[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1046-H1051]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1530
BOYCOTT FRENCH PRESIDENT CHIRAC'S JOINT ADDRESS BEFORE CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to premise my remarks
this afternoon on a very serious issue, in my humble opinion, for my
colleagues and certainly for the American public to be better informed
about this very serious issue.
First of all, I hold no personal grudge or animosity toward the
President of France, President Chirac, who will be visiting us today
and is scheduled to address a joint session of the Congress tomorrow.
Second, I also hold no personal animosity toward the good people and
the citizens of France. But, Mr. Speaker, it is out of fundamental
principle that I take this special order on behalf of some 200,000
French citizens living in French Polynesia who all oppose President
Chirac's ambitious plan to explode now six nuclear explosions in the
South Pacific. I take this special order also in behalf of some 28
million men, women, and children who live in the Pacific region, whose
lives depend on a good safe environment, especially the marine
environment.
I take this special order on behalf of some 167 nations of the world
who officially protested to President Chirac not to explode these
nuclear bombs. Note also, Mr. Speaker, that 10 of the 15 member-
countries of the European Union also protested against France for
conducting nuclear explosions in the Pacific. Some have suggested, Mr.
Speaker, earlier that the issue now is moot since 5 days ago France and
Mr. Chirac has decided to end its nuclear testing program.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 29, 3 short days before he is to
arrive in Washington, and I presume he is now in Washington, President
Chirac of France announced in a formal news release the end of his
nuclear testing program in the South Pacific. Though he makes a pretty
speech, just in time to come to Washington posing as a fervent advocate
of nuclear disarmament and warm ties with America, I want to point out
to my colleagues and to the American people, Mr. Speaker, the height of
hypocrisy of Mr. Chirac's conduct and remarks.
Mr. Chirac began his news release with these words, and I quote:
Dear compatriots, I announce to you today the final end to
French nuclear tests. Thanks to the final series that has
just taken place, France will have a durable, reliable and
modern defense.
[[Page H1047]]
Point No. 1, Mr. Speaker. France already has the fourth largest Navy
in the world. France also has the world's third largest arsenal 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 enlightenment. In particular, Mr.
Speaker, 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, Mr. Speaker? If those 200 were
not enough, why should we now believe that the 6 additional nuclear
bombs France has just conducted in the South Pacific will be enough to
stay its appetite in the future for an even more modern defense?
Point No. 2, Mr. Speaker. The, quote, final series of French nuclear
tests were not even necessary. They 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, I ask, Mr.
Speaker? Because of a combination of two basic things, in my opinion:
No. 1, French national pride, and I must give them that sense of
credit; and, No. 2, there is French suspicion that the United States
was withholding the state-of-the-art technology.
Mr. Speaker, Chirac wants to be perceived as promoting nuclear
disarmament and expects to have warm ties now with America.
Mr. Speaker, this is the height of hypocrisy. One who defiantly
violates a world moratorium and resumes unnecessary nuclear testing
cannot and must not be regarded as a promoter of nuclear disarmament.
And one who is suspicious of assistance from the U.S. offers cannot be
regarded as promoting warm ties with America.
Mr. Speaker, President Chirac continued his speech by saying, and I
quote, ``The security of our country and our children is assured.''
In turn, Mr. Speaker, I say at what price and whose children is
President Chirac referring to? The sixth nuclear bomb explosion that
France just exploded last Saturday, since violating the world's
moratorium on nuclear testing, was over six times more powerful than
the bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima 50 years ago. That atom bomb, Mr.
Speaker, incidentally vaporized and killed some 150,000 men, women, and
children in the city of Hiroshima, and later claimed another 50,000 who
died as a result of nuclear contamination and related illnesses.
Mr. Speaker, in response to France's latest nuclear explosion in
Fangataufa Atoll, the mayor of Hiroshima, Japan, said these words, and
I quote:
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.
Mr. Speaker, I might now ask, what kind of security has France really
secured for our children? France's nuclear test sites are leaking
cancerous radioactive waste into the swirling waters of the Pacific
Ocean which cover 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 also initiated the
nuclear arms race all over again. Horrific environmental concerns
aside, Chirac's decision to resume unnecessary nuclear testing in the
South Pacific has opened a Pandora's box that holds chilling
implications for nuclear and non-nuclear 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 stages in Geneva, Switzerland.
What implications, Mr. Speaker, does Chirac's reckless decision to
initiate the nuclear arms race all over again hold for the security of
the world?
