximately 75 per cent of the
satellites launched have only or mainly military purposes.
For one and a half years, the Conference on Disarmament has, in an
Ad Hoc Committee, examined problems in relation to a possible arms race in
outer space. We have gradually come to grips with the immense complexities of
the issues involved. We believe that the discussions on the subject in the
Ad Hoc Committee were serious and profound and that the Committee should this
year go on in the same spirit. We should, in our view, concentrate more than
before on relevant new developments as far as the military use of outer space
is concerned. We feel that, building on those discussions, it would be
possible for this Committee to come forward with some specific recommendations
for stability-enhancing measures.
Of particular concern to my Government is the protection of satellites
that on account of, for instance, their contribution to greater transparency,
crisis management and early warning against nuclear attacks, perform a
stabilizing role. The search for a satisfactory regime in this field is a
very complex task. One of the complicating factors is, of course, that not
all satellites concerned play only such a stabilizing role. An approach
complementary to the bilateral negotiations with regard to the protection of
high-orbit satellites seems to us of particular importance.
The analytic discussions on the legal regime have been interesting.
However, what is lacking is consensus on what is and what is not covered by
existing international law. We realize it will be very difficult to agree on
a paper in which common ground would be defined. But it seems to be of great
importance that a serious effort should be made. It would be a good idea if
at some moment legal experts from capitals be invited to assist us in our
discussions.
Other useful work can be done in the Committee. Confidence-building
measures constitute an area to be further explored. We favour a strengthening
of the United Nations registration agreement of 1975. The exchange of more
detailed information on all space activities and even prior notification on
the launching of space objects are themes the Committee may wish to address.
623
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.396
7
(Mr. van Schaik, Netherlands)
In accordance with decision A/41/421 adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly, we hope work on the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament
under the highly esteemed chairmanship of Ambassador Garcia Robles will be
finalized during this session. We trust the approach of all concerned will be
realistic, so as to ensure that the comprehensive programme can indeed be
established at the next General Assembly.
From the beginning, the Netherlands has supported the Swedish proposal
made in June 1980 to broaden the scope of the draft treaty on radiological
weapons by including the issue of attacks on nuclear facilities. However, as
we all know, for various reasons, a number of delegations were not in favour
of accepting such a two-track approach and were not prepared to bring the two
issues under one international legal instrument. We regret this, but it seems
realistic to recognize that from the outset the two-track approach has been
controversial.
The question we ought to discuss in the Ad Hoc Committee is whether it
would not. be possible to find a compromise by now concentrating on an
agreement on track A (radiological weapons proper), parallel to an explicit
understanding that track B (the attacks on nuclear facilities) will be the
subject of further negotiations here ?this body. Let me emphasize that such
a phased approach should in no way be considered as an expression of doubt on
the competence of bilis body as the negotiating forum on track B. On the
contrary, as we have stated before, we consider the Conference to be the
competent body where attacks on both installations for peaceful use and
installations for military purposes can be treated adequately. The IAEA,
which is responsible for the peaceful applications of nuclear energy, is not
the appropriate forum for this topic.
We believe the future legal instrument dealing with these attacks ought
to be based on the concept of indiscriminate warfare through mass
destruction. We should aim at the prevention of mass destructive
indiscriminate effects and if we do so, the distinction between military and
civil facilities is not relevant.
My delegation is aware of the objections some have raised against the
approach I have just sketched. The issue of the competence of the Conference
as well as the assessment of the urgency of the issue of attacks have been
stumbling blocks that prevented us from making more progress. But we believe
that those differences can be addressed in such a way that no vital security
or other interests are liable to be affected. In our opinion the time has
come for Governments to deal with the issue and break the impasse. Neither
questions of competence, nor the attitude of benign neglect, may be reasons to
stumble on as we did before.
624
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.396
8
(Mr. van Schaik, Netherlands)
Finally, a few words on chemical weapons. Negotiations on chemical
weapons are beginning to take a decisive turn. Due to the patient and
painstaking efforts of last year's Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee,
Ambassador Cromartie, and his staff, we can now work on the basis of a
so-called "rolling text", which provides us, in spite of the multitude of
square brackets -- and perhaps also because of those brackets -- with an
excellent starting point from which the negotiations can proceed. We are
grateful to Ian Cromartie for the dedication and insight with which he and his
colleagues have guided the work. We congratulate Ambassador Ekeus on his
appointment as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for this year. We know the
chairmanship to be in good hands.
Many colleagues have said we should make use of the momentum in the
negotiations. In fact, our goal should be to reach agreement before the end
of the year. As I myself said in July last year, my delegation indeed hopes
that before the end of the year we can break the back of the problems. Recent
moves made by the Soviet delegation are indeed encouraging. We hope this sets
the trend for further progress.
However, we also wish to voice a note of caution. A variety of important
and sensitive issues must still .be addressed. A reat number of practical
issues have to be dealt with at some moment before an agreement be signed. It
would not-be wise to leave major loopholes in the convention that aould later
lead to misinterpretation and arouse suspicion on implementation, if not worse.
Three major areas of disagreement have plagued this Conference for many
years. They concern challenge inspection, the question how to verify that the
civil chemical industry is not misused for the production of chemical weapons
and the issue of how to declare and monitor existing chemical weapons
stockpiles. Although in particular on the first of those issues, challenge
inspection, we still have a long way to go, it is reassuring to note that on
each of these issues progress has been made in recent months.
Let me first take the subject on which, in our view, the most significant
steps have been made, the declaration and monitoring of stocks. It has now
become clear that the Soviet Union is prepared under the convention to make a
declaration containing detailed information on locations of chemical-weapon
stocks shortly after the entry into force of the convention. We welcome this,
because we infer from it that a system of successive declarations, phased out
over the entire period of destruction is no longer deemed necessary.
We were also happy to note that destruction, rather than diversion, of
CW stocks for peaceful purposes is now the objective, even if the issue of a
possible diversion of stocks on a very limited scale is not finally settled
yet. A lot of substantive work still remains to be done on the issue of
stocks -- I mention only the sensitive issue of the order in which stocks must
625
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.396
9
(Mr. van Schaik, Netherlands)
be destroyed -- but we feel that a good basis is now available for further
consultations and negotiations on remaining issues. This work is, as I
understand, well under way under the able guidance of the item co-ordinator
for Cluster I, Mr. Nieuwenhuys.
In the area of verification of non-production of chemical weapons, the
second major issue I just mentioned, the work of the Conference drew great
benefit from informal consultations in the inter-sessional period at the end
of last year, and from the deliberations at the session in January. In that
relatively brief period discussion of hitherto "untouchable" issues appeared
to be possible. We hope that the spirit prevailing in that period will
continue to inspire us in these weeks when the Committee is dealing with
article VI of the convention.
My delegation welcomes Soviet concurrence with the notion of risk in
determining the stringency of verification of non-production. In our view,
the risk factor -- essentially the risk that a civil chemical plant will in
fact violate the convention -- is important in determining the intensity with
which the plant in question should be subject to a monitoring regime. The
idea of defining a threshold for annual production, to which
Ambassador Nazarkin referred in his statement on 5 March, has been under
discussion for some time. Such a quantitative criterion would indeed provide
us with one of the factors to determine the risk involved.
In the coming weeks we shall have to get down to the level of practical
implementation: what factors are relevant to determine the risks various
chemical substances and types of production pose and consequently which
inspection regime will be applied for each of them? We are encouraged by the
constructive suggestions the item co-ordinator for Cluster III, Mr. Macedo,
has recently made on this point.
Useful work on the classification of substances has already been done by
the former Chairman of Working Group A, Mr. Richard Rowe. Under his guidance
three categories of substances were elaborated under article VI, together with
a first outline of a regime for each category. While generally appreciative
of the progress achieved so far, my delegation realizes that a number of
important issues related to monitoring of production of chemicals have hardly
been addressed. The still virtually unexplored and very complex area of
commercially produced super-toxic lethal chemicals and the risk they may pose
to the convention is only an illustration of the many important problems
awaiting a judicious solution.
As for on-site challenge inspections, the third outstanding and perhaps
most important issue of disagreement, my delegation appreciates that in his
latest interventions, Ambassador Nazarkin has made observations that seem to
narrow down some of the differences. We acknowledge that the Soviet
delegation has identified two important areas where requests for challenge
inspections cannot be refused and that it has broadly supported the British
approach for alternative solutions in exceptional circumstances.
626
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-0.1168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.396
10
(Mr. van Schaik, Netherlands)
However, we are still faced with the essential problem of how to act in
case stocks or facilities have not been registered and challenge inspections
are refused. Especially in countries with a large territory and with
traditionally less open systems of communication, this can present a major
problem, if no adequate verification regime is established.
Since this problem goes to the heart of the convention, I think it may be
useful to explain what we see as the crux of challenge inspections.
When the convention enters into force the envisaged system of routine
inspection will in general give adequate assurances that existing stockpiles
of chemical weapons are destroyed and no new stockpiles are built. However,
doubts may arise, in particular about places and facilities that are not
declared. The root of the problem may in such cases be misunderstanding,
perhaps of a technical nature, and it is obvious that a challenge inspection
can most effectively dissipate any misgivings.
But the doubts expressed may also be based on suspicion that a State
Party is in fact deliberately not properly implementing the convention. Cases
such as clandestine stockpiling and production of chemical weapons should
indeed also be covered by the convention.
It is of crucial importance that in cases of such malevolent practices no
legal, procedural or other obstacle can be put in the way of a justified
request for challenge inspection. For the effective functioning of the
convention, confidence in its implementation is essential. Confidence can
only be instilled if intrusive on-site inspection is, in those cases of
supposed malpractices, guaranteed.
The United States delegation has, now three years ago, in its proposal
under article X (CD/500) rightly pointed out the way in which we should find a
solution. We feel the British approach, as presented in CD/715, building on
the United States proposal, to be a realistic one. The British Working Paper
advanced the idea that in exceptional circumstances, in particular for
national security reasons, alternative measures may be proposed by the
challenged State, but those should be to the satisfaction of the challenging
State. If the latter State is not satisfied and if the challenged State
cannot in time advance other alternative measures, contracting parties will
face a situation in which the challenged State may be declared as violating
the convention.
It is clear that all parties have an interest that such a crisis will
never break out. It could in fact undermine the overall functioning of the
treaty as such. It is therefore of the greatest importance that in the coming
months we seek a solution which minimizes the risk that such a crisis
situation will in fact lead to the breaking down of the convention. But the
rule should remain that the complaining party has the right to international
challenge inspection on the spot.
627
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.396
11
(Mr. van Schaik, Netherlands)
Some delegations have suggested that we could make good use of the
example of the confidence-building measures (CBMs) that were agreed upon in
Stockholm in September 1986, in the framework of the European Disarmament
Conference. We agree with those delegations in so far as we should be
inspired by the constructive spirit which led to results at the Stockholm
Conference. But we believe the parallel cannot be drawn any further because,
as Ambassador Von Stillpnagel rightly said, the negotiations in Stockholm
served a different purpose.
In Stockholm the objective was to build confidence. Here our more
radical objective is the complete abolition of all chemical weapons. We
cannot confine ourselves to a system that gives "some" confidence. What we
need is a system of verification that gives full confidence.
Full confidence will also require full confidence in the organization we
shall establish and in the rules of decision-making we shall draft. I refer
in this context to the Netherlands Working Paper CD/445 of March 1984, on the
size and structure of a chemical disarmament inspectorate. But there is far
more to it. As Ambassador Cromartie said in his final statement as Chairman
of the Ad Hoc Committee on 3 February, provisions under article IX, but also
under article VIII, of the convention would be required to underpin confidence
in the convention. Provisions on a strong organization and on strong rules of
decision-making should provide the necessary confidence in the draft
convention as a whole, to enable it to be concluded.
A lot of important work is still waiting for us. Differences must be
bridged, resistance overcome. Let us assist the President of the Ad Hoc
Committee in setting priorities by first focusing on the major issues. I call
upon all delegations to contribute to a common effort to bring the convention
on chemical weapons to an early conclusion.
Mr. President, a famous countryman of yours, the Cuban poet Jose Marti,
said on building a nation a century ago what we today can say about building a
chemical weapons convention. Like a nation, a chemical weapons convention "is
not a complex of wheels (of fortune), nor a wild horse race, but a stride
upward concerted by real men".
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
the Netherlands for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the
President, and of course for his reference to my country's coat of arms as an
allegorical expression of good omen for our work, as it were. I have no more
speakers on my list. Does any other representative wish to take the floor? I
see none.
628
nariaccifipn in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.396
12
(The President)
I have requested the secretariat to circulate today a timetable of
meetings of the Conference and its subsidiary bodies for next week. As usual,
the timetable was prepared in consultation with the Chairmen of the Ad Hoc
Committees; it is purely indicative and may be modified if necessary. In
this connection, I wish to inform the Conference that the Ad Hoc Committee on
the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space will meet tomorrow afternoon at
4.30 p.m. in this room. Subsequent meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee will be
decided on in the light of the results of the consultations currently taking
place, and therefore the timetable does not contain a specific reference to
the Ad Hoc Committee's next meeting. If I hear no objection, I shall take it
that the Conference adopts the timetable.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): The next plenary meeting of the
Conference on Disarmament will be held on Tuesday, 17 March, at 10 a.m. The
meeting is adjourned.
The meeting rose at 10.55 a.m.
629
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.397
17 March 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SEVENTH PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva:
on Tuesday, 17 March 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
GE.87-60416/614n
Mr. Lechuga Hevia (Cuba)
630
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I declare open the
397th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament. In accordance with
its programme of work, the Conference today begins the consideration of
agenda item 3, "Prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters".
However, in conformity with rule 3 of the rules of procedure, any member
wishing to do so may raise any other matter related to the work of the
Conference. .
I should like to recall that Saturday, 14 March, three days ago, marked
the twenty-fifth anniversary of uninterrupted multilateral negotiations on
disarmament and arms limitation. On 14 March 1962, the Eighteen-Nation
Committee on Disarmament began its work, at the level of foreign ministers.
Since then, a number of major agreements have been concluded in the
negotiating body. Despite all the hopes that could be placed in a negotiating
process that would set mankind on the path towards the objective of general
and complete disarmament under effective international control, the arms race
has continued unchecked. New systems of nuclear weapons have been developed,
and the arsenals of such weapons have attained such dimensions that in the
event of a nuclear conflict the annihilation of mankind would be inevitable.
It is no accident, then, that today we are beginning the consideration
precisely of agenda item 3.
Conventional forces have acquired a destructive capability previously
unknown, and military expenditures have reached astronomical heights which
were unthinkable 25 years ago. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that the
world would be an even more dangerous place to live in had it not been for the
conclusion of the agreements negotiated in this Council chamber during the
period in question. In any event, despite those agreements and all the
efforts made in negotiations, no one can say that today we are nearer our
objective than in 1962. But precisely because of the universal nature of the
danger facing us and the variety of threats to which we are subjected, in the
present circumstances there can be no giving way to despair or frustration.
The sheer scale of the risk posed by the arms race and of the task facing us
mean that there is no valid alternative to the existence of a single
multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, as stated in the Final Document of
the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, and
therefore it is to be hoped that this anniversary will lead us to pursue
actively our search for agreements on effective disarmament measures.
I have on the list of speakers for today the representatives of Norway,
Bulgaria, Spain, the German Democratic Republic and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics.
In accordance with the decision adopted by the Conference at its
387th plenary meeting, I now give the floor to the personal adviser to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Dr. Bakkevig. In doing so I should
like to recall that the Conference had been expecting the visit of
His Excellency The Minister for Foreign Affairs, who sadly passed away a few
days ago. I have already had occasion to convey to the representative of
Norway the sincere condolences of the Conference on this sad loss. I now give
the floor to Dr. Bakkevig.
631
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
3
Mr. BAKKEVIG (Norway): Mr. President, first of all let me express my
satisfaction at the honour and privilege of addressing the Conference on
Disarmament. May I also extend to you, Ambassador Lechuga Hevia, the
distinguished representative of Cuba, my congratulations on your assumption of
the Presidency of the Conference for the month of March. I thank you also for
the kind welcome you extended to me. Allow me also, through you,
Mr. President, to express the gratitude of the Norwegian Government for the
expressions of condolences in this Conference occasioned by the sudden death
of the Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Knut Frydenlund, who was
scheduled to address the Conference. May I also express my profound
condolences and sympathy over the sudden death of Ambassador Donald Lowitz of
the United States. Ambassador Lowitz took part in the CD Workshop on
Seismological Verification of a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban in Oslo in
June 1985, and had plans to visit our country again in May of this year.
It is the profound belief of my Government that the nations of the world
cannot, in the era of nuclear weapons, obtain real security at the expense of
each other. They must explore the areas of mutual interest and, on the basis
of such common ground as may be found, create alternatives to a situation
dominated by distrust and arms build-up. Collective security must be based on
confidence-building measures, arms-control agreements and co-operation across
the international divides of security arrangments.
Recently there have been hopeful signals of new momentum in the nuclear
as well as in the conventional field of arms control. We are pleased to
observe that developments in a positive direction are taking place. Thus the
Stockholm Conference last year succeeded in reaching an agreement on security
and confidence-building measures in Europe. If properly implemented these
measures will in our view serve to enhance security on this continent.
Furthermore, new negotiations are now about to start in Vienna with a
view to eliminating existing disparities and establishing conventional
stability at lower levels of forces.
The Reykjavik meeting last autumn between President Reagan and
General Secretary Gorbachev signalled willingness to deal with the important
problems of arms control in a constructive manner. We welcome the latest
developments concerning the bilateral United States-Soviet negotiations on
intermediate-range nuclear missiles. An agreement to eliminate these weapons
from Europe will have the full support of the Norwegian Government. We do
hope that the initiatives taken by the United States and the Soviet Union will
lead to the early signing of an agreement. The parties must, of course, take
appropriate steps to secure adequate verification and agree on parallel
limitations of short-range intermediate-range nuclear missiles in order to
prevent a possible circumvention of an INF agreement.
It is our hope that recent developments in the East/West context will
have a positive impact on the disarmament efforts on the multilateral level as
well.
A global, comprehensive and effective ban on chemical weapons is urgently
needed. Norway has taken active part in the negotiations in the Conference on
Disarmament on a convention on the prohibition of the development, production
6 32
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
4
(Mr. Bakkevig, Norway)
stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction. Under the
able chairmanship of Ambassador Cromartie of the United Kingdom, the Ad Hoc
Committee on Chemical Weapons made significant progress on important questions
in 1986.
Difficult problems still remain to be resolved, particularly in the field
of verification. However, the momentum in the negotiations has been
sustained, and we are pleased to note the progress achieved so far during the
1987 session.
We feel assured that the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical
Weapons in 1987, Ambassador Ekeus of Sweden, will spare no efforts in trying
to find early and satisfactory solutions to the outstanding problems. In
particular, it is necessary to work out details for verification regimes,
including routine and on-site inspection on challenge of all facilities and
sites where violations could occur. No doubt, solving these questions
represents a difficult and complex task. We noted in this regard the
statement of Ambassador Nazarkin of the Soviet Union at the plenary meeting on
5 March, when he said that "chemical weapons and the production base for their
manufacture are to be destroyed by all States possessing such weapons,
including both the Soviet Union and the United States".
The Norwegian Government attaches importance as well to the bilateral
consultations between the United States and the Soviet Union on an effective
and verifiable global convention on chemical weapons. These consultations
have already contributed positively to the negotiating process within the
framework of the Conference on Disarmament.
A basic and still unresolved question is the elaboration of modalities
for handling requests for on-site inspection on challenge. Norway is of the
opinion that the provisions concerning routine on-site inspections should be
supplemented by a stringent system for on-site inspections to verify
allegations of non-compliance. This would provide the ultimate source of
confidence in the convention. Such a system has to satisfy certain criteria,
of which the following three are the most essential: firstly, the challenged
State must be under the obligation to demonstrate to other States, and
especially the challenging State, that it complies with the provisions of the
convention. Secondly, an inspection would have to be undertaken immediately
after the issue of a challenge. Thirdly, the investigation should be detailed
and comprehensive.
Whereas Norway takes part in all aspects of the negotiations on a
chemical-weapons ban in the Conference on Disarmament, we have put special
emphasis on the question of verification of alleged use of these weapons. In
1981 the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs initiated a comprehensive
research programme concerning verification of alleged use of chemical
weapons. This research programme is carried out by the Norwegian Defence
Research Establishment. It is based on field experiments in order to make
sure that the findings are as realistic as possible.
We have developed procedures for identification of the contaminated area,
sampling, field analysis, transportation and final analysis in a laboratory in
order to determine whether chemical weapons have been used. These procedures,
633
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001_4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
5
(Mr. Bakkevig, Norway)
which can be used on an all-year basis, are now being tested in field
exercises. The results of these tests will be presented in a new research
report, which will be submitted to the Conference on Disarmament during the
second part of this year's session. We intend also to submit a working paper
outlining more detailed proposals concerning procedures for verification of
alleged use, which would be relevant to the effective implementation of the
convention.
As a further contribution to the work of the Conference on Disarmament,
the Norwegian Council on Arms Control and Disarmament will hold a symposium on
the Chemical Weapons Convention in Oslo from 26 to 27 May. Representatives
from the three groups and China in the Conference on Disarmament have been
invited to present their views on the chemical weapons negotiations.
It is the firm view of the Norwegian Government that efforts should be
intensified with a view to an early conclusion of a comprehensive test-ban
treaty, which is one of the most important issues on the international
disarmament agenda. A comprehensive nuclear-test ban would play a key role in
promoting the nuclear disarmament process. In addition, it would be essential
for the prevention of further proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The fourth session of discussions between the United States and the
Soviet Union on nuclear testing has just resumed. Norway hopes that an agenda
for the .initiation of negotiations on a step-by-step programme towards a
test-ban treaty can be agreed during this resumed session. The ratification
of the 1974 Threshold Test-Ban Treaty and the 1976 Peaceful Nuclear Explosions
Treaty would be a desirable first step in such a programme.
Being the sole negotiating forum for global disarmament questions, the
Conference on Disarmament should resume its work on issues relevant to a
nuclear-test ban. In our view the Conference did useful work in 1982 and 1983
in the field of compliance and verification. Norway regrets that disagreement
over its mandate for three years has prevented the establishment of the
Ad Hoc Committee on a Nuclear-Test Ban. Through an in-depth and interrelated
deliberation of such issues as scope, compliance and verification, the
Conference on Disarmament can resolve questions which in any case need to be
addressed prior to the conclusion of a test-ban treaty.
The Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts completed last week its
twenty-third session under the able chairmanship of Dr. Dahlman of Sweden.
The Group has made remarkable progress in achieving consensus on the concepts
for a modern international seismic data exchange system under a future
comprehensive test-ban treaty.
We are particularly pleased with this development, as Norway for many
years has strongly advocated many of the ideas that are now coming to
fruition. Let me recall the demonstration of data exchange here at the Palais
des Nations in 1982, the CD Workshop in Oslo in 1985, as well as recent
Working Papers presented to the Conference.
Looking to the future, the Ad Hoc Group is currently planning a
large-scale international experiment for the exchange and processing of
so-called Level II seismic data, or seismic waveforms, using the most advanced
634
Dmrl? - aniti7Rd Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
6
(Mr. Bakkevig, Norway)
data communication methods available, including satellite transmissions.
Norway will take an active part in the planning, carrying out and evaluation
of tills experiment. To this end, we shall make available data from the
eeisting seismic ineeallations in Norway, the NORSAR and NORESS observateries.
perine the se=nd oet of this year's session, Ncrway pians tabl- a
,e.:erine paper lealin 77,eteods and procedures for seismic Level II data
exehane. wfl: plaee particular emphasis on E2t.i4mo
transmissior by satellite. In this connection, let me draw attente7n elee
satallritc transmission facilities of the NOF:ESS arr. wh'ee
'yeeeided ee eY:11 oeesido-able teeenioal experience in this '
that der e7.-er'_eree e-Jel,f. be i'elefol alia in relatton te
.-eereet.iceatdaa exehen4e exoeement. This experiment wt.11 be
an etfsct:Lve international system fo
of a comprehensioee r.'..-'an treaty.
Outee stace sould be used exclusively for peaceful purpoees. The
exploratioe end use of outer space should be carried out for the befi of
all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic and scientific
deveopment. The efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space meet lee
ourseed boeh on a bilateral and a multilateral basis. 'Consequentlle fThe
Conference on Disarmament has a.central role to play in this field. Ie
the Conference was able to examine relevant conventions and to initiate
identification of effective ways to prevent an arms xace in outer space. '77.s
work needs to be continued. Norway therefore welcomes the re-establishmeee cf
the Ad Hoc Committee. In view of the complexity of the questions involved,
the work of the Committee no doubt could profit from the participation of
scientific experts.
The third special session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted
to disarmament, which is scheduled to take place in 1988, will be an important
event in the multilateral disarmament field. For the sake of the multilateral
disarmament efforts, as well as the role of the United Nations in this area,
we should strive to make this a constructive session. Norway hopes that the
Conference on Disarmament will be able to finalize the elaboration of the
Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament prior to the third special session. In
fact, the forty-first session of the General Assembly requested the Conference
to submit a complete draft of the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament to
its forty-second session. Norway will continue to give support to the
Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, the distinguished representative of Mexico,
Ambassador Garcia Robles, in his efforts to complete the elaboration of this
programme, which would be a useful roadmap for future disarmament negotiaticns.
Norway is actively involved in the preparation of the forthcoming
International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and
Development. In our view this Conference offers a valuable opportunity to
elaborate guidelines for future activities on the national and international
level. It is our hope that the Conference will give fresh impetus to both the
disarmament and the development processes.
I cannot conclude my statement without mentioning the question of the
expansion of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament. Norway holds
the view that the Conference on Disarmament, prior to the third special
635
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Ronn1nn1 nnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
7
(Mr. Bakkevig, Norway)
session on disarmament, should implement its decision to increase its
membership by not more than four States. Being the official candidate of the
Western Group for membership, Norway will follow with keen interest the
consultations with a view to implementing the decision of the Conference.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
Norway for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the President. I
now give the floor to the representative of Bulgaria, Ambassadaor Tellalov.
Mr. TELLALOV (Bulgaria): Mr. President, allow me to extend my most
cordial congratulations and best wishes to you, the distinguished
representative of socialist Cuba, presiding over the work of the Conference on
Disarmament. The Bulgarian delegation is very pleased to see in the chair a
very skilful and experienced diplomat of a country with which Bulgaria enjoys
relations of friendship and co-operation in all spheres.. Being aware of the
great importance that Cube attaches to the cause of disarmament and your
personal dedication to the goals of this Conference, I wish to assure you,
Comrade Lechuga, of the full support and assistance of my delegation in the
discharge of your responsibilities. May I also express our gratitude to
Ambassador Fan Guoxiang of the People's Republic of China, under whose active
and competent guidance the Conference has taken a very good start at the
beginning of its 1987 session.
Today, I would like to deal briefly with item 1 and item 2, though in
reverse order: of course, not as an attempt to revise the priorities of the
Conference agenda. This is simply an expression of my delegation's opinion
that such an approach is warranted by important developments taking place at
the Soviet-American negotiations in Geneva.
On 28 February, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev made a proposal to
decouple the issue of medium-range missiles from the issues of strategic and
outer space weapons and conclude a separate agreement on it, based on the
understanding reached at the Reykjavik Summit. This initiative is a new
manifestation of the goodwill of the USSR to find ways and means of solving an
issue of nuclear disarmament which is of paramount importance both for Europe
and for the world. In commenting on the Soviet proposal, the President of the
State Council of the People' Republic of Bulgaria, Todor Zhivkov, stated:
"The people and Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria
wholeheartedly welcome and support the proposal by the General Secretary
of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as
yet further evidence of the sincerity, foresight and dynamism
characterizing Soviet foreign policy, as an example of fresh political
thinking and a new approach".
The official response of the United States Government to the Soviet
proposal was quick and encouraging. The reaction in all corners of the world
was a favourable one. It is gratifying to note that optimism prevails now
both in Moscow and Washington, new great expectations are rising.
In our submission, if the Soviet and American negotiators in Geneva
succeed in elaborating and agreeing upon a treaty on medium-range missiles, it
would be an event of historical importance in the field of nuclear disarmament.
636
narinccifipri in Part - Sanitized Coov Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
8
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
Politically, such a treaty would close a deep wound in Europe, would
contribute to building up confidence among States and strengthening
international security. In terms of disarmament, such a treaty would be
tantamount to significantly reducing nuclear arsenals and, as a consequence,
the nuclear threat both to Europe and Asia. Such a treaty would be the most
eloquent oroof that if there is a good political will one may find compromise
solutions tp the most 4.ifficult and complex problems. Psychologically, suc
treaty would contribute to surmounting the misconception that the modern ViCf.7.
is doomed clive as a stag- to nuclear weapons, in a state of conctant
of nuclear catastro,7h-3. And, last but not least, such a trea.iy wcald
first agreement for a s'ignifioant reduction of nuclear weap;:ns. It
big stride on the road to nuciPar d'sarmament.
My delegation cannot b"it warmly welcome the developme:.ts
place and expre7s the hope that the negotLations.on medium-range "1:_o:los
be crowned by success. At the same time we would like to see the
United States find common ground also for agreement on strategic aro spae
weapons which are intrinsically linked.
It is, perhaps, a truism to say that the USSR and the United Stas
a special responsibility for the cessation of the nucloar-arms race an
achievement of nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, some members of this
Conference tend to interpret this truism to the effect that the Conferenc
ought to remain idle on its agenda item 2, since there are Soviet-America
negotiations going on. We do not and cannot share this view. We believe tha
during this session, as the minimum minorum, the Conference must have an
in-depth and structured discussion on all important aspects of item 2:
"Cessation of the nuclear-arms race and nuclear disarmament". In our
submission the Conference should, for instance, examine such important issue.:
as the principles and stages of a nuclear disarmament process, the
relationship between bilateral and multilateral negotiations, the
responsibilities of all nuclear-weapon States for nuclear disarmament,
including the conditions for their adherence to the efforts aimed at ending
nuclear-arms race and achieving nuclear disarmament. Of course, we realize
that it is no problem for some delegations to argue that no list of issues car
be exhaustive in the field of nuclear disarmament, that the list of issues car
be structured in one way or another. As a matter of record, some delegations
have proved in the past and, presumably, they may prove it again, that in a
Conference working on the basis of a consensus one does not need a lot of
imagination or effort to find pretexts for blocking its proceedings.
It is largely recognized that bilateral and multilateral negotiations do
not exclude each other. On the contrary, it is generally believed that they
could and should complement each other. Therefore, it seems to us that the
Conference should examine some important nuclear disarmament issues with a
view to searching for a sort of framework understanding which may open up the
road leading to negotiations. In other words, it is high time for the
Conference to start doing something meaningful on item 2.
Turning to item 1 of our agenda, I would like to state once again that my
delegation cannot agree with the view that a comprehensive ban on nuclear
testing should be a long-term objective.
637
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168Ronninni nnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PIT. 397
9
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
The purpose of nuclear disarmament is to limit and finally remove the
nuclear threat. To achieve this goal parallel steps are needed to curb both
the quantitative and the qualitative nuclear-arms race. If the nuclear
disarmament process is restricted to numerical cuts only, new nuclear weapons
with greater effectiveness could be introduced, thus leaving the nuclear
threat intact. A CTB has long been recognized as the most effective measure
to prevent this. Cessation of nuclear testing is, therefore, of immediate
concern. As the distinguished Ambassador of Sweden, Mrs. Theorin, rightly
recalled "nuclear weapon development is taking place now, and to halt it a
test ban is a necessity now".
The Conference on Disarmament has once again been told that a CTB chould
be viewed in the context of a time when certain States will not need to depend
on nuclear deterrence. We doubt the rationale of such a linkage.
In the technical community, there is a strong consensus that stockpile
reliability maintenance does not require nuclear testing. Alternative
simulation methods are available and offer equally precise but safer results.
Scientists maintain that two generations of nuclear weapons -- the atomic and
hydrogen warheads -- have matured to the point where, because of basic
scientific limitations, no major new qualitative advances in nuclear warheads
are in prospect.
In the United States Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Volume 42, No. 9,
page 11, the November 1986 issue, it is emphasized that, "From a national
security standpoint, nuclear warheads innovations and nuclear tests are
entirely dispensable ... The precise combination of yield accuracy and
radiation effect from a nuclear warhead is insignificant, compared to the
overall consequences of a nuclear attack. Deterrence, independent as it is,
of the details of nuclear warhead design, will persist, whether or not nuclear
tests are conducted. An abrupt adoption of a CTB would interrupt the
United States nuclear weapons development program without harming the nation's
ability to maintain a safe and reliable deterrence".
In this context, we share the concern expressed by Ambassador Alfarargi
of Egypt about "the insistence of some nuclear-weapon States to persevere in
nuclear testing, using as a pretext the arguments of maintaining their
capacity of nuclear deterrence, to ensure the worthiness of their nuclear-
weapon stocks". Like him, we believe that "all these arguments are not
valid". It seems to us that they, indeed, are "merely used to justify the
continuation of nuclear tests".
Available information indicates that such tests are currently used for
the creation of a "third generation" of nuclear weapons. Development of such
weapons is, however, something else which, as scientists believe, may need
further extensive nuclear testing in a non-foreseeable future. Nuclear
weapons of this type such as nuclear-pump X-ray lasers are part of the SDI
programme. Again according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, the "only
real reason for continued nuclear testing is to design new weapons systems".
As for the traditional reference to "the need of substantially improved
verification capabilities", today it is more evident than ever before that
there are no technical obstacles to a conclusion of an adequately and
effectively verifiable NTB treaty.
636
in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
10
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
It is very unfortunate that the historic chance offered by the unilateral
moratorium of the Soviet Union on all nuclear-test explosions has not been
seized. A bilateral moratorium could have greatly facilitated negotiation of
a CTB treaty. We all understand the compelling security reasons why a
unilateral moratorium cannot be indefinitely extended in the absence of a
positive response from the other side. My delegation welcomes the Soviet
readiness to halt, on a reciprocal basis, its own programme of nuclear
testing, at any time, if the United States does likewise.
The delegation of Bulgaria favours the approach of seeking to establish
an ad hoc committee which would carry out the necessary substantive work on a
NTB treaty, in accordance with the negotiating responsibilities of the
Conference on Disarmament. Convergence of views on the major tasks of such a
subsidiary body does exist. It emerged at the forty-first United Nations
General Assembly session, and continues to exist in the Conference. The
socialist countries expressed their position on this aspect in their joint
document CD/743, which my delegation co-sponsored. The ad hoc committee on
item I would proceed with an examination of all issues relevant to the
elaboration and eventual conclusion of a NTB treaty, and search for solutions
to this end. Document CD/701 contains our specific observations on a possible
structure of the substantive work on item 1, which could be done in two
working groups.
In conclusion, my delegation deems it necessary to reiterate its
considered view that the time is long overdue for the Conference to match
words with deeds in respect of the nuclear disarmament issues on its agenda.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
Bulgaria for his statement and for his kind words to the Chair and about my
country. In accordance with the decision adopted by the Conference at its
387th plenary meeting, I now call on the representative of Spain,
Ambassador Lacleta.
Mr. LACLETA (Spain) (translated from Spanish): Thank you,
Mr. President. May I, since I am taking the floor for the first time at this
session of the Conference, most cordially salute you and wish you every
success in your functions. I shall be very brief in my statement, since in
the context of agenda items 1 and 2 I wish only to inform the Conference of
the decision announced by the President of the Government of Spain to begin
the internal procedures required to formalize Spain's accession to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Over a Long period, my country has unilaterally proclaimed its firm
decision not to produce nuclear weapons, and agreed to submit all its nuclear
facilities to the safeguards machinery of the International Atomic Energy
Agency. Thus far, however, it has not become one of the contracting parties
to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The reasons for this are sufficiently well known, and we certainly
continue to feel that the Treaty does have some negative aspects, not only
because of its unequal nature but also because so far it has not been able to
prevent vertical proliferation, despite the provisions of article 6.
Nevertheless, the Spanish Government, in carrying out its peace and security
programme, began more than two years ago a process of reconsideration of its
63'
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-0116spnnn1nni nnnni A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
11
(Mr. Lacleta, Spain)
attitude to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and this has ended with the decision
to adhere to that Treaty, bearing in mind that its negative aspects today are
greatly outweighed by other positive aspects.
The Spanish Government considers that Spain's accession to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty will consolidate the country's security and
disarmament policy and enhance that policy's credibility both internally and
internationally. Furthermore, this accession will confirm the determination
of the Government to carry out its commitment to the non-nuclearization of
Spain, a decision which has been sanctioned by a popular referendum, and it
again underscores that Spain is not now and never will be a nuclear threat to
anyone.
The Spanish Government considers that new international prospects have
been opened up that are favourable to an effective policy of nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament. The Third Review Conference of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, held in 1985, in which 132 countries renewed their
support for the Treaty, politically strengthened its value and validity. This
significant and verifiable confidence-building measures adopted at the
Stockholm CSDE Conference are also an important factor in reducing existing
tensions and improving the necessary climate of co-operation and understanding
for determined progress in the broad field of disarmament. The agreements on
the notification of nuclear accidents signed in the IAEA have also helped to
create a new climate as regards the benefits and risks of nuclear energy.
Finally, the Reykjavik Summit and the talks going on in Geneva between the two
major nuclear Powers prompt us to hope for practical substantive results in
the field of nuclear disarmament, in particular the elimination of
medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe and the sharp reduction of strategic
nuclear arsenals. Against the favourable background which all these elements
appear to offer, and reaffirming its conviction that the ultimate aim of
negotiations to control and reduce weapons must include the elimination of
nuclear weapons, the Spanish Government has decided to associate itself
formally (since materially it was already a party to them) with the
international efforts to secure non-proliferation by acceding to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1 July 1968.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
Spain for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the President. I
now give the floor to the representative of the German Democratic Republic,
Ambassador Rose.
Mr. ROSE (German Democratic Republic): Comrade President, today my
delegation would like to present its views on agenda item 1, nuclear-test
ban. Many initiatives launched of late testify to the sincere desire to bring
about a comprehensive cessation of nuclear tests at long last.
The Soviet moratorium, extended several times, offered a fair chance of
resolving the problem. Unfortunately, the chance was not seized. For
reasons, we all know, the Soviet Union was forced to end the moratorium. Yet,
the door to an agreement remains wide open. The call for the other side to
take a long overdue, constructive step will not subside, as some may be
hoping, but grow stronger. The fact is hardly ever disputed these days that
the principal purpose of tests is to make nuclear means of mass destruction,
640
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
12
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
including components of the so-called SDI, more sophisticated. Such tests are
thus setting the pace in increasing the nuclear threat. That is why the
solution of the problem is so urgent and why the overwhelming majority at the
Conference is demanding that this issue be given the highest priority.
Although the Soviet moratorium has not brought the desired concrete
results, it has nevertheless proved in a very practical and convincing way
that a complete cessation of tests could be agreed rather quickly, prov.LdJd
the political will to do so exists. This should enco=age the Conference tc
work with even more determination to achieve that goal.
Our perceptions as to how that aim can be achieved are ocntaine in
document CD/743, submitted by a group of socialist countries. At this net
there are some observations I wish to make on two particular aspects, na1,1,!1
the relative independence and the international character of the task beZoe
us, on the one hand, and on the necessity for an integrated api7roach to the
drafting of an NTBT on the other.
It is a widely recognized assumption that the cessation of all
nuclear-weapons testing would be an effective step to halt the qualitativ
nuclear-arms race and to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear arsenals.
This is precisely what is acknowledged even by those who invoke alleged
security interests to oppose an agreement and negotiations leading up to such
a ban. Paragraph 51 of the Final Document of SSOD I touches upon this
interrelationship, in that it makes reference to ending the "qualitative
improvement of nuclear weapons and the development of new types of such
weapons and of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons". In other
words, discontinuance of nuclear tests would create auspicious conditions for
nuclear disarmament, with the elimination of all nuclear arms being the
ultimate goal, as proposed by the USSR on 15 January 1986 and in Reykjavik, in
keeping with the Final Document of SSOD I. What was once recognized as
correct and accepted by consensus in 1978 has lost nothing of its truth
in 1987. In his statement on 12 March, Ambassador van Schaik of the
Netherlands reminded us that a "CTB remains ... an important tool to slow down
the nuclear-arms race".
In the context of a comprehensive treaty, interim measures are possible
if they further the overall objective and if they are conceived under a clear
commitment to a comprehensive ban. A radical solution would still be
preferable, one of the reasons being that it would entail fewer problems in
terms of verification. Even so, interim measures could have a confidence-
building effect, as they would signal, over and above their actual purpose,
the intention to seek the eventual cessation of tests and proceed to
reductions in nuclear weapons and their complete elimination.
Thus, the interrelationship between a comprehensive test ban, interim
measures and nuclear disarmament is obvious. What is altogether different is
the strategy of establishing an artificial linkage to the effect that nuclear
disarmament becomes a prerequisite for the cessation of nuclear-weapon tests.
Under that approach, a comprehensive nuclear-test ban is possible only after
all nuclear weapons are eliminated. This runs counter to the very purpose of
a test ban, as agreed in the Final Document of SSOD I.
641
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
13
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
40- Linking the two issues in that way means putting the cart before the
horse. Such an attitude is out of tune with specific obligations under
international law. What is a lot more negative even is the circumstance that
this linkage allows the arms race to continue qualitatively, thus fostering
the destabilizing drive for unilateral military advantages. If the reduction
.1uulear arsenals is accompanied by the creation of a new generation of
nuclear weapons, we would end up with a situation where we have considerably
iess security than we had before. A sort of mathematical equation, like fewer
nuclear weapons equals fewer nuclear tests, does not appear to us to reflect
the real and very complex situation.
The general and complete prohibition of nuclear-weapon tests needs to be
Ackled as a task in its own right so that the process of nuclear disarmament
be comprehensively initiated and furthered., The subject of an NTBT is
easier to grasp and more clearly definable than nuclear disarmament in its
ntirety.
The policy ot linking nuclear aisarmament steps with partial measures for
a test ban prompts the question whether the prohibition of nuclear-weapon
tests is to be the exclusive domain of bilateral negotiations or whether it
remains a multilateral task as well. As for ourselves, we prefer a flexible
approach. Negotiations should be conducted wherever they may prove useful.
llowever, what we are talking about is a case where it is particularly
Important that the various negotiating fora complement and stimulate each
vther. To put it differently, the competence of the Conference to work out a
treaty on the complete cessation of nuclear-weapon tests must not be called
into question.
The internatitmal, multilateral nature of the problem springs above all
from the following
(a) If nuclear-weapon tests continue, the nuclear-arms race continues
and the risk of a nuclear inferno increases. With the security and survival
of all peoples at stake, world-wide interest in a global solution is all too
legitimate.
Cb) A compreensive cet bati is, by definition, a step that all
r,ucle.lx-weapon Po,,iers will ultikaittely have to take. Therefore, they should be
afforded an opportunity to participate as early as possible in the drafting of
a treaty.
ic) The non-prolileration regime for nuclear arms should be strengthened.
Hence, the international obligation to arrive at the universal prohibition of
nuclear tests.
td) A large majority of nations is opposed to the testing of a new
generation of nuclear weapons and its deployment in outer space.
That is why the Conference should no longer procrastinate in starting work on
an NTBT.
In view of the fact that the components of such a ban will be intimately
interrelznA, the content of the treaty must be discussed in an integrated
manner. Our feeling is that any selective approach would render the
642
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
14
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
conclusion of an accord more difficult. The resolutions which the
United Nations General Assembly adopted on the test-ban issue at its
forty-first session take that aspect into account and may very well serve to
guide our work. Most countries find it possible to support them. Although
not identical in every deail, the resolutions have important traits in common
in that they: first, call for a comprehensive test ban as a task of
fundamental urgency, second, reaffirm the CD's negotiating role in bringing
about such a treaty, third, endorse the idea of starting practical work on a
test-ban right at the beginning of the 1987 session of the Conference:
fourth, call on all nuclear-weapon States to participate actively in the
drafting of the treaty, and fifth, demand additional measures to encourage
the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear-test ban.
This enables us to address content and scope of the treaty and
verification and compliance as subjects that interact with each other.
Working Paper CD/743 advocates that a prospective committee shoul3 set up
appropriate working groups.
As for the content and scope of the accord, all States should be
prohibited from carrying out test explosions of nuclear weapons in all
environments and at all times. The order in which the nuclear-weapon Powers
would have to become parties to the treaty should be discussed and
determined. Other steps conducive to the conclusion of a treaty could also be
contemplated in one of the groups, for example, the idea of phasing out all
tests under a specific time-frame.
Appropriate measures would have to be devised to ensure that the ban is
not circumvented through peaceful nuclear explosions.
As far as compliance with an NTBT is concerned, a host of ideas and
suggestions have already been advanced in regard to possible means of
verification, such as national means, including remote sensing, as well as
on-site inspection and international seismic data exchanges. My delegation
endorses the objective of having an international verification system in place
when the treaty enters into effect.
Apart from having this subject treated by a working group of a committee,
we should encourage the Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts to pursue its
activities in a goal-oriented fashion and, among other things, prepare the
international experiment envisaged for the exchange of seismic level-II data
in 1988.
All these issues require in-depth consideration. There are many topics
which require that matters of substance be dealt with in thorough and
systematic deliberations and negotiations. No effort should be spared to find
common ground for agreement. What is essential now is to set up the committee
as quickly as possible.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
the German Democratic Republic for his statememt and I now give the floor to
the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
Ambassador Nazarkin.
643
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
15
Mr. NAZARKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): At the beginning of today's meeting, Comrade President, you very
appropriately reminded us that 14 March 1962 was the date when, here, in this
Council chamber, the first meeting of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on
.21.sarmament took place. That meeting marked the initiation of multilateral
disarmament negotiations, now in their twenty-sixth year, in which the
locialist, non-aligned neutral and Western States participate. The membership
of this forum has grown considerably since then. All the nuclear-weapon
States have joined it. Its organization of work has changed, but its function
as remained the same: to conduct multilateral negotiations in the field of
arms limitation and disarmament.
The international agreements which were developed here and concluded, and
-hich are now in effect, have constituted an important contribution to
iisarmament by this multilateral negotiating forum. We cannot, however,
Jdnore the fact that not a single international agreement has been developed
'Iere in the last decade. Of course, the work of the Conference is influenced
'le the international situation and the positions of States; but the
:.onference itself can also influence the situation in the world and the
_)ositions of States blocking or obstructing the negotiations.
