Proposition One
Treaties
Section 4
****************************************************************
March 24, 1995, Washington Post editorial by Stephen S.
Rosenfeld,
"The Unmet U.S. Pledge to 'Completely' Disarm":
"...By holding back on Article VI, the Nuclear Five are in
effect trying to rewrite the treaty. They are being directly
challenged by, among others, the Third world diplomat--Sri Lankan
ambassador to Washington Jayantha Dhanapala--who is president-
designate of the NPT review conference about to open in New York.
"Dhanapala starts from the position that nuclear weapons are
illegitimate--uniquely threatening to 'human civilization and its
ecosystems.'... Dhanapala's solution is a new treaty to outlaw
possession of nukes by countries that already have them...."
****************************************************************
April 6, 1995, Washington Times Letters to the Editor, by Kathryn
R.
Schultz, Senior Research Analyst, Center for Defense Information:
"There are plenty of reasons to keep arms-control agency around":
"...As long as there is one nuclear weapon left on the planet
or one kilogram of highly enriched uranium or plutonium not under
strict international safeguards, we need a cadre of people whose
focus it is to eliminate rather than counter the threat posed by
nuclear weapons.
"And as long as any treaty is under attack (be it by those who
question the value of extending the nuclear NPT or advocates of
junking the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Chemical
Weapons Convention), we need AECDA (US Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency)."
Another April 6, 1995, Washington Times article, p. A3, by Paul
Bedard and Gus Constantine, "U.S. vows no nuke attacks against
non-nuclear nations; China, Britain, France follow suit to
further NPT":
"...It was not clear if Russia, the other nuclear-club nation,
would go along.
"...China went further than the US by pledging it will not be
the first nation to use nuclear weapons 'at any time or under any
circumstances.'...
"The U.S. decision yesterday to rule out first-strike of
nuclear weapons included a caveat. By pledging not to fire
nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations who agree never to
seek atomic bombs and missiles, the United States kept open its
option to use the weapons against rogue nations such as Iraq and
Iran.
"It also kept its option to strike nuclear countries that help
non-nuclear nations in times of war....
"At a just-concluded disarmament conference in Geneva, ...
India charged that the treaty creates classes of 'have' and
'have-not' nations without assuring the freeing of the planet
from the nuclear threat.
"China, although it possesses nuclear weapons, tends to
sympathize with this view, according to diplomatic sources...."
****************************************************************
Also on April 6, 1995, the Washington Post, by Thomas W. Lippman,
"Mubarek Reassures Clinton on Nuclear Pact Renewal":
"...As an inducement to Israel to offer some commitment,
however vague, that it will agree to denuclearize in the future,
Egypt is prepared to offer to ratify an international treaty
banning chemical weapons, a senior Egyptian official said.
"...Mubarek was attempting to shore up Egypt's position as the
second-largest recipient of U.S. aid....
"In a gesture to nations that want security assurances for
renewing their commitment to remain non-nuclear, the Clinton
administration yesterday reaffirmed its long-standing commitment
not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, unless
they are allied with another nuclear power. The five permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council, which are also the five
declared nuclear states, promised yesterday to adopt a resolution
committing them to support the cause--politically, if not
militarily--of any country attacked or threatened with attack by
nuclear weapons....
"'Our view,' Mubarak said at a joint news conference with
Clinton yesterday, ' is that since peace is spreading throughout
the region, all the parties ought to work together toward the
elimination of the potential threats, especially the spreading of
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons...."
****************************************************************
[April 14, 1995, sixth of a Washington Post series of six
articles,
"Rethinking the Bomb" by Steve Coll and David B. Ottaway, "A Hard
Sell
for Treaty Renewal"]:
"...As the heated lobbying in recent months has shown, the NPT
extension is about much more than numbers. The vote is
occurring, by historical coincidence, at a time of deep
uncertainty around the world about the basic role of nuclear
weapons in political and military affairs. Much has happened in
the past two years, but many crucial questions remain....
"A few weeks ago, ambassadors from the five powers met for
their weekly private session in Geneva to discuss whether they
ought to say something definitive about the ultimate future of
nuclear weapons.
"At the meeting, the Russian ambassador, Grigori Berdennikov,
proposed what he called 'a coordinated statement' on the NPT's
pledge to ban nuclear arms, according to people familiar with the
meeting. Russia's government had decided it was certainly 'able
to confirm its obligations' in public, he said. But the British
and French ambassadors declared that any such statement would be
unacceptable."
****************************************************************
April 17, 1995, Washington Post, by R. Jeffrey Smith, "China
Nuclear
Deal With Iran Is Feared; US Worries Transfer Could Lead to
Arms":
"...U.S. officials said that Washington has so far said less
in public about China' possible deal than about the Russian deal
because the Chinese-Iranian negotiations are not complete."
Also on April 17, 1995, Washington Post, by R. Jeffrey Smith,
"Some [50] Nonaligned Nations Bristle at Treaty Extension; US
Wants Public Vote on Nonproliferation":
"... Washington and its European allies ... argued that a
public vote is needed so that the neighbors of any country voting
against a permanent extension can be aware of potential security
threats arising on their doorstep.
"Diplomats from Indonesia, Venezuela, Malaysia, Mexico, Iran
and other nonaligned or developing countries countered that a
confidential ballot would enable nations to vote freely and, if
they chose to do so, register their concern that the five
declared nuclear powers have not taken sufficient steps toward
nuclear disarmament.
"'Everyone knows that the US is putting intense pressure on
countries,' said one diplomat....
"In a March 10 demarche delivered by the US ambassador to
South Africa, for example, US officials said that a contrary vote
by that country would undermine 'mutual interests' and alter
Washington's view of the country's 'nonproliferation
credentials,' according to a copy of the document obtained by the
Washington Post.
"The US complaint also noted that Washington had supported
South Africa's membership in a group of nations that controls
sales of nuclear technology 'because we felt confident about
South Africa's' commitment to a permanent NPT extension.
"U.S. officials say Washington made the complaint after South
Africa, a nonaligned state that US officials say has strong
nonproliferation credentials and much influence in Africa,
appeared to have endorsed a proposal by other nonaligned states
to extend the NPT for a series of fixed periods.
"The aim of this approach, according to a South African
diplomatic note that was also obtained by the Post, would be 'to
find some mechanism for continuing pressure on the nuclear
weapons states to meet their NPT disarmament commitment; leverage
... that would be lost if the NPT is extended indefinitely.'..."