Belarus: Positions on Nuclear Weapons Related Issues

This material is produced by the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies

What's New in the Database
Belarus Disarmament Treaties/Agreements
	Disarmament Treaties/Agreements Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) ABM Treaty START I Lisbon Protocol to START-I NPT Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Nuclear Supplier's Group (NSG) Outer Space Treaty Partial Test Ban Treaty Seabed Treaty German-Belarusian Joint Declaration
	Intra-NIS Agreements
	Positions on Nuclear Weapons Related Issues Central European Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty Security Assurances for NNWS

Belarus: Positions on Nuclear Weapons Related Issues

This is an archived page. Please visit the new Belarus country profile

Belarus: Positions on Nuclear Weapons-Related Issues

10/31/2002: RUSSIAN STRATEGIC BOMBERS TO LAND ON BELARUSIAN AIRFIELDS
Rossiyskaya gazeta reported on 31 October 2002 that joint Russia-Belarusian air defense command and staff exercises that began on 29 October 2002 will also feature landings by Russian aircraft on Belarusian airfields. According to the report, Russian Tu-22 and Tu-95 heavy bombers will touch down at the Baranovichi and Machulishchi airfields.
["Obshcheye nebo - edinaya zashchita," Rossiyskaya gazeta, 31 October 2002; in Integrum-Techno, http://www.integrum.ru/.] {Entered 11/27/2002 MJ}

10/18/2002: BORODIN ON ICBM RETURN
Pavel Borodin, state secretary for the union between Russia and Belarus, told ITAR-TASS on 18 October 2002 that the return of Topol [NATO designation SS-25 'Sickle'] mobile ICBMs to Belarus was a political question. Borodin added that Russians and Belarusians, being Slavic peoples with a common past, could be relied upon to reach an agreement.
[ITAR-TASS, 18 October 2002; in "Possible return of Topol missiles to Belarus remains political issue," FBIS Document CEP20021018000137.] {Entered 11/27/2002 MJ}

6/22/2001: NO DISCUSSIONS ON RETURNING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO BELARUS
In a 22 June 2001 interview with Interfax, Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka said that so far he has had no discussions with Russian President Putin on the possible return of nuclear weapons to Belarus in response to a possible US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Lukashenka also said that Russian and Belarusian positions on the ABM Treaty are in full agreement, and that any practical US steps in the direction of abandoning the ABM Treaty could lead to changes in Russian and Belarusian policies. Lukashenka also stated that in view of the present state of military technology, deployment of Russian nuclear missiles in Belarus would not offer any advantages.
["Lukashenko zayavlyayet, chto vozmozhnost vozvrashcheniya yadernykh raket v Belorussiyu poka ne izuchalas," Interfax, 22 June 2001.] {Entered 6/29/2001 MJ}

1/1/2001: NUCLEAR WEAPONS WILL NOT RETURN TO BELARUS, SAYS LUKASHENKA
During his New Year's Day speech, Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka said Belarus will continue to fulfill its international commitments and is not considering the return of nuclear weapons to Belarus. According to Lukashenka, there is no linkage between this issue and NATO enlargement plans or proposals. He also pointed out that Belarus's non-nuclear status is written into its constitution. At the same time, Lukashenka spoke in favor of closer cooperation with Russia in the area of security policy, and expressed regret that Belarusian proposals to create a nuclear weapon-free zone in Central and Eastern Europe were not supported by other European countries.
["Belarusian leader rules out return of nuclear weapons to the country's territory," Interfax, 2 January 2001; in "Belarus: President rules out return of nuclear weapons to country," FBIS Document CEP200101000024.] {Entered 6/21/2001 MJ}

