L 4
PRIME MINIS 1i. Jun. gS 22: No. 007 K. UI'u,
TER
0: 1 A-A I r::. Ma r-I I flt T I Mi-r I" KI MI::; a., h ltI t I AM 11" a HUN i-J KILA I INtj Mr"
PARLIAMENTARY MOTION ON FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTING
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
I move that this House:
condemns the decision of the Government of France to resume
nuclear testing in the South Pacific;
calls on the French Government to reverse its decision and not to
resume testing;
shares the resentment of South Pacific countries at nuclear testing in
the South Pacific and endorses the statement condemning the
decision issued by the South Pacific Forum;
dopforoo r-ran= olo do iion tQ b, cu%, l= i i, I D Z I I ltu I I 1 Wn'icr' nauI
improved relations between France and countries in the region;
expresses its outrage that France's decision undermines the outcome
of the recent Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Review and Extension Conference, particularly the commitment made
at the Conference that, pending entry into force of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty ( CTBT), the nuclear weapon states should exercise
utmost restraint;
notes that Australia will do all in its power and urge all other countries
to hold France to President Chirac's statement that France would sign
a CTBT without reservation in autumn 1996; and
calls on France to sign and ratify the protocols of the South Pacific
Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.
This resolution-is Intended to convey as clearly as possible to the
Government of France the firm condemnation by the people of Australia,
acting through their representatives in this House, of the decision announced
TEL 2
by the Government of France to resume the testing of nuclear weapons at
Mururca Atoll. It also expresses our hope that the decision might yet be
reversed.
The President of France, President Chirac, announced the decision to
resume underground nuclear testing on 1~ 3 June. He said that a program of
eight tests would be conducted between September 1995 and May 1996.
President Chirac said that the testing was essential in order to ensure the
security, safety and reliability of France's nuclear weapons. He said that after
completing this series of tests, France would intend to sign the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and to rely thereafter on simulation
techniques to maintain its nuclear capabilities.
The decision reversed the moratorium on nuclear testing announced by
President Mitterrand in 1992, a moratorium which had been widely welcomed
and which together with the earlier Matignon Accords which set up a basis
for reconciliation in New Caledonia formed the foundation on which a new,
cooperative partnership between France and the countries of the South
Pacific was emerging.
President Chirac's announcement on 13 June followed widespread
speculation in France about the future of the testing program during the
Presidential election campaign and afterwards.
In response to this speculation, Australia, along with many other countries,
had made known to the French Government our hopes that the moratorium
would be maintained. I wrote to President Chirac about this matter following
earlier representations made by the Foreign Minister, Senator Evans. The
French moratorium matched separate commitments by the United States,
Russian and British Governments to refrain from testing.
In the end, however, the French Government ignored the views of the vast
majority of members of the international community and decided to proceed
with its program. That is an Indefensible decision and the Australian people
and the Australian Government condemn it.
Australia's opposition to the resumed testing of nuclear weapons by France
stems from a number of concerns, of which the most fundamental is the
security implications of the decision for Australia, for the South Pacific region
and for the international community.
The end of the Cold War, having removed the spectre of global nuclear
conflict which had thrown such a dark shadow on the second half of the
twentieth century, gave new hope to the world that we might at last see a
world free of nuclear weapons.
An important sign post towards a safer world was the decision by the
international community on 11 May 1 995 in New York~ to extend indefinitely
the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Critical to achieving
TEL Jul 22 : 51J No .007 F .02/ CJ7
TEL: 1 i. Jun .95 .22 : 59 No 007 F. 03CJ0T,
3
the indefinite extension of the NPT was the simultaneous negotiation and
adoption by all parties to the NPT, including the nuclear weapon states of a
" Declaration of Principles and Objectives on Non Proliferation and
Disarmament". This Declaration included, centrally, a commitment to the goal of nuclear
disarmament, with the ultimate objective of the total elimination of nuclear
weapons. It gave encouragement to the further development of nuclear
weapon free zones.