The Coierence, in our view, should make maximum use of its potential in
r.(ler to overcome the obstacles to the initiation of negotiations and to
..anduct them in ah intensified and more productive way. The tasks invo_Lv4.:d
',.Attpertance for they concern human survival.
The activities of the forum for multilateral negotiations over the
years of its existence demonstrate the great importance attached thcoughouc
.he world to finding, with the participation of a sufficiently large numbLr of
Jtates, solutions to the urgent disarmament issues. This fact gives us hope
%hat the Conference will be able fully to live up to what is expected of it:
40 develop, through negotiations multilateral agreements in the field of arm
.imitation and disarmament.
And now, Comrade President, let me turn to item 5 on the agenda of tne
'onference, prevention of an arms race in outer space.
The Soviet delgation welcomes the fac that the consultations have -
to agreement on the establishment of an Ad hoc Committee on agenda item 5,
We, as well as many other delegations, have argued for a mandate for the
Ad Hoc Committee which would provide for tne holding of negotiations, in the
)4elief that the stage of exploring the problem of preventing an arms race in
space has now been passed and it is necessary to proceed to a more practical
phase. We therefore noted with satisfaction the statement by the President of
the Conference at the time of the adopLion the mandate. In referring to
last year's report of the Conference he stated that "consideration of
proposals for measures aimed at the prevention of an arms race in outer apace
is covered by the mandate" contained in Working Paper CD/WP.268, in other
words, the mandate adopted.
The Soviet delegation welcomes the c,Alls for the prevention of an arms
race in space contained in the staantaide by the delegations cf Srj. Lanka,
Zgypt, Sweden, the German Demccrat:ir:: Hungary, Mongoij-a,
644
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
16
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
Czechoslovakia, France and other countries. We share the concern expressed in
this connection by many delegations which emphasized the importance of finding
a solution to this urgent problem.
Concrete proposals on how a barrier could be erected to keep weapons out
of space undoubtedly merit attention. This year they have come from Romania,
on the conclusion of a general treaty on the use of space exclusively for
peaceful purposes/ from France, referring to its proposal on the establishment
of an international satellite monitoring agency and the development of a code
of conduct for States in outer space/ from Egypt, which advocated a ban on
the deployment Jf new weapon systems in space and the strengthening of th5:
international legal basis for the use of outer space, and from the
Netherlands, which supported the idea of protecting high-orbit satellites and
expanding the information provided to the United Nations in accordance uri7:.n
the 1975 Convention.
The Conference has accumulated a wealth of ideas and proposals and a
fairly good basis has been established for concrete, businesslike and
result-oriented work in the Ad Hoc Committee. We are prepared to discuss all
these proposals.
The Soviet delegation, for its part, intends to seek agreements on the
prevention of an arms race in space. I would like to present some ideas on
this subject.
The Soviet Union has on many occasions put forward peace initiatives
the field of outer space. Our proposals for the conclusion of a treaty
-prohibiting the deployment in space of any kind of weapon and for a treaty
banning the use of force in outer space and from space against the Earth still
stand.
We consider it possible to agree also on partial measures leading to the
prevention of the deployment of arms in space. For example, the Conference
could begin elaborating an international agreement aimed at ensuring the
immunity of artificial earth satellites not carrying any kind of weapon on
board. In so doing, it would also be important to explore the possibility of
banning the development of new anti-satellite systems and eliminating the
existing ASAT systems.
A multilateral agreement containing international legal immunity
safeguards for space objects would contribute to confidence-building among
States in the field of space activities and strengthen security and strategic
stability. A withdrawal of existing anti-satellite weapons from the arsenals
of States and a decision not to test or develop new systems of such weapons
would represent a real disarmament measure. Such a measure is aimed at
maintaining the existing military balance and is justified by the principle of
equality and equal security.
It is our hope that our proposal which was made in the statement by the
First Deputy minister for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, Y.M. Vorontsov, on
3 February of this year, to take measures to ban space-to-space, space-to-Earth
and Earth-to-space weapon systems, will be discussed in a business-like manner.
645
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
17
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
During the previous session of the Conference the question of a
definition of space strike weapons was actively discussed. A number of
delegations presented their proposals on the subject. These proposals seem to
be of definite interest and represent a fair basis for further work in this
field. In this connection, I should like to recall that the Soviet delegation
understands space strike arms to mean the following: firstly, space-based ABM
systems of any principle of action: secondly, space-based systems of any
principle of action designed to strike from space targets in the atmosphere or
on the surface of the Earth: and thirdly, systems of any principle of action
and however based designed to strike targets in space.
Non-deployment of any weapons in outer space should be effectively
verified. The Soviet Union is in favour of such verification. You may recall
that the Soviet Union has already proposed that a future world space
organization should also have verification functions with regard to compliance
with agreements on the prevention of an arms race in space and that it be
endowed with its own technical means to that end.
In order to move the discussion of the question of prevention of an arms
race in space from a standstill already now, we propose consideration of the
possibility of establishing an international verification of non-deployment of
any weapons in outer space, a system which provides for the establishment of
an international inspectorate. Such an inspectorate, for example, would be
given right of access, for the purpose of on-site inspections, to all objects
destined to be launched and stationed in space, and to their corresponding
launch vehicles. Inspectors could monitor any launching of space objects.
In presenting this proposal, we are aware of its far-reaching nature. It
is another indication that verification will not be a problem for the
Soviet Union if the goal is really to prevent the arms race from spreading to
space.
The Conference on Disarmament has a great responsibility. We are
expected to take practical action and measures such as to avert the deadly
threat of an arms race in space once and for all, and to preserve space for
our own as well as future generations for peaceful exploration: and then, as
the great Russian scientist, Konstantin Tsiolkovski, eloquently put it:
"Humanity will be rewarded with the ocean of the Universe, as though it were
expressly offered to it in order to bring people together to form a single
whole, to form one family".
Our agenda includes the item of a ban on radiological weapons. Decisions
to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on the subject are taken every year, but the
search for an international agreement on the subject unfortunately sees no
progress. This year, the Conference has again decided to re-establish an
Ad Hoc Committee on Radiological Weapons, with a view to reaching agreement on
a convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of
radiological weapons. Agreement on the subject is hampered by the fact that
some States link a ban on radiological weapons to the prevention of attacks on
nuclear facilities, while others, willing to agree to a ban on radiological
weapons, for some reason or other are reluctant to work towards the
elaboration of obligations with regard to the prevention of deliberate
destruction of facilities for peaceful nuclear activities.
646
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
18
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
Meanwhile, in Europe alone there are over 150 nuclear reactors with a
capacity similar to that of the Chernobyl nuclear power station. One can
easily imagine the possible consequences if even one of those reactors were to
be destroyed. The Chernobyl tragedy has been a vivid demonstration of the
indisputable fact that if nuclear power goes out of control there is no
escaping it and no one will be spared. To envisage in military planning the
destruction of nuclear facilities would therefore mean to plan and programme a
catastrophe tantamount in its consequences to a massive use of nuclear weapons.
The Soviet Union, as is known, in its programme for the safe development
of nuclear energy proposed last autumn, inter alia, the consideration of the
possibility of a ban on attacks against nuclear facilities. At the special
session of the IAEA General Conference some States expressed the view that the
Vienna-based agency is not an appropriate forum for discussing such
proposals. We were told there that this proposal belongs to the area of
disarmament, and that the Conference on Disarmament would be a more
appropriate place for it. This view was re-affirmed at the 12 March plenary
of the Conference by Ambassador van Schaik of the Netherlands.
We believe it is necessary to start elaborating an appropriate
international agreement under which States would undertake not to attack
peaceful nuclear facilities, with a view to covering nuclear facilities, in
the first instance those under IAEA safeguards, by an eventual system of
international legal protection. At the same time we would not object to such
a system of protection covering nuclear facilities not covered by those
safeguards, provided that these facilities are used for peaceful purposes. To
ensure physical identification of facilities to be protected from attack, one
could also envisage marking them with a special symbol to be agreed upon. In
the framework of the convention, one could also provide for facilitating the
elaboration of protection measures against dangerous consequences of radiation.
Thus, this year, the issue of preventing attacks on nuclear facilities
appears to be even more urgent, requiring negotiations to be started without
delay. We call upon the member States of the Conference to approach this
problem seriously and to take practical steps to resolve it. The Soviet
delegation believes that both questions, a ban on radiological weapons, and
the prevention of attacks on nuclear facilities, could be resolved
separately. We have a basis for a solution to the first question -- the 1979
Soviet-United States draft. Of course, the views of other States should also
be reflected.
While favouring separate solutions to the questions of a ban on
radiological weapons and prohibition of attacks on nuclear facilities, we have
nevertheless supported the proposal to address them as a package.
Unfortunately, the exchange of views on the subject in 1985 and 1986 has shown
that today such an approach raises more problems than it resolves. Today we
remain ready to adopt either option. A compromise solution might also be
sought, but what is important is to initiate progress, to take practical
steps. We believe that this year the Ad hoc Committee on Radiological Weapons
will be able to make headway in the implementation of its mandate from the
present standstill.
647
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.397
19
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
We are facing important and crucial problems. We are expected to achieve
real agreements in the area of arms limitation and disarmament. The Soviet
delegation intends to pursue this objective further.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for his statement. I have no further
speakers on my list today. Does any other representative wish to take the
floor? I see none. The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament
will be held on Thursday, 19 March, at 10 a.m. The meeting is adjourned.
The meeting rose at 11.30 a.m.
648
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CD/PV.39819 March 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY-EIGHTH PLENARY MEETING
GE.87-60438/7811E
held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 19 March 1987, at 10 a.m.
President: Mr. Lechuga Hevia (Cuba)
649
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.398
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I call to order the
398th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament. In accordance with
its programme of work the Conference is continuing consideration of agenda
item 3, "Prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters". However,
in accordance with rule 30 of the rules of procedure, members who so desire
may raise any other matter relating to the work of the Conference. On the
list of speakers today are the representatives of Venezuela and the Federal
Republic of Germany. I now call on the first speaker on my list, the
representative of Venezuela, Ambassador Taylhardat.
Mr. TAYLHARDAT (Venezuela) (translated from Spanish): Sir, first of all
may I congratulate you on your assumption of the Presidency of our Conference
for the month of March. In Venezuela we feel great admiration for the people
of Cuba and a deep respect for your country. It was my privilege to serve
there as my country's Ambassador for three years. We are sure that under your
wise leadership the Conference on Disarmament will continue its work
effectively with the aim of achieving practical results. We wish you every
success in your difficult task and assure you of our full co-operation.. I
also wish to express our gratitude to your predecessor, Ambassador Fan Guoxiang
of the People's Republic of China, for the wisdom and tact with which he
guided our work last month, and to congratulate him on his successful
Presidency, during which the subsidiary bodies on almost all the agenda items
were established. This was an exceptional achievement and we owe it to the
patience and perseverance of Ambassador Fan Guoxiang.
Since this is the first time we are taking the floor at this session of
the Conference we also wish to express our cordial welcome to new colleagues
who recently joined the Conference on Disarmament. We intend to establish
close relations of friendship and co-operation with all of them.
This year our work began in sadness, with the passing away of our
distinguished colleague and dear friend Ambassador Donald Lowitz of the
United States of America. The fact of having had the privilege of being his
immediate neighbour at the Conference table gave me the opportunity of knowing
him closely, and of appreciating his excellent personal qualities. Once
again, we express our heartfelt condolences to the delegation of the
United States and to his family for this great loss.
There can be no doubt that the work of our Conference is affected by the
atmosphere prevailing in the relations between the two major nuclear Powers.
Until just a few days ago the negotiations on disarmament in the various
bodies dealing with these problems was dominated by the shadow of the
Reykjavik failure. Since the October Summit we have had conflicting accounts
of what happened then. Opinions are still divided according to whether the
analysis comes from East or West. However, I think there is unanimity in
recognizing that in Iceland the opportunity of the century to achieve the most
650
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.398
3
(Mr. Taylhardat, Venezuela)
spectacular agreements on disarmament imagined thus far was lost. Both the
main protagonists and other eminent persons who took part in that thwarted
meeting agreed that the two super-Powers were very close to agreements that
would have reduced nuclear stockpiles, that would have changed the face of the
world and served as a point of departure for freeing our world from the
nuclear threat.
Unfortunately, that opportunity was sacrificed to a chimera, to the
illusion of a strategic defence project, which if brought about, would give
rise to just as costly and dangerous an arms race, if not more so, as that
which was so nearly curbed by the agreements that fell through at Reykjavik.
It would seem, however, that in the last few days the shadow of Reykjavik
is giving way to a glimmer of light in the disarmament panorama. The
Soviet Union's decision not to continue to insist on the linkage between
negotiations on. medium-range missiles and the question of space weapons has
opened heartening new possibilities and so gives grounds for optimism. The
statements of the leaders of the two major nuclear Powers and the information
received directly from negotiators of both sides lead us to think that the way
is indeed being opened towards major nuclear disarmament agreements. If the
proposals advanced by the Soviet Union and the United States are carried out,
it is foreseeable that in the very near future we should see the conclusion of
the first genuine nuclear disarmament measure, which would consist in the
physical elimination of a large amount of weapons whose very existence is a
serious danger and indeed a serious threat to peace. We trust that this time
the negotiations now underway will follow a rational course and will not be
checked by unnecessary obstacles or conditions that would hinder the objective
of ridding the world of a considerable proportion of these abominable nuclear
weapons. We also trust that these negotiations will open the way to the other
disarmament measures that remained unfulfilled at Reykjavik.
In his statement in the Conference on the opening day of our session this
year, the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Head of the Soviet
delegation to the bilateral negotiations at Geneva, Yuri Vbrontsov, said that
it was his intention to keep the Conference on Disarmament informed about
developments in the on-going bilateral negotiations. The information given by
Mr. Vbrontsov on recent proposals by his Government on medium-range missiles
is most valuable. We also appreciate the fact that the delegation of the
United States has done the same. We thank both countries for this very
important step which has enabled us to receive information first hand on the
progress of the bilateral negotiations. We should, however, prefer that such
information should be given us through a rather more formal channel, for
example, the Conference on Disarmament itself. In this way paragraph 114 of
the Final Document of the first special session of the General Assembly
devoted to disarmament would be fulfilled. If such information is to be kept
within the bounds of confidentiality, the Conference could hold closed
meetings in accordance with rule 20 of its rules of procedure, attended only
by representatives of member States and secretariat officials. What is
important, to our mind, is that the information should be channelled through
the Conference so as to be official in nature.
651.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
cro/Pv.398
4
(Mr. Taylhardat, Venezuela)
I should now like to make reference to some of the Conference agenda
items.
Venezuela attaches great priority to the question .of concluding a treaty
to establish a complete ban on nuclear testing. The arguments in favour of
promptly beginning negotiations to this end have been abundantly and
repeatedly expressed in this Conference.
Venezuela believes that the work of the Conference must be geared to
drawing up a treaty to ban all nuclear tests, in all environments, for all
time. This position is particularly relevant at the moment, when, as everyone
knows, tests are not only designed to try out nuclear weapons but also to
develop new technologies which would be used for new non-nuclear arms, which
are to be included in strategic defence systems.
We also consider that the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear-weapon
test-ban treaty is quite independent of the question of the conclusion of a
moratorium. The nuclear Powers must end their testing, either through an
agreed moratorium among themselves, or as a result of various moratoria
individually decided upon. We regret that the opportunity offered by the
Soviet Union with its unilateral moratorium and its invitation to the other
nuclear Powers, especially the United States, to do the same was not taken
up. We are aware that a moratorium or interruption in nuclear testing is
highly important as a collateral measure to help facilitate negotiations on a
total test ban; but we do not think that the negotiation of a moratorium
should be included in the efforts to arrive at a comprehensive test ban.
We must not forget that the mandate of the Conference on Disarmament, as
laid down in the Final Document of the first special session, consists in
negotiating specific disarmament measures. We understand specific disarmament
measures to be those whose purpose is to disarm, in other words to eliminate,
do away with, destroy, existing weapons in countries' arsenals, or to prevent
the design, development, manufacture or inclusion in those arsenals of new
weapons or new systems of weapons; measures, in any event, designed to check,
halt, or reverse the arms race in any of its manifestations.
Although the immediate result of the conclusion of a test-ban treaty,
would not be to eliminate nuclear weapons, it is a first essential step in the
efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. The updating of nuclear weapons
resulting from tests has had the result, among others, that nuclear warheads
that are smaller and more compact, use less fissionable material, are less
risky to handle and to transport, and are "cleaner" in that they produce less
radioactive fall-out. It is also well known that nuclear weapons have a
definite life-span and over time they may be damaged and become dangerous to
handle and even become inactive: hence the need for periodic testing by those
who possess them. To stop testing would therefore unquestionably be
beneficial in both these respects: there would be no more updating or
improving the quality of nuclear weapons with the halting of technological
advances, and at the same time gradually the existing arsenals would become
unusable.
652
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.398
5
(Mr. Taylhardat, Venezuela)
We trust that the Conference will be able to begin work promptly on the
substance of this question. To this end it is essential to establish an
ad hoc committee responsible for the necessary activities aimed at the
preparation of a nuclear-test ban treaty.
We wish to express our satisfaction at the way in which negotiations on
chemical weapons have progressed in the Conference. We wish to express our
gratitude to Ambassador Cromartie of the United Kingdom for the major advances
made under his Chairmanship of the Ad Hoc Committee on.Chemical Weapons. We
also wish to express appreciation at the way in which Ambassador Ekeus of
Sweden has been chairing the Ad Hoc Committee since our work began this year.
We are sure that under his able leadership it will be possible to move forward
to the final results.
Everything appears to suggest that the conditions are ripe for specific
results to be achieved quite quickly. Over recent months there has clearly
been considerably more flexibility in the position of the Soviet Union,
especially with rpgard to the regime of supervision and verification that will
have to govern the implementation of the Convention when it enters into force.
The Conference is also facing up to the challenge resulting from the
decision by the United States Government, and endorsed by the U.S. Congress,
to begin producing binary chemical weapons in the autumn of this year if no
agreement has been reached by then on the elimination of existing stockpiles
of chemical weapons. Given this prospect, there is no alternative to speeding
up the on-going negotiations both at the bilateral level and within this
Conference.
However, we should like to share with the members of the Conference a
concern prompted by the negotiations being carried out on the draft treaty for
the prohibition of chemical weapons. It is clear that the question of
verification is decisive, and the fate of the treaty, or indeed of any
disarmament treaty, hinges on it. We have the impression, however, that the
endeavour praiseworthy as it may be, to set up a verification mechanism that
would be as perfect as possible is leading to the design of a tremendously
complex structure, the operation of which would be very costly. We fear that
the financial obligations which would derive from the cost of the operation of
the verification system for the treaty will be so high that finally very few
countries will be in a position to defray them, with the result being that the
number of countries willing to be parties to the treaty will be very small,
which in turn will limit the effectiveness of the instrument.
It is important therefore to bear in mind the experience of the
safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which to some
extent is serving as a model for the verification structure of the future
treaty on the prohibition of chemical weapons. The safeguards system is
relatively simple to operate. What is more, its field of action is very
restricted and it has a special financing mechanism which lightens the burden
on the developing countries. Even so, many developing countries have serious
difficulties in meeting their financial obligations relating to the safeguards
system. The prevailing world economic situation would seem to make it even
653
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.398
6
(Mr. Taylhardat, Venezuela)
more difficult to have a viable treaty for the prohibition of chemical weapons
if the verification mechanism were to be too costly, as would seem to be the
case of the system that is being designed. To give an idea of the reason for
our concern, one need only point out that for 1987 the cost of financing the
IAEA safeguards system is $34,362,000, and it is estimated that this cost will
rise by about $2 million a year. Thus for 1988 the estimate is $36,323,000,
for 19891$38 million, for 1990,$40 million, and for 1991,$42 million.
For a disarmament treaty to be effective, besides being reliable and
verifiable it must be universal. In order to be universal it must secure the
participation of the greatest possible number of countries, and to this end it
is necessary to ensure that the financial burden on the parties is as light as
possible.
Contrary to the very widespread opinion in the Conference on Disarmament
that the work done last year under the item on the prevention of an arms race
in outer space was no more than an academic exercise, we feel that in 1986
specific results were attained, and although they may not be as dazzling as
one might have wanted, they are important and, to some extent, they are the
first steps towards achieving our global goal. The results can be summed up
as follows. Firstly, the scope of item 5 on our agenda was defined a little
better by removing the idea of demilitarization of space with which it had
been linked. It is now clear that what we are pursuing under item 5 is not
the demilitarization of space but the disarming of space, or better yet,
preventing the "weaponization" of space. Secondly, there was progress in
identifying the objective of the item, since it is widely considered that to
prevent an arms race in outer space means establishing a general prohibition
on the deployment of space weapons. This ban should also include the
development and manufacture of such weapons. Thirdly, it was possible to
define a little more precisely the concept of what should be understood by
space weapons. In this connection, we feel that the proposed definitions,
including the one submitted by our own delegation in a Conference working
paper, helped to make the concept of what is to be understood by space weapons
clearer. Fourthly, another achievement, and perhaps the most important of
all, is that the consideration undertaken of the prevailing legal order led us
to conclude that that order is inadequate and imperfect, and that there was a
need for measures to be taken to improve, supplement or complete it.
During our discussions last year many delegations expressed great concern
about anti-satellite or ASAT weapons. This concern, which we consider
legitimate because they are perhaps the only ones whose existence has been
reported, should not blind us to the fact that there are other types of space
weapons. In fact, what has given a new dimension to the problem of the
prevention of the arms race in outer space are not so much the ASAT weapons
but the other types of weapons that fall in the category of space weapons
particularly, anti-ballistic-missile systems. Some of these weapons can be
used not only for defence in a nuclear confrontation but also offensively in a
conventional confrontation. There was an interesting article recently in the
International Herald Tribune written by an American expert.
Ambassador Nazarkin referred to it in his statement of 3 March. We know that
the United States delegation does not much like us to refer to articles
654
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R0001nninnnni_a
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.398
7
(Mr. Taylhardat, Venezuela)
published in the International Herald Tribune, but we have to recognize that
it is a very rich source of information, particularly as regards disarmament,
because it always carries interesting articles by United States authors, many
of them people who enjoy a considerable political or scientific reputation.
The article in question highlighted that the weapons that are being designed
as part of the Strategic Defence Initiative could also be used offensively
against non-strategic targets on Earth, even in a conventional conflict.
The author of the article stressed the fact that the distinction between
a defensive and an offensive weapon is always a matter of the judgement of the
person using it and depends on what it is being used against.
When we submitted out proposed definition of space weapons, we adopted
the designation used by the Soviet Union of "space strike weapons" to
highlight that it is not possible to talk about "defensive space weapons" of a
purely passive nature since any such weapon can be used for actively
aggressive purposes, to attack a military objective.
Our proposed definition of space weapons covers any kind of defensive or
offensive device, regardless of the principle on which its functioning is
based, capable of destroying or damaging from space an object in space, in the
air or on the surface of the Earth, and also any device of a similar nature
situated in the air or on the Earth's surface, capable of damaging an object
situated in space. Our proposed definition also includes in the concept of a
space weapon the operational components and any system of such devices. This
definition has the advantage of covering any form space weapons could take.
Within the Conference there has been talk of the need to create a group
of scientific experts in the Conference on Disarmament to consider the
technical questions involved in the prevention of an arms race in outer
space. My delegation does not object to such an idea, of course, but we feel
that the technical aspect of the question should not be over-valued. In our
view, the fundamental issue in preventing the arms race in space is
essentially political. I should like to mention here the opinion of
Professor Philip W. Anderson, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, and professor of
physics at Princeton University. In an article published in Le Monde
Diplomatique last December, Professor Anderson said: "Fortunately most of the
scientific problems involved in all discussions about 'Star Wars' are
extremely simple; they do not require any specialized or particularly
technical knowledge that could be covered by secrecy".
While we feel that there may be some usefulness in having technical
advisers on this subject, we do not think it should be regarded as a necessary
prerequisite for continuing to make progress in our work in the Conference on
Disarmament.
We regard the decision of the Conference to re-establish the
Ad Hoc Committee to deal with item 5 as a major achievement. We also attach
special importance to the statement made by the President of the Conference,
Ambassador Fan Guoxiang, before the adoption of the decision whereby the
Ad Hoc Committee was re-established. According to that statement, it is clear
655
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.398
8
(Mr. Taylhardat, Venezuela)
to all members of the Conference that the terms of reference given to the
Ad Hoc Committee embrace consideration of proposals relating to measures aimed
at the prevention of an arms race in outer space. That interpretative
statement by the President of the Conference has major implications and should
make it easier to establish the programme of work of the Ad Hoc Committee.
In our view, the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on item 5, and of any of
the Ad Hoc Committees of the Conference, has two clearly identifiable stages.
Starting from the principle that the Conference has a general mandate to
negotiate, acknowledged in its rules of procedure, the activity of an
Ad Hoc Committee can be divided into a first stage, that we might call the
pre-negotiating stage, and a second stage of negotiations proper. The
dividing line between these two processes is perfectly clear. In the first
stage it is necessary to carry out some preliminary work covering
consideration of the subject on which negotiations are going to be carried
out, identification of the subject and of its component parts, definition of
its scope, determination of measures likely to attain the purpose of the
negotiations, and so forth. Within this stage it should be possible to carry
out those activities which, without being negotiations as such, make it
possible to create the conditions necessary to undertake negotiations
proper -- which would be the task to be undertaken in the second stage.
That is how we see the present mandate of the Ad Hoc Committe on the
Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, and that is how we also under tood
the interpretative statement of the President.
Last year we carried out important work in this pre-negotiating stage.
Without a doubt there are still some questions left pending, among them that
of identifying the possible measures that could be adopted to attain the
objective of preventing the arms race in outer space.
This year's programme of work for the Ad Hoc Committee must give
priority, within the pre-negotiating process, to the question of identifying
specific measures to prevent the arms race in outer space.
Since it has been established that the legal order that now exists in
this field is incomplete, we now have to identify the measures that could
serve to remedy the situation. There are several alternatives. One was
proposed some time ago by the delegation of Italy, and would consist in
drawing up an additional protocol to the Outer Space Treaty so as to fill in
the gaps in that instrument. Another could be to draw up a new treaty that
would establish an international regime to prevent the deployment of arms in
space.
There is another measure we might consider which might seem naive at
first glance but which is still attractive because of its very simplicity.
This third alternative might consist of an amendment to the Outer Space
Treaty. As we know, the Treaty establishes a partial ban on the stationing of
656
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.398
9
(Mr. Taylhardat, Venezuela)
arms in space. Article IV specifically provides that States Parties undertake
not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or
any other kind of weapons of mass destruction. This undertaking also includes
not installing such weapons on celestial bodies or stationing them in outer
space in any other manner. The Treaty does not cover other classes or types
of weapons and here precisely is the legal gap that has to be filled. A
simple amendment to article IV, that could consist of merely adding the words
"or any type of space weapon", would be sufficient to turn the partial
prohibition in the Treaty into a total ban. As we know, a similar idea has
been put forward with regard to the Partial Test-Ban Treaty and the
General Assembly has adopted two resolutions whereby Parties to the Treaty are
recommended to convene a conference, following the procedure provided for in
that instrument, in order to consider introducing amendments so as to turn the
partial Treaty into a total test-ban Treaty. Article II of the aforementioned
Treaty establishes that any States Party can propose amendments. The
procedure for the consideration, adoption and entry into force of amendments
is provided for in that same article, and requires adoption by the three
original parties to the Treaty, namely, the United States, the United Kingdom
and the Soviet Union.
The Outer Space Treaty, however, establishes a much simpler procedure for
amendments. It is sufficient for one State Party to propose an amendment and
this then enters into force for any State that agrees to it once it has been
accepted by the majority of States Parties.
We are not at this stage putting forward any specific proposal. We are
simply sharing our thinking with other members of the Conference, as one of
the possible means whereby the prohibition on the stationing of weapons in
outer space could be achieved. If this possibility has been considered
feasible in the case of the Partial Test-Ban Treaty, there should be no
difficulty in following the same procedure for the Outer Space Treaty, which,
as we have seen, already establishes a partial prohibition on placement of
arms in outer space.
In closing, we wish to express our hope that the Ad Hoc Committee on
item 5 under the competent guidance of Ambassador Pugliese, whom we
congratulate on being appointed to do this difficult job, will very quickly be
able to begin its substantive work for this year with a programme of work that
will allow it to make rapid progress towards the objective for which it was
set up. We offer our active co-operation with Ambassador Pugliese and with
the other members of the Committee in order to help to spur on the work of
this issue of preventing an arms race in outer space.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
Venezuela for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the Chair, and
for what he kindly said about my country. I now call on the distinguished
representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, Ambassador von Stulpnagel.
Mr. von STULPNAGEL (Federal Republic of Germany): Mr. President, may I
begin a very short statement by congratulating you on acceding to the
Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament for this month.
657
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.398
10
(Mr. von Stulpnagel, Federal Republic of Germany)
According to the time and work schedule of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc
Committee on Chemical Weapons, the CW negotiations are presently revolving in
Cluster III around issues pertaining to non-production of chemical weapons.
My Government wishes to demonstrate its political determination to
achieve a CW convention as soon as possible by introducing a Working Paper
concerning the collection and forwarding of data and other information to
verify the non-production of chemical weapons. This paper will be submitted
tomorrow and given to the Ad Hoc Committee under the symbol CD/CW/WP.159.
It provides for a two-tier system whereby the national authority collects
extensive data from its industry, which it then forwards to the international
authority in a weighted manner according to the substances belonging either to
category 2 or 3.
The international authority in return should have the right to request
clarifications about these data transmitted by the national authority. This
right to clarification should be formulated in a business-like manner in order
to reserve on-challenge inspections for cases of grave doubts about compliance
with the convention.
The total extent of the data and other information required to verify the
non-production of CW is determined. both by the number of substances listed in
Annexes 2 and 3 and by the intensity of the control regime for each category.
Of particular importance in this respect is the threshold, still to be fixed,
for the exclusion of small quantities which do not pose a military threat and
which therefore are irrelevant for CW control purposes; this threshold will
have a considerable influence on the number of producers and users who are
required to provide information. The question of where this line is to be
drawn should be examined separately on the basis of militarily significant
quantities.
The Working Paper we are to present is based on the following
conception: the submission of the data needed to verify the non-production of
chemical weapons is intended to contribute to effective international
verification by the international authority. This presupposes selection of
the appropriate data. More data does not automatically mean greater security
against violations of the convention. The international authority should be
given the data it needs in order to keep track of the production, acquisition,
use, transfer and storage of the substances listed in the Annexes. The
requirements in terms of specific details can and must be greater for the
substances listed in Annex 2 than for those in Annex 3. While with regard to
the handling of the substances listed in Annex 2 both facility-related figures
and aggregate national data will have to be submitted, only the latter data,
in our view, need be submited on the substances listed in Annex 3.
The system of national data collection and transfer as described here, in
connection with the right of the international authority to ask for
clarification, will guarantee the largest necessary transparency of data
handling and the most effective international control. The main work of data
65s
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.398
11
(Mr. von Stulpnagel, Federal Republic of Germany)
collection and processing is to be done at a national level; the
international authority obtains an overview, which it can supplement as
necessary by asking for clarification. At the same time, we are aware that
verification is invariably an international task and that the national
authority can therefore only be an instrument with which the individual
contracting parties implement the convention.
Let me on this occasion comment on a few speeches made recently in this
forum. My delegation recognizes the positive and constructive approach the
Soviet delegation has displayed in its latest statements concerning the
crucial questions of declaration and elimination of CW stocks and revision of
lists of chemicals which are under careful consideration.
In other areas, such as on-challenge inspections, the Soviet view of no
refusal of on-site inspections still has to be enlarged in our view to all
facilities and sites where violations could occur in order to guarantee a
degree of effective verification of compliance acceptable to all.
The constructive spirit of Stockholm should be adapted to oui
negotiations -- as the delegations of Romania and the Netherlands suggest
with respect to its support for the obligation to accept on-site inspections
and not to its particular restrictions concerning certain areas and sensitive
points, because -- as the delegation of the Netherlands rightly
acknowledged -- in Stockholm the objective was to build confidence whereas we
are faced with the more encompassing task of abolishing an entire category of
weapons. Consequently, our solution has to be a more far-reaching one to be
effective and generally acceptable.
My delegation welcomes also the constructive approach taken by the
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on 17 March 1987, towards the
verification of alleged use of CW by developing prcedures for identification
of the contaminated area, sampling, field analysis, transportation and final
analysis in a laboratory. We are looking forward to the announced working
paper incorporating the new research report.
My delegation shared the detailed assessment given by the Netherlands
delegation on 12 March 1987. This applies, firstly, to the notion of risk to
the convention as a determining factor for the verification of non-production,
building on the division of relevant CW substances into three categories with
the appropriate regimes. Unless a list of commercially produced super-toxic
lethal chemicals of CW relevance is produced, their inclusion in any of these
established categories cannot be justified. Secondly, as was pointed out by
the Netherlands delegation, the threshold, still has to be fixed for the
exclusion of small quantities which do not pose a military threat and which
therefore are irrelevant for CW verification purposes.
My delegation, together with many others, remains convinced that
essential elements of a global ban on development, production, acquisition,
stockpiling, transfer and use of CW as well as in the field of verification
can be achieved during this year. It is in this light that my delegation is
659
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.398
12
(Mr. von Stillpnagel, Federal Republic of Germany)
submitting to the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons the Working Paper on
collection and forwarding of data and other information to verify the
non-production of CW.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
the Federal Republic of Germany for his statement and for the kind words
addressed to the President. I have no more speakers on the list for today.
Does any other representative wish to take the floor?
I should now like to take up the matter of the appointment of the
Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Radiological Weapons, which as you all
know remains pending. I have been told that the consultations have had a
successful outcome and there is a consensus to appoint Ambassador
David Meiszter of Hungary to be Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee. I shall
therefore take it that the Conference agrees to this appointment.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): May I congratulate
Ambassador Meiszter on his appointment on behalf of all members of the
Conference as well as myself. I also wish him ..success in the important duties
to which he has been appointed, and I have no doubt that he will discharge
them with his well-known ability and diplomatic skill. In so doing, he will
follow in the footsteps of his predecessor as representative of Hungary and
Chairman of the Committee, Ambassador Imre Komives, whose sad demise was
particularly felt in this Conference.
I now wish to take up another matter. I have requested the secretariat
today to circulate the timetable of meetings for the Conference and its
subsidiary bodies during next week. The timetable was prepared following
consultations with the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committees, and as usual it is
indicative and may be modified if necessary. As a result of the consultations
recently held, the timetable includes an informal meeting open to all
delegations on next Tuesday, 24 March, at 4 p.m., to pursue the consideration
of the question of proposals on the improved and effective functioning of the
Conference. That meeting will be held in this room. If I hear no objection,
I shall take it that the Conference adopts the timetable.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): The next plenary meeting of the
Conference on Disarmament will be held on Tuesday, 24 March, at 10 a.m. The
meeting is adjourned.
The meeting rose at 11 a.m.
660
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.400
26 March 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE POUR HUNDREDTH PLENARY MEETING
GE. 87-60480/7955E
held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 26 March 1987, at 10 a.m.
President: Ambassador Lechuga Hevia (Cuba)
661
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I call to order the
400th plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
At the outset, it is a particular pleasure for me to extend a warm
welcome to His Excellency the State Councillor and Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Wu Xuegian, who is attending
the Conference today and will be our first speaker.
His presence among us at this plenary meeting is of particular
significance since this is the first time that the Foreign Minister of China
has been here with us since his country took its place at the Conference on
5 February 1980. I do not need to say how important China's role is in the
negotiations on disarmament. Suffice it to recall the effective contribution
that was made to the organization of work of the Conference during this
session by my predecessor in the Presidency, Ambassador Fan Guoxiang. The way
in which he conducted our business made it possible to resolve a number of
pressing matters and considerably facilitated our work. I am sure that the
statement to be made by His Excellency the Foreign Minister of China will be
followed with particular interest by all members of the Conference.
In accordance with its programme of work, the Conference today is
to continue the consideration of agenda item 4, "Chemical weapons". In
accordance with rule 30 of the rules of procedure, however, members who so
desire can make statements on any other question related to the work of the
Conference. The representatives of China, France and Mongolia are on my list
of speakers for today.
I now call on the first speaker on my list, His Excellency the State
Councillor and Minister of Foreign Affairs of China, Mr. Wu Xuegian.
Mr. Wu XUEQIAN (China) (translated from Chinese): Mr. President, I
am greatly honoured to have the opportunity of meeting you and other
representatives, and of making this statement here during my visit to
Switzerland. First of all, I wish to congratulate you on your assumption of
the Presidency of the Conference for this month. I am confident that under
your able guidance the Conference on Disarmament will achieve fresh progress.
The Conference on Disarmament, the sole multilateral negotiating body
on disarmament, is charged with the important mission of negotiating
international disarmament agreements. The representatives of various
countries attending the Conference are engaged in an arduous and yet
significant task. On behalf of the Chinese Government, I wish to extend
my greetings to you and hope that your work will yield positive results.
The presence of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva often calls to
mind recollections of the past. This magnificent Palais des Nations stands as
a witness to history. Soon after the First World War the people of the world,
having experienced the hardships and sufferings of war, were strongly opposed
to the arms race among the Powers and urgently called for disarmament in the
interests of world peace. It was in this very building of the League of
Nations that an international disarmament conference was held to address the
question of how to bring about disarmament and safeguard peace. However,
662
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
3
(Mr. Wu Xueclian, China)
owing to reasons known to all, the conference failed to achieve the results
that had been expected. What followed was the disaster of another war for the
world's people. The past few decades since the end of the Second World war
have witnessed tremendous changes in the international situation. However,
the task of halting the arms race and promoting disarmament, far from being
lightened, has become even more acute for the people of the world, requiring
as it does their unremitting efforts.
The present-day question of disarmament has taken on some new
characteristics as compared to the past.
First, the rapid advance of science and technology has given birth to,
among other things, various types of sophisticated weapons, especially the
nuclear weapon, which is the most destructive weapon ever invented in human
history. The existing nuclear arsenals are enough to destroy the world many
times over. Should a nuclear war break out, it will bring an unprecedented
holocaust upon mankind. This is something unimaginable 50 years ago. To
remove the threat of nuclear war and prevent a nuclear catastrophe is now a
major issue of common concern to all the peace-loving countries and peoples
of the world.
Second, the super-Powers possess not only over 95 per cent of nuclear
weapons, but also the largest and most sophisticated conventional arsenals in
the world. Their armaments far exceed those of all the other countries, both
in qualitative and quantitative terms. What is more, their arms race is
proceeding on a scale and with a scope hitherto unknown. Therefore, they
should stop the ever-escalating arms race between them if the international
tension is to be relaxed and world peace maintained. The super-Powers bear a
primary and unshirkable responsibility for nuclear as well as conventional
disarmament.
Third, the rise of the Third-World countries and the increasingly
important role the small and medium-sized countries play in international
disarmament affairs have brought to an end the control and monopoly by a few
big Powers over the question of disarmament. The Third-World countries, with
three quarters of the world's population, have cast off the yoke of colonial
rule and won political independence, and are in urgent need of an
international environment of peace in which to develop their economies and
consolidate their political independence. They are taking an active part in
the world struggle for disarmament and demand an end to the arms race between
the super-Powers, thus making important contributions to the maintenance of
world peace and security.
Fourth, peace is the general desire of the developed countries in Europe
and elsewhere in the world, which, having suffered from the calamities of
world wars, clearly understand what grave consequences war would bring them.
This is particularly true of Europe, where there is a high concentration of
economically-developed countries and where the two major military blocs are
locked in direct confrontation. The people of Europe do not want to see the
recurrence of the scourge of world war on their continent. Opposing tension
and war and striving for d?nte and peace, they constitute an important force
for peace and have made persistent efforts in promoting disarmament.
663
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
4
(Mr. Wu Xueqian, China)
In the face of this new situation, we set forth the following basic views
in the interests of maintaining peace, preventing war and promoting
disarmament.
First, in the world of today, only the two super-Powers are capable of
waging a world war. It is, therefore, a matter of course that they should
take the lead in reducing armaments, particularly nuclear armaments. To
address the issue of disarmament without bearing this in mind is bound to be
pointless. In fact, only after the two super-Powers actually take the lead in
putting an end to the testing, production and deployment of all types of
nuclear weapons and drastically reduce and destroy, on the spot, all types of
their nuclear weapons deployed at home or abroad, will it be possible to
create conditions for other nuclear-weapon States to participate in nuclear
disarmament.
The United Nations General Assembly, at its forty-first session, adopted
by consensus resolution 41/59 F calling on the two super-Powers to take a lead
in drastically reducing their nuclear armaments. This has fully reflected the
common desire and demand of the world's people.
Over the past year or so two summit meetings were held between
the United States and the Soviet Union, during which they put forward various
disarmament proposals.and plans. People have noted that both sides indicated
that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and that each put
forward its proposal for a 50 per cent reduction of strategic nuclear weapons
as a first step. This is a welcome development. However, fundamental
differences still exist between the two sides and those disarmament proposals
and plans remain only on paper. No practical actions for disarmament have
been taken so far. It is the ardent hope of the peoples of the world that
the United States and the Soviet Union will set store by the overall interests
of world peace and security, earnestly undertake the special responsibility of
taking the lead in disarmament and reach, through serious negotiations,
agreements which are truly conducive to halting the arms race, lowering the
level of armaments and relaxing international tension without prejudice to the
interests of other countries. We have taken note of the recent proposals put
forward by the two sides respectively on the question of medium-range
missiles. In our view, the two major nuclear Powers should heed and respect
fully the opinions of the European countries. It should also be pointed out
that world peace is indivisible; security in Europe and security in Asia are
equally important. The medium-range missiles deployed by the Soviet Union and
the United States in Europe and Asia should be reduced simultaneously and in a
synchronous and balanced manner until they are totally eliminated.
Secondly, the fundamental way for the prevention of nuclear war lies in
the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. In
order to reduce the danger of nuclear war and create conditions for the
removal of its threat, all nuclear-weapon States should undertake not to be
the first to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances and undertake
unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear-weapon States and nuclear-free zones, and then proceed to conclude
an international convention banning the use of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it
is also necessary to avert conventional war, if nuclear war is to be
effectively prevented, for both world wars and the hundreds of wars and armed
664
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
5
(Mr. Wu Xueqian, China)
conflicts following the Second World War have been fought with conventional
weapons. In the present-day world an overwhelming part of the annual military
expenditure of nearly $US 1,000 billion are spent on conventional weapons.
More important is the likelihood that a conventional war may escalate into a
nuclear war. Therefore, while striving for nuclear disarmament, mankind
should also work hard for conventional disarmament. The two should go hand in
hand and promote each other. The international community has every reason to
ask the super-Powers with the largest and most advanced conventional arsenals
and the two major military blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization, to
take the lead in drastically cutting their conventional armaments, first and
foremost offensive conventional forces, and reach relevant agreements in the
interests of maintaining peace and stability in Europe and the world at large.
Thirdly, it is our view that the issues of disarmament concerns secure
the interests of all countries in the world and must not be monopolized by a
few big Powers. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, aligned or
non-aligned, nuclear or non-nuclear, developed or developing, have the right
to participate on an equal footing in the discussion and settlement of the
question of disarmament. The super-Powers should respect and accept
reasonable proposals and suggestions of the other countries in their bilateral
talks. The composition of the Conference on Disarmament embodies the
principle of equal participation by sovereign States in the discussion and
settlement of the question of disarmament in the world. The Conference is the
only authoritative organ for multilateral disarmament talks in the world today
and its role should be increasingly strengthened rather than weakened or
limited. And still less should bilateral talks be used as an excuse to
obstruct multilateral talks.
Fourth, disarmament is an important issue which has a direct bearing on
world peace and security but it is not the only issue. Its realization
requires the necessary international environment and conditions. The current
international situation remains disturbing. On the one hand, the arms race is
still going on, extending from the Earth's surface to outer space. On the
other hand, there are unceasing regional conflicts, invasion, intervention and
military occupation of other countries threatening and jeopardizing the
sovereignty and security of many small and medium-sized countries. It can
hardly be imagined that genuine disarmament can be achieved in a tense and
turbulent international environment. In order to safeguard world peace and
security and achieve effective disarmament, it is imperative to oppose
hegemonism and power politics, check aggression and expansion and eliminate
regional trouble-spots. In international relations all countries should
strictly abide by the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and
territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's
internal affairs, equality and mutual benefits and peaceful coexistence. It
is impermissible to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries or
violate their sovereignty in any form or on any excuse. This is the only
approach conducive to the maintenance of world peace and progress of
disarmament.
China is a socialist as well as a developing country, pursuing an
independent foreign policy of peace. Having suffered untold hardships from
foreign aggression and the scourge of war in the past, China is engaged in a
665
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
6
(Mr. Wu Xuegian, China)
socialist modernization drive today. The Chinese people hope to approach and
catch up with the developed countries in terms of economic development through
the hard work of several generations. Therefore, China needs an international
environment of durable peace -- peace not only in this century but also in the
next century. For this purpose the Chinese Government has been conducting its
foreign affairs with the basic objective of opposing hegemonism and power
politics, maintaining world peace, developing friendly co-operation with other
countries and promoting common economic prosperity. China will not enter into
alliance or a strategic relationship with any super-Power. It will endeavour
to establish and develop friendly relations in co-operation with other
countries on the basis of the five principles of peaceful coexistence.
Upholding the arms race and promoting the realization of disarmament is an
important part of China's independent foreign policy of peace. China
maintains that the arms race, nuclear or conventional, on the ground or in
space, should be brought to an end. China has always stood for the complete
prohibition and the thorough destruction of nuclear, chemical, biological and
space weapons as well as a substantial, reduction of conventional arms. China
is in favour of the peaceful use of outer space and is opposed to the arms
race in outer space no matter who conducts it and in what form. The
development of space weaponry will lead to further intensification and
escalation of the arms race and greater tension and turbulence in
international situations. The United States and the Soviet Union, the only
two countries that possess space weapons and continue to develop such weapons,
bear a special responsibility for the cessation of the arms race in outer
space. It is our hope that they will heed the voice of the peoples of the
world and take immediate and effective measures to halt the arms race in any
form in outer space by refraining from developing, testing and deploying space
weapons and destroying all existing space weapons.
China, a non-chemical-weapons State, was once the victim of the use
of this weapon. China has all along stood for an early conclusion of a
convention on the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of chemical
weapons, and made positive efforts to this end. We are pleased that marked
progress has been made over recent years in the negotiations on chemical
weapons at the Conference on Disarmament. We are of the view that the future
convention should, as a priority, provide for the thorough destruction of the
existing chemical weapons, as well as their production facilities, should
ensure the non-production of new chemical weapons without harming or affecting
the peaceful development of civilian chemical industry in all countries and
should stipulate necessary and effective verification measures.
