The Report of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament

PART TWO:
MENDING STRATEGIC RELATIONS TO REDUCE NUCLEAR DANGERS

1. Suspicion and rivalry between existing or potential nuclear-armed states bode ill for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. This problem must be addressed both among major powers - the United States, Russia and China - and in those conflict-prone regions where nuclear confrontation is most likely - South Asia, the Middle East and Northeast Asia. Mending relations and reducing mistrust among major powers will significantly improve the conditions for progress on non-proliferation and disarmament in all three regions. At the same time, important steps can and should be taken by states in the regions regardless of the state of major power relations.

MENDING RELATIONS BETWEEN MAJOR POWERS

2. Success in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament requires cooperation in all bilateral relationships among the United States, Russia and China. The US-Russia and US-China relationships have deteriorated badly in recent years. Unless and until they are repaired, nuclear dangers will increase.

Repairing US-Russia Relations

3. Since the release of the Canberra Commission report in 1996, US-Russian relations have been marked by greater imbalances in economic and military power, greater divisiveness and partisanship in the domestic politics in both countries, and a retreat from cooperation towards unilateralism. As a result, collaborative efforts in non-proliferation and new disarmament initiatives have been sorely lacking. The common wish to avoid unpredictability that marked US-Russian relations in the Cold War - including agreed parameters of arms control, reduction, and ballistic missile defence treaties - is now dangerously lacking.
4. A partnership forged with great effort as the Cold War waned, producing extraordinary strategic arms reduction treaties and cooperation in the Gulf War, is breaking down. The causes include domestic political divisions, deep differences over foreign policy issues, and the absence of the concerted leadership necessary to regain common ground. To understand the current state of the relationship, it is useful to assess what was achieved before recent strains, including events in Yugoslavia in 1999, emerged. The euphoria of the first years after the end of the Cold War has ended. Some positive trends continue, but difficulties have increased.
5. In the years immediately before and after the end of the Cold War, serious progress was made in furthering arms control and improving strategic stability. Substantial reductions were made in strategic nuclear arsenals and efforts were pursued towards ensuring the inviolability of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Under START II, United States and Russia promised to reduce their deployed strategic arsenals to 3,000-3,500 warheads each. Agreement was reached to begin talks for further strategic reductions (START III) as soon as Russia ratified START II, so as to reduce strategic arsenals to 2,000-2,500 warheads each.
6. The most significant achievement of US-Russian interaction in this period was far greater predictability in the behaviour of each state. Progress was made in comprehending the new shape of international relations, distinguishing genuine from imagined problems, and developing common understandings of the changed character of threats to their security, globally and regionally. They seemed to share concerns about regional conflicts including ethno-nationalist wars, international terrorism, illegal trade in conventional arms, and global economic crises. This consensus was reflected in the Joint Statement on Common Challenges to Security on the Threshold of the 21st Century, signed by Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton in September 1998. The United States and Russia have repeatedly demonstrated that dialogue and compromise between them have eased international tensions, for example over Iraq and, at some stages, the former Yugoslavia. But this pattern has deteriorated badly. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's action in Yugoslavia in 1999 has widened the gulf between Washington and Moscow.
7. This deterioration stands in marked contrast to the early 1990s, when the United States and Russia appeared increasingly tolerant of policy differences. During this period, divergent views did not lead to confrontation; some differences based on national interests were perceived as natural, and tolerance of them helped maintain the US-Russian partnership. Now these differences are widening, particularly over unilateral and multilateral responses to international problems. Russia states that multilateral actions, under the UN flag, should take precedence, and considers the United States too prone to unilateral action and military measures, particularly in addressing conflicts. The United States and Western Europe, while wanting successful outcomes from multilateral efforts, have been unwilling to accept Russian vetoes in the UN Security Council that could disallow multilateral action to counter perceived crimes against humanity or violations of WMD treaty commitments.