3/7/2000: ANONYMOUS SOURCE: BELARUS CONSIDERING RETURN OF RUSSIAN MISSILES
On 7 March 2000, Novyye izvestiya quoted an unidentified source close to Belarusian top-level government officials, who stated that Russia and Belarus have reached an agreement in principle on returning nuclear weapons to Belarus. Such an agreement would probably entail deploying mobile missile systems and strategic bombers in Belarus. The re-deployment, according to experts, is possible, but would be difficult.[1] Belarus has four possible locations for airbases: Mashchulishi, Bykhovo, Bobruysk, and Baranovichi. Mashchulishi and Bykhovo are currently being refurbished; Bykhovo was recently visited by representatives from the Russian and Belarusian Defense Ministries. Some military officials, however, feel that deploying the missiles in their former positions would be a tactical mistake. According to the anonymous source, returning Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus would further Belarusian President Lukashenka's political ambitions within the Russia-Belarus union by establishing ties with Russian high-ranking military officials.[1] Top-ranking Russian military officials have repeatedly stated that Russia must deploy its nuclear weapons in a way that preserves the nuclear balance with the United States in view of its plans for a new ABM system. The same position is advocated by Chairman of the Duma Defense Committee General Andrey Nikolayev. However, neither said that this would involve deploying weapons in Belarus.[2] On 9 March 2000, Belarusian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ural Latypov unequivocally denied that Russian nuclear weapons will be deployed on the territory of Belarus. He reiterated that Belarus returned all of its nuclear weapons to Russia and stressed the nuclear-weapons-free status of Belarus as is stipulated in its constitution.[3]
Sources:
[1] Aleksandr Starikevich, "Nuclear Dash. Minsk Gets Ready for Return of Russian Missiles," Novyye izvestiya, No. 41, 7 March 2000.
[2] Gisbert Mrozek, "Strategische Atomwaffen fuer Weissrussland?" Berliner Zeitung online edition, http://www.BerlinOnline.de, 9 March 2000.
[3] Frank Kherold, "Weissrussland bleibt atomwaffenfrei," Berliner Zeitung online edition, http://www.BerlinOnline.de, 10 March 2000. {Entered by IPZ on 7/27/00}

2/10/2000: LUKASHENKA: BELARUS NOW UNDER RUSSIAN NUCLEAR UMBRELLA; NO NEED TO REGAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS
On 10 February 2000 Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka stated that because of the creation of the Russia-Belarus Union, Belarus does not deem it necessary to return Russian nuclear weapons to Belarusian territory.[1] He also noted on numerous occasions (5, 9, and 10 February 2000) that according to its new military doctrine, Russia is prepared to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Belarus.[1,2,3,4] Russia's new military doctrine, signed on 26 April 2000, reconfirms that Russia and Belarus will coordinate defense activities.[3] On 9 February 2000 Deputy Chairman of the Russia-Belarus Security Committee Aleksey Gorokhov confirmed Lukashenka's statements and added that returning nuclear weapons to Belarus is unlikely in the foreseeable future.[2]
Sources:
[1] "Prezident Belorussii ne vidit neobkhodimosti v vozvrashchenii rossiyskogo yadernogo oruzhiya na territoriyu strany," Interfax, No. 2, 10 February 2000.
[2] "V Komitete po voprosam bezopasnosti soyuza Belarusi i Rossii polagayut, chto vysskazyvaniya A.Lukashenko o vozmozhnosti primeneniya Rossiyey yadernogo oruzhiya 'ne bespochvenny,'" Belorusskaya gazeta online edition, http://www1.open.by//2000020905.html, 9 February 2000.
[3] Yuriy Golotyuk, Vremya Novostey, 24 April 2000, p. 2; in "An Umbrella for Lukashenko," Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. {Entered by IPZ on 8/16/00}

1/4/2000: DEPUTY DEFENSE MINISTER: RUSSIAN NUKES MAY BE DEPLOYED IN BELARUS
On 4 January 2000, Belarusian Deputy Minister of Defense Yuriy Portnov stated that Russian missiles might be stationed in Belarus in case NATO begins to "play with nuclear weapons." In the past, officials in Minsk and Moscow have expressed concern that the new NATO members Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic might deploy NATO nuclear forces on their territories. Belarus has claimed non-nuclear status since transferring its nuclear missiles to Russia in the early 1990s. Portnov said, "Belarus could not provide for its security alone. (Military) cooperation with Russia is a priority for us." In the event of a major military threat, the Belarusian Army would be merged with the Russian Army, Portnov added.
[Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 4 January 2000; in "Russian nuclear weapons 'welcome' in Belarus in conflict situations," Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.] {Entered 2/4/00 LBB}