And it said that one important measure towards the elimination of nuclear
weapons was the early conclusion, no later than 1996, of a Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty. Pending the entry into force of a Test Ban Treaty, the
nuclear weapon states were committed to exercise " utmost restraint".
The French decision clearly contradicts this undertaking. ' Utmost restraint'
on nuclear testing cannot possibly comprehend a program of eight tests. The
decision is certain to raise in the minds of non nuclear weapon states
questions about the good faith of all the nuclear weapons states. It will add
to the negotiating difficulties over the Comprehensive rest Ban Treaty.
France's action might well provide a convenient excuse for others who might
want to join the nuclear club, and who will now argue that the commitment of
the nuclear weapons states to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is
a sham.
This is a critical time for the world. The cold war has ended but what will
shape our future security and prosperity is still uncertain. We are moulding
the building blocks now.
It is particularly important that all governents work together to ensure that
the international system we have in the twenty first century is one which suits
all of us better than the one we have had.
The French decision is a narrow decision, made according to a narrow
definition 9f narrowly French interests. It defies world opinion, but that is the
only bold thing about it. In every other sense it betrays timidity. It is an act of
retreat, not engagement.
As I said on 15 June, why should a country of such substance undertake this
program? What is there to fear in cooperative engagement with the rest of
the world? What will best protect the French people is not a 1990s version of
the Maginot line, but participation in the global dialogue.
The French Government claims that this nuclear capacity this force de
frappe is a deterrent. But in the post Cold War world, a deterrent to what?
It Is certainly no deterrent against the greatest nuclear threats to Europe and
the world now, including the emergence of new nuclear weapons states.
' FEL 4
France, by its inflammatory action with regard to Its testing program, now runs
the greater risk of losing international support, both moral and material, for
cleaning up the rotting carcasses of the old Soviet reactors, whose presence
still hangs over Europe and France like a pall. This is one of France's and
Europe's great challenges. These dangers, like the stockpiles of degrading
nuclear weapons and weapons systems, and contaminated nuclear sites,
cannot be deterred through the further development of an offensive nuclear
weapon capability.
These considerations are international in scope. They also shape Australia's
opposition to nuclear testing by China.
But Australia and the other members of the South Pacific Forum have a
particular concern with French testing because it is not being conducted in
France's metropolitan territory, but in the South Pacific.
Most countries in this region are small island states. For many years they
have made clear their opposition to nuclear weapons. They have shown this
year after year in the resolutions of the South Pacific Forum and, most
clearly, in the creation of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. The
Government of France is defying not only their wishes but their moral rights.
This action will call into question for many in the South Pacific the legitimacy
of the French presence there.
The French Government has defended the environmental safety of the tests
at Mururoa and it has alluded to the possibility that international scientists
might observe the tests.
But the fact is that accidents happen. And no one can foresee the longer
term dangers associated with possible leakage from the underground coral
structures housing the tests.
The fact remains that if these tests are perfectly safe, they could be made
perfectly w ell in France.
Condemnation of the French decision has not been confined to the fifteen
members of the South Pacific Forum.
Critical statements have been issued by Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Indonesia,
Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Mexico, Norway, Peru, the Philippines,
Korea, Russia, South Africa, and Switzerland. On 15 June the European
Parliament in Strasbourg adopted a resolution expressing shock at the
decision and urging France to reconsider. Canada and the United States
have regretted the decision.
Australia's response has been strong and unequivocal. The Government has
deplored the decision. We have frozen defence relations with France and we
118 L J. ui . zi5 * 22: 5No 00? 7 P. 1 4/ Ui
I LL 1 Jun-z : j 1 u
will not engage in any defence activity which would in any way assist the
testing program.
We have protested against the French decision in the International Atomic
Energy Agency Board of Governors meeting in Vienna, and other
international bodies, including the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva
and the United Nations in New York.
Australia has a particular responsibility in this matter this year because we
are Chair of the South Pacific Forum. I have been in close touch with my
Forum colleagues about it.
On their behalf, I issued a statement condemning the decision and
expressing our unequivocal opposition to it. I said that Forum leaders hoped
that France will hear and take note of what the world is saying.
