NEWS/ARTICLES ON COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN


1st NOVEMBER 1998
SPECIAL CONFERENCE ON CTBT IMPLEMENTATION

by Daryl Kimball, Executive Director
Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers

The member organizations of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers have recently begun a systematic effort to press for the convening of a special international conference in the fall of 1999 on test ban treaty implementation consisting of the states who have ratified the CTBT. Members of the Coalition recently met with Ambassador Wolfgang Hoffman who is in charge of the CTBT Preparatory Committee, and Stephen Young of BASIC and I recently met with key delegations and officials at the UN in New York on the subject of the special CTBT conference.

The following memo is intended to provide the most up to date report on the situation and to alert non-governmental organizations in key countries of the importance of NGO advocacy work on the special conference.

Kathy Crandall

BACKGROUND

Article XIV of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty specifies that the agreement will enter into force when ratified by a group of 44 nuclear-capable states. Article XIV of the treaty also stipulates that if these 44 states have not ratified by September 24, 1999, a majority of the states that have ratified may decide to convene a special conference to determine measures, consistent with international law, that would accelerate the ratification process and bring the treaty into force. This provision of Article XIV was added to the treaty at the suggestion of the Canadian government. Although 150 nations have signed the CTBT, only 10 of the 44 nuclear-capable states needed for entry-into-force have ratified the treaty thus far. The decision to convene the conference would formally be made after September 24, but the vast bulk of the planning for the meeting will concluded well in advance. An informal planning group may be formed after the next CTBT Preparatory Committee meeting to be held in Vienna later this month. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is formally responsible for convening the meeting, but the location and procedures for the meeting will for all practical purposes be determined by what the majority of states prefer.

WHY THE CONFERENCE IS IMPORTANT

The recent declarations at the United Nations General Assembly by the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers that their countries would join the CTBT by September 1999 make early implementation of the treaty an achievable objective and underscore the extraordinary importance of the convening of a special conference on CTBT entry into force. If convened by a majority of the parties to the treaty, the special conference will not only be responsive to the Indian and Pakistani commitments but will also provide a strong stimulus to other signatories to deposit their instruments of ratification by that date in order to participate in the conference as voting members.

Representatives from 13 Coalition member groups recently wrote to 400 ambassadors at the UN in New York, in Geneva, in Washington DC, and at the CTBT Preparatory Commission in Geneva. In the letter, we expressed our view that:

1) it is imperative that all nations sign and ratify the CTBT to allow it to enter into force by September 1999; and

2) all states that have ratified the CTBT should declare in unambiguous terms their intention to seek a special conference, as allowed for by Article XIV, immediately after September 24, 1999.

A copy of our letter is attached below.

A special CTBT EIF conference could be convened each year until the treaty enters into force. However, our best opportunity to secure the signature and ratification of the states most pivotal to the process -- the United States, India and Pakistan -- will be in 1999. In addition, failure to secure the ratification of the CTBT from the P-5 nuclear weapon states (which have delivered virtually nothing on their NPT Article VI commitments since 1995) could have a profoundly negative effect on the viability of the NPT.

Therefore, we believe that it is imperative to encourage the most high-profile, well-attended, and widely anticipated special CTBT EIF conference in the fall of 1999. Ideally this means that:

  • the special conference will be held at the U.N. in New York in October or November, around the margins of the deliberations of the UNGA;
  • the special conference will be attended by high-level representatives, including Foreign Ministers;
  • only states that have ratified the treaty will have decision authority at the conference, while states that have only signed would be granted a significantly lesser "observer" role;
  • nations that have ratified will express their intention to convene such a meeting if all 44 states that must ratified have not done so by September 1999.

If the conference were to be held in New York, it would likely be chaired by Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala, UN Undersecretary General for Disarmament.

Such a conference might involve some degree of risk. But the risk of failing to create additional incentives for states to ratify the CTBT by September 1999 is even greater.

CURRENT STATUS OF SPECIAL CTBT ENTRY INTO FORCE CONFERENCE

The good news is that it is very likely that the special CTBT conference on EIF will be convened if necessary. A pending UNGA resolution (L.11) on the CTBT offered by Australia, Mexico, and New Zealand specifically references the special conference and is likely to garner wide support. This will give the UN a strong mandate to schedule and prepare for the conference.

