TL: The Test Ban Treaty Amendment Conference: 118 Nations Begin
Negotiations in January to Ban all Nuclear Testing (GP)
SO: Sheldon Cohen, Greenpeace International
DT: 27-NOV-90 16:54:26 GMT
Keywords: nuclear weapons testing bans greenpeace gp us uk europe
ussr un /
 
January 7, 1991 marks the beginning of an historic event. On that
day, 118 nations, including the US, UK, and USSR, as well as all
the so-called nuclear "threshold states," will begin negotiations
at the UN to ban all nuclear weapons tests forever. This will be
the first time multilateral negotiations for a comprehensive
nuclear test ban treaty (CTBT) have been held. During this first
two-week negotiating session, nations will begin considering an
amendment that would convert the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty
(PTBT) -- which still allows underground tests -- into a CTBT,
banning all tests in all environments.

The convening of the test ban treaty amendment conference was
trigerred by a group of 40 non-aligned countries. These countries
simply ran out of patience with the glacial pace of progress by
the nuclear powers to end testing. They decided to take matters
into their own hands and, for the first time, opened an existing
arms control treaty for amendment. The amendment they have
proposed would tack onto the PTBT an article which would ban
underground nuclear tests.

The six countries leading this effort are: Mexico, Venezuela, Sri
Lanka, Indonesia, Yugoslavia and Peru. They recognize that
adopting this amendment won't be easy, that the immediate
obstacle to a successful amendment conference session in January
is the opposition to a CTBT by the US and UK. Both countries,
along with the USSR, have veto power at the conference over any
amendment. The US and UK have already announced their intention
to use their veto if the amendment comes to a vote. The USSR has
stated that it would support the amendment.

With the prospect of a veto in January that could bring the
negotiations to a screeching halt, the non-aligned group have
developed an alternative strategy. Their strategy is to block a
direct vote on the amendment, to keep the negotiations going past
January, and to force the US and UK to stay at the negotiating
table. [THIS WHOLE PARAGRAPH OR JUST THE LAST SENTENCE MIGHT BE A
GOOD PULL QUOTE!]

Blocking a direct vote on the amendment in January will involve a
procedural move, requiring a simple majority vote; the vote
cannot be stopped by a veto. A resolution recommending such a
move has already passed overwhelmingly at this year's UN General
Assembly. The US and UK, in a clear demonstration of their
isolation on this issue, were the only countries that voted
aginast the resolution.

Future sessions could be convened in 1992, and 1993 if necessary,
until a CTBT was achieved. The non-aligned countries also seek to
establish a working group in January which, between sessions of
the amendment conference, could hammer out some of the key
institutional, legal and organizational aspects of the Treaty,
including how verification would be carried out, and the the type
of control organ that would be needed to implement the Treaty.
The more long-term success of this strategy hinges upon the
ability of public movements and parliaments to generate and focus
sustained pressure for a test ban. Such pressure could force a
fundamental shift in the debate, particluarly in the US. Ongoing
negotiating sessions of the amendment conference provide an ideal
focal point for public campaigns and legislative and other
political initiatives.

We are already seeing hopeful signs of this leading up to the
January session. For example, in the US, an active CTB coalition
of 75 national organizations is now in high gear. International
organizations such as Greenpeace, International Physicians for
the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Nevada-Semipalatinsk-Mururoa
Movement, and Parliamentarians for Global Action are investing
enormous resources into actions that can help catapult the CTBT
issue up the agenda prior to January. The British Labor Party
recently issued their strongest statement in several years
condemning nuclear testing and pointing to the amendment
conference as an ideal opportunity to negotiate a CTBT. Olzhas
Suleimenov, leader of the Nevada-Semipalatinsk-Mururoa movement
in the USSR has asked Parliamentarians for Global Action to
consider launching a campaign for a worldwide parliamentary
referendum calling for an end to testing. The Supreme Soviet will
likely consider such a referendum in 1991.

Any number of possible developments in the coming months could
further shift the political debate. For example, the USSR may,
under increasing domestic pressure, be forced to make a virtue
out of necessity and formalize a unilateral testing moratorium,
perhaps somehow pinning the length of the moratorium onto the
amendment conference process. The total number of tests/year has
now reached a level that makes it possible to organize test site
protest actions for each tests. this could include ground-zero
type actions such as the one conducted in November to stop a
British test. A new US and/or UK government, supportive of a
CTBT, may be in power during a future session (e.g. in late 1992
or early 1993). Also, the US and UK have already begun to feel
growing pressure for a CTBT from the the non-nuclear states that
have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They are
demanding a CTBT before 1995, as a prerequisite for extending the
Treaty at that time.

Over the coming months, we have before us the best opportunity in
a decade to move the nuclear testing issue up the disarmament
agenda, to force the nuclear testing nations to give this issue
the top priority it deserves. Keeping the amendment conference
negotiations going past January would be an important success, a
key step toward achieving a CTBT in the next year or two.

The non-aligned countries have convened the PTBT amendment
conference in the hopes that it would become a focal point to
reignite the public movement for a nuclear test ban. This is
precisely what we see happening. But we must bear in mind, that
January is, in a way, the beginning of the fight, a fight which
can be won in the coming months, with determination, a hard-
hitting public campaign, and perseverance.

[Greenbase Inventory December 29, 1990 ]
=======#=======