 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) are nuclear explosions conducted for non-military purposes, such as activities related to economic development including the creation of canals. During the 1960s and 1970s, both the United States and the Soviet Union conducted a number of PNEs, but subsequently halted their PNE programs. Although China has never conducted a peaceful nuclear explosion (PNE), during the negotiations of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), China consistently pushed for an exemption allowing PNEs under the final treaty. China argued that it and other developing nations should not be forced to foreclose the possibility of using nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes that may have economic benefits. On 6 June 1996, China finally dropped its insistence on allowing PNEs, but stated that the ban on PNEs should be temporary and stated its intention to revisit the issue at a review conference ten years after the CTBT enters into force.
China has stated that there are possible benefits to be gained from the conduct of PNEs to economic development, and cites Article 5 of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which allows the supervised conduct of PNEs:
- "Each party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to ensure
that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate international
observation and through appropriate international procedures, potential
benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made
available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a
nondiscriminatory basis and that the charge to such Parties for the
explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for
research and development. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty
shall be able to obtain such benefits, pursuant to a special international
agreement or agreements, through an appropriate international body with
adequate representation of non-nuclear-weapon States. Negotiations on this
subject shall commence as soon as possible after the Treaty enters into
force. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty so desiring may also
obtain such benefits pursuant to bilateral agreements."
[Text of NPT.]
China stated its position on PNEs during the negotiation of the CTBT--for example in a working paper: "Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy and Peaceful Nuclear Explosion" (9 March 1995).
However, in the final report of Main Committee III of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, it stated:
- "V. REVIEW OF ARTICLE V
1. The Conference reaffirms that article V of the Treaty was designed for
each State party to undertake appropriate measures to ensure that, in
accordance with the Treaty, under appropriate international observation and
through appropriate international procedures, potential benefits from any
peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to
non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis
and that the charge to such parties for the explosive devices used will be as
low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development.
2. The Conference records that the potential benefits of the peaceful applications of nuclear explosions envisaged in article V of the Treaty have not materialized. In this context, the Conference notes that the potential benefits of the peaceful applications of nuclear explosions have not been demonstrated and that serious concerns have been expressed as to the environmental consequences that could result from the release of radioactivity from such applications and on the risk of possible proliferation of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, no requests for services related to the peaceful applications of nuclear explosions have been received by IAEA since the Treaty entered into force. The Conference further notes that no State party has an active programme for the peaceful application of nuclear explosions.
3. The Conference therefore recommends that the Conference on Disarmament
take this situation and future developments into account when
negotiating a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty." [Report
of Main Committee III, NPT Review and Extension Conference, 5 May 1997
(NPT/CONF.1995/MC.III/1).]
Despite the these conclusions at the NPT Review and Extension Conference, China maintained its position that PNEs should be allowed under a CTBT until 6 June 1996. On the day it dropped its insistence that PNEs be allowed under a CTBT, Sha Zukang, Chinese ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament (CD), stated to the CD:
- "No arms control or disarmament treaty should hinder the scientific and
economic development of its States parties. This is a universally accepted
principle. As a technology with enormous potential, PNEs, if used properly,
can play a dynamic role in promoting the economic development of some
countries. this is of special significance for China--a populous country
with a large territory but relatively scarce natural resources. We cannot
agree to ban a promising technology just for the sake of banning
nuclear-weapon test explosions. As the saying goes, the baby should not be
thrown out with the bath water--a simple wisdom. China's original intention
in raising the issue of PNEs remains unchanged. The concerns that PNEs are
not easily distinguishable from nuclear explosions for military purposes,
and that they may have an adverse effect on the environment, are fully
shared by us. However, we do not think these problems are insurmountable.
Although we still need to be convinced by the various counter-arguments, we
also recognize the fact that the CTBT negotiations have reached their final
stage, and in order to facilitate the conclusion of the treaty within the
time-frame as planned, the Chinese delegation is now ready to go along with
a temporary ban on PNEs. China can agree to a provision that the
possibility of permitting the conduct of PNEs shall be considered by the
review conference of the States parties. If all the States parties agree to
permit the conduct of PNEs by consensus, the conference of the States
parties shall immediately commence its work with a view to agreeing on
arrangements for the possible approval and conduct of such explosions. The
arrangements shall preclude any military benefits and shall be consistent
with the obligations of States under other international agreements."
[Statement by Ambassador Sha Zukang to the Conference on Disarmament, 6 June
1996.]
A week later, Ambassador Sha stated:
- "As is known to everyone, PNEs are not a Chinese invention. PNEs are
legitimized by the NPT Treaty, and the NPT was not drafted by the Chinese.
As is also known to all, China became a party to that treaty more than 20
years ago. If some delegations want to use the CTBT to perpetually ban PNEs,
then why did they not call for amendment of the NPT at the Review Conference
held in May last year, or at many an NPT review conference held before? The
Chinese delegation has its own national position on PNEs."
[Statement by Ambassador Sha Zukang
to the Conference on Disarmament, 13 June 1996.]
- [Statement by Ambassador Sha Zukang to the Conference on Disarmament, 13 June 1996.]
- [Statement by Ambassador Sha Zukang to the Conference on Disarmament, 6 June 1996.]
- ["Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy and Peaceful Nuclear Explosion," Chinese statement to the Conference on Disarmament, 9 March 1995.]
- ["Activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency relevant to Article V of the NPT," document of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference (NPT/CONF/1995/9).]
- [Report of Main Committee III, NPT Review and Extension Conference, 5 May 1997 (NPT/CONF.1995/MC.III/1).]
[CHINA AND THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY (CTBT)]
[CHINA AND THE PARTIAL TEST BAN TREATY (PTBT)]
[CHINA AND THE THRESHOLD TEST BAN TREATY (TTBT)]
[CHINA AND THE PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS TREATY (PNET)
[CHINA'S NUCLEAR TESTING PROGRAM]
[CHRONOLOGY OF TESTING-RELATED STATEMENTS AND DEVELOPMENTS]
This
material is produced independently for NTI by the James Martin
Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of
International Studies and does not necessarily reflect the
opinions of and has not been independently verified by NTI or
its directors, officers, employees, agents. Copyright © 2007 by
MIIS.