China supports all proposals that contribute to the cause of disarmament
and takes an active part in the world endeavour for disarmament. On the issue
of disarmament, China's actions are consistent with its words. China has no
intention of evading and will never evade its due obligations and
responsibilities. As is known to all, from the very first day of its
possession of nuclear weapons, China explicitly undertook not to be the first
to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances. Accordingly,
China also undertook not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear-weapon States and nuclear-free zones. In March last year, China
declared that it would conduct no more atmospheric nuclear tests. The year
before last, China started to cut the size of its armed forces by 1 million,
666
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
7
(Mr. Wu Xueqian, China)
and this work has been progressing smoothly. The proportion of military
expenses in China's budget has been going down year by year. In addition,
China's military industry is being reoriented on a large scale to civilian
production and some military facilities have been opened or turned over to
civilian uses.
Not long ago, the Chinese Government formally signed the Additional
Protocols attached to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The Chinese
Government and people willingly, and by concrete actions, are making
contributions to the relaxation of international tension and the maintenance
of world peace.
Today we are still living in a grim international environment and the
danger of war still exists. However, it is gratifying to note that the
factors against war and the forces making for peace have been growing. The
popular will for peace has become an irresistible trend in the current world.
We are convinced that as long as the peoples of the world make concerted and
persistent efforts, war can be averted and peace preserved. The future of the
world is bright. The Chinese Government and people are ready to work together
with the Governments and peoples of all the countries in the world to this end.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank His Excellency the
State Councillor and Minister for Foreign Affairs of China for his interesting
statement and the kind words addressed to the President. I now call on the
representative of France, Ambassador Morel.
Mr. MOREL (France) (translated from French): Mr. President, the French
delegation wishes first of all to convey to you its warm congratulations and
gratitude for the way in which you have been guiding our work since the
beginning of the month. Members of the'Conference have long been familiar
with your considerable diplomatic abilities, your wisdom and your courtesy.
Once again they have the opportunity of appreciating these qualities.
I also wish to stress how pleased my delegation is to see the
representative of Cuba occupy the Presidency. France has friendly and
thriving relations with Cuba, a country to which it is close both because of
our Latin roots and also because of geography, since the Caribbean Sea is also
that of the French Antilles. I should like also to express our gratitude to
your predecessor, Ambassador Fan Guoxiang, for his work during the month of
February. He managed, with extraordinary energy, talent and patience, to
resolve the complex problems that always arise at the opening of the
Conference's sessions. The Conference is in particular greatly indebted to
him for the prompt establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of
an Arms Race in Outer Space.
My delegation has listened with special interest to the statement just
made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of China. We share with China a
broad community of outlook on the topic of disarmament, and we do not forget
that our two countries joined in the work of this Conference at the same time
with the firm resolution of making a full contribution to multilateral
disarmament endeavours.
667
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
8
(Mr. Morel, France)
I should also like to thank all those who gave me such a warm welcome
when I arrived at this Conference. I was struck by the spirit of co-operation
and friendship here, quite apart from our substantive differences of view.
You may rest assured, Mr. President, that I shall always take part in the work
of this Conference in the same spirit.
As we know, the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons is at present
working on issues relating to non-production of chemical weapons. The French
delegation wishes to make an active contribution to the discussions on a topic
to which it attaches great importance, and therefore now has the honour to
introduce today document CD/747, entitled "Non-production of chemical
weapons", which spells out the details of the preliminary remarks expressed by
our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Jean Bernard Raimond, on this subject a
month ago, on 19 February, in this chamber.
The starting-point for our approach is that it has gradually become clear
from discussions on article 6 of the convention that it is not desirable to
build a convention that would be perfect for the present but which would be
threatened with obsolescence in the near future and would therefore become
increasingly inoperative. We do not think that it is useful to establish a
definitive schedule of substances to be prohibited, with their attendant
r4gimes of verification. The convention must obviously be comprehensive and
binding for everything with which we are familiar, but precisely in order to
ensure the full observance and authority of the convention we must also be
able to make provision for all that at present remains hypothetical,
little-known or indeed unknown. How, for example, can we regulate, without
harming the legitimate interests of each country, the potential inherent in
industries that are producing for permissible requirements substances that
could be diverted for weapons purposes? How can the scientific and
technological progress which will certainly come about, both in the chemical
industry and on the control and verification side, be taken into account?
Such questions cannot but convince us that, while we must be absolutely firm
in everything relating to the goals, principles and ground rules, flexibility
is essential in the application of the convention for everything that is not
yet fully identified.
Thus, our document identifies the areas where, taking this evolutionary
perspective I have outlined, developments may well occur.
With regard to the schedules of substances to be controlled, the
essential and most difficult task is to define the toxicity criterion. Here
we have to set aside the idea of attaining theoretical perfection and rather
seek agreement on a definition and procedures of acquisition that are
acceptable to everybody and could serve as a reference.
With regard to super-toxic lethal chemicals which are not chemical
weapons, we do not think that, given their characteristics, it would be useful
to draw up an exhaustive list at this stage. What is essential is to
establish definitional criteria to assess the possibility of any particular
substance becoming a chemical weapon, and to set a production threshold over
which its manufacture must be declared.
668
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
9
(Mr. Morel, France)
Finally, we must give thought to monitoring new products and
technologies, a major sphere on which the survival of the convention hinges,
and which the Committee has not yet discussed.
Quite clearly, some of the tasks I have mentioned could best be carried
out by a special body, and that is what is proposed in our document. We
suggest that a Scientific Council should be set up, consisting of independent
eminent persons, chosen solely for their scientific competence. As stated in
our document, this new body would have responsibilities at the following
stages: First, following the declaration of stocks, to finalize the lists of
chemicals to be prohibited and monitored, for by definition, the exact
composition of the stockpiles will be known only after each country has made
its declaration, which will happen on the entry into force of the convention.
Secondly, during the administration of the convention. The Scientific
Council should inform the Consultative Committee of the appearance of any new
substance or new technology which might pose a risk to the convention, and
propose appropriate measures and verification procedures.
We attach a great deal of importance both to the independence of the
eminent persons selected, and to a precise definition of their powers, so as
to avoid any duplication with other bodies. Thus, the Scientific Council
would have an advisory role but no power of decision whatsoever. One annual
meeting could be'scheduled, together with meetings at the request of the
Consultative Committee where necessary.
My delegation is today submitting document CD/747 with the intention of
breaking new ground while at the same time paying due heed to the need for
realism and flexibility. The document suggests some practical measures, which
I have summarized, but it also seeks to prompt us to think about how the
convention will actually work. Very strict rules are essential, but they will
not be enough in themselves. We have also to provide for instruments, tools,
criteria for action, and therefore for an administration that is suited to the
future circumstances of research and production in the chemical industry.
What we are building must not be a great monument that is threatened by time
but a living, active, credible institution. This is the spirit underlying our
proposals, and of course we are quite open to any comments and suggestions to
which they may give rise on the part of member States.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
France for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the President, as
well as his reference to my country. I now call on the representative of
Mongolia, Ambassador Bayart.
Mr. BAYART (Mongolia) (translated from Russian): Comrade President,
first of all allow me to congratulate you on your occupation of the post of
President of the Conference for March. It is especially pleasant for us to
see you occupying this post. You are one of the veterans of multilateral
disarmament bodies, an eminent diplomat representing socialist Cuba whose
active foreign policy activities intended to consolidate peace and
international security enjoy well-deserved authority and respect on the part
of all peace-loving States. It is also pleasant for us to note that my
669
npclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
10
(Mr. Bayart, Mongolia)
country and Cuba are linked by fraternal friendship and close co-operation. I
can assure you that my delegation will continue to co-operate closely with you
and give you every assistance in the successful performance of your duties as
President.
I would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to
the distinguished representative of the People's Republic of China,
Ambassador Fan Guoxiang, for his fruitful work as President in February. My
delegation would like to join in with the words of welcome addressed to the
Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Wu Xueqian. We
listened with great attention to his important statement.
In his declaration made on 28 February this year, the General Secretary
of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,
Mikhail Gorbachev, advanced the proposal that the problem of medium-range
missiles in Europe be taken out of the package of issues relating to nuclear
disarmament discussed at the Soviet-American Summit Meeting in Reykjavik, and
that a separate agreement be immediately concluded on that issue.
It is difficult to overestimate that initiative, which opens up real
prospects for a real breakthrough in nuclear disarmament.
The Mongolian People's Republic fully approves of and supports this
qualitatively new and major step on the part of the Soviet Union, which is
aimed at building a world free from nuclear weapons and creating a
comprehensive system of international security.
Implementation of the Soviet initiative on a broad base would meet the
interests not only of the countries and peoples of Europe but also of Asia and
the whole world and would significantly consolidate the foundations of
international peace and security.
In our opinion, there is every justification to count on the rapid
implementation of the Soviet initiative, since already at Reykjavik to all
intents and purposes agreement was reached on the question of medium-range
missiles in Europe.
Whilst we attach enormous significance to rapid translation of this
accord into a specific agreement, Mongolia at the same time does not wish in
any way to play down the immediacy and urgency of achieving agreement on the
limitation and elimination of strategic weapons and the prevention of an arms
race in outer space.
As we understand it, the Soviet-American agreement to the effect that
these questions be considered and resolved together remains in force, and
needs to be translated into practical political policy and specific actions.
Time is passing and the international community is more and more
concerned at the threat that space will become a new sphere for the arms
race. This threat is related to the United States plans to develop and
deploy a large-scale anti-missile system with space-based elements.
670
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
11
(Mr. Bayart, Mongolia)
The United States Strategic Defence Initiative plans for emulation
between strategic offensive and defence weapons. Its proponents strenuously
argue that, compared with the early 1970s when the Soviet-American ABM Treaty
of indefinite duration was drawn up, new scientific and technical
possibilities have appeared which supposedly would make it possible to rely
on this "up-to-date defence", and thus rid the world of nuclear weapons.
However, it is quite evident that the development of a large-scale
ABM system might be a major stimulus for the qualitative development and
quantitative build-up of strategic offensive weapons, both delivery vehicles
and nuclear warheads. Up-to-date technology might equally lead to the
development of missiles and also to the creation of new types of weapons.
So-called defensive space weapons can quite justifiably be considered as
offensive weapons. They will be capable of destroying the most important
early-warning, detection and communication satellites of the other side.
Teployed in orbit these weapons will be a constant threat to the space
apparatus on which the degree of confidence of States in their own security
greatly depends. These weapons threaten to destabilize us and weaken the
strategic balance. If weapons were based in space, any significant technical
breakdown in an orbiting satellite could be inaccurately interpreted and tKell
for the signal of an attack, and the consequences of such an error would be
atAstrophic.
We are informed by the press that American scientists are werk.ng eh
types of lasers, in particular, nuclear-pump X-ray lasers. As we know, t.lh
auurce for such an explosion would be a nuclear warhead, and any such warhi,:i
be used as an offensive weapon.
In view of these developments, in parallel with the bilateral
eations between the USSR and the United States, the Confere,Ice c
isatmament must really come to grips with the tasks of preventing an
ace in outer space.
The Mongolian delegation expresses its satisfaction at the comparativeiy
rapid re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on item 5 of our agenda, and
for this we are greatly indebted to the President of the Conference in
February, the representative of the People's Republic of China,
Ambassador Fan Guoxiang, who spared no effort to find a compromise solution in
the elaboration of a mandate for the Ad Hoc Committee. But at the same time,
we regret that the Conference did not manage to produce a negotiating mandate,
in accordance with the recommendation of the General Assembly of the
United Nations contained in resolution 41/53.
Now, the task is for the Ad Hoc Committee to adopt its programme of work
for the current year as soon as possible. The current situation is that the
Ad Hoc Committee was established just one month ago, but substantive work is
not under way. Is it worth continuing wasting even more time on procedural
matters? Would it not be better to get down to the implementation of the
mandate, and begin the consideration of matters related to the prevention of
an arms race in outer space? Thus, we could come very close to the next, the
basic stage-. negotiations to conclude an agreement, or agreements, as
appropriate, not to allow weapons into outer space.
671
im,,,Inecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
12
(Mr. Bayart, Mongolia)
For this purpose, the Ad Hoc Committee has all that it needs. Over the
last two years of its activity, it has accumulated considerable experience.
In. 1986, it discussed, very thoroughly, the first two items in its programme
of work, namely, the consideration and definition of issues relating to te
prevention of an arms race in outer space, and existing agreements relectin
the prevention of an arm race in outer space. It also dealt wit7.11 the
item in its programme, ex-L,,;ting proposals ancl future initiatives
i:d-
pre1ent an arms race in cuter space, Ti,are; .de note th,:it the 7clume r
ccnteut of that third item is growing, because new iritietives are
the fore all the time. Tc4lay, the Ad hcc C.-;!7ittee ha he fore it
range of constructi,.re proposals and ideas in, had at I)rewmt an aTT1.3
outer space.
Various countries have submitted specific .proposals on the prear._
an international agreement to guarantee immunity for objects in outer ;4aee,
and on the prohibition of the development of new anti-satellite systems rca
the elimination of existing ones. There have been many other proposaLs as
well.
Recently the distinguished representative of Venezuela,
Ambassador Taylhardat, came up with the interesting idea of a possible
addition to article 4 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. That idea is along
the same line as the proposal by Italy on the preparation of an additional
protocol to that Treaty.
The Soviet delegation has tabled a new proposal for the creation of a
system of international control for the non-deployment in outer space of
weapons of any kind, envisaging the establishment of an international
inspectorate. We are impressed by the idea of an international inspectorate.
This measure will be especially effective if we achieve a full ban on all
types of space weaponry -- space-based anti-missile weapons, anti-satellite
weapons and space-to-Earth weapons. If the ban is a partial one, for example,
just covering one class of outer space weapons, then, obviously, we will need
additional control measures. This, by the way, is just another argument in
favour of a full ban.
An inspectorate would probably not exhaust all the control possibilities
in such a system. We could think about combining such an inspectorate with
national means of verification and control and collective consultative
machinery which would deal with disputes.
We hope that the idea of an inspectorate will be discussed in the
Conference. It would be interesting to hear the reactions of representatives
of other countries, in particular those traditionally especially interested in
such issues of control.
Obviously, this idea will be further developed in more detail as we work
towards the elaboration of specific measures to prevent an arms race in outer
space.
There can be no doubt that the prevention of an arms race in outer space
is a high-priority task, one of the most important tasks, in fact, which
672
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100i000n1-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
13
(Mr. Bayart, Mongolia)
awaits a solution. Therefore, the Mongolian delegation, like many others,
considers that this task should occupy its due place in the draft
Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament which is being elaborated.
I would now like to make a few comments on the question of a
chemical-weapons ban. A definite amount of success has recently been achieved
in the drafting of the chemical-weapons convention. Many positions of
principle and specific technical issues have been reconciled and there is the
necessary basis for further progress. Amongst the unresolved questions of
principle is the question of on-site challenge inspection. At this stage of
the negotiations this is a basic problem of universal significance for the
convention.
What is the actual situation as regards the solution of this problem?
Several positions have been stated in the negotiations. Each of them reflects
the interests of one or another group of delegations or the interests of
specific delegations. These interests have to be taken into account and
brought into line with the common aim: the elaboration of a convention which
can universally and really be implemented.
The socialist countries are in favour of a r4gime of challenge
inspections which would be as effective as possible and, at the same time,
would not be detrimental to the higher interests of States. This aim, we
feel, is met by the approach set out in the proposal of the United Kingdom
contained in document CD/715, and in particular the central idea of that
proposal -- the possibility of proposing and applying alternative measures.
It seems to us that the proposal that challenge verifications concerning
declared locations and facilities and also in cases of suspicion of the use of
chemical weapons should be mandatory is a promising one from the point of view
of finding a compromise. Perhaps we should think about those other cases
which we could include in the list of those where a refusal to allow full
verification to be carried out would not be allowable.
For many years it was impossible to agree on questions of verifying the
destruction of chemical weapon stocks and the elimination of their production
facilities, as well as the permitted sphere of activities.
The proposals made by the Soviet delegation take account of the position
of the Western and non-aligned States and fully remove any obstacle to the
elaboration of comprehensive and strict control over chemical weapon stocks,
production facilities and permitted activities. On these issues we have
practically all the necessary basis for the formulation of articles 2, 3, 4, 5
and 6. Nevertheless, unfortunately, we cannot but note certain negative
factors which are delaying the consolidation of the success achieved: for
example, the unexpected difficulties which have arisen in resolving questions
such as diversion of chemical weapons (the delegation of the United States
of America has departed from its earlier position just when the USSR
673
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
14
(Mr. Bayart, Mongolia)
delegation took its preoccupations into account and tried to accommodate
them), as well as the elaboration of provisions concerning chemicals in the
second category. The singling out of super-toxic lethal chemicals used for
pharmaceutical, medicinal, scientific and research purposes, which do not have
the set of properties peculiar to chemical warfare agents, is a step towards
accommodating the wishes of the Western delegations. Nevertheless, the
selfsame Western delegations are not devoting the due energy towards the
solution of this issue.
These delegations are also delaying a solution to the question of
irritants. The use of chemical weapons based on harmful chemicals against
developing countries which do not have the necessary level of protection could
be extremely detrimental to their defence capability. In the first place,
there would be suffering on the part of the civilian population and damage to
the peaceful spheres of activity in those countries. We also need to see a
solution to the issue of the use of herbicides for military purposes.
There is nothing insoluble about these issues. All we need is a will to
bring about a constructive agreement.
The important problem of the destruction of chemical weapon stocks and
the elimination of production facilities has in principle been resolved. On
the destruction of stocks, we have not yet achieved agreement on the order for
their destruction. However, there does exist a common understanding that the
regime for destruction would have to be simple and fair. The discussion of
the idea of using equivalence in comparing various categories ,of chemical
weapon stocks has shown that the practical implementation of this idea is
going to be extremely complicated. The most simple and realistic way would
lie in the grouping of chemical weapons in comparable categories which would
have to be destroyed in equal amounts by weight during each period of
destruction of stocks.
In the preparation of the convention there are a significant number of
separate technical issues which, of course, have to be resolved. We cannot
play down the importance of these questions, but I would like to appeal to the
parties to the negotiations first and foremost to work for the completion of
the provisions of principle. We cannot allow the possibility that progress in
preparing and agreeing on the convention should get bogged down in the
technical details.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
Mongolia for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the President
and to my country. I have no further speakers on my list for today. Does any
delegation wish to take the floor? I see none. At my request, the
secretariat today has distributed the timetable of meetings of the Conference
and its subsidiary bodies for next week. As usual, the timetable has been
drawn up in consultation with the Chairmen of the Ad Hoc Committees; it is
purely indicative and can be changed if necessary. You will note that the
674
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001 nnnni-et
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.400
15
(The President)
Ad Hoc Committee on Radiological Weapons will hold its 1st meeting on Friday,
3 April, at 3 p.m. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the
Conference adopts the timetable.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I shall now proceed to adjourn
the plenary meeting. The next plenary meeting of the Conference on
Disarmament will be held on Tuesday, 31 March, at 10 a.m. The meeting is
adjourned.
The meeting rose at 11.05 a.m.
675
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.401
31 March 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE FOUR HUNDRED AND FIRST PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
on Tuesday, 31 March 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
GE. 87-60512/7999E
Mr Lechuga Hevia
(Cuba)
676
narinQqifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.401
2
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I declare open the
401st plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.
In accordance with its programme of work the Conference will continue its
consideration of agenda item 4, "Chemical weapons". However, in accordance
with rule 30 of the rules of procedure any member wishing to do so may raise
any other matter relating to the work of the Conference. Once we have
finished the list of speakers for today I will convene a short informal
meeting of the Conference to consider a request for participation from a
non-member State. We shall then resume the plenary so as to formalize any
agreement we may reach in the informal meeting. I have on the list of
speakers for this plenary meeting the representatives of Argentina and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I now give the floor to the first
speaker on my list, the representative of Argentina, Ambassador Cimpora.
Mr. CAMPORA (Argentina) (translated from Spanish): I am very happy to
see that at this session the Conference on Disarmament has given mandates to
Ad Hoc Committees for the consideration of five agenda items. We might think
that the work of our Conference on Disarmament benefits from the changed
international conditions. A more favourable international climate is
developing as the two military alliances are showing a greater inclination for
dialogue. The dark years that characterized the first half of the 1980s with
the heightened arms race are yielding to less gloomy times and, albeit very
slowly, multilateral and bilateral multilateral negotiations seem to be
finding their feet in the search for certain agreements. However, bilateral
negotiations are not producing concrete results embodying the belief expressed
by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev in Geneva in November 1985
that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought and that neither
country would seek to achieve military superiority.
These two basic principles of the relationship between the United States
and the Soviet Union at present should meet, like two co-ordinates on a plane,
at the point that makes them meaningful through disarmament agreements, since
in our view, these two principles have created the changed climate that we are
starting to see in international relations.
For the first time in history, two countries recognize that the nuclear
weapons they possess is mutually annihilating, and also for the first time in
history these two countries recognize for that reason that neither should try
to seek military superiority over the other.
The inevitable consequence of this premise must be nuclear disarmament,
at least as far as logic is concerned.
We realize that the orientation towards dialogue has reached a point that
should be taken advantage of by attaining concrete results, before the
favourable climate vanishes. Attitudes of mistrust will finally prevail if
both sides do not accommodate each other's initiatives but instead reject
them. So the cycle of detente should be self-sustaining by means of concrete
disarmament agreements.
The international community demands that the super-Powers should start to
go back along the road that they have taken in their unbridled arms race,
677
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Rnnninninnnni_A
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.401
3
(Mr. Cimpora, Argentina)
because in that race they have more than reached saturation point. There is
no longer anywhere in the world on land or at sea that is beyond the reach of
both super-Powers' weapons.
Everything suggests that this year, as in preceding years, the
Conference on Disarmament will continue to be blocked on the substantive
treatment of the three first items on its agenda, which as we all know refer
to nuclear weapons.
We acknowledge this situation, but that does not mean that we are doing
so in silence. On the contrary, we raise our voice in protest against the
totalitarian behaviour that denies the only multilateral negotiating body on
disarmament the possibility of -;arrying out the mandate it was given in the
Final Document of the first special session of the United Nations
General Assembly devoted to disarmament in 1978.
If the treatment of nuclear disarmament is banned for us here in the
Conference on Disarmament, we demand that the .two super-Powers produce results
in this field in which they have decided to substitute themselves for the rest
of the international community. We also hope that we will shortly receive a
joint report on thr, state of those negotiations.
We said at the beginning of our statement today that we were happy to see
that the Conference on Disarmament has been able to set up Ad Hoc Committees
on the other five agenda items.
It must be a rather exceptional and unprecedented situation in the
history of the Conference on Disarmament that at this early stage of its work
this year it has managed to reach these agreements. We have some intense work
in front of us. We have no doubt the Conference on Disarmament is
sufficiently able to respond to the challenge of negotiating disarmament
agreements for all the items on its agenda.
The negotiation of a convention that would ban chemical weapons is of
unprecedented importance. This is a real leading case for the international
community, since never yet has it undertaken the drafting of an instrument of
such political and technical complexity in the field of disarmament with a
view to eliminating weapons of real military significance. The task that has
been started implies that national territories will be opened up to
international scrutiny. This in itself will be a very important step in the
strengthening of international confidence.
It is difficult to imagine the Major Powers open to international
inspection to verify the destruction of their arsenals of chemical weapons and
production installations. However, all the negotiations are directed towards
that aim, and there should be no retreat or vacillation in achieving it.
We have heard so many times delegations from the Great Powers state here
that the task of the Conference on Disarmament should be to give priority to
the negotiation of a convention prohibiting chemical weapons that we cannot
accept at this stage of our work any pretext which would hinder the speedy
conclusion of that instrument.
678
Co?4
? cnniti7pri (*.env ADDroved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.401
4
(Mr. Cgmpora, Argentina)
As in earlier sessions of the Conference on Disarmament, we have
established at this session Ad Hoc Committees for items 6 and 7 on negative
security assurances and biological weapons, respectively. I would like to say
that both issues are of definite interest to the Argentine delegation, and we
continue to hope that the Conference on Disarmament will move towards the
drafting of appropriate agreements on both of them.
The nuclear-weapon countries should give assurances that they will not
use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against countries that have renounced
the possession of such weapons. In the Ad Hoc Committee on Negative Security
Assurances it has been made evident in the sessions held in previous years
that some countries place various conditions on the granting of such
assurances because they do not really want to limit in any way the tremendous
weight which the possession of such weapons gives them in international
relations. The mere possession of nuclear weapons creates a climate of
intimidation which definitely affects non-nuclear weapon States.
Those who possess nuclear forces and do not undertake not to use them or
to threaten to use them against non-nuclear-weapon States clearly do so
because they have the intention of intimidating both nuclear-weapon and
non-nuclear-weapon countries.
As for the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Radiological Weapons, the
delegation of Argentina feels that we should not wait any longer to start
drafting an agreement that would prohibit military attacks against any nuclear
installation whose destruction would lead to the dissemination of radioactive
material.
This aim of giving wide and non-discriminatory immunity to nuclear
installations in case of armed conflict has won broad support from public
opinion everywhere and is supported by many countries.
We trust that the Ad Hoc Committee concerned will be able to make
considerable headway in this direction this year.
Mr. President, before concluding I would like to convey to you the
congratulations of the delegation of Argentina for your work during the month
of March. As I have said, the Conference on Disarmament is attaining a very
intense pace in its negotiations, particularly in the Ad Hoc Committees and
Working Groups, and very possibly this will produce specific results. The
impulse given by you as President of the Conference on Disarmament during the
month of March has been clear and certainly very positive. That is the reason
why I would like to say once again how much we appreciate the considerable
work you have done. I take pleasure in stressing this because of the
excellent relations between our two Latin American sister countries, Cuba and
Argentina.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
Argentina, Ambassador Cimpora, for his statement and for the kind and
stimulating words addressed to the President.
I now give the floor to the representative of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, Ambassador Nazarkin.
679
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R0001nninnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.401
5
????
Mr. NAZARKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): On 24 and 25 March this year a regular meeting of the Committee of
Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the States Parties to the Warsaw Treaty was
held in Moscow. The delegation of the USSR, the country which hosted and
chaired the meeting, has requested the secretariat of the Conference on
Disarmament to circulate, as an official document, the decisions which were
adopted by the Foreign Ministers Committee session. I am referring to the
Communique of the meeting, the Statement "For Furthering the CSCE Process and
Bringing the Vienna Follow-Up Meeting to a Successful Outcome", and the
"Statement by the States Parties to the Warsaw Treaty on the Issue of a
Chemical Weapons Ban".
The distinguished representatives thus have the opportunity of
considering the full texts of the documents adopted in Moscow. Meanwhile, we
would like to highlight some aspects since the decisions of the Committee of
Foreign Ministers have a direct bearing on the important problems we are
discussing here.
The documents adopted at the Committee's meeting in Moscow testify to the
continuing vigorous efforts of the States Parties of the Warsaw Treaty to end
the arms race, reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons, prevent the
militarization of outer space, destroy chemical weapons and the industrial
base for their production, and bring about deep reductions in armed forces and
armaments in Europe. These efforts are a reflection of the unvarying policy
of principle of the allied socialist States aimed at building a comprehensive
system of international security and creating a nuclear-free, non-violent
world.
At the Committee's meeting in Moscow, particular attention was given to
the task of lowering the level of military confrontation, reducing armed
forces and conventional arms in Europe, further developing the CSCE process in
all fields and strengthening peace and security on the European continent. In
this context, the States Parties to the Warsaw Treaty attach prime importance
to ensuring that the Vienna meeting will proceed in a constructive and
business-like way and to achieving meaningful and positive results there. If
that is to be achieved, what needs to be resolved first is the question of a
forum and mandate for future negotiations on reducing armed forces and
conventional arms in Europe. It is the firm conviction of the allied
socialist States that the best solution to this question would be to
supplement the mandate of the Stockholm Conference in such a way that it would
specifically discuss disarmament matters as well.
With a view to making progress on the whole complex of humanitarian
issues, the States Parties to the Warsaw Treaty propose that the Vienna
meeting shall agree to a conference being convened in Moscow on the
development of humanitarian co-operation to examine the whole set of issues of
co-operation in that field, and to hold a comprehensive discussion aimed at
achieving practical results.
The allied socialist States believe that a speedy completion of the
elaboration of a convention on the prohibition and elimination of chemical
weapons and on the destruction of the industrial base for their manufacture is
a crucial objective for the world community. They call on all States to do
their utmost to conclude such a convention in 1987 so that this year already
we could see the beginning of general and complete chemical disarmament. The
680
n-4 e.nnV Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.401
6
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
participants in the Moscow meeting of Foreign Ministers consider that no
country should take any steps whatsoever which might complicate the
elaboration and conclusion of a convention on the prohibition and elimination
of chemical weapons.
These, in brief, are the points on which I wish to dwell today.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): I thank the representative of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for his statement. I have no more
speakers on my list for today. Does any other representative wish to take the
floor?
As I announced at the beginning of this plenary, we will now hold a brief
informal meeting of the Conference to take a decision on a request for
participation by a non-member State. The plenary meeting is now suspended.
The meeting was suspended at 10.40 a.m. and resumed at 10.45 a.m.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): The 401st plenary meeting of
the Conference on Disarmament is resumed.
In accordance with the exchange of views during the informal meeting we
have just held, I would like to submit to the Conference the request from
Switzerland to participate in the work of the plenary meetings of the
Conference and of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons. The draft
decision to this effect has been circulated by the secretariat in document
CD/WP.281.
If there is no objection, I will take it that the Conference adopts the
draft decision.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): We have no other business to
consider today, but before I make a brief statement at the end of my term as
President I would like to ask if any delegation wishes to speak.
Since no delegation wishes to speak, I wish to make a brief statement at
the close of my term as President of the Conference during the month of March.
During this period the Conference adopted a number of decisions on the
organization of its work. A number of States and non-member States were
invited to participate in the work of the Ad Hoc Committees established at the
beginning of the 1987 session. We also appointed the Chairmen of the
Ad Hoc Committees on agenda item 5, Prevention of an arms race in outer space,
and item 7, Radiological weapons. Both Chairmen have been holding
consultations on the programmes of work for these Ad Hoc Committees, and at
the end of this week, on Friday, the subsidiary body that will be dealing with
radiological weapons will hold its first meeting.
During March the Conference also had the first consultations of 1987,
open to all delegations, on proposals to improve its functioning and make it
more effective. During the exchange of views, opinions were expressed on
various aspects of the topic. These referred both to the procedure to be
681
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-n1 iRRRnnn-inn nr-Inn A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.401
7
(The President)
Eollowed in considering the question and also to the issues involved in it.
7t will be up to my successors to continue the consultations on the
consideration of proposals already presented, and any which may be introduced
in the future, on the issue in question.
The two Ad Hoc Committees which have been working practically since the
beginning of this annual session continued their active search for agreements
on questions of substance. The Ad Hoc Committee on the Comprehensive
Programme for Disarmament would have its work considerably facilitated if the
Conference itself were able to make headway in its consideration of those
agenda items dealing with nuclear issues that we have been examining without
results for far too long. The Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons is working
on particularly important topic's in the search for a convention that would
finally prohibit these weapons, and it is clear that considerable progress has
been made since the opening of the session.
We have to recognize, however, that the Conference still has a lot to do
during the session, not only on organizational matters, but also on matters of
substance. Despite the many consultations held during the month of March, it
has not yet been possible to appoint the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee we
established on item 6 of the agenda, entitled "Effective international
arrangements to as re non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of
use of nuclear weapons". It is to be hoped that this issue will be resolved
as soon as possible.
I am particularly concerned by the fact that practically since the
beginning of the annual session all the efforts aimed at organizing our work
better on the three first agenda items, those relating to the top priority
nuclear issues, have not produced positive results. This is not a new
situation for the Conference, of course. For a number of years we have been
unable to agree on an appropriate procedure for considering those items, with
the exception, perhaps, of a first effort last year, that was very limited, I
must say, on item 2, "Cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear
disarmament".
I believe it is my duty to report to the Conference about the
consultations I have held during the month of March on those three topics,
since their importance justifies further efforts to find an appropriate way of
starting to consider them.
On item 1, "Nuclear Test Ban", it was impossible to advance from the
position of the various groups, despite the fact that the deliberations of the
recent regular session of the General Assembly allowed some hope that we would
be able to find a formula for agreement. Various delegations have indicated a
tendency to adopt more flexible positions but this attitude has to extend to
all members to make it possible for us to move closer to agreement.
Item 2, which I have already mentioned, was the subject of active
consultations which, unfortunately, did not produce a generally acceptable
formula. Proposals on the establishment of an ad hoc committee still have not
achieved consensus. Nor is there consensus on considering the item in
informal meetings of the Conference, as we did last year. The suggestion I
made as President during the meetings of Co-ordinators, so as to reconcile the
various positions, was not sufficient to remove all existing difficulties.
682
r.nnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.401
8
(The President)
At one time I suggested as a working hypothesis that the Conference should
have a number of informal meetings on the substance of item 2, on the
understanding that the exchanges of views should be reflected in the annual
report of the Conference to the General Assembly. In order to facilitate what
was called in the consultations a "structured discussion" on this item, the
President would circulate a list of topics based on the issues considered
during the informal meetings last year. That list would be the exclusive
responsibility of the President, its sole purpose being to organize the
debate, and it would not require the agreement of delegations. Of course,
pursuant to rule 30 of the rules of procedure of the Conference, delegations
wishing to refer in informal meetings to other matters not included on the
list of topics would have every right to do so.
This is how things stand now, but as I have already said, this idea has
not removed the doubts that some delegations appear to have. For the time
being, I will simply say that if we are able to move ahead in our
consideration of item 2, that would perhaps enable us to tackle with greater
optimism the problems that remain on item 3, "Prevention of nuclear war,
including all related matters".
None of the ideas considered in the Conference for the purposes of having
appropriate machinery for this topic have brought us nearer to consensus. It
is clear that it is not possible at this moment to establish an ad hoc
committee becauie of the objections of some delegations. The suggestion that
we should create a committee of the whole has also run into the reservations
of some delegations, and since this is the case, some of those delegations
regard as insufficient the proposals to consider the item in informal
meetings. In other words, we are exactly where we were in 1985 and 1986.
The outlook for the first three agenda items is not very encouraging.
Perhaps if we recognize this openly, it will help us to try new approaches to
overcome the deadlock that we now have on these matters.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude for the co-operation I was
given by members of the Conference during March. I am convinced that it will
be equally needed by my successor, Ambassador Vejvoda of Czechoslovakia, whose
experience in disarmament matters and diplomatic skill will be particularly
useful to the Conference. I would also like to thank the Secretary-General of
the Conference, Ambassador Komatina, and the Deputy Secretary-General,
Ambassador Berasategui, as well as the interpreters and all members of the
secretariat for the valuable co-operation they have provided.
I shall now adjourn the plenary meeting. The next plenary meeting of the
Conference on Disarmament will be on Thursday, 2 April, at 10 a.m. The
meeting is adjourned.
The meeting rose at 10.55 a.m.
683
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-n1iRRPnnni nn nt-Int-14 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.402
2 April 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE FOUR HUNDRED AND SECOND PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
on Thursday, 2 April 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
GE. 87-60524/6306e
Mr. M. Vejvoda
684
(Czechoslovakia)
in Dmr+ - niti7Rd CODV Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
2
The PRESIDENT: I declare open the 402nd plenary meeting of the
Conference on Disarmament.
As I assume the Presidency for the month of April, I should like to read
out a message transmitted to the Conference by the President of the
Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Secretary-General of the Communist Party of
Czechoslovakia, Dr. Gustav Husak.
"Dear delegates,
I avail myself of this opportunity to extend to all participants in
the Conference on Disarmament my sincere greetings.
The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic attaches to the Conference on
Disarmament extraordinary importance. Since the very beginning of the
existence of that organ, we have been actively participating in its
work. Efforts to strengthen peace, enhance international security and
stability, limit and halt the arms race and adopt effective measures that
would lead to general and complete disarmament under effective
international control constitute an unchanging axiom of our foreian
policy. These goals cannot be achieved without broad international
co-operation, confidence, reasonable compromises and respect for the
principles of reciprocity, equality of commitments and refraining from
acts threatening the security of any of the parties.
/n view of the current international situation and of the realities
of the nuclear and space age, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
together with its allies propose to establish a comprehensive system of
international peace and security based on the premise that it is
impossible to build one's own security at the expense of the security of
others, and providing for an organic connection between its principal
spheres -- military, political, economic and humanitarian. We consider
it necessary that this concept be taken into account in the practical
work of the Conference', primarily in the deliberations on the complex of
issues relating to nuclear disarmament, prevention of an arms race in
outer space and prohibition of chemical weapons.
A constructive platform for the solution of those issues is provided
by the programme of the elimination of nuclear and other types of weapons
of mass destruction by the end of this century put forward by the
Soviet Union on 15 January 1986, the far-reaching proposals of the
Soviet Union presented at the Soviet-United States summit meeting at
Reykjavik, the numerous initiatives adopted at recent sessions of the
Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty, as well as the
proposals of the non-aligned and other peace-loving countries.
The latest significant proposals of the Soviet Union envisaging the
elimination of medium-range missiles from Europe offers a real chance of
reducing the danger of military confrontation on our continent as well as
in the whole world. We have a sincere interest in speedily reaching an
agreement on that subject. If this happened, the counter-measures we
adopted together with the Soviet Union in order to safeguard our own
685
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA_RnDan
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
3
(The President)
security after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization had decided to
deploy in Europe the Pershing-2 And cruise missiles would not be needed
any longer.
The ongoing stage of the deliberations of the Conference on
Disarmament is considered by us to be the decisive phase. The central
problem which exposes the line of division between old and new thinking
and conduct lies, in our view, in the question of the halting of
nuclear-weapon tests. The approach to this highly significant and
sensitive issue reveals the true attitude of States to the problem of
nuclear disarmament as such. We profoundly regret that the generous
gesture made by the Soviet Union in declaring a unilateral moratorium on
nuclear testing has not been reciprocated and that a number of nuclear
explosions have been carried out in the United States during its
validity. Yet, it would not be advisable to give in to resignation or
scepticism. The Conference on Disarmament provides every opportunity for
a successful solution of the question relating to the structure and scope
of an agreement on general and complete prohibition of testing of nuclear
weapons, including measures to secure its strict observance and
verification.
It is proper that the Conference should focus its attention on
prevention of an arms race in outer space. Extension of the arms race to
outer space would not guarantee anyone's security and, moreover, it would
multiply the risk of the outbreak of a war, posing a qualitatively new
threat to all States, regardless of their location or affiliation to any
politico-military groupings.
We deem it especially important to achieve progress on the question
of chemical weapons. If an agreement on general and complete prohibition
of such weapons and on their elimination was formulated already this
year, it would be a practical contribution to the strengthening of mutual
trust and an inspiring example proving that multilateral talks on
disarmament can produce significant concrete results in the form of real
treaties, agreements or conventions.
Guided by our desire to do our utmost to facilitate that process,
Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic have been actively
advocating the establishment of chemical and nuclear-weapon-free zones in
central Europe, which would contribute to the elimination of an entire
category of weapons of mass destruction from that sensitive area.
Together with the German Democratic Republic, we have put forward
concrete proposals to this end.
The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic will continue to the largest
possible extent to promote progress in the work of the Conference on
Disarmament. I am convinced that all States, large, medium-sized and
small alike, irrespective of their social systems, can play a positive
role in the pursuit of the goals of disarmament provided that they show
686
nnpv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDp92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
4
(The President)
decisive political will to do so. I am confident that you will exert all
your skills and every effort in the interest of the noble objective and
that you will utilize the broad negotiating potential of the Conference
on Disarmament in an effective manner. I wish you every success in this
endeavour.
Gustav Husik"
Our conference is entering today the last month of its work in the spring
part of the session. While it would be still premature to draw conclusions
from this first part of the session, it would be appropriate to look briefly
at where we stand and in what directions our efforts should be further
intensified.
Let me start with the positive. Early in this year's session we managed
to re-establish the Ad hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons, which then
immediately resumed its intensive work aimed at the elaboration of a
convention on the prohibition and destruction of CW. Further progress has
been achieved and there is a practically unanimous view that efforts should
continue persistently so that the convention could be finalized as soon as
possible, preferably already in 1987. I am confident that the Ad hoc
Committee, under the guidance of Ambassador Ekeus of Sweden, will do all in
its power to speed up progress towards the convention.
Let me remind you, distinguished delegates, that just a week ago a
political body of high importance -- the Committee of the Ministers of Foreign
Affairs of the Warsaw Treaty -- launched an appeal to all the participants of
our Conference regarding the prohibition of CW. In the separate statement on
this subject the ministers called upon all States to refrain from all steps
that might complicate the achievement of a mutually acceptable agreement on
the prohibition of CW and not to produce any CW, including binary or
multi-component CW, not to deploy them in foreign countries and to withdraw
them from those foreign countries where they are already present. The
ministers expressed the belief that 1987 can and must be the year of the
commencement of complete and general chemical disarmament. The statement I
referred to reflects interest in the work of this Conference and the
importance of our negotiations on the prohibition and elimination of CW.
The Ad hoc Committee on the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament under
the leadership of Ambassador Garcia Robles of Mexico, enters its seventh year
of active work in order to fulfil its mandate and to submit to the
United Nations General Assembly a complete draft CPD. We should pay more
attention to this Committee during this month, since it is supposed to enter a
final stage of its work.
A number of other committees were established. The Ad hoc Committee on
the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, under the chairmanship of
Ambassador Pugliese of Italy, is about to start its work. In view of the
importance and urgency of the task it has been assigned we hope that this
687
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: - -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
5
(The President)
Committee will, during this month, reach some conclusions which will enable us
to advance our work further. Ambassador Meiszter of Hungary assumed the
chairmanship of the Ad hoc Committee on Radiological Weapons. His task will
not be easy but we realize that both prevention of the appearance of RW as
well as ensuring security for the development of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes are subjects of high importance and the Conference cannot ignore
them. One more proof of this is great attention which is now paid to the
ongoing United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International
Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
Turning to the negative I have to point out that the Conference has, as
yet, not been able to take any action on the first three items, containing
priority measures of nuclear disarmament. Our inability to establish working
bodies on such important items as nuclear test ban and nuclear disarmament
has, unfortunately, become a pattern of our work in the course of recent
years. In my opinion there is a danger that we might become too much
accustomed to the lack of negotiations in this unique multilateral negotiating
body. Indeed, there is a rather unnatural discrepancy in this Conference, .
which can negotiate very actively on, for example, the prohibit-ion of CW, but
is not capable of the slightest practical move on the NTB and a number of
other important items.
As I said at the beginning, it is too early to try to draw any
conclusions whatever from our work so far. I would like to believe that the
same applies also to our approach to the three nuclear items. Let us hope
that the door has not been closed definitely on work aimed at the achievement
of the NTB in the way we were recuested by the forty-first session of the
General Assembly. But let us also realize that April is the last month of the
spring session and that if we want to address the NTB seriously it is high
time to do so. It is my intention, in my capacity as President of the
Conference, to do my utmost and to explore any possibilities in this regard.
In fact, at our meeting yesterday with the Co-ordinators we already started a
first exchange of views on what practical steps could be done with respect to
the first three items of the agenda. With respect to the NTB, the only
reasonable framework we should strive for is the Ad hoc Committee. There is a
number of draft mandates for such a Committee and in the coming days we shall
look at them again to see if a mutually acceptable basis for the NTB Committee
could be evolved. With respect to items two and three, various proposals have
been advanced previously, including proposals to convene a series of informal
meetings of the plenary. I believe that we should continue to consider these
proposals, possibly in conjunction with some topics which could be discussed
at such informal meetings.
There is a number of open questions concerning the organization of our
work which will be dealt with appropriately.
688
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
6
(The President)
I should now like to proceed with our business for today. Firstly, I
should like to express to Ambassador Lechuga Hevia of Cuba, on behalf of the
members of the Conference and myself, our warm appreciation for the effective
and able manner in which he conducted the activities of the Conference during
the month of March. His knowledge of multilateral diplomacy has been an asset
that has helped us in finding solutions to some difficult problems facing us.
He has also laid the foundation for further work on finding appropriate
organizational arrangements for some items on the agenda of the Conference
which have been at a stalemate for a considerable time.
Ambassador Lechuga Hevia thus continued the successful work of
Ambassador Fan Guoxiang of China, who presided over the Conference during the
month of February.
In accordance with its programme of work, the Conference continues today
its consideration of agenda item 4, entitled "Chemical Weapons". However, in
conformity With rule 30 of the rules of procedure, members wishing to do so
may raise any subject relevant to the work of the Conference. I have on my
list of speakers for today the representatives of Poland, Algeria, Bulgaria
and Nigeria.
In addition, Doctor Ola Dahlman, Chairman of the Ad hoc Group of
Scientific Experts to Consider International Co-operative Measures to Detect
and Identify Seismic Events, will introduce the progress report of that Group,
contained in document CD/745. You will recall that this document was
circulated to all members of the Conference at the 399th plenary meeting.
I now give the floor to the first speaker on my list, the representative
of Poland, Ambassador Turbanski.
Mr. TURBANSKI (Poland): Comrade President, let me begin by expressing my
great satisfaction at seeing you, the representative of the Czechoslovak
Socialist Republic, Poland's neighbour, close friend and ally, in the chair of
the Conference on Disarmament for the last month of the spring session. I
have had the privilege not only of witnessing your diplomatic skills over many
years but also of closely co-operating with you at various conferences,
including the Conference on Disarmament. The skills, combined with your
wide-ranging experience in international forums, combined with your personal
warmth and friendliness, make me confident that you will competently and
efficiently lead the Conference towards further progress in its work. I can
assure you that the Polish delegation shall spare no effort to co-operate with
you also as Co-ordinator of the Group of Socialist Countries during the month
of April. It was with great interest that I listened to the message of the
President of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, General Secretary of the
Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Comrade Gustav Husik, which expressed ideas
which Poland fully shares. The statement was a clear demonstration of the
high priority given by Czechoslovakia to the Conference on Disarmament.
Permit me also to use this opportunity to express my delegation's gratitude to
your predecessors, Ambassador Fan Guoxiang of China and
689
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
7
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
Ambassador Lechuga Hevia of Cuba, who chaired our work in February and March,
respectively. Their perseverance and personal devotion have moved the
Conference closer to the resolution of some of the outstanding issues.