8. When the US-Russian relationship is troubled, nuclear risk-reduction efforts suffer profoundly. Cooperation between the two powers is needed to dramatically reduce and eliminate their Cold War nuclear arsenals - deployed and non-deployed - in verifiable, reassuring and irreversible ways. Cooperative US-Russian efforts are also needed to dispose safely of Soviet-era nuclear weapons holdings. Considering Russia's difficult economic situation, it is unlikely to dedicate enough financial and other resources to this complex of problems. Outside assistance is crucial to minimise the possibility of nuclear bomb-making materials falling into the hands of states of proliferation concern or non-state or terrorist entities. Russian cooperation is also needed for resolving the most difficult regional security problems, where proliferation concerns and consequences are greatest.
9. Unless political leaders in the United States and Russia take urgent action to restore constructive relations, there is a grave risk of negative consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament efforts. At the very least, START II ratification would be delayed further and prospects for additional bilateral strategic arms reduction treaties would become remote. Russia would try harder to maintain its strategic nuclear forces beyond their service life and would place increasing importance on tactical nuclear weapons in its force postures and doctrines. Russia would try to build up its general-purpose military forces. There would be strong pressures in Belarus, and probably in Ukraine, to reassess their non-nuclear status, depending on political developments in these states and in Russia. And in the new geopolitical environment, Russia might widen its military and technological cooperation with countries of proliferation concern to others, but which it might consider strategic partners.
10. There would also be profoundly damaging global repercussions for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Progress in US and Russian reductions is needed to lead the way for disarmament by all other nuclear-armed states, but it will be difficult to reaffirm a cooperative US-Russian relationship to reduce nuclear dangers. In addition to NATO action in Yugoslavia, prospective US national missile defences and NATO expansion are particularly contentious issues. The weakness of the Russian economy and the problems of creating a stable and democratic state have understandably generated resentment among the Russian people. The rhetoric of nationalism and strategic competition has re-emerged. Divisions between Moscow and Washington are widening on regional proliferation issues, particularly the control of sensitive exports to Iraq, Iran and India. Work needs to be done to reconcile US and Russian approaches on the urgent need to control the export of materials and technology that might be used for WMD programs.
11. The pace of the START process now lags far behind the rate of increase in new nuclear dangers. Ratification delays have lasted longer than the time spent to negotiate the agreements. Even when ratification is belatedly approved, legislators attach conditions that impose further delays or complications for implementing treaty provisions. The formal process of US-Russian strategic nuclear arms reduction, which played an essential role in reducing Cold War arsenals, remains helpful but is now clearly insufficient to deal with contemporary and future challenges.
12. Difficulties in the arms reduction process reflect larger political differences between Moscow and Washington. It is wrong to place upon arms control the burden of fixing overarching political problems. The reverse is true: the resumption of progress in reducing nuclear dangers requires the repair of major political differences, including those related to regional proliferation and security. Arms control arrangements can, however, help facilitate and reinforce concerted efforts by US and Russian leaders to reforge larger patterns of cooperation.
13. The degree of difficulty involved in reaffirming US-Russian cooperation might lead some to suggest that such efforts be postponed until new political leaders take their places after national elections in both countries in 2000. But nuclear dangers do not conform to election cycles, and keep growing. The Tokyo Forum strongly urges political leaders in the United States and Russia to take steps now to mend the bilateral relationship. Failure to do so will compound trends that threaten regional and global security.
14. The Forum welcomes the US-Russia Joint Statement of 20 June 1999, and the progress made at the Cologne meeting on that day, in which presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed to try to facilitate the ratification of the START II accord while discussing changes in the ABM Treaty. The Joint Statement also noted that discussions on START III would begin without prior ratification of START II. But it is too early to tell if the 20 June meeting will lead to a sustained and effective revival of the bilateral arms reduction process. There are many obstacles ahead and, accordingly, pressure must be maintained on the two states to build on the progress made at Cologne.
15. The depths of the estrangement in US-Russian relations have the most serious consequences for initiatives to reduce nuclear dangers, and leaders in both countries need to place a high priority on repairing this relationship. To assist in this effort, the Tokyo Forum offers ideas on how dialogue on nuclear issues can help improve these bilateral ties, rather than exacerbate them, as has increasingly become the case. These ideas are set out in detail in the section of this report dealing with nuclear disarmament.

