TNAG-1657-FCO40-2305-Daya-Bay-nuclear-power-station-project-safety-concerns-in-Ho-1987 — Page 147

CONFIDENTIAL

them a further signal of our basic conformity with their

(Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resound.com) objectives by signing the South Pacifie/Environmental

14 to South Pacific Region (SPREP, covering...

den

Protection Covention on nuclear dumping in the South

fic)

Pacific which has already been signed by France and the

US.

•]

i

9.

At the same time, the conditions for a review of our

position reflect our real interests and will in practice

be difficult to fulfill for a number of years:

(a) the legal questions raised by the Treaty itself, and

by the Soviet statement on signature which apparently

denies the specific right of regional States in the

Treaty to decide policy on ships' visits etc will not

easily be resolved to our satisfaction;

(b) Our stated policy on NFWZS requires that all States

in the region should be in favour. Two regional States

have said they will not sign the Treaty because it does

not go far enough, another that it goes too far;

-

(c) The outcome of UNSSD III to be held in 1988 or

1989 will enable us to consider the strength of support

NWFZS in areas where we would not welcome them, and

whether an eventual UK signature will increase pressures

1

in that direction.

considerable time.

Such a review will clearly take

10. Option (e) therefore seems to reflect the spectrum of UK interests most closely in practice the Australians

as least of the South Pacific States should appreciate

(in private) our underlying security concerns. [A

simultaneous statement that we

can sign the Nuclear Waste

It does vir imply a rand int iliput Tem

pem

ما دارم

prodiing longstandin

policy, sirice it

does not exchick

ت شما

along

signature in future

CONFIDENTIAL