Unfortunately, it far from certain that the special CTBT conference on EIF will be organized in the manner described in the section above. Few states have begun to think about, let alone plan for this conference. Of the few that have, most currently support an approach to the conference that will not help create any significant pressure for states to ratify by September 1999 -- a low-key two to three day meeting in Vienna convened under the auspices of the CTBT Preparatory Commission that consists of a series of speeches delivered by mid-level, technically-oriented government representatives urging ratification by holdout states. If held in Vienna, the special conference would likely be chaired by Ambassador Hoffman.

Such a conference would not only make significant press coverage unlikely, but it would not be capable of taking significant joint political decisions to help hasten treaty implementation. While the CTBT negotiating record clearly shows that the purpose of the special conference is to examine measures to expedite the treaty's entry-into-force, treaty signatories at this first conference may choose -- though it is unlikely -- to pursue "provisional entry into force." But such an option -- or even the threat of such an option -- is possible only if the conference attended by higher-level government representatives who are more familiar with the political issues surrounding CTBT entry-into-force.

Current supporters of this bland, low-key approach include most European Union members, particularly the U.K. (which is the current EU chair), Australia, and Austria. China and Russia have only recently recognized the possibility for the special conference. While these nations' positions can still be modified, key decision points on the conference are coming soon.

ROLE OF NGOs

It is important that non-governmental organizations that support an end to nuclear testing communicate to their government their support for a high-level, well-attended, well-publicized special CTBT conference on EIF. The efforts of NGOs in Western European are particularly important given the current attitudes of their governments.

The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers member organizations invite other NGOs to help work toward this goal and otherwise help encourage the signature and ratifications necessary for global CTBT implementation.

Opportunities for communicating this message include:

  • meetings with relevant government decision-makers;
  • letters to Foreign ministries;
  • contact with government representatives at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva; the UN in New York; the CTBT Preparatory Commission in Vienna; and the April NPT PrepCom in New York.

IF YOU HAVE FURTHER INFORMATION OR QUESTIONS
PLEASE CONTACT:

Daryl Kimball at the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers

OR SEE:

October 29 Remarks on "Prospects for CTBT Implementation in 1999"
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/nyc1098.htm>

UNGA Resolution on CTBT
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/unctbres.htm

The Coalition's CTBT Site
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/ctbindex.htm


October 16, 1998

Letter to CTBT signatory states' heads of missions to the United Nations heads of missions to the U,S. of the 44 states on the CTBT EIF list heads of missions to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva participants in the Preparatory Commission for the CTBTO in Vienna

Dear Ambassador,

We believe that it is imperative that the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban

Treaty (CTBT) be brought into force as soon as possible. The recent declarations at the United Nations General Assembly by the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers that their countries would join the CTBT by September 1999 make early implementation of the treaty an achievable objective and underscore the extraordinary importance of the convening of a special conference on CTBT entry into force. If convened by a majority of the parties to the treaty, the special conference will not only be responsive to the Indian and Pakistani commitments but will also provide a strong stimulus to other signatories to deposit their instruments of ratification by that date in order to participate in the conference as voting members.

Article XIV of the treaty specifies that the agreement will enter into force when ratified by a group of 44 nuclear-capable states. Article XIV of the treaty also stipulates that if these 44 states have not ratified by September 24, 1999, the states that have ratified may convene a special conference to determine measures, consistent with international law, that would accelerate the ratification process and bring the treaty into force.

Although 150 nations have signed the CTBT, only 10 of the 44 nuclear-capable states needed for entry-into-force have thus far ratified.

We urge all states that have ratified the CTBT to declare in unambiguous terms their intention to seek a special conference in September 1999. We urge states that have signed but not ratified the Treaty to do so as soon as possible, but no later than September 1999. Finally, we urge the governments of India and Pakistan to make good on their solemn pledges at the UNGA to sign the CTBT without conditions and to participate with other states that have ratified the Treaty at a September 1999 special conference.