Let me share, Mr. Speaker, the domino effect of Chirac's reckless
decision last June. There 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 in this initiative, ironically, Mr.
Speaker, is its archenemy Pakistan.
Adding to this difficulty, Mr. Speaker, India refuses to sign the
nuclear nonproliferation treaty on the basis that the nuclear nations
are still maintaining their nuclear arsenals, which in effect makes the
whole treaty meaingless and discriminatory. India's representative to
the current and disarmament conference in Geneva made this observation,
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 eliminating of all
nuclear weapons in a time-bound framework.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, India is pushing for no loopholes in the
nuclear nonproliferation treaty. As it currently stands, what
assurances do non-nuclear nations have if nuclear nations retain their
nuclear arsenals?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, if France's resumption of nuclear tests in the
South Pacific is a case in point, non-nuclear nations have next to
nothing in assurances from the five-nation nuclear club, comprised of
one that is willing to defy world moratoriums at will and four that are
willing to act in complicity by looking the other way.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, because of Chirac's reckless and selfish
decision, India is now resisting Western pressure to forgo the nuclear
option and is now initiating an ambitious ballistic missiles program.
India is saying, ``If France can defy world moratoriums to assure a
durable, reliable and modern defense, then so can we.''
Just this week, India successfully launched a new ballistic missile,
the improved Prithvi No. 2, 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.
{time} 1545
Is it surprising that Pakistan now wants to utilize M-11 ballistic
missiles from China? These M-11 missiles are also capable of carrying
nuclear warheads, and can 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 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 it cannot depend on Western powers for its security,
as renewed apprehension grows between Russia and the NATO powers.
Meanwhile, China and Russia may still conduct nuclear tests and have
not unconditionally accepted a genuine zero-yield comprehensive test
ban treaty. All of this, Mr. Speaker, has been fueled in part by
France's defiant violation of the international testing moratorium,
which has contributed to a global atmosphere of distrust and paranoia
where nations are reluctant to give up their nuclear options.
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, and damages efforts to advance
nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. The French Government is to
be strongly condemned.''
Despite world condemnation, Mr. Speaker, Chirac arrogantly continued
his speech of eurocentric rationale by marginalizing Asia-Pacific
concerns. President Chirac states: ``I know the decision I took last
June may have caused worries and emotions.'' Mr. Speaker, can you
believe this? Chirac 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 Paris? 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
[[Page H1048]]
movements of public opinion.'' How sensitive, Mr. Speaker, was he? Was
he sensitive enough to stop nuclear explosions? 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?
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.''
Even 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 defiance 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 testing.
These ``movements,'' as Chirac likes to describe, ``testified 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
nonnuclear 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 the question for us, Mr. Speaker, right there.
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 French Polynesia
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 continued his dramatic monologue 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,'' end of quote. 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 of ``concerted deterrence'' and offered to extend
its nuclear umbrella to its European partners, there were few takers,
Mr. Speaker. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 10 of the 15 European Union
countries voted with the United Nations, protesting the resumption of
French nuclear testing.
Why, Mr. Speaker, are the European Union members not more anxious to
be shielded by the French nuclear umbrella? This is partly because the
European Union nations 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 has still 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 called for
and agreed to only 3 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 intiatives 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. That 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 six 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 determinedly 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 testing 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 peace and act as a spokesperson for the world's poor. But, Mr.
Speaker, did you know that France is now the top weapons exporter and
weapons supplier in the world? Mr. Speaker, is it with irony or with
hypocrisy that President Chirac will promote peace 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 tomorrow
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 and
support the privileged resolution, H.R. 350, introduced by the
Honorable Patsy Mink of Hawaii, the distinguished gentleman
[[Page H1049]]
from Guam, Robert Underwood, the Honorable Patricia Schroeder from
Colorado, and myself, which requests the Speaker to withdraw the
invitation to President Chirac to address a joint session of Congress.
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 that poison the Pacific, 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 hands of French commandos in
waters of French Polynesia, as one who has considered the kind of world
that I want my children to live in--Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues,
I cannot in good conscience be a party to such hypocrisy.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the
gentleman for yielding. I appreciate very much, and I want to recognize
the leadership you have taken, I say to the gentleman from American
Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], on this particular issue. The kind of
research and the kind of energy that you have devoted to this has been
remarkable. The fact that you are standing up on behalf of the peoples
of the South Pacific is commendable, and I want to stress to those that
are hearing this that the representation of the Pacific point of view
in this institution as well as other institutions is limited because of
the size of the islands that we represent. And I rise to urge, along
with you and the other Members that you have mentioned, to urge my
colleagues in this House to boycott the President Chirac address to a
joint session of Congress tomorrow in protest of his decision to test
nuclear weapons in the South Pacific.
