Home > 105th Congressional Documents > H.Doc.105-11 DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAN ...H.Doc.105-11 DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAN ...
105th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 105-10
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION
__________
COMMUNICATION
from
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
transmitting
NOTIFICATION THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS (``WEAPONS
OF MASS DESTRUCTION''--(WMD)) AND THE MEANS OF DELIVERING SUCH WEAPONS
IS TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT BEYOND NOVEMBER 14, 1996--RECEIVED IN THE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOVEMBER 12, 1996, PURSUANT TO
50 U.S.C. 1622(d)
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
January 7, 1997.--Referred to the Committee on International Relations
and ordered to be printed
The White House,
Washington, November 12, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: On November 14, 1994, in light of the
dangers of the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons (``weapons of mass destruction''--(WMD)) and
of the means of delivery such weapons, I issued Executive Order
12938, and declared a national emergency under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.). Under section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50
U.S.C. 1622(d)), the national emergency terminates on the
anniversary date of its declaration, unless I publish in the
Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice of its
continuation.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continues
to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.
Therefore, I am hereby advising the Congress that the national
emergency declared on November 14, 1994, and extended on
November 14, 1995, must continue in effect beyond November 14,
1996. Accordingly, I have extended the national emergency
declared in Executive Order 12938 and have sent the attached
notice of extension to the Federal Register for publication.
The following report is made pursuant to section 204 of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1703)
and section 401(c) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1641(c)), regarding activities taken and money spent pursuant
to the emergency declaration. Additional information on
nuclear, missile, and/or chemical and biological weapons (CBW)
nonproliferation efforts is contained in the most recent annual
Report on the Proliferation of Missiles and Essential
Components of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons,
provided to the Congress pursuant to section 1097 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and
1993 (Public Law 102-190), also known as the ``Nonproliferation
Report,'' and the most recent annual report provided to the
Congress pursuant to section 308 of the Chemical and biological
Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (Public Law
102-182).
During the last 6 months, the three export control
regulations issued under the Enhanced Proliferation Control
Initiative (EPCI) remained fully in force and continue to be
applied in order to control the export of items with potential
use in chemical or biological weapons or unmanned delivery
systems for weapons of mass destruction.
The threat of chemical weapons is one of the most pressing
security challenges of the post-Cold War era. With bipartisan
support from the Congress, the United States has long been a
leader in the international fight against the spread of
chemical weapons. Democrats and Republicans have worked hard
together to strengthen our security by concluding the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production,
Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their
Destruction (the Chemical Weapons Convention or CWC).
The CWC bans an entire class of weapons of mass
destruction. It is both an arms control and a nonproliferation
treaty that requires total elimination of chemical weapons
stocks, prohibits chemical weapons-related activities, bans
assistance for such activities and bars trade with non-Parties
in certain relevant chemicals. This treaty denies us no option
we would otherwise wish to exercise and is a critical
instrument in our global fight against the spread of chemical
weapons.
The CWC provides concrete measures that will raise the
costs and risks of engaging in chemical weapons-related
activities. The CWC's declaration and inspection requirements
will improve our knowledge of possible chemical weapons
activities, whether conducted by countries or terrorists. The
treaty's provisions constitute the most comprehensive and
intrusive verification regime ever negotiated, covering
virtually every aspect of a chemical weapons program, from
development through production and stockpiling. These
provisions provide for access to declared and undeclared
facilities and locations, thus making clandestine chemical
weapons production and stockpiling more difficult, more risky
and more expensive.
Countries that refuse to join the CWC will be politically
isolated and banned from trading with States Parties in certain
key chemicals. Indeed, major chemical industry groups have
testified before the Senate that our companies stand to lose
millions of dollars in international sales if the United States
is not a State Party when the treaty enters into force.
That could happen if we fail to ratify the CWC promptly. It
is nearly four years since the Bush Administration signed the
Convention and three years since this Administration submitted
the CWC to the Senate for its advice and consent. All our major
NATO allies have deposited their instruments of ratification,
as have all other G-7 members. The CWC will enter into force
180 days after it has been ratified by 65 countries. By mid-
October 1996, 64 of the 160 signatory countries had done so. It
therefore seems likely the CWC will enter into force as early
as April 1997.
