[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H959-H963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMPLICATIONS OF FRANCE'S NUCLEAR TESTING NIGHTMARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Florida). Under a previous
order of the House, the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr.
Faleomavaega] is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 29, 3 short days
before he is to arrive in Washington,
[[Page H960]]
President Chirac of France announced, in a formal news release, the end
to nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Though he makes a pretty
speech, just in time to come to Washington as a fervent advocate of
nuclear disarmament and to establish warm ties with America, I want to
point out for my colleagues and to the American people, Mr. Speaker,
the hypocrisy of Chirac's recent piece of propaganda.
Mr. Chirac began his news release with these words:
Dear compatriots, I announce to you today the find end to
French nuclear tests. Thanks to the final series that has
just taken place, France will have a durable, reliable, and
modern defense.
Point No. 1, Mr. Speaker, France already has the world's fourth
largest Navy and the world's third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons
before it even began its final series of nuclear tests. France had
already exploded over 200 nuclear bombs in land, air, and water, far
from the home of the enlightenment. In particular, France had already
exploded 178 nuclear bombs in the South Pacific. Were those 200-plus
nuclear bomb explosions not enough to ensure a durable, reliable, and
modern defense? If those 200 were not enough, why should we now believe
that the 6 additional nuclear bomb explosions France has just conducted
in the South Pacific would be enough to stay its appetite for an even
more modern defense?
Point No. 2: The final series of French nuclear tests were not even
necessary. The United States freely offered France the technology it
sought to ensure its so-called nuclear weapons reliability. Why did
France not accept the United States offer? Because of a combination of
two things: French national pride, and French suspicions that the
United States was withholding state-of-the-art technology.
Now Chrirac wants to be perceived as promoting nuclear disarmament
and warm ties with America? One who defiantly violates world
moratoriums and resumes unnecessary nuclear testings cannot and must
not be regarded as a promoter of nuclear disarmament, and one who is
suspicious of any offerings the United States might make certainly
cannot be regarded as one who is promoting warm ties with the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, President Chirac continues his speech by saying: ``The
security of our country and our children is assured.'' In turn, Mr.
Speaker, I say ``At what price, and whose children?'' The sixth nuclear
bomb that France exploded on Saturday, last Saturday, since violating
the world's moratorium, was six times more powerful than the bomb
dropped on Hiroshima, Japan; a bomb, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that
took the immediate lives of some 150,000 people, and later claimed
another 50,000 who died from nuclear contamination and illnesses.
In response to France's latest nuclear explosion in Fangataufa Atoll,
the mayor of Hiroshima said these words: ``I feel renewed anger.
Nuclear tests aimed at developing and maintaining nuclear technology
will do nothing but increase the risk of putting human beings on the
brink of ruin.''
I might now ask, Mr. Speaker, what kind of security has France really
secured for our children? The Pacific Ocean covers one-third of the
world's surface. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that France has put not only
its children but all of our children on the brink of ruin by exposing
them to nuclear contamination through a resulting toxic food chain.
Mr. Speaker, Chirac's reckless actions have initiated the nuclear
arms race all over again. Horrific environmental concerns aside,
Chirac's decision to resume unnecessary nuclear testings in the South
Pacific has opened a Pandora's box that holds chilling implications for
nuclear and nonnuclear nations alike. Prime Minister Keating of
Australia recently said, and I quote:
The French government is to be strongly condemned for the
latest test at Fangataufa Atoll, and for conducting it during
negotiations for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which are
now entering the final critical stages in Geneva,
Switzerland.
What implications, Mr. Speaker, does Chirac's reckless decision to
initiate the nuclear arms race all over again hold for those
negotiations and for the security of the world? Let me share with you,
Mr. Speaker, the domino effect of Chirac's reckless decision. These is
now a serious move by India to link the negotiations of a Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty in Geneva to its call for negotiations to start this
year on removing all nuclear weapons in a specified time. The five
nuclear superpowers are, of course, against this move, but joining
India is, ironically, Pakistan.
