The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Mexican Amendments: The Negotiating Record

To address the concerns of the non-nuclear weapons states about the treaty, Henry Owen made a number of suggestions, including providing assurances about the availability of peaceful nuclear technology. To address the "fear of being frozen indefinitely into second class status," Owen reviewed areas where the treaty could be modified. One suggestion was to strengthen the Treaty's preamble. Another was for the president to commission a study, as an urgent matter, of older U.S. disarmament proposals and determine "whether new US proposals can be developed in light of continuing technological advances."

As Japan was not a member of the Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament, but an important NNWS, ACDA director William C. Foster flew to Tokyo for special consultations with senior officials. The key meeting was with Foreign Minister Takeo Miki, with whom Foster reviewed a number of issues, including peaceful uses and "peaceful nuclear explosives," safeguards, Indian and West German concerns, and the NPT's proposed duration. Among Takeo Miki's concerns was that the Treaty not hinder research and development on nuclear energy, including nuclear fission. On the nuclear disarmament issue, a problem that was of great importance to domestic opinion, Takeo Miki stated that the "treaty should lead to disarmament rather than just a weapons freeze."[13] He believed that the NNWS needed "assurances of the willingness of the nuclear countries to scale down and eventually disarm," and that without embodying such a commitment in the Treaty "it would be difficult to convince the nonnuclear nations they should join the treaty."

Saying that he agreed, Foster spelled out the U.S. nuclear disarmament agenda, including the fissile materials production cut-off and the "destruction of thousands of warheads," but that those goals had to be pursued "one step at a time." He did not believe it possible to include those and other proposals and "still get a meaningful treaty," but he was willing to "insert in the treaty a statement of intentions and let the review conference look into the progress being made."

In his comments Takeo Miki had emphasized the importance of treaty provisions for periodic review conferences "as a way for non-nuclear nations to satisfy themselves that the nuclear nations had in fact carried out their commitments." This would be a point that the Japanese would continue to make, along with Romanian, Swedish, and Italian diplomats, in discussions of the treaty.

Reviewing the State Department Policy Planning Staff's suggestions for winning the support of the NNWS, Fisher developed proposals on security assurances and an AEC study on the dissemination of "spin-off technology." He also agreed that the NNWS "would find it easier to sign an NPT if there were stronger evidence of the nuclear countries' intent to move seriously to halt and reverse the arms race." Toward that end, Fisher believed that strengthening the preambular language could help.

With the U.S. and the Soviets getting ready to table the NPT, minus the controversial safeguards Article III, chief Soviet negotiator Alexei Roshchin offered a new version of the preambular language on disarmament, which Foster found acceptable as it drew on earlier U.S. documents.

"... Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between states in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament under strict and effective international control ..."

Having reached agreement on a basic treaty text, except for the contested Article III on safeguards, Moscow and Washington submitted the treaty for discussion and review by the ENDC and all U.N. members generally. The text included the language on disarmament proposed by the Soviets and a separate article (IV) on peaceful uses. Washington had wanted to hold the latter as a fallback, but the Soviets convinced American negotiators to incorporate it. According to the aide memoire accompanying the treaty text, Article IV "results from many suggestions by non-nuclear weapon countries" that the NPT included a separate article on the peaceful uses of atomic energy.[14]

Only a few days before the Mexican ENDC delegation made its NPT proposals, during a conversation with Dean Rusk Foreign Minister Miki restated his interest in stronger language on peaceful uses of nuclear energy and nuclear disarmament: "The people of Japan ... strongly favor a declaration of intent to achieve an ultimate nuclear disarmament guarantee." Rusk, however, noting that Chinese and French nonparticipation in the negotiations made it difficult to move forward on disarmament, demurred from any notion of a guarantee in the sense of "a legal requirement" in the Treaty. He suggested the possibility of further strengthening the preamble, but Miki said he had no problem with the wording. He only preferred a different structure, so that the Treaty stipulated that nuclear disarmament was necessary for reducing world tensions.

Rusk assured Miki that the NPT would not "interfere with the development of peaceful uses," but he made no strong assurances in response to Miki's wish that Japan not be "denied the opportunity of using nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes when these are fully developed." As Rusk had explained before, such devices were "no different from nuclear explosives used in weapons."