Sincerely,

Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr.,
President,
Arms Control Association

John Isaacs,
President,
Council for a Livable World

Michael Krepon,
President,
Henry L. Stimson Center

Gordon Clark,
Executive Director,
Programs,
Peace Action

David Culp,
Legislative Coordinator,
Plutonium Challenge

Tom Zamora Collina, Director,
Arms Control and International Security Program,
Director,
Union of Concerned Scientists

Robin Caiola,
Executive Director,
Defense and 20/20 Vision National Project
Council official

Daniel T. Plesch,
Director,
British American Sec. Info. Council

Jeremy J. Stone,
President,
Federation of American Scientists

Christopher Paine,
Senior Research Director,
Natural Resources Defense Council

Robert W. Tiller,
Director of Security
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Steven G. Raikin,
President,
Public Education Center

Susan Shaer,
Executive
Women's Action for New Directions

Dr. Morton H. Halperin,
former U.S. Department
National Security

The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers is an alliance of 17 leading disarmament and non- proliferation non-governmental organizations working for a practical, step-by-step program to reduce nuclear dangers.

Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
110 Maryland Ave. NE #201
Washington DC 20002
phone: (202)546-0795
fax: (202)546-5142
website:
http://www.crnd.org OR http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition


23rd SEPTEMBER 1997
CLINTON'S CONDITIONS FOR RATIFICATION

To the Senate of the United States

I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (the "Treaty" or "CTBT"), opened for signature and signed by the United States at New York on September 24, 1996. The Treaty includes two Annexes, a Protocol, and two Annexes to the Protocol, all of which form integral parts of the Treaty. I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State on the Treaty, including an Article-by-Article analysis of the Treaty.

Also included in the Department of State's report is a document relevant to but not part of the Treaty: the Text on the Establishment of a Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization, adopted by the Signatory States to the Treaty on November 19, 1996. The Text provides the basis for the work of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization in preparing detailed procedures for implementing the Treaty and making arrangements for the first session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Treaty. In particular, by the terms of the Treaty, the Preparatory Commission will be responsible for ensuring that the verification regime established by the Treaty will be effectively in operation at such time as the Treaty enters into force. My Administration has completed and will submit separately to the Senate an analysis of the verifiability of the Treaty, consistent with section 37 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, as amended. Such legislation as may be necessary to implement the Treaty also will be submitted separately to the Senate for appropriate action.

The conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty is a signal event in the history of arms control. The subject of the Treaty is one that has been under consideration by the international community for nearly 40 years, and the significance of the conclusion of negotiations and the signature to date of more than 140 states cannot be overestimated. The Treaty creates an absolute prohibition against the conduct of nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosion anywhere. Specifically, each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion; to prohibit and prevent any nuclear explosions at any place under its jurisdiction or control; and to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

The Treaty establishes a far reaching verification regime, based on the provision of seismic, hydroacoustic, radionuclide, and infrasound data by a global network (the "International Monitoring System") consisting of the facilities listed in Annex 1 to the Protocol. Data provided by the International Monitoring System will be stored, analyzed, and disseminated, in accordance with Treaty-mandated operational manuals, by an International Data Center that will be part of the Technical Secretariat of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization. The verification regime includes rules for the conduct of on-site inspections, provisions for consultation and clarification, and voluntary confidence-building measures designed to contribute to the timely resolution of any compliance concerns arising from possible misinterpretation of monitoring data related to chemical explosions that a State Party intends to or has carried out. Equally important to the U.S. ability to verify the Treaty, the text specifically provides for the right of States Parties to use information obtained by national technical means in a manner consistent with generally recognized principles of international law for purposes of verification generally, and in particular, as the basis for an on-site inspection request. The verification regime provides each State Party the right to protect sensitive installations, activities, or locations not related to the Treaty. Determinations of compliance with the Treaty rest with each individual State Party to the Treaty.

Negotiations for a nuclear test-ban treaty date back to the Eisenhower Administration. During the period 1978-1980, negotiations among the United States, the United Kingdom, and the USSR (the Depositary Governments of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)) made progress, but ended without agreement. Thereafter, as the nonnuclear weapon states called for test-ban negotiations, the United States urged the Conference on Disarmament (the "CD") to devote its attention to the difficult aspects of monitoring compliance with such a ban and developing elements of an international monitoring regime. After the United States, joined by other key states, declared its support for comprehensive test-ban negotiations with a view toward prompt conclusion of a treaty, negotiations on a comprehensive test-ban were initiated in the CD, in January 1994. Increased impetus for the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty by the end of 1996 resulted from the adoption, by the Parties to the NPT in conjunction with the indefinite and unconditional extension of that Treaty, of "Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament" that listed the conclusion of a CTBT as the highest measure of its program of action.

