Comprehensive nuclear test-ban 'imperative says Secretary-General.

It was "imperative to come up with a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty by June 1996", Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali told the Conference on Disarmament on 19 March. "Nothing should divert you from your goal", he stated, in addressing the world's sole multilateral disarmament negotiating body, as it held the first part of its 1996 session (22 January-29 March, Geneva).

"I fully realize that ... your Conference has a very busy schedule", he said. "That is precisely why I decided to come and visit you. For want to tell you with the utmost solemnity how much importance I attach to the success of your negotiations."

In asking the Conference participants to show "flexibility, open-mindedness, a spirit of compromise and the will to succeed", Mr. Boutros-Ghali urged them not to underestimate the historic work they were in the process of completing. "On the difficult road to nuclear disarmament, your success will be the success of future generations and of the whole human race", he declared.

The General Assembly, by resolution 50/65 of 12 December 1995, had pronounced the conclusion of a universal and multilaterally and effectively verifiable comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty a "task of the highest priority". It called upon all States participating in the 38-member Conference on Disarmament, particularly the nuclearweapon States, to conclude such a treaty, so as to enable its signature by the outset of the Assembly's fifty-first session. The Conference was to continue negotiations on the issue during the second part of its annual session, scheduled to be held from 13 May to 28 June.

`Energetic support'

A comprehensive test-ban would be a "necessary step towards the broader goal of full nuclear disarmament", John D. Holum, Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, stated on 23 January, as he read out President Bill Clinton's message to the Conference.

In pledging his country's "full and energetic support" for the conclusion by June 1996 of a "treaty so long sought and so long denied", he said such a ban was "vital to constrain both the spread and further development of nuclear weapons. Let us now take this historic step together", he urged.

The Russian Federation had been "consistently in favour of a complete and general nuclear test-ban" and considered such a measure as an "overdue and important step to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their qualitative improvement", that country's delegate, Grigori Berdennikov, told the Conference on 7 March. Since its independence, the Russian Federation had "not conducted a single nuclear explosion, rigorously observing the moratorium it had declared".

Joelle Bourgois of France on 4 March said her country--with its decisions to end the nuclear tests, adhere to the Treaty of Rarotonga, and close the Pacific nuclear-test sites at Mururoa and Fangataufa--had provided an "exceptional gesture" which illustrated its "confidence in the possibility of success in the negotiations under way".

Zukang Sha of China felt that the Conference was "on the right track" as far as the treaty negotiations were concerned which, however, should be accelerated "so as to make progress at the earliest date". As to a specific date, it could be 30 June, earlier than that or even later, since relevant Assembly resolutions had "not targeted 30 June as an absolute deadline". What was important was to "solve the problems in a pragmatic manner", he stated.

Salman Haidar, Foreign Secretary of India, while welcoming the progress in negotiations on a test-ban, said that "large gaps remain in areas central to the purpose of the treaty". His country, which believed that the ban should bring about a "halt to the qualitative development, upgrading and improvement of nuclear weapons" and mark the "first irreversible step towards genuine nuclear disarmament within a timebound framework", was concerned that "new justifications for retaining those weapons" had been recently put forward and "new roles" were envisaged for them. In that regard, India had presented proposals designed to ensure that the treaty was "indeed an integral step in a time-bound process of global nuclear disarmament".

Ukraine, which viewed the conclusion of a test-ban treaty as an "extremely important element of the process of ending the nuclear arms race", had been the first State in the world to have declared its intention to eliminate nuclear weapons deployed in its territory, its Foreign Minister, Hennadiy Udovenko, stated on 21 March. That decision had been adopted under the conditions of the socalled "Chernobyl syndrome" and the understanding of what a nuclear disaster could bring about, he said. It had also been influenced by estimates indicating that the maintenance of the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world would cost Ukraine "tremendous resources, Mr. Udovenko added.