Ms. E. Aquirre, with the Mexican delegation to the ENDC, told a U.S. official that her government would be distributing, as “informal suggestions,” drafts for NPT articles. All of them spoke to the problem of adjusting the balance of obligations between the nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states.

Among the Mexican proposals was new language for Article IV on peaceful nuclear uses, including an emphasis on the “duty” of the nuclear weapons states to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, “especially in the territories of non-nuclear weapons states.” The other three were new articles altogether: Article V on “nondiscriminatory access to peaceful nuclear explosives and Article VI on the obligation of the nuclear weapons states to pursue disarmament negotiations. Drawing on some of the language in the preamble, the new article called upon:

"Each nuclear-weapon State Party to this Treaty under takes to pursue negotiations in good faith, with all speed and perseverance, to arrive at further agreements regarding the prohibition of all nuclear weapon tests, the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation .of all their existing stockpiles , the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery, as well as to reach agreement on a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament under strict and effective international control."

Another new article, what became NPT Article VII, concerned the right of signatory states to conclude regional nuclear weapons-free zone arrangements as exemplified by the recent Latin American agreement.

The Mexican Ambassador to the ENDC, Jorge Castañeda y Álvarez, formally presented the proposals to the ENDC on 19 September 1967. He acknowledged that his government considered the draft treaty “on the whole clearly satisfactory,” especially because Articles I and II provided “firm” cornerstones “because they are so drafted as to preclude any proliferation of nuclear weapons, direct or indirect.” Nevertheless, Castañeda indicated that his proposals on peaceful uses, disarmament, nuclear-free zones, and peaceful nuclear explosives were necessary to correct a basic problem: the “treaty does not, in our view, fully satisfy the requirements of the acceptable balance of mutual responsibilities and obligations of the nuclear and non-nuclear Powers.”

After Castañeda spoke, Adrian Fisher gave a presentation on U.S. plans for a limited anti-ballistic system, which Secretary of Defense McNamara had announced a few days earlier. According to Fisher, the ABM “does not represent an acceleration of the United States-Soviet strategic arms race,” but the announcement had a poor impact on the NNWS [See document 11].

Written too early to take into account the Mexican proposals, this wide-ranging report reviewed issues that had to be addressed to complete the negotiations: Article III, the problem of treaty duration, security assurances, provisions for amendments, and the "balance of obligations." The latter referred to the arguments made by the NNWS that the Treaty should "contain some obligation on the part of the nuclear powers to limit or reduce their nuclear arsenals and to accept safeguards on their peaceful nuclear facilities."Concerns about the NPT's "imbalance" also influenced Japan's proposal for periodic treaty review conferences to ensure that signatories were living up to their obligations.

According to Alexander, ACDA preferred to limit the problem of disarmament to the treaty's preamble, which spoke directly to the "cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons." He suggested that Rusk propose to Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko that future review conferences have in their purview not only "obligations under the operative section" but also "the fulfillment of the purposes of the preamble." The problem with having a disarmament article in the Treaty's "operative section" was that it would "inevitably involve the verification issue, is too complicated and would be non-negotiable."

According to the U.S. delegation, the Mexican amendments raised “problems”, but at the same time they were “opportunities” by offering the possibility of incorporating the thinking of “important non-aligned countries” and strengthening the “case that treaty does meet [their] reasonable and responsible requests.” Many of those states would evaluate the way that Moscow and Washington responded to the proposals as a “test of whether co-chairman regard NPT as immutable to be forced” on them.

Noting that Mexico had been “anxious” to contribute to the NPT, the delegation wrote that it had made the “first significant suggestions for amendments.” Given that, the Mexican ambassador to the ENDC Jorge Castañeda was likely to be “willing to work with us in accepting reasonable modifications.” But before approaching Castañeda, it was necessary to discuss the amendments with the Soviet delegation.

In the balance of the message, the delegation analyzed the four proposals and suggested alternate language and editorial changes for each. For example, the notion of a “duty” to share peaceful nuclear technology was unacceptable in Washington(and probably toMoscow) so the U.S. delegation suggested that the “idea of most importance to Mexico … is inclusion of some formulation regarding assistance to non-nuclears by nuclears.” The delegation believed that the language on nuclear free zones could be accepted as something that the treaty would not prohibit.