The purpose of my statement today is to offer some remarks concerning
agenda item 5 -- prevention of an arms race in outer space.
My delegation has noted with satisfaction the re-establishment of the
Ad hoc Committee almost at the very beginning of this spring part of the
Conference's session. We hoped for the meaningful continuation of what was
accomplished by the Committee last year. unfortunately, our hopes have been
reduced to a certain extent as the Committee has stood logjammed for a month
already.
General Assembly resolution 41/53 again requested the Conference on
Disarmament "to re-establish an Ad hoc Committee with an adequate mandate ...
with a view to undertaking negotiations for the conclusion of an agreement or
agreements as appropriate to prevent an arms race in outer space in all its
aspects". We consider the mandate, also covering the consideration of
proposals for measures aimed at the prevention of an arms race in outer space,
as a logical next step after last year's substantive work of the Committee.
But we see it as only a partial implementation of paragraph 8 of
resolution 41/53.
One State's abstention has prevented this resolution from being pass(?,i
unanimously. We hope, however, that no State will ultimately prevent the
Conference to meet fully the General Assembly request and to do the work whi,:h
almost all States voted for in the Assembly.
The Polish delegation would certainly prefer to participate in the work
of a body with an explicitly negotiating mandate; not only because we would
prefer to follow a position consistent with what we have advocated in the
General Assembly, and not only because we do regard the Conference on
Disarmament as above all a negotiating forum.
It is also our firm conviction that the prevention of the arms race in
space has long been ripe enough to become a subject or: negotiations. We do
recognize existing difficulties and doubts of different kind in this field.
We think, however, that such problems could best be dealt with within the
process of negotiations and not outside it. My delegation continues to
believe that sooner or later all the delegations will find it unavoidable to
arrive at this point of view.
The mandate based on a compromise we have adopted allows for much more
than informal consultations on the programme of work. The long-lasting
dormancy of the Ad hoc Committee is a point of serious concern to my
delegation. We believe, however, that difficulties will be overcome and work
690
npriaccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
8
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
will start soon. Otherwise we will again have to include in the Conference's
report a sentence saying that had the Committee started earlier, its
achievement would have been much greater.
Up to now, no strike weapons have been deployed in space. However, the
situation is about to be changed. The American concept of anti-ballistic
missile defences (BMD), as described in President Reagan's Strategic Defence
Initiative, is pregnant with very serious political, strategic and military
consequences. the first lesson which can be learned from the historical
experience is that security is, above all, a political task. The introduction
of BMDs will not solve the problem of security. The deployment of weapons in
space will only introduce into a remarkably stable strategic relationship
between East and West an unprecedented degree of uncertainty and nervousness,
attempting to provide hardware answers to political questions.
The emergence of BMDs will generate a total or ultimate arms race and
render disarmament impossible. The subject is known well enough and there is
no need to elaborate on it further. What is worth mentioning is that the SDI,
once unleashed, has gained its momentum within the United States, irrespective
of any international context. Partial technologies and different spin-offs
can fuel either the creation of new weapons or the amelioration of existing
ones, and they do so, indeed, prior to the final decision "whether the ?
initiative is feasible as a whole". Thus, the "contribution" of the
Initiative to the speeding-up of an arms race is really manifold.
What is the actual goal underlying the SDI? It is widely recognized that
it would be a dangerous illusion to believe that a technological breakthrough
could create a vastly improved security. Real security can only be found in
co-operation with a possible adversary, not at his expense.
Based on this premise, the basic concept of the ABM Treaty -- mutually
assured deterrence -- is still valid. Allow me to quote what President Nixon
said in explaining his decision to forego a broad defence of the nation in
favour of the limited ABM system primarily to defend United States retaliatory
forces. "The heaviest defence system we considered, one designed to protect
our major cities, still could not prevent a catastrophic level of
United States fatalities from a deliberate all-out Soviet attack. And it
might look to an opponent like the prelude to an offensive strategy
threatening the Soviet deterrent." Here we are.
The ABM Treaty is a milestone in the political approach to curbing the
arms race, avoiding nuclear war and providing hope that nations and their
leaders can act to keep nuclear war from erupting. It has proved highly
effective in preventing an arms race in space.
It provides for the prohibition of the development, testing or deployment
of space-based ABM systems, including those dependent on exotic technology.
The Treaty should be strengthened and complied with, instead of bending its
691
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R0001nninnnni_a
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
9
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
language and torturing its basic meaning, as was demonstrated in the
October 1985 memorandum regarding the United States ratification record of the
ABM Treaty.
Recently, Senator Sam Nunn asserted that "his research had led him to the
conclusion, compelling beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Senate's
ratification of the Treaty in 1972 was based on a restrictive interpretation
of the pact". Also Judge Soafer, the chief author of the above-mentioned
memorandum, "explicitly and repeatedly disavowed the October 1985
memorandum ...". Let us hope that these signs mark a better future for the
ABM Treaty.
Naturally, the future of the Treaty is entirely the province of the
Contracting Parties. However, it has implications with respect to the
security of the whole world, and the international community so affected has
the legitimate right to express its views on the matter. Thus, a hope could
be voiced that the United States will find it possible to accept the proposal
by the Soviet Union to strengthen the regime of the ABM Treaty and to agree on
what is indeed prohibited and what is permitted by the Treaty. This would at
least keep BMDs in laboratories, as originally proposed by President Reagan.
Thirty years after the launching of the first satellite of the Earth, it
can be asserted with confidence that no major conflicts have occurred with
respect to the legal status of outer space and celestial bodies. The existing
body of space law -- no matter how incomplete -- has proven its capability to
regulate effectively the relations of States in the exploration and use of
space and to prevent -- so far -- the extension of the arms race into this
environment. The significance of this legal system has additionally been
illuminated by the painstaking efforts to dodge its provisions undertaken by
those who would like to proceed with a gun-spacecraft policy.
Undoubtedly, the existing legal order of outer space is not perfect.
However, weak points and gaps, by virtue of their existence, do not prejudge
the worthlessness of any legal system as such. Everything depends on
political will and political choice -- what purpose is a given legal
regulation expected to serve.
According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any treaty
should be intergreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to
he given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its
object and purpose. Thus, in the view of my delegation, lacunae in the space
law must not be used as loopholes for pouring weapons into outer space,
because the primary goal and a clear intention of any arms-control-related
agreement is to prohibit or limit military activities and not to justify the
expansion of an arms race.
The need for i comprehensive and more detailed regulation of contemporary
and especially future space activities by the international community cannot
be questioned. As it has been stressed on numerous occasions in this Hall,
692
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
10
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
the globality of the subject matter requires global solutions. It is only
natural that the Conference on Disarmament should embark on this task --
enormously difficult as it is, but one which has to be undertaken. In our
opinion, the work on the identification and analysis of weak spots and lacunae
of the existing legal regime of outer space has already been accomplished by
the Ad hoc Committee during its previous sessions. What is necessary now is
to begin negotiations aimed at improving and strengthening this regime.
Further measures are needed to prevent the arms race in outer space.
Certainly, it would be desirable to count on the solution of all problems by
the adoption of a single agreement. We all agree that a process should be
initiated through which step-by-step agreement or agreements could be worked
out progressively, with the final aim of excluding the risk of a lethal
competition in space.
In considering issues relevant to the prevention of an arms race in outer
space as provided for in its mandate, the Ad hoc Committee should immediately
embark on the concrete discussion of measures to eliminate the possibilities
of the deployment of weapons in space. The Polish delegation is deeply
satisfied to realize that other delegations wish to follow a similar
position. It has been proved unequivocally by proposals discussed during the
current session by the delegations of the USSR, France, Egypt,
the Netherlands, Venezuela, Romania and Mongolia. These proposals form a very
good basis to start business-like work towards the elaboration of effective
international instruments. My delegation is prepared to take an active part
in this work.
As I have already pointed out, up to now there have been no strike
weapons in space. That is why my delegation welcomes wholeheartedly the
Soviet proposal aimed at banning the use of force in outer space and from
space against the Earth. Such a ban would strengthen significantly the
general renunciation of the use or threat of use of force embodied in the
United Nations Charter and would update it to the conditions of the nuclear
and space age. It would not only be a strong bulwark against weapons in
space: it would contribute to a confidence-building process as a whole and to
the further strengthening of strategic stability.
But, realistically thinking, one must assume that the elaboration of the
above-mentioned instrument would take some time; and in space issues, time is
running short at a space-age speed. Thus, while working on the ban on the use
of force in space, the Conference could also consider additional measures
which would forestall and frustrate the stationing of arms in orbit. For
instance, as has been proposed by Italy and most recently supported by
Venezuela, the Conference could discuss the adoption of a protocol to the
Outer Space Treaty. As an interim measure, such a protocol could prohibit the
deployment of strike weapons in space, without the need to elaborate from
scratch a new legal instrument to this effect.
693
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
11
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
We realize, certainly, that one important definitional question would
have to be solved -- namely, the definition to be given of what constitutes a
"strike weapon". Significant work on this subject was done during the
previous session of the Committee. It should be continued and completed in
the course of the present session. Within the scientific community there is a
widespread opinion that proceeding from technical characteristics it is
possible to distinguish between passive systems in space which already exist
and active or strike weapons for use within, into or from space. Such weapons
do not exist yet, but they are being developed actively, at least in one
country. If the scientists are right, it must be possible accordingly to
formulate legal instruments that would outlaw space strike weapons and provide
for proper verification.
The problem of protection of satellites has been discussed on numerous
occasions by many delegations.
The Polish delegation fully supports the elaboration of an international
legal instrument for guaranteeing the immunity of satellites. Such an
instrument would contribute also to the creation of the International
Satellite Monitoring Agency as proposed by France, which -- in turn -- could
form the essential part of the International Space Organization, as proposed
by the Soviet Union. I would like to draw the attention of all delegations
not only to the formal attractiveness of the above-mentioned proposals, but
also to their characteristic sequence and inherent logic of succession. This
is by no means only a coincidence.
One more remark as to the immunity of satellites: it should be granted
for all of them. Sometimes the problem of the dual nature of military
functions of satellite happens to be raised. It is argued that satellites
that are deployed to verify arms control obligations could be simultaneously
used for the gathering of sensitive military information. Yes, that can be
the case. But to draw the precise line between different functions of
satellites is almost impossible, and could be compared to the question of
verification of what goes on in laboratory work on any subject. It is
impossible to monitor what happens in a scientist's brain, and it is likewise
impossible to know in advance in what manner a satellite computer has been
programmed. Hence, the only way out is to grant immunity for all satellites.
To make this legal immunity more effective, we should also outlaw the
means of breaking it, namely ASAT weapons, prior to their deployment. The ban
on ASAT weapons, including the elimination of existing ASAT systems, would
contribute greatly to the strengthening of the strategic balance and to
confidence-building. As an actual arms control measure, it would also mark
important headway on the road towards general disarmament.
The next important problem relating to the protection of satellites which
has frequently been raised in this Hall is connected with the growing space
traffic and the so-called dual-purpose or dual-capability of space objects.
It is feared that an attack on a spacecraft could be carried out by simply
694
in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
12
(Mr. Turbanski, Poland)
ramming it with another space object, i.e. without necessarily using a
weapon. A solution could be found by concluding the "rules of the road"
agreement proposed already by the delegation of the Federal Republic of
Germany and advocated by some other delegations. What I would like to draw
attention to is that recently the concept in question has been given
additional substantiation, because, logically, "the rules of the road"
agreement should become an essential part of the French proposed code of
conduct of States in space. Again, two different proposals coming from
different delegations compose a logical whole.
Each of the three above-mentioned concepts, namely, the international
protection regime for satellites, the ban on ASAT weapons and the "rules of
the road" agreement would -- if implemented -- mark a significant step on the
road towards peace in space. But they are coherently linked together and
supplement each other. Thus, in our opinion, the smartest thing the
Conference can do is to change quantity into quality, and to start work
towards negotiations on international instruments in those three spheres. It
would be a bold move, it would require a lot of courage and imagination, but
it would be a responsible answer to the challenges the Conference faces now.
For beyond any doubt, such a set of agreements, once it has entered into
force, would bring about a qualitatively new political environment. In the
meantime, any substantial progress in negotiations could facilitate a headway
in the bilateral negotiations.
And last, but by no means the least, the question of verification, which
in space -- given the vastness of this domain and the technological
advancement of space activities -- will create serious difficulties. That is
true, but it is worth remembering that each day of delay in the creation of a
verification regime will render these difficulties more serious, for increased
sophistication of weapons objectively tends to make the task of verification
more complicated. Proceeding from this premise, the Polish delegation
supports the Soviet initiative to consider the possibility of creating an
international inspectorate the task of which would be to monitor the
non-deployment of weapons in space, and the rights of which would go so far as
an on-site inspection. What stricter regime could be envisaged? Besides, I
should like to draw once again the attention of the Conference to the apparent
logic of such a move. The International Inspectorate, possibly a division of
the International Space Organization, would be an inescapable link in the
above-mentioned chain of structures and instruments. All of them, taken
together, would constitute a solid frame of the system of peaceful exploration
and use of outer space.
These are the tasks which, in the opinion of my delegation, should become
the fruitful domain of activities of the Ad hoc Committee on Outer Space,
under the able guidance of Ambassador Aldo Pugliese. We hope the Committee
will embark on this work immediately, because time is running short, and in
space issues -- allow me to repeat -- at space-age speed.
695
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100nn1 _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
13
The PRESIDENT: I thank the distinguished representative of Poland,
Ambassador Turbanski, for his statement and for the kind words he addressed to
the President. I now give the floor to the representative of Algeria,
Ambassador Hacene.
Mr. HACENE (Algeria) (translated from French): Mr. President, as I am
speaking in the Conference for the first time may I start by congratulating
you on your accession to the Presidency of our Conference for the month of
April and say that I am pleased for two reasons to see in this post the
representative of Czechoslovakia, a country with which Algeria has traditional
ties of friendship, and the colleague I had the great pleasure of knowing in
New York 25 years ago.
I would also like to express to Ambassador Fan Guoxiang of China and
Ambassador Lechuga Hevia of Cuba our gratitude for their contribution to
launching this session of the Conference. May I also thank all the
representatives who have welcomed me, and assure them of my full co-operation
and of my delegation's readiness to make every contribution to the smooth
conduct of our work. In addition, I would like to express here my sincere
condolences to the delegation of the United States of America following the
death of Ambassador Lowitz, and associate myself with the unanimous tribute
paid to his memory.
A year ago, the session of the Conference opened in an atmosphere of
optimism justified, inter alia, by the dialogue which had been renewed by the
United States and the Soviet Union and the undertakings given by both parties
in the Joint Declaration adopted following the Geneva Summit in
November 1985. At the time, everyone expressed the hope that a new process of
disarmament negotiations would finally begin and that there would be a real
movement towards improving the international environment.
However, we are compelled to note that we have fallen short of that
expectation: 1986 was marked in particular by the intensification of the arms
race, increased use of force in various regions of the world, and the
continuing impediments to the start of a resolute process in the disarmament
field.
In carrying out an assessment of the international context in which this
session of the Conference is taking place, we cannot ignore this balance sheet
which arouses in several respects a feeling of frustration.
At the same time we cannot ignore the fact that today there are new
promising signs of a constructive dialogue between the two greatest military
Powers of the world. This dialogue has been expressed through the declared
determination of both parties to embark on negotiations for the total
elimination of a category of their nuclear weaponry. Success in these
negotiations would prove, should this still be necessary, that the security of
nations cannot be sought in an arms build-up but rather in their steady and
continual reduction.
On that basis, one can only express the hope that the same thinking will
guide the negotiations on all other types of weapons. We also hope that the
goodwill demonstrated by the United States and the Soviet Union in the ongoing
696
npclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
14
(Mr. Hacene, Algeria)
negotiations will extend to our own consideration of the items on the
Conference's agenda, and that this will lead to a climate of greater
confidence which is essential for a genuine disarmament process and the
establishment of equal security for all.
It goes without saying that it will take decisive action and the
contribution of the entire international community to meet this challenge. In
the area of disarmament, bilateral negotiations, however significant and
important, can in no way replace the multilateral negotiating effort. As the
heads of State and Government of the non-aligned countries stated in the
Harare Declaration last September, "Bilateral and multilateral negotiations on
disarmament should mutually facilitate and compliment and not hinder or
preclude each other".
In that context the Conference on Disarmament, as an expression of the
democratization of the disarmament debate, is a unique and irreplaceable
forum. It would be regrettable for this body to be restricted to a minor role
as would appear to be suggested by its record over eight years of functioning.
This situation is particularly significant if we bear in mind the
stalemate with respect to nuclear issues. It is, moreover, in striking
contrast with the priority openly attached to these issues and the pressing
appeals of the international community that mankind be freed from the threat
of nuclear annihilation, as evidenced yet again by the resolutions of the
forty-first session of the General Assembly and the non-aligned Harare
Declaration.
These appeals, together with the unanimous recognition of the fact that
"a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought", should prompt our
Conference to set up appropriate subsidiary bodies under items 2 and 3 of our
agenda.
The obstacles met in deciding on a negotiating mandate for the Ad Hoc
Committee on a Nuclear Test Ban raise the same questions as to the willingness
to stop and reverse the nuclear arms race.
The speedy conclusion of a treaty completely prohibiting nuclear tests,
something that the international community so fervently desires, is more
relevant than ever in so far as such tests today serve not only to improve
nuclear arsenals on Earth, but also to develop space weapons.
Given this situation, it is regrettable that the opportunity provided by
the moratorium on nuclear tests declared by one of the major Powers, was not
seized in order to begin the negotiations expected under agenda item 1. At
the forty-first General Assembly it was noted that positions were closer when
it came to the issue of a nuclear-test ban, and this is something that
certainly must be appreciated. However, the question stands as to whether in
697
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001nnnn1-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
15
(Mr. Hacene, Algeria)
the Conference there is the necessary, and shared, determination to work
towards genuine progress in the preparation of a treaty totally prohibiting
nuclear tests.
Among the priority issues before our Conference is that of the prevention
of an arms race in outer space. The interest in this topic stems, of course,
from a deep and legitimate concern at the danger that this new dimension of
the arms race will create for the security of all.
It is our conviction, as we have repeatedly stated, that the extension of
the arms race to outer space will only expand the potential domain for
confrontation and push our goal of general and complete disarmament even
further away.
The preparatioxs underway for developing new weapons systems for outer
space therefore make the much-awaited negotiations under item 5 of our agenda
particularly urgent.
Furthermore, the common determination to exclude outer space from
Great Power rivalry that we believe can be seen through the resolutions of the
General Assembly, should logically have led to the granting of a genuine
negotiating mandate for the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race
in Outer Space.
There can be no doubt that the process of drafting a convention on the
prohibition of chemical weapons has entered a crucial phase. The progress
achieved at the previous session under Ambassador Cromartie is certainly an
encouraging result, as well as a stimulas for the ongoing negotiations.
Agreement has still to be reached on significant aspects of the convention,
but this should not deter us from our objective of concluding this
instrument. A spirit of flexibility and mutual concessions continue to be the
best means of overcoming the obstacles to definitive elaboration of a future
convention. The proposals made over the past few weeks are, in my
delegation's opinion, an example which should be followed if we are to
reconcile the various approaches.
Furthermore, we are sure that the competence and experience of the new
Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, Ambassador Ekeus, will be a great help for
making full use of the years of effort invested in the consideration of the
various aspects of the draft convention and finding an appropriate solution to
the questions which remained outstanding.
The conclusion of an agreement for the complete elimination of chemical
weapons would be a milestone in multilateral disarmament efforts. Clearly,
such an agreement will be even more significant if it could win the support of
all States. To this end, it is essential that the chemical weapons ban should
not lead to discriminatory measures or impediments for the chemical industry
which, as we are all aware, is of particular importance in the development
processes of our countries.
698
0,,i - cnniti7pci nopv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
16
(Mr. Hacene, Algeria)
Following the same trend of thought, we think that the future convention
would be all the stronger if it promoted international co-operation in the
chemical industry, and here we must focus on the importance, in our view, of
article 11 of the draft convention.
In keeping with the decision of the General Assembly, our Conference has
been called on to submit before the end of the first part of the session a
complete draft of the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament. This is
certainly a significant challenge in several ways and merits our special
attention. An agreement on a draft comprehensive programme of disarmament
would be a just reward for the work carried out for many years under the
dedicated Chairmanship of Ambassador Garcia Robles. It would also be a means
for each country to reiterate the commitments entered into in the Final
Document of SSOD 1.
Finally, it would be of symbolic importance on the eve of the Conference
on Disarmament and Development and the third special session of the
General Assembly devoted to Disarmament. The challenge, in any event, remains
the same: that of grasping the interrelated problems of disarmament
development and security, and embarking resolutely on the actions that must be
taken to establish genuine collective security.
As several speakers have already stated, the proximity of SSOD 3 means
that it would be an excellent opportunity for a critical analysis of our work
and an opportunity to show our determination to shoulder our responsibility as
members of the single multilateral negotiating body in the field of
disarmament. This is no doubt a legitimate expectation that cannot be ignored
without undermining the credibility of the Conference itself.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representive of Algeria of his statement and
for the kind remarks he addressed to the President. I now give the floor to
the representative of Bulgaria Ambassador Tellalov.
Mr. TELLALOV (Bulgaria): Comrade President, I also begin my statement by
warmheartedly congratulating you upon your accession of the post of President
of the Conference of Disarament for the month of April. As Bulgaria and
Czechoslovakia are socialist countries which enjoy excellent relations, this
will greatly facilitate the co-operation of our two delegations. I would like
to express my delegation's satisfaction of seeing you in the Chair,
Comrade Vejvoda. We with you joined this body at nearly the same time, when
we succeeded in establishing between us very friendly relations, and I may
assure you today that I would do my best, and my delegation also, to fully
support your endeavours to further advance the work of this Conference. It is
with deep interest and great attention that we listened to the important
message to the Conference addressed by the President of Czechoslovakia,
Gustav Housik, which my delegation fully supports. May I use this opportunity
also to thank your predecessor Ambassador Lechuga Hevia, who performed his
duties in a brilliant manner in the previous month.
699
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RnPq9_ni lApprInn4nr.?--.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
17
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
In my statement today, I too would like to speak briefly on item 5,
"Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space".
Active discussions have been going on on this issue both in plenary and
in the respective subsidary bodies. This is an expression of a growing
concern that there is a real danger of extending the arms race to outer space.
Bearing in mind this threat, the Foreign Ministers of the States Parties
to the Warsaw Treaty who met in Moscow last week called for "immediate
termination of the implementation of the SDI, as well as the development of
projects such as the "European Defence Initiative".
Along with the majority of delegations in this Conference, the delegation
of Bulgaria is alarmed by recent reports that the "research" stage of the SDI
programme is approaching a point where decisions on field testing and
consequently the deployment of space weapons will be taken. Such a step would
lead to weaponization of outer space, and could unleash an extremely dangerous
round of the arms race. The efforts to achieve the generally agreed objective
of prevention of arms race in outer space would thus be fustrated.
The distinguished representative of Egypt, Ambassador Alfarargi, spoke
about this in plenary on 17 February. Together with him, we are also at a
loss as to how to perceive the fact that the declared objective of the
bilateral negotiations on space and nuclear weapons is "to prevent an arms
race in outer space while at the same time the United States develops, with
the purpose of deploying, space weapons systems about which negotiations are
going on for their prohibition and for destruction of existing systems". On
the same date the distinguish representative of Sri Lanka,
Ambassador Dhanapala, rightly drew our attention to the fact that "our
discussions here are taking place while irreversible steps are being planned
to place weapons in space".
I need perhaps not say more to illustrate that the contemplating of
measures to prevent an arms race in outer space is an urgent issue. The
urgency of this task should be as high as that of advancing the goal of
nuclear disarmament, whose top priority is generally recognized. It cannot be
otherwise, since one can hardly imagine deep reductions of the strategic
nuclear arsenals if weapons are going to be deployed in outer space.
Therefore, we hope that the bilateral negotiations on space and nuclear
weapons will soon lead to results.
The task of preventing an arms race in outer space has global aspects.
Weaponization of outer space would directly affect the security interests of
all nations. All States have, therefore, both the right and the obligation to
participate in, and contribute to, the efforts to avoid such a race. As a
multilateral negotiating body, the Conference on Disarmament can and must play
a central role in this field.
? 700
r.npv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
18
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
In this respect, we fully share the view expressed by President Hussak in
his message of today to the effect that: (quote), "Extension of the arms race
to outer space would not guarantee anyone's security and, moreover, it would
multiply the risk of the outbreak of a war, posing a qualitatively new threat
to all States, regardless of their location or affiliation to any
politico-military groupings".
Having said this, we welcome the fact that the Ad Hoc Committee on item 5
was established earlier this year. This offers the Conference an opportunity
of going deeper into the problems that have to be solved with a view to
arriving at an appropriate agreement, or agreements, to prevent an arms race
in outer space. For the last two years the Ad Hoc Committee has examined and
identified almost all issues relevant to this objective. Turning to a more
practical and result-oriented work in the Committee is now widely expected.
We welcome, therefore, the understanding expressed by the President of the
Conference that "consideration of proposals for measures aimed at the
prevention of an arms race in outer space is covered by the mandate contained
in Working Paper CD/WP.268". Concentrating on such proposals this year would
also be in conformity with the consensus statement contained in paragraph 80
of the Final Document that "in order to prevent an arms race in outer space
further measures should be taken and appropriate international negotiations
held", in accordance also with the spirit of the 1967 Outer Spice Treaty. A
good basis for substantive work along these lines does exist.
The delegation of Bulgaria is ready to consider all proposals on specific
measures aimed at the prevention of an arms race in outer space.
A new idea relevant to all specific measures providing for the
non-introduction of space weapons has been advanced by the delegation of the
Soviet Union. The proposal to establish an international inspectorate for the
purpose of verifying such agreements was formally made on 3 February by the
First Deputy Foreign Minister, Y.M. Vorontsov. The distinguished
representative of the USSR, Ambassador Nazarkin, elaborated on this idea in
his statement on 17 March. He suggested that such an inspectorate should be
given the right of access to all objects designed to be launched and stationed
in outer space, as well as to their launching vehicles.
The new Soviet idea is a valuable one. It seems to us that a
comprehensive agreement on non-deployment of weapons in outer space could be
effectively verified through co-operative measures providing for inspections
of the launching sites. Such launches cannot be hidden. They have long been
monitored by national technical means. Complementing these activities by
international on-site inspections would strengthen the verification regime.
International inspectors, present at the launching of space objects, would
have the right of access to them as well as to their launching vehicles, thus
ensuring confidence in compliance with the respective agreements banning
deployment of outer space weapons. This is valid for weapons of any type,
whether ASAT or ABM, which are designed to be deployed in outer space. The
701
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP97-niiRRPnnni nr-11 rIn
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/FV.402
19
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
idea of an international inspectorate could, therefore, be utilized for the
verification purposes of both an ASAT ban and a comprehensive prohibition of
space weapons.
We cannot but conclude that the establishment of an international
inspectorate deserves very serious attention. We believe that the Ad Hoc
Committee should consider it carefully, in the context of examining
appropriate measures to prevent the weaponization of outer space. The
Committee could, inter alia, elaborate on the principles of the establishment
and functioning of such a system.
The delegation of Bulgaria would favour the continuation in the Ad Hoc
Committee of the work aimed at a comprehensive prohibition of the whole class
of space weapons. Arriving at a general agreement on the scope of such a ban
would facilitate our task. Several interesting formulations were suggested
last year in an initial attempt to define the weapons that are to be
outlawed. We are ready to continue the exploration of this avenue.
Appropriate partial measures could also lead us to the achievement of the
same objective. On 19 March, Ambassador Taylhardat spoke about the
possibility of amending article 4 of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, so that its
prohibition provisions cover any type of outer space weapons. This is an
approach which, in our submission, deserves to be analysed and pursued further
in the Ad Hoc Committee.
A number of delegations have proposed that the Conference on Disarmament
should elaborate an agreement on an appropriate ASAT ban. The idea of
ensuring immunity of satellites has been put forward as a partial measure.
This idea underlines the need to prevent the development, testing and
deployment of new dedicated ASAT weapons systems, and to eliminate the
existing ones. The suggested approach envisages also establishing a
prohibition on the use of force against space objects. The merit of such a
provision is that it would outlaw interference with the normal functioning of
space objects by any weapon system which normally serves other purposes but
could be used in an ASAT mode.
We support such an approach to the ASAT ban, and believe that the Ad Hoc
Committee should allocate more time to its consideration. Anti-satellite
weapons are generally considered to be destabilizing. The destruction or
disruption of early-warning and strategic communications satellites could, for
example, facilitate contemplating a first strike. The arms control missions
of satellites are also extremely important. Furthermore, ASAT developments
could well cover possible efforts to circumvent the existing restraints on ABM
systems, due to the similar character of these two technologies. A
multilateral agreement, preventing introduction of ASAT weapons in outer space
and providing for the verifiable destruction of the existing ASAT systems,
would be in the interest of all States, both those launching space objects
into orbits and those using the services of satellites.
702
- :- r.npv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
20
(Mr. Tellalov, Bulgaria)
In conclusion, I wish to express our hope that consultations on the
programme of work of the Ad Hoc Committee wil be concluded as soon as
possible, with positive results, and that substantive work will start soon. I
should like to congratulate Ambassador Pugliese of Italy on his election as
Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee and wish him success in promoting the search
for solutions to advance our common work and achieve practical results.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of Bulgaria,
Ambassador Tellalov, for his statement and for the kind words he addressed to
the President. I note the presence among us of the former representative of
Nigeria to the multilateral disarmament negotiating body,
Ambassador Olu Adeniji, at present the Director General for International
Organizations in the Ministry of External Affairs of Nigeria, who will be
addressing the Conference now, but before I give him the floor, I wish to
extend to him a warm welcome amongst us. Your experience and diplomatic skill
are well known, Sir, and I am sure that your contribution to our work today
will be followed with interest by all members. You have the floor now,
Ambassador Aden iji.
Mr. ADENIJI (Nigeria): May I, at the beginning, extend to you my warmest
congratulations on your assumption of the Presidency of the Conference on
Disarmament. With your outstanding diplomatic skill and wealth of experience,
I am confident that you will guide the Conference successfully in the month
ahead.
It is a moving experience for me to have the opportunity to be present
here today amongst you after almost 6 years of my re-assignment from Geneva.
It is reassuring to see several eminent disarmament veterans, true veterans,
whose company and co-operation I had immensely enjoyed when I was the Head of
the Nigerian Delegation to this Conference and, even after I left, whose
co-operation I still continued to value, both in the United Nations
General Assembly sessions and in the Secretary-General's Advisory Board on
Disarmament studies.
Since the awful realities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki dawned on the
international community 41 years ago, the United Nations, representing the
conscience of the world, has exerted continuous efforts to eliminate nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction from the arsenals of States in
an attempt to make this world a much more secure place for all its
inhabitants. Regrettably, negotiations on arms reduction and disarmament, at
the various forums over the years have continued to founder on the rock of
rivalry and deep distrust between the two Power blocs. Instead of making
steady progress towards achieving disarmament, especially nuclear disarmament,
the leaders of the two alliances, the two super-Powers, have continued to
imbue this awesome weapon with an aura of indispensability in their security
systems. In the name of deterrence, nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the
super-Powers have attained a degree of sophistication that is capable of
triggering a global nuclear winter from which there will be no shelter for
anyone.
703
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
21
(Mr. Adeniji, Nigeria)
As the single multilateral negotiating body on disarmament, it has always
been my view that the Conference on Disarmament should provide an effective
forum for the negotiation of genuine measures on priority questions of
disarmament. This was the hope when the first special session of the
United Nations General Assembly devoted to disarmament spent so much time on
the mechanism for negotiations. When I look back on the universal euphoria
which the first special session generated, when I recall the great effort
exerted in laying a sound basis that would enable the Conference to discharge
its onerous responsibilities, I cannot but express utter dismay that in the
years since 1979, this Conference has not been able to produce a single
disarmament agreement. Worse still is the fact that the Conference has since
its establishment failed to create subsidiary bodies with adequate negotiating
mandates to facilitate work on those priority items on its agenda which are a
nuclear-test ban, cessation of the nuclear-arms race and nuclear disarmament
and prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters.
Clearly, this unwholesome situation is attributable to the dogmatic
attitude of some nuclear-weapon States, which, having acquired nuclear
weapons, consider these as instruments of power and prestige, and would prefer
that such negotiations as there are On nuclear disarmament should be confined
? exclusively to a bilateral framework. The Nigerian Delegation has always held
the view that bilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament measures are
helpful, but they are by no means an alternative to multilateral
negotiations. Both efforts, on the bilateral plane as well as in this forum,
must complement each other in order to be purposeful and effective. To create
obstacles deliberately to hamper the Conference is to deny even to the
bilateral negotiations and the bilateral negotiators, what should constitute a
universal input into the solution of issues of global concern; an input which
should provide a base for ensuring the universality of disarmament agreements
and thus help to create confidence for adherence. If anyone is in doubt as to
the consequence of an attitude which takes the rest of the world for granted
as long as the super-Powers contrive to reach an agreement on whatever issues
catch their fancy, let him look at the fate of the bilateral draft
Radiological Weapons Convention.
I used the expression "whatever issues catch their fancy" in relation to
the negotiating technique of the two super-Powers. For they have avoided the
adoption of a negotiating agenda which is in consonance with the serious
danger posed by the arms race, especially the nuclear arms race. Paragraph 47
of the Final Document of the first special session devoted to disarmament
stated:
"Nuclear weapons pose the greatest danger to mankindand to the
survival of civilization. It is essential to halt and reverse the
nuclear arms race in all its aspects in order to avert the danger of war
involving nuclear weapons. The ultimate goal in this context is the
complete elimination of nuclear weapons".
704
im,,ninecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
22
(Mr. Adeniji, Nigeria)
Paragraph 50 of the same document then provided a mini-programme for
nuclear disarmament. I use the term "mini-programme" because in paragraph 109
the special session called on this Conference, your Conference, my
distinguished colleagues, to "undertake the elaboration of a comprehensive
programme of disarmament encompassing all measures thought to be advisable in
order to ensure that the goal of general and complete disarmament under
effective international control becomes a reality in a world in which
international peace and security prevail and in which the new international
economic order is strengthened and consolidated". While paying tribute to the
tenacity of Ambassador Alfonso Garcia Robles as Chairman of the Ad hoc
Committee on the CPD, one cannot but be amazed at the rate of progress in
drawing up the programme which, it should be recalled, ought to have been
adopted by the second special session devoted to disarmament in 1982.
The approach adopted in dealing with the three items of nuclear
disarmament at this Conference is fast converting the role of the Conference
into that of a deliberative organ and subjecting its credibility to serious
doubt. Yet the same special session which set up this Conference in its new
format also made sure that it created an adequate mechanism for deliberation.
The present situation of the CD is certainly damaging to its image and
requires urgent rectification. I believe that there is urgent need to resolve
to return to the Conference the negotiating mandate which it was given by
SSOD I; a mandate which has been renewed by successive sessions of the
General Assembly. In this connection, the three nuclear disarmament items on
the agenda of the Conference should be given the priority attention which they
deserve. That basic step in a credible nuclear disarmament programme, a
comprehensive test ban, should engage the attention of your Conference with
the view of elaborating an agreement not with a view to talking about it
again, but with the view of elaborating an agreement that can be submitted to
the General Assembly.
It is a welcome relief to note that some progress has been made in the
negotiations in the Ad hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons with a view to
achieving accord on a chemical weapons convention. I would like to appeal to
all members of the Conference to do their utmost to ensure the early
conclusion of the Convention. I do realize that some details still remain to
be resolved. However, given the prevailing spirit of understanding and
flexibility which is being shown, I am optimistic that a chemical weapons
convention is within reach of the Conference. When it does happen, and I hope
it will be sooner rather than later, it will be a most welcome breakthrough
which should have positive effect on negotiations on other priority areas.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of Nigeria for his statement
and for his congratulations to the President. Before I give the floor to
other speakers, I think the representative of Canada raised his hand. Does
that mean that you want to take the floor now, Sir? I now give the floor to
Ambassador Beesley of Canada.
705
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP97-niiRRPnnni nr-11 rIn
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
23
Mr. BEESLEY (Canada): As you know, Mr. President, I had been inscribed
initially as a speaker and I had asked that my name be removed because of
continuing informal discussions of which we are all aware, but I-now wish to
go ahead with my statement and in so doing I must apologize for the fact that
it will be, to some extent, extemporaneous but that will not be the first time
that you have borne with me in this respect.
May I begin, Mr. President, by congratulating vou on your assumption of
office and indicating to you my personal knowledge that you have already begun
your task with the kind of vigour I would have expected of a representative of
a country who plays hockey so well, produces so many superb tennis stars, and
in many other respects shows the kind of perseverance, talent and vigour that
we expect to see in this coming month. May I also take the opportunity of
congratulating your immediate predecessor, Ambassador Lechuga Hevia of Cuba,
for the efforts he made in laying the groundwork for what I hope to see
forthcoming during the remainder of our spring session and, of course, our
summer session. I hope I will not be committing a breach of protocol if I go
back one step further and reiterate the many expressions of appreciation to my
colleague on my left (geographically he sits on my left),
Ambassador Fan Guoxiang who did such a superb job in the first month of this
spring session. But on a more sombre note I would like to say, since this is
the first time I am speaking in plenary, what so many others have said perhaps
more eloquently than If how much we regret the death of our esteemed and
valued friend and colleague, Don Lowitz. Having already expressed personally
my condolences to his widow, Shana and to his delegation, I did wish to say.in
the Conference on Disarmament that my delegation and my Government shares the
view of all that we are all the poorer for having had this loss.
I was proposing to intervene primarily to announce the holding of a
Workshop on Outer Space by the Government of Canada in the month of May and to
take this opportunity to express personal invitations to the heads of
delegations -- all delegations -- to the Conference on Disarmament, to that
Workshop or to their nominee for those who are unable to participate. I will
come back to that in a few moments and spell out the nature of the
invitation. Before doing so, however, I wish to provide some background,
which is certainly known to some of those present but perhaps not at all,
concerning Canada's approach to the question of prevention of an arms race in
outer space, because that is our object and purpose and it is quite evidently
a widespread and widely-shared object and purpose.
If I could be permitted for just a moment to recall some earlier
development, on 26 August 1982 Canada submitted its first substantive
Working Paper to the Conference on Disarmament, which was then operating under
another name, on the outer space issue. I would remind delegations that the
document, entitled "Arms control in outer space", (CD/320), undertook to
discuss generally the subject of arms control and outer space in terms of
stabilizing and destabilizing characteristics -- a topic that is current
still. I would recall also that for a number of years prior to 1985 the
Conference on Disarmament and its predecessor organization had clearly
recognized the importance of the outer space issue. It was only, however, on
29 March 1985 that the CD succeeded in reaching agreement on a mandate for an
Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. This
development was warmly welcomed by Canada and other members of the CD, as the
706
rIfd in Darf - Aniti7ed CODV Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
24
(Mr. Beesley, Canada)
first of the crucial steps to organize examination of the subject; this
process was, of course, in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly
resolution relevant at that stage, which was adopted without dissent during
its thirty-ninth session on 12 December 1984 and which called upon the CD to
consider the question of preventing an arms race in outer space as a matter of
priority. I would like to re-emphasize that phrase, "as a matter of priority".
The mandate since adopted and amended remains, of course, in the view of
the Canadian delegation a realistic one, as I recall stating at the time; we
regarded the mandate as neither too narrow or restrictive, nor too
wide-ranging, but rather one permitting the CD to begin concrete action and
undertake substantive work immediately. It is worth recalling that the
mandate was to examine as a first step, at that "stage of substantive and
general consideration, issues relevant to the prevention of an arms race in
outer space. It is worth noting that the mandate that we are now working on
continues to permit us to make specific examination of existing treaties,
bilateral and multilateral, with a view to determining the content of the
existing legal regime and in the process, of course, determining whether there
are lacunae which ought to be filled in order to prevent an arms race in outer
space. I think this is common ground, there is no doubt on that; but in any
event Canada has pursued that objective.
I mentioned the first Working Paper that we had tabled, and in so doing I
wish to emphasize that while Canada is not the only country tabling working
papers, there are far too few in this field, and in others, and I believe, as
I have said on many occasions, that the way to concretize our work is to put
our views in the form of working papers that go beyond the kind of statements
which we all make in plenary and must make as part of the negotiating
process. May I recall that we tabled a second Working Paper, which we
considered to be directly on point entitled "Survey of International Law
Relevant to Arms Control in Outer Space" (CD/618), dated 23 June 1985. In
addition, we tabled a third Working Paper (CD/716) which we continue to
believe to be relevant, and indeed some of the statements this morning
indicated its continued relevance, on terminology relevant to arms control and
outer space; that is a document dated July 1986.
In tabling these Working Papers we had hoped to be of assistance to the
Conference, and perhaps to the United Nations General Assembly First
Committee, in that we did not attempt to present a Canadian point of view -- a
specifically governmental point of view -- but rather to outline the issues
which in our view have to be addressed.
We are conscious, of course, of the statement by the President for March,
Ambassador Fan Guoxiang, in making it clear as he did that there is no
obstacle to discussing measures. For my part, I have good reason to recall,
as President of the Conference in August 1986, that our report has, as I
recall, some 11 paragraphs which refer to the questions of measures, and so do
not consider that as a controversial issue. We have discussed measures: we
undoubtedly will discuss measures. But I would like to emphasize that in an
707
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
25
(Mr. Beesley, Canada)
exercise of this complexity and importance, if we want to be serious, let us
examine the existing regime; determine what lacunae, if any, exist, and then
consider what remains to be done. I don't think we should put the cart before
the horse; neither do I suggest that we spend years engaging ourselves in the
kinds of arguments that lawyers can sometimes be very skilled at in
disagreeing on the legal regime. There is a good deal of scope for immediate
work, concrete work, and substantive work to be done, I hope, at this spring
session and certainly in the summer session.
In the light of this background information that I have provided. I would
like to say that it is obvious that not only our delegation and the Canadian
Government but all governments and all delegations understand that one of the
most important and difficult arms control and disarmament issues with which
the international community must come to grips concerns the kinds of military
activity which can legitimately be carried out in outer space, and those which
cannot. Technological advances combining with international political
dynamics force these questions to the fore with increasing urgency. It is
extremely encouraging that the United States and the USSR agreed in early 1985
to make the prevention of an arms race in outer space an agreed bilateral
objective. This agreement attests to the importance and indeed the urgency of
the subject, and as I just mentioned, in that same year this Conference agreed
to establish for the first time a subsidiary body to address the same ultimate
objective, but in a multilateral context and certainly without detriment to
the bilateral efforts. If I may be permitted I should like to quote from one
of our own Working Papers that expresses in this case our own view as well as
we are able to do on the relationship between bilateral and multilateral
negotiating processes, which we have never considered to be mutually
exclusive. From the Canadian perspective, "the creation of the Ad Hoc
Committee in the outer space issue was fully in accord with Canada's express
policy and constitutes a significant step forward in coming to grips with the
subject." That remains true. "The mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee both
complements and accurately reflects the reality concerning the bilateral
negotiations under way between the United States and the USSR in Geneva", and
this is the part I want to stress. That mandate, as it now exists, and as it
has been affirmed in this session, "neither undermines, prejudges, nor in any
way interferes with the bilateral negotiations," and this fact is considered
by Canada to be absolutely central to the successful outcome of both sets of
deliberations.
I do not now intend to table another working paper but I do wish to
proceed now to mention the Workshop I referred to earlier. Having tried to
help lay the groundwork, in so far as we are able to do so, and building upon
the work done by many delegations in plenary and in the Outer Space Committee,
we have concluded that the approach being followed is a useful one, but it
should be pressed forward by specific exposure to practical issues. We were
gratified that we were able to agree relatively quickly on the mandate; we
share the concern at the delays that have occurred since, but we also share
the widespread desire, which we hope is universal, that we will soon be able
to hold a meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Outer Space and get on with the
708
neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
26
(Mr. Beesley, Canada)
work that is expected of us. Recognizing, however, that there is much
remaining to be done of a serious nature, of a concrete nature, of a
substantive nature, I am pleased to announce today that as part of Canada's
contribution to the work of the present session of the Conference, Canada is
inviting each of the heads of delegations present here, or a designated
representative, to attend an Outer Space Workshop in Montreal from
14 to 17 May 1987. We are also pleased to extend the invitation to observer
delegations and to representatives of the Secretariat. The dates again have
been carefully chosen (14 to 17 May) with a number of considerations in mind.
Our dilemma was to find an appropriate time and venue for such a Workshop,
given the very full schedule of the Conference on Disarmament, which is much
fuller than we would even know from the press reports or from many other
sources -- it is a very heavy schedule. We decided to follow the example of
other Member States which have hosted Workshops in their own countries with a
view to contributing to progress in the activities of the Conference on
Disarmament. It seemed appropriate under the circumstances to schedule the
Workshop for a period when at least a significant number of representatives
will already have crossed the Atlantic to participate in other activities of
the United Nations including, of course, the UNDC. It was just such an
approach, as we recall, that the United States adopted when it hosted its
Chemical Weapons Workshop in Utah in 1983. In this case we are proposing that
the Workshop take place during the period of the United Nations Disarmament
Commission, but without hampering the work of that important deliberating
body. Many participants will already have gathered in New York. The
departure for Montreal would take place on the afternoon of Thursday,
14 May 1987; work would carry on into the weekend, with participants returning
to New York early on Sunday 17 May. The Canadian Government will provide
transportation from New York to Montreal, return, and of course will cover the
expenses of related costs in Montreal as other Workshops have done. The
Workshop will focus on certain legal and technical aspects of the outer space
issue, including presentation and opportunity for round-table discussion on
both aspects. Also included will he a visit to the Satellite and Aerospace
Systems Division of SPAR AEROSPACE Limited to illustrate certain practical
capabilities and constraints regarding the space-to-space application of
space-based remote sensing systems. Although my instructions do not say so,
I feel certain we would want the Secretariat to be adequately represented also
at this Workshop.
In closing, may I apologize for not addressing a number of other
extremely important issues on our agenda, but the very discussion we have
heard today, coupled with developments behind the scenes, convinced me that it
was timely to make this announcement today, which I will confirm by letters to
all of you.
In closing, may I say that we look forward to hosting as many delegations
as possible in Montreal in May.
709
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
27
The PRESIDENT: I thank the distinguished representative of Canada for
his statement and for the kind words he expressed to me and to my country: I
now give the floor to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts
to Consider International Co-operative Measures to Detect and Identify Seismic
Events, who will introduce the progress report on the Group's twenty-third
session, contained in document CD/745.
