1

THE MARITIME DIMENSION OF NWFZs: RELEVANCE TO A NE ASIA NWFZ

3

4

• The Seabed Arms Control Treaty (or Seabed Treaty) is a multilateral agreement between the United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and 84 other countries banning the emplacement of nuclear weapons or "weapons of mass destruction" on the ocean floor beyond a 12-mile (22.2 km) coastal zone.

• It allows signatories to observe all seabed "activities" of any other signatory beyond the 12-mile zone in order to ensure compliance.

• The full name of the treaty is the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof.

• In force 18 May 1972

5

KEY PROVISIONS• Convinced that this Treaty constitutes a step towards the exclusion of the

seabed, the ocean floor and the subsoil thereof from the arms race,• Convinced that this Treaty will further the purposes and principles of the

Charter of the United Nations, in a manner consistent with the principles of international law and without infringing the freedoms of the high seas,

• Have agreed as follows:• Article I• 1. The States Parties to this Treaty undertake not to emplant or emplace on

the seabed and the ocean floor and in the subsoil thereof beyond the outer limit of a seabed zone, as defined in article II, any nuclear weapons or any other types of weapons of mass destruction as well as structures, launching installations or any other facilities specifically designed for storing, testing or using such weapons.

• 2. The undertakings of paragraph 1 of this article shall also apply to the seabed zone referred to in the same paragraph, except that within such seabed zone, they shall not apply either to the coastal State or to the seabed beneath its territorial waters.

6

EMBED OR EMPLACEWHAT ABOUT CREEPY

CRAWLIES?

7

• SOUTH KOREA IS SERIOUS ABOUT ITS LATEST PROJECT: DEVELOPING AQUATIC ROBOTS BY 2016 WHICH CAN SWIM AND CRAWL THEIR WAY ACROSS THE SEAFLOOR SEVERAL MILES DOWN—FOR SEARCH AND RESCUE—OTHER APPLICATIONS?

• THE GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT IT WOULD SPEND ABOUT $18 MILLION (20 BILLION WON) OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS TO CREATE ITS CREEPY-CRAWLY ROBOT

• SUCH SIX-LEGGED DEVICES WOULD WALK AT SPEEDS OF 98 FEET PER SECOND AND SWIM AT UP TO 59 FEET PER SECOND. THE DESIGN SPECS CALL FOR IT TO PATROL THE SEABED AT DEPTHS OF ABOUT 3.7 MILES.

• A SHALLOW-SEA VERSION WOULD COME ONLINE BY 2012, WITH A DEEP-SEA PROTOTYPE SLATED FOR 2015. THE ROBOTS WOULD ALSO CARRY SONAR EQUIPMENT,

8

LOTS OF GAPS AND LOOPHOLES

• SEABED--CREEPY CRAWLIES• WATER COLUMN—SUBMARINES ; ALSO AUV—

THAT IS AUTONOMOUS ROVING OR SLEEPING NUCLEAR TORPEDOES OR MISSLES

• AIR ABOVE• TERRITORIAL SEA SEABED

9

10

Zone of Application of the Treaty of Tlatelolco

11

DIALECTICPROTOCOL II

Article 2: The Governments represented by the undersigned Plenipotentiaries undertake, therefore, not to contribute in any way to the performance of acts involving a violation of the obligations of Article 1 of the Treaty in the territories to which the Treaty applies in accordance with Article 4 thereof.

IN FORCE 23 OCTOBER 2002

ALL FIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS POWERS HAVE RATIFIED BUT ON DOING SO ISSUED STATEMENTS THAT THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW THEIR FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION TO BE RESTRICTED—THUS NW BEARING SUBMARINES VIOLATE THE ZONE AND IT IS NIGH IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT OR ENFORCE THE ZONE AGAINST THEM –THUS IT IS INEFFECTIVE

12

TREATY OF RAROTONGAIN FORCE 11 DECEMBER 1986

• ARTICLE 5 BANS STATIONING OF NWS BUT APPLIES ONLY TO THE TERRITORIES OF THE SIGNATORIES (LAND AND TERRITORIAL SEA AND AIRSPACE ABOVE) NOT TO THE LARGER ZONE

• EACH PARTY CAN ALLOW TRANSIT AND PORT VISITS– NO CLEAR INTENT TO PROHIBIT PASSAGE OF NUCLEAR ARMED VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT

• PROTOCOLS RATIFIED BY ALL NPS EXCEPT US

13

BANGKOK TREATYMOST COMPREHENSIVE VIS A VIS MARITIME DOMAIN

ONLY NWFZ TREATY EXTENDING SPECIFICALLY TO EEZS AND CONTINENTAL SHELVES

REDUNDANT ON PURPOSE

• Entered into Force: 28 March 1997. • Number of Parties: Ten full members ─ Brunei Da-russalam, Cambodia,

Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

• None of the nuclear weapon states (NWS) has yet signed the protocols, largely due to U.S. and French objections regarding the unequivocal nature of security assurances and over the definitions of territory, including exclusive economic zones (EEZ).

14

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS• Article 2 APPLICATION OF THE TREATY 1. This Treaty and its Protocol shall apply to the territories

(including archipelagic waters), continental shelves, and EEZ of the States Parties within the Zone in which the Treaty is in force.

• 2. Nothing in this Treaty shall prejudice the rights or the exercise of these rights by any State under the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, in particular with regard to freedom of the high seas, rights of innocent passage, archipelagic sea lanes passage or transit passage of ships and aircraft, and consistent with the Charter of the United Nations.

