|
J. Enkhsaikhan’s Comments on the Model NEA-NWFZ Treaty
Ambassador J. Enkhsaikhan is the former Permanent Representative of Mongolia to the United Nations at the time of the UN Resolution to support the Nuclear-Weapons Free Status of Mongolia. The following is a very preliminary comments in the form of a private letter, which he has kindly permitted to publicize.
Dear Hiromichi Umebayashi,
As
promised, I am writing this letter to share my views on the set of documents
that you were kind enough to send me last week. Since I do not know the drafting history of the draft model
NEA-NWFZ treaty, please bear with my ignorance on some of the issues. Since I
did not participate nor receive material of the Shanghai meeting I do not know
the reaction of others nor their position.
I
believe that this is a new generation of NWFZ treaties, it is has some
substantial innovations compared with previous 4 treaties. That is a good sign,
because the world is changing and we all must move forward. You were able to
explain the novelty of the draft in the part on “features of the Model NEA-NWFZ
treaty”. Thus reference on “nuclear umbrella” in the treaty; putting the
negative security assurances in the main body of the treaty, ,aking reference
to foreign military bases and obligaion of education are really innovative and very helpful. Being a representative of
a land-locked country, I believe that prohibition of dumping of nuclear waste
should not be limited to seas and oceans, but also to land, and that such
dumping should not affect environmental interests of neighboring countries.
Though
you mention in Article 9 the annex for the Control System, I wasn’t able to
find it in the annex. I a, sure that the partners in negotiations would be keen
to know the content of the Control System. Your notes to the Model treaty is
very helpful to explain some of the provisions of the draft treaty.
I
totally agree with you reasoning that your three plus three arrangement is a
most realistic and fundamantal arrangement for a NEA-NWFZ, since it is based on
the commitments already made by the two Koreas and by Japan. Therefore I
believe that for tactical and logical reasons you and other supporters of 3+3
formula should support turning the Korean peninsula into a nuclear-weapon-free
peninsula. I would underline the importance of this for the success of the 3+3
arrangement. As I can see it, 3+3 arrangement and NWFKP are two sides of the
same coin, or should I say a part of the chicken and egg issue. One cannot be
resolved zwithout the second one. In your paper I detect (I may be wrong and
stand to be corrected) that the drafters of 3+3 arrangement are trying to put
the arrangement before NWFKP. I believe that time wise, NWFKP should a bit
precede the NEA-NWFZ.
Unlike
the previous NWFZ treaties, your draft tries to contain two layers of
commitments: legal and political. I mean that your legal commitments are also
supported by political commitments, qs reflected in draft Articles 2.4, 3.1 d, and 6. When legal commitments are reinforced by
politically important commitments and vice versa, it strengthens the provisions
of the treaty. What I would venture to suggest is also a third layer of
commitment ? commitment to cooperate closely with other NWFZs. When all NWFZs
cooperate it makes all of them legally and politically stronger. Threfore I
would suggest that you think of adding in the preambular and the main part of
the treaty specific provisions on cooperation with other NWFZs, both
traditional and single-State zones. This will allow NEA-NWFZ to link up with
all other zones and make the zone legally and politically stronger.
As
to Mongolia’s case, we would be interested in the success of 3+3 arrangement
and will be more than happy to help it to realize. We would be interested in
working together with you on this issue and on promoting nuclear
non-proliferation in general. When reading your papers I came to a conclusion
that a meeting of potential NWFZ
representatives might be politically and practically useful to exchange views,
to coordinate their activities and to send a strong message to the
nuclear-weapon States that denuclearization process is far from over. That
could bring together the relevant representatives of the Middle East, Central
and North Europe and of NEA. Single States as Mongolia, New Zealand and Austria
could also be invited and they could send a good and clear message to NPT
Review Conference in 2005. Representatives of the 4 NWFZs could invited as
observers. This just an idea. Of course it would need financing and other
arrangements. The venue could be either at UN headquarters, in Japan or even in
my Mongolia. On this somewhat positive note I end my comments. Since I do not
know the entire history of the 3+3 arrangement, I appoligize for any issue that you would consider
irrelevant.
Looking
forward to our cooperation for our common noble cause,
J.
Enkhsaikhan
26
September 2004
|