On the disarmament article, the delegation preferred to see stronger language in the preamble but anticipated that “there will be strong pressure from virtually all non-aligned and our allies to strengthen and move this language to operative article.” In any event, the language concerning “all speed” was problematic because it “might make it possible at review conferences to charge nuclear powers with failure [to] fulfill their obligations.”

Mexican delegation member Ms. Aquirre told a U.S. counterpart that during a meeting of the non-aligned members of the ENDC the Mexican proposals had received a "very favorable" reaction although India and Brazil found that they "did not go far enough." The U.S. announcement about ABM deploymentshad a negative impact because the non-aligned nations believed that the nuclear powers "would simply go on arming themselves in [an] unlimited arms race while [the] non-nuclears were tied down in their present status by the NPT."

Meeting with the British, Canadian, and Italian ENDC delegates, Fisher gave his personal assessment of the Mexican proposals. One problem was that Washington "would have major difficulty" supporting language about the abolition of nuclear weapons prior to the achievement of general and comprehensive disarmament, the implication being that the West needed nuclear weapons as long as Soviet conventional forces outmatched NATO's. Moreover, it was not "desirable [to] attempt [to] include lists of specific measures since [it was] impossible [to] reach agreement with Soviets on any specific lists."

In their first full discussion of the Mexican amendments, Fisher and Roshchin agreed that the reference to a "duty" on the part of the NWS in the Mexican text of Article IV was unacceptable, but Roshchin believed it was "very desirable [to] meet wishes of Mexican [delegation] even if wording had to be changed." On the proposed article on peaceful nuclear explosives, about which neither Fisher or Roshchin showed enthusiasm, Roshchin thought it important to include it "in view of Mexican desire [to] help us." Both agreed that the article on nuclear-free zones was acceptable.

On the proposed article on disarmament, Fisher preferred stronger language in the preamble instead, but Roshchin thought it should be included: "we will be negotiating here for many years" and recognizing that fact in the treaty would do no harm. Toward that end, he offered a redraft of the Mexican amendment.

Reviewing West German concerns about the NPT, Counselor Berndt Von Staden said that his government had hoped that non-aligned governments would be tabling amendments that would correct such problems as the treaty's duration and the weakness of the preambular language on disarmament. When ACDA official Culver Gleysteen told him about the Mexican proposals, including one to include on "operative provision" on the "obligation on the part of nuclear weapons states to negotiate nuclear disarmament measures," Von Staden said that it would be "well received" in Bonn. Getting a West German signature on the NPT, however, would require far more than Article VI.

Responding to the delegation's analysis of the Mexican proposals, the State Department wrote that it concurred but made a few suggestions, including a redraft of the proposed articles on disarmament and peaceful nuclear explosives. Noting that the redraft did not include the phrase "with all speed and perseverance," Rusk suggested that Fisher explain that the preamble gave effect to that idea by "calling for [the] achievement of [the] cessation of the nuclear arms race 'at the earliest possible date.'"

With the Soviets emphasizing their wish to complete work on amendments from the non-aligned states as quickly as possible, before the Treaty went before the UN General Assembly, Soviet and U.S. delegates had a wide-ranging discussion that included the language of the Mexican amendments on disarmament, peaceful nuclear explosive devices, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. For the language of the disarmament article,U.S. delegate De Palma raised questions about including a reference to "nuclear disarmament" because Washington could not endorse that objective in the absence of comprehensive and general disarmament. Soviet delegate M.V. Antyasov suggested that the word "nuclear" be removed, claiming that it would be close to the idea of Swedish delegate Alva Myrdal that all treaty signatories, nuclear or non-nuclear, have the same disarmament obligation.

Continuing the discussion of the Mexican proposals, Fisher and Roshchin disagreed whether the proposed article on disarmament should refer to verification as the U.S. had recommended. The Soviets thought that using the word was too "restrictive" because it might "raise suspicions" among the non-nuclear nations when an important purpose of the article was "to make points" with them.

