Posted by Reginald Beltran/Philippines on March 29, 1997 at 16:33:23:
The government of the Philippines agrees with the
United Kingdom in the need for action to help stop
countries from building nuclear weapons. However, the
proposed actions by the UK to prevent this unlawful act
is ineffective. Although preambulatory clauses are not
as binding as operatives, the preamble in defining
the status of nuclear materials must be strickened. First,
the General Assembly does not have the authority to
define anything, but they can "suggest" a definition of
certain acts. Second, the proposed definition by UK is too
broad. All nuclear materials are not used to build weapons.
The radioactive levels of some uranium samples used in
most nuclear reactors cannot be used for a missile.
Although they can be enriched, the process of enrichment
is not cost effective. Any definition of what illegal
nuclear substances must classify the difference between
materials for reactors and materials that can be used for
nulear missiles. Also, we the government of the
Philippines also would like an operative which supports
technology sharing of peaceful uses of nuclear substances,
such as efficient use of uranium in nuclear plants.
If countries such as the UK and the US want to facilitate
more trust from countries such as India, they should be
more willing to give more aid to developing countries
in terms of technology and funds to build structures
for the peaceful uses of nuclear materials. This operative
would help lessen the gap between the nations that have
superior nuclear technology and the nations with inferior nuclear
technology.