I do not think people understand the kind of offense that these
series of nuclear tests present for people in the Pacific who have been
historically dealt with as if we are some kind of nuclear playground
for world powers throughout the world.
{time} 1600
A number of tests, over 200 nuclear tests have been conducted in the
Pacific, and not in French Polynesia alone. It is this, despite the
fact that apparently we all felt secure, that people acknowledged that
this was an affront to the small peoples of the world. That a great
power like France would insist and continue on this task, is not only
an affront to the sensibilities of the world community, but, indeed, in
particular to the lives, the peaceful lives, of the people in the
Pacific.
Defying international criticism, France carried out six nuclear tests
over the past 4 months to verify a new warhead and to perfect
simulation technology that will be used to monitor the reliability of
its nuclear weapons. As you have so eloquently pointed out, despite
diplomatic objections, economic boycotts, world public opinion, and
even French public opinion and letters from Members of this body, all
were ignored summarily and arrogantly by President Chirac.
France maintained throughout this test that its underground blasts
inflicted no damage on the fragile ecology of Mururoa Atoll, and last
week we learned otherwise through an article in the Washington Post,
something that we had suspected and you have pointed out over the past
few months.
After years of denial, France has finally acknowledged that
radioactive materials have indeed leaked into the lagoon near the
Mururoa test site. The director of France's nuclear tests went so far
as to state that radioactive material was usually ``vented'' into the
lagoon when scientists drilled down into the rock to obtain samples
after every blast. However, since the French do not allow any
independent verification, it is impossible to assess the extent of
damage during this testing period.
These latest accounts raise further questions about President
Chirac's credibility. According to a confidential French Defense
Ministry report, France has been aware, at least since 1979, that
Mururoa's underwater foundation is cracked in several places. The
report described underwater avalanches that followed the three tests as
proof that the growing number of tests posed serious environmental risk
to Mururoa Atoll, and, of course, we do not know how this will end up
in the entire Pacific Basin, particularly for your area, which is much
closer than my own.
Regardless of the environmental consequences, President Chirac
arrogantly continued his testing program. Clearly he was not bothered
by environmental contamination to the world's largest ocean and its
ecosystem, perhaps as you have pointed out because he does not live
there, and it begs the question as to whether President Chirac would
have been more concerned about the environmental impact of his tests if
they were conducted in France proper.
Last October France agreed to sign the protocols to the South Pacific
Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. These protocols specifically prohibit nuclear
testing within the South Pacific. Unfortunately, France refused to live
by its own commitment. Agreeing to signing a treaty, but begging off on
obeying it until it completes its own nuclear testing is the height of
arrogance. Apparently France thought that by acceding to the protocols
it would exonerate their past tests and their future tests for future
nuclear blasts.
When I heard, and I am sure you felt the same way, when I heard that
France conducted yet another test last Saturday, I knew that they would
subsequently announce it as their last test in what is obviously,
obviously, a cynical ploy to neutralize whatever objections people may
raise to the French nuclear testing program as President Chirac, who is
already in this country, comes to the United States.
I would point out what we need to understand is that this is the
height of cynicism. This is a political ploy, pure and simple. The
Congress should not and needs not be duped by President Chirac's double
talk. With the latest acknowledgement of environmental contamination,
President Chirac has lost all credibility. With the timing of nuclear
tests to coincide with his visit here in the United States, he has lost
any shred of credibility on this issue.
By the Members of this institution attending his address to the joint
session of Congress tomorrow, Members of Congress will be giving
President Chirac an audience that he simply does not deserve.
I urge my colleagues to join me and the distinguished gentleman from
American Samoa, and other members of the Congressional Asian Pacific
American Caucus, in protesting this address, in bringing attention to
this serious problem. If he had perhaps admitted the duplicity of what
they had been carrying out all along, perhaps we would be in a more
forgiving mood, but he has not done so. By far, this is the most
arrogant behavior by any world leader in the Pacific that I have borne
witness to in the past 20 years.
