Nuclear Weapon Free Zones,
on the Footsteps of the Treaty of Tlatelolco
Ambassador Enrique Román-Morey
Secretary General of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL)
"Atomic energy has created a new world in which balance of power politics have become utterly meaningless. Mankind must give up war in the atomic era. What is at stake is the life of deat of humanity"
Dr. Albert Einstein
(August 1945)
Introduction
1. After the holocaust of Hiroshima, that means after August 6, 1945, the world’s leaders and nations faced a new
ethical code for the mankind. In 1945, in a cruel way and with horror attitude, the world knew the destructive
power of nuclear energy when used for such purposes. The reality of that time age and the clash between regional
blocks made this form of energy be initially used for war purposes.
2. Since then the world became aware of the fact that nuclear weapon is different of any other kind of weapon.
I state this because only one single nuclear warhead can make a great and indiscriminated harm anywhere it is used,
even years after the atomic explosion. Thanks God, due to this unique power of destruction this weapon has not
been used again since Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima, on August 9, 1945. When we reaffirm that then the world
faced a new ethical code, we have to emphasize that the harm made by nuclear energy used for war purposes has such
a character that it does not have legal limits, political borders or moral reasons.
3. The Second World War put an end to a bloody period of the history of the human race, but it started a new stage
of ideological clash between blocks that lasted more than forty years. The Cold War was the main political phenomenon
dominating international relations during all that time. It can be defined as a competition for power and international
influence in which the United States and the Soviet Union became the main opponent actors, each one allied with
other countries or groups of countries. Day by day these two blocks advanced forward on in the sublimation of distrust
for each other.
4. The Cold War badly affected the behavior and the strategy of each super-power in regard to nuclear weapon, turning
it into the central character of that period. The Cold War and the nuclear weapon were the elements that reinforced
each one of the super powers in an interconnected process of panic and conflict that proved to be much more powerful
than any of the efforts that the international community made in the matter of disarmament control and détente.
5. The Cold War and the nuclear weapon appeared together. In that sense the end of the Cold War now offers the
greatest opportunity to international community so that in an accelerated process of dialogue and negotiation it
could definitely put an end to what has been the most dangerous, expensive and politically destructive stage of
all the nuclear activities known since fission was discovered; that is the nuclear arm race between superpowers.
6. Nevertheless we have the obligation of doing a very concrete reference. We have to be completely conscious that
it would be a dangerous mistake to suppose that the end of the Cold War means the end of nuclear threat. On the
other hand, it would be even a graver mistake to allow that the nuclear fear which dominated us more than for forty
years, be replaced by nuclear complacency that we are tending towards. This statement is based on the fact that
nuclear danger tangibly persists in the enormous number of nuclear warheads that at least 8 nations possess (5
nuclear States and 3 “threshold” states), and at the same time it persists subliminally in the ambition of other
States to become nuclear powers.
The Treaty of Tlatelolco and its Role in the Origin
of New Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
7. There is no doubt that Latin America has been an unfailing source of innovatory proposals for enriching International
Law. Establishing a nuclear weapon free zone in Latin America by the Treaty of Tlatelolco is one of the most brilliant
contributions of our region have made to political ideals, peace and development for the international community
and to the International Law applied in the matter of disarmament. So it is an effective and appropriate step to
achieve one of the mankind’s biggest hopes such as general and complete disarmament.
8. In 1962 a risky situation arose in the American continent when for reasons of the ideological conflict and prestige
of the great powers the Governments of Washington and Moscow clashed when it was supposed that Cuba might have
the intention of setting nuclear devices in its territory, backed by the former Soviet Union.
9. The Treaty of Tlatelolco and consequently OPANAL appeared as a result of this grave international event known
as the Missile Crisis of 1962. This fact showed to the world the inevitable danger of nuclear catastrophe and demonstrated
that Latin America and the Caribbean which were not a direct party to the conflict between the two superpowers,
they would have been anyway involved in the disastrous war results this conflict could have had. Then, a group
of Latin American diplomats headed by the prominent Mexican Ambassador Alfonso García Robles, started drafting
the Treaty of Tlatelolco for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, as the first example for the
world that when there is firm political will nations and governments can put aside their own interests in benefit
of the whole international community’s interests.