Repairing US-China Relations

16. To reduce nuclear dangers, a new partnership must also be forged between the United States and China. High-level visits in recent years have been helpful but have not reconciled differences in this complex relationship. Whatever the differences between the two countries, cooperation between them is needed to help reduce nuclear proliferation concerns. Enhanced dialogue would help promote greater transparency about nuclear weapons and intentions, and could further consolidate the engagement of both countries in the range of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament instruments, including the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and export controls. It would also begin to address Chinese concerns on missile defences, and so help prevent that issue from complicating regional and global security.
17. China did not play a central role during the Cold War, but is likely to be a more important power in the next century. How Beijing exercises its growing power will have a direct bearing on the US presence in East Asia. On the other hand, the role of the United States in East Asia and the West Pacific will be a crucial determinant of China's security policies. In particular, it will be essential for the United States to show regard for China's security concerns in the way in which it conducts its security relationships in the region. Both policies will affect efforts to reduce nuclear dangers.
18. The possible introduction of theatre missile defence (TMD) systems in East Asia is a major subject of controversy between the United States and China. China argues that TMD systems in East Asia would have destabilising effects. As well, after having been ignored in most analyses of the future of nuclear weapons, China's reported development of two new types of solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles - perhaps with multiple warheads - is becoming a major international concern.
19. Efforts to address perceived strategic and nuclear proliferation problems involving China and the United States need to be cooperative and constructive. The alarmist approaches of some elements of the US media and polity are not helpful in this regard. Perceptions of China's increasing military strength create unease among its neighbours and beyond. In explaining its nuclear weapons policies, and in further clarifying its non-proliferation policies, China like all nuclear-weapon states has an opportunity to reassure the international community.
20. Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, all nuclear weapons states have an obligation to take concrete steps to reduce, and eventually eliminate, their nuclear weapons. While Russia and the United States have sought to reduce their arsenals since the early 1990s, and France and the United Kingdom have cut their nuclear forces, China has yet to begin similar steps. The Tokyo Forum therefore calls on the United States, Russia, France and the United Kingdom to continue the ongoing steps to reduce their nuclear arsenals. The Forum further calls on China to join the other nuclear-weapon states in taking concrete steps to reduce numbers of nuclear weapons, through negotiations or otherwise. In addition, the five nuclear-weapon states could begin a process of confidence-building and transparency in the nuclear-weapons arena. In this connection, all the nuclear-weapon states could confirm that there will be no increase in their nuclear arsenals.

Reinforcing Confidence between Russia and China

21. Good relations between Russia and China are of importance, not only to both these countries, but also to the rest of the world. Relations between the two countries have improved in the past years, and a breakthrough in talks mapped out their common borders in April 1999. Friendly relations will be essential in the coming decades.
22. Although Russia and China are on the threshold of a new era, the nature of their future relationship is difficult to foretell. China's growing strength, Russia's current weakness, and both countries' increased friction with the United States are the main new factors. The asymmetries between the two countries may grow. With the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia retains huge territory, sparsely populated and underdeveloped, east of the Urals in Asia. This has a direct bearing on Sino-Russian relations. Increased military capabilities on either side could adversely affect bilateral relations. Russia and China could approach near-parity in nuclear forces at some point. Nuclear restraint on both sides would be an important confidence-building measure between the two countries.

STOPPING AND REVERSING REGIONAL PROLIFERATION

23. The nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in May 1998 awoke the world to the reality that the spread of nuclear weapons had reached a dangerous new phase. Two regional powers with unresolved antagonisms had made their nuclear ambitions overt. The tests reflected the failure of global non-proliferation norms to prevail over regional security imperatives, and increased fears that regional conflicts could turn into real nuclear wars.
24. South Asia is not the only region where these fears are growing. There is a pressing need for measures to stop and reverse nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and Northeast Asia as well. In all three regions, national rivalries are combining with nuclear weapons ambitions to create new and potentially catastrophic nuclear dangers which carry long-term repercussions. Some recent developments offer opportunities for arresting and reversing regional nuclear proliferation. These must be seized. The positive Brazil-Argentina experience of abandoning nuclear weapons programs shows that regional nuclear ambitions can be prevented through similar regional and bilateral confidence-building and cooperative arrangements to those found in the Brazil-Argentina Agency for the Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABAAC).
25. The 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was supposed to pave the way for further progress in nuclear disarmament and to make the Treaty as universal as possible. Apart from the fact that the nuclear-weapon states were not ready to commit to the elimination of nuclear weapons within a given time frame, most controversies at the conference arose from regional security problems such as those in the Middle East, South Asia and Northeast Asia. These regional security issues have to be taken seriously. They cannot be solved simply by admonishing the conflicting parties or demanding that they restrain from nuclear activities without any consideration of wider security concerns.
26. Nuclear dangers have different characteristics and causes in each of the three regions. What these cases have in common is the potential not only to thwart any further progress in nuclear disarmament, but also to result in a world in which nuclear weapons proliferation might become the norm. The international community must tailor its responses to each situation, as each of these proliferation cases is different.