I thank the gentleman for his eloquent remarks and for the time
yielded to me. I also want to point out and support the comments that
point out that France's very behavior on this, begging off, making a
commitment but begging off, timing the tests, the whole nature of it
simply threatens the whole nuclear nonproliferation treaty process.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think one thing that I want to add, and also for
our colleagues to know, this is not a Pacific issue. I think this is
something that we need to kind of widen our perspectives and think just
because you and I are from this region of the world that this makes it
somewhat un-American.
The fact of the matter is, the United States is a Pacific Nation. The
fact is that we conducted 160 nuclear bomb explosions in the Marshall
Islands in the late fifities and early sixties. I might also add that
we had to stop doing these tests because what happened was they found
strontium 90, a by-product of nuclear contamination, in dairy products
in the State of Wisconsin and other States. What happens, all of a
sudden, everybody says, ``Oh, it is a hazard to our health to conduct
these nuclear tests.'' Despite our efforts to tell France, do not do
this, they went right ahead and conducted these tests.
I might also note to the good gentleman's comments about the nuclear
tests that were conducted in 1979. They drilled a hole or shaft in this
atoll, which was supposed to be 2,600 feet,
[[Page H1050]]
where the bomb was to explode. The thing went down halfway and got
stuck. Guess what? They went right ahead and exploded that bomb, which
caused not only a tidal wave, but tons of fish and all forms of marine
life totally contaminated in the explosion they conducted in 1979. That
is just one incident.
Another point I think my good friend and colleague should know, I
think some 12,000 Tahitians, French Polynesians, were exposed directly
to nuclear contamination. No records are kept, everything is held in
secrecy. I say the issue is not moot. The issue is that our good friend
from France, President Chirac, has got to come clean. He has got to
tell the world that that Mururoa Atoll, which some scientists estimate
is the equivalent of five Chernobyls, 181 nuclear bombs exploded in
that one atoll alone, can you imagine what happens if that atoll starts
to leak, starts to break apart? What is going to happen to the marine
environment in the Pacific?
Oh, perhaps our good citizens from the State of California, maybe
from the State of Washington or Oregon, might have something to say
about nuclear contamination in the Pacific; of course, our good friends
from the State of Hawaii.
I think it is outrageous. It is an outrage that we are going to allow
this man to tell us what democracy is about, to tell us that France is
a true democracy of the world, when just the opposite, exploding six
nuclear bombs that are going to affect the health of these people that
live in that part of the world. I think it is an insult to the people
that live in the world, and I would surely hope that our colleagues
will help us in this boycott.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would like to add that unlike the experience that
the United States had in the Marshalls in the fifties, there is ample
evidence that this is risky. This is something that is occurring some
40 years after the testing in the Marshall Islands, and perhaps we
could excuse some of the earlier testing because we were unsure about
the consequences. But in this particular instance we are very sure of
the consequences, but France proceeded without any respect, without any
attention to the kinds of outrage which were expressed in the Pacific.
I would like to commend again the gentleman from American Samoa for
his diligent work on this issue and his leadership on this issue.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my good friend from Guam.
[From the Washington Times, Jan. 31, 1996]
India's Stand Could Stop Test-Ban Treaty
(By Brahma Chellaney)
New Delhi.--After the halt to French nuclear testing in the
South Pacific this week, India may stand as the biggest
obstacle to American hopes for the completion of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty this year.
France, having conducted six nuclear tests the past five
months, now favors an early conclusion to the CTB talks in
Geneva. President Clinton listed the treaty as a priority in
his State of the Union address.
China said yesterday it will continue testing until the
implementation of the treaty, an outcome that is far from
certain.
The CTB negotiations stand in jeopardy of being derailed by
Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's decision,
announced in Geneva last week, to insist that the declared
nuclear powers first agree to a timetable for total nuclear
disarmament.
Analysts say there can be no credible treaty without the
participation of India, which exploded a nuclear device in
1974. Pakistan, also on the verge of developing nuclear
weapons, would not sign if India did not, and a number of
other developing countries could be expected to follow suit.
Despite intense Western diplomatic pressure, India also
plans to seek clauses in the treaty to bar the nuclear powers
from updating their arsenals through laboratory testing, a
move that would sharply raise the political and technical
costs of the treaty.
``To be meaningful, the treaty should be securely anchored
in the global disarmament context and be linked through
treaty language to the elimination of all nuclear weapons in
a time-bound framework,'' the Rao government said.
It said it would insert specific language into the treaty's
draft text to prevent it from becoming ``another flawed
instrument aimed at curbing horizontal proliferation.''