Further delay in securing U.S. ratification of this vital
treaty serves only the interests of proliferators and
terrorists. Delay may well also endanger the international
competitiveness of the chemical industry, one of our largest
exporters. In the interim, pressures are increasing in unstable
regions to acquire and use chemical weapons. We need to ratify
this convention urgently to strengthen our own security, affirm
our leadership in nonproliferation and to protect our chemical
industry. Ratification must be a top priority of the new
Congress in early 1997.
During the reporting period, the United States continued to
be active in the work of the CWC Preparatory Commission
(PrepCom) in The Hague. The Prepcom is developing the vital
technical and administrative procedures for implementation of
the CWC through a strong organization to ensure compliance when
the convention enters into force.
The United States is working hard with the international
community to end the threat from another terrible category of
weapons of mass destruction--biological weapons. We are an
active member of the Ad Hoc Group striving to create a legally
binding instrument to strengthen the effectiveness and improve
the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the
Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological
(Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (The
Biological Weapons Convention or BWC). The Ad Hoc Group was
mandated by the September 1994 BWC Special Conference. The
Group held meetings in July and September with the goal of
preparing for the late November 1996 Fourth BWC Review
Conference. Concluding a new BWC protocol is high on our list
of nonproliferation goals. We should aim to complete such a
protocol by 1998.
The United States continues to be a leader in the Australia
Group (AG) chemical and biological weapons nonproliferation
regime. The United States supported the entry of the Republic
of Korea (South Korea)--a country with an important chemical
industry--into the AG. The ROK became the group's 30th member
in late Sepgember--a tribute to the continuing international
recognition of the importance of the Group's effort in
nonproliferation and to the commitment of the ROK to that goal.
The United States attended the AG's annual plenary session
from October 14-17, 1996, during which the Group continued to
focus on strengthening AG export controls and sharing
information to address the threat of CBW terrorism. At the
behest of the United States, the AG first began in-depth
discussion of terrorism during the 1995 plenary session
following the Tokyo subway nerve gas attack earlier that year.
The Group also reaffirmed the members' collective belief
that full adherence to the CWC and the BWC will be the best way
to achieve permanent global elimination of CBW, and that all
states adhering to these Conventions have an obligation to
ensure that their national activities support this goal.
Australia Group participants continue to ensure that all
relevant national measures promote the object and purposes of
the BWC, and CWC, and will be fully consistent with the CWC
upon its entry into force. The AG believes that national export
licensing policies on chemical weapons-related items fulfill
the obligation established under Article I of the CWC that
States Parties never assist, in any way, the acquisition of
chemical weapons. Inasmuch as these measures are focused solely
on preventing activities banned under the CWC, they are
consistent with the undertaking in Article XI of the CWC to
facilitate the fullest possible exchange of chemical materials
and related information for purposes not prohibited by the CWC.
The AG also agreed to continue its active program of
briefings for non-AG countries, and to promote regional
consultations on export controls and nonproliferation to
further awareness and understanding of national policies in
these areas.
During the last year, the United States imposed chemical
weapons proliferation sanctions on one individual. On November
17, 1995, sanctions were imposed under the Chemical and
Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991
on Russian citizen Anatoliy Kuntsevich for knowingly providing
material assistance to a foreign chemical weapons program.
The United States carefully controlled exports that could
contribute to unmanned delivery systems for weapons of mass
destruction, exercising restraint in considering all such
proposed transfers consistent with the Guyidelines of the
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). In May 1996, the
United States imposed missile technology proliferation
sanctions against two entities in Iran and one entity in North
Korea for transfers involving Category II MTCR Annex items.
MTCR Partners continued to share information about
proliferation problems with each other and with other potential
supplier, consumer, and transshipment states. Partners also
emphasized the need for implementing effective export control
systems. This cooperation has resulted in the interdiction of
missile-related materials intended for use in missile programs
of concern.