Mr. DAHLMAN (Chairman of the Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts to
Consider International Co-operative Measures to Detect and Identify Seismic
Events): Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be here today to present to you
the results of the recent meeting of the Ad Hoc Group and to introduce to you
its progress report contained in document CD/745.
The meeting took place from 2 to 13 March 1987 and experts from
22 countries attended the session. The World Meteorological Organization was
also represented. Throughout the session we enjoyed the eminent services of
the secretariat.
I am pleased to introduce a progress report that contains substantial
progress towards the design and testing of a modern international seismic data
exchange system. The Group has reached agreement in principle on the design
of such a modern system, a system which is based on the expeditious exchange
of all available seismic information, both waveform and parameter data, for
all detected signals, and the routine use of all data at international data
centres. In developing such a system modern technology and all achievements
in seismology should be utilized.
I am now going to describe to you the Group's present view of such a
system. In doing so I will stress that all the detailed work remains to be
done, some of which involves the breaking of new ground in seismology.
The Group wants to emphasize that the new system, although considerably
modernized and improved, should have the same overall task as has earlier been
agreed upon. This is to provide comprehensive information, collected on a
global basis and processed according to agreed procedures, so as to assist
States in their national verification of a comprehensive nuclear-test ban.
The system also maintains the overall structure earlier agreed upon,
consisting of seismological stations and national facilities in participating
States contributing data through an international data exchange to specially
established international data centres.
I am now going to describe the different components of the system.
As to the global network, it must include at least 50 seismological
stations. The stations have to be located in such a way that they provide an
adequate global coverage. They should further preferably be located at sites
where the background noise level is low. Well-sited stations will increase
the overall capability of the system.
The stations of the network have to conform to certain specified
technical standards. To provide a global standard the Group agreed to work
out technical specifications of a modern prototype station called CD -- or
Conference on Disarmament -- station. Such a station should be able to
710
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
28
(Mr. Dahlman, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Group
of Scientific Experts)
collect and exchange waveform data from seismic events at all distances. The
design concept should also include so-called array stations, consisting of
number of sensors placed in a well-defined configuration to form an antenna.
An array will improve the detection capability and also provide preliminary
locations of detected events.
Even if the achievement of a homogeneous network of standardized stations
is a desirable goal it is recognized that not all stations may conform to such
standards.
It is foreseen that a national facility, tentatively called a national
data centre, should be established in each participating State as a point of
contact for the international system. Such facilities may be organized
differently in different States.
The national data centres should be responsible for providing agreed
seismic data from all participating stations within the country to the
international data centres and to receive the processed information. The data
to be expeditiously transmitted contains digital waveform data for each
detected event and basic parameter data necessary for routine determination of
location, depth and magnitude of seismic events. The routine exchange and use
of waveform data means that the number of reported parameters would be
substantially reduced compared to what was earlier foreseen. National data
centres should further supply, on request, waveform data for any specified
time interval. This would require that data are continuously recorded and
stored.
Large sequences of seismic events may sometimes occur, for example
following a large earthquake, and it may be necessary to define special
procedures for reporting the large amount of data that is generated in such
cases.
Data reporting within the global system, and thus the capability of the
system, is primarily based on signal detection at individual stations. It is
therefore essential to develop improved signal detection methods, using
automatic computer processing supplemented by interactive analyst review.
A demonstration was given by the Federal Republic of Germany during the
session, illustrating how seismological data could be efficiently retrieved,
presented and processed by interactive computer procedures. I regard this to
be a valuable and interesting demonstration of a modern national seismological
data processing facility.
The global system would require efficient data communication facilities
both between the different international data centres and between
international and national data centres. The data volumes to be exchanged are
orders of magnitudes larger than those foreseen in the previous system.
The Group agreed that high-capacity, dedicated data communication links,
using satellite transmission or other means, should be established between
711
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
29
(Mr. Dahlman, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Group
of Scientific Experts)
IDCs. These dedicated links should be operated in such a way that any data
transmitted from a national to an international data centre will automatically
and instantaneously be transmitted to all other IDCs.
These communication links should have sufficient capacity to handle also
the substantial exchange of data and information between the various IDCs.
National data centres would communicate with the international centres
using the most efficient and appropriate communication channels available in
the particular region. This might include on-demand commercial communication
links or the use of the Global Telecommunication System of the World
Meteorological Organization.
During its session the Group received a report from an informal workshop
on data communication held in Canada from 6 to 8 October 1986 -- a workshop in
which many experts from the Group participated and which, in my view, provided
valuable technical information of importance for the design of the data
exchange system.
An important new function sof international data centres will be the use
of seismic waveform data in their regular analysis. The Group agreed that
IDCs should fully utilize available waveform and parameter data in the process
of event definition, location and estimation of source parameters.
To utilize waveform data implies considerable new requirements for the
IDCs, not only with respect to data handling and analysis facilities, but also
concerning the scientific methods and procedures for analysing data from a
global network. The necessary methods and procedures for the analysis of
globally collected waveform data do not exist today and have to be developed.
This will require considerable scientific efforts.
The Group agreed that the IDCs should be open facilities providing free
and easy access to any data and analysis results. Participating States should
be able to automatically access and extract information from the data bases at
the IDCs.
As I reported in my intervention on 14 August 1986, the Group has agreed
that a large-scale experiment should be conducted in approximately 1988. The
purpose of this experiment should be to test the various components of the
system I have just described. It would include the testing of procedures to
record and extract data at national data centres and to report these data to
experimental international data centres. The reported data would be analysed
in a co-operative effort among the established experimental international data
centres, using the new methods and procedures being developed. The results of
the analysis will be reported back to the participants. The Group envisages
that experimental international data centres will be in operation during the
experiment in Canberra, Moscow, Stockholm and Washington.
712
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
30
(Mr. Dahlman, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Group
of Scientific Experts)
Experts from the institutions responsible for the preparatory work at
these four locations met in Stockholm from 21 to 23 January 1987, in an
informal workshop to discuss, in technical details, methods and procedures to
be used at international data centres. The Group received a report from this
meeting.
Such a large-scale experiment is a considerable undertaking that would
require careful planning and also a number of preparatory experiments. A
stage-by-stage approach would thus be required in which initially a number of
bilateral and multilateral experiments will be needed. Bilateral and
multilateral data exchange experiments using waveform data are already going
on between several institutions around the world. It will be essential to
conduct such preparatory experiments also to test the various proposed
functions of international data centres. This will require a close
co-operation among the four EIDCs and also the co-operation of some national
data centres.
The Ad Hoc Group suggests after consultations with the Secretary-General
of the Conference that its next session, subject to approval by the Conference
on Disarmament, should be convened from 27 July to 7 August 1987. The Group
takes note of information ?received from the secretariat that under the current
financial restrictions, meetings of the Group from 27 to 31 July would be
allocated the usual services only if they are available from within resources
already assigned to the Conference for that week, but that the meetings of the
Group from 3 to 7 August 1987 would be held with the usual conference
services. This concludes my presentation and my introduction of the Group's
progress report.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Group, Dr. Dahlman,
for his statement. I have no other members on the list of speakers for
today. Does any delegation wish to take the floor? The distinguished
representative of the Netherlands has the floor.
Mr. SCHUURMAN VOLKER (Netherlands): Mr. President, although my
Ambassador will do this more extensively at a later stage, allow me
nevertheless to congratulate you on the assumption of the Presidency.
I noted that you introduced, in your presidential statement, a quotation
from the statement recently made by the Warsaw Treaty Organization Foreign
Ministers on CW. I am sure that you were moved to do so by the importance of
the subject, and that you did not want to suggest in any way that this subject
does not have priority for others. Allow me to recall in this respect the
communiqu?f NATO Foreign Ministers in December of last year, in which they
stated that they seek with determination to reach a convention on CW that will
be effectively verifiable.
713
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
31
The PRESIDENT: I thank the distinguished representative of the
Netherlands. That means that both NATO countries and Warsaw Treaty countries
have the same aim. Does any other delegation wish to take the floor? I give
the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.
Mr. BARTHELEMY (United States of America): Mr. President, may I
congratulate you as President of the Conference for the month of April. I
would also like to congratulate Ambassador Lechuga Hevia who persistently and
most equitably led the Conference during the month of March. My delegation
pledges to you its co-operation in advancing the work of the Conference on
each and every item on its agenda and programme of work.
During the first few weeks of the 1987 session of the Conference, two
United States representatives spoke on the agenda items "Cessation of the
nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament" and "Prevention of an arms race in
outer space." I do not wish to be redundant. However, having listened to a
number of speakers in recent weeks, including today, address agenda item 5, my
delegation is struck by the need to return to several fundamental points.
They explain why we conclude that a number of our colleagues need to devote
fresh thought to agenda items 2 and 5.
The first point I wish to recall is that these two subjects cannot be
isolated from each other. It is well known that there has been East-West
competition for nearly four decades and that that competition has manifested
itself in aggression and in large forces under arms and military
expenditures. There has been competition in conventional and nuclear arms for
these four decades. What is frequently forgotten or -- in the case of some
perhaps -- obfuscated is that there is no basis for pointing to the danger of
the beginning of a new "arms race in outer space." For competition in that
area -- competition associated with nuclear arms -- is not new, or even
recent. It has existed now for 30 years. It was in early 1957 that the USSR
began advanced development and testing of new ballistic missiles with
substantially increased lift capacity. Then, in October 1957, the
Soviet Union succeeded in launching into space and inserting into orbit the
first artificial satellite, Sputnik I. It was not long after that both the
Soviet Union and the United States achieved the capability to utilize the
ballistic missile to deliver nuclear weapons on targets in other continents.
Thus, the medium of space was utilized as a central medium for pursuit of
East-West nuclear competition.
Now it is certainly true that, despite these facts, a number of important
arms limitation agreements have been reached relating to space. I mean in no
sense to belittle the importance of these agreements. Central in this area
have been the Outer Space Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The
SALT I Agreement also put certain upper limits on elements of ballistic
missile and other strategic weapon competition. But even had SALT I been
fully complied with -- and it was not fully complied with -- it could not have
prevented the substantial increase in the number and power of ballistic
missile warheads that thereafter occurred.
Now if priority belongs, as is generally acknowledged, to disarmament
measures in the field of strategic nuclear arms, then surely the strengthening
of mutual strategic security, or at least stability, through reducing the
714
narlQQifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
32
(Mr. Barthelemy, United States)
chance of a disarming first strike by any one, should be of paramount
importance. This fact was recognized by both sides at the time of the
January 1985 agreement to begin the nuclear and space talks, and again at the
Geneva and Reykjavik summits. Deep reductions in strategic offensive nuclear
forces are crucially important for a number of reasons. One of these, of
course, is that it would, if properly negotiated and structured, reduce the
danger of a first strike, strengthen strategic stability, and thus increase
mutual strategic security. In light of the agreed objectives in nuclear and
space talks (NST), it is odd indeed to hear the present state of the strategic
nuclear balance described, as it was by one speaker today, as "remarkably
balanced."
Now it is difficult to conceive of advancement, much less achievement of
the important goals set in NST, without the presence of certain basic
conditions. One of these is full compliance with existing arms limitation and
disarmament agreements in force.
A second condition is a high degree of transparency -- on both sides --
with regard to forces in being and to overall intentions. This implies not
just glasnost (or openness) -- perhaps the openness of an occasional snapshot
of an otherwise closed society. It implies a great deal more candour about
national military forces and programmes. Third, it also implies, I would
argue, avoidance of any conscious misrepresentation of the programmes and
policies of the other side. In this regard, of course, misunderstandings
leading potentially to crisis situations are far less likely in an environment
in which both sides demonstrate a high degree of transparency as regards their
policies and force programmes. I am assuming, for the moment, the absence of
aggressive intent involving use of force.
Further, in the view of my delegation, it is destructive to effective
arms limitation and disarmament if proposals are advanced that are either
purely declaratory, are ill-defined or unverifiable, or are blatantly
one-sided in their effect.
I must again call the attention of the Conference to the very peculiar
circumstance that some members, who in the past outspokenly decried the
doctrine of mutual assured destruction with regard to strategic nuclear
weapons, of recent date seem to have become not only willing to accept this
doctrine but to reject any effort to reduce reliance upon it. For how else
are we to characterize the blind opposition to strategic defence that we have
heard in this hall on several recent occasions? Despite the relentless
deployment by the Soviet Union of new offensive ballistic weapons and
concurrent pursuit of ballistic missile defence over the last 15 years, we
still encounter some who think of any Western effort to give consideration to
ballistic missile defence as irresponsible, threatening or destabilizing.
For its part, the United States has been cautious in describing the
potential for ballistic missile defence, and it has -- once again, openly --
set strict criteria for possible future ballistic missile defence programmes.
71 5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
1-1
CD/PV.402
33
(Mr. Barthelemy, United States)
It has also stressed the importance of negotiations in this area and of the
maintenance and strengthening of stability.
Contrast this serious approach with claims advanced simultaneously that,
firstly, any defence against ballistic missiles is a dream, and, secondly,
such technological breakthroughs are going unavoidably to destabilize the
strategic balance and inexorably lead to war.
Representatives at this Conference owe it to themselves, to their
Governments, to the people they represent and to the nations that do not have
the opportunity to sit at this table to acquaint themselves seriously with the
issues on our agenda. If those responsibilities are taken seriously, the
opportunity exists to influence favourably the bilateral negotiations on
nuclear and space arms. Whereas, if delegations are uninformed, they court
the danger of encouraging one side in the bilateral nuclear negotiations to
believe that its goals can be achieved without compromise and without taking
full account of the security of the other side.
In this regard I am reminded that some years ago a number of members of
the Conference on Disarmament outspokenly, urged that the membe States of NATO
would serve international security by responding to the deployment of more
than one thousand long-range intermediate nuclear force warheads on the
continent of Europe by taking no action. When, nonetheless, a limited
deployment of such weapons on the Western side was decided on and begun, we
see that the initial deployer belatedly agreed on the mutual goal of the
elimination of these weapons totally from the European continent.
Could agreement on this interim objective of zero/zero deployment of
long-range INF have been achieved without deployments? I leave the answer to
that question to any delegation still in doubt to ponder upon.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the distinguished representative of the
United States for his statement. Again, does any delegation wish to take the
floor? This is not the case.
I have requested the secretariat to circulate an informal paper
containing a timetable of meetings to be held by the Conference and its
subsidiary bodies during the coming week. The timetable has been prepared in
consultation with the Chairmen of the subsidiary bodies. I would also like to
say that I talked to Ambassador Pugliese, the Chairman of the Outer Space
Committee, and he indicated that he may organize a meeting of that Committee
on Tuesday. However, this will be decided later. As usual, the timetable is
only indicative and subject to change, if necessary. I give the floor to the
distinguished representative of Sweden.
Mr. EKEUS (Sweden): Mr. President, I hope I will later on be able to
welcome you in a more formal way, but anyhow I welcome you now to the
Presidency of the Conference for this month. You have just distributed the
timetable of meetings that does not contain any reference to a meeting of the
716
r.nnv Anoroved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.402
34
(Mr. Ekeus, Sweden)
Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. However,
you have just said that a meeting will be scheduled for next week, as expected
and welcomed by my delegation.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the distinguished representative of Sweden, and I
am sure that the distinguished representative of Italy, Ambassador Pugliese,
Chairman of the Outer Space Committee, will take that wish fully into
account. If there is no objection, I shall take it that the Conference adopts
the timetable of meetings.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT: As there is no other business to consider, I intend now
to adjourn the plenary meeting. The next plenary meeting of the Conference on
Disarmament will he held on Tuesday, 7 April 1987, at 10 a.m. The plenary
meeting stands adjourned.
The meeting rose at 12.35 p.m.
717
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDPg2_ni1RRPnnni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.403
7 April 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRD PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 7 April 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
Mr. M. Vejvoda (Czechoslovakia)
GE.87-60540/8185E 718
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
2
The PRESIDENT: I declare open the 403rd plenary meeting of the
Conference on Disarmament. The Conference starts today its consideration of
agenda item 6, entitled "Effective International Arrangements to Assure
Non-Nuclear-Weapon States Against the Use or Threat of Use of Nuclear
Weapons", in accordance with its programme of work. In conformity with
rule 30 of the rules of procedure, however, members wishing to do so may raise
any subject relevant to the work of the Conference.
At the request of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention
of an Arms Race in Outer Space, I wish to inform the Conference that the
Ad Hoc Committee will hold its first meeting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m., in
this conference room. Prior to that, at 3 p.m., the Group of 21 will hold a
brief meeting in the same room. I have on my list of speakers the
representatives of the United States of America, the German Democratic
Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. I now give the floor to the
first speaker, the representative of the United States of America,
Ambassador Hansen.
Mr. HANSEN (United States of America): Today I would like to devote my
statement to the negotiations on the prohibition of chemical weapons.
Under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Rolf Ekeus of Sweden, the
negotiations in the 1987 session are well under way. The organization of work
into clusters, as suggested by Ambassador Ekeus, has given new structure to
the discussions and seems to have helped them move ahead. The cluster
co-ordinators -- Mr. Nieuwenhuys of Belgium, Mr. Macedo of Mexico, and
Dr. Krutzsch of the German Democratic Republic -- are making important
contributions, as well, to advancing the complex and detailed work of
negotiating the provisions of the Convention.
Clearly, the work on a chemical weapons ban has been intensifying over
the last year. In part, this can be attributed to the commitment by
President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, made at the
November 1985 Summit in Geneva, to accelerate efforts to conclude an effective
and verifiable international convention on this matter. Both the
United States and Soviet delegations have helped to turn this commitment into
practical progress.
Since the beginning of the 1987 CD session, important changes have
appeared in the position of some delegations, and the United States Government
is carefully assessing the political and substantive significance of these
developments. In this context, I would note that we welcome these
developments but emphasize that we will not accept a watered-down, ineffective
convention. The negotiation of an effective convention is a complex
undertaking in which details are of great significance. The CD must therefore
pursue this objective with appropriate care and deliberation.
That said, my statement today contains suggestions and proposals I hope
will advance the further work of the Committee in a number of important areas.
Over the course of the chemical weapons negotiations the United States
has stressed that effective verification provisions are essential for building
confidence in compliance. But, clearly, confidence is not something that
719
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001nnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
3
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
suddenly appears the day the convention enters into force. Unless some degree
of confidence among States already exists, it must be created, or reaching
agreement will be an extremely difficult task. Thus, the building of
confidence must be a step-by-step process that begins well before the
negotiations have been completed.
Confidence-building should start with greater openness on the part of all
members of the CD. The United States is concerned that some other States
participating in the negotiations have been extremely secretive about their
chemical weapons programmes. If countries possessing chemical weapons refuse
to acknowledge such capabilities during the negotiations, confidence is
seriously undermined. Therefore, we must all agree that greater openness is
essential for building the kind of confidence States must have before they
will be willing to give up their own chemical weapons. The United States has
consistently stressed this concern in bilateral negotiations and wishes to
make this point clear in the multilateral context.
The fact that the United States maintains a chemical weapons deterrent
and retaliatory capability has long been a matter of public record. On
10 July 1986, the United States delegation sought to promote the
confidence-building process by unilaterally providing its negotiating partners
here with further detailed information about its stockpiles of chemical
weapons, including information on stockpile locations and the chemicals in the
stockpile. We urge others to follow our example of openness.
On 5 March of this year the Soviet Union finally made an oblique
reference to its possession of chemical weapons in a plenary statement. The
United States welcomes this small, helpful step by the Soviet Union. We hope
it was only the first step towards increasing openness by the Soviet Union and
its allies about their chemical weapons programmes. Other States could
usefully take similar steps.
In this connection we have also noted the candid statement by the
Foreign Minister of France on 19 February that his country is considering
endowing itself with a limited and purely deterrent capability in the chemical
weapons field.
It should not be forgotten that over the years a number of States,
primarily from the Western Group, have made clear in the CD that they do not
possess chemical weapons. Such statements can only be welcomed.
Many CD member States, however, have said nothing. Most undoubtedly do
not possess chemical weapons; but it would be very useful for them to say
so. Unfortunately, it cannot be ruled out that other States participating in
the negotiations do possess chemical weapon capabilities. For example, we
would welcome clarification by the Iranian delegation of press reports
concerning an Iranian chemical weapons capability.
Because of the magnitude of the chemical weapons capabilities possessed
by the Soviet Union, the United States has stressed to Soviet authorities the
importance of greater openness. But the principle applies equally to other
States. Within the CD, we call upon all our negotiating partners to indicate
possession or non-possession of chemical weapons and chemical weapons
720
nni-laccifiPri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
4
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
production facilities. It would be useful if the secretariat were to compile
all relevant statements, with the assistance of delegations making them. We
also call upon the Soviet Union, and any others who acknowledge possession of
chemical weapons, to provide more detailed information, as the United States
has already done.
Our objective is to rid the world of chemical weapons. This can only
happen if all of the States possessing chemical weapons become parties to a
future convention. Obviously, this will not happen automatically. The
members of the CD need to consider carefully how to promote the widest
possible adherence to the convention. It is not too soon to address the
question of how to obtain participation in the convention by as many as
possible of the 15 or so States that are currently believed to possess a
chemical weapons capability. Similarly, States need to consider the risk
posed by States which possess chemical weapons remaining outside the
convention. What can be done to minimize this risk? These are, of course,
hard questions, but they must be faced.
I would now like to address a number of specific negotiating issues
relating to the CW Convention.
One useful result of the intersessional negotiations was agreement that
article III of the rolling text should include a provision to declare any
"facility or establishment" for the development of chemical weapons. However,
the discussion showed that the scope of the key phrase "facility or
establishment" was very unclear. Thus, a footnote in the rolling text states
that more work is necessary. To assist in resolving this matter the
United States proposes that the phrase in question refer to facilities or
establishments that "specialize" in chemical weapons development. This would
provide a practical approach that covers the locations of direct concern. It
would avoid covering facilities that may have only an indirect or one-time
involvement, such as a wind-tunnel that might on occasion have been used for
aerodynamic tests.
Much has already been achieved in Cluster I in developing procedures for
the declaration of chemical weapons and for monitoring the declared stocks
prior to destruction.
One important step was made when the Soviet delegation announced on
17 February that it could agree to destruction of all chemical weapons and
would no longer insist on a right to divert some chemicals to peaceful
purposes. This was a constructive step. It was, however, curious to hear the
Soviet accusation on 5 March that the United States had then blocked agreement
in this area by changing its previous position. At the bottom of this
tempest-in-a-teapot was the United States view that such common and innocuous
commercial chemicals as sulphur and isopropyl alcohol that were stored for
chemical weapons purposes need not be destroyed and might be diverted for
civilian use. Apparently the Soviet delegation had failed to notice that the
United States adopted this view more than a year ago, in early 1986, as a move
toward the Soviet position. To be castigated now for moving to the Soviet
position calls into question the seriousness of the Soviet accusation. None
the less, since our attempted concession has apparently become an obstacle in
the negotiations, we will resolve the problem by returning to our original
721
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Rnnn1nn1nnnn1_A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
5
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
position that all chemical weapons stocks, including harmless precursors
stored for chemical weapons purposes, should be destroyed. There should now
be full agreement in this area.
With respect to chemical weapons production facilities, my delegation has
suggested that work in Cluster II focus initially in areas where there is
broad agreement. We believe it is appropriate for the Committee to examine
how a verification system for eliminating such facilities would function. My
delegation has introduced an informal outline to assist in this examination.
To help these discussions move forward, we are circulating today a paper
containing more detailed suggestions for a step-by-step approach to verifying
the elimination of CW production facilities.
A clear idea of the verification steps necessary for international
assurance that parties are eliminating their chemical weapons production
facilities is essential from the beginning. For an effective verification
system, we must ensure that the measures for declarations, inspections and
on-site monitoring with instruments are carefully integrated with specific
verification objectives. Before one can decide what to declare, the purpose
of declarations must be clear. Before one can write procedures or determine.
the frequency of inspection, one must know the objectives of an inspection.
Before one can decide on what types of instruments may be needed, one must
know what objectives instrument monitoring must satisfy. In our outline, we
propose such objectives for each facet of the verification system for chemical
weapons production facilities.
In article V we also note that there are still fundamental issues to be
resolved about how chemical weapons production facilities are to be
eliminated. However, we believe that broad agreement in principle already
exists on the general approach to verification in this regard. In our view
much important work can be done toward converting this agreement in principle
into provisions for a verification without prejudging the remaining issues.
The final issue on which I would like to comment today is challenge
inspection. This subject remains one of the key negotiating problems,
although by no means the only one. There seems to be broad agreement that
quick action is needed to carry out inspections and that in at least two cases
inspection will be mandatory. While we regard the evolution of the Soviet
approach in a positive light, we view the new Soviet position announced on
17 February as being internally inconsistent and falling far short of what is
needed for an effective challenge provision.
Allow me to give two examples of why the Soviet position is internally
inconsistent.
In his statement of 17 February the distinguished representative of the
Soviet Union said that the Soviet Union will be pressing for the most
stringent system of supervision and verification. The USSR has argued for
strict routine inspection provisions for the chemical industry. Yet it
continues to oppose mandatory challenge inspection, the most stringent system
proposed, for the vast majority of plants in the chemical industry that it is
ostensibly so concerned about. For under the Soviet approach, only the
relatively few plants already subject to declaration would be open to
722
npciassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
6 ?
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
mandatory challenge inspection. Soviet statements about stringent
verification and the detailed Soviet position are clearly not consistent with
each other.
Furthermore, the Soviet delegation emphasizes the importance and utility
of alternatives to on-site inspection. It has suggested such alternative
measures as viewing a facility from outside and collecting chemical samples
nearby. But it cannot explain, or has not explained, for example, how these
or any other alternative measures would be useful in determining whether or
not a suspect munitions bunker contains chemical weapons. It seems obvious
that only inspection of the bunker itself will permit an inspector to
determine whether or not there are chemical weapons inside. But if the Soviet
delegation knows of an alternative to inspection that would resolve such
questions, such alternative should in our view be thoroughly explained. The
United States is not opposed to discussing effective alternatives, but if an
alternative cannot be agreed the mandatory right to access within the 48-hour
period must remain.
The issue of challenge inspection will be discussed soon in Cluster IV.
We welcome the examination of each facet of challenge inspection, as is
planned. Such an approach can help to focus on the substantive merit of
methods for ensuring effective verifications this, rather than arguments
based on authorship, is what is required. The United States delegation will
participate actively and constructively in the forthcoming discussion. We
will not, however, relax our standards for effective verification.
When a revised version of the "rolling text" is prepared at the end of
April, it should demonstrate that much has been accomplished during the Spring
part of the 1987 session. But it will also show that much more remains to be
done, not only in resolving key issues, but also in working out the detailed
procedures required for effective implementation. Much will remain to be
accomplished in drafting effective provisions and in establishing the level of
confidence necessary to make a chemical weapons convention a reality. That
should be a challenge to all of us.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the distinguished representative of the
United States of America for his statement, and now give the floor to the
distinguished representative of the German Democratic Republic,
Ambassador Rose.
Mr. ROSE (German Democratic Republic): Comrade President, first of all
permit me to congratulate you on behalf of the delegation of the German
Democratic Republic on the assumption of your important duties as President of
the Conference on Disarmament in the month of April.
We take utmost pleasure in the fact that the final and, thus,
particularly significant phase of the spring session is being held under your
able and skilled guidance. As an outstanding diplomat of your country, and
equipped with rich experience in disarmament affairs, you are in a very
special way cut out for this office. And then, of course, you are the
representative of a fraternal socialist country that plays an important part
in the international endeavour to achieve disarmament. I wish to assure you
of my delegation's closest co-operation. I should also like to take this
7 2 3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100innnni-et
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
7
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
opportunity to express to the representative of Socialist Cuba,
Comrade Lechuga Hevia, who served in the President's chair last month, my
sincere gratitude for the excellent job done. My delegation greatly
appreciated the dedication he displayed in presiding over the Conference in
the past few weeks.
My delegation would like to make some observations on the Progress Report
to the Conference on Disarmament on the Twenty-Third Session of the
Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts to Consider International Co-operative
Measures to Detect and Identify Seismic Events, put out as document CD/745.
Our thanks go to the Group's Chairman, Dr. Ola Dahlmann, and the other experts
for the competent and constructive work they have done. Their efforts
represent an essential part of the activities the Conference is undertaking in
order to bring about a comprehensive nuclear-test ban. Every single
scientific and technical and methodological problem solved by the Group is a
contribution towards progress on an NTB treaty and helps clear the road of
remaining obstacles.
The Report provides a useful overview of the various components of which
a seismic data exchange system will be made up. In fact, it signals that
obvious headway has been achieved in devising a global international system to
exchange seismic data -- a system which will routinely rely on waveform
(Level II) data for all seismic events. As far as preparations for the
international experiment on the exchange of such data are concerned, progress
has been recorded as well.
I think we should commend the Group on the single-mindedness with which
it has tackled its tasks, using the latest seismological findings and the most
modern data acquisition, transmission and processing techniques. If you
compare the present Report with previous ones, what leaps to the eye is that
automation and computerization are becoming more and more important in
international seismic data exchanges.
The scientific and technical issues to be discussed and resolved by the
Group are very complex indeed. Even though the mandate requires that they be
dealt with from a methodological point of view only, everyone will readily
admit that details may very well produce difficulties. It will be easier to
overcome them if national efforts in the relevant fields are increased and
international co-operation is deepened.
In approving the Progress Report, my delegation endorses also the
recommendations advanced in paragraph 13. As has been said already, timely
and thorough preparations for the international experiment on the exchange of
Level II seismic data, scheduled to be conducted in 1988, will be of major
importance. For this reason, the Group of Scientific Experts must at all
times be afforded the working conditions it needs in order to carry on
smoothly. Within the scope of the resources available to the Conference on
Disarmament in the week from 27 to 31 July 1987, the Group should, therefore,
be provided with the conference services required to ensure effective work.
The global seismic data exchange system envisaged will have a crucial
role to play in reliably verifying compliance with a future treaty on the
724
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
8
(Mr. Rose, German Democratic Republic)
cessation of nuclear-weapon tests. The meaningful work done by the Group of
Experts should induce the Conference, in parallel, to commence and vigorously
pursue the drafting of all the elements of an NTB treaty.
Here is what the Foreign Ministers of the States Parties to the Warsaw
Treaty, who met in Moscow recently, had to say on this subject (see CD/748):
"The Warsaw Treaty Member States reaffirm their determination to seek a
general and complete ban on nuclear tests, and are in favour of the start of
talks with a view to concluding an agreement on this issue as soon as
possible".
In his Message of 1 April to the participants in the Conference on
Disarmament, Comrade Gustav Husak, President of the Czechoslovak Socialist
Republic, has very aptly stated that the way States approach the solution of
this issue is a clear indication of their attitude towards nuclear disarmament
as a whole.
In conclusion, my delegation would like to reiterate its view that the
Conference on Disarmament should set up an appropriate ad hoc committee right
now.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of the German Democratic.
Republic for his statement and for the kind words he addressed to the
President and my country. I now give the floor to the last speaker on my list
for today, the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Ambassador von StUlpnagel.
Mr. von STULPNAGEL (Federal Republic of Germany): Thank you,
Mr. President. It is a particular pleasure for me to congratulate you on your
accession to the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament for this and, I
assume, the coming month. We know that you will lead us with relaxed
sovereignty and we promise you our full support.
It is now just about 25 years on which this Conference can look back in
its uninterrupted multilateral efforts towards armament control and
disarmament. The concrete hazards and the undefinable risks which threaten us
in the era of weapons of mass destruction compel all delegations to face their
political responsibility for the present and future generations of mankind and
to make every effort for constructive thinking, analytical dialogue and
creative confidence-building. Confidence-building, which is at the heart of
armament control and disarmament requires the preparedness for compromise and
an objective evaluation of given facts. There is no other global negotiating
forum for disarmament, and consequently there is no doubt about the competence
of the Conference on Disarmament. We are all well aware of our Conference's
potential and its limitations, and we know that one of its most important
features is the "constructive parallelism" of multilateral and bilateral
negotiations which remains essential and has properties to be developed
further.
My delegation's evaluation of the pOtential of our Conference does not
allow me to share the pessimism expressed in statements made at the start of
this year's session. Rather I would join the voices of hope which were
equally expressed. Ever since the United States and the Soviet Union agreed
725
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
9
(Mr. von Stulpnagel, Federal Republic of Germany)
on preventing an arms race in space and terminating it on Earth, East-West
relations have visibly acquired momentum. The talks of Reykjavik have shown
that both super-Powers have developed an active interest in establishing a
stable relationship and concluding substantive agreements. This resolution
can be instrumental to create new perspectives for East-West relations and for
disarmament and arms control and this will concern not only bilateral but also
multilateral negotiations. The dialogue on security of all sides has been
enhanced considerably during the last few years and has laid the foundation
for genuine contributions which our negotiations can make towards the creation
of a more peaceful world with military postures on lower levels. What is
required from this Conference is to explore the available possibilities and
not to let any opportunity for agreement pass.
In my delegation's opinion, a fundamental redefinition of the
relationship between bilateral and multilateral negotiations is not needed.
Their relative weight will by itself bring about an order of precedence. what
matters is to recall the premises on which success in the individual forums
depends.
The latest proposals for an agreement aimed at eliminating Soviet and
American long-range intermediate nuclear forces (LRINF), which were originally
submitted at Reykjavik and have recently been updated, hold out realistic
prospects of an early bilateral settlement of this problem.
The elimination of all LRINF in Europe would be in keeping with the
objective energetically pursued by the members of the Western defence alliance
since the 1979 two-track decision. The early conclusion of an agreement would
be a visible sign of the seriousness and credibility of the arms control
efforts. It would generate important stimuli for other areas of negotiation,
not least in multilateral forums.
The document of the Stockholm Conference of September 1986 is a tangible
proof that multilateral agreements are possible, and the first special session
of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to disarmament showed, by
agreeing on an extensive Final Document, that consensus is essentially
possible on such far-reaching issues as the principles underlying disarmament
and arms control measures. The fact that many of these principles still have
to be translated into practical disarmament measures of States does not
invalidate these principles; instead it demonstrates that the international
community still lacks the requisite associated confidence, political
determination and readiness to acknowledge the legitimate security needs of
other States or groups of States.
It is our conviction that security is the central element of any policy
for disarmament and arms control. The Final Document of the first special
session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament recognizes the
principle that, setting out from the need to build confidence, disarmament
measures should be achieved in an equitable and balanced manner so that each
country's right to security is guaranteed and it is ensured that at no stage
an individual country or a group of countries may derive advantages from these
measures over other countries.
726
narinQqifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
10
(Mr. von StOlpnagel, Federal Republic of Germany)
The highly intricate interdependence of global and regional security
structures necessitates cautious and balanced tuning of decisions and
measures. The varying degrees of importance accorded to them cannot be
exchanged at random. While regional imbalances undermine the global balance,
a significant global imbalance may degrade regional efforts. This applies to
weapon categories and security structures alike.
Under the prevailing conditions, agreements on concrete arms limitation
and disarmament measures can only be achieved step by step, if security is to
remain undiminished. At each stage of reductions and limitations of forces
and armaments, countries must continue to enjoy credible security.
Experience shows that a maximalistic approach can obstruct one's view of
what is feasible. As a result, the potential of consensus which would permit
long-term realization of more extensive goals remains unused. My delegation
is pleased to note that this perception is becoming more widespread. With
this in mind, we would like to make some practical remarks on current areas of
activity of this Conference.
An example which shows that consensus is emerging gradually on even
highly controversial issues of this Conference are the efforts being made to
re-establish an ad hoc committee on item 1, comprehensive nuclear-test ban.
Ambassador Butler deserves our thanks for having once again expressed quite
clearly in his speech on 5 March what my delegation had stated on
17 February: that it is time to transpose the growing common ground achieved
in this sphere into practical work. It is clear to my delegation that the
Conference can best perform such practical work by setting up an
ad hoc committee. In so doing, one should not place undue emphasis on the
formulation of its mandate.
In this connection, my delegation regards as encouraging the remarks made
by Ambassador Rose on 17 March on the subject of an NTB/CTB. We are pleased
to note that they reflect an idea which we too presented to the Conference:
that a satisfactory verification system for monitoring compliance with an
NTBT/CTBT should be operative when the desired treaty comes into force.
The contribution on the subject of verification which we have made of
late at this Conference and in the Group of Seismic Experts serves to outline
the associated tasks. While suggesting that the verification problems can
certainly be solved, we must not forget how much work is still needed until a
global seismic monitoring system can be achieved. MY delegation has
receatedly pointed out that in a.world in which we hope there will soon be
fewer nuclear weapons, any circumvention of a comprehensive teat ban woulc-1
present an unacceptable security risk for the countries faithful to the tzeaty
establishing the ban. Not least for this reason, a solution to the rather
artificial problem of peaceful nuclear explosions must be found which is
genuinely safisfactory and acceptable from the point of view of security.
As the statements made by the highest representatives of the Government
of the Federal Republic of Germany on various occasions demonstrate, a
comprehensive test ban treaty remains a primary arms control objective for my
country. In my delegation's opinion, it is high time for this Conference to
get down to forward-looking concrete work.
727
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
11
(Mr. von Stalpnagel, Federal Republic of Germany)
The opportunities emerging in the field of nuclear disarmament call for
increased efforts to establish a stable balance of conventional forces.
Especially in Europe, the conventional arsenals are excessive and unbalanced
to our disadvantage. No country can claim to be more interested than the
Federal Republic of Germany in strengthening stability and security throughout
Europe by means of greater openness and a verifiable, comprehensive and stable
balance of conventional forces at a low level. It is my country which is
affected most by the hazards emanating from the existing conventional
imbalance. In view of the devastating potential of modern conventional
weapons, the effects of a conventional conflict would be immeasurably greater
than the destruction caused during World War II.
In the North Atlantic Alliance we therefore strongly urged that new steps
be taken towards conventional arms control. In the decision taken by NATO
Foreign Ministers on 11 December 1986, in which we participated actively, we
wanted to make it quite clear that the Alliance adheres to its strategy of
preventing any war, not just a nuclear war but also a conventional war.
It is against this background that we view the discussion of items 2
and 3, whose treatment does not require, in my delegation's opinion, the
establishment of a subsidiary body of this Conference with special powers. It
would appear expedient to examine the specific features of the highly
different regional security situations and potential developments so as first
to obtain a clear picture of the arrangements needed, of the practicable steps
and feasible developments. Extensive procedural debates on the lature and
form of a suitable framework for discussion of these items clear:v prevents
the commencement of deliberations for achieving such clarity. My delegation
believes that last year's open-ended consultations or, respective'', informal
plenaries provide a suitable framework for differentiated work.
In this connection, the question arises of what importance rema ns
concerning "effective international arrangements to assure non-nucle --weapon
States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons", the so-c lied
negative security assurances, in the perspective of nuclear disarmamel It
is obvious that concrete measures, as proposed in the bilateral negoti tions
at Geneva, would have an impact on the urgency and on the nature and sc)pe of
negative security assurances. However, these should, in my delegation's
opinion, differ according to the respective prevailing constellation.
Agreement on a negotiated common formula for incorporating all five nuclear
States into an unconditional, identical security assurance for
non-nuclear-weapon States stands little chance of being translated into
practice without prior agreement on stabilizing ceilings for weapons and
forces. My delegation therefore suggests that the treatment of item 6 be
closely linked to the discussion of items 2 and 3, with unrestricted use bein?
made of the existing mandate.
As regards the abolition of chemical weapons, my delegation has spoken on
this subject on various occasions of late and expressed its satisfaction at
the visible advances being made in individual sectors. In its view, the
negotiations have acquired a momentum which not only reflects the deep concern
universally felt about this scourge facing mankind, but also increasingly
testifies to the political obligation to prevent further instrumentalization
of this category of weapons. These negotiations simultaneously benefit from
728
Par - Sanitized CODV Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
12
(Mr. von Stillpnagel, Federal Republic of Germany)
new expectations and proposals in other areas of arms control, for example in
respect of verification problems. The growing momentum of the negotiations in
elaborating language must now be fully exploited so as to conclude as early as
possible a chemical weapons convention -- a subject to which my Government
accords the highest priority.
My delegation's concentration on the main elements of the convention is
meant to be a practical contribution. All delegations know the dilemma
between the necessary political oversight and decision on one side, and the
unavoidable scrutiny of the small print on the other. We must be guided by
the principle that the underlying uniform commitments for all countries must
first be dealt with politically and then be formulated in no vague terms. For
example, only by an adequate verification regime can all countries be
convinced that a convention banning chemical weapons worldwide is the most
reliable guarantee that they will not be used. Such verification must be both
effective and practicable. Striking the necessary balance is a major task for
this Conference. We feel that on the central political issue of a chemical
weapons convention, that of on-challenge inspections, this balance has 'been
achieved satisfactorily in the British proposal in Working Paper CD/713. We
therefore continue to strongly support this proposal.
My delegation was one of the first to underscore, by means of various
contributions and proposals, its determination to participate in the efforz3
to prevent an arms race in outer space as part of the complementary role
played by the Conference in this sphere. My delegation has never succumbed to
the illusion that the overriding criteria of stability in outer space can be
resolved in multilateral agreements before decisive breakthroughs have been
made in bilateral negotiations. However, in this connection we have always
striven for "constructive parallelism" and supported realistic, complementary
efforts. We regret that the analytical step towards identifying lacunae and
shortcomings in existing law on outer space has not been taken until now.
Though shortcomings have been defined and deficiencies deplored, they have
neither been linked to one another nor examined with a view to achieving
concrete "remedial measures". My delegation therefore feels that, before
unanimous agreement has been reached on definitions and interpretations, it is
not expedient to examine associated compliance aspects of existing or intended
activities in outer space. We consider it necessary and advisable to evaluate
in a coherent fashion what legal arrangements are needed and indeed feasible
for a prohibitory convention. which is seemingly not possible at present.
In the field of radiological weaoons, this Conference has purseu
rimerous, diverse apaches. 7:7_ has not been possible to continue aion?:
7ertain paths because of a clasn of interests, some of which had
very little to do with the central problem. The question now arises ot
whether certain national interests are of such great importance in terms of
security that individual countries pursuing their own interests can in the
long run hamper or prevent solutions in this field, thus thwarting the
intentions of the overwhelming majority of delegations. A serious appraisal
of the respective positions is needed. My delegation is convinced that such
an appraisal will then permit genuine progress on the two items for which such
extensive conceptual preparations have been made, namely a convention banning
radiological weapons as well as the protection of nuclear plants against
attacks.
729
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-o1168Rnnninninnnni_A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
13
(Mr. von Stulpnagel, Federal Republic of Germany)
The limitation of my suggestions to what is realistically feasible is the
outcome of a pragmatic approach geared to achieving tangible results. It does
not by any means detract from the role of this Conference or from the sum
total of its legitimate and more extensive tasks. Security structures are of
a fragile nature. Security and stability at a lower level of armaments and on
better conditions require balanced interaction of bilateral 'and multilateral
efforts. The concentration on ultimate goals must not make us blind to the
requisite, feasible steps leading to those goals. It is these steps that
afford us opportunities and impose responsibilities on us in our ongoing work.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of the Federal Republic of
Germany, Ambassador von Stulpnagel, for his statement and for the kind words
he addressed to me. I have no other speakers on my list, so allow me to ask
if there is any delegation wishing to take the floor at this stage. I
recognize the distinguished representative of the USSR, Ambassador Nazarkin.
Mr. NAZARKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): First of all, Comrade President, may I congratulate you, the
representative of the fraternal country of socialist Czechoslovakia, on your
assumption of the duties of President of the Conference on Disarmament for
April. The Soviet delegation is convinced that under your leadership the
Conference will be able to achieve positive results in its work. We wish you
every success in this difficult and responsible post. We would also like to
thank your predecessor, the distinguished Ambassador of Cuba,
Comrade Lechuga Hevia, for the contribution which he made to the work of the
Conference as President of this body.
First of all, I would like to make a few comments on the statements we
have just heard by the representative of the United States,
Ambassador Hansen. I wish to note the positive elements contained in his
statement. The United States has declared that it will remove one of the
obstacles to the agreement on the question of the destruction of CW stocks.
This is undoubtedly a positive development, and I hope that the delegation of
the United States will pursue the chemical weapons negotiations in the same
positive spirit.
The distinguished representative of the United States raised the question
of challenge inspection. That is today one of the most important issues
facing us in the chemical weapons negotiations, and the exchange of views on
it is undoubtedly essential. Evidently, such an exchange is also appropriate
in a less formal situation, and on the whole this is happening. Therefore, it
would hardly be correct for me to embark on a detailed discussion of the
comments made today by Ambassador Hansen. We will have occasion to do this in
other circumstances. I would just today like to point out that,
unfortunately, on the basis of the comments made by Ambassador Hansen on
challenge inspection, we see that there still remains the position which the
United States adopted three years ago, back in 1984, concerning the automatic
nature of challenge inspections.
This will not be conducive to progress in the negotiations, considering
in particular the fact that many other delegations have made very varied
comments on other ways in which the question of challenge inspection could be
resolved. Ambassador Hansen, as far as I could see, showed interest in the
730
im,,,,Inecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
14
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
idea of alternative measures. I would not like to deprive the authors of that
idea -- it was put forward as you know, by the United Kingdom delegation --
of the opportunity of justifying their own proposal. But in any case the
detailed exchange of views on the nature of alternative measures could well
take place during a less formal exchange of views.
I would like to appeal to the United States delegation to give serious
consideration to the British proposal and adopt a more positive and
constructive view of it, as it enjoys broad support in the negotiations. In
fact today we heard support for it confirmed by the delegation of the
Federal Republic of Germany in the statement of Ambassador von StUlpnagel. I
think that on the basis of the British proposal movement towards a solution to
the problem of challenge inspection could be achieved.
Now, the matter of confidence. Of course, it is extremely important, and
obviously it cannot be built in one day. I noted that Ambassador Hansen made
a positive appreciation of the steps recently taken in that direction by the
Soviet side. At the same time, I must point out that confidence-building is a
two-way process. Ambassador Hansen referred to the fact that the
United States has published data on its chemical weapons -- I have the
following to say in that connection: of course the publication of some
weapons data is evidence of a certain level of openness, but from my
standpoint, confidence would be strengthened much more by information, not on
armaments or plans to produce binary weapons, but on arms reductions or on the
renunciation of plans to develop armaments. Such steps would indeed lead to
the building of true confidence. In this connection, I would refer to the
appeals made by the meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the States
Parties to the Warsaw Treaty, in March this year, not to undertake any steps
which might complicate the achievement of mutually acceptable accords in the
negotiations or slow them down, and also not to produce chemical weapons,
including binary or multi-component varieties. Such measures would in fact
help to develop confidence and hasten successful progress in the chemical
weapons negotiations.
