Text Only | Disarmament Diplomacy | Disarmament Documentation | ACRONYM Reports
Back to the Acronym home page
British Policy
South Asia
About Acronym

Disarmament Diplomacy

Issue No. 39, July - August 1999

The Report of the Tokyo Forum

'Facing Nuclear Dangers: An Action Plan for the 21st Century,' The Report of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, Tokyo, 25 July 1999; submitted to the UN Secretary-General 4 August 1999 Disarmament Diplomacy -- Issue No 39

Editor's note: the full text of the report is availble on the website of the Hiroshima Peace Institute at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm and on the website of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs at http://www.mofa.go.jp.


"The Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament was organised at the initiative of the then Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Ryutaro Hashimoto, in August 1998. The initiative was taken up by the then Foreign Minister and the current Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Keizo Obuchi. It was co-chaired by former Ambassador Mr Nobuo Matsunaga of the Japan Institute for International Affairs and former UN Undersecretary General and former President of the Hiroshima Peace Institute Mr Yasushi Akashi. The Forum met four times: in August 1998, in Tokyo; in December 1998, in Hiroshima; in April 1999, at Pocantico, New York; and in July 1999, in Tokyo.

The following report and its recommendations are the result of discussions in those meetings. The members of the Tokyo Forum subscribe to the general thrust of the report but not every member may agree to every point in the report. They have participated in their personal capacities, thus the views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the governments or organisations to which they belong. Special acknowledgement is given to the valuable contributions made by Ambassador Qian Jiadong of China, who attended the first, second and third meetings of the Forum and was succeeded by Mr Hu Xiaodi*, who, in the end, had dissenting views on some significant points in the report. Acknowledgement is also given to the valuable contributions made by Mr Jasjit Singh of India who attended the first and second meetings of the Forum. While the Forum was initiated by the Japanese Government, the views in this report are those of the Forum, an independent panel of experts, and should not be understood as necessarily reflecting policies of the Japanese Government.

The Forum received many proposals from concerned non-government organisations and citizens. The Forum welcomed these proposals, and considered them carefully in preparing its report.

The Forum was supported by a Secretariat constituted from the Japan Institute of International Affairs, the Hiroshima Peace Institute and the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Arms Control and Scientific Affairs Bureau). The Secretariat notes the contribution to its work made by Mr Rory Medcalf, seconded in a personal capacity from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

* Mr Hu Xiaodi has disagreement over, inter alia, issues of MTCR, missile defences, fissile material moratorium, transparency, Korea, paragraphs 30 and 39 of Part 2 of the report, and the fourth key recommendation."

The Members of the Tokyo Forum

Lt. Gen. Nishat Ahmad, Former President of the Institute of Regional Studies, Islamabad

Mr. Yasushi Akashi, Former President of the Hiroshima Peace Institute

Ambassador Marcos Castrioto de Azambuja, Ambassador of Brazil to France

Professor Sergei Yevgenevich Balgovolin, Deputy Director, World Economics and International Relations Institute (IMEMO), Moscow

Ambassador Emilio Jorge Cardenas, Executive Director, HSBC Argentine S.A., Former Ambassador of Argentina to the United Nations

Dr. Therese Delpech, Director, Strategic Affairs, Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), Paris

Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, Ambassador of Sweden to the United States

Dr. Robert Gallucci, Dean, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

Professor Han Sung-Joo, Professor of Korea University

Mr. Hu Xiaodi, Deputy Director-General, Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China

Ambassador Ryukichi Imai, Distinguished Fellow, Institute for International Policy Studies, Tokyo

Dr. Joachim Krause, Deputy Director, Research Institute of the German Society for Foreign Affairs (DGAP), Berlin

Mr. Michael Krepon, President, Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington

Mr. Pierre Lellouche, Member of the Council, International Institute of Strategic Studies, London

Dr. Patricia M. Lewis, Director, United Nations Institute for Disarmament (UNIDIR), Geneva

Ambassador Margaret Mason, Director of Council Development, Canadian Council for International Peace and Security, Ottawa

Mr. Nobuo Matsunaga, Vice Chairman, Japan Institute of International Affairs, Tokyo

Dr. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean, JFK School of Government, Harvard University, Boston

Professor Robert O'Neill, Chichele Professor of the History of War, All Souls College, University of Oxford

Dr. Abdel Monem Said Aly, Director, Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, Cairo Egypt

Professor John Simpson, Director, Mountbatten Center for International Studies, Department of Politics, University of Southampton