On August 11, 1995, when I announced U.S. support for a "zero yield" CTBT, I stated that:

". . . As part of our national security strategy, the United States must and will retain strategic nuclear forces sufficient to deter any future hostile foreign leadership with access to strategic nuclear forces from acting against our vital interests and to convince it that seeking a nuclear advantage would be futile. In this regard, I consider the maintenance of a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile to be a supreme national interest of the United States.

"I am assured by the Secretary of Energy and the Directors of our nuclear weapons labs that we can meet the challenge of maintaining our nuclear deterrent under a CTBT through a Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program without nuclear testing. I directed the implementation of such a program almost 2 years ago, and it is being developed with the support of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This program will now be tied to a new certification procedure. In order for this program to succeed, both the Administration and the Congress must provide sustained bipartisan support for the stockpile stewardship program over the next decade and beyond. I am committed to working with the Congress to ensure this support.

"While I am optimistic that the stockpile stewardship program will be successful, as President I cannot dismiss the possibility, however unlikely, that the program will fall short of its objectives. Therefore,in addition to the new annual certification procedure for our nuclear weapons stockpile, I am also establishing concrete, specific safeguards that define the conditions under which the United States can enter into a CTBT . . ."

The safeguards that were established are as follows:

The conduct of a Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program to ensure a high level of confidence in the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons in the active stockpile, including the conduct of a broad range of effective and continuing experimental programs.

The maintenance of modern nuclear laboratory facilities and programs in theoretical and exploratory nuclear technology that will attract, retain, and ensure the continued application of our human scientific resources to those programs on which continued progress in nuclear technology depends.

The maintenance of the basic capability to resume nuclear test activities prohibited by the CTBT should the United States cease to be bound to adhere to this Treaty.

The continuation of a comprehensive research and development program to improve our treaty monitoring capabilities and operations.

The continuing development of a broad range of intelligence gathering and analytical capabilities and operations to ensure accurate and comprehensive information on worldwide nuclear arsenals, nuclear weapons development programs, and related nuclear programs.

The understanding that if the President of the United States is informed by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy (DOE) -- advised by the Nuclear Weapons Council, the Directors of DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories, and the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command -- that a high level of confidence in the safety or reliability of a nuclear weapon type that the two Secretaries consider to be critical to our nuclear deterrent could no longer be certified, the President, in consultation with the Congress, would be prepared to withdraw from the CTBT under the standard "supreme national interests" clause in order to conduct whatever testing might be required. With regard to the last safeguard:

The U.S. regards continued high confidence in the safety and reliability of its nuclear weapons stockpile as a matter affecting the supreme interests of the country and will regard any events calling that confidence into question as "extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the treaty." It will exercise its rights under the "supreme national interests" clause if it judges that the safety or reliability of its nuclear weapons stockpile cannot be assured with the necessary high degree of confidence without nuclear testing.

To implement that commitment, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy -- advised by the Nuclear Weapons Council or "NWC" (comprising representatives of DOD, JCS, and DOE), the Directors of DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories and the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command -- will report to the President annually, whether they can certify that the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and all critical elements thereof are, to a high degree of confidence, safe and reliable, and, if they cannot do so, whether, in their opinion and that of the NWC, testing is necessary to assure, with a high degree of confidence, the adequacy of corrective measures to assure the safety and reliability of the stockpile, or elements thereof. The Secretaries will state the reasons for their conclusions, and the views of the NWC, reporting any minority views.

After receiving the Secretaries' certification and accompanying report, including NWC and minority views, the President will provide them to the appropriate committees of the Congress, together with a report on the actions he has taken in light of them.

If the President is advised, by the above procedure, that a high level of confidence in the safety or reliability of a nuclear weapon type critical to the Nation's nuclear deterrent could no longer be certified without nuclear testing, or that nuclear testing is necessary to assure the adequacy of corrective measures, the President will be prepared to exercise our "supreme national interests" rights under the Treaty, in order to conduct such testing.