10. From my point of view, the sovereign decision of Latin American countries to declare themselves as the first
Nuclear Weapon Free Zone being a densely inhabited region of the planet had the meaning of affirming its independent
foreign policy and the most explicit expression of opposition to any foreign intervention in our region. This is
an element that should be constantly praised by all the researchers of foreign relations.
11. This splendid and innovating idea of Latin America and the Caribbean had great deal or opposition at the beginning
and specially, first of all it encountered many skeptics. Thirty years ago Latin America and the Caribbean were
considered a group of Quixotes fighting against imaginary wind mills. At present we do not fight against imaginary
figures, on the contrary, we have succeeded in becoming the first shield for the world, protecting the mankind
from the most destructive weapon known.
12. In this sense we should lay stress on the fact that among other general principles the drafters of the Treaty
of Tlatelolco visionary established that “militarily denuclearized zones are not an end in themselves but rather
a means for achieving general and complete disarmament at a later stage”; they also stated that “the proliferation
of nuclear weapons, which seems inevitable unless States, in the exercise of their sovereign rights, impose restrictions
on themselves in order to prevent it, would make any agreement on disarmament enormously difficult and would increase
the danger of the outbreak of a nuclear conflagration”. These elements of principle fixed by the drafters of
the Treaty of Tlatelolco have become the main reason and the basis of what we shall fight for, that is, not only
the prohibition of nuclear weapons but also of any mass destruction weapon on the earth.
13. As it has been said, for attaining a real nuclear non-proliferation we should add to the Parties strong political
determination, the ethical or moral principle of nuclear weapons definitive refuse. The Treaty of Tlatelolco has
demonstrated that Latin America and the Caribbean have full devotion to these two elements. Our regional Treaty
is an example of political decision and ethical strength. Trust and transparency between its Parties, specially
between those countries that have higher technical and scientific development in the nuclear issues, is an evidence
of the most obvious example Latin America and the Caribbean offer to the system of confidence building measures.
The bilateral agreement between Argentina and Brazil, which creates the Brazilian-Argentine Accountancy and Control
Agency (ABACC) and the whole commitment of all the region’s countries in regard to the Treaty of Tlatelolco and
OPANAL is the result of the Parties´ political will for peacekeeping and development for their people, and
the consequence of the great respect for ethical principles nuclear disarmament represents.
14. The Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis has presented on February 14, 1997 to the Depositary State the Waiver
stipulated by Article 28 of the Treaty of Tlatelolco. This news that we celebrate shows that up to date all the
33 sovereign countries of Latin America and the Caribbean signed the Treaty of Tlatelolco. Among those 33 States,
32 are OPANAL Full Members. Only Cuba needs to ratify the Treaty. We firmly hope that Cuba’s Government reaffirming
its political will and Latin Americanist position, having signed the Treaty and the Amendments will definitively
formalize its belonging to the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean,
and will be a full member of the Treaty of Tlatelolco. We are sure that the same reasons of principle which for
thirty years kept it away from Tlatelolco, today will be the reasons that will make it join fully our regional
Treaty.
15. The Additional Protocols I and II are fully into force since 1992, and they legally bind China, the USA, France,
Great Britain and Russia in their capacity of nuclear powers, and The Netherlands, the USA, France and Great Britain
as de jure or de facto responsible of territories included into the assignment area, to accomplish and to survey
the accomplishment of the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
The Concept of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
16. I think that in justice it is said that the Treaty of Tlatelolco is an international precursory seed of the
process of wiping out nuclear weapons from the earth. On the other hand, it is also true that Latin American people
did not invent the wheel, but we were the first to make it roll. I say it because there were previous initiatives
in this matter. So it should be emphasized that the Treaty of Tlatelolco itself affirms in its preamble that:
“The establishment of militarily denuclearized zones is closely linked with the maintenance of peace and security in the respective regions”; and “That the military denuclearization of vast geographical zones, adopted by the sovereign decision of the States comprised therein, will exercise a beneficial influence on other regions where similar conditions exist”.
Its Basis
17. As to the idea of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZ) I think it is important to lay stress on some common basis
of this idea which reinforce the concept itself:
a) First of all, all the previous initiatives and all the existent NWFZs have their roots and heart in the Cold War reality. Nevertheless some of them failed because of the Cold War (I mean the previous initiatives of Central Europe and Northern countries); the others prevailed and developed despite the Cold War (the Treaties of Tlatelolco and Rarotonga); and the others have been possible to be attained mainly owing to the demise of the Cold War (the Bangkok Treaty for South Asia and the Pelindaba Treaty for Africa).
b) Having arisen in the sixties, this apparently slow rapprochement preponderated over much more general aims of mankind such as total disarmament. Thus the process of short, limited but real, steps was much more effective than more accelerated or immediate developments, as a consequence of the long and difficult negotiations between the nuclear States.
c) Nuclear Weapon Free Zones are totally recognized by international community as a “step-by-step“ approach to the process of arms control and disarmament.