Since I have taken the floor, I would like to take this opportunity also
to make a few comments on an earlier United States statement made on 2 April.
The representative of the United States, Mr. Barthelemy, then raised what
he called "fundamental points" on items 2 and 5 on our agenda. I would like
to remind you that my statement on 3 March referred to this topic too. This
circumstance, obviously, gives me the right to assume that my statement of
3 March was one of those to which the delegation of the United States was
reacting, although our delegation was not directly referred to by name.
must say that I was not fully sure that Mr. Barthelemy was referring to my
statement even after reading through the text of Mr. Barthelemy's statement,
which he was kind enough to provide me with, after the meeting on 2 April.
The point is that although both he and I were considering the self-same
matters, I unfortunately did not see any direct reaction in his statement to
the arguments which I adduced. Nor did I see any reaction to the questions
which I raised. In a desire to turn a "dialogue of the deaf" into a true
dialogue, I thought it appropriate to return to the conceptual positions
referred to on both 2 April and 3 March and I will try to do that as briefly
as I can.
731
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000inninnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
15
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
If we look at post-war history, we see that each new turn of the screw of
the arms race, which is precisely the most characteristic phenomenon of this
period of human history, has been justified by the United States by the fact
that supposedly it has to re-establish the balance of power vis-a-vis the
Soviet Union. Of course, there are no scales where you can weigh up and
compare the military power of the two sides. However, it is useful not to
forget that it was not the USSR but the United States which first produced
the atom bomb. The United States surrounded our territory with a network of
military bases with jets which could deliver atom bombs to destroy our towns.
Our development of intercontinental ballistic missiles which made it possible
to deliver nuclear warheads against targets in United States territory was
only a response to the nuclear threat to which we were subjected by the
United States, not the other way round.
This was not the beginning of an arms race in outer space, as pictured
by Mr. Barthelemy on 2 April. We were indeed the first to launch an
artificial Earth satellite. This launch was carried out in accordance with
the scientific research programme of the International Geophysical Year, in
other words solely for peaceful purposes, and again it did not signify the
beginning of the arms race in outer space. For the time being, there are no
strike space weapons in outer space. There are military satellites --
early-warning satellites, communications and navigation satellites and so
forth -- but space is, for the time being, free of weapons which shoot. That
is precisely why the question is now to prevent an arms race in outer space,
not to allow strike space weapons, that is to say, weapons which could destroy
any kind of target. By the way, this was set down in the Soviet-American
document adopted here in Geneva, in January 1985, as an objective in the
Soviet-American negotiations. There it is stated that the object:7e of the
negotiations will be agreements aimed at "preventing an arms race I space and
preventing it on Earth, at limiting and reducing nuclear arms and a
strengthening strategic stability". I stress that the reference the e is to
the prevention of an arms race in outer space.
But now this aim is being pushed further and further away as the -esult
of the attempts by the United States Administrations to deploy strike .oace
weapons within the context of the Strategic Defence Initiative. In my
statement on 3 March, I dwelt in detail on the nature of the SDI, on the
direct link between offensive and defensive weapons, and I also noted the
contradiction between the doctrine of nuclear deterrence and attempts to put
the SDI over as the avenue towards the disappearance of nuclear weapons.
Mr. Barthelemy did not dispute the arguments contained in my statement made on
3 March, and thus I allow myself to draw the following conclusions.
First, it is impossible to deny the unbreakable link between strategic
defensive and offensive weapons when determining the balance of power. The
acquisition by one side of a defensive capability is tantamount to its
acquisition of supplementary strike capacity.
Second, it is impossible to deny that weapons launched into space in
order to hit intercontinental ballistic missiles may also attack the
satellites of the other side, and also with further elaboration, could be used
732
nna-Inecifiarl in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
16
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
for purely offensive purposes, in particular for striking from space at
targets in the atmosphere and on the Earth's surface, for example, airborne
command posts, oil reservoirs, and other installations.
Third, it is impossible to deny the destabilizing nature of such armament
systems which are called upon to change the balance of power, in particular
taking into account the fact that it only takes minutes or even seconds to
bring such systems into operation. The SDI is precisely such a weapons
system. Moreover, because of its specific nature, it enhances the
destabilizing effect because it creates the illusion that the side carrying
out a first strike will go unpunished.
Finally, the SDI programmes an arms race for many decades to come. The
improvement of the "shield" always leads to the improvement of the "sword",
and as the experience of history shows, there are no limits to this process Or
improving sword and shield.
I would like once again to come back to the question of nuclear
deterrence. The main argument which is used by those who support nuclear
deterrence is that for 40 years there has not been one single case of the use
of nuclear weapons, and that a global conflict has not occurred, although we
have been very close to it several times.
There is no doubt, and nobody will deny this, that the deterrent nature
of nuclear weapons is a reality. But unfortunately that reality is fraught
with danger. We should not forget that, while reducing the possibility of the
outbreak of a global conflict, nuclear weapons in no way rule out such a
possibility, and it would have catastrophic consequences. We see that we need
to reduce the level of nuclear confrontation down to the complete elimination
of nuclear weapons. At the same time, of course, the process of reduction of
other types of weapons would continue, and comprehensive security would be
strengthened in other areas too -- political, economic and humanitarian.
We propose that we try to achieve the goals of creating a nuclear-free
and non-violent world first and foremost by means of disarmament measures.
What remains unclear, and Mr. Barthelemy's statement unfortunately did not
clarify this point, is how the concept of nuclear deterrence can be combined
with the disappearance of nuclear weapons, to which the SDI should supposedly
lead. Is the West abandoning deterrence totally, or is it exchanging nuclear
deterrence for some other sort of deterrence, for example, space deterrence?
Finally, one further fundamental point: the question of negotiating from
a position of strength. The United States delegation on 2 April said that the
deployment of United States medium-range missiles has supposedly induced us to
propose the elimination of that class of weapons in Europe. Just imagine what
would happen if the American side managed to convince us of the correctness of
their logic. Then we, in order to succeed in the disarmament negotiations,
would have to increase our armaments in all directions, and the same thing
would be done, I suppose, by the United States. Actually, this is what
happened recently -- although, of course, we enhanced our defence capability
to ensure that our security did not suffer. However, a time came when the
Soviet leadership had to take decisive action in order to smash the suicidal
logic of the arms race. Such acts of political wisdom include our proposal on
733
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
17
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
medium-range missiles. The attempts to pass that proposal off as the result
of the pressure of the Pershings on us is just an apology for the arms race.
It is rather odd that the United States delegation selected the tribune of the
Conference on Disarmament for propaganda in favour of the arms race and not
negotiations on disarmament. To preach the arms race from the tribune of the
Conference on Disarmament is a depressing paradox, that eloquently
characterizes the United States approach to disarmanent.
Finally, a small comment on Mr. Barthelemy's scepticism on the question
of glasnost or openness. In the USSR very serious and thoroughgoing -- I
would say revolutionary -- changes are taking place. Naturally, people in
.other countries wish to understand what is happening, to grasp these changes
objectively. Only after understanding their content, purpose and aim can one
correctly judge our international policy. Now more than ever before it is
determined by internal policy, that is to say our interest in concentrating on
creative work to improve our country. That is precisely why we need firm
peace, predictability and a constructive direction in international
relations. Those who understand this welcome our changes. I would refer to
what was said by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,
Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, when at the end of her visit to our country expressed
her positive attitude to the changes taking place in our country. But there
are those in the West who fear that the greater disclosure of the
opportunities inherent in socialism will strengthen our structure. Obviously,
they do not want that -- they are afraid of it. Hence the attempts to cast
doubts on what is happening in our country. These are obviously based on the
viewpoint that what is good for one side is bad for another. This is an
obsolete, outworn way of thinking. The fact that we want to make our country
better will not make things worse for anybody else. The whole world can only
gain from it. We would very much like this to be understood.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the
President. Now before I proceed to make several announcements, I should like
to ask once again if any delegation wishes to take the floor? The
distinguished representative of the United States has the floor.
Mr. HANSEN (United States of America): Thank you, Mr. President. First,
I must apologize to you for not acknowledging the fact that you have assumed
the Presidency. This is due only to my own incompetence and to nothing else,
and also to my absence from Geneva. I do wish to congratulate you on your
assumption of the Presidency and assure you of the goodwill and co-operation
of my delegation in your difficult task.
I reluctantly would want to turn a three-speaker agenda into a
five-speaker agenda, especially when I myself would give two of those
speeches. Nevertheless, there are some things that I feel need to be said in
the interest of balance, and in the interest of providing all of us with
different views on problems with which we must cope. I note that in all
likelihood we will begin soon to have an Ad Hoc Committee on Outer Space, in
which one of the key elements ought to be discussions of the realities that
exist. I think that that is in many respects a more appropriate forum than
this to deal with some of the details that confront us.
734
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
18
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
I was not here to listen to colleague, Mr. Barthelemy's, speech; I have
read it. It is not my intent to either take a distance from that or to defend
it -- it stands on its own merit. I myself found it to be logical in its
composition and accurate in what it said. One of the things that we are
talking about in this forum, or will be talking about in more detail, is the
idea of the militarization of space, or if you will, to prevent an arms race
in space. This requires that we understand, to the extent that information is
available, what this means to us. Are we talking about an offensive military
capability in space, a defensive military capability in space, military
communications in space, or military intelligence-gathering devices in space.
There must be some attempt to draw the line on what this means. I shall not
try to do that, but I would note that the projecting of a missile into space
bearing nuclear charges certainly fits one definition of the militarization of
space, and certainly ICBMs, of which there are a great many, are planned to
project nuclear devices through space to attack targets of another country.
There are also, according to the analysts of my country, plans to send nuclear
devices into space as defence against such ICBMs, and there I am speaking of
the ABM system which surrounds Moscow, known in the West as Galosh. There
exists a very strong possibility that said (Galosh) missiles are, in fact,
nuclear-tipped and that the defensive effort would be brought about by the
explosion of a nuclear weapon in space.
The existence of such a system does reflect, as my distinguished
colleague Ambassador Nazarkin said, the interaction between sword and shield;
others could better explain the Marxist dialectic on the relationship of
offence and defence than I. I would only note that it exists, and that in the
context of offence and defence it has often been expressed, particularly in
the nuclear sphere. I would note that two Chiefs of the General Staff of the
Soviet Union have been most explicit on this count, Marshall Sokoluvskiy and
Marshall Ogarkov. While I have mentioned that, I should also like to read to
you from a rather interesting book entitled "Military Strategy" written under
the guidance and editorship of Marshall Sokoluvskiy. The book was written in
1963, in its first edition; its last edition in 1968. I do not want to
pretend to tell you the currency of this book, but as an historical instrument
I wish now to quote from this book. I am going to read you four paragraphs,
and I beg your indulgence:
"Priority in such outstanding stages in knowledge of the universe as
the launch of the first SPUTNIK of Earth, the first flight of man in
space, the first group flight of man in cosmic space, the first cosmic
flight in the world of a woman, the first exit of man into open
interstellar space, belongs to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union
created the most powerful rockets in the world, the carriers of cosmic
objects. The Soviet Union was the first in the world to create the
hydrogen bomb and the intercontinental ballistic missile, and also a
number of new kinds of rocket armaments which are new in principle."
It goes on to talk about the incorporation of various cosmic means into
the defensive organization of the Soviet Union:
735
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100i00nn1-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
19
(Mr. Hansen, United States)
"The second half of the twentieth century will, in the opinion of
scientists, be a century of space and thermal nuclear energy which cannot
fail to influence the development of corresponding means of destruction
and of the means of their delivery to the target.
"Taking into account the fact that the Soviets created hydrogen
weapons before the United States, and most of all, that the United States
does not possess super powered thermonuclear charges such as those
possessed by the USSR, we consider our superiority over the Western bloc.;
in nuclear weapons to be indisputable. By the admission of competent
American specialists, our superiority in total nuclear might of strategic
rocket weapons is very considerable."
I dislike the type of exchanges which sound like two religious zealots
interpreting the Bible, but it is of course important that we have facts at
our disposal. I spoke earlier in the context of chemical weapons urging that
we build confidence, that there be greater openness among all f us in the
context of chemical weapons. I call upon us in this context to be open about
what is happening in space. It should in this context be noted that the
Soviet Union has had an operational orbital interceptor and anti-satellite
weapon since 1971, that is for 14 years, and it has ground-based lasers which
have been tested against objects in space. I mentioned the location of
Sary Shagan. When we want to deal with
and this soberness, then let us also be
roughly as much on strategic defence as
reflecting again this interplay between
world's only operational anti-ballistic
consistently and continually upgraded.
issues of this type and this magnitude
open. The Soviet Union has spent
it has on strategic off mce,
sword and shield. It dc..s have the
missile system which is .eing
It has an enormous number of airplanes
which are part of what is known as air defence of
programmes to shield its political leadership and
defence programme. We do not question the Soviet
programmes.
the homeland. has
it has an extens civil
Union's right to eve these
In a forum where we attach highest priority to nuclear issues ar to
nuclear disarmament, there is an obvious acceptance of the fact that :clear
weapons are terrible instruments. In Beijing (China), I recently list ned to
testimonies of people who had been in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who talk a:-out
the terribleness of nuclear weapons -- there is no question about that. Why
then should anyone take great umbrage at any nation attempting to defend
itself from such weapons? The task that faces us is, of course, to reduce
those weapons and, if possible, to totally do away with them. That task
only possible when we build confidence among nations; when we reduce the
suspicions that exist among nations, when we learn to co-operate in peacefui
and constructive ways.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the distinguished representative of the
United States of America for his statement and for the kind words addressed to
the President. Does any delegation wish to take the floor? The distinguished
representative of the USSR has the floor.
Mr. NAZARKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): I do not intend to turn this meeting into an exclusive exchange of
views between two delegations; I would like to say just a few words. I too
736
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.403
20
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
have many quotations which I could well use to prove, as was done by the
representative of the United States of America, Ambassador Hansen, that the
United States military leaders at one time or another considered that the
United States of America had reached military supremacy; but the reproduction
of all those quotations would take up far too much time. I will just give you
one small quotation from former United States President Nixon who, in
July 1985, in an interview with the United States magazine Time in connection
with the fortieth anniversary of the United States of America as a nuclear
Power, noted that the Americans were surprised when the Russians produced the
bomb (this is a reference to the atom bomb in 1949) and so both States had the
bomb, but the Americans had more, and that is when they began to use it as a
diplomatic club. Now there was a growing revisionist theory that the bomb did
not play an important part in United States foreign policy after the
Second World War: that theory was being developed because the bomb was very
unpopular, but he (President Nixon) did know that it played a role.
From this quotation from the former United States Presidenc it is :quite
clear what the source of the arms race was. Of course it zig-zagged about,
but its sources were such as described by Mr. Nixon in the quote I have just
given you.
In conclusion, I would like totally to express my solidarity with
Ambassador Hansen in what he said at the end of his second statement, when
called for the building of confidence and for productive and constructive
negotiations to be conducted. On this point we absolutely agree with him.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the distinguished representative of the USSR for
his statement. May I now make a few announcements.
Members will recall that, at our last plenary meeting, the Chairman of
the Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts to Consider International Co-operative
Measures to Detect and Identify Seismic Events introduced the Progress Report
of that Group, as contained in document CD/745. As usual, the Conference will
adopt the recommendation contained in paragraph 13 of that Progress Report
relating to the dates for the next session of the Ad Hoc Group. I intend to
put before the Conference that recommendation at our 405th plenary meeting, to
be held on 14 April.
I should like also to recall that the United Nations Office at Geneva
will be closed on Friday 17 April and Monday 20 April, which are official
holidays for the Organization, and, accordingly, no conference services will
be available during those days. The timetable to be adopted by the Conference
at our next plenary will reflect this fact. The CPD Contact Group on Outer
Space will meet immediately after this plenary in Room I and the usual
consultations of the Group Co-ordinators with the President, to which are also
invited the Co-ordinators of items 2 and 3 for tomorrow, will begin at
3.15 p.m. sharp, not at 3.30 p.m. This concludes my announcements, and I have
no other business for this plenary meeting. I therefore intend to adjourn
it. The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be held on
Thursday, 9 April, at 10 a.m. The plenary meeting stands adjourned.
The meeting rose at 11.45 a.m.
737
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.404
9 April 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE FOUR HUNDRED AND FOURTH PLENARY MEETING
President:
GE.87-60568/8201E
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 9 April 1987, at 10 a.m.
Mr. M. Vejvoda (Czechoslovakia)
738
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
2
The PRESIDENT: I declare open the 404th plenary meeting of the
Conference on Disarmament.
At the beginning, I wish to extend a warm welcome to His Excellency the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Dr. Ali Akbar Velayati, who is addressing the Conference today. I should like
to note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has addressed the plenary
several times during previous annual sessions of the Conference and, in that
connection, I wish to thank him for the interest shown in our activities.
In accordance with its programme of work, the Conference today continues
its consideration of agenda item 6 entitled "Effective International
Arrangements to Assure Non-Nuclear-Weapon States Against the Use or Threat of
Use of Nuclear Weapons". In conformity with rule 30 of the rules of
procedure, however, members wishing to do so may raise any subject relevant to
the work of the Conference. I have on my list of speakers for today, the
representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sri Lanka and Belgium. I now
give the floor to the first speaker, His Excellency the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr. Ali Akbar Velayati.
Mr. VELAYATI (Islamic Republic of Iran): Mr. President, at the outset
let me express my pleasure at having the opportunity to address this august
body. I would also like to thank you, Mr. President, for the kind words you
addressed to me. Allow me also to sincerely wish you, as well as other
distinguished representatives, every success in the very important task and
responsibility you bear.
More than ever in the history of mankind, the arms race of unprecedented
speed has imperiled the very existance of human kind. It is not an
exaggeration for me to say today that the saturation of the world arsenals, in
both conventional and nuclear terms, has brought us to a state where even one
minor mistake may ignite such an unextinguishable fire that no States,
individually or collectively will be able to control it.
This is proved to be, today, a statement of fact rather than a
pessimistic belief. It is precisely for this reason that in the present
situation prevailing in our world, even countries in areas most remote from
regions of tension and the arms race cannot, by any chance, remain
indifference vis-?is disarmament talks. This means that the disarmament
talks are, more than any other international issue, of a global nature. How
long can the whole world live with the nightmare of a nuclear holocaust? How
long can we remain silent witnesses to the ever-widening gap between the
concrete results of bilateral or multilateral disarmament talks on the one
hand, and the uncontrolled and unpredictable trend of the arms race on the
other? How long can the developing countries and even the people of many
developed ones sacrifice their bread to provide for all the expenses of deadly
weapons?
These are the questions which should be dealt with seriously in this and
other international fora responsible for disarmament.
Since we all agree that this Conference bears the major part of the
international responsibility for multilateral disarmament talks, our response
739
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
3
(Mr. Velayati, Islamic Republic of Iran)
to the major issues and questions of global concern which I referred to is
necessarily dependent upon our assessment of the work of this Conference. In
that assessment we have to be frank and sincere. As members of this important
body, we have to be at the forefront of all those countries which seek to
address the impediments to our achievements. Having said that, I want to
reassure you that I by no means intend to undermine the significance of our
collective work. I cannot but express at the same time our regrets at having
bitterly observed, over many years now, that some States have been creating
serious and practical obstacles in the way of the work of this body.
We have already expressed many times in this forum the fact that at the
present situation, when almost all parties to disarmament talks are aware of
the limits and different aspects of technicalities of the subject under
discussion, such technicalities have for long lost any basis to cause real
practical obstacles in the way of disarmament negotiations.
In particular, I want to stress that non-nuclear-weapon States may not be
deceived and convinced as to the slow pace of disarmament talks in this forum
with the excuse of so-called "technical considerations". Lack of political
will is the sole cause responsible for any stalemate in the whole area of
disarmament.
Twenty-five years have elapsed since the commencement of the activities
of the Conference on Disarmament but for the last decade we have not had any
sizeable agreement in the relevant fields. Lack.of agreement on the important
issue of verification has been projected for many years as the major obstacle
in the way of any serious development. True, verification in our view really
constitutes one of the major guarantees for the establishment of an
international, effective and collective control system over many fields of
armament. But recent flexibilities offered in connection with verification,
especially on-site inspection, has made this last technical excuse quite
irrelevant.
With regard to the three fundamental agenda items namely Nuclear Test Ban
(NTB), Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament, and also
Prevention of Nuclear War, including All Related Matters, the Conference has
achieved almost nothing. Nuclear tests are continuing unabated despite newly
introduced ideas of a moratorium, and certain countries are insisting on
pursuing these tests. Such tests cause irreversible damage to nature. These
States shoulder a double responsibilty: first, the damage caused by the very
destructive tests which are detrimental to the environment; and second, the
damage resulting from the development of a new generation of devastating
nuclear weapons, which is the main purpose of such tests. Such immeasurable
damage, under the pretext of defence or deterrence, is in fact a mockery of
human destiny and neglects the men who will be directly or indirectly subject
to the consequences of these tests.
In the field of nuclear disarmament, any new proposal or flexibility
undoubtedly deserves a serious evaluation, even if such proposals, due to
certain reasons outside the jurisdiction of this Conference, are not
supported. The recent proposal on nuclear intermediate-range weapons is
considered a positive development.
740
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
4
(Mr. Velayati, Islamic Republic of Iran)
I hereby caution all nuclear-weapon States which are ready to enter the
club of nuclear-weapon States to take advantage of every possible opportunity
to show their good faith and constructive intentions in the field of nuclear
disarmament before the other countries.
By this, I want to stress that at this crucial juncture the attitude of
the nuclear-weapon States is the predominant determining factor for the
non-nuclear-weapon States to take up ideas such as nuclear-free zones. We
hope that the last chances before a nuclear holocaust will be seized to couple
unilateral positive measures, such as a nuclear-test ban, with collective
efforts, in particular in the framework of this Conference, towards the
adoption and effective implementation of international and comprehensive
agreements in all nuclear-weapon fields, with the aim of the total elimination
of the present nuclear arsenals and of halting production of any kind of such
weapons in the future.
Turning to a subject which is to be discussed this week in the
Conference, namely effective international arrangements to assure
non-nuclear-weapon States against use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, I
would like to state that we attach great importance to this issue. We believe
that such assurances on the international scale should not only cover the
nuclear field, but must be of a more comprehensive nature.
The use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States has remained
a threat, whereas the use of conventional force in international relations is
the main devil which has shed, in the course of last decades, the blood of
innumerable human beings. The only means in the hands of countries which are
not producers of conventional weapons is to resort to international legal
instruments and leverage.
In this field, very unfortunately, I have to say that the present
international instruments have failed to provide even some modest protection
for the developing countries vis-?is the increasing use of force on a world
scale. The imposed war by Iraq against my country, which has now entered its
seventh year, is a vivid example of such practice in the world. Not only
through all these years have international instruments not been able justly to
put a halt to this invasion, but also some of the Powers have provided the
aggressor with financial, political and weaponry assistance.
It is precisely because of such experiences that we have subscribed to
the idea of the necessity of the establishment of a more effective
international instrument to provide for the protection of all countries
against any use of force by any State. No doubt, through the realization of
the comprehensive programme of disarmament, a major part of this concern will
be met, but until this is achieved we need to pursue simultaneously other
effective confidence-building measures.
In our troubled region, particularly in the Persian gulf, which has been
seriously suffering for many years now from unjustified interference by
external Powers, the ever-increasing military presence of the alien Powers has
been the main cause of regional tensions, thus resulting in the
intensification of the militarization of the region.
741
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Rnnn1nn1nnnrm_A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
5
(Mr. Velayati, Islamic Republic of Iran)
I should stress here that the essential measure in building confidence in
our region is the dismantling of all military bases of alien Powers and
putting an end to the presence of all naval forces of these Powers in the
Persian Gulf waters. Furthermore, it is important that by providing necessary
reliable international and regional instruments, all countries in the region
should be assured against any regional or external act or threat of aggression.
The history of the imposed war against the Islamic Republic of Iran shows
in the most vivid manner the fact that the present international instruments
for the prevention and suppression of acts of aggression fall far short of any
effect.
We all know that the most important of all such instruments, namely the
provisions of the United Nations Charter, have not been able to have even some
mitigating effect. Even commercial navigation and civil aviation have not
been spared in our region from systematic military attacks, despite all
existing international legal barriers.
After all the international condemnations of the deployment of chemical
weapons by Iraq, the use of such weapons has been intensified in the whole
course of the past years. The lack of any international guarantee for
compliance with and international observance of the present rules and
principles has led to the intensification of violations of international law
on a world scale.
Here, and for this very reason, I would like to express our full support
for the idea introduced in the Forty-first Session of the General Assembly in
resolution 41/92 concerning the "establishment of a comprehensive system of
international peace and security".
This is a positive view which merits further elaboration by this
Conference in its coming sessions, but I would like to add that a very
important step towards the achievement of an effective international peace and
security system is to seek and encourage regional arrangements, which proves
to be a more feasible task under the prevailing situations. Naturally and
inevitably, such arrangements will provide the very necessary regional or
global foundations to assure the countries not possessing destructive weapons.
In short, as a result of the experience we have had in our region, we
have reached the conclusion that regional arrangements free from the influence
of the Eastern or Western camps may in the best and shortest way serve the
common task of confidence-building in general and of providing assurances to
non-nuclear-weapon States vis-a vis any use or threat of use of nuclear
weapons in particular.
The agreement reached last year at the Stockholm Conference reflects the
fact that Europe has already appreciated this notion, whereas unfortunately in
other regions, especially in the disturbed areas and hot beds of tension, it
has yet to be understood as it must be.
I have now to address one of the most important items of the agenda of
the Conference, namely, chemical weapons. As a nation which has suffered most
from the use of such barbaric weapons, I would like to assert that perhaps we
742
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
6
(Mr. Velayati, Islamic Republic of Iran)
are the most eligible member of the international community in giving a full
assessment of the inhuman and devastating effects of the use of such weapons.
I need not embark upon any elaboration of technicalities. The numerous
technical and medical reports prepared by United Nations expert missions
dispatched to the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to have direct on-site
inspections, have been made available to all Members of the United Nations.
would like rather to address some other important aspects of the matter.
First, the intensified, continuous and systematic use of chemical weapons
by Iraq after the Security Council's condemnations of 26 March 1986, which
unfortunately did not result in any effective international preventive
reaction, bears witness, once more, to the fact that repetitious use of these
weapons by Iraq has weakened the Geneva Protocol of 1925 to an unprecedented
degree.
This fact substantiates the validity and necessity of the view once
expressed in this very forum by one of the distinguished members of this
Conference, that it is time for all we signatories to that Protocol, through
one international announcement, re-express our commitments to this Protocol,
as well as our determination to prevent any further violation of it by all
international ways and means. I would like to repeat this appeal here to the
Conference to consider seriously this very important suggestion which I am
confident will reinforce the Protocol.
Secondly, some countries, in particular some of the members of this
Conference, have already adopted a measure which in our view have been quite
positive and effective. They have put a ban on the export to Iraq of any
material which may be susceptible of being used as a chemical agent in
chemical warfare.
While I would like to express my appreciation for such measures, I should
stress that this must be a collective international practice, otherwise Iraq
will find these materials on some other markets. Not only that, but the
number of banned items, because of rather simple manufacturing technology,
should be substantially increased, and cover all suspicious and potentially
dangerous substances. The banning of the exportation of such items should be
established through the United Nations as an international obligatory
practice, and not be left only to the political will of States.
We expect this Conference seriously to consider this task. Needless to
say, such arrangements should not only apply to our case but should also be an
established procedure for any occasions of such a nature.
Thirdly, we have fortunately witnessed in recent months that positive
initiatives for the total ban of the use, production, development and
stockpiling of chemical weapons have been introduced, on the regional as well
as international scale.
I cannot but express here our satisfaction at the initiative of your own
Government, Mr. President, regarding a chemical-weapon-free zone in a part of
Europe. I hope that this initiative will soon be realized and thus encourage
other countries to embark upon similar initiatives. However, I have to stress
743
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
7
(Mr. Velayati, Islamic Republic of Iran)
that the lack of political will by some States shown in the United Nations
General Assembly to adopt a more effective resolution in this connection, will
raise doubts regarding the initiatives put forward by both blocs. Here I
would like to say that the unilateral and multilateral position of all
countries vis-a-vis the use of chemical weapons should once and for all remain
independent from bilateral concerns of all countries. I would like to express
our appreciation to those members of the Conference who have addressed and
expressed concerns on the continution and intensification of the use of
chemical warfare by Iraq during the past CD sessions. Meanwhile we cannot
ignore the fact that a few States, despite their international
responsibilities, have failed to present any position in this connection.
This cannot be interpreted as anything other than deliberately
overlooking the main issues of the work of this Conference at the expense of
our common goals. I hope that this regretful practice will not be continued
in this forum, and that all members will bear in mind that the world community
seizes every opportunity to put our seriousness at test. Here I would like to
bring to your attention that the last chemical weapons were used on
19 March 1987 and I would like to repeat, on 19 March 1987, and as a result
great damage was inflicted. I hope that this time all members of this
Conference will take clear positions against the continuation of such crimes.
Fourthly, the unprecedented level of the use of chemical warfare in
recent years has proved beyond doubt that the effective implementation of the
international convention on the production, use, stockpiling, transfer and
development of chemical weapons is an urgent imperative. Any further
postponement of the submission of the draft to the General Assembly under
whatever pretext is not acceptable. However, we share the views expressed by
those States which attach great importance to the issue of compliance. While
an international verification and on-site inspection system is an undeniable
necessity, the ultimate confidence in the convention would not be provided
unless international punitive measures against any serious and deliberate
violations of the convention would also be provided.
The Iraqi practice must always be kept in mind. The United Nations
expert teams dispatched to our country to verify the use of chemical weapons
have on numerous occasions come out with clear verified cases. At this point
we would like to express our appreciation to those States which have, by
convening educative international gatherings, enhanced public awareness about
the inhuman effects of the use of these weapons.
Such endeavours will undoubtedly have substantial positive effects.
Efforts by some of the Nordic countries are also impressive. Research
programmes on verification of the implications of chemical weapons are still
going on and we are awaiting the results. Similarly, research on the effects
of the deployment of chemical weapons on the environment as well as remedies
for chemically afflicted people and other research efforts are noteworthy.
744
nnt-laccifiimri in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
8
(Mr. Velayati, Islamic Republic of Iran)
Finally, a chronological table and other specifications about the use of
chemical weapons by the Iraqi r4gime has been provided in the annex */ for the
further knowledge of the distinguished representatives.
I have not addressed the remaining agenda items, not because we do not
appreciate the significance of every subject, but rather because the problem
of the use of chemical weapons which our nation at the very moment is involved
with, has compelled me to devote the main part of my intervention to this very
important issue.
On the very significant matter of the arms race in outer space, I should
like to stress that we fully endorse the views expressed by the Group of 21 in
this regard.
With the speedy advancement of space technology, the sovereignty of
countries not possessing these capabilities is being increasingly imperiled.
The surveillance and spy satellites have provided their owners with
possibilities which can easily trample the recognized rights of the countries
of the world. Fortunately, many new ideas have been introduced recently in
this connection, each of which merits full consideration. Outer space should
remain forever safe for scientific explorations with the aim of serving
humanity. In our view, the opening up of any new field of militarization is a
crime against humanity, a crime which will be extended to the generations to
come.
In the field of radiological weapons, too much attention has
unfortunately been paid to marginal and subordinate issues. Banning
radiological weapons and protection of nuclear installations against military
attacks are not necessarily interlinked issues, and should be materialized
through international agreements. We hope that the Conference will be able to
take substantial steps towards this end before the forthcoming
General Assembly.
Preventing any military aggression, both conventional and nuclear, is
directly interlinked with the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament. While
steps already taken in this connection, especially the work of the Ad Hoc
Group, deserve profound appreciation, yet we should not forget that parallel
to these endeavours, international, legal and political instruments should be
reinforced and developed to an extent that makes military aggression extremely
difficult and strongly punishable, if not impossible.
It is only in this way that real comprehensive disarmament may be
achieved; otherwise, freedom of aggression will find the ways and means of
its realization.
*/ The annex was circulated informally by the delegation of the Islamic
Republic of Iran at the end of the plenary meeting.
745
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168Rnnn1nn1nnnn1_A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
9
(Mr. Velayati, Islamic Republic of Iran)
In conclusion, I wish the distinguished members of the Conference on
Disarmament success in shouldering this heavy and historic responsibility.
The task before us is, more than ever before, clear and urgent in the history
of multilateral disarmament talks. Let us refrain from making conflicting
political views obstacles in the way of our global mission. I call on every
member of this Conference to be a disarmament ambassador to his country and to
the whole world, rather than being the representative of his country to the
Conference. This sincere call is the manifestation of the will of the
international community.
The PRESIDENT: I thank His Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of the Islamic Republic of Iran for his important statement and for the kind
words he addressed to the Conference and its President. I now give the floor
to the second speaker, the representative of Sri Lanka, Ambassador Dhanapala.
Mr. DHANAPALA (Sri Lanka): Mr. President, the Sri Lanka delegation is
happy to see you occupy the Presidency of our Conference for the final month
of our spring session. Our two countries have friendly relations, and you and
I have been closely associated in common endeavours in the field of
disarmament, especially the Third Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty and the preparatory process that preceded it. We are confident that
your natural flair for negotiation and wide experience will help you to lead
the Conference into a more productive summer session. May I also thank the
distinguished Ambassador of Cuba for his wise contribution as our President
for the month of March.
We are honoured by the presence in the Conference this morning of His
Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
whose contribution we have listened to with great interest.
When I last addressed this Conference, we were then into the second week
of our session. There was hope at that time, generated by international
events and developments at the forty-first session of the United Nations
General Assembly, that at long last the CD would become the arena of some
positive action in specific areas, including the priority nuclear issues such
as item 1 of our agenda?Nuclear Test Ban. Today, in retrospect, we must
express satisfaction over the continuing activity in Ad Hoc Committees,
Working Groups and informal consultations. Indeed the high level of this
activity has been ascribed by some as the probable cause for the unprecedented
paucity of speakers in plenary sessions during the month of March. We would
like to believe that this activity does indeed signify something more real
than apparent and that it is the harbinger of concrete agreements in the
future. Where Ad Hoc Committees have been established but have delayed to
commence substantive work, either through the lack of a Chairman or a work
programme, we hope these procedural issues are not symptomatic of latent
political differences. Where Ad Hoc Committees have not been established, we
hope that ongoing negotiations will bear fruit, dislodging the needless
apprehension that the pursuit of collective security can impair the defence of
national security. The virtues of multilateralism and international
co-operation which are proclaimed so vigorously by us all are applicable in
all spheres, whether in achieving the restructuring of the existing
international economic order on the basis of equity and justice, or in
arriving at a comprehensive test-ban treaty as an essential step in achieving
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
10
(Mr. Dhanapala, Sri Lanka)
the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament to which we are
all committed in terms of paragraph 51 of the Final Document of SSOD I. Let
us therefore ensure that we practise consistently what we preach.
I make no apology for returning to the subject of item 5 of our agenda --
the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The overriding importance of
the subject in the gamut of disarmament issues before us and in the light of
contemporary developments justifies the preoccupation of several delegations,
including my own, with this issue. In our statement of 17 February, the
Sri Lanka delegation urged the acceptance of the modest improvement proposed
by the Group of 21 in the mandate for an Ad Hoc Committee on item 5 of our
agenda. In doing so we traced the respectable pedigree of the word "measures"
over which so much unnecessary controversy has been created. We pointed out
that paragraph 80 of the SSOD I Final Document had referrred to the need for
further measures in the prevention of an arms race to be taken and that
successive resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly had also
referred to this.
My delegation has been closely associated with the negotiations leading
to the adoption of a single resolution on the prevention of an arms race in
outer space in the General Assembly in recent years. In 1985, by a curious
irony from the very group of delegations who have found the word "measures"
unpalatable here, there came a proposal to the group of non-aligned countries
that the operative paragraph in the General Assembly resolution relating to
the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee should state that the objective of
re-establishing an Ad Hoc Committee should be "with a view to the achievement
of further effective and verifiable measures through appropriate international
negotiations in order to prevent an arms race in space". In 1986 the proposal
was again made by the same group of countries that an Ad Hoc Committee be
re-established in the CD with an adequate mandate "with a view to achieving
agreement with regard to effective measures to prevent an arms race in outer
space in all its aspects". While we acknowledge that the two fora-- the
United Nations General Assembly and the CD--are different, the context is the
same and we find it inexplicable that a proposal made in the General Assembly
regarding the mandate of a CD Ad Hoc Committee so as to achieve a consensus
resolution is so strenuously opposed by the very authors of the proposal when
we seek to include it in a non-negotiating mandate in the CD itself.
Be that as it may, we were content when through the wisdom of the
distinguished Ambassador of China the device of a Presidential statement was
adopted to facilitate the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on Outer Space
with the distinguished Ambassador of Italy?whose delegation has worked so
long and with so much dedication on this issue-- as its Chairman. It was a
matter of gratification that for the first time we were able to see this
subsidiary body re-established in the first month of our session.
Consequently, we have been deeply disappointed that a procedural wrangle over
the programme of work should have delayed the substantive work of this body.
There has recently been a revival of interest in the improved and effective
functioning of our Conference--a subject on which my delegation made a
detailed plenary statement on 12 July 1984. To some the focus of attention is
only the report-writing procedure. To my delegation, as well as to many
others, there is this question together with a larger number of issues that
must be addressed by the small group that we all now agree should be set up to
747
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
11
(Mr. Dhanapala, Sri Lanka)
consider this subject. They include the need to prevent the use of procedure
to obstruct work on substance. I believe that our recent and unhappy
experience over the Ad Hoc Committee on item 5 should lead us to a
consideration of how we can prevent agreement on a programme of work being
used as a pre-condition for the inauguration of substantive work in subsidiary
bodies of this Conference. Such a situation was without precedent but we have
just seen that it can arise.
With the resumption of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, delegations will
now endeavour to ensure that constructive work is begun without delay. For
our part we have found the contributions made in recent weeks in the plenary
debate on this item replete with ideas that could be discussed further in the
Ad Hoc Committee--preferably with the assistance of experts. Among the ideas
presented to us at this session is the proposal for a multilateral agreement
conferring on space objects an immunity from attack or interference thereby
contributing to confidence building and stability. We have stated before that
while the militarization of space is a fait accompli, the weaponization of
space is not -- at least not yet. By the militarization of space we refer to
the fact that three out of four satellites in space are there for military
purposes. To grant immunity to them is tantamount to legitimizing the
military uses of space unless we are clear about their specific purpose and
function. /n this connection we would be well advised to re-examine the
Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space concluded in
1975. This Convention sought to establish a mandatory system of registering
objects launched into outer space not only for identification purposes but
also to, and I quote from the preamble, "contribute to the application and
development of international law governing the exploration and use of outer
spaceTM. Launching States are required under the Convention to inform the
Secretary-General of the United Nations of specific details of space objects
launched by them including their general function. In the implementation of
this Convention there are many inadequacies, particularly concerning
information on the function of space objects. In terms of Article X of the
Convention the opportunity arose at the forty-first session of the
General Assembly to re-examine the Convention. This opportunity was
unfortunately missed because of disagreement among Member States and the
Secretary-General was merely requested to prepare a report on the past
application of the Convention to be submitted to the Legal Sub-Committee for
the information of Member States. The report falls far short of the review
exercise contemplated in Article X. The strengthening of this Convention must
go hand in hand with any move to grant immunity to certain space objects.
Another interesting proposal made is that of an international
inspectorate to supervise on-site the launching of space objects. We are
aware that this proposal is conceived as a verification measure to ensure the
non-deployment of space weapons. We appreciate this but would consider that
in logical sequence it should be examined when we are negotiating a ban on all
space weapons based on all physical principles. Again we believe that the
strengthening of the Space Registration Convention should also be undertaken
as a means of reinforcing the existing provisions to prevent an arms race in
outer space. The continuing relevance of the proposal of France made at
SSOD I for an international, satellite monitoring agency has already been noted
in our discussions at this session. The potential of such an agency to usher
in an age of transparency and to assist in the verification of a future
748
Dnrf - Caniti7Pd Cony Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
12
(Mr. Dhanapala, Sri Lanka)
agreement banning space weapons requires to be explored fully. Vast strides
in civilian space technology and the ready access to its benefits not only
prove the importance of reserving space for exclusively peaceful purposes but
also underscore the viability of satellite monitoring of disarmament
agreements, including a ban on space weapons. The efficacy of an
international satellite monitoring agency as compared to an international
inspectorate and more importantly the cost-effectiveness of the two modes of
verification require detailed study. We are aware of the useful work going on
in Canada on verification, such as PAXSAT, and are grateful to
Ambassador Beesley for his invitation to all CD delegations to attend the May
workshop in Montreal. Another proposal is for an arms control and conflict
observation satellite (ACCOS) to help in the observation of space weapon
development. A recent SIPRI study recommends that these concepts of
verification should be explored in the Ad Hoc Committee under item 5 of this
Conference and we endorse this view.
The central issue is the need for an effective ban on space weapons.
While we endeavour to negotiate an agreement or agreements for this purpose a
number of measures have been suggested. They include an ASAT weapon ban, an
amendment to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, a "rules of the road" code for
space, etc. The proposals arise out of a fundamental desire to act urgently
to prevent an arms race in outer space. We have always recognized that the
developments of concern to us are not confined to one space Power. The space
weapons ban has of necessity to apply universally and must have effective
provisions for verification, as General Assembly resolution 41/53 recognizes.
Interim measures must also be applicable universally. That is why it is
envisaged that with an ASAT weapon ban the existing ASAT system will be
destroyed. My delegation does not consider it appropriate to enter into the
controversy surrounding the interpretation of Article V of the bilateral
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Our objective is a multilateral agreement to
ban all space weapons including anti-ballistic missiles and other ballistic
missile defence systems under the terms of General Assembly resolution 41/53.
The same resolution emphasizes the peaceful uses of space and we welcome in
this context the Agreement on Co-operation in Exploring and Using Space for
Peaceful Purposes signed by the Governments of the USSR and the United Kingdom
on 31 March in Moscow.
I have referred already to the ASAT weapon ban which has been proposed.
The Harare Declaration of Non-Aligned Heads of State or Government
specifically called on this Conference and stressed the urgency of halting the
development of anti-satellite weapons and the dismantling of the existing
system. In negotiating an ASAT weapon ban we recognize that such weapons must
be defined since space objects could be used in an ASAT role to disable other
satellites by impact or explosion. A useful distinction has therefore been
made between dedicated ASATs designed and tested for a flexible attack
capability, and ancillary ASATs with a limited and not clearly identifiable
ASAT capability. A proliferation of ASAT capability is a real possibility and
can endanger the peaceful uses of space.
In the haste to deploy weapons in space as defensive systems we have
noticed a number of novel arguments being advanced. We were intrigued to hear
last week that an arms race in space began in 1957 and has continued since
then. There is firstly an obvious illogicality of seeking to shut the stable
749
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
13
(Mr. Dhanapala, Sri Lanka)
door after the horse has bolted by preventing something that supposedly began
30 years ago through item 5 of an agenda-- a task in which all delegations are
engaged, namely the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Secondly we
find that there is clearly a lack of agreement on what space arms are. Can we
therefore not discuss a common definition of space weapons or space arms as we
sought to do in the Ad Hoc Committee last year despite the silence of those
who only want a prolonged exegetical exercise on the treaties relating to
outer space? Is the inter-continental ballistic missile a space weapon merely
because it passes through space in its trajectory? In the view of my
delegation this is a question to be discussed in the Ad Hoc Committee and we
hope there will be a readiness on the part of all delegations to engage in
such discussion.
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, to which Sri Lanka is a party,
specifically prohibits by its Article IV the placing in orbit of any objects
carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction,
the installation of such weapons on celestial bodies or the stationing of such
weapons. in outer space in any other manner. At the time of adoption of this
treaty the Sri Lanka delegation expressed disappointment that military
activities were not prohibited. Those States who acquiesced in this glaring
lacuna must not now endeavour to make a virtue out of it.
Differences of opinion in-our work in this Conference are to be
expected. To attribute them to a failure to study the issues or to a state of
ignorance is both patronising and regrettable. My delegation has spoken
frequently against the deployment of ballistic missile defence (BMD) systems
by any country, buttressing our arguments with the opinion of scientists.
There has been a significant decrease today in the claims being made for such
systems. The quantum leap in the arms race as a consequence of the
manufacture and deployment of such weapons has been frequently stated. For
example, the mirrors needed for giant laser weapons are estimated by one
expert to be "larger and more robust that the 200-inch Mount Palomar which
required years of skilled labour and millions of dollars to make". The
orbiting fortresses contemplated to provide an area defence will of course be
defensive systems as well as offensive systems capable of using deadly lasers
against ground targets or to cause firestorms devastating crops and forests.
With such an offensive propensity it follows that such systems would invite
attack by weapons including laser weapons which could be manufactured for a
fraction of the cost of these elaborate BMD systems. The obvious question is
not why we should then be concerned over the creation of such systems but why
we need go into such a significantly new scale of arms expenditure involving a
new arena -- space?
Another type of BMD system contemplated is the so-called "pop-up defence
such as the "Excalibur" device powered by a nuclear explosion which could
release electromagnatic pulses capable of wiping out power and communications
systems over a vast area. Whatever the system the invulnerability of it is
now not a claim made even by its advocates. It will lead to the manufacture
of an over-kill capacity of missiles invalidating the deterrent value of the
system. Additionally, of course, there is the danger of pre-emptive attacks.
BMD systems of any type will heighten the element of uncertainty leading to a
greater threat of nuclear war. We hope that in the Ad Hoc Committee we can
catalogue the types of weapons and activities we seek to exclude from space.
n
in Part - Sanitized CODV Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
14
(Mr. Dhanapala, Sri Lanka)
We have therefore a heavy agenda before the Ad Hoc Committee on the
prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. We must hasten to get through the
agenda in order to negotiate an agreement for the prevention of an arms race
in outer space. Arthur Clarke, Chancellor of Sri Lanka's University of
Moratuwa, recalled in his Jawarharlal Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi last
November an article written by him in the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima
which concluded "The only defence against the weapons of the future is to
prevent them ever being used. In other words, the problem is political and
not military at all. A country's armed forces can no longer defend it; the
most they can promise is the destruction of the attacker". That wisdom is as
?
relevant today for space weapons as it was four decades ago for nuclear
weapons. We must devise multilateral agreements to prevent them being
manufactured and deployed, whether for offensive or defensive purposes. That
task can only be achieved in the Conference on Disarmament with the active
co-operation of all delegations.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of Sri Lanka,
Ambassador Dhanapala, for his statement and for the kind words he addressed to
the President. I now give the floor to the last speaker inscribed on my list
for today, the representative of Belgium, Ambassador Clerckx.