The procedure for such annual certification by the Secretaries, and for advice to them by the NWC, U.S. Strategic Command, and the DOE nuclear weapons laboratories will be embodied in domestic law. As negotiations on a text drew to a close it became apparent that one member of the CD, India, would not join in a consensus decision to forward the text to the United Nations for its adoption. After consultations among countries supporting the text, Australia requested the President of the U.N. General Assembly to convene a resumed session of the 50th General Assembly to consider and take action on the text. The General Assembly was so convened, and by a vote of 158 to 3 the Treaty was adopted. On September 24, 1996, the Treaty was opened for signature and I had the privilege, on behalf of the United States, of being the first to sign the Treaty.

The Treaty assigns responsibility for overseeing its implementation to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization (the "Organization"), to be established in Vienna. The Organization, of which each State Party will be a member, will have three organs: the Conference of the States Parties, a 51-member Executive Council, and the Technical Secretariat. The Technical Secretariat will supervise the operation of and provide technical support for the International Monitoring System, operate the International Data Center, and prepare for and support the conduct of on-site inspections. The Treaty also requires each State Party to establish a National Authority that will serve as the focal point within the State Party for liaison with the Organization and with other States Parties.

The Treaty will enter into force 180 days after the deposit of instruments of ratification by all of the 44 states listed in Annex 2 to the Treaty, but in no case earlier than 2 years after its being opened for signature. If, 3 years from the opening of the Treaty for signature, the Treaty has not entered into force, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary of the Treaty, will convene a conference of the states that have deposited their instruments of ratification if a majority of those states so requests. At this conference the participants will consider what measures consistent with international law might be undertaken to accelerate the ratification process in order to facilitate the early entry into force of the Treaty. Their decision on such measures must be taken by consensus.

Reservations to the Treaty Articles and the Annexes to the Treaty are not permitted. Reservations may be taken to the Protocol and its Annexes so long as they are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Treaty. Amendment of the Treaty requires the positive vote of a majority of the States Parties to the Treaty, voting in a duly convened Amendment Conference at which no State Party casts a negative vote. Such amendments would enter into force 30 days after ratification by all States Parties that cast a positive vote at the Amendment Conference. The Treaty is of unlimited duration, but contains a "supreme interests" clause entitling any State Party that determines that its supreme interests have been jeopardized by extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the Treaty to withdraw from the Treaty upon 6-month's notice. Unless a majority of the Parties decides otherwise, a Review Conference will be held 10 years following the Treaty's entry into force and may be held at 10-year intervals thereafter if the Conference of the States Parties so decides by a majority vote (or more frequently if the Conference of the States Parties so decides by a two-thirds vote).

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty is of singular significance to the continuing efforts to stem nuclear proliferation and strengthen regional and global stability. Its conclusion marks the achievement of the highest priority item on the international arms control and nonproliferation agenda. Its effective implementation will provide a foundation on which further efforts to control and limit nuclear weapons can be soundly based. By responding to the call for a CTBT by the end of 1996, the Signatory States, and most importantly the nuclear weapon states, have demonstrated the bona fides of their commitment to meaningful arms control measures. The monitoring challenges presented by the wide scope of the CTBT exceed those imposed by any previous nuclear test-related treaty. Our current capability to monitor nuclear explosions will undergo significant improvement over the next several years to meet these challenges. Even with these enhancements, though, several conceivable CTBT evasion scenarios have been identified. Nonetheless, our National Intelligence Means (NIM), together with the Treaty's verification regime and our diplomatic efforts, provide the United States with the means to make the CTBT effectively verifiable. By this, I mean that the United States: will have a wide range of resources (NIM, the totality of information available in public and private channels, and the mechanisms established by the Treaty) for addressing compliance concerns and imposing sanctions in cases of noncompliance; and will thereby have the means to: (a) assess whether the Treaty is deterring the conduct of nuclear explosions (in terms of yields and number of tests) that could damage U.S. security interests and constraining the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and (b) take prompt and effective counteraction. My judgment that the CTBT is effectively verifiable also reflects the belief that U.S. nuclear deterrence would not be undermined by possible nuclear testing that the United States might fail to detect under the Treaty, bearing in mind that the United States will derive substantial confidence from other factors -- the CTBT's "supreme national interests" clause, the annual certification procedure for the U.S. nuclear stockpile, and the U.S. Safeguards program. I believe that the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty is in the best interests of the United States. Its provisions will significantly further our nuclear nonproliferation and arms control objectives and strengthen international security. Therefore, I urge the Senate to give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty and its advice and consent to ratification as soon as possible.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE, September 22, 1997


Yorkshire CNDHome Page