Its Objectives
18. We can also find some common objectives in NWFZs. We clearly distinguish two of them:
a) An immediate objective which is consolidating the security of Member States by the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons within each Treaty application zone and the nuclear States commitment in regard to the region by means of Negative Security Assurances.
b) The final objective is that mentioned by the Treaty of Tlatelolco as to the aim of general and complete disarmament, which necessarily should aim the zero option of nuclear weapons by summing up all the regional treaties creating NWFZs.
Its Characteristics
19. So we can find common characteristics in all the NWFZs:
a) State Parties of the existent NWFZs are legally bind to submit all their nuclear material and installations to the IAEA´s full scope Safeguards. Though there are different specifications in each control system for each existent NWFZ, the effective surveillance of nuclear energy peaceful uses shall be carried out by the IAEA.
b) Very clear geographic demarcation of the respective application zones of NWFZs, what means in any case the summing up the territories for which the Treaty is valid.
c) Obligations, rights and responsibilities of all the concerned States, whether they are State Parties or Entailed States by means of the Additional Protocols of each Treaty.
d) NWFZs shall promote the State Parties´ social and economic development as well as their scientific and technological development by means of international cooperation in nuclear energy peaceful uses.
e) The Treaties establishing NWFZs shall be of indefinite duration.
Its Definition
20. Almost nine years after the Treaty of Tlatelolco was opened to signature in 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted
the 3472 B (XXX) Resolution defining Nuclear Weapon Free Zones. It was mainly a text proposed by the Mexican delegation
that gave the following definition: “A Nuclear Weapon Free Zone is any zone recognized as such by the General
Assembly, which is established by a group of States freely exercising their sovereign rights and by means of an
International Treaty or a Convention…” When we analyze this definition of the United Nations we find six basic
elements and one additional:
a) NWFZ creation initiative only corresponds to the States situated in the said zone.
b) The constituent deed of a NWFZ shall be a treaty.
c) NWFZs recognize the full and complete absence of nuclear weapons in its application zone.
d) NWFZs shall establish a survey and control system for their nuclear facilities.
e) NWFZs shall be recognized by the United Nations General Assembly.
f) The application zones of NWFZs shall be clearly determined.
As an additional element of this definition given by the United Nations we also find that it includes the commitment
of nuclear States in regard to the said NWFZs and their members.
21. Despite the fact that from the conceptual point of view the features of NWFZs should have some balance as to
the obligations between the State Parties and those directly Entailed to the treaties, especially the nuclear States;
the General Assembly’s definition is asymmetric, because the nuclear States obligations are parallel to this definition
and not a full part of it. This situation may wrongly imply that creating NWFZs does not necessarily need the nuclear
States´ participation. Besides, this definition does not mention the obligations of third States situated
out of the Zone, which are de jure or de facto internationally responsible of the territories found within the
limits established by the Treaty itself. These two objections posed to the definition the United Nations gave to
NWFZs are completely covered by the Treaty of Tlatelolco by means of the Additional Protocols I and II. The new
treaties declaring new NWFZs have followed the example Tlatelolco fixed in this matter.
Its Ethical Basis
22. We began these lines by mentioning that since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world’s leaders and nations have
faced a new ethical code in international relations. On this scene, which was the starting point for the arise
of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, it is necessary to make precise that nuclear weapon issues not only have political
character and represent confrontation for power, but they also are a question of moral and ethical nature.
23. Let’s make clear this point. We always speak and hear about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the only examples of
nuclear destruction in a war. I wonder, do we need other examples? From my point of view Hiroshima was enough and
Nagasaki was too much. And we also always speak and hear about reducing nuclear arsenals; to what extent? how many
warheads do we need? We must be conscious that even if we keep only few the danger of total destruction still exists.
