Preventing the proliferation of dangerous weapons is key to preserving the security of America in the post-Cold War world. The Clinton Administration has made controlling the spread of such weapons one of its highest priorities.
Let me describe our major accomplishments, and then turn to the challenges ahead.
In extending unconditionally the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the parties set three very important goals: concluding in 1996 a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), undertaking negotiations to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons purposes, and strengthening the IAEA safeguards system so as to increase the ability to detect undeclared nuclear facilities. The Clinton Administration is giving these activities its highest priority.
The CTBT will be a truly comprehensive test ban which will constrain development of nuclear weapons among nuclear aspirants and threshold states, as well as the development of new types of nuclear weapons by nuclear weapon states. Under a CTBT, the United States will retain confidence in the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. Our goal is to open a CTBT for signature this fall.
The Clinton Administration also attaches a high priority to strengthening the international norm against chemical and biological weapons. To that end, the President has called upon the Senate to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention as soon as possible. This international treaty outlawing poison gas will make an important contribution to our efforts to stem the spread and use of chemical weapons, including by terrorist organizations. The U.S. is also working closely with other countries to negotiate a new, legally binding protocol to enhance compliance with and deter violations of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
We remain deeply concerned by Iran's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. We have carefully monitored and sought to impede Iran's attempts to procure a range of nuclear technologies that are unnecessary for, and in our view inconsistent with, a purely peaceful nuclear program.
Our policy remains to oppose all nuclear cooperation with Iran and prevent transfers of any nuclear material, equipment, or technology to Iran. We have agreement on that policy among the other G-7 countries. Our focus is now on Russia and China, which continue to engage in certain kinds of nuclear cooperation with Iran.
We have been encouraged by Russian statements opposing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, but we will continue to press Russia to cut off all assistance to Iran's nuclear program on the grounds that any nuclear cooperation, even that which may be technically permissible under the NPT and subject to IAEA safeguards, will assist Iran's nuclear development effort, including the provision of light water reactors.
The President recently determined that continuing assistance to support democratic and economic reform in Russia is important to the U.S. national security interest, and thus invoked the waiver provision of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act regarding nuclear cooperation with Iran. The President's decision to take this step reflects the view that cutting off assistance to Russia at this juncture would not positively affect the dialogue on limiting Russian nuclear cooperation with Iran and would undercut the reform process in Russia.
Ours is a long-term strategy. Iran's current financial difficulties will affect its ability to pay for nuclear facilities it hopes to acquire and, with time, we expect there to be more direct evidence of Iran's nuclear intentions. Both of these factors will work in our favor. In the meantime, however, we will continue to press for the termination of all Russian and Chinese nuclear cooperation with Iran.
China has played an active role in Iran's civil nuclear program since the mid-1980s and maintains that its assistance is strictly for peaceful purposes. Chinese sales of nuclear facilities to Iran -- small research reactors and other related facilities - have been subject to IAEA safeguards. Last fall, China suspended its plans to sell Iran two small power reactors due to difficulties in site selection and financing. Its cooperation with Iran appears consistent with its NPT obligations, and we have no reason to believe that China would knowingly assist Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, we have opposed, and will continue to oppose the Chinese government's cooperation with Iran's civil nuclear program, emphasizing to Beijing that such cooperation will help to build a nuclear reactor that could assist Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
We continue to have serious concerns regarding Chinese missile cooperation with Pakistan and Iran, which could contribute to Pakistan and Iran's acquiring delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction; transfers by Chinese entities of dual-use chemicals and equipment that could be used in Iran's chemical weapons program; and China's transfers of conventional weapons to Iran. We have raised our objections to such activities at the highest levels of the Chinese government.
We keep under continuing review the evidence to see whether any of these activities trigger U.S. sanctions. For example, we are now addressing whether the transfer of Chinese built C-802 cruise missiles is sanctionable under the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992. The Act provides for the imposition of sanctions when a foreign person or country transfers goods or technology "so as to contribute knowingly and materially to the efforts by Iran or Iraq... to acquire destabilizing numbers and types of [certain] advanced conventional weapons." Similarly, we continue to monitor and evaluate reports that China may have offered missiles, missile equipment or related technology to Pakistan or Iran, activities that could trigger sanctions under U.S. law.
As this Administration has demonstrated in the past, we will impose sanctions as required by our law in order to achieve our overall non-proliferation goals.
The challenge of enforcing Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions will continue to require Security Council unity and resolve. For our part, this will require alert, energetic diplomacy; solid day-to-day support of U.N. inspection operations; and both political and military readiness to respond to any renewal of Iraqi threats against either U.N. inspectors or Iraq's neighbors.
In March -- when Iraq last blocked access to the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors -- Iraq forced the Security Council to act to remind Baghdad of its obligations. The U.S. Government hoped that the message it sent registered. At that time, we explained that Iraq would only respond if the Council acted quickly and forcefully. Having failed to respond adequately then, we now see Iraq blocking U.N. inspection teams again.
Let me be clear. The Iraqi regime must not be allowed to interfere with the work of UNSCOM. As Secretary Christopher noted earlier this week, UNSCOM must receive immediate and unrestricted access to Iraqi facilities.
That is why it is so important that our message be swift and strong - and the U.S. Government is working with other members of the Security Council to assure that the Council acts firmly.
Assuring security for Americans, and enhancing international security, is a critical priority of this Administration. Non-proliferation and arms control remain key to accomplishing that goal. To succeed, we need to be sensitive to the underlying causes that drive countries to acquire dangerous arms. We must frame a multilateral approach and be able to use our sanctions legislation to complement our diplomacy. We will not succeed unless we can enlist the cooperation of our key friends and allies. The roles of both China and Russia in our cooperative efforts will be critical to our success.
U.S. leadership has been essential in our successes to date, and we remain committed to continue that leadership as we face these remaining challenges.