Adding to this difficulty, India refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty on the basis that the nuclear nations are still
maintaining their nuclear arsenals, which in effect make the whole
treaty meaningless and discriminatory. India's Prime Minister has said
and I quote: ``We are of the view that to be meaningful, the treaty
should be securely anchored in a global disarmament context, and be
linked through treaty language to the elimination of all nuclear
weapons in a time-bound framework.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, India
is pushing for no loopholes in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
As it currently stands, what assurances do nonnuclear nations have if
nuclear nations retain their nuclear arsenals? If France's resumption
of nuclear tests in the South Pacific is a case in point, nonnuclear
nations have next to nothing in assurances from a five-member club
comprised of one who is willing to defy world moratoriums at will, and
four who are willing to act in complicity by looking the other way.
Mr. Speaker, because of Chirac's reckless and selfish decision, India
is now ignoring Western pressure to scrap its ambitious ballistic
missile program. India is saying. If France can defy world moratoriums
to ensure a durable, reliable, and modern defense, then so can we. Just
this week India successfully launched a new ballistic missile, the
Prithvi, that has a range exceeding 150 miles and a capability of being
fitted with nuclear warheads.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that India has a missile with nuclear
capabilities that can reach the capital of Pakistan, Islamabad, so now
Pakistan wants to utilize M-11 ballistic missiles from China. These M-
11 missiles are also capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and they
could hit key cities throughout India.
But the chain reaction Chirac has created does not stop there, Mr.
Speaker. India and China have just signed a mutual contract for India
to purchase uranium from China. Now China, in an expression of its own
security concerns, is developing warm relations with Russia. China's
position is that you cannot depend on Western powers for its security.
Now there is renewed apprehension between Russia and the NATO powers.
All of this, Mr. Speaker, is a result of the fear France has created
and fueled by its defiance in violation of the world moratorium to stop
nuclear testing.
Australian Prime Minister Keating sums it up this way: ``Such
irresponsible actions send the worst possible signal to nations that
aspire to possess nuclear weapons. The French government is to be
strongly condemned.''
Despite world condemnation, Mr. Speaker, Chirac arrogantly continues
his speech of Eurocentric rationale by marginalizing Asian Pacific
concerns.
President Chirac state: ``I know the decision I took last June may
have caused worries and emotions.'' Mr. Speaker, can you believe this?
Charac thinks his decision only caused ``worries and emotions''. Is he
still denying the environmental effects of his unnecessary nuclear bomb
explosions in waters conveniently located halfway around the world from
France? Is he still claiming that his nuclear bomb explosions have no
ecological consequences?
Is he unaware that he has initiated a nuclear arms race all over
again? Or does he just take nuclear proliferation lightly, suggesting
that it should cause nothing more than a few worries and emotions? What
kind of world leader could be so barbaric in his interpretations, Mr.
Speaker?
President Chirac continues by claiming that, ``While my resolve was
not affected, I was not insensitive to those movements of public
opinion.'' How sensitive, Mr. Speaker, was he? Was he sensitive enough
to stop nuclear bombings? Was he sensitive enough to consider the 28
million people living in the Pacific region whose lives will be
affected for decades to come as a result of the nuclear nightmare
Chirac's unaffected resolve created for them?
[[Page H961]]
{time} 1745
As Prime Minister Bolger of New Zealand has noted, and I quote:
Despite all suggestions from France that this is a totally
safe and benign operation, there is no such thing as a safe
nuclear test. They all create massive damage. It is just a
matter of how much, when, and what leakage there is.
Philippines President Ramos also has this to say, Mr. Speaker, and I
quote once again:
I condemn in the strongest terms the latest tests by
France. This latest test is a continued definance of the
international communities' appeals to France.
Mr. Speaker, I might also note, this latest test comes shortly after
all 10 Southeast Asian countries signed a treaty providing for a
nuclear-free zone in that part of the world.
While President Chirac may claim sensitivity, the latest in French
nuclear testings are an affront, a slap in the face, to Asia-Pacific
countries. Since when is a slap in the face, Mr. Speaker, considered to
be an expression of sensitivity?
Promoting his propaganda to the hilt, Mr. Speaker, Chirac continues
his response to the world's condemnation of French nuclear testings.