Ambassador Hennadiy Udovenko, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, President of 52nd Session of United Nations General Assembly, Member of Ukrainian Parliament

Professor Zakaria Haji Ahamad, Dean, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Universiti Kebangaan Malaysia (National University of Malaysia)

Part One: The New Nuclear Dangers

"1. A decade after the end of the Cold War, at the threshold of the 21st Century, the fabric of international security is showing signs of unravelling. Relations among major powers are deteriorating. The United Nations is in political and financial crisis. The global regimes to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are under siege. Nuclear tests by India and Pakistan have shown that not all countries share the view that the usefulness of nuclear weapons is declining. Years of relentless effort have not eliminated the clandestine WMD programs of the most determined proliferators. The US-Russia nuclear disarmament process is stalled, with adverse consequences for the global disarmament agenda. The situation in Asia is particularly fluid, portending negative changes for disarmament and non-proliferation in coming years. Political violence is taking an increasingly worrisome turn, with the possible advent of sub-State terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction. And economic crises, sweeping over continents, generate instability and unpredictability well beyond the markets.

2. Relations among major powers, a primary factor in world order, are crucial to the future of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Following a short rapprochement, relations between the United States and Russia have deteriorated. The United States no longer has a matching rival, and is perceived as a sole military superpower. Russia, concerned about its status, has revalued nuclear weapons, especially for 'tactical' use. Misunderstanding on both sides is made worse by crises over issues such as enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, missile defences and Kosovo. Russia's growing irritation at US initiatives, which frequently ignore its views, has clear consequences for disarmament: ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [START] II in the Russian Duma is repeatedly held hostage to bilateral disagreements. Relations are also troubled between the United States and China. These two countries not only differ in their approaches to such fundamental issues as human rights, missile defences, Taiwan and non-proliferation, but also have potentially conflicting visions of their roles in Asia which could intensify in the next century. Europe, meanwhile, still lacks the sway it could hold in world politics. The European Union is going through further integration and enlargement, and is taking active steps to strengthen the implementation of its common foreign and security policies. At this stage, however, it is still punching below its weight on the world stage. Europe has a limited role even on such matters of vital interest as the former Soviet Union's WMD legacy, especially when compared with the US cooperative threat reduction programs. Finally, the cast of major powers on the world stage is changing, with more States aspiring to play a larger role.

3. Without a strong, effective United Nations, nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament efforts will fall short. But the UN system is adrift, financially compromised, and playing a limited role in international relations, sometimes performing vital services but sometimes bypassed entirely. The UN system reflects power relations and has suffered from deteriorating relations among major powers. This has left the United Nations Organization poorly equipped to face complexities arising from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the growing importance of non-State actors ignoring basic international law, and new forms of violence involving mass civilian casualties. Unable to respond to some of the dramatic changes in the world in the 50 years since its creation, its effectiveness and to some extent its authority have been undermined. The divergent views on a UN standing military force, and on the new permanent membership of the Security Council, for example, illustrate the UN's problems. The United Nations, however, remains an essential institution for moving international relations towards cooperative security. Its operational capabilities must be strengthened. To deal effectively with international security problems in the next century, Security Council reform, new normative principles, operational arrangements, financial compliance and new sources of financing are urgently needed.

4. Recent advances in science and technology have made chemical and biological weapons more accessible. Furthermore, the bio-science revolution has opened possibilities for the making of a new generation of biological weapons which are more dangerous and difficult to protect against. Some of this activity is difficult to distinguish from legitimate civilian research, which makes proliferation harder to prevent. In the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, increasingly complex methods of concealment and sources of supply are used. Delivery systems are also giving rise to increased concern, as missiles with extended ranges and increased launch readiness become more accessible. The uses proposed for nuclear weapons by the new nuclear-armed States are unclear; those of potential proliferators of biological weapons even more so. As a consequence, profound questions must now be raised concerning the new WMD arsenals. Are they intended as weapons of last resort? Are they seen as decisive weapons for use against countries armed with advanced conventional capabilities? Are they for the ultimate protection of authoritarian regimes? Or are they seen as instruments of regional domination?

5. At stages during the Cold War, the common interests of the superpowers to avoid nuclear conflict were strong enough to moderate hostile behaviour and create, through dialogue and confidence-building measures, some level of trust. Nothing of the like exists among the new proliferators and some of their neighbours. The world must now contemplate new and dangerous patterns of behaviour. The risks of cataclysmic war between major powers have subsided, but those of regional aggression with weapons of mass destruction have increased. Warnings have been sounded, including in Kashmir, the Persian Gulf and the Korean Peninsula. Non-proliferation and disarmament treaties have been used as smokescreens for clandestine weapon programs. Concerns over WMD programs in North Korea and Iraq, in two unstable regions, have proved strikingly difficult to resolve, either through cooperation or pressure. In both cases, 1998 and 1999 have been years of reassessment and latent crisis.