12/8/99: POSSIBLE CHANGES IN BELARUS' NUCLEAR STATUS CONCERN OPPOSITION
Interfax reported on 8 December that Mikhail Pastukhov, a Belarusian opposition activist, expressed concern that the Russia-Belarus Union might result in a change in Belarus' status as a non-nuclear state. Pastukhov said, "I have no doubt that after the Union agreement is signed, nuclear weapons will be deployed in Belarus, if only to defend Russia." The opposition representative noted that one of the articles of the agreement provides for regional troops on the western front which would "allow Russia to send a so-called limited contingent to Belarus to guard its strategic facilities, to ensure the unencumbered transportation of oil, gas, and electricity to Western countries, and to support Belarusian rule." Pastukhov doubts that the new Union will be recognized by the world community.
["Belorusskaya oppozitsiya opasayetsya, chto obyedineniya s Rossiyey izmenit bezyadernyy status strany," Interfax, No. 3, 8 December 1999.] {Entered 2/4/00 LBB}

12/8/99: RUSSIA AND BELARUS DEVELOPING JOINT MILITARY DOCTRINE
As stipulated by the Agreement on creating the Russia-Belarus Union, signed on 8 December 1999, Russia and Belarus plan to develop and adopt a joint military doctrine in 2000.[1,2] According to the Belarusian Ministry of Defense, the countries will form a joint military unit within the framework of the Agreement's Program of Action.[1,2] The Program also stipulates developing joint defense policies, joint organizational policies, unified requirements for weapons, coordinated use of military facilities, and a unified border patrol.[2]
Sources:
[1] Igor Khadasevich, "Voyennaya doktrina budet obshchey," Sovetskaya Belorussiya online edition, http://sb.press.net.by, No. 296-297, 11 December 1999.
[2] "Soyuznoye gosudarstvo RF i Belorussii planiruyet razrabotat i prinyat yedinuyu voyennuyu doktrinu," Interfax, No. 4, 7 December 1999. {Entered on 7/19/00 by IPZ}

12/6/99: LUKASHENKA SAYS NUKES WON'T RETURN TO BELARUS
On Monday 6 December 1999, Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenka announced that there has been no discussion of returning Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus as a result of the Agreement on the Creation of a Belarus-Russia Union, which is scheduled for signing on 8 December 1999. Lukashenka referred to Minsk's proposed creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Europe and expressed concern that NATO might put nuclear weapons in the new NATO member countries. He reiterated his disapproval of NATO expansion to the east.
["Lukashenko zayavlyayet, chto o vozvrashchenii yadernogo oruzhiya v Belorussiyu posle podpisaniya dogovora s Rossiyey rech ne idet," Interfax, No. 3, 6 December 1999.] {Entered 12/14/99 LBB}

5/8/99: LUKASHENKA SAYS BELARUS DID NOT DESTROY LAUNCH PADS FOR RUSSIAN WEAPONS
At a press conference in Volgograd, Russia, on 8 May 1999, Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka said that while Belarus has not discussed the return of nuclear weapons to Belarus in the event of union with Russia, "all launch pads have been preserved despite pressure on the part of both NATO and Russia."
[ITAR-TASS World Service broadcast, 8 May 1999; in "Belarus Ready for Concessions in Union with Russia," FBIS Document FTS19990508001040.] {Entered 6/8/99 FW}

4/8/99: LUKASHENKA SAYS BELARUS DOES NOT NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS
In an interview with a Lithuanian journalist on 8 April 1999, Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka dismissed reports that Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev had asked Russian President Boris Yeltsin to redeploy nuclear weapons to Belarus as "a terrible Internet lie." While Lukashenka noted that any decision on redeployment would require his approval, he then also said that Belarus had no need for nuclear weapons at present.
[Lietuvos Rytas, 8 April 1999; in "Lukashenka Interviewed on Nuclear Weapons," FBIS Document FTS19990409000002.] {entered 6/8/99 FW}