This discussion focused on the dedicated articles on disarmament and peaceful nuclear explosive devices. On the latter, the Soviets emphasized that in order to meet the "requests of the responsible non-aligned" nations it was important to include language concerning an "appropriate international body" to provide technological assistance on PNEDs [peaceful nuclear explosive devices], but the U.S. delegates favored more flexibility in the language. On disarmament, the Soviets continued arguing that a reference to verification was "unacceptable." They believed that Washington should make a concession on this just as the Soviets knew better than to include language on "nuclear disarmament." Moreover, it was "not a matter of practical importance" because "everybody knows" that the United State would "not agree to any measure unless it considers that verification aspect is satisfactory."

Reviewing overall developments, including Article III, when to recess the ENDC, preparing for a "favorable climate" at the UN General Assembly, and the Treaty's duration, Foster began with a discussion of the Mexican amendments, which he argued was the "fall-back for which we have been preparing" because of the importance of giving "the treaty more balancebetween the nuclear and non-nuclear powers."

Worried about "growing dissatisfaction" in the ENDC, the Americans asked the Soviets to move more quickly in responding to the Mexican amendments by taking a position on the peaceful uses language. Noting that the Soviets intended to present a comprehensive response to the Mexican proposals, Roshchin suggested that both delegationsput across the idea that they were giving "sympathetic consideration" to them.

Conceding Moscow's argument against references to verification, the State Department, backed by the AEC, ACDA, and Defense, agreed that language mentioning "effective measures" would do the job.

The Soviets responded positively to the latest U.S. formulation of Article VI and searched for language on the PNEDs article that Washington could support, such as "appropriate international procedures" instead of an "international body."

Meeting with Castañeda and Aquirre for lunch, Fisher provided them with the text of the Mexican amendments as negotiated with the Soviets as well as language on NPT review conferences that was close to the Mexican position. Castañeda had no major disagreement, but he suggested wording changes, e.g., in article V, on peaceful uses, to approximate the “duty” of the NWS by saying “parties to the treaty in a position to do so shall contribute alone or together.” Fisher, however, emphasized the importance of including the word “cooperate” in the text and Castañeda did not dissent.

Having reached an understanding with the Soviets on the wording for articles on disarmament, peaceful uses (what Fisher had proposed in his late September message) and peaceful explosives, the Geneva delegation requested authority to accept the changes while continuing to press the Soviets to accept proposals supported by the U.S., such as periodic review conferences and the importance of including the preambular language in the scope of the review conferences. In addition, on the number of non-nuclear countries whose accession to the treaty would be necessary to bring it into force, the delegation recommended agreeing to 40 (which the Department later approved).

Responding to the delegation's request, the State Department granted the authority it sought to accept the Soviet proposals for the wording of Articles V and VI.

In this follow-up message, the State Department sent the latest agreed texts of articles IV, V, and VI as well as the current text of the proposed article on peaceful nuclear explosives.

This near-final text of the NPT included the new articles V, VI, and VII as well as the redrafted article IV. On review conferences, the treaty stipulated holding only one event, five years after the treaty had entered into force, as the Soviets had insisted (instead of periodic conferences), but the purpose would be to determine the extent to which the "purposes and provisions" of the treaty were being realized, which approximated the U.S. idea that the preamble should also be reviewed. Nevertheless, that issue remained contested by many parties.

In her remarks, Swedish delegate Alva Myrdal that the "obligations incumbent on the nuclear-weapon states are considerably weaker in the present draft," e.g., wording about "all speed and perseverance" had been deleted as had been the references to the "prohibition of all nuclear weapons tests." Consequently, Myrdal proposed including the words "at an early date" in the text as well as to insert the word "nuclear" in front of "disarmament." In addition, she proposed that somewhere in the treaty there should be a reference to the comprehensive test ban.

Responding to the delegation's transmittal of a Swedish working paper whose gist Myrdal presented on 8 February, the State Department was gratified by the "moderation and reasonableness" of the Swedish amendments to Article VI. The Department favored accepting them with slight modifications and authorized the delegation to "tell Roshchin that we believe it would be in our joint interest to accept" them. Accordingly, "disarmament" was changed to "nuclear disarmament" and "at an early date" was to be included. Moreover, language about "the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time" was included in the preamble.