6. The May 1998 tests in India and Pakistan have significantly changed the global non-proliferation and disarmament picture. Their message runs counter to wide expectations and hopes that the end of the Cold War would make nuclear weapons relics of the past. Instead, the tests signal that nuclear weapons could be a growing part of the strategic landscape of the future. They raise doubts about the extent to which nuclear weapons were linked only to the singular historical circumstances of the Cold War. They also pose a fundamental problem for the regime based on the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) by creating two States with demonstrated nuclear weapon capabilities but no recognised status. Achieving NPT universality under these circumstances is extremely difficult. Many countries that acceded to the NPT assuming there would be only five nuclear-weapon States (NWS) resent India's and Pakistan's tests as a challenge to their own policies of restraint. These tests, as well as complementary missile flight tests, greatly increase nuclear dangers in an area where four major conflicts between India and Pakistan, and one between India and China, have been fought since 1947. A capacity for mutual destruction does not ensure restraint. In the Middle East, where several armed conflicts have taken place since World War II, there is also the genuine possibility that further wars may involve weapons of mass destruction. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli war there were reports that Israel had contemplated using nuclear weapons; and even the United States ordered a nuclear alert. Chemical weapons were used in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988. And the 1991 Gulf War raised fears about the use of chemical and biological weapons.

7. Implementation of the bilateral US-Russia disarmament agenda is stalled, with major repercussions for global disarmament and non-proliferation. The Russian Duma will have difficulty ratifying START II in the near future; START III may remain an unrealised treaty unless new efforts are made to reaffirm the START process. It would be a major setback if the two major nuclear powers abandoned their joint efforts in strategic reductions. It is too early to tell if the US-Russian Joint Statement of 20 June 1999 can revive START.

8. Tactical nuclear arsenals are also of increasing concern. Despite accounting for more than half of the global stockpile of nuclear warheads, they are not covered by any agreement. Both the United States and Russia maintain high alert rates for large numbers of nuclear weapons, based on plans of massive attack which have lost their meaning. Such plans are especially dangerous when Russia's early warning and command and control systems are weakened and its political structure is unstable.

9. The issue of fissile material control has become critical. Large stockpiles have been produced since the 1940s, and now plutonium and highly enriched uranium is being extracted from thousands of dismantled nuclear warheads. Despite international cooperation to strengthen Russia's capacity to control its fissile material, much remains to be accomplished; concerns persist that its fissile material may disseminate beyond its borders. Four nuclear-weapon States (the United States, Russia, France and the United Kingdom) have announced moratoria on producing fissile materials for weapons. It is hoped that China, India, Israel and Pakistan will also declare moratoria and adhere to them.

10. The US-China relationship has been deteriorating and is very unstable, with adverse consequences for disarmament. The United States is concerned about China's possible cooperation with Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs and China's development of its nuclear arsenal. China has already undertaken certain commitments: the unconditional no first use of nuclear weapons, no-use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States, and the policy of no deployment of nuclear weapons outside its borders. China, however, has put in place few transparency measures. The implementation of further transparency measures would help dispel regional concerns and would support global nuclear disarmament efforts. For its part, China is concerned over aspects of US nuclear deterrence doctrine and the development of ballistic missile defences. The United States has put in place many transparency measures concerning its doctrines, deployments, fissile materials and technical developments. Further information, however, on reserve stocks would have a positive impact on steps towards nuclear disarmament.

11. Relationships between China and Russia, marked by China's new strength and Russia's present weakness, will be equally important in shaping the emerging international system. Reports about the development of a new missile by Russia, and about changes in Russian operational doctrine that could make nuclear weapons more readily usable, could over time raise concerns in China. On the other hand, China is not constrained by strategic arms reduction treaties while Moscow has agreed to forego land-based multiple warhead missiles and current Russian nuclear forces face block obsolescence. This juxtaposition of factors could cause increased concern in Russia.