Mr. CLERCKX (Belgium) (translated from French): Mr. President, we would
like to extend our warmest congratulations to you on your assumption of the
post of President, and to assure you of our total co-operation with you. We
also wish to welcome His Excellency Dr. Velayati, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who has been kind enough to address
the Conference; we listened to what he had to say with the greatest attention.
Our Conference, under your leadership, has embarked on the third month of
its work, work which, it seems to us, has from the very outset been intensive,
concrete and perhaps rather more imbued with the pragmatism which we already
detected in the last session and which is now taking more shape. We were
immediately able without a hitch to get the working bodies for the
Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament and Radiological Weapons back to work.
We were able to undertake many consultations and fruitful contacts. We were
able to re-establish, without wasting too much time and finally in a spirit of
mutual understanding, the Outer Space Committee and, in particular, we were
able to maintain and develop the fast pace which the Conference managed to
impart over the last few months and, in particular, during the intersessional
period to the work of the Committee on Chemical Weapons. My delegation is
very pleased with this.
The Conference on Disarmament could hardly do its job, which is to bring
40 countries together to negotiate disarmament agreements of universal scope,
if its state of mind is not solidly anchored in the realities of the worldwide
balance of power and if its efforts are not at all times directed towards the
convergence of the main political forces. Such, at least, is the firm belief
of my delegation.
After 25 years -- for it is quite true, as has already been recalled
here, that for 25 years now this Conference, whether in another guise or with
a different membership, has been pursing disarmament -- after 25 years, this
is a truth we must recognize: no progress is possible in our work unless the
751
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
15
(Mr. Clerckx, Belgium)
vital interests of the main protagonists allow it. That is why our Conference
is so careful to observe how relations are developing between the two
super-Powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, and is ready to pounce
on the least statement, the slightest hint in this relationship suggesting
favourable signs or harbingers of possible progress towards the final aim of a
world where peace can be lastingly guaranteed by effective, verified
disarmament.
The Geneva and Reykjavik summits and the various statements which
followed them, the developments in the bilateral disarmament negotiations
between the united States and the Soviet Union and the recent proposals on
that subject are all factors whose impact is in the final analysis decisive
and determines the way our work progresses.
We must fully grasp the possibilities of progress they offer, although
these possibilities vary depending on whether we are talking about nuclear
weapons, chemical weapons or outer space, the three major areas on which our
concerns are focussed at present.
The current process of negotiation on chemical weapons is the best
illustration of the success which the Conference can attain when it is in tune
with the basic concerns of the major Powers.
Here my delegation would like to pay tribute to the former Chairman of
the Ad hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons, Ambassador Cromartie of the
United Kingdom, and to the present chairman, Ambassador Ekeus of Sweden, for
so capably catching this favourable tide in order to speed up and intensify
the work of the Committee and its working groups and thus quickly resolve a
number of issues and open up prospects for settling many others.
Thus, the principles of on-site verification of the destruction of
chemical weapons and of the destruction of production facilities for such
weapons have for the first time been set down in the draft treaty.
In the field of challenge inspection, so crucial for the safety of the
future convention, the negotiations have taken what we feel to be a promising
turn, bearing in mind the earlier fundamental conflicts of views. In
particular, the United Kingdom proposal contained in document CD/715
contributed to this favourable development which we hope will continue in the
future. There seems to be a more widespread feeling that an ambitious
solution is both necessary and attainable. Success in such an unprecedented
undertaking as the verified elimination of a whole category of arms justifies
unprecedented remedies. Belgium's preference goes to a set of rules which
will be no less stringent in the constraints imposed upon any party faced with
a request for inspection than the other obligations contained in the
convention. Here we must avoid any discrimination amongst the parties
depending on the importance of their military or economic potential, the size
of their territory or any other reason. An important question facing us all
is whether it can be left to a State party, whichever State party it may be,
to determine in the final analysis whether a facility located on its territory
comes under the convention or not.
752
im,,,Inecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
16
(Mr. Clerckx, Belgium)
In the field of the verification of non-production of chemical weapons,
article 6, we have managed to lay the foundations of three verification
regimes with lists of products whose production, processing and international
trade would be subject to international verification. These are either
well-known chemical warfare agents, such as choking agents, blister agents,
blood agents, incapacitants or nerve gases, or their key precursors. Some of
these products have peaceful applications and are produced by industry for
that purpose. We have started to recognize the legitimacy of peaceful
industrial activities relating to those chemical products which have a dual
purpose and which in some countries are or have been used for armaments
purposes. We are especially pleased at this shift towards what we feel to be
common sense, which was indeed something whose slow pace was a source of
concern to us.
My delegation has very frequently repeated here that total, permanent and
verifiable elimination of chemical weapons is one of the main priorities for
Belgium in the field of disarmament. His Excellency the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran has again this morning illustrated the
acute, urgent human, moral and political necessity of this by referring to
facts which we cannot but condemn categorically.
Belgium would like to see the convention concluded without delay. My
country will spare no effort to achieve this, and is happy that its
representatives currently have the opportunity of making a specific
contribution to this goal, by chairing the working group dealing with chemical
disarmament proper, i.e. the elimination of chemical weapons and their
production facilities, whose work seems to be promising.
It is our belief that if the Conference manages to maintain the present
transparency of the negotiations, the conclusion of a chemical disarmament
convention is something we can achieve much sooner than might have been
thought.
The realism which is so beneficial in the negotiations on chemical
weapons has not been lacking in the Conference in the second area of its
concerns, outer space.
By its conquest of space, the world has entered a new dimension, as we
know, a new technolgocial dimension for which there is no going back, with
dazzling advances for the greater good of mankind, but a concomitant train of
much-heightened dangers, new threats of destruction, weapons of unprecedented
accuracy and range.
The world must start policing outer space before it is too late. It must
establish a code of conduct to protect mankind from the new dangers which
tomorrow will become a reality, but it must also fully provide for the
security of States in and from outer space which at the moment is becoming
part of the Earth's living space.
To try to stop progress in science and technology in this area is neither
realistic nor useful. It would be wiser to try to channel it. The Conference
has understood that time must not be wasted and that it is more important to
embark on matters immediately in an appropriate working group than to waste
753
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP97-n11sRpnnni nnint-It-w-?4 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
17
(Mr. Clerckx, Belgium)
energy on the pursuit of promises or commitments to negotiate which are quite
obviously unrealistic at present. My delegation is pleased at this pragmatic
approach, and we expect that the work of the Committee under the enlightened
Chairmanship of Ambassador Pugliese will make a valuable contribution both to
initiating its own work and to the work of the Conference as a whole.
We are pleased to note the seminar on problems relating to outer space to
be held in May in Montreal, and here we would like to express our warm
appreciation and thanks to the delegation of Canada and to the host Government
of Canada for this especially interesting initiative.
The sense of realism, which is present in our minds when it is beneficial
to us, should not abandon us when it leads to disappointments and invites us
to be patient. Here I am referring to nuclear disarmament. Last year my
delegation had to face the fact that the essential conditions for true
multilateral negotiations in the field of nuclear disarmament were not yet
satisfied and that the essential task of the Conference should therefore be
situated at a more preliminary stage, namely the preparation of future
negotiations, in order to clear the way for effective agreement when the
necessary conditions allow. My delegation had suggested that work of this
sort be conducted in depth and in a structured way within specific working
bodies, with terms of reference that should be as simple as possible, drafted
in such a way as to avoid conditions and without prejudging the finality of
the work. At this moment we must acknowledge the same state of affairs and
advocate the same conduct.
The announcement of bilateral negotiations between the Soviet Union and
the United States of America on medium-range missiles does, we feel, open up
new prospects.
If, as we hope in Belgium, these negotiations produce results, the first
important step will have been made towards the reduction of forces. A
balanced reduction of strategic arsenals on the part of the two super-Powers
would also lead the world towards greater stability without thereby upsetting
the balance of power. In this context, the question of the cessation of
nuclear tests might take on a new, more realistic dimension. Of course, only
a treaty concluded in due form on the complete cessation of all nuclear tests,
a binding legal instrument together with a complete verification system, could
give us satisfaction. But if, considering the present situation, a total
stoppage of nuclear tests is not foreseeable in the short term, the present
circumstances, if confirmed, might militate in favour of the idea of a
limitation of tests, of a programme cut back to the bare minimum which the
nuclear military Powers, starting with the two super-Powers, could agree upon,
as was propoosed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium, Mr. Tindemans,
at the last session of the United Nations General Assembly, last November.
My delegation believes that it is important to recall here this
possibility of adopting a gradual approach. We are aware that bilateral
contacts are taking place between the super-Powers on the cessation of nuclear
tests. We welcome these contacts, which will necessarily have an impact on
our work. In the meantime, and by way of anticipation, my delegation would
favour the immediate establishment of a working body with an uncontroversial
754
nnnlaccifiPri in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
18
(4r. Clerckx, Belgium)
mandate, that is to say, whose terms of reference would not attempt, directly
or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, to impose something which my
delegation and others feel, quite legitimately, is at present inappropriate.
To begin the consideration of the cessation of nuclear tests is
undoubtedly the most topical and the thorny problem which is facing the
Conference in the field of nuclear weapons. It is a matter of satisfaction
that the question of nuclear disarmament as a whole, the reasons for it, the
means to achieve it, the conditions for it and the risks inherent in it, will
soon be cast in a basic document which the Ad Hoc Committee on the CPD is at
present putting the final touches to, under the Chairmanship of
Ambassador Garcia Robles. We do hope that before the end of this session we
will finally have in our hands a specific flexible programme, approved by
consensus, for progressive steps towards general and complete
disarmament -- the fruit of years of long and wise reflection.
On the subject of radiological weapons, my delegation wishes to reiterate
here the position it has always advocated, namely that nothing should delay
the conclusion of a disarmament convention on radiological weapons, the
objective of which must remain distinct from a ban on attacks on nuclear
facilities, all the more so as the conditions for negotiating the latter do
not yet exist.
That is a brief overview of the problems facing us as my delegation sees
them. I hope that I will have occasion to come back to them in greater detail
at a later stage.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of Belgium,
Ambassador Clerckx, for his statement and for the kind words he addressed to
the President. That concludes my list of speakers for today. Does any other
representative wish to take the floor? I see none.
As members know, I have been conducting consultations on the question of
finding an appropriate organizational framework to deal with the substance of
agenda item 2, entitled "Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear
Disarmament". In that connection, I wish to inform you that, if agreement is
reached on the format to proceed with that agenda item, I will put the results
of those consultations before the Conference for decision at our next plenary
meeting on Tuesday, 14 April. In the meantime, I should liked to announce
tentatively in advance that, if the Conference so decides at that plenary
meeting, then a first informal meeting on the substance of agenda item 2 would
be held on Thursday, 16 April, in the morning, immediately after the plenary
meeting scheduled for that date. At the opening of that informal meeting, I
will inform members of how I intend to proceed in the exercise of the normal
functions of the presiding officer, as envisaged in rule 11 of the rules of
procedure.
With this clarification, I now put before the Conference the timetable of
meetings to be held by the Conference and its subsidiary bodies next week. As
usual, the timetable is indicative and subject to change, if necessary. You
will notice that, as announced at our last plenary meeting, there are no
activities planned for Friday, 17 April, when the United Nations Office at
Geneva will be closed. Of course, depending on the decision which the
7 5 5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100ionnn1-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.404
19
(The President)
Conference might take at our plenary meeting next Tuesday, the informal
meeting on the substance of agenda item 2 might be added. If there is no
objection, I shall consider that the Conference adopts the timetable.
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT: As there is no other business to consider, I will now
adjourn the plenary meeting. The next plenary meeting of the Conference on
Disarmament will be held on Tuesday, 14 April, at 10 a.m. The plenary meeting
stands adjourned.
The meeting rose at 11.35 a.m.
756
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.405
14 April 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTH PLENARY MEETING
held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 14 April 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
GE. 8760599/6433e
?
Mr. M. Vejvoda
757
(Czechoslovakia)
npriaccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
2
The PRESIDENT: I declare open the 405th plenary meeting of the
Conference on Disarmament.
In conformity with our programme of work, the Conference starts today its
consideration of agenda item 7, entitled "New types of weapons of mass
destruction and new systems of such weapons: radiological weapons". In
accordance with rule 30 of the rules of procedure, members wishing to do so
may raise any subject relevant to the work of the Conference.
As the first part of the 1987 session of the Conference will come to a
close at the end of this month, I should like to recall that the
United Nations General Assembly adopted at its forty-first session
decision 41/421, in which it recommends, with respect to work of the
Conference on Disarmament on the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament
inter alia, "... that work on the elaboration of the programme be resumed at
the beginning of the Conference's 1987 session for the purpose of completing
that task during the first part of that session and submitting a complete
draft of the programme to the General Assembly at that time". As we all know,
the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Comprehensive Programme of
Disarmament, Ambassador Garcia Robles of Mexico, is exerting all efforts for
an early completion of the draft programme. However, if we are to meet the
request of the United Nations General Assembly and forward to it a complete
draft Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament in accordance with
decision 41/421, more active co-operation of delegations is needed. In that
connection, it would be most desirable not to re-open questions which were
agreed upon after many years of arduous negotiations.
I should like to inform members that, as announced at the 403rd plenary
meeting of the Conference, I intend to put before the Conference for decision,
at the end of this plenary meeting, the recommendation contained in
paragraph 13 of the Progress Report of the Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts
to Consider International Co-operative Measures to Detect and Identify Seismic
Events, which appears in document CD/745.
Also today I shall report to the Conference on the results of the
consultations held on an appropriate organizational framework to deal with the
substance of agenda item 2, entitled "Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and
Nuclear Disarmament".
I have on my list of speakers for today, the representatives of the
United Kingdom, Japan, Romania, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and
France.
I now give the floor to the first speaker on my list, the representative
of the United Kingdom, Ambassador Cromartie.
Mr. CROMARTIE (United Kingdom): Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me
to see you in the chair of our Conference as a close colleague of many years
standing. You have been presiding over our work this month with your usual
good humour and common sense. Since I did not have the opportunity last
month, I should also like to thank Ambassador Lechuga Hevia for his sure touch
in presiding over the Conference.
758
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
3
(Mr. Cromartie, United Kingdom)
I spoke at the beginning of this spring session in my capacity as
outgoing Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons. I should like
to take this opportunity to thank all those who have spoken so generously of
my efforts in that capacity.
I wish today to range quite widely over the field of arms control and
disarmament, especially in the light of my Prime Minister's recent visit to
the Soviet Union.
Our approach in this field is incapsulated in the speech which
Mrs. Thatcher made at a banquet in her honour in St. George's Halls in the
Kremlin on 30 March. I have already circulated informally the full text of
her speech, as well as her interview on Soviet television to all members of
the Conference last week.
In the course of that speech, Mrs. Thatcher said, "It is because of the
unity of the NATO Alliance and because of our hopes for greater security
between East and West that we are ready to look for ways to achieve security
at lower levels of armaments. I do not believe that it makes sense to try to
achieve this in one leap. It makes better sense to approach it step by step,
but we must always keep in mind the impact of each agreement on our overall
security".
In the course of this speech, Mrs. Thatcher also explained clearly why
the United Kingdom Government will not abandon the security provided by
nuclear weapons. She said, "the fact is that nuclear weapons exist and the
knowledge of t'w to make them cannot be erased. Conventional weapons have
never been enough to deter war. Two World Wars showed us that. They also
showed us how terrible a war fought even with conventional weapons can be, yet
nuclear weapons have deterred not only nuclear war but conventional war in
Europe as well. A world without nuclear weapons may be a dream but you cannot
base a sure defence on dreams. Without far greater trust and confidence
between East and West than exists at present, a world without nuclear weapons
would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us".
It is sometimes suggested that we are too anxious about our security, and
insufficiently confident in the good intentions of others. However, words
alone cannot conjure away the facts. And the facts are that vast forces
continue to be pointed firmly in our direction. These forces, conventional,
chemical and nuclear, are far larger than could be justified for purely
defensive purposes. And in addition, the record of the State concerned shows
that it has been ready to use its armed might on weaker States when it thinks
it is in its interests to do so. This situation is not likely to change
quickly. It therefore remains only prudent that we should continue to rest
our security on what we believe has guaranteed it successfully for the last
40 years or so.
Continued security is crucial. But we shall continue to pursue practical
and realistic steps to move to lower levels of forces and armaments, both
conventional, nuclear and chemical, including the elimination of whole
categories of weapons where this is possible. Our approach is to focus on the
759
r.nnv Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
4
(Mr. Cromartie, United Kingdom)
areas where the two sides' positions converge, not on more distant visions
whose impact on our security is doubtful. In such areas the prospects for
real progress look better than ever. We were therefore pleased that during
Mrs. Thatcher's visit to Moscow both sides agreed that progress requires a
step by step approach with clear priorities. It was agreed that these
priorities should include: an agreement on intermediate-range nuclear
weapons, with strict verification, with constraints on shorter-range systems
and immediate follow-on negotiations to deal more fully with shorter-range
systems; a ban on all chemical weapons; early negotiations on reductions in
conventional forces; and a 50-per-cent reduction in strategic nuclear
weapons. There are, of course, still important areas where there are
differing views. For example: we and our allies in NATO believe that we
should have the right in any agreement on Long Range Intermediate Nuclear
Forces to match certain Soviet shorter-range systems, in which they have an
overwhelming superiority, and my Government is studying the latest Soviet
proposals on this point. We also do not agree that 50-per-cent reductions in
strategic nuclear weapons need be held hostage to the Strategic Defence
Initiative.
In this respect, Mrs. Thatcher made proposals to Mr. Gorbachev for
achieving greater predictability in the area of strateaic defence, by agreeing
a timetable spelling out the planned research programme of both parties,
supported by a commitment not to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty for a fixed period. There were also differing views expressed on
nuclear deterrence, which will have helped both sides to appreciate better the
other's underlying security concerns. We note that the Soviet Union maintains
a massive nuclear armoury presumably as a deterrent and still insists that
moves to reduce it must be made multilaterally by agreement with the other
side.
However, as Mrs. Thatcher said in her statement to the House of Commons
on her return from Moscow, "I do not underestimate the differences which
remain between us on these matters. But it was none the less clear from our
talks that we do agree that progress on arms control requires a step-by-step
approach with clearly identified priorities, and that we are largely in
agreement on what those priorities shall be. This is a useful and positive
step".
In addition, as Mrs. Thatcher stressed during her visit, the changes
which the Soviet leadership have set in train internally are welcome to us.
Increased openness, "restructuring", and democratization point the way to
greater trust and confidence, which will improve the prospects for progress in
arms control, as well as in other areas.
To turn now specifically to subjects under consideration in this
Conference, I should like to start with that of chemical weapons on which the
most progress has been made. We welcome the skill and vigour with which
Ambassador Ekeus is pursuing his task as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Chemical Weapons. As he knows, he has the full support of my delegation and
my own personal support in his work as Chairman. The same applies to the
three Co-ordinators, Mr. Niewenhuys, Mr. Macedo and Dr. Krutzsch, in their
760
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 :
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
5
(Mr. Cromartie, United Kingdom)
systematic Work. We appreciate the practical contribution that has been made
in this field by the workshops held during this session in Finland and in the
German Democratic Republic.
The United Kingdom has tabled as a contribution to the negotiations a
series of papers on different aspects of the convention, several on the
verification of non-production, one on the constitution of the organization
that will need to be set up under the convention, and most recently on
challenge inspection. The proposals tabled last July by the Minister of State
at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mt. Renton, for Article IX of the
Treaty, remain firmly on the table. Mr. Gorbachev confirmed to Mrs. Thatcher
during her visit to Moscow that the Soviet Union accepted broadly the British
approach. We welcome the greater readiness the Soviet Union has shown in this
area as in some others to consider effective verification. It is an important
step down the road to building the confidence between States that must be
fundamental for our convention.
Our work on verification has thrown into relief that further practical
work remains to be done in other areas of the draft convention. In
particular, we must resolve how to provide for effective administration of the
convention. It is becoming clear that the organization to be set up under
Article VIII will need to be effective from the moment the convention comes
into force. It will need to provide inspectors immediately to conduct initial
inspection and evaluation of declarations and to provide effective
international monitoring of destruction of stocks and production facilities.
Verification of certain sectors of the civil chemical industry under
Article VI of the convention will also be required at an early stage. A
trained corps of inspectors will be needed to conduct challenge inspection
under Article IX. In addition the organization will have an important task of
receiving and collating data reported by States Parties. It will be essential
to have an effective organization in which all parties will have confidence.
To achieve this aim we must consider now how it is to be recruited, trained,
equipped and paid for.
Further work is needed on the regimes for the different schedules of
substances under Article VI and their relation to the organization. A
mechanism for revising schedules will also be essential.
Nor must we lose sight that if our convention is to be effective, it must
be global. As the distinguished representative of the United States asked
recently, we wonder why more countries have not stated whether or not they
possess chemical weapons? My delegation has made its position clear on many
occasions but we willingly do so again. The United Kingdom unilaterally
abandoned its chemical warfare capability in the 1950s. We believe, as
Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Gorbachev agreed in Moscow, that the conclusion of an
effective chemical weapons convention is one of the top priorities.
Turning to the nuclear-test ban item, we are still regrettably in a
situation where no practical work is being done in this Conference in an
ad hoc committee. Among other things, this means that the technical papers
which my delegation has tabled on the subject, the latest being CD/610, have
761
nariaccifipn in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
6
(Mr. Cromartie, United Kingdom)
not received full consideration. It now seems to be accepted, at least by the
vast majority of members of the Conference, that the best way forward
procedurally is a non-negotiating mandate which will allow work on outstanding
problems with regard to verification and also of scope. The latter is equally
crucial since in our view it is essential that a Comprehensive Test Ban should
cover all nuclear explosions, whatever their declared purpose.
During the deadlock on the mandate of an ad hoc committee, we
particularly welcome the valuable continuing contribution on seismic
monitoring of the Ad Hoc Group of Seismic Experts, as well as the related
activities sponsored by Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany. We look
forward to the further Level II experiment, for which the way has now been
cleared, and we hope that where Possible countries from all groups in the
Conference will participate in this important and practical work.
We also welcome the bilateral discussions going on concurrently between
the United States and the Soviet Union on matters related to nuclear testing.
We hope that these will soon be able to clear the way for progress on the
apparent agreement at the Reykjavik Summit between the two sides to a
step-by-step approach starting with ratification of the Threshold Test Ban
Treaty and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty.
The prevention of an arms race in outer space is another important item
on the agenda of this Conference. We are glad that it has proved possible to
establish an ad hoc committee on this subject for the third successive year,
and earlier in our proceedings than ever before. We wish Ambassador Pugliese
well in his task as Chairman. Once again, my delegation hopes to make a
substantial contribution to the preparatory work of examining the legal,
political, strategic and technical aspects of the question. We appreciate the
practical contribution that the Canadian Government is making by organizing a
workshop in Montreal in May.
One of the perennially difficult items on our agenda is radiological
weapons. We are pleased that our consistent view that it is preferable to
work separately on additional protection for peaceful nuclear facilities and
on radiological weapons in a classical sense now seems to be generally
accepted. This, of course, will not in itself solve the outstanding issues on
either track, particularly the complex questions involved in the Protection of
Nuclear Facilities. But we hone that under Ambassador Meiszter's skilful
Chairmanship, it will be possible to make progress in a more coherent manner
on both these important subjects.
The Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament is also a subject which has
been with us for many years, but the hope must be that we are at last in the
final stages of this marathon endeavour. We believe that given the good will
and flexibility that is evident on all sides it should be possible to resolve
the outstanding issues in a generally acceptable way. If so, the achievement
will be a tribute to the persistence and patience of Ambassador Garcia Robles.
The subject of the Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament, which was
inspired by the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to
762
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R0001nninnnni_a
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
7
(Mr. Cromartie, United Kingdom)
disarmament, leads me on to that of the forthcoming third special session
which is set for next year. We are looking forward to this session, and
intend to make a positive and constructive contribution to its work. We
believe that it will take place against a better international background, and
in a more realistic and practical spirit than the second special session,
which ended in failure. There is now much more common ground on subjects
worthy of discussion, including conventional reductions, and on the principles
to be applied including truly effective verification, and compliance.
Before the third special session, in fact later this year, the Conference
on Disarmament and Development will be held. We hope that this Conference
will give a realistic estimate of the issues involved, including the
importance of increased regional security in order to reduce expenditure on
armaments in the developing world itself.
I should like to mention one other event outside this Conference, but as
always relevant to our efforts here. We have been most heartened by the work
of the experts meeting set up by last September's Biological Weapons
Convention Review Conference which is now drawing to a close. We hope that
this will contribute towards the strengthening of confidence in the Biological
Weapons Convention.
Mr. President, thanks to your efforts and to those of your two immediate
predecessors, the Conference has got off to an excellent start this year.
Looking ahead, in addition to what has already been achieved, we hope that the
Ad Hoc Committee on Negative Security Assurances will find a volunteer to act
as Chairman, and we are ready to explore with him whether anything further can
usefully be done about this item at the present time. We also hope that it
will be possible to have informal plenary discussion of item 2 of our agenda
and also this year on item 3. We recognize that this would not be an ideal
solution for all, but it would at least allow some consideration of these
items on our agenda.
As several previous speakers have already pointed out, the activities and
agenda of this Conference will be reviewed at the forthcoming special session
of the General Assembly. Of course, the Conference can only negotiate
realistically on subjects where there is common ground. But at the same time,
there are also items where practical work or some substantive discussion could
also take place and we should seek an acceptable procedural way to make this
possible. It is up to us to ensure that the remainder of this year's work
makes a positive and practical contribution to the disarmament process.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the distinguished representative of the
United Kingdom, Ambassador Cromartie, for his statement and for the kind words
expressed to the President. I now give the floor to the distinguished
representative of Japan, Ambassador Yamada.
Mr. YAMADA (Japan): Mr. President, I wish to congratulate you on your
assumption of the Presidency of the Conference for the month of April. With
your experience and skill, you will no doubt lead us to a successful
conclusion of the spring session of the Conference. I wish also to take this
763
nprdaccified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
8
(Mr. Yamada, Japan)
opportunity to express our deep appreciation to Ambassador Fan Guoxiang of
China and Ambassador Lechuga Hevia of Cuba for the excellent work they each
performed during their respective tenures as President of the Conference.
Today, I would like to make a few observations on the Progress Report of
the Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts to Consider International Co-operative
Measures to Detect and Identify Seismic Events contained in Document CD/745,
which is before us.
First, I wish to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Group,
Dr. Ola Dahlman of Sweden, for the dedicated and superb work he has been
performing to bring together the expertise of the seismological experts of the
interested countries to provide the important scientific underpinning to our
top priority item, namely agenda item 1, Nuclear Test Ban.
I was happy to learn from Dr. Dahlman's presentation on 2 April of the
Progress Report that substantial progress has been made towards thd design and
testing of a modern seismic data exchange system.
It is particularly encouraging that the Ad Hoc Group has reached
agreement in principle on the design, or the major components, of such a
modern system -- a system which is based on the expeditious exchange of all
available seismic information, both waveform and parameter data, for all
detected signals, and the routine use of all data at international data
centres.
As I understand from Dr. Dahlman's report, the Ad Hoc Group is to engage
in working out the details of the modern seismic data exchange system, some of
which involves the breaking of new grounds in seismology.
I am certain that my colleagues in the Conference on Disarmament share my
hope that we will hear the fruitful outcome of the work of the scientific
experts in this regard at the earliest possible date.
As we look forward with anticipation to the work of scientific experts, I
wish to draw the attention of the Conference to a couple of important pointers
which are already contained in the Progress Report of the Ad Hoc Group.
The Report states, "The Group agreed that the IDCs (International Data
Centres) should be open facilities for participating States, providing free
and easy access to any data and analysis results. It is important that the
data base structure at IDCs allow participating States easy automatic access
to and extraction of information".
I believe that this principle of openness and free and easy access
constitutes a very important guideline as we engage ourselves in the task of
building a modern international seismic data exchange system.
Speaking for my own country, this is also the basic principle which
guides Japan's contribution to this worthy international undertaking.
1 64
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
9
(Mr. Yamada, Japan)
We have attached particular importance to establishing and widening the
network of co-operative national investigations into Level II or waveform data
exchange. Since our proposal to this end in March 1986, we successfully
obtained the participation of 16 countries in the exercise, and the
investigations have been under way since last December. I am happy to report
to the Conference that progress to date has been encouraging, thanks to the
keen interest on the part of participating countries.
In the course of the Meeting of the Ad Hoc Group of Scientific Experts
last month, the Japanese expert, Dr. Suehiro, worked together with his
colleagues from 18 countries covering the Western, Non-Aligned, Socialist and
other Groups, to compile a report entitled "Progress of Co-operative National
Investigations into Waveform Data Exchange", submitted to the Ad Hoc Group as
Document GSE/JAPAN/26. In this connection, I wish to express my appreciation
to the Canadian Government for having organized an informal workshop on data
communication in October last year which played a valuable role in furthering
our common work. Our thanks are also due to the Federal Republic of Germany
which organized a useful and interesting demonstration of existing national
facilities in the course of the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group.
As is mentioned in GSE/JAPAN/26, there are already clear and positive
signs for further evolution and widening of these co-operative endeavours. A
number of countries other than the present 16 have indicated that they will
take part in the near future.
I welcome the prospect of wider participation in our undertaking, and
wish at the same time to reiterate my delegation's hope that as many countries
as possible will see fit to participate in these and similar exercises.
Another point of note in document CD/745 is the realistic approach taken
with respect to the preparation for a large-scale experiment on the exchange
of Level II data, which the Ad Hoc Group envisages carrying out in
approximately 1988. Such a large-scale experiment provides an important
target towards which the Ad Hoc Group can intensify and focus its work. At
the same time, it is important that when the experiment takes place, it be
carried out on the basis of careful planning through a series of preparatory
experiments. I therefore fully support the stage-by-stage approach taken by
the Ad Hoc Group, which will call initially for a number of bilateral and
multilateral experiments. I feel certain that the co-operative investigations
I mentioned earlier will play an important role as a part of such multilateral
experiments.
In my intervention at the plenary meting on 10 February, I stressed the
high priority that my Government attaches to the realization of a
comprehensive test ban and our ardent wish to see an early resumption of
substantial work by the Conference on the issue. I feel compelled to express
my disappointment at the inaction of the Conferende on this item. I do not
intend today to repeat the elaboration of the circumstances which, in my view,
hold out prospects for recommencement this year of this long-suspended work.
Let me simply state that the circumstances still hold, and that what we need
is the collective will to make full use of them.
765
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
10
(Mr. Yamada, Japan)
In the course of the past two months, a number of delegations have
addressed this issue. Let us face the political realities surrounding the
issue. Then we can fairly well anticipate what is feasible and what is not
for the Conference to attain this year. Let us bear in mind that progress can
be achieved only by substantial and practical work in the Ad Hoc Committee on
the basis of what is now a widely shared perception of the subject matter, and
not by the language of its mandate.
With this in mind, may I once again pledge the full co-operation of my
delegation in the important work under agenda item 1.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the distinguished delegate of Japan,
Ambassador Yamada, for his statement and for the kind words addressed to the
President. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of
Romania, Ambassador Dolgu.
Mr. DOLGU (Romania) (translated from French): Comrade President, may I
first of all join the previous speakers in expressing to you my warmest
congratulations on the occasion of your accession to the Presidency cf the
Conference on Disarmament. We are particularly gratified as you represent the
Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, a country with which the Socialist Republic
of Romania traditionally maintains relations of friendship and co-operation in
all areas. I am convinced that thanks to your intellectual abilities and
diplomatic experience our work will develop very favourably in a period where
new efforts are required on the part of one and all in order to ensure
effective progress towards achieving specific and significant results. I
should at the same time like to express our sincere appreciation and our
warmest thanks to the distinguished Ambassador of Cuba, Ambassador Lechuga
Hevia, for his remarkable efforts as President of the Conference in the month
of March.
Two months ago I submitted in plenary of the Conference the overall views
and proposals of the Romanian delegation regarding the problems on the agenda
of this session.
Since then, new possibilities have opened up to forge a nuclear-free
world. The USSR has expressed its readiness to attain an agreement on the
problem of the elimination of medium-range missiles in Europe separately from
the other issues covered by the bilateral negotiation. Naturally, we have
welcomed this decision -- all the more so since our country has always
considered that the elimination of medium-range missiles in Europe is a
priority among priorities. A few days ago the USSR stated that it was ready
to begin negotiations on shorter-range missiles in Europe. The dialogue
between the Soviet Union and the United States is continuing, and Mr. Schultz
is now in Moscow. All these are indications leading us to believe that there
is every ground to consider that, on the basis of the proposals of the Soviet
Union as well as of the proposals submitted by the United States, there are
real possibilities very soon to arrive at an agreement designed to settle this
problem. As the distinguished representative of the Federal Republic of
Germany, Ambassador von StUlpnagel, stressed, "the early conclusion of an
agreement would be a visible sign of the seriousness and credibility of the
arms control efforts".
766
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
11
(Mr. Dolgu, Romania)
Since Reykjavik many views have been expressed on such an agreement. One
of them relates to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons. As far as we are
concerned I would like to state that we very much doubt that effect. After
the accident at Chernobyl, the fact that the use of nuclear weapons by anyone
at all leads to results that are unacceptable to all, including the party that
resorted to them, has become more self-evident than ever. In such conditions,
what credibility can nuclear weapons have as a deterrent? We believe that the
problems of security require a new approach and options that exclude the
nuclear factor. The elimination of nuclear weapons seem to us both necessary
and possible. In this connection the year 2000, close as it may be, is
certainly not Utopia. In keeping with the security interests of all
countries, it objectively represents a realistic goal.
Nuclear disarmament can only be achieved stage by stage, while of course
respecting the security interests of all States. But in our view, for a real
nuclear disarmament process to begin, the measures adopted should lead not
only to the reduction of armaments in one particular area but at the same time
to the reduction of nuclear arsenals as a whole, with the purpose of their
complete elimination. If a certain class of weapons is reduced or eliminated
but at the same time the level of arsenals in another area is increased, the
result can only be to maintain or even to heighten the level of nuclear
confrontation. This is why we should not lose sight of the goal of ensuring
the military balance at the lowest possible level.
On the basis of these considerations I feel compelled to say once again
that we can see no justification for the continuation of nuclear testing.
Neither verification of the reliability of existing weapons, nor their further
improvement, nor the development of new types and systems of weapons, a
subject to which I shall be reverting later, can be valid arguments. The
institution of a.general moratorium, with the negotiation in the Conference on
Disarmament of an international treaty for a comprehensive nuclear-test ban,
is a priority and extremely urgent objective.
On the basis of these considerations, I should like to stress, above all,
the regret, indeed the disappointment, of my delegation regarding the
situation of the discussions concerning the ad hoc committee on a
nuclear-test-ban. We do not believe that a precise negotiating mandate should
be a sine qua non condition for the creation of a structure which could
provide the framework for substantive discussions. By the same token, we are
unable to share the view that we should oonfinethe substantive problems to be
considered to a few specific aspects. In our view, the recognized
interlinkage of the work of the Conference with other negotiations has nothing
to do with these limitations; as the sole multilateral negotiating forum in
the disarmament field, the Conference has the right -- indeed the duty -- to
consider and negotiate on all aspects of the problem of the nuclear-test ban
or any other issue on its agenda.
With regard to agenda items 2 and 3, nuclear disarmament and the
prevention of nuclear war, the Romanian delegation believes that, in view of
the current situation, efforts to reach agreement on certain work structures
and the consideration of substantive questions in their entire complexity
should be continued.
767
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
12
(Mr. Dolgu, Romania)
Previous speakers, particularly the distinguished representatives of the
Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany, have stressed that to
eliminate the danger of nuclear war we should act at the same time to prevent
any war, even a conventional war, which in current circumstances would be much
more devastating than the Second World War. This is a truth that need not be
demonstrated -- particularly as it is on European territory that both world
wars were unleashed and it is in Europe that the two opposing military blocs
are face to face, and where we find the greatest concentration of destructive
arsenals. The reduction of conventional arsenals is a problem of crucial
importance for the security of the continent, in terms both of the reduction
of the dangers of confrontation and sources of tension and distrust, as well
as of the very process of nuclear disarmament.
The alternative to this reduction could only be the transfer of the arms
race into the conventional area in both quantitative and qualitative terms.
It is precisely for this reason that Romania, President Nicolae Ceauiescu, are
in favour of a comprehensive and global approach to disarmament issues so that
along with the reduction of nuclear arsenals, the stage by stage reduction of
conventional armaments should also be considered, as well as the establishment
of a timetable for the dismantling of military bases, and the withdrawal of
troops from foreign territory, the reduction of military bloc activities and
their simultaneous dismantling, and the renunciation of large-scale military
manoeuvres at the frontiers of other States or in international waters.
I should like to refer briefly to agenda item 5, that is, the prevention
of an arms race in outer space. In this area too differing views are
expressed regarding all sorts of issues: what is a space weapon? When did
the militarization of space begin? Which country is most advanced in any
particular area? Are the new space weapons offensive or defensive? Do they
have a destabilizing effect? And so forth. Undoubtedly these issues are
important, and experts must deal with them. In our view, however, there are
two vital issues: the first is whether we want the arms race to spread into
outer space, and whether we want it to be stepped up on Earth. The second is
whether we want space to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, as the
common heritage of mankind. We believe that if we truly want the efforts of
our States to lead to a peaceful world we should reply in the negative to the
first question and in the affirmative to the second.
Is it reasonable for us to expect such an answer to these questions?
This in itself is a difficult question. Difficult because so far there has
been absolutely not a single new possibility opened up by the progress of
science and technology which has not been used for military purposes. It
seems logical to conclude that once they have become possible, the development
and the deployment of space weapons will thereby become inevitable) but we do
not share this fatalistic reasoning. Indeed, we do not share the view that
the development of space weapons would be a tool or the tool for the
elimination of nuclear weapons. On the contrary, such action would rather
stimulate the arms race in outer space and on Earth.
768
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
13
(Mr. Dolgu, Romania)
We do not share this fatalistic outlook because our experience is in
itself a reason for optimism. I am thinking of the fact that bacteriological
weapons have been banned and we hope to succeed in banning chemical weapons
and that most if not all States, and particularly the Soviet Union and the
United States accept the idea that nuclear weapons should be banned. Why then
should we not try and break the vicious circle of the arms race with all its
sequel of extremely harmful consequences for peace, for growth and for
development. Why should we not try to take a short cut by banning this new
class of weapons -- space weapons -- before they are developed, before they
jeopardize the security, indeed the very existence of each of our countries,
before they swallow up vast resources which are so vitally needed today in
order to carry out the transition to a new civilization, a civilization based
on other technological foundations, on other consumption models, on other
forms of behaviour in respect of the environment. Countries which have
neither the means nor the ambition to become space Powers cannot remain
indifferent to the absolutely .catastrophic consequences of this new arms
race. In our increasingly interdependent world, its effects will be felt by
all peoples, whether large and powerful or small and weak.
The ongoing negotiations show how difficult it is to 'rid ourselves of
chemical weapons and of nuclear weapons. Why leave our successors the
difficult legacy of trying to rid themselves of these weapons which in a few
decades will have turned the heavens into a real hell. It is infinitely
easier, from the technical and political standpoint, to ban something that
does not yet exist than something that does exist and is perceived as a
threat. This is the very central idea which the Ad Hoc Committee on the
Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space should take as the basis for its
work. This also applies to the entire concept of new weapons of mass
destruction, including radiological weapons.
As far as the use of outer space exclusively for peaceful purposes is
concerned, it is high time for us to begin to discuss this issue in practical
terms, similarly to the way in which the law of the sea was discussed. A
great philosopher said that mankind only poses itself problems that it is
perfectly capable of resolving. This is now the case of space. The USSR and
the United States are great space Powers. Other countries have or are
acquiring appropriate means, whereas the great majority of countries remain
outside the entire competition for space. Are we going to resign ourselves to
the idea that the history of the conquest of space by mankind should pass
through a period of colonial empires? No, I don't think so. The world is no
longer what it was a century ago. States are aware of the stakes and of their
security and economic interests as well. They are interested in the uses of
space and they should have something to say on the subject as of now. In this
spirit, may I reiterate Romania's proposals to prepare an international treaty
on the use of space for exclusively peaceful purposes as well as the creation
of an international body entrusted with ensuring the implementation of this
goal. It is essential to lay all the necessary legal groundwork so that there
should be absolutely no room for doubt that outer space falls within the
common heritage of mankind, a heritage which should be used exclusively for
peaceful purposes and consequently protected from any military competition.
The Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of the Arms Race in Outer Space, whose
769
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
14
(Mr. Dolgu, Romania)
work has begun under the Chairmanship of the distinguished Ambassador of
Italy, Ambassador Pugliese, is called upon to make an effective contribution
to the achievement of this objective of undoubted importance and urgency.
As far as the prohibition of chemical weapons is concerned, like many
other delegations we have also welcomed the new positions expressed by the
Soviet delegation in the statements of 24 November 1986, 17 February 1987 and
5 March 1987, intended to contribute to finding solutions to certain crucial
problems: the declaration of chemical weapons stocks, and their verification,
the non-production of chemical weapons by civilian industry, and international
on-site inspection including challenge inspection. We also welcome the new
measures recently announced by the Soviet Union, particularly the cessation of
the production of chemical weapons and the beginning of the construction of a
facility for the destruction of stocks. These are important steps which
should help confidence-building and facilitate the conclusion of the
convention.
We consider that, ori the basis of results achieved in the intersessional
period, the new proposals which I have mentioned and the willingness of all
delegations, remarkable results have been achieved, particularly in the first
part of the session. Thus thanks to the personal qualities and the dedication
of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, His Excellency Ambassador Ekeus of
Sweden, and the Group Co-ordinators, Mr. Nieuwenhys, Mr. Macedo and
Dr. Krutzsch, and through the contributions of delegations, sizeable progress
has been achieved in the drafting of article ry and its annex regarding
chemical weapon stocks, as well as in the clarification of certain elements of
article VI and its annexes on non-production of chemical weapons in civilian
industry, and article VIII on the Consultative Committee and its subsidiary
bodies.
It will be most important to get the green light from our capitals at the
earliest possible time for mutual acceptable solutions to problems which have
not yet been settled. Equally important is the duty to refrain from any
action which at this stage could complicate or slow down the pace of the
negotiations and the reaching of agreement on essential substantive elements
regarding the draft convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons.
It would not be reasonable to ask States to give up their security
interests. But it is legitimate to demand that certain perceptions of these
interests and of how to guarantee them should be given up. If we do not agree
as early as possible on the need to take a new approach to security problems,
we may arrive at other agreements, undoubtedly useful for the international
climate, but we shall not be able to avert the deadly danger weighing upon
mankind.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of Romania for his statement
and for the kind words expressed to the President and to my country. I now
give the floor to the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, Ambassador Nazarkin.
770
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-61168R000inninnnni _A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
15
Mr. NAZARKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): The delegation of the USSR to the Conference on Disarmament has
provided the secretariat with the text of the foreign policy section of the
statement made by the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee,
Mr. Gorbachev, in Prague on 10 April, for it to be isssued as an official
Conference document. Today it is my intention to introduce that document.
When speaking in the capital of our ally, socialist Czechoslovakia, at
the very geographical centre of Europe, the Soviet leader touched on a wide
range of issues, both domestic and international, including questions relating
to the deepening of interaction among the socialist countries on the basis of
equality and mutual responsibility. He also dwelt in detail on the need to
develop broad co-operation in Europe on the widest range of issues.
The statement also contains a frank and critical analysis of our domestic
problems, omissions and failures. Having noted that the ultimate objective of
restructuring in the Soviet Union is to ensure a better life for Soviet people
and firmly to establish higher standards of social organization and social
justice, Mr. Gorbachev emphasized that the furthering of socialist democracy
is the motive force which will ensure such restructuring.
I am drawing your attention to this because the foreign policy of the
Soviet State is inseparably linked to and proceeds from its domestic policy
and an objective observer cannot but note that link. The very rapid process
of democratization and openness now under way in our country is reflected in
an increasingly active peaceful foreign policy and in new initiatives intended
to find solutions to the intricate military and political problems which have
accumulated in the post-war years, and I noted with pleasure the understanding
of the process and the positive attitude expressed to it in the statement we
heard from the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom,
Ambassador Cromartie, when summing up the results of Prime Minister Thatcher's
visit to our country.
In his statements, General Secretary Gorbachev clearly outlined the
position of the Soviet Union on some of the most urgent issues of limiting the
arms race, confidence-building and developing co-operation. He also made
important new proposals, including proposals relating to matters on the agenda
of the Conference on Disarmament. Today there is not a single issue where the
socialist countries are on the defensive: they are on the offensive for peace
and comprehensive security.
The Soviet Union is convinced that a nuclear war can be prevented and the
threat of war can be reduced. This conviction stems from the increased
realization in the world of the fatal consequences a nuclear conflict would
have, as well as from the opportunities emerging in Reykjavik. The
Soviet Union is continuing to strive to seek solutions on the whole
interrelated set of nuclear disarmament issues. Of course, it is the two
Powers possessing the largest arsenal of nuclear arms, i.e. the Soviet Union
and the United States, which should give impetus to the process of nuclear
disarmament and get this process away from a standstill.
771
narinQqifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
16
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
In reaffirming its readiness to take the most decisive steps -- a
50 per cent reduction in strategic offensive arms over five years and their
total elimination over 10 years (provided, naturally, that the ABM treaty is
strictly complied with and that there is no arms race in outer space) -- the
Soviet Union, as we know, recently proposed that an agreement on medium-range
missiles should be negotiated and agreed on separately and signed without
delay. Of the nuclear disarmament problems, this is the closest to a
solution. The solution depends above all on the readiness of the
United States and its allies to reach agreement.
Now the Soviet Union is taking an important new step: it is proposing
that, to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement on medium-range missiles,
talks should be started on radical reductions in and total elimination of
shorter-range missiles (with a range of 500 to 1,000 kilometres) in Europe
without any linkage to the outcome of the talks on medium-range missiles. For
the duration of the negotiations, the sides would undertake not to build up
such missiles.
After the signing of an agreement on medium-range missiles, and
regardless of progress in discussions on the shorter-range missiles, the
Soviet Union, in agreement with Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic
Republic, would withdraw its missiles stationed in those countries -- which
were stationed there as a counter-measure to the deployment of Pershing 2 and
cruise missiles.