South Asia

27. Nuclear testing and weapons proliferation in South Asia has been driven by India's ambition to be treated equally to the five nuclear-weapon states, domestic political factors, and security concerns, including perceptions of China. India considers the possession of nuclear weapons an attribute of great power status, and feels squeezed out by the distinction between nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states embedded in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1968.
28. For decades, India was an advocate of complete nuclear disarmament. Today, representatives of its political and intellectual elite argue that it was the rejection of this call for nuclear disarmament that brought India to seek nuclear weapons. What lends this contention little credibility, however, is that India's shift to an open nuclear weapons posture came at the very time that the United States and Russia were making deep cuts to their nuclear arsenals. The timing of India's action greatly compounds other nuclear dangers and makes nuclear disarmament harder to achieve.
29. Another motive for India's nuclear program relates to China. Some in India are concerned by Chinese long-range ballistic missiles, and by the short-range missiles it has allegedly stationed in Tibet. Now that India is developing long-range missiles capable of reaching much of China, Chinese perceptions of a threat from India may grow, increasing pressure on Beijing to harden its nuclear posture.
30. This emerging nuclear arms competition in South Asia is peculiarly dangerous because of its complexity, involving Pakistan as well as India and China. Except for its nuclear capability, Pakistan constitutes only a limited military threat to India. The dynamic of the Indian-Pakistan arms race is embedded in the division of the subcontinent in 1947 and the many conflicts and crises since then. Since Pakistan cannot compete with India in conventional military power, it seeks to equalise India's advantage with nuclear weapons. This has not produced a more peaceful situation in Kashmir.
31. As India's nuclear capabilities grow, there is no assurance that China would stand still. The resulting friction would weaken their security and further endanger southern Asia. Political crises between India and Pakistan are recurring phenomena, and have become more heated with overt nuclear weapons capabilities. Many strategists in India and Pakistan believe that making capabilities overt will increase strategic stability. But this is a far from automatic process; both countries have yet to put in place significant risk-reduction and stabilising measures. India and Pakistan have demonstrated their ability to flight test ballistic missiles that can be readily deployed. As a result, the time between the order to fire nuclear-capable missiles and its execution could be extremely short. Geographical factors also could increase instability in a crisis: Pakistan may feel compelled to maintain nuclear weapons at high alert, because it does not have strategic depth. Given the extremely short distances and flight times involved, decisions in a crisis might have to be made in a matter of minutes, raising the likelihood of catastrophic miscalculation. There is also the risk of unauthorised or accidental launch of nuclear-armed missiles.
32. In the absence of stabilising measures another crisis has already erupted in South Asia. Overt nuclear capabilities have not produced stability and security for India and Pakistan. If the repercussions now evident on the subcontinent in the 1999 Kashmir crisis are not stopped, more crises will follow. The decisions by these countries to test nuclear weapons and flight-test nuclear-capable missiles could also have cascading effects. More states might reconsider their non-nuclear status, especially as regional security uncertainties arise elsewhere. The link between nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear arms reductions with the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament would be weakened.
33. The Tokyo Forum therefore reaffirms the "benchmarks" for India and Pakistan articulated in UN Security Council Resolution 1172 and the G8 Foreign Ministers' communique of June 1998. The Forum calls on the international community to continue to urge India and Pakistan to implement all requirements in UN Security Council Resolution 1172, including: adherence to the CTBT without delay or conditions; immediate cessation of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development programs, including refraining from weaponisation; cessation of production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes; and restraint from export of equipment, materials and technology that can contribute to the development of WMD or missiles capable of delivering them. The Tokyo Forum calls on India and Pakistan to maintain moratoria on nuclear testing.