12. Terrorism using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons has been possible for some time, but serious policymakers have traditionally seen other threats as more pressing. This perception has been changing since the early 1990s. The probability of WMD terrorism may still be relatively low, but it is growing with the ability of sub-State terrorist groups to master the technical challenges of developing and using these weapons, and their growing access to the very significant monies obtained from the traffic in illicit drugs. National controls on weapons-grade fissile materials were tight during the Cold War; now it is increasingly possible that non-State actors might obtain them. The prospect of WMD terrorism is particularly alarming because it would be hard to prevent and the perpetrators hard to identify. The effects of WMD terrorism could be so severe that it must be regarded as a serious security challenge for the coming decades. Trends in political violence and a propensity toward inflicting mass casualties appear to be rising in recent years. Chemical weapons have already been used against civilian populations in internal conflicts, setting a dangerous precedent, especially when civilian casualties and displacement are war aims in some ethno-nationalist conflicts.

13. Maintaining and reinforcing the WMD non-proliferation regimes is vital to global peace and security. Despite increased membership, key States remain outside the NPT, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Implementation decisions have weakened verification of the CWC, and the BWC verification protocol remains distant. Compliance challenges generate increasing concern, and there are no accepted multilateral processes for assessing and enforcing compliance, despite an array of non-proliferation norms, treaties and institutions. Political issues also divide the parties, including the pace of disarmament, commitments to peaceful cooperation, and the specific regional challenges of implementing a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

14. Prospective missile defence deployments complicate the picture and are causing much debate. Proliferation may increase the perceived need for missile defences: the dramatic changes in threat assessment caused by the emergence of Iranian, Israeli, North Korean, Indian and Pakistani medium-range missile systems contributed to the new interest in missile defences. Alternatively, defences could, among other things, also increase and diversify the threat of WMD proliferation, as some States, including some of the five nuclear-weapon States, may try to compensate for defensive deployments. The question of missile defences should take into account all these implications, so as to have the net effect of reducing, not increasing, nuclear dangers, and avoiding further destabilisation of the international security system. The 1997 Protocol to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty governing advanced missile defences does not fundamentally affect the ABM Treaty or undermine the mutual deterrence model. Prospective US-Russia discussions on the ABM Treaty should also meet these criteria.

15. A realistic dialogue on the most effective means to address underlying security concerns must replace outdated nuclear doctrines on the one hand and artificial disarmament deadlines on the other. The international community must find new approaches to reduce nuclear dangers in these troubled times. Non-proliferation norms will need to be strengthened if the regime is to be kept alive in the next century. Not only regional but also global security is at stake. The 1991 Gulf War showed how a regional conflict could have global implications. Nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament are not the preserve of the nuclear-weapon States or powers in troubled regions. The NPT is based on a contract involving all parties. While the nuclear-weapon States have to fulfil their Article I, IV and VI obligations and pursue nuclear disarmament, the non-nuclear-weapon States (NNWS) need to firmly support effective action in the most difficult cases of non-compliance. Concerted action by both camps is the only way to renew the partnership to reduce nuclear dangers. New approaches in US-Russia bilateral nuclear reductions and steps by China to cap its arsenal and fissile material stocks could assist progress towards multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament. At the same time, regional security threats in the Middle East and Northeast Asia need close attention, as do the security problems among India, Pakistan and China. These three areas are potential flashpoints where use of weapons of mass destruction cannot be dismissed.

16. It will be hard to maintain stability and nuclear security under these circumstances. It will require a vision and a roadmap of how these complex issues can be solved. It will also require, at the global and regional level, new initiatives to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and new spheres of strategic cooperation among major powers. The world has witnessed a decade of unexpected challenges and disturbances since the end of the Cold War. As a new century begins, there is a strong risk that the world will become more chaotic and troubled, threatening the security of all, unless work begins now to turn recent setbacks into potential solutions. This calls for understanding the stakes, and putting in place new means of maintaining stability, reducing WMD threats and increasing transparency.

17. Much has therefore changed since the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons issued its important report in 1996. Troubling signs are now evident on many fronts. The report and recommendations of the Tokyo Forum are aimed at clarifying the alarming nature of recent developments and the urgent need for steps to stop the decline in regional and international security. We call on the international community to meet the challenges posed by proliferation and increasing nuclear dangers. In the body of its report, the Tokyo Forum will identify how these challenges can be addressed in three mutually-reinforcing ways: mending strategic relations to reduce nuclear dangers, both among major powers and at a regional level; stopping and reversing the proliferation of nuclear weapons; and developing the architecture of, and taking new initiatives for, nuclear disarmament."