3/25/99: REDEPLOYMENT OF RUSSIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS INTO BELARUS DISCUSSED
In 1997 and 1998 the Security Council of Belarus agressively promoted the idea of returning nuclear missiles to Belarus in the media.[1] On 25 March 1999, in an atmosphere of tension resulting from NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, President of Belarus Alyaksandr Lukashenka stated that the leaders of Russia and Belarus may begin to discuss in principle the redeployment of Russian nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory. However, Lukashenka added that Belarus had not actually initiated any such discussions and that he had not been informed about any Russian initiatives in this respect.[2] Also on 25 March, Deputy State Secretary of the Belarus Security Council Viktor Novelskiy said that because of the crisis in Yugoslavia, he could not rule out the possibility that Russian nuclear weapons could again be deployed in Belarus.[3] Russian press reports also indicated that Russian military leaders think that negotiations on the return of Russian nuclear weapons could be started.[4] However, a spokesman for Russia's General Staff said that Russian nuclear weapons would not be relocated outside Russia in response to the crisis in Yugoslavia.[5] Stanislav Shushkevich, an opposition leader and a former Chairman of the Supreme Council, said on 26 March 1999 that the Constitution of Belarus does not contain any procedures that could allow the redeployment of nuclear weapons, but this could be possible if Russia and Belarus were to form a single state.[6] If a decision to redeploy is made, Belarus may receive the RS-22/RT-23U Molodets ICBMs (NATO designation SS-24 'Scalpel'), based on rail-mobile launchers disguised as refrigerator cars, or RS-12M1/M2 Topol-M ICBMs (NATO designation SS-X-27), which could be mounted on Belarusian-made mobile launch systems.[1]
Sources:
[1] "Vernetsya li yadernoye oruzhiye v Belorussiyu?" Belorusskaya delovaya gazeta, 27 January 1999, p.5; in "Rakety dlya prezidenta," Oborona i Bezopasnost, No.20-22, 21 February 1999.
[2] "Lukashenko utverzhdayet, chto Belorussiya ne initsiirovala vopros o razmeshchenii yadernogo oruzhiya v strane," Interfax, No.4, 25 March 1999.
[3] "V Sovbeze Belorussii ne iskluchayut vozmozhnosti razmeshcheniya rossiyskogo yadernogo oruzhiya na territorii respubliki," Interfax, No.1, 25 March 1999.
[4] "Yadernoye oruzhiye Belorussii ne po karmanu," Izvestiya online edition, http://win.www.online.ru/rproducts/izvestia-izvestia-year, 25 March 1999.
[5] "Vyssheye strategicheskoye rukovodstvo Minoborony i Genshtaba Rossii perevedeno na usilennyy rezhim raboty. Voennyye oprovergayut informastiyu o planakh peredislokatsii rossiyskogo takticheskogo yadernogo oruzhiya v Belorussiyu," Interfax, No.215, 24 March 1999.
[6] "Konstitutsiya Belorussii ne predusmatrivayet vozvrashcheniya yadernogo oruzhiya v respubliku, no tekhnicheski eto vozmozhno - Shushkevich," Interfax, No.1, 26 March 1999.{Entered 4/13/99 CF and FW}

Central European Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ)

6/1/98: INDIAN AND PAKISTANI TESTS PROMPT NEW CALL FOR CENTRAL EUROPEAN NWFZ
Referring to recent nuclear weapons tests in India and Pakistan with "alarm and concern," the Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on 1 June 1998 reiterating Belarus' support for the establishment of >a nuclear weapons free zone in Central and Eastern Europe. The statement also called upon states which have not signed the NPT and CTBT to do so, and reaffirmed support for the elaboration of a fissile material cutoff treaty.
[Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus, 2 June 1998]{entered 7/28/98 FW}

3/27/98: BELARUS REPEATS CALL FOR CENTRAL EUROPEAN NWFZ
First Deputy Foreign Minister Syarhey Martynaw (Martynov) stated that President Alyaksandr Lukashenka will repeat his call for a nuclear weapons free zone in Central Europe at upcoming meetings of the UN General Assembly, the UN Disarmament Commission, and the OSCE Permanent Council. "After withdrawing the missiles, Belarus created a de facto nuclear free zone in Central and Eastern Europe," Martynaw said, and an international accord should be concluded to establish this space de jure. He also called for NATO to change its character from a chiefly military alliance to a primarily political organization.
[Interfax-West, 27 March 1998, in "Belarus: Lukashenka To Propose Nuclear Free Zone in Europe," FBIS-SOV-98-086.] {Entered 7/26/98 FW}