34. The Tokyo Forum believes that international efforts to secure India's and Pakistan's acceptance of international norms must be sustained. Ultimately the goal is to persuade India and Pakistan to renounce nuclear weapons and to adhere to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states. The latter could only be achieved in connection with reconciliation on the subcontinent, a continued and revitalised US-Russia process of nuclear arms reductions and the widening of this process at a suitable stage to include China, France and the United Kingdom.
35. The Forum calls for India and Pakistan to each announce a national moratorium on the production of fissile material for weapons purposes until the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty negotiations are concluded, and to contribute constructively to those negotiations. In this context, and taking into account China's wish to be a stabilising force in international affairs, a declared Chinese moratorium on the production of fissile material for weapons purposes would encourage India and Pakistan to follow.
36. The Forum considers that India and Pakistan should acquire no special status under the NPT, let alone legal status as nuclear-weapon states, nor be rewarded with any other additional status as a result of their nuclear testing. As long as their actions continue to damage the global non-proliferation norms that are fundamental to international peace and security, it is difficult to envisage either country taking a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The link between nuclear capability and the prestige and influence of a great power, including permanent membership of the UN Security Council, needs to be broken. Four of the P5 gained their permanent seats well before acquiring nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom and France owe much of their present-day status simply to the breadth of their engagement in world affairs, and have suffered no loss of status from major unilateral cuts to their nuclear forces. Germany and Japan have achieved their standing through economic development.
37. The Tokyo Forum calls on India and Pakistan to take concrete and verifiable steps to reduce nuclear dangers. The Lahore Declaration of February 1999 includes a constructive workplan in this direction, but this plan has been derailed by political turbulence in India and unwise initiatives by Pakistan in divided Kashmir. It is imperative that India and Pakistan finalise nuclear risk-reduction measures agreed to in the Lahore Declaration. Improved, reliable communication channels need to be established between both countries. Reassurance measures are needed so that nuclear-capable forces are not placed on alert or moved during crises. Prior notification of missile flight-tests and conventional force exercises in sensitive areas are essential. The Tokyo Forum strongly supports the process begun at Lahore and rejects any efforts to resolve differences by force. The Tokyo Forum calls on the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council and other nations to support the Lahore Declaration, and to offer to help implement any agreements reached in bilateral negotiations aimed at resolving the Kashmir dispute. New initiatives on Kashmir are especially needed in the wake of the 1999 conflict.
38. While China's nuclear posture towards South Asia has been restrained, additional steps of reassurance by both India and China would help greatly in reducing mutual threat perceptions. The elimination of Chinese nuclear weapons is imaginable only in connection with the elimination of US and Russian nuclear weapons, an unrealistic proposition for the near term. Once lower US-Russian ceilings are approached, however, China should play its part in the worldwide nuclear arms reduction process. As the strongest regional power, China's standing would be greatly enhanced if it took the lead in creating confidence in its immediate neighbourhood and reducing threat perceptions held, accurately or not, by adjacent states.
39. The Tokyo Forum calls on China and India to freeze or forgo nuclear deployments of long-range ballistic missiles in combination with a verifiable pledge not to station short-range missiles close to their common border. Furthermore, both China and India could announce that they consider themselves bound by the substantive provisions of the 1987 US-Soviet Treaty on Intermediate- and Shorter-Range Nuclear Forces (INF), and renounce possession of all land-based ballistic missiles with ranges between 500 and 5500 km. Such a measure would be consistent with disarmament steps by Russia and the United States. It is reasonable to imagine that China would agree to such a proposal if the nuclear arms reduction process between Russia and the United States were to continue with renewed momentum, either by the START process or by parallel, reciprocal and verifiable reductions, as endorsed in this report.