The United States worked unilaterally and in coordination
with its MTCR Partners to combat missile proliferation and to
encourage non-members to export responsibly and to adhere to
the MTCR Guidelines. Since my last report, we have continued
our missile nonproliferation dialogue with the Republic of
Korea and Ukraine. In the course of normal diplomatic
relations, we also have pursued such discussions with other
countries in Central Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
In June 1996, the United States was an active participant
in discussions at the MTCR's Reinforced Point of Contact
Meeting on Regional Missile Proliferation Issues. This meeting
resulted in an in-depth discussion of regional missile
proliferation concerns and actions the Partners could take,
individually and collectively, to address the specific concerns
raised by missile proliferation in regions of tension.
In July 1996, the MTCR held a Seminar on Transshipment
Issues. The Seminar was held in Washington and hosted by the
United States on behalf of the Regime. It brought together
foreign policy makers and experts from twelve MTCR Partner
countries and seven non-MTCR countries for the first joint
discussion of ways to address the proliferation threat posed by
transshipment. The seminar was successful in focusing attention
on the transshipment problem and fostered a productive exchange
of ideas on how to impede proliferators' misuse of
transshipment. Seminar participants also identified several
areas for possible follow-up, which the United States pursued
at the 1996 Edinburgh MTCR Plenary.
The MTCR held its Eleventh Plenary Meeting at Edinburgh,
Scotland, October 7-11. At the Plenary, the MTCR Partners
reaffirmed their commitment to controlling exports to prevent
proliferation of delivery systems for weapons of mass
destruction. They also reiterated their readiness for
international cooperation in peaceful space activities that
could not contribute to WMD delivery systems.
The MTCR Partners also were supportive of U.S. initiatives
to follow up on the success of the June 1996 Reinforced Point
of Contact Meeting on the regional aspects of missile
proliferation and the July 1996 Seminar on transshipment
issues. The Partners undertook to be proactive in encouraging
key non-Partner transshippers to adhere to the MTCR Guidelines
and Annex, and in providing them with practical assistance in
implementing transshipment controls on missile technology. The
Partners also agreed on steps they could take to enhance the
MTCR's effectiveness in impeding missile proliferation in South
Asia and the Persian Gulf. Finally, the MTCR Partners agreed to
increase the transparency of Regime aims and activities, and to
continue their efforts to develop a dialogue with countries
outside the Regime to encourage voluntary adherence to the MTCR
Guidelines and heightened awareness of missile proliferation
risks.
We also continued vigorous pursuit of our nuclear
nonproliferation goals. In May 1995, Parties to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) agreed at the
NPT Review and Extension Conference to extend the NPT
indefinitely and without conditions. Since the conference, more
nations have acceded to the treaty. There now are more than 180
parties, making the NPT nearly universal.
In a truly historic landmark in our efforts to curb the
spread of nuclear weapons, the 50th UN General Assembly on
September 10, 1996, adopted and called for signature of the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiated over
the past two and a half years in the Conference on Disarmament
in Geneva. The overwhelming passage of this UN resolution (158-
3-5) demonstrates the CTBT's strong international support and
marks a major success for United States foreign policy. On
September 24, I and other national leaders signed the CTBT in
New York.
The United States played a leading role in promoting the
negotiation of this agreement by declaring a moratorium on
nuclear testing in 1992 and calling on all the other declared
nuclear weapons states to enact their own moratoria, and by
announcing in August of 1995 our support for a complete ban on
all tests no matter how small their nuclear yield--a so-called
``zero-yield'' CTBT. The United States also insisted on an
effective verification regime to ensure that the treaty
enhances rather than reduces the security of its adherents.
The CTBT will serve several United States national security
interests in banning all nuclear explosions. It will constrain
the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons;
end the development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons;
Other Popular 105th Congressional Documents Documents:
|
| GovRecords.org presents information on various agencies of the United States Government. Even though all information is believed to be credible and accurate, no guarantees are made on the complete accuracy of our government records archive. Care should be taken to verify the information presented by responsible parties. Please see our reference page for congressional, presidential, and judicial branch contact information. GovRecords.org values visitor privacy. Please see the privacy page for more information. |

![]() |