11/6/97: BELARUS EXPRESSES HOPE FOR CHARTER ON EUROPEAN SECURITY
First Deputy Foreign Minister Syarhey Martynaw said at an OSCE Permanent Council meeting that Belarus "welcomes the idea" of establishing a Charter on European Security. He stressed the idea of refraining from deploying nuclear weapons in any European country which does not presently have them.
[Belapan Radio, 6 November 1997; in "Belarus 'Welcomes' Idea of 'Charter on European Security," FBIS-SOV-97-310.] {entered 2/9/98 djw}

8/14/97: OFFICIAL DENIES AIDE'S COMMENT ON NUCLEAR REARMAMENT
Belarusian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Khvastow announced at a news conference in Minsk that Belarus has no intentions to deploy nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory.[1] The announcement was a response to speculations that President Alyaksandr Lukashenka will attempt to regain tactical nuclear weapons from Russia in the future in an effort to expand his influence and strengthen his government's position.[2] On 30 July 1997 presidential aide Sergey Pasakhaw told a Belarusian newspaper that it would be in his country's national interest to enter into a military union with the CIS and allow Russia to place tactical nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory in the event NATO deploys nuclear weapons on the territories of new members Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.[3] This comment triggered accusations from some former members of the Belarusian legislature (dissolved by President Lukashenka in 1996) that the President has been attempting to consolidate an alliance with Russian political and financial circles to create such a military union. The former legislators requested that international organizations take steps to stop his plans.[2] Khvastow stated that Pasakhaw's comments should be taken as his own personal opinions, and not those of the Belarusian government. He said that there were no "preconditions" for the return of nuclear weapons to Belarus in the near future.[1]
[1] Belapan Radio, 14 August 1997; in "'No Preconditions' for Return of Nuclear Arms," FBIS-TAC-97-226.
[2] Interfax, 18 August 1997; in "Lukashenka Accused of Wanting Restationing of Russian Nukes," FBIS-TAC-97-230.
[3] Ekho Moskvy Radio, 30 July 1997; in "Belarusian Official Quoted on Nuclear Weapons Deployment," FBIS-TAC-97-211. {entered 2/10/98 djw}

5/24/97: RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER SUPPORTS BELARUSIAN POSITION
Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeniy Primakov announced at a press conference in Moscow that Russia has no intentions of deploying nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory in peacetime, "in the absence of any threat of aggression against our two countries."
[Sergey Ryabkin, "Primakov: Russia Not To Deploy Nuclear Arms on Belarus Territory in Peacetime," RIA Novosti, http://www.ria-novosti/com/products/hotline.htm, 24 May 1997.] {entered 2/10/98 djw}

5/14/97: FOREIGN MINISTER OUTLINES BELARUSIAN NWFZ PLANS AND GOALS
Belarusian Foreign Minister Syarhey Martynaw told an Interfax interviewer that Belarus' intent to create an Eastern and Central European Nuclear-Weapons-Free-Zone is not a means to undermine the strength of new NATO member states, and will allow European countries to choose their own security organizations. He stated that the goals of the NWFZ are as follows: to further the disarmament process, especially for weapons of mass destruction; to reduce the possibility of nuclear confrontation in Europe; to improve trust and security within Europe; and to strengthen European security through US and Russian support of a NWFZ agreement. Martynaw suggested several options for the legal implementation of a NWFZ, including unilateral guarantees by non-nuclear states not to deploy nuclear weapons on their territories, which nuclear states such as the United States and Russia could reinforce. A NWFZ would not deny new NATO member states the right to self-defense, especially since modern missiles carrying nuclear warheads can protect them from a distance. Martynaw stated that NATO was created in a different geopolitical and strategic environment and therefore ignores the importance of keeping Eastern and Central Europe nuclear-free.
["Nuclear-Free Area in Europe: New Initiatives in Belarus," Vo slavu rodinu, 14 May 1997, p. 1; in "Official Explains Nuclear-Free Area Initiative," FBIS-TAC-97-140, 20 May 