These movements, as Chirac likes to call what have really been
international, ``testified,'' he says, ``to the growing importance the
world's inhabitants attach to collective security and safeguarding the
environment. I share these concerns.''
Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that the world's No. 1 nuclear
proliferator, the man responsible for initiating the nuclear arms race
all over again, would now try to convince us that he shares our
concerns for collective security and safeguarding of the environment.
If this were the case, why did he not just accept the technology the
United States offered?
Why conduct unnecessary nuclear testing? Why reopen the nuclear arms
race? Why create the paranoia? Why pit nuclear nations against non-
nuclear nations? Why pit Western powers against non-Western powers?
Why, on the one hand, claim that there are no ecological consequences
of nuclear testings, but on the other hand, choose to conduct these
nuclear tests far from the borders of France?
Whose environment is Chirac really interested in safeguarding, Mr.
Speaker? And whose security is he really concerned about?
In a very patronizing way, Mr. Speaker, Chirac also said, and I
quote:
I know that nuclear energy can be frightening, but in a
world that is still dangerous, our weapon is a deterrent--
that means a weapon that can serve peace. Today I have the
feeling of having accomplished one of my most important
duties by giving France, for decades to come, the capability
for its independence and security.
I think that answers in question for us, Mr. Speaker. It is French
security and the French environment that Chirac is concerned about. To
heck with everyone else's independence and security. France has its own
rules. France does its own thing. If it wants to violate world
moratoriums, it will. France, after all, comes first.
Mr. Speaker, excuse me, but I thought peace meant working together to
create an equitable environment for all citizens of the world not just
French ones.While I am on the subject, Mr. Speaker, I might question
Chirac's use of the word ``independence.'' Does ``independence'' in
Chirac's vocabulary include freedom for the native people of Tahiti who
have felt the brunt of French colonial reign since the islands of
French Polynesia were what Westerners would call ``colonized'' by
France, after some 500 French soldiers with guns and cannons subdued
the Tahitian chiefs and their warriors in the 1840's. Or is
independence just a concept, like security, that Chirac applies only to
the people of France?
Mr. Speaker, Chirac continues his dramatic monolog by saying, and I
quote:
A new chapter is opening. France will play an active and
determined role in world disarmament and for a better
European defense.
Mr. Speaker, do I hear Chirac correctly? Do I hear him trying to
justify his latest nuclear testings by saying he did it all to
stabilize relations in Europe?
For him to suggest that the resumption of French nuclear testing was
done to stabilize relations in Europe is ridiculous. When France first
presented the idea that in an effort of concerted deterrence it would
extend its nuclear umbrella to its European partners, there were few
takers, Mr. Speaker. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 10 of the 15 European Union
members voted with the United Nations, protesting the resumption of
French nuclear testing.
Why, Mr. Speaker, are not the European Union members more anxious to
be a part of the French nuclear umbrella? Partly because the European
Union members are more comfortable with the protection the
United States has provided them for the past 50 years, and partly, Mr.
Speaker, because historically, France just cannot be trusted.
Mr. Speaker, in the 1940's, France surrendered to Nazi Germany. In
1966, at the height of the cold war, when nuclear missiles were pointed
at every major country in Europe, France pulled out of the NATO
alliance. Today France still has not officially joined NATO, and as we
have clearly seen, from September of 1995 to January of this year,
France cannot even be trusted to honor a world moratorium it agreed to
only 4 short years ago. How can any nation, European or not, be assured
of any French position?
Mr. Speaker, Chirac says, and I quote:
I will take initiatives in this direction in the coming
weeks. As all of you, dear compatriots, I want peace--solid
and durable peace. We all know that peace, like freedom, has
to be built each day. This is the purpose of the decision I
took and that will be the guideline for my action tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, can we really put stock in Chirac's guideline for
tomorrow? France's own Urban Minister said about Chirac's decision to
explode eight additional bombs in the South Pacific, and I quote, ``He
did what he said he would do and he did the right thing.''
Mr. Speaker, something is rotten in Denmark when world leaders
consider that they have done the right thing by violating world
moratoriums that they agreed to. Chirac's aide said Chirac will earn
international respect for sticking determinatively to a decision almost
as unpopular domestically as it was internationally.