The British came up with a variant of the Swedish suggestions for Article VI which the State Department saw as unnecessary because it was only different in style. During a discussion with British diplomat Ian Smart, ACDA official Culver Gleysteen said that Washington anticipated that "allies will be pleased with [the Swedish] changes" and that "considerable non-aligned support for Jan. 18 text plus Feb. 8 Swedishamendments [had already been] expressed (Sweden, Mexico, and inferentially Ethiopia)." Moreover, "given our knowledge of general positions of other non-aligned [delegates] one might already claim 'general support' [for the Treaty] is developing at ENDC." As the Department's "main objective in accepting Feb. 8 Swedish amendments wasto line up non-aligned support for NPT, we would prefer making as fewchanges in them as possible." The British, however, did not give up.

As the Soviets had not yet officially approved the Swedish amendments, the State Department, in a message personally approved by Rusk, asked the delegation in Geneva to stress to the Soviets the importance of their agreement to the Swedish proposals on the preamble (the reference to the test ban) and on Article VI. Moreover, to make the treaty "most broadly acceptable," it was important to win Soviet support to language for periodic review conferences.

After some delay and just before the ENDC officially tabled the NPT, Roshchin informed Foster that Moscow had accepted the Swedish proposals to reference the CTB in the preamble, to include "nuclear disarmament" in Article VI, and language for periodic review conferences. In addition, the Soviets accepted a British amendment to ensure that the treaty's preamble fell within the scope of the review conferences. The next day, at the last moment, the British also succeeded in getting a few slight changes in the Treaty's wording, including a last moment impact on the language of Article VI ("relating to" instead of "regarding" the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament).

After giving President Johnson and the NSC a briefing, Foster "raised the question as to what would happen after the NPT." Noting the requirement for "good faith" negotiations looking toward nuclear disarmament, Foster referred to the "major proposals" that Washington had already made: the comprehensive test ban and the fissile material production cut-off, both of which were staples of the disarmament agenda. He also mentioned a freeze on strategic weapons, which Washington was trying to advance: a forerunner of the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks. A new proposal, for nuclear weapons-free ocean seabeds, was in the works. In point of fact, no progress was being made on the production cut-off or the test ban and Foster acknowledged that the seabeds proposal could "take some pressure off of us on the comprehensive test ban issue" (which had been hung up by verification issues).

The anti-nuclear weapons Pugwash Conference sponsored a symposium on the NPT that raised concerns that have dogged the nuclear weapons states ever since. Most of the participants supported the treaty as it was, but they subjected it to a variety of criticisms. On Article VI, they generally agreed that it "was too vague to accomplish its purpose." "Several participants suggested that non-nuclear weapon states could withhold their signature, or at leasttheir ratification, of the NPT until the nuclear powers took at least one or two significant steps toward nuclear disarmament." One of the Indian participants went further, arguing for language e in the treaty that would allow signatories to withdraw from it after seven years "if, in [their] judgment, insufficient progress had been made toward nuclear disarmament."

TheMexican amendments did not make a dent in the Indian government's opposition to the NPT. After Canadian High Commissioner James George briefed Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on merits of the treaty, she argued that it "was not a step toward peace: it was merely a consolidation of the status quo between the nuclear haves and have nots." For that and other reasons, "she saw no advantages accruing to India in signing the NPT."

In the final stages before the UN General Assembly took up the treaty, Washington and Moscow had coordinated the last details of the text, taking into account suggestions from a wide variety of sources. "To include new elements of importance to non-nuclears," Article IV incorporated a suggestion from Nigeria that "all parties undertake to facilitate fullest possible exchange" of information, equipment, and materials related to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Moreover, based on suggestions from African and Latin American countries, the "treaty now acknowledges specificallythat due consideration should be given to needs of the developing areas in peaceful uses." In addition, the preamble was "strengthened by adding that parties declare their intention 'toundertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament.'"

At this time the text of a U.N. General Assembly resolution was in the final stages of drafting. Approved by the General Assembly on 12 June 1968, it "commended" the NPT, instead of explicitly endorsing it, as a way to assure wider support by nations that had not yet made up their minds about adhering to the treaty. By the end of 1968, over 90 countries had signed the treaty.