24. On the other hand and in reference with nuclear energy peaceful uses; if we think that an accident like that
of Chernobyl, which happened more than ten years ago, occasioned such a disaster; can we imagine what would occur
if a nuclear device were detonated with the absolutely unethical argument of self-defense that dominated the Cold
War for so many years? These questions and many others are those that we have to pose permanently so as not to
fall into the trap of nuclear complacency that is dangerously being present.
25. Fortunately for mankind, the end of this millennium brings undoubted times of change. The traditional concept
of international security, that for decades was based on ideological factors and military forces, is being replaced
by a new concept of civil security. This new concept situated within the framework of what is called ethics and
international morality, is featured by the immediate attention to much more urgent questions for mankind, such
as human rights, fighting extreme poverty, defense of the environment, general and complete disarmament and, above
all, nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful uses of this wonderful kind of energy.
Its International Recognition
26. The importance of NWFZs for the international regime of nuclear non-proliferation has been emphasized by the
Review and Extension Conference for Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) in May, 1995. The final document of the said
Conference states in its respective section that “establishing nuclear weapon free zones on the basis of agreements
freely attained between the concerned States of the region, especially the conflict regions increase peacekeeping
and regional as well as global security, and it contributes to the final aim of creating a nuclear weapon free
world… these Zones are an important measure to be taken for disarmament, which represents a threat for the non-proliferation
regime in all its aspects”. So we can conclude that an international instrument of global character, such as
the NPT, is consistent with the principles of a regional treaty such as that of Tlatelolco.
Other Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
27. We have seen the dominant role the Treaty of Tlatelolco has had for creating new nuclear weapon free zones.
But as we have mentioned before, Latin America and the Caribbean are not the authors of the NWFZs idea. Nevertheless
we were the first to implement it and therefore the first to give the birth certificate to the international concept
of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones.
Previous Initiatives:
Central Europe
28. The first NWFZ proposal covering a densely populated area of the planet was set forth in 1958, when Poland’s
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Adam Rapacki proposed the denuclearization of Europe comprising the territories of
Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and West Germany. Rapacki´s Plan is a typical example demonstrating
how difficult it was to establish a nuclear weapon free zone. When this proposal was made, Poland belonged to the
Warsaw Pact, so the proposal could not be achieved mainly because of the security problems existing between the
Member States of the Warsaw Pact and those proposed by the Member States of the NATO. During the following ten
years, that is during the sixties, together with the Treaty of Tlatelolco there were other proposals in Central
Europe. Romania proposed the denuclearization of the Balkans, and the Soviet Union appealed for creating a nuclear
weapon zones in the Mediterranean, both of them had no success.
Northern Countries
29. The second concrete attempt of creating a NWFZ was Finland’s proposal. In 1963 Finland’s President Kekkonen
suggested to create a nuclear weapon free zone in the Northern countries. This proposal comprised Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Despite the fact that the Northern countries have common values and ties and that historically
they have chosen joint attitudes at may forums, in the nuclear security case the situation was different. Finland
and Sweden announced that by no means they will admit nuclear weapons in their territories. As to Denmark, Iceland
and Norway, as NATO’s founder States, they had a different idea. In 1978 the development of new weapons such as
neutron bomb and long-range missiles, prompted the Northern countries to created a nuclear weapon free zone. Finland
set forward a modification for its 1963 proposal which included nuclear States´ negative security assurances,
following the example given by Tlatelolco, but one more time this effort could not attain its goal because of the
Cold War political reasons.
Other Regional Initiatives
30. On the other hand as to other continents, Iran proposed for the first time its NWFZ in the Middle East, and
China cosponsored a proposal to create a NWFZ in Asia and the Pacific region. In this decade the idea of a NWFZ
in Africa appeared too.
NWFZs Existing after Tlatelolco:
The Rarotonga Treaty
31. As NWFZs that preponderated despite the Cold War together with the Treaty of Tlatelolco, we have mentioned
the Rarotonga Treaty creating a similar zone in the South Pacific. In 1983, 16 years after the Treaty of Tlatelolco
was opened for signature, Australia proposed to establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the South Pacific. As a
result of the negotiations between the concerned States, Australia, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New
Zealand, Nieu, Papua New Guinea, the Salomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Western Samoa, all of them members
of the South Pacific Forum, signed a treaty on August 6, 1985, in the city of Rarotonga, capital of the Cook Islands,
establishing the proposed zone. Afterwards the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federal State of Micronesia
became eligible States for signing this Treaty. This Treaty annexed 2 additional protocols to its text, which have
been intended, as in the case of Tlatelolco, to be signed by the nuclear States and by the States possessing de
jure or de facto territories under their responsibility in the Treaty application zone. The third additional protocol
commits the nuclear States not to carry out nuclear tests within the application zone. This regulation was innovatory
in regard to the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
The Bangkok Treaty
32. A decade after the Rarotonga Treaty and as a consequence of the Cold War end, the treaty creating a nuclear
weapon free zone in South-East Asia, known as the Bangkok Treaty was signed in the said city on December 15, 1995.