On 28 March, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Nuclear Test-Ban, Jaap Ramaker of the Netherlands, presented an outline of a draft Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, which for the first time reflected in treaty text the positions of all delegations. In presenting the draft, the Chairman took into account the draft treaties which were presented earlier in the session by Australia and Iran. Delegations were asked to consult with their respective capitals on the Chairman's draft text, in particular, on the major outstanding issues which required political decision-making, so as to allow the Conference to conclude its negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty during the second part of its session.

New curbs on anti-personnel mines enacted by Review Conference

Further restrictions on the use, production and transfer of anti-personnel land-mines were endorsed on 3 May by the Review Conference of States Parties to the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects.

The Conference acted by adopting an amended Protocol II to the Convention, prohibiting the use of nondetectable anti-personnel mines. The 55 States parties agreed that all mines produced after 1 January 1997 must contain at least eight grammes of iron or the equivalent to make them detectable. The scope of the Protocol's application was also extended to cover armed internal conflicts.

Prohibitions on the use of mines designed to detonate during detection operations and of "any mine, booby-trap or other devise designed, or of a nature to, cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering", were enacted. In addition, the use of "remotely delivered mines, which would have to be constructed so that they self-destruct within 30 days of emplacement with 90 per cent reliability, was restricted. Such mines, according to the amended Protocol, must have a "back-up se]f-deactivation feature", so that no more than one in 1,000 would be functional in 120 days.

Mines delivered non-remotely outside marked areas must also adhere to these requirements, although if a party to the Protocol determined that it could not immediately comply, it might declare that it would defer adherence with respect to older mines for a "period not to exceed nine years".

The new restrictions were to apply not only to States, but "parties to a conflict" as well. The parties also agreed that States that accepted the amended Protocol II would not transfer any mines prohibited by that instrument.

In a Final Declaration, States parties also agreed to hold the next Convention Review Conference no later than the year 2001, and solemnly declared their commitment to continue to strive for a complete ban on the transfer of all anti-personnel mines in the context of their eventual elimination.

Draft on arms transfers viewed as `important step forward'

A set of draft guidelines for international arms transfers was adopted by the Disarmament Commission on 7 May, as it ended its 1996 substantive session (22 April-7 May, New York).

The Commission--a deliberative body with universal membership, mandated to make recommendations on disarmament issues--took that action by adopting its report to the fifty-first General Assembly, incorporating the reports of its two working groups on international arms transfers and on the holding of a fourth General Assembly session on disarmament.

In closing remarks, Commission Chairman Wolfgang Hoffman of Germany said the session had been an "important step forward". For the first time since 1993 when the Assembly had adopted the guidelines for regional disarmament, a working group had "achieved concrete results".

According to Gheorghe Chirila of Romania, Chairman of the Working Group dealing with arms transfers, the guidelines focused primarily on illicit arms trafficking, and also offered some important developments in the general framework of international arms transfers. The Group's report was meant to provide a "balanced and constructive contribution" to the promotion of a set of principles for the conduct of States in the "sensitive and increasingly important domain of micro-disarmament", the monitoring and promotion of selfrestraint in that field, "without affecting the legitimate right of States to selfdefence", he stated.

The completion of the set of guidelines was a response to Assembly resolution 46/36 H of 6 December 1991, which had called upon States to give high priority to eradicating illicit trade in all kinds of weapons and military equipment By resolution 50/70 J of 12 December 1995, the Assembly had again asked the Disarmament Commission to "expedite its consideration of the agenda item on international arms transfers, with special emphasis on the adverse consequences of the illicit transfer of arms and ammunition".

Despite "deep-seated differences", the exchange of views on a fourth General Assembly session on disarmament had been distinguished by a surprising display of good will, realism and a spirit of cooperation and understanding, the Chairman of Working Group II, Luvsangiin Erdenechuluun of Mongolia, stated on 7 May.

While there was broad support for the convening of a fourth session, divergent views were put forward on its scope and timing. The Non-Aligned Movement countries favoured a decision on the date by the end of the next Assembly session, while the European Union, along with the United States and New Zealand, called for a consensus resolution on the date, and questioned the convening of such a session in light of other disarmament meetings and conferences already scheduled. There was general agreement, however, on the need for careful preparation and specific, agreed objectives before the session was convened.