The Middle East

40. The Middle East is a highly unstable and conflict-ridden region. It has suffered several major conflicts since 1945: the Arab-Israeli wars, the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and the 1991 Gulf War. It is a region marked by the mutually-reinforcing combination of shifting power balances, unresolved antagonisms and active programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.
41. The first state to develop nuclear weapons in the Middle East was Israel which, unlike its neighbours, is not a member of the NPT. Israel's nuclear rationale has to be understood against the backdrop of perceptions of its strategic situation. While Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons, it is widely believed to have a sophisticated nuclear arsenal ready to be deployed on aircraft and medium-range missiles. Israel sees itself in the midst of states unreconciled to its existence. Although Israel holds a conventional military edge against its neighbours it perceives itself as heavily outnumbered, in population, economic power and, eventually, in military might. Thus Israel sees nuclear weapons as a tool of existential deterrence, indispensable for its very survival, in the absence of the encompassing peace involving Israel and its neighbouring states that would allow for a reappraisal.
42. From the perspective of Arab states the situation looks very different. While the majority of such states are ready to accept the existence of Israel, they do not accept Israel's position of not joining the NPT, its denial of statehood for the Palestinians, its continued occupation of Arab territories nor its policy of enhancing its missile and conventional capabilities. There are also concerns within the Arab world about Israel's chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Its Arab neighbours are also critical of the continuing technological support given by the United States to assist Israel in developing and deploying anti-missile missile systems (Arrow) and intelligence satellites. Israel's nuclear capabilities are also generating deeply-felt threat perceptions among its Arab and Islamic neighbours, and this continues to erode support for the NPT, as was especially evident during the 1995 Review and Extension Conference.
43. The launch of the peace process and the achievement of agreements may open a path towards peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours, including a solution to the nuclear problem. Only with a successful peace process as envisaged by the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty, the Madrid Conference, the Oslo accords and the Israel-Jordanian Peace Treaty is it imaginable that the nuclear issue will be less salient and Israel's ultimate renunciation of nuclear weapons made possible. Israeli policies from 1996 to 1999 left the peace process in limbo. The revitalisation of this process is now underway. The Tokyo Forum therefore stresses the crucial importance of an Arab-Israeli peace process for the stability of the region and for the future of nuclear non-proliferation. A successful peace process would also permit progress in removing nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East in the medium and long-term period. Indeed, the processes of peace and WMD disarmament should proceed in parallel.
44. There are other proliferation risks in the region. Iraq and Iran constitute serious security concerns for Israel, as they do for other states in the region. Iraq has pursued a secret nuclear weapons program, and the US Administration has alleged that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons. The latter has recently tested a ballistic missile with a range of 1,500 km, while inspections of Iraq by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) have been in abeyance and may not be adequately reconstituted. If either or both states were to possess nuclear warheads on medium-range ballistic missiles, in addition to Israel's nuclear arsenal, this would further destabilise the region. Differences in the size and strategic vulnerability of these states would create a fluid and dangerous dynamic, possibly with catastrophic consequences.
45. Imports of ballistic missiles and their technology are posing a special threat to the stability of the Middle East, giving the problem extra-regional dimensions. In the short-term the Tokyo Forum urgently appeals to all states in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) as well as the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) export control arrangements - especially Russia - to do their utmost to avoid any relevant transfers, including both technology and expertise, to the Middle East. The Forum also strongly endorses efforts to persuade North Korea, and other states non-members of the MTCR, to refrain from any transfers of sensitive missile technology to the region.
46. Another source of concern is that would-be nuclear proliferators in the region might be tempted to seek nuclear-weapons material stored insecurely elsewhere, such as in Russia and Kazakhstan. The international community should make every effort to cooperate with Russia and Kazakhstan to ensure that this material is stored securely.
47. The Tokyo Forum calls on the UN Security Council, especially its five permanent members, to do its utmost to establish as soon as possible a long-term WMD control regime for Iraq based on the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council and on the long-term monitoring plans approved by it in 1991. The Forum calls on Iraq to comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, and strongly urges the council's Permanent Members to give priority to non-proliferation issues in their dealings with all states of the region.
48. The Tokyo Forum urges all states in the region to take unilateral steps to create confidence and reassurance. We call on all states in the region to: join the NPT; ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty; accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all nuclear materials under their jurisdiction, including those contained in the recent Additional Protocol; sign and ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention; and take further measures to clarify beyond doubt their compliance with the NPT. We call on Israel to shut down its unsafeguarded nuclear reactor at Dimona or immediately subject it to international safeguards. All states in the region should suspend missile flight tests and restrain missile programs. Negotiations should be initiated towards a regional agreement to limit missile proliferation, that could usefully draw upon the provisions of the 1987 US-Soviet INF Treaty.
49. The Tokyo Forum believes that the multilateral Arab-Israeli negotiation process would be advanced by the rejuvenation of the Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) process. It strongly recommends serious work to develop a zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMDFZ) in the Middle East. Such a zone would only be possible in parallel with the successful conclusion of the Arab-Israeli peace process and substantial changes in the policies of Iran and Iraq. We urge both states to join the Arab-Israeli peace process including the ACRS process.
50. Within this WMDFZ, possession of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons would be prohibited. This zone would need much tighter and more intrusive verification arrangements than the improved IAEA safeguards regime, including challenge inspections. Monitoring would require external support by international organisations, individual states or combinations of the two. The Permanent Members of the Security Council would need to play special roles within the instrument creating the zone, including providing guarantees to underpin it and assistance in its implementation.