Like its precedents, it has its roots in the Cold War and reflects the ASEAN States perception of facing political,
economic and security challenges all together. This Treaty was originated by the Declaration of Kuala Lumpur signed
in 1971, which defined the determination of the ASEAN States to assure recognition and respect for a Zone of Peace,
Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in South-East Asia. Afterwards, in December 1995, the 7 States of the ASEAN which
are Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, as well as Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar
signed the Treaty creating NWFZs in South-East Asia. This Treaty also has been supplemented with an additional
protocol intended for being signed by the great nuclear powers. However it is the only additional protocol of the
Bangkok Treaty because in this geographic region there is no state having territories under its jurisdiction in
the application area.
The Pelindaba Treaty
33. Finally we will mention the nuclear weapon free zone created in Africa by means of the Pelindaba Treaty. As
its background we find that on November 24, 1961, as a consequence of the first French nuclear test in the dessert
of Western Sahara, in the territory of today’s Algeria, the General Assembly appealed the United Nations Member
States to stop these tests carried out in the densely populated territories of North Africa. Three years after,
the African Heads of State and Government gathered at the Summit Conference of the African Unity (OAU) solemnly
declared by means of an international treaty that they were ready to achieve a treaty prohibiting the production
and the absolute control over nuclear weapons in their region. Of course this proposal had not made any progress
till the Cold War was over. Indeed it was since 1991 that South Africa, the African continent’s only country that
had developed technological capacity for making nuclear weapons, became an integrant of the NPT, when real prospects
for establishing a nuclear weapon free zone in Africa opened. The African Treaty bears the name of Pelindaba in
honor of the South African nuclear plant that developed an important number of nuclear warheads and were dismantled.
The fact that South Africa took such a decision of political character allowed the Pelindaba Treaty to have an
end that had been expected for so many decades. The Treaty was opened for signature on April 12, 1996, in the city
of Cairo. With the Pelindaba Treaty there are 54 independent states of international community that may be members
of this nuclear weapon free zone. Like its precedents the Pelindaba Treaty has its text supplemented by three additional
protocols. The first one is intended for the five nuclear powers; the second one prohibits nuclear tests in the
application zone and the third one involves the states which de jure or de facto have territories under their jurisdiction
in the Treaty application area.
34. Let me make here an important reference for OPANAL. Due to the support given to the drafters of the African
Treaty this General Secretariat received invitation of the President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Hosny Mubarak,
to participate as Witness of Honor at the ceremony of opening for signature of the Pelindaba Treaty. It is the
most explicit demonstration of the international recognition of Tlatelolco´s example for creating new nuclear
weapon-free zones.
35. Today 110 states of the world which take part in the four existent nuclear zones have sovereignty declared,
both unilaterally and by multilateral, by means of their regional commitments, their political will and from the
ethical point of view, their desire of refusing nuclear weapon explicitly; 110 countries representing more than
a half of the whole international community.
New Nuclear Weapon Free Zones Proposals
36. Fortunately for international community, the example of Tlatelolco was not over when said Nuclear Weapon Free
Zone appeared. At present other four proposals of great interest for international peace are being analyzed and
negotiated by the concerned regions. I mean the proposals of creating nuclear weapon-free zones in Central Europe,
South Asia and the Peninsula of Korea, in Central Asia and, perhaps the most important for global peace, in the
Middle East. All these proposals will stimulate further work of OPANAL Secretariat General.