To make sure that France does hear, we proposed to send a delegation of
members of the South Pacific Forum to Paris to put the views of Forum
countries directly and unambiguously to the French Government.
Because of the limited time available, and in accordance with Forum practice,
the delegation comprises the past, present and next forum chairs. So
Senator Evans is leading the delegation.
He is accompanied by President Bernard Dowiyogo of Nauru and Mr
Tsiamilili, a special envoy from the Government of Papua New Guinea, which
takes over the Forum Chair in September. The New Zealand Minister for
Justice, Mr Graham, and the Western Samoan Minister of Education, Ms
Fiami, are also represented on the delegation, as is the Secretary General of
the Forum, the Hon leremiah Tabai.
The delegation will meet the French Government later tonight, Paris time.
The passing of this resolution by the House will assist it to convey to the
French Government the depth of Forum countries concerns.
When the delegation reports back on the results of its discussions early
tomorrow morning, I plan to be in touch again quickly with my Forum
colleagues about what next steps we will take.
The concerns of the Australian people about the French decision have been
demonstrated clearly over recent days. I hope they will continue to be
expressed and in ways which help bring home to the French Government
how widespread is the opposition to these policies.
But, Mr Speaker, some Important things need to be remembered in this
debate and some have been lost sight of. UU
FEL 6
The Government's position in this matter and I believe the position of most
Australians is not shaped by hostility towards France or the French people,
or to France's role in the Pacific. It is shaped solely by our opposition to this
specific policy of the Government of France to resume testing nuclear
weapons in the South Pacific.
France, and Australians who have come from France, have made a valuable
contribution to Australia.
I have spoken before of the opportunities which exist for French business in
Australia and for Australian businesses in France. I have also said that we
welcome constructive French participation in the South Pacific.
It is very important that the expressions of Australian concern about this
French policy do not flow over into racist attacks on France or French people.
It is this particular French Government policy which we object to.
It Is important for Australians to remember that many French people object to
this decision as well. A number of members of the French delegation to the
European Parliament voted in favour of the resolution I referred to earlier.
All Members of this House will, I am sure, share the view that terrorist acts,
like the arson reported to be the cause of the fire at the office of the Honorary
French Consul in Perth on 17 June must be utterly rejected and condemned.
It would be a very sorry consequence if our opposition to an act which
contravenes our every sense of fairness and decency, should erode these
values in our own society. Such acts as that which occurred in Perth, the
Government utterly condemns as both illegal and un-Australian. Such acts
are not only objectionable but counter-productive to our cause.
Those with influential positions in the community, in politics and the media,
must be aware of their responsibilities and when they voice their Concerns be
careful not to encourage acts of violence or acts which undermine the
legitimacy and moral authority of Australia's protest.
It does not'diminish our resentment of the French decision to understand
exactly what it entails.
It should be a concern of all members that Australians have an accurate
knowledge about the French proposals not least because our protests will
have more effect if they do not contain exaggerations and inaccuracies.
Our arguments will be more persuasive if they are based in reality and not
irrational fear.
I doubt if there is any Australian who does not feel anger about the French
decision. What we must take to the French Government is a collective
1~ รต J~ r~ zJ NO Ui f'UtD/ U
TEL: 18 . Jun. 95 22 5 No . CJJ7 F.' 07/ 0-,
7
concerted response. The response of all the Australian people channelled
through the best means available to us.
This decision to resume testing is a bad decision by the Government of
France. It is bad because it endangers progress towards a world free of
nuclear weapons. It Is bad because it ignores the views of the people of the
region in which the tests are being conducted. It is bad because it sets back
so far the cause of constructive French participation in the South Pacific
region. It is bad because it is a decision which is essentially serf-absorbed
rather than showing a wider vision.
It is important that this Parliament, representing the people of Australia,
conveys clearly to Government of France the extent of our concern at this
wilful and unnecessary declsion by the Government of France.
I commend the motion to the House.
CANBERRA 19 JUNE 1995