Part Five: Key Recommendations

"A decade after the end of the Cold War, at the threshold of the 21st Century, the fabric of international security is unravelling and nuclear dangers are growing at a disturbing rate. Relations among major powers are deteriorating. The United Nations is in political and financial crisis. The global regimes to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are under siege. Acts of terror are taking an increasingly worrisome turn, with the possible advent of sub-State groups armed with weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear tests by India and Pakistan have shown that not all countries share the view that the usefulness of nuclear weapons is declining. Years of relentless effort have not eliminated the clandestine weapons of mass destruction programs of the most determined proliferators. The US-Russia nuclear disarmament process is stalled, with adverse consequences for the global disarmament agenda. The situation in Asia is particularly fluid, portending negative changes for disarmament and non-proliferation in coming years.

Unless concerted action is taken, and taken soon, to reverse these dangerous trends, non-proliferation and disarmament treaties could become hollow instruments. A renewed sense of commitment to both non-proliferation and disarmament is urgently needed. We, the members of the Tokyo Forum, have released this report to draw attention to growing dangers and to propose remedial actions, both immediate and for the longer term.

The Forum commends the initiative of the Japanese Government in calling it into being and sustaining its work. We express the hope and expectation that the Japanese Government will continue to play a positive role in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

1. Stop and reverse the unravelling of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime by reaffirming the treaty's central bargain. The NPT demands both disarmament and non-proliferation. The nuclear-weapon States must demonstrate tangible progress in nuclear disarmament, while the non-nuclear-weapon States must rally behind the Treaty and take stronger steps of their own, such as adopting improved International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. To support the NPT's core bargain, a permanent secretariat and consultative commission should be created to deal with questions of compliance and to consider strengthening measures for the Treaty.

2. Eliminate nuclear weapons through phased reductions. The world faces a choice between the assured dangers of proliferation or the challenges of disarmament. The better choice is the progressive reduction and complete elimination of nuclear weapons. No other cities must be put through the devastation wrought by nuclear weapons and the agony of recovering from their effects, endured by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear-weapon States must reaffirm the goal of elimination and take sustained, concrete steps towards this end.

3. Bring the nuclear test ban into force. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty must be ratified urgently by those key States still holding out, the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. All States must respect a moratorium on nuclear testing and pay their fair share of the treaty's verification costs.

4. Revitalise START and expand the scope of nuclear reductions. The Tokyo Forum calls on the United States and Russia to initiate new comprehensive talks on nuclear arms reduction and security issues, to combine the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties II and III processes, and to further extend reductions to 1,000 deployed strategic warheads. If these treaties remain stalled, we call on both countries to pursue parallel and verifiable reductions to that level. Verifiable reductions and elimination should be extended to non-deployed and non-strategic nuclear weapons. In addition, the Tokyo Forum calls on China to join the United Kingdom and France in reducing and, in the first instance, not increasing nuclear weapon inventories.

5. Adopt nuclear transparency measures. Irreversible reductions in nuclear forces require great transparency. The Tokyo Forum welcomes the transparency measures undertaken so far by the nuclear-weapon States and calls on them to take steps to increase transparency further. Recent transparency measures by the United Kingdom and France have shed considerable light on their nuclear weapons numbers and stocks. These could be further developed. The United States has put in place many transparency measures concerning its doctrines, deployments and technical developments. More information on reserve stocks would have a positive impact on steps towards nuclear disarmament. Russia has declared some aspects of its nuclear weapons program. Russia could increase the degree of transparency concerning doctrine, numbers of tactical nuclear weapons and stocks of fissile material. China has put in place few transparency measures. The implementation of further transparency measures on the numbers and types of nuclear weapons and on the amounts of fissile material should be encouraged in view of the favorable regional and global impact.

6. Zero nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. The Tokyo Forum calls for all States with nuclear weapons to endorse and implement the goal of zero nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. To this end, we call on the United States and Russia to immediately stand down nuclear forces slated for reduction in START II. To eliminate the risk of the millennium computer bug leading to an accidental launch, all nuclear weapons in all States should be removed from alert for the period of concern.

7. Control fissile material, especially in Russia. We call on the United States to continue and to increase cooperative threat-reduction efforts in the former Soviet Union. The world community, especially the G8 States and the European Union, must substantially expand cooperative threat-reduction efforts. We call for the prompt conclusion of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. We further call on China, India, Pakistan and Israel to declare moratoria on producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. Nuclear-weapon States should put all excess military stocks of fissile materials and civil fissile materials under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

8. Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The Tokyo Forum calls for regional and global cooperative efforts to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of extremist, fanatical or criminal groups.