Mr. Speaker, if the responses of world leaders from Australia, New
Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, the Pacific nations and Europe is any
indication of international sentiment, Chirac will be a long time in
earning anybody's respect. Anyone with a social conscience, world
leader or not, knows that the only interest Chirac considered in
resuming nuclear testings was the higher interests of French military
industrial lobbyists and their profitable $2.5 billion nuclear program.
Mr. Speaker, now Chirac wants to come to Washington and make a case
for peach and act as a spokesperson for the world's poor. But, Mr.
Speaker, did you know that France is now the top weapons exporter of
weapons supplier in the world?
Mr. Speaker, is it with irony or with hypocrisy that President Chirac
will promote peach and act as a spokesman for the world's poor when
France is the biggest exporter of weapons to developing nations?
Mr. Speaker, while Chirac may script his story for Eurocentric
audiences, the people of the Pacific who feel the brunt of colonial
reign have their own story to tell. It is a travesty that on Thursday
their voices will be made mute in this Chamber by one who so arrogantly
and so openly marginalizes not only their concerns, but the concerns of
the world community as well.
Mr. Speaker, it is an act devoid of all social conscience that has
afforded Mr. Chirac the opportunity of delivering his downright
deceptive message from a Chamber that symbolically represents the
highest of democratic values. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to join together in insisting that the Speaker rescind the
invitation he has extended to Mr. Chirac, and if the invitation is not
revoked, then I urge my colleagues not to attend the Joint session of
Congress.
To attend the session is to act in complicity, to validate France's
position that it is okay to violate world moratoriums, to resume
nuclear testings, to initiate a nuclear arms race all over again, to
place humanity on the brink of destruction.
As a Member of both the Pacific Island community and the U.S. House
of Representatives, and as one who has sailed to the nuclear testing
site of Mururoa and been arrested at the
[[Page H962]]
hands of French commandos in waters the good Lord gave the people of
Polynesia, as one who has considered the kind of world that I want my
children to live in, Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience be a
party to such hypocrisy.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following articles for the Record.
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 30, 1996]
Chirac Ends France's Nuclear Test Program
(By William Drozdiak)
Paris, January 29.--President Jacques Chirac announced
tonight that France has ended its controversial nuclear
testing program in the South pacific and will not embark on a
fresh campaign in favor of disarmament.
In a televised statement, Chirac said he decided to halt
all further nuclear tests because France can now be assured
to a ``modern and secure'' arsenal as a result of data
gleaned from six underground blasts conducted over the past
five months.
``A new chapter is opening. France will play an active and
determined role for disarmament in the world and for a better
European defense,'' he declared. ``I will take initiatives in
this direction in the coming weeks.''
The French decision means China is the world's only
declared nuclear power that still insists on the right to
carry out weapons tests. Others, including the United States,
have joined a moratorium while negotiations proceed on a
worldwide nuclear test ban treaty.
The Clinton administration hailed Chirac's decision and
predicted it will add momentum to the treaty talks.
``The United States has consistently urged that all nations
abide by a global moratorium on nuclear testing as we work to
complete and sign a comprehensive test ban treaty,'' the
White House said in a statement.
Under President Francois Mitterrand, France had abstained
from testing for three years. Chirac's decision last June,
shortly after he took office, to resume testing sparked
worldwide protests and contributed to a sharp drop in his
popularity at home. He insisted that the tests were necessary
to verify a new warhead for France's submarine-based missiles
and to perfect computer-based simulation technology that
would be employed once a test ban was imposed.
The announcement that France is rejoining the moratorium
came two days after the final blast, described as ``less than
120 kilotons,'' or six times the size of the atomic bomb
dropped on Hiroshima, was conducted at the Fangataufa coral
atoll about 750 miles southeast of Tahiti.
Chirac acknowledged that he was ``not insensitive'' to the
fear and consternation provoked at home and abroad by the
resumption of France's underground nuclear explosions.
Despite what he called the ``frightening'' power of nuclear
bombs and threats to the environment, he insisted that
France's arsenal will ``serve the interests of peace.''