Northeast Asia

51. The most immediate and worrisome WMD and missile proliferation threat in Northeast Asia is posed by North Korea. Success in stopping and reversing these destabilising WMD and missile programs, combined with global non-proliferation efforts, will help prevent the emergence of other possible proliferation pressures in the region. In Northeast Asia, as in other regions of concern, proliferation risks will be minimised to the extent that the security concerns of all actors are allayed. The North Korean proliferation problems are linked with the troubles of that country's ailing totalitarian regime. The state has suffered from the regime and from the international isolation it has embraced. Famine and poverty have become widespread and the economy has come close to breakdown. The bellicose behaviour of the North Korean leadership seems part of an attempt to cling to power as long as possible. How long the regime will survive, how it eventually will relinquish power, and whether it might seek war as a solution, still remain open questions.
52. The North Korean nuclear program raised international concern in the early 1990s when it became known that the country had embarked on a nuclear program based on a reactor type suited to a nuclear weapons program - a reactor that produced a relatively high percentage of weapons-grade plutonium. The US-North Korean Agreed Framework of October 1994 provided for this type to be replaced with light water reactors, and for an end to all dubious activities. Although the implementation of this agreement has been progressing, doubts have persisted over the North Korean leadership's readiness to faithfully pursue the agreement. The May 1999 visit by US representatives to an underground site suspected of being intended for a nuclear weapon program produced no evidence to support such allegations. This was a positive development, but it is too early for a considered judgement.
53. In August 1998 North Korea proved its ability to launch long-range missiles. This was an extraordinary development for a country with generally low levels of technology and industrialisation and a stricken economy. It is suspected that missile technology and foreign experts have played a role in the North Korean program. This program has not only given North Korea dramatically improved offensive capacities, but has helped fuel arms races elsewhere. The Pakistani Ghauri missile and the Iranian Shehab missile appear virtually identical to a North Korean prototype.
54. The Tokyo Forum calls on the international community to do its utmost to achieve early realisation of the goal of a denuclearised Korean Peninsula. It urges North Korea to stop all nuclear weapon and missile related activities, and to bring about the full implementation of the 1994 US-North Korean Agreed Framework. The financial and technical implications of the Agreed Framework are extremely complicated and need continuous support from many states, including Japan, South Korea, the United States and the European Union. This support is likely to dry up if North Korea continues to flight test nuclear-capable missiles and make other threatening gestures. The Tokyo Forum calls on the international community to press North Korea to sign and ratify the CTBT as soon as possible; to implement its NPT/IAEA fullscope safeguards agreement; and to accept the new Additional Protocol to that agreement. Strict, verifiable implementation of these safeguards is the only way to resolve the continuing uncertainties over the North Korea nuclear program and prevent a new crisis.
55. In the context of Northeast Asia, the Tokyo Forum underscores the need for the strict implementation of export controls in accordance with the MTCR guidelines, and calls for more rigorous controls on nuclear weapons technology and materials. The Forum stresses the necessity for the international community to closely cooperate in keeping nuclear weapons materials and missile technology, as well as precursors for other weapons of mass destruction, away from North Korea.
56. The Forum also sees an urgent need for measures to prevent North Korea from continuing to be a source of missile or nuclear weapons proliferation to other regions. Given the threat that such proliferation could pose to international peace and security, these measures might range from bilateral or multilateral talks involving the North Korean authorities, through international economic sanctions to more forceful actions under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Such sanctions might be applied both to North Korea and states buying its missiles and related items. These measures will not be necessary, however, if North Korea takes meaningful steps to reassure its neighbours and conforms fully to relevant international non-proliferation norms. The Tokyo Forum strongly recommends that all states strive to engage North Korea in a constructive dialogue on these matters.

---

Back to Index