China's announcement that it will continue testing was
another blow to nonproliferation efforts. Beijing, which is
expected to carry out two or three nuclear tests this year,
supports a comprehensive test ban but says it will abide by a
pact only when it takes effect in international law.
``The position of the Chinese government on nuclear testing
is clear-cut and remains unchanged,'' a Foreign Ministry
spokesman said. ``China has conducted a very limited number
of nuclear tests, and things will continue to be that way''.
Mr. Clinton has made the conclusion of a test-ban treaty a
priority, renewing his call for a completion of the
negotiations in his State of the Union address last week.
``We must end the race to create new nuclear weapons by
signing a truly comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty--this
year,'' he said.
Mr. Clinton also has written to Mr. Rao seeking support for
the treaty, but Indian officials said the prime minister has
not replied to the letter.
The treaty negotiations are entering a critical phase in
Geneva, where this year's session opened Jan. 22.
After a year of talks, there remain some 1,200 unsettled
political and technical differences, including all the key
provisions. With a number of countries working to influence
the 104-page draft text, the final form of the treaty is very
much in question.
The conference functions on the basis of consensus,
bestowing effective veto power on each of its 37 members.
Although India could block Washington's plans by itself, it
is building support among other non-aligned countries. It got
a major boost last year when the U.N. General Assembly voted
106-39 to adopt a Burma-sponsored resolution calling for
parallel negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament.
Mr. Rao, who is under growing domestic pressure to test and
modernize his country's nuclear option, has argued that the
permanent extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
last May left India with no other way to pursue its goal of
total nuclear disarmament.
____
[From the Washington Times, Jan. 31, 1996]
Chirac Visit Signals Recognition of U.S. Dominance
(By Andrew Borowiec)
Paris.--Western strategy in the post-communist era and
France's closer links with the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization will dominate French President Jacques Chirac's
visit to the United States.
Mr. Chirac is to arrive in Washington today. After a stop
in Chicago, he returns to France on Friday.
It is more than a routine call on Washington by the
conservative French head of state. It signals France's
concern about the shape of Europe's new geopolitical map and
acknowledges the United States as a power with
responsibilities in Europe.
For the time being, there is no question of complete French
reintegration into NATO's military structure, from which the
late Charles de Gaulle withdrew 30 years ago, officials say.
But the cautious process already has started, with France
joining two key NATO military committees in December. Earlier
this month, U.S. reconnaissance planes arrived at the French
air base of Istres, with a backup unit of about 100
personnel.
Members of the ruling centrist-conservative coalition have
called on Mr. Chirac to explain his intentions, or more
specifically the contrast between consistent calls for closer
European unity with its own defense and France's
unquestionable. tendency to regard Washington as the key
military power in the world.
According to an analysis by the Center of Strategic Studies
in Paris, by seeking closer links with Washington, ``France
has chosen strategic considerations over political and
ideological ones.''
Officials close to Mr. Chirac stressed that the events in
Bosnia ``showed a political will by the United States rather
than by Europe. Hence, the French government concluded that
the United States is the only world power to be considered.''
With few specific indications, it is not clear what shape
Mr. Chirac's discussions in Washington will take. Some
officials speak of a historic change that might emerge from
the visit.
It has been made obvious that, after the initial applause
for French-German military cooperation and the creation of
the Eurocorps, the French are becoming more and more
skeptical and believe that NATO, albeit under U.S. influence,
is the best answer to future European security.
News from the presidential Elysee Palace frequently has
been cryptic.
France exploded the sixth and last nuclear devise of the
current tests Saturday, thus ending the experiments. But the
controversy over testing the devices is not over.
Mr. Chirac told his nation the tests were essential to make
the French independent nuclear force credible.
Mr. Chirac is scheduled to address a joint session of
Congress tomorrow. But a handful of Democratic members,
opposed to nuclear testing, are calling for members to
boycott the session.
French officials acknowledge that it was reluctant U.S.
involvement in the former Yugoslavia that brought the fragile
peace to Bosnia and that ``we can't do much without
Americans.''
Presidential palace sources also say that Mr. Chirac wants
to build a more solid relationship with President Clinton
because he believes strongly in the chances of Mr. Clinton's
reelection in November.
Above all, some members of the governing establishment fear
that the expansion of the 15-member European Union precludes
[[Page H1051]]
chances of a unified and credible European defense.
NATO, often described here as a U.S. proxy in Europe, has
once more emerged as the most viable formula for joint
military action on a continent made more unstable by the
Soviet Union's disintegration.
____________________