Chirac plans to make a state visit this week to Washington,
where he will make a speech before both houses of Congress.
He is expected to use the occasion to launch a diplomatic
counteroffensive, promoting the virtues of the comprehensive
nuclear test ban treaty being negotiated in Geneva.
French officials said Chirac also plans to co-chair an
international conference on nuclear security in Moscow in
April. The meeting, which will review safety problems at
nuclear power stations, was conceived by the leaders of the
world's major industrial democracies last year to prevent
disasters such as the Chernobyl nuclear accident a decade
ago.
With the South Pacific testing ground now due to be closed,
the French president reportedly will announce an aid package
Tuesday to help compensate French Polynesia for the loss of
lucrative earnings from the nuclear testing center.
Chirac said France can afford to stop its program well
ahead of schedule--and two tests short of the eight he
originally planned--because he is satisfied that results
already obtained have fulfilled the programs' objectives.
But it was clear that the surprising ferocity of global
opposition to the French program hastened its conclusion.
Japan, Australia and New Zealand have waged a vociferous
protest campaign since the tests started last September. A
consumer boycott of French exports was launched in many
countries, though the government here claims it did not
inflict as much damage as initially feared on the French
wine, perfume and clothing industries.
Chirac contends that what wounded him most was the lack of
solidarity from many of France's European Union partners,
even after he suggested the arsenal could serve as a
strategic shield for a future European defense community.
Among the EU's 15 member nations, only Britain offered
public support for the French nuclear tests. Germany and
Spain remained mute out of deference to dismay among their
citizens, while governments in the Netherlands and the
Scandinavian countries were overtly hostile to the French
program.
Now that the tests are concluded, however, Chirac gave
notice that he intends to emphasize the fight against nuclear
proliferation by pushing hard for a comprehensive test ban
treaty by the end of this year. Seeking to curtail the
hostility of protests abroad, France insisted several months
ago that the treaty should embrace the ``zero option''
banning all tests, even those of the smallest explosive
power.
Some military experts, notably in the Pentagon, wanted to
set the ban at a certain threshold to preserve the right to
carry out micro-explosions, ostensibly to ensure the
reliability of existing arsenals.
After some hesitation, the United States and Britain
endorsed the zero option now backed by Chirac. But Russia and
China have not accepted the proposal. While Russia has
stopped testing, the Chinese insist on the right to continue
underground explosions because they contend their program
lags far behind those of the other nuclear powers.
Besides the continuing dispute over the zero option,
negotiations for a test ban treaty now unfolding in Geneva
have encountered problems from other countries that may
aspire to join the nuclear club.
India has predicated its support for a test ban treaty on a
timetable for the elimination of all nuclear arsenals in the
world, a hard-line position that if sustained could torpedo
the negotiations.
____
[From the Washington Times, Jan. 30, 1996]
Chirac Ends Nuclear Tests on Eve of State visit
French President Jacques Chirac yesterday ended a series of
underground nuclear tests in the South Pacific that were
threatening to create a major embarrassment during his state
visit to Washington this week.
Several members of Congress have threatened to boycott Mr.
Chirac's address to a joint session on Thursday and have
asked House Speaker Newt Gingrich to withdraw the invitation,
according to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call
In Paris, Mr. Chirac announced that with the completion of
the sixth and most powerful blast on Saturday, France had
achieved its objective of ensuring a ``viable and modern
defense.'' He said he was calling for ``a definitive halt to
French nuclear tests.''
``I know that the decision that I made last June may have
provoked, in France and abroad, anxiety and emotion,'' Mr.
Chirac said on state-run television last night.
``I know that nuclear weaponry may cause fear. But in an
always-dangerous world, it acts for us as a weapon of
dissuasion, a weapon in the service of peace.''
The announcement came just days before Mr. Chirac's state
visit, which was postponed from last fall.
Roll Call reported that several Democratic members of
Congress last week condemned the decision to invite the
French president to address a joint session and called on Mr.
Gingrich to rescind the invitation.