• Article 3 BASIC UNDERTAKINGS 1. Each State Party undertakes not to, anywhere inside or outside the Zone:

• (a) develop, manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over nuclear weapons; (b) station or transport nuclear weapons by any means; or

• (c) test or use nuclear weapons. • 2. Each State Party also undertakes not to allow, in its territory, any other State to: (a) develop,

manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over nuclear weapons; (b) station nuclear weapons; or

• (c) test or use nuclear weapons.

15

• Article 7 FOREIGN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT Each State Party, on being notified, may decide for itself whether to allow visits by foreign ships and aircraft to its ports and airfields, transit of its airspace by foreign aircraft, and navigation by foreign ships through its territorial sea or archipelagic waters and overflight of foreign aircraft above those waters in a manner not governed by the rights of innocent passage, archipelagic sea lanes passage or transit passage.

• WHAT IF NOT NOTIFIED ? EG BOOMERS PASSING THRU INDONESIAN STRAITS AND ARCHIPELAGIC SEALANES

Article 7 

16

MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION

• Article 8 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE SOUTHEAST ASIA NUCLEAR WEAPON-FREE ZONE

• 1. There is hereby established a Commission for the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission".

• 3. The function of the Commission shall be to oversee the implementation of this Treaty and ensure compliance with its provisions.

17

ENTIRE SOUTH CHINA SEA IS A NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONE

18

INDONESIA’S EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF CLAIM IN THE INDIAN OCEAN

19

IMPLIES THAT NW CAN NOT BE LAUNCHED FROM THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

• BUT IT DOES NOT PREJUDICE FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION, OR INNOCENT , TRANSIT OR

ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANE PASSAGE, OR PORT VISITS—• AND WHEN ONE COMBINES THAT WITH SOVEREIGN

IMMUNITY THERE ARE PRETTY TIGHT PROTECTIONS FOR THE NUCLEAR POWERS

20

NEGATIVE SECURITY ASSURANCE

• The treaty includes a protocol for the five nuclear-weapon states recognized under the NPT-China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States-to sign and ratify. These protocols, which are legally binding, call upon the nuclear-weapon states to respect the status of the zones and not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against treaty states-parties. Such declarations of non-use of nuclear weapons are referred to as negative security assurance.

21

CHINA AND THE TREATY OF BANGKOK

• Initially, China stated its support for the Treaty of Bangkok, but did not sign the protocol on security assurances to the Treaty's signatories. For years, China stated its objection to the fact that the geographical scope of the zone includes portions of the South China Sea, which China claims as its territorial waters. On 7 December 1995, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Chen Jian stated that "China has enjoyed long-term friendship and cooperation with Southeast Asian countries so in principle we support the establishment of an East Asian nuclear-free area." Chen further stated, however, that "As for whether the geographical area of this nuclear-free area includes the continental shelf or exclusive economic zones, China and other countries have their own positions”

• However, in July 1999 at the annual ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) meeting in Singapore, China's Foreign Minister announced that China would sign the protocol to the Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty (SEANFZ). China is the only declared nuclear weapons state to indicate its intention to sign the protocols to this treaty. To my knowledge it has not yet done so.

22

• THE PROTOCOLS PLEDGE SIGNATORIES TO PROTECT THE STATUS OF THE ZONE AND TO REFRAIN FROM USING OR THREATENING TO USE NW AGAINST THE

STATES IN THE ZONE

• THE US OPPOSES THE TREATY BECAUSE OF TRANSIT CONCERNS AND BECAUSE IT DOESN’T WANT A

THIRD PARTY ENEMY SEEKING REFUGE IN THE ZONE• SUBMARINES AND US TRIAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

—THAT WAS THEN –IS IT USING THE SAME SHELL GAME VIS A VIS CHINA –PERHAPS –AND PERHAPS

THAT IS WHAT THE IMPECCABLE WAS ABOUT

23

NORTHEAST ASIA

24

POSSIBLE TREATY PROVISIONS

. INCLUDE BOTH EEZS AND SHELVES

• START WITH PORT VISIT BANS• ALSO BAN USE OF ZONE FOR FIRING AGAINST THIRD

PARTIES• THEN BAN NWS FROM INNOCENT PASSAGE (IN

TERRITORIAL SEAS) AS A THREAT OF USE OF FORCE (INTIMIDATION) BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING DEPLOYED IE MADE READY FOR USE

• MALAYSIA HAS BANNED IN THEORY NWS FROM MALACCA STRAIT

25

• THE MOST DIFFICULT IS TRANSIT—BUT WITH IT NWFZS ARE INEFFECTIVE

• CAN TRY TO BAN TRANSIT AS A NON-PEACEFUL USE OF THE OCEANS—

• BUT THIS IS UNLIKELY;US NEITHER CONFIRMS NOR DENIES;SUBMARINES COULD NOT BE DETECTED; COULDN’T ENFORCE IT UNLESS ASSISTED BY HIGH TECH POWER

26

According to UNGA Guidelines:• The arrangements should be in conformity with the principles andrules of international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of theSea.• States parties to a nuclear-weapon-free zone exercising their sovereignrights and without prejudice to the purposes and objectives of such a zoneremain free to decide for themselves whether to allow visits by foreign shipsand aircrafts to their ports and airfields; allow transit of their airspace byforeign aircraft, and navigation by foreign ships in or over their territorialsea, archipelagic waters or straits that are used for international navigation,while fully honouring the rights of innocent passage, archipelagic sea lanepassage or transit passage in straits that are used for international navigation.

THIS IS INTERNALLY CONTRADICTORY

SO IT SEEMS ONE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE GA –OR TO START STATE BY STATE OR SMALL GROUPS OF STATES TO ERODE THE TRANSIT PROVISIONS

BUT THIS WILL BE FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL BY THE NWS POWERS

27

LONG WAY TO GO