Nuclear disarmament is one of the central items on the agenda of the
Conference on Disarmament. Unfortunately, our work in this area is not
progressing. The reasons for this, which stem from the positions of a number
of member States of the Conference, are well known and we have pointed them
out. We hope that our new proposals in the bilateral field will have a
stimulating effect on the consideration of these matters in the Conference on
Disarmament as well and will induce it to get to grips with the problem on
which mankind's survival depends.
Frequently, including here in the Conference on Disarmament, we hear
alleaations that it is impossible to achieve a radical breakthrough on the
question of nuclear disarmament due to the absence of a solution on the
problem of verification, resulting from the alleged unwillingness of the
Soviet Union to accept far-reaching verification measures. This is far from
being the case. The Soviet Union's position on verification was again
explained in the Prague statement made by Mr. Gorbachev. Once again the world
can see that on questions of verification, the Soviet Union is prepared to go
as far as is necessary to find a solution.
The participants in the Conference are aware of our concrete proposals on
verification of compliance with future agreements on the prohibition of
chemical weapons, on the cessation of nuclear tests, on the prevention of an
arms race in outer space, as well as on other matters. Our concept of
verification encompasses the whole spectrum of arms and armed forces.
Needless to say, the Soviet Union pays due attention to other States'
proposals on verification, and participates_in the joint elaboration of the
772
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R0001001nonn1-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
17
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
most effective forms Of verification. I repeat that we regard verification as
an essential component of effective agreements, if it is a question of the
real limitation, reduction and elimination of arms, armed forces or military
activity.
Since, according to the new Soviet proposals, we are talking about the
elimination of whole classes of nuclear arms in Europe, questions of
verification of compliance with future agreements take on a qualitatively new
meaning. The Soviet Union favours the strictest measures in this field.
Appropriate verification, including on-site inspection, must cover the
missiles and launchers remaining after the cuts, both in combat service and at
all other facilities -- test ranges, manufacturing plants, training centres,
etc. Inspectors should also have access to military bases in third
countries. One would think that the proposals of the Soviet Union on
verification measures, with regard to reductions in nuclear weapons, could
also be used in solving verification problems in the multilateral negotiations
on item 2 of the Conference's agenda. The Soviet Union has consistently
favoured the beginning of such negotiations.
In his statement, General Secretary Gorbachev advanced ideas which are
important in terms of finding a mutually acceptable approach to the problem of
preventing a nuclear war which is, of course, item 3 of our agenda. The
Soviet Union believes that in Europe even a "conventional" war would be
devastating, not only because of the much more destructive nature of
conventional weapons as compared with the past, but also because in Europe
there are about 200 nuclear power stations and a widespread network of
chemical plants, the destruction of which would render this continent unfit
for living.
In view of all this, and wishing to avert the threat of a military
catastrophe in Europe, the Soviet Union proposes that the situation be changed
drastically by adopting measures to reduce and eventually to eliminate
tactical nuclear weapons and to radically reduce armed forces and conventional
arms in order to preclude the possibility of surprise attack. An important
step in this direction would be to Implement the Budapest programme of the
Warsaw Treaty countries adopted on 11 June last year.
We are in favour of discussing questions of disarmament in Europe within
the framework of the CSCE process. The Soviet Union is now raising the
question of convening a meeting in Vienna of all Foreign Ministers of the
States participating in the Conference of Security and Co-operation in Europe
in order to decide on the initiation of negotiations aimed at radically
reducing tactical nuclear weapons, armed forces and armaments in Europe.
In doing this, we wish to remove the inequality which has developed in
certain components of the armed forces, not through increases by the side that
is lagging behind, but through reductions by the side that is ahead.
We see the process of lowering the military balance in Europe as a
step-by-step process, with equilibrium maintained at a level of reasonable
adequacy, with international verification and on-site inspection, as well as
with an exchange of data on armed forces and arms.
773
neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
18
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
The objectives of strengthening European security would also be enhanced
by a measure such as the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free corridor in
central Europe, and the Soviet Union supports the appeal addressed by the
German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia to the Federal Republic of
Germany on the subject, and would be ready to withdraw on a reciprocal basis
all its nuclear systems from such a corridor and guarantee its status. The
implementation of the proposals by Bulgaria, Romania and Greece on a nuclear
and chemical weapon-free zone in the Balkans would be of great importance.
We believe that in the negotiations on the prohibition of chemical
weapons the necessary prerequisites have been created to allow us this very
year to find solutions to outstanding issues and to draw up an international
convention on the subject.
The Soviet Union regards the speedy finalization of negotiations on a
general and complete ban on chemical weapons as one of the main objectives of
its foreign policy. On this basis, the Soviet Union has recently presented a
number of important major initiatives with a view to establishing the
necessary conditions to accelerate and intensify negotiations on the
convention.
In his Prague statement, General Secretary Gorbachev announced new
practical steps on the part of my country in this direction. The Soviet Union
has ceased production of chemical weapons. The Soviet Union does not have any
chemical weapons outside its borders. Construction of a special facility for
the destruction of chemical-weapon stocks has begun in the Soviet Union.
The commissioning of this facility will allow the rapid implementation of the
process of chemical disarmament once the international convention was
concluded. Here I would like to thank the distinguished representative of
Romania, Ambassador Dolgu, for the high appreciation he expressed today of the
steps we have taken.
In making such steps, the Soviet Union proceeds from the firm assumption
that the chemical weapons convention will be ready for signature in 1987.
This, naturally, requires that States must begin now to take practical
measures to prepare for the implementation of the obligation they will take
upon themselves as parties to the future convention.
As with other measures for real disarmament, the Soviet Union is seeking
to establish the most stringent system of verification, including
international verification, regarding the elimination of chemical weapons and
the industrial base for their manufacture. On the basis of such an approach,
we are prepared to look for mutually acceptable solutions to questions related
to compliance with the convention by all parties and to confidence-building
among them. I note with satisfaction the positive attitude of the
United Kingdom towards our steps in the area of effective verification of
compliance with the future convention.
I wish to emphasize once again that the Soviet Union, which is
consistently in favour of the speedy elaboration of the convention this very
year, will continue to do its utmost to achieve decisive progress towards
774
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
19
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
agreement on the elimination of chemical arsenals. Now it is up to the
United States and the NATO countries to show their political will, realism and
high sense of responsibility. Then this year, 1987, would see the
commencement of general and complete chemical disarmament.
These are the comments our delegation wished to put forward in connection
with the distribution in the Conference on Disarmament of the foreign policy
section of the statement of the General Secretary of the CPSU Central
Committee, which contained important new proposals on the limitation of the
arms race, disarmament and confidence-building.
In conclusion, in connection with the statement made by
Ambassador Cromartie of the United Kingdom on the results of Mrs. Thatcher's
visit to the Soviet Union, I would like to state that we agree with the
assessment of the importance of the talks which took place in Moscow. They
are of major significance both for bilateral relations and the international
level. In the new conditions developing in Europe and throughout the world,
we saw a continuation of dialogue with a major Western Power and permanent
member of the United Nations Security Council. This dialogue allowed for a
frank statement of views on relations between States with different social
systems, on regional conflicts and on other important problems and --
something which is especially topical -- on the prospects for disarmament.
There was an in-depth comparison of the positions and clarification of the
intentions of both parties.
The negotiations showed that both sides recognized the importance of
solving the issue of medium-range missiles, although the United Kingdom still
has reservations on the approach to agreement. I noted today that
Ambassador Cromartie informed us that in London they are still continuing
their study of our new proposals. Both sides, during the negotiations in
Moscow, expressed their readiness to eliminate chemical weapons and to reduce
military confrontation in Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals and to expand
the Helsinki process and promote the settlement of regional conflict by
political means.
On the cardinal issues of international development there remain
disagreements in principle. We saw confirmation of the Soviet leadership's
thorough disagreement with the position according to which the conduct of
international affairs and national security can only be conceived in terms of
reliance on nuclear weapons, although this encourages their development and is
fraught with the danger of universal disaster. We cannot accept the argument
that we need to maintain nuclear weapons, the so-called nuclear deterrent,
forever. we heard no convincing reasons in favour of this. Indeed, we cannot
base our foreign policy on dreams; we agree with this, but it can and must be
based on boldness. Our view of the future is a non-nuclear, non-violent
world, a world without obsolete stereotypes, a world built on confidence and
trust. This was directly put to Mrs. Thatcher, with supporting arguments in
the talks in Moscow. The main point is to work towards this world through
practical action; of course, step by step, but we must never lose sight of the
main aim. This resolve, this approach, was demonstrated yet again quite
recently, the other day in fact, by the statement made by
General Secretary Gorbachev in Prague.
nprlaccifiAci in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
20
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics for his statement, and I now give the floor to the last
speaker on my list, the distinguished representative of France,
Ambassador Morel.
Mr. MOREL (France) (translated from French): Speaking as Co-ordinator
for Outer Space of the group of Western countries, I wish to reply to remarks
which were directed at this group during our last plenary session on
Thursday, 9 April, about the mandate and the programme of work of the Ad Hoc
Committee on our agenda item 5.
I wish at the outset to state that we do not want to prolong an argument
about the word "measures", which can only have a negative influence on the
quality of our substantive work, but since the Western position on the subject
was described as inexplicable, I shall repeat here what you all know.
Firstly we have no objection to the consideration, in the course of our
work, of proposals for measures relevant to the prevention of an arms race in
outer space.
Secondly, we find no difficulty with the word itself, and we have been
the first to underline that it can be found more than a dozen times in the
relevant part of last year's report of the Conference.
Thirdly, the Western group has agreed, on the occasion of the adoption of
the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee for 1987, to confirm that, as was the case
in 1986, the consideration of proposals for measures relevant to the
prevention of an arms race in outer space was part of the work of the
Committee.
Bearing this in mind, therefore, if there is to be a debate on the
subject, and we hope this will not be the case, it can only concern the place
to be given to such "measures" in our work. There are, on this question,
perfectly explicable and legitimate differences which should, however, not
prevent us from proceeding with our discussions. We do not have a common
final position on the subject at the Conference. Our sole concern, as the
Western group, has been to avoid prejudging the question.
It has, moreover, been suggested, in respect of the programme of work of
the Ad Hoc Committee on item 5, that use has been made of a procedure to
obstruct our work on the substance. We do not share this view: each group has
submitted a draft programme of work. We do not believe that this type of
comment is likely to facilitate the progress of our work, which is now based
on a practical and concrete programme.
Finally, we wonder whether it is appropriate to refer here publicly to
the informal exchanges which led to the drawing up of the single resolution on
the prevention of an arms race in outer space within the framework of the
United Nations General Assembly. Likewise, is it appropriate thus to question
the outstanding work of a delegation, the Italian delegation, which played a
special part in the consultations leading towards this resolution.
776
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
21
(Mr. Morel, France)
As has been noted, we are indeed referring to another forum, that of the
United Nations. Need I recall that the conditions in which consultations are
conducted in the First Committee are different from those obtaining here? In
New York there is no group which entrusts a co-ordinator with presenting a
position defined by the group. There are only delegations which show goodwill
and try to bring different viewpoints Closer with a view to producing
resolutions that enjoy the broadest possible measure of support from the
international community.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of France for his statement,
and that concludes my list of speakers for today. Does any other
representative wish to take the floor? I see none.
At the beginning of this plenary I announced that I intend to put before
the Conference for decision the recommendation contained in paragraph 13 of
the Progress Report on the twenty-third session of the Ad Hoc Group of
Scientific Experts to Consider International Co-operative Measures to Detect
and Identify Seismic Events. By that recommendation the Ad Hoc Group suggests
that its next session should be convened from 27 July to 7 August 1987 and
takes note of the information received from the secretariat concerning the
availability of conference services. If there is no objection, I shall take
it that the Conference adopts the recommendation contained in paragraph 13 of
document CD/745..
It was so decided.
The PRESIDENT: May I now turn to another subject? At the opening of
this plenary meeting, I already informed you that I should report to you today
on the results of the consultations on the question of how to proceed on
agenda item 2. I am now informed that some delegations would like to have
more time available before the actual convening of the meeting which I
planned, as you know, tentatively for next Thursday. This being the case, I
will propose the new dates of informal meetings as soon as possible. I am
going to continue my consultations with representatives of groups and still
hope to be able to find a mutually acceptable approach to the organization of
such a meeting. I firmly believe that it is high time to make some steps on
deliberations on the most important items of our agenda, namely the nuclear
ones. I also wish to inform the Conference that the consultations concerning
the establishment of an informal group to begin work on the subject of the
improved and effective functioning of the Conference have proceeded
successfully, and I believe that we are now in a position to convene that
Group as soon as possible. The Group of 21 has nominated
Ambassador Garcia Robles of Mexico, and Ambassador Teja of India; the
socialist group has appointed Ambassador Meiszter of Hungary and
Ambassador Nazarkin of the USSR. Ambassador Fan Guoxiang of China will also
be a member of the Group. As regards the Western group, I shall invite
Ambassador Beesley of Canada and Ambassador Butler of Australia for the
beginning of the activities of the group. I should also like to note that
many members have indicated that it would be desirable for the small group to
report on the progress of this work, approximately every six weeks, to an
777
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.405
22
(The President)
informal meeting of the Conference. We shall proceed as suggested. The
members of the small group will be informed shortly concerning the convening
of their first meeting.
Before I adjourn I would again like to ask if any representative wishes
to take the floor. The distinguished delegate of the German Democratic
Republic has the floor.
Mr. ROSE (German Democratic Republic): Comrade President, I have
listened very carefully to your announcement referring to item 2 of our
agenda. I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the hope of my
delegation that work on this item can start very shortly, and I would like to
encourage you in making every effort to come to a solution of outstanding
problems and to find an agreement very soon. I appreciate very much the
efforts you have made up to now to find a solution.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of the German Democratic
Republic and I wish to assure him that I shall continue my consultations with
groups. The first agenda item of my consultation with the co-ordinators will
be agenda item 2 tomorrow afternoon. Does any other representative want to
take the floor? As there is no further business for today, I intend now to
adjourn the plenary meeting. The next plenary meeting of the Conference on
Disarmament will be held on Thursday, 16 April, at 10.00 a.m. The meeting
stands adjourned.
The meeting rose at 11.45 a.m.
778
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
CD/PV.406
16 April 1987
ENGLISH
FINAL RECORD OF THE FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTH PLENARY MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 16 April 1987, at 10 a.m.
President:
GE.87-60606/8413E
Mr. M. Vejvoda (Czechoslovakia)
779
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
2
The PRESIDENT: I declare open the 406th plenary meeting of the
Conference on Disarmament.
At the outset, I have the pleasure of welcoming the Ministervfor
Foreign Affairs of Czechoslovakia, His Excellency Mr. Bohuslav Chnoupek. You
will all remember, I am sure, that the Minister addressed us last year when he
visited the Conference during the month of June. He will be our first speaker
today. Following the message addressed to us by the President of the
Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and Secretary-General of the Communist Party
of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Gustav Husik, the presence of the Minister at a time
when Czechoslovakia is presiding over the work of the Conference is another
proof of the importance that my country attaches to the questions of
disarmament as well as to the Conference on Disarmament as a single
multilateral disarmament forum.
In conformity with our programme of work, the Conference will continue
its consideration of agenda item 7, entitled "New Types of Weapons of Mass
Destruction and New Systems of Such Weapons; Radiological Weapons". In
accordance with rule 30 of the rules of procedure, any member wishing to do so
may raise any subject relevant to the work of the Conference.
I have on my list of speakers for today the representatives of
Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, the German
Democratic Republic, Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran. I now give
the floor to the first speaker on my list, His Excellency the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Czechoslovakia, Mr. Bohuslav Chnoupek.
Mr. CH?OUPEK (Czechoslovakia): Mr. President, may I, first of all,
express my pleasure at the fact that in these days when many new, strong and
fresh incentives are being introduced in the disarmament negotiations, this
important Conference is working under the experienced and recognized
leadership of my countryman. I should like to wish you a great deal of
creative energy and success in the fulfilment of your responsible mandate.
This is the second time that I am addressing the Conference in the course
of ten months. My purpose this time is to share with you our views on the
international situation and on the questions of disarmament that were
discussed at the last session of the Committee of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
of the States Parties to the Warsaw Treaty in Moscow, but in particular to
comment on the set of exceptionally important and encouraging initiatives
submitted in Prague last Friday by the General Secretary of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, which
in their substance relate to vitally important questions and in their totality
represent a new, significant, higher stage in the efforts for peace and
security, while totally refuting the myth of a Soviet threat.
In fact, they are a direct response to the voice of the European public
and to the complaints expressed in recent weeks by Western Europe about an
imbalance in short-range missiles and in chemical weapons. They approach the
central problem -- the lowering of the risk of a nulcear conflict -- in its
entirety. They include new stimuli for the Soviet-American talks on nuclear
and space weapons in Geneva.. They reflect the readiness and the will of the
Soviet Union to embark on most resolute steps -- on a 50-per-cent reduction of
780
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RnPQ9_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
3
(Mr. ChXoupek (Czechoslovakia)
offensive strategic weapons in the course of five years and their complete
liquidation within a period of ten years, with the understanding that the
ABM Treaty will be consistently observed and an arms race will not be launched
in outer space.
In order to facilitate the conclusion without delay of an agreement that
is of the highest importance today -- on intermediate-range nuclear forces in
Europe -- the proposal has been made in Prague to initiate talks on reducing
and, subsequently, eliminating missiles with a range of 500 to
1,000 kilometres without linking this issue with either the conduct or the
outcome of the negotiations on the problem of medium-range missiles. As soon
as an agreement is signed, then, regardless of the status of the talks on .
operational-tactical missiles, the missiles stationed there as a retaliatory
measure for the deployment of the Pershing 2 missiles and the cruise missiles
in Western Europe will be removed from our territory as well as from the
territory of the German Democratic Republic, in agreement with our Governments.
All this is to be done under strict verification which, after the Prague
statement by Mikhail Gorbachev, can no longer be a problem in the process of
disarmament. In fact, these questions have undergone a fundamental
re-evaluation on our part in both approach and conception. Therefore they
have to be seen in a totally new light. It has been strongly emphasized that
verification, which includes on-site inspection, must cover missiles and
launching facilities remaining after the cut-backs, and that means not only
those in combat readiness but also in all other installations -- testing
ranges, production plants and training centres. The inspectors must have
access also to military bases of the other side located on the territory of
third countries. All that is necessary for us to have complete certainty that
the agreement is being strictly observed. I want to reiterate that there are
no obstacles on our side in the way of resolving the questions of
verification. We have, by the way, demonstrated this through our proposals
submitted in this respect at the last session of the United Nations
General Assembly where, perhaps for the first time in history, consensus was
reached on these important questions with the direct participation of all
interested countries. /t is a matter of course that such a solution must be
based on reciprocity, equality and undiminished security of any of the
participants.
It is therefore obvious that with regard to the reduction and, even more
so, the elimination of whole classes of nuclear weapons in Europe,
verification issues are assuming a qualitatively new importance from the point
of view of the observance of future agreements. Indeed, in these conditions
verification truly becomes one of the most important means of safeguarding
security. We therefore advocate that the strictest possible measures be
worked out in this area in the future with the understanding, of course, that
we shall not be interested in verification for the sake of verification but in
the verification of the fulfilment of obligations assumed by the two parties
at all stages of nuclear disarmament.
At the present stage -- in the light of the Prague proposals -- what we
are dealing with is basically a zero option, which all the capitals of the
NATO countries have been clamouring for for years and which, all of a
sudden -- and what a paradox -- some politicians and even whole governments
want to shun like something unclean.
781
Dmrt - aniti7Aci Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
4
(Mr. ChKoupek, Czechoslovakia)
Yet, after the latest announcement from Moscow to the effect that the
Soviet Union is ready to incorporate in the agreement on intermediate-range
missiles an obligation to eliminate within a fairly short and precisely fixed
time, e.g. within one year, all its shorter-range (operational-tactical)
missiles as well -- rejection of an agreement would contravene the very
purpose of the disarmament process. Thus, all, indeed, even more than could
be expected, has already been said. It would therefore be far too risky and
absurd for one side to demand shorter-range rearmament for itself while the
other side would unilaterally eliminate all that class of nuclear weapons.
We are of the opinion that no justifiable obstacles should stand in the
way of an agreement that would significantly contribute to enhancing European
and universal security and could represent a watershed in disarmament. This
will come about if our NATO partners show mature political will and if they
are true to their word; if they neither shun the idea of elimination nor
calculate on the technical modification of the Pershings.
Another important statement made by the Soviet leader in Prague was that
the Soviet Union had halted the manufacture of chemical weapons, that it did
not have such weapons deployed outside its borders, and that it had started
the construction of a special plant for their elimination. In this context I
should like to emphasize once again before this forum that we attach
particular importance to the question of the prohibition of chemical weapons
and their elimination, which is also ohe of the key priorities in the
negotiations of this Conference. I want to underline that its consideration
during the recent session of the Committee of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of
the Warsaw Treaty Member States in Moscow was marked by the determination to
do everything for the elaboration already this year of a relevant
international convention. There are realistic prospects at hand for precisely
such a solution. To that end, however, we have to seek other necessary steps,
particularly in the sphere of reasonable compromise. We already possess the
experience we acquired from the steps we took just a year ago in the
initiative for the elimination of the industrial base for the manufacture of
chemical weapons. We can furthermore point to the proposals of last autumn
for the reliable verification of the non-manufacture of chemical weapons in
the civilian sector. We may also draw upon the recently submitted proposals
concerning the declaration of chemical weapons stockpiles stating their
location and relating to important aspects of verification.
Another positive fact in our view is that along with the
German Democratic Republic we have been conducting a dialogue with the
Federal Republic of Germany on chemical weapons. Making it more vigorous and
productive would be a promising contribution to the elimination of the
chemical threat both in Central Europe and with a view to the universal
prohibition of these weapons.
However, one has to see that the process of their elimination cannot be
an automatic one. There still exists the risk of the launching of a new
dangerous round of chemical armaments.
One therefore cannot agree to the so-called "dual solution" which in one
breath demands the elimination of chemical weapons and, at the same time, the
deployment of binary weapons. Nor will the security of Europe benefit from
1 S2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-n1 iRRPrinnl nn nr-Int-14 A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
5
(Mr. ChKoupek, Czechoslovakia)
the individualistic position hiding behind the theory about the allegedly
limited and purely deterrent capacity of chemical weapons. Doubts are reaised
also by the scheme of a dual inspection regime imposing criteria that are
stricter for some countries than for others.
We therefore deemed it necessary to respond to the situation that had
been created in a joint appeal by the Committee of Ministers addressed from
Moscow to all States as well as to this Conference: Not to take steps that
would complicate the conclusion of a Convention. Not to deploy chemical
weapons on foreign territory and to remove them from where they have already
been deployed. This applies to Europe as well as to all other continents. It
would, after all, be neither logical nor acceptable if one hand were working
for the optimum solution of the complex problem of verification and the other
were preparing the modernization of chemical weapons and yet further
complicating such verification.
We are convinced that another important contribution towards reducing
military confrontation in Europe could be made by creating a corridor free of
nuclear weapons along the line of contact between the Warsaw Treaty and NATO.
It could originally extend approximately 150 kilometres on both sides of the
border line between the participating States, and later on include the whole
area of Central Europe. Naturally, with adequate verification and
guarantees. Early this month, along with the German Democratic Republic, we
submitted precisely this kind of a proposal to the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany. It was our reply to the requirement to improve the
military-political situation in our region. It constituted an expansion of
our concept of regional arms control measures. It was also a response to the
well-known recommendations of the Palme Commission. We have thus offered
another opportunity for developing a dialogue where it is most needed. It
makes it possible to curb the feverish armaments without exerting any
extraordinary efforts. Thus it also facilitates a constructive reply.
In this context, we highly appreciate the support by the Soviet Union and
its readiness to guarantee and respect the nuclear-free status of the corridor
and to withdraw all nuclear arms from it. That means removing from it all
nuclear ammunition, including nuclear mines, operational-tactical and tactical
missiles, nuclear artillery, aircraft of the tactical strike force used as
delivery systems, as well as anti-ballistic missile complexes capable of using
nuclear weapons, a considerable part of which are the so-called means of dual
designation. Provided, of course, that the NATO side of the corridor will
also be free of nuclear arms. We fully support proposals for the creation of
similar zones in other parts of our continent as well, particularly in the
Balkan Peninsula and in Northern Europe.
As for the question of reducing the level of armed forces and
conventional armaments in Europe, the set of initiatives from the Budapest
session of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty Member
States, of which I spoke here last June, continues to be valid. We are
convinced that Stockholm, while strengthening European confidence and security
through concrete and militarily significant agreements, has created
considerable potential for the attainment of that objective. This potential
must be expanded and utilized.
783
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
6
(Mr. Chnoupek, Czechoslovakia)
In a joint Moscow statement of Ministers entitled "For the Development of
the All-European Process and a Successful Conclusion of the Vienna Meeting" we
have unequivocally declared ourselves in favour of this happening precisely
there (in Vienna) with a view to proceeding to the second stage -- the
establishment of a well-rounded system comprising both advanced confidence --
and security-building measures, as well as a tangible reduction of the
military confrontation and disarmament. It is a question of finalizing the
solution of a whole number of questions that remained open in Stockholm. It
is equally a question of qualitatively new steps of confidence, security and
military-strategic stability in Europe -- steps undertaken with the
participation of all States Parties to the All-European Conference.
Added to this now is the significant proposal from Prague for the
convening of a meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the States Parties
to the All-European process. The venue that is proposed for that meeting is
the capital of Austria -- Vienna. There the decision could be deliberated and
adopted on initiating extensive talks on all these questions.
Thus we speak here of proposals that are flexible enough to be able to
remove any concerns about the so-called conventional superiority -- whether
quantitative or qualitative -- of one side or another and, at the same time,
to facilitate in that way a comprehensive approach to disarmament. Proposals
that bear out the feasibility of the programme for building a world free of
nuclear weapons and violence in the spirit of the well-known Soviet proposal
of 15 January 1986 -- that plan of action for saving humanity from perdition
in a nuclear crematorium.
We in the Warsaw Treaty and the NATO countries naturally have to play a
principal role in the process of reduction of military confrontation. As far
as the socialist States are concerned, we have been taking concrete steps to
live up to our share of responsibility. I could point out our latest appeal
to the NATO member States that a one or two year moratorium be declared, on
the basis of reciprocity, on increases in the military spending of the States
of the two groupings. I could also recall the proposal to convene a meeting
of military and political representatives of the Warsaw Treaty and NATO which
we put forward some time ago. Regrettably, our partners then failed to make
use of that opportunity.
Now a new factor has appeared in Vienna, as informal consultations have
been opened between the Warsaw Treaty and the NATO member States. We consider
that their purpose is to formulate a mutually acceptable approach to
negotiations on the reduction of armed forces and conventional armaments in
Europe on continent-wide scale. However, due regard should be paid in that
process to the fact that the area between the Atlantic and the Urals includes
also neutral and non-aligned States, as well as to the essential need to find
a way out of the stagnation at the Vienna talks on the reduction of armed
forces and armaments in Central Europe and to use to that end all the
experience already gained. It is also necessary to recognize that imbalances
in any field where they may occur have to be resolved through appropriate
reductions and not increases of the military potential.
We would wish that this Conference should consider in a much more
thorough and comprehensive manner the problem of nuclear disarmament. It is
s4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
7
(14r. Chgoupek, Czechoslovakia)
in our interest that concrete ways of reduction and elimination of those
weapons be discussed here. Is it not an astonishing paradox that in a world
full of nuclear risks such negotiations have not been conducted, although
nobody has ever been able to refute the fact that this is truly the priority
of priorities! We shall support any organizational framework that will
provide for practical and productive talks. It is true that the process of
nuclear disarmament has to be initiated by the United States and the
Soviet Union. Yet, sooner or later, it will become necessary for the other
nuclear Powers and also their allies and other States to join in that process
as well. This Conference, given the composition of its membership, is best
qualified to create the prerequisites that would allow this to happen.
This applies also to the singularly important task of agreeing upon the
ban on nuclear-weapon testing: few other issues now command so much
attention. This was demonstrated particularly during the 568 days of the
Soviet moratorium, that resolute act of responsibility and good will which
went as far as was possible. This remains valid now, when this opportunity is
still open, and when, due to the moratorium, practical evidence has been
supplied to attest to the highest reliability of verification procedures,
whose further improvement is one of the matters to be addressed by this
Conference. It is thus high time that the Conference exerted much more
energetic efforts to prepare an overall treaty. It is high time it agreed
upon the mandate of the appropriate negotiating body and proceeded to concrete
solution of the outstanding questions.
We expect from the Conference much more intensive endeavours also in the
sphere relating to the prevention of an arms race in outer space. An analysis
of the legal regime pertaining to outer space is being conducted at present.
In our opinion, such analysis can be useful only if it produces as soon as
possible practical conclusions on measures preventing the deployment of
weapons in outer space. First of all, there should be a ban on anti-satellite
weapons and offensive space systems. Their definition can be agreed upon at
this forum. It is also possible to set up an international inspectorate that
would verify that no weapons are placed on space installations, as is proposed
by the Soviet Union. We are convinced that an energetic solution of those
issues by the Conference would be greatly instrumental in the pursuit of the
goals of star peace, which also constitutes a way towards a nuclear-weapon-
free world. We believe that it would also enhance constructive effort to find
a realistic solution to the problem of the so-called space defences, as
embodied primarily in the SDI project pursued by the United States.
We also advocate a substantial acceleration of the preparation of a
comprehensive programme of disarmament that would give a significant impetus
to a purposeful and systematic approach to the process of disarmament
negotiations until the end of this century, in full harmony with their
recognized priorities.
Our deliberations on disarmament issues are held in an atmosphere marked
by intensive discussion on defence doctrines, on concepts of nuclear
deterrence, on the role of armaments in general.
The proponents of theories of nuclear deterrence are now speaking up with
ever greater intensity to cast doubts on not only the need for, but even the
very possibility of disarmament.
-
- Caniti7Pri r.onv ADDroved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
8
(Mr. Ch?pek, Czechoslovakia)
Yet, their arguments are based on the premise, known very well to be
false, that it is the socialist countries that have been threatening all the
time to unleash a war. And that it would certainly have happened if it had
not been for the nuclear insurance policy.
The absurdity of this concept is obvious. I could perhaps point out in
this connection that belligerence is entirely alien to the nature of
socialism. Yet, the realities of the present world, naturally, do not allow
us to build confidence and security on ideological postulates, still less on a
philosophy of force. We ask therefore: would not it be better simply to
renounce war than to deter it? Would it not be better to live with the
knowledge that a war cannot be unleashed because we have jointly decided to
eliminate nuclear weapons and to limit others to the minimum? No doubt. The
obstacle? It is the faith in the omnipotence of nuclear deterrence. This is
nothing but an apology for the arms build-up and the profits ensuing
therefrom, including the SDI and similar "deterrents" or "antideterrents".
This is the main factor impeding, inter alia, progress in the deliberations of
this Conference.
This compels us to think even more deeply about whether our approaches
and methods are adequate to the needs of the new, dynamic, yet dangerous era,
and to continue to call upon all others to adopt this new thinking as well.
This includes also the courage to break the bounds of narrow national or group
interests and to render truthful accounts of one's own activities. This is
the essence of the openness which has been so frequently talked about and
called for. Yes, this is the only way to reach objective conclusions, to
review the ways to the solution of the problems that arise and to seek new,
more effective and more equitable solutions. We have consistently adhered to
this approach, and the results of the visit of the General Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to
Czechoslovakia, as well as the Moscow session of the Committee of Ministers of
Foreign Affairs, have once again proved that the socialist countries apply it
also towards the outside. It is understandable that we expect the same also
from the others, including this Conference, which, regrettably, still has
quite a few debts to pay.
As the President of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Gustav Husik,
stated in his message sent to this Conference early in this month, our country
"attaches extraordinary importance to it, and since the very beginning of its
existence we have been actively participating in its work, inasmuch as efforts
to strengthen peace, to enhance international security and stability, and to
limit and halt the arms race constitute an unchanging axiom of our foreign
policy".
At present, we, together with our allies, are advancing new concrete
proposals aimed at reducing military confrontation and achieving progress in
disarmament negotiations on both European and global scale and proposals for
the Conference on Disarmament as well.
We are doing so with a view to improving international relations, which
have been marked lately by positive elements that have been obviously gaining
ground and have begun to influence the current situation in the world. In the
disarmament field, they are making themselves felt in the moments of truth.
786
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDPg9_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
9
(Mr. ChXoupek, Czechoslovakia)
They are becoming a factor testing the statesmanlike maturity and political
will of their actors. Let us recall Reykjavik, in the first place; as well
as the success of the first stage of Stockholm; the opening of the CSCE
follow-up meeting in Vienna; the activity of the New Delhi Six; the
conclusions from Harare; the start of multilateral dialogue on a
comprehensive system of international peace and security; and certain
promising results of the forty-first session of the United Nations
General Assembly.
Yet, on the whole, due to the attempts to gain unilateral military
superiority through an arms build-up, international relations have not yet got
out of the risky area of destabilization and confrontation.
Therefore, I deem it necessary to appeal to this forum in the strongest
terms possible to effect a reversal in its deliberations. It has a unique
opportunity to do so, which is offered in the developing climate of openness
which is conducive to greater trustworthiness and mutual understanding. A new
chance is thus before us -- a chance for Europe as well as for all mankind.
It would be unforgiveable to waste it.
I wish to express my conviction that all States represented here will
display sufficient political resolve to be instrumental in reaching concrete
agreements at this decisive stage. We are confident that a new political
thinking will overcome the rigid stereotypes that still strongly persist and
leave their marks on foreign policy, and will generally prevail; and that the
cause of disarmament will finally move out of its present dead-end.
The Geneva Conference can play a role of major significance in that
process. For this, I should like to wish you every success and express our
full readiness to work in a constructive manner for positive results in these
negotiations.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Czechoslovakia for his important statement and for his kind words addressed to
the President. I now give the floor to the representative of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, Ambassador Nazarkin.
Mr. NAZARK/N (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from
Russian): Comrade President, the Soviet delegation welcomes most cordially
Comrade Bohuslav Chnoupek, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czechoslovak
Socialist Republic, a prominent statesman and diplomat who is attending
today's meeting. The presence of Comrade Chnoupek and his statement are an
indication of the importance attached in Czechoslovakia to the negotiations
taking place in the framework of the Conference on Disarmament.
The Soviet delegation has listened with great interest to
Comrade Chnoupek's statement clearly and convincingly outlining the position
of Czechoslovakia on limiting the arms race, on disarmament, and on
strengthening peace, security and confidence. This broad review of urgent
international problems, many of which are directly relevant to the work of our
Conference, has provided further proof of the dynamic nature of
Czechoslovakia's foreign policy, pursued in close co-operation with its Warsaw
Treaty allies and other socialist countries.
787
nnnlaccifiPri in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
10
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
The recent visit to Czechoslovakia by the General Secretary of the CPSU
Central Committee, Mikhail Gorbachev, and his talks with Comrade G. Rusk have
demonstrated the unity of our countries in the assessment of the international
situation, its tendencies and the tasks we are facing in this connection.
The Warsaw Treaty member States' agreed policy towards disarmament,
strengthening peace and broad international co-operation is reflected in
concrete initiatives aimed at reaching agreements meeting the interests of all
States.
The Warsaw Treaty member States, as emphasized in the Communique of the
Moscow meeting of the Committee of Foreign Ministers on 25 March 1987, will
seek, in co-operation with other countries, to build a comprehensive system of
international peace and security, to deepen co-operation in all fields --
military, political, economic and humanitarian -- and to develop a
constructive dialogue with a view to establishing such a system.
The socialist States stand for a comprehensive approach to the
consideration of disarmament problems; so that elimination of nuclear and
other weapons of mass destruction is accompanied by reductions in armed forces
and conventional arms with corresponding reductions in military expenditures.
The Warsaw Treaty member States have recently proposed to the NATO countries
that a moratorium be declared, on the basis of reciprocity, on increases in
military expenditures of the members of the two alliances for one or
two years. Such a measure would facilitate the initiation of substantive
negotiations on reducing armed forces and conventionsl armaments in Europe,
create the necessary conditions for proceeding subsequently to effective
reductions in military expenditures and contribute to confidence-building and
a better political and economic situation in the world. /t is our hope that
the NATO countries will respond positively and promptly to this proposal.
The "Statement on the Issue of a Ban on Chemical Weapons" adopted by the
Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Warsaw Treaty member States
as a separate document emphasized that the allied States regard a speedy
completion of the talks on a total and global ban on chemical weapons as one
of the principal objectives of their foreign policy. The Statement calls on
all States to help create the necessary conditions for a speedy conclusion of
a convention on the subject.
The initiatives on chemical weapons put forward by Mikhail Gorbachev in
his Statement in Prague on 10 April translated this call into practical
action. We hope that these steps by the Soviet Union will contribute to
building confidence among the States parties to the CW negotiations and expect
other States to join this process.
To ensure decisive progress towards agreement on eliminating the chemical
arsenals, it is now particularly necessary that all participants in the
negotiations exercise political will, realism and a high sense of
responsibility.
The line of action of those countries in America and Western Europe,
which, while stating their commitment to chemical disarmament and
738
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDPco_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
11
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
participating in the negotiations in the CD, and fully aware of the advanced
stage of the negotiations, develop and adopt plans for CW production, cannot
but give rise to grave concern. It can be justified from neither the
political nor the practical point of view. One cannot help wondering about
the real policy of those States -- are they committed to a convention, or do
they seek a CW build-up?
The Soviet Union attaches primary importance to questions of verification
of compliance with disarmament agreements. At a time when real disarmament
measures are under way, verification becomes one of the major means of
ensuring security, as Comrade Chnoupek rightly pointed out in his statement
today.
We note with satisfaction that our initiatives on verification, along
with other countries' proposals, have made it possible to remove many
obstacles to the elaboration of a mutually acceptable system of verifying
compliance with the convention. These Soviet initiatives took into account
the concerns of our partners in the negotiations, including the United States
and other Western countries. In so doing we, among other things, wanted to
dispel the mistrust on the part of the West, to invite its representatives to
an open and honest dialogue on effective international verification. We note
the positive ideas on a number of aspects of a future verification system
expressed by the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, the
Netherlands, Pakistan, Indonesia and other countries.
The problem of challenge inspections is now the central political problem
in the negotiations on a CW ban. It runs through the entire convention and
without a solution to this problem it is difficult to envisage a finalization
of many of the convention's provisions.
We note with satisfaction that discussions of a ban on chemical weapons
with the United Kingdom during the recent visit to Moscow by Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher revealed that the positions of the two sides are close, and
even coincide on some aspects, including challenge inspections. The British
proposal, contained in document CD/715, is a basis for reaching compromise
solutions and we believe maximum use should be made of it as a basis for an
agreement.
In our view, the central point in the British proposal is the idea of the
possibility of proposing alternative measures. This approach, we believe,
will impart the necessary flexibility to the whole system of challenge
inspections, and at the same time meets the general concern that challenge
inspections should be an effective means of preventing and detecting breaches
of the convention's provisions.
We have noted that in the 7 April statement of the United States
delegation it was announced that the United States no longer objects to
789
nnnlaccifiPri in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
12
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
discussing alternative measures. We welcome this change. At the same time,
the United States continues to argue that alternative measures are unworkable
in some cases, for example in cases of suspicion relating to concealed
CW stocks. Ambassador Hansen said on 7 April: "It seems obvious that only
inspection of the bunker will permit an inspector to determine whether or not
there are chemical weapons inside". He also asked the Soviet delegation to
explain what alternatives could be used in such a case.
I can say the following in this connection. In our view, if concealed
stocks are suspected, alternative measures providing a satisfactory answer can
be found (if, naturally, full access is unfeasible). For one thing, one
cannot exclude that the challenging State could be satisfied if provided by
the challenged party with information allaying its concern. For another
thing, it is well known that one of the characteristics of CW stocks is that
they require systematic maintenance, monitoring of the condition of munitions
and containers with chemical agents, and preventive and protective measures.
CW storage facilities require ventilation systems, special sewerage, air
filtering and waste water treatment installations, monitoring instruments, etc.
In this context, observation of a suspicious site from outside to detect
activities relating to maintenance of CW stocks and the presence of systems
for the protection of the maintenance personnel and the environment can be
regarded as a possible alternative measure. Collection of air and effluent
samples around the facility's perimeter and in the vicinity of treatment
installations can provide definite information about whether or not CW stocks
are present. On the face of it, one also cannot exclude the possibility of
automatic sampling inside storage facilities. Such methods could be
discussed in the negotiations. Possible alternative measures in each
particular case may vary. It appears, therefore, that the challenged party
will be able to find a way of proving compliance (if, of course, it has not
violated the convention) even if it does not agree to let inspectors enter the
bunker.
Of course, in the discussion of the idea of alternative measures the
question arises as to what the procedure should be if the challenging party
and the challenged party cannot come to an agreement on the procedure for
inspection or resolve the disagreement in a way satisfactory to both
parties. This is the so-called "last word" problem: in the final analysis,
who should decide how the inspection should be conducted?
Some delegations believe that it is the challenging party which should
have the "final say". We believe such a solution would be too simplistic
and, in practice, it would not facilitate the joint search for an agreement
and the resolution of a controversial situation. It would be much more
appropriate to resolve this problem as envisaged in the British paper, which
says that in the event that the challenging State considers the alternative
measures proposed by the challenged State to be unsatisfactory, the obligation
of the latter to convince the challenging State that it is in compliance with
its obligations will continue to apply.
790
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 : CIA-RDP92-01168R0001nninnnni_e.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
13
(ft. Nazarkin, USSR)
The inclusion of a provision in the convention to the effect that the
"final say" on the inspection procedure should belong to the challenging State
does not create conditions for a mutually acceptable solution, for the
challenging party will thus have no interest in agreeing on alternative
measures. After all, in such a case the challenging party will just have to
wait until the time-frame for proposing and agreeing on alternatives expires,
and then the inspection will go ahead according to its initial demand. Of
course, under these circumstances there can be no serious negotiations on
alternatives and the very idea of proposing such measures is called into
question.
If it were accepted that challenge inspections are to be completely
automatic in all cases, then we would achieve clarity in one respect only: a
refusal to accept an inspection would mean violation of the convention. But
such clarity can prove misleading, for the main question -- whether or not the
suspected State has chemical weapons -- will remain unresolved. After all,
this should be our task, and not the purely formal accusation against a State
of violating any provision of the convention. In our view, such purely
formal accusations, particularly if abused, may weaken the convention and
undermine its authority.
In our view, in the event that it proves impossible to agree on
alternative measures, all facts relevant to the matter and all proposals of
the parties should be submitted for consideration to an international
authority to be established under the convention which, having considered all
the circumstances, would evaluate each party's case and would be in a position
to decide that there is a case of non-compliance by a two-thirds majority.
We believe that negotiating alternative measures in good faith should
constitute one of the obligations under the convention.
One of the elements of challenge inspections is the question whether it
would be appropriate to have in this mechanism a body which would decide
whether a particular challenge is justified and whether the inspection should
be carried out -- in other words, would act, as it were, as sort of a filter.
We appreciate the concern of those countries which are afraid that
without a "filter" there would be a possibility for abuse of the right to make
a challenge. Presumably, the Fact-Finding Panel proposed in the
United States paper (CD/500) is meant to act as such a "filter". One should
think that it is hardly to be expected that a body which is so undemocratic in
its composition and method of decision-making could have the support of the
participants in the negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament. We would
prefer to have the Executive Council act as a "filter". At the same time, in
the view of the Soviet delegation, the question as to whether or not there wil
be a "multilateral filter" in the Convention is not an essential issue. If
the participants in the negotiations feel that the convention should not
provide for any "filters" at all and that, as provided in the British paper,
791
Cnnifi7ari rAlt1V Approved for Release 2012/06/11 CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
CD/PV.406
14
(Mr. Nazarkin, USSR)
challenge inspections should be carried out by a technical secretariat without
the Executive Council getting involved, we could consider such an arrangement
as well, provided, of course, that all other issues relating to challenge
inspections are resolved.
I would like to emphasize that, for the Soviet delegation, the
fundamental point in the challenge inspection procedure, as, by the way, in
all other elements of the convention, is the requirement of complete equality
of the contracting parties, the absence of any discrimination against the
socialist countries and the socialist form of property. We proceed from the
belief that the procedure for making a challenge, conducting inspections and
evaluating their results should put the Warsaw Treaty and NATO countries in an
equal position and give them equal rights and opportunities. Any departure
from this provision, we are convinced, would lead to diminished security of
the party treated in a discriminatory way.
Conitions are now favourable for a speedy elaboration of an international
convention on a total and comprehensive CW ban. The necessary preconditions
have been created for finding, this year, solutions to the outstanding issues,
taking into account the totality of the proposals made in the Conference on
Disarmament. We share the assessment of the state of affairs at the
negotiations made by Ambassador K. Hacene of Algeria in his statement of
2 April: "agreement has still to be reached on significant aspects of the
future convention, but this should not deter us from our objective of
concluding this instrument". Quite a number of countries have come out in
favour of finalizing the convention this year, including Australia, the
United Kingdom, Egypt, India, Kenya, the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of
Germany, Sri Lanka and others. The Soviet Union, together with other
Warsaw Treaty member States, believes that the year 1987 can and must mark the
beginning of general and complete chemical disarmament. The real opportunity
to eliminate chemical weapons and remove the chemical threat to all mankind
once and for all should not be missed.
Here I should like to express full agreement with Comrade ChNOupek's
statement to the effect that a "dual" solution, involving the elimination of
chemical weapons together with the build-up of binary weapons, is
unacceptable. This approach of justifying the alleged deterrent nature of
chemical weapons cannot fail to do serious harm to the negotiations.
I wish to refer today to one more question. Yesterday, the Meeting of
Scientific and Technical Experts of States Parties to the Convention on the
Prohibition of Bacteriological Weapons, convened pursuant to the decision of
the Second Review Conference, ended its work. That Convention, prepared in
our forum in 1972, still remains the only real disarmament measure that has
banned a whole class of weapons of mass destruction.
The work of the Meeting was devoted to negotiating practical measures for
building confidence among the States Parties to the Convention and developing
co-operation in the peaceful use of the achievements of biology. Overall, we
are satisfied with its results, although, in our view, the agreements could
have been broader. Nevertheless, the results already achieved -- agreements
792
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RniDa9_ni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4
Secret
Secret
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/06/11: CIA-RDP92-01168R000100100001-4