General Remarks on the Existent Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
37. By means of a brief analysis of the international treaties creating the four existent nuclear weapon free zones
we can distinguish some important points of contact or of difference that should be taken into consideration by
the existent deeds for creating new nuclear weapon free zones in other regions. Some of these observations are
as follows:
a) Treaties creating nuclear weapon free zones shall be valid and therefore recognized by international community not only in peace times but also in the possibility of a war. None of the existent treaties specifies this validity.
b) Nuclear explosions shall be explicitly prohibited. The Treaty of Tlatelolco allows them though under strict conditions, and the Pelindaba Treaty prohibits them. Future treaties shall specify this prohibition without any prejudice to the validity of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
c) The nuclear weapon free zones shall explicitly prohibit attacking a nuclear installation of the State Party, as the Pelindaba Treaty does.
d) Only the Treaties of Tlatelolco and Bangkok provide the denuclearization of sea areas adjacent to the territorial seas of the zone’s coast states. This norm should be general, for if nuclear weapon is illegal in a zone, that means it is illegal everywhere.
e) All the treaties tolerate the transit of nuclear weapon-bearing ships in their respective territories. The regional treaties shall define clearly the transit of these ships in their correspondent area, and in full compliance of the Law of the Sea Convention; otherwise it contradicts the basic principle of nuclear weapon free zones.
f) New international instruments should specify punitive mechanisms for possible cases of violating the treaties on nuclear weapon free zones, such as the Bangkok Treaty mentions.
g) The issue of the preservation of the environment and the special protection for nuclear accident cases shall be explicitly considered by nuclear weapons free zone treaties.
Final Remarks
38. We have analyzed the four populated zones treaties that prohibit nuclear weapons. If we add to it the treaty
prohibiting nuclear and other equipment in the Antarctic we can state, and I think in true justice that the Southern
Hemisphere has attained the greatness of being the first nuclear weapon free hemisphere. Recently the United Nations
General Assembly by broad majority approved a project of resolution proposed by Brazil in this matter.
39. Latin America and the Caribbean are naturally proud of the fact that our vivid example since 1967 has been
followed by other regions and we will keep promoting this example for including new zones of the planet, step by
step, into the sovereign, political and ethical decision of not possessing ever nuclear weapons. We are sure that
the international instruments supporting the global regime of nuclear non-proliferation are the Treaty of Nuclear
Non-Proliferation (NPT) extended in 1995; the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) approved by the United Nations
General Assembly and opened for signature the last months, and of course the NWFZ treaties for the prohibition
of nuclear weapon in densely populated zones.
40. It is necessary to add to these regulations the project of the Treaty of Prohibition of the Production of Fissile
Materials (Cut-off Treaty). Besides, if added the Treaties for the Prohibition of Chemical and Bacteriological
Weapons, we can say that the world is moving, step by step, slowly towards a world without threats of a war of
mass destruction that might simply put an end to the human race.
41. I mentioned that we are moving slowly. The bilateral treaties signed between the recognized nuclear powers,
intended for dismantling the existent nuclear arsenals which are such a big threat for the mankind, perhaps are
being accomplished more slowly than it should. So we have to remember the philosophical maxim saying that when
we are alone it seems that we can run faster but when we are together we certainly go ahead farther. Thus we are
going ahead, and I am sure that we will achieve what was the spirit of the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco, I mean, we
will enjoy a peaceful, nuclear weapon-free world.
42. Being closely bound to the nuclear weapon free zones, we can not avoid mentioning the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT) expected for such a long time. Latin American and the Caribbean have been consistent with the attitude
they are standing for by means of the Treaty of Tlatelolco. Twenty five countries of our region cosponsor the Resolution
and absolutely all the Full Member States of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, i.e. 32 Latin American and the Caribbean
countries, voted “yes”. This demonstrates that our region is consistent in its thinking and its acting in the nuclear
disarmament matter.
43. In this sense OPANAL being the Dean agency among those related to the prohibition of nuclear weapons, hopes
very firmly that in a relatively short term and despite all kind of foreboding the CTBT will come to force. We
believe that the same ethical and moral element defended by the only countries which have not accompanied its approval,
will be the element that will finally make them sign it and take part in this treaty for the benefit of the whole
international community. Only in this way, from the ethical point of view, the majority of the international community
will be able not to ask but to demand that the nuclear disarmament should continue much faster than it has done
up to now.
Conclusions
44. Having analyzed the long process of negotiations for implementing the Treaty of Tlatelolco and its history
in the last three decades, especially its influence over other regions of the earth for stimulating the creation
of new nuclear weapon-free zones, we can make the following conclusions:
|
Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean |
|
Sierra Tarahumara 715-A, Col. Lomas de Chapultepec, Mexico City, 11000 |
|
Tel: (52-5) 251-9607; 09 & (52-5) 251-9611 |
|
Fax: (52-5) 251-0049 |