A spokesman for the Senate historian's office called the
protest, led by representatives from Hawaii and the Pacific
territories, ``extraordinary'' and said he could not recall a
similar outcry in the past.
Roll Call quoted the representatives describing Mr.
Chirac's appearance as a ``direct affront against the United
States and its people and of the world.''
They urged fellow House members in a ``Dear Colleague''
letter to ``protest President Chirac's wanton disregard of
the appeals by and on behalf of the people of the Pacific
region'' for an end to the tests.
There was little chance of the address being canceled, but
a top Democratic leadership aide told Roll Call the event
could end up as nothing more than a ``joint session to
staffers and pages.'' Mr. Gingrich might have to ``hustle to
fill the room,'' the aide said.
France began the tests with a Sept. 5 blast beneath Mururoa
Atoll. That detonation, roughly the size of the atomic bomb
dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, broke a three-year
international moratorium on nuclear testing.
It made France the only nation besides China to test
weapons of mass destruction since 1992. France insisted it
had to resume the tests to check its nuclear arsenal and
develop computer simulation that will make actual detonations
unnecessary in the future.
The testing outraged Australia, New Zealand and other South
Pacific countries and provoked rioting in Tahiti. But it did
not elicit strong response from such major French allies as
the United States, Britain and Germany.
The environmental group Greenpeace, which fought the tests
with bitter denouncements and high-seas protests, expressed
relief at Mr. Chirac's decision.
``France has finally bowed to international pressure,''
said Josh Handler, the group's disarmament coordinator.
Greenpeace said it would now press France to return protest
ships seized over the past few months.
On Oct. 20, France, Britain and the United States jointly
announced they would sign a treaty making the South Pacific a
nuclear-free zone after the final French test.
White House Press Secretary Michael McCurry predicted that
Paris' decision ``will provide new momentum'' to efforts to
reach a test-ban treaty. The United States had pressed France
to abide by the global moratorium.
In France, too, pressure had mounted on the conservative
president to make Saturday's test the last. French trade in
the South Pacific lost some ground, and Paris' diplomatic
ties with Asian nations and many of its European partners
where shaken.
Mr. Chirac's decision apparently hinged on how much
information the government's nuclear scientists gleaned from
the latest blast, and whether they and the military could be
satisfied with an early end.
[[Page H963]]
``Thanks to the final series which has just been carried
out, France will have at its disposal a viable and modern
defense,'' Mr. Chirac said. ``The security of our country and
our children is assured.''
The Defense Ministry said the final test, conducted
Saturday beneath Fangataufa Atoll, about 750 miles southeast
of Tahiti, had a force of 120 kilotons--the equivalent of
120,000 tons of TNT, six times more powerful than the first
blast in the series.
Greenpeace and other environmental groups called the tests
needless and dangerous to a region known for its crystal seas
and rich marine life. Some reports have said the continued
nuclear pounding cracked the atolls and could eventually
release radioactivity, a contention the government vehemently
denies.
Mr. Chirac announced last June that France would conduct up
to eight such underground tests, then stop for good and sign
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Late last year, he said
the tests would end by March and would number six or seven.
President Charles de Gaulle brought France into the atomic
age in 1960. It stopped atmospheric testing in 1974 and bored
the test tunnels beneath Mururoa and Fangataufa, where it has
detonated 144 underground blasts.
____
[From the New York Times, Jan. 30, 1996]
France Ending Nuclear Tests That Caused Broad Protests
(By Craig R. Whitney)
Paris, January 29.--The French Government said today that
it had ended its nuclear weapons test program for good after
conducting an underground blast in the South Pacific on
Saturday, the last in a series of six such tests that were
deplored by most of France's European allies and scores of
other countries.
President Jacques Chirac announced the decision on national
television this evening, calling the halt ``the definitive
end of French nuclear testing.''
Mr. Chirac lifted a three-year moratorium on testing last
year to try out a new warhead for French nuclear submarines
and to gather data for computer simulations that will make
future French nuclear weapons tests unnecessary.
French officials said today that the six tests carried out
since last fall, which include the last and most powerful one
under Fangataufa Atoll in the South Pacific on Saturday, had
yielded enough data to make an additional test unnecessary.