9. Strengthen measures against missile proliferation. The guidelines of the Missile Technology Control regime need to be strengthened. We call on all States, particularly North Korea, to respect these guidelines, and for expanded participation in the MTCR. The international community should explore realistic ways to control and reverse missile proliferation, including global or regional agreements drawing upon the provisions of the 1987 US-Soviet Treaty on Intermediate and Shorter-Range Nuclear Forces. A special conference of concerned States should be convened to deal with the growing problem of missile proliferation.

10. Exercise caution on missile defence deployments. The Tokyo Forum recognises the uncertainties and complications missile defence deployments could produce. Recognising the security concerns posed by ballistic missiles, we call on all States contemplating the deployment of advanced missile defences to proceed with caution, in concert with other initiatives to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons.

11. Stop and reverse proliferation in South Asia. In the near term, the Tokyo Forum calls on India and Pakistan to: maintain moratoria on nuclear testing; sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty; support prompt negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; adopt and properly implement nuclear risk-reduction measures; suspend missile flight tests; confirm pledges to restrain nuclear and missile-related exports; cease provocative actions; and take steps to resolve the Kashmir dispute. In the long term, we urge India and Pakistan to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon States.

12. Eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. The Tokyo Forum recognises the linkage between the core objectives of a Middle East that is peaceful and one free of weapons of mass destruction. We call for: a revitalised Arab-Israeli peace process; resumption of an effective WMD control regime for Iraq under UN Security Council auspices; restraint on missile and flight test programs; effective and verifiable implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Weapons Convention by all States in the region; implementation of strengthened International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards; and Israel's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State.

13. Eliminate nuclear and missile dangers on the Korean Peninsula. The Tokyo Forum urges all parties to redouble their efforts to achieve the goal of a denuclearised Korean Peninsula as soon as possible. We call for coordinated global efforts to maintain North Korea's freeze on its graphite-moderated nuclear reactors and related facilities. All nuclear weapon and missile-related activities in North Korea must cease, including production and sale of WMD-capable missile technology. We call for the full and effective implementation of the 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea's full compliance with an International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, and its adherence to the agency's strengthened safeguards system.

14. No vetoes in support of proliferation. The Tokyo Forum calls on the UN Security Council to pass a resolution declaring that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to international peace and security. Permanent members of the Security Council have a special responsibility to prevent proliferation. We call on them to refrain from exercising their vetoes against efforts to assist or defend UN member States that have become victim to the use or the threat of use of weapons of mass destruction. All current and prospective permanent members of the UN Security Council should have exemplary non-proliferation credentials.

15. Revitalise the Conference on Disarmament. The Tokyo Forum calls on the Conference on Disarmament to revise its procedures, update its work program and carry out purposeful work, or suspend its operations. The consensus rule is causing perpetual deadlock. Consensus among members of the Conference on Disarmament should not be necessary to begin or conclude negotiations on a multilateral convention.

16. Strengthen verification for disarmament. The Tokyo Forum calls for widespread adoption of effective verification measures. The scope of verification of nuclear disarmament should be expanded to non-deployed nuclear weapons and the dismantling of nuclear weapons. An effective verification protocol should be agreed for the Biological Weapons Convention, and implementation decisions weakening the verification regime of the Chemical Weapons Convention should be stopped and reversed.

17. Create effective non-compliance mechanisms for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. The Tokyo Forum calls on all States seeking nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament to actively support the development of arrangements through which States in non-compliance with arms control treaties will know not only that they will be caught, but also that they will face serious consequences. The international community must be united and unequivocal in its intended response to would-be violators based on a broad consensus, including possible recourse to Chapter VII of the UN Charter. A revitalised United Nations with a reformed and authoritative Security Council is essential to building and maintaining the support of the international community for the effective enforcement of compliance."

Statement by UN Secretary-General

'Secretary-General welcomes recommendations of Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament,' United Nations Press Release SG/SM/7088, 4 August 1999

"The Secretary-General was pleased to receive a copy of the report of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. He commended the timely initiative of the Government of Japan in assembling a group of eminent international personalities to address the urgent issues of nuclear disarmament and nuclear proliferation under the aegis of the Japan Institute of International Affairs and the Hiroshima Peace Institute. The Secretary-General welcomes the recommendations contained in the report and hopes the international community will study them with a view to reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons in the world."

© 1999 The Acronym Institute.

Return to top of page

Return to List of Contents

Return to Acronym Main Page