They said that Mr. Chirac also wanted to put his best foot
forward during a state visit to the United States this week
and that he would use an address to Congress on Thursday to
reaffirm France's intention to join the United States and
other nuclear powers in signing a comprehensive test ban
treaty this year to stop all further test explosions, no
matter how small.
[In Washington, the Associated Press quoted the White House
Press Secretary, Michael D. McCurry, as saying that that the
French decision would ``provide new momentum'' to efforts to
reach an international test ban treaty. The United States
had pressed France to abide by the global moratorium.]
Mr. Chirac had said last June that the tests would end this
spring but cut the number planned from eight to six after
objections to the resumption of testing came from 10 of his
15 European Union allies, expressions of concern from the
United States and vehement protests from Australia, New
Zealand, Japan, and other Pacific countries.
``The possibility of rebuilding relationships with this
part of the world, let alone New Zealand, is going to be
very, very difficult,'' New Zealand's Foreign Minister,
Donald McKinnon, said today.
In an interview late last year, Mr. Chirac defended his
decision to announce the resumption last June, not long
before the 50th anniversary of the United States atom bomb
attack on Hiroshima at the end of World War II.
``I didn't have any choice,'' he said. ``To get the tests
done in time to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty,
preparations had to begin in the summer, and if we hadn't
announced them, people would have discovered the work going
on and accused us of being duplicitous.''
French military experts told Mr. Chirac, a Gaullist
conservative, that suspension of testing by his Socialist
predecessor, Francois Mitterrand, had left a question mark
over the reliability of the new TN-75 submarine-launched
warhead and had also left France without sufficient data to
future nuclear weapons testing to computer simulations.
Without assurance of reliability, the French independent
nuclear deterrent would lack the credibility needed to scare
off potential aggressors, the military said. Mr. Chirac was
as determined as the late President Charles de Gaulle to
enable France to take care of itself militarily, if
necessary, without help from hands across the sea that could
be withdrawn at any moment.
So he clenched his jaw while protesters poured Beaujolais
down the drain and hanged him in effigy as ``Hirochirac.''
``I shared their concern,'' he said tonight, speaking from
his office in Elysee Palace. ``I know that nuclear tests can
inspire fear.'' But, he continued, nuclear weapons served
peace by deterring aggression.
It was to gather data necessary for simulation,
authoritative French officials said, that the last explosion,
equivalent to up to 120,000 tons of TNT and more than six
times the size of the Hiroshima blast, was set off under
Fangataufa Atoll on Saturday. Five other blasts were set off
there and at nearby Mururoa Atoll, both in French Polynesia,
between Sept. 5 and Dec. 27.
This brought to 198 the total number of French tests since
the first one, which occurred in 1960 in the Sahara, in what
was then French Algeria.
The end of French testing means that only China, among the
admitted nuclear powers, is still carrying out underground
explosions on its territory, though China's tests have not
elicited nearly as much vehement protest as those of France.
Tahitian protesters burned down the airport terminal at
Papeete and caused $40 million in damage in a riot after the
first test in September, and the Greenpeace environmental
pressure group sent protest ships into the test atoll.
France seized the Greenpeace ships and has refused to give
them back, but Mr. Chirac was more irritated over the conduct
of some of his European allies, including Italy, Sweden,
Austria, and Finland, who voted at the United Nations in
November to condemn French testing instead of abstaining as
Germany, the United States, and many other countries did.
French officials, who had not consulted with their European
allies about resuming the tests, canceled diplomatic meetings
in anger. ``It proves that there's a long way to go before
Europe is built,'' Mr. Chirac said, but he thanked Britain,
the only other European nuclear power, for never uttering a
word of criticism about the French tests.
The French Defense Ministry has always insisted that the
South Pacific tests caused no environmental damage, though it
has conceded that trace amounts of radioactive iodine and
other elements had been found in the waters around Mururoa
after previous tests.
In a gesture to its European and NATO allies, France has
offered recently to discuss ways of making its nuclear
deterrent part of a stronger European defense pillar within
the alliance, but concrete proposals are likely to be a long
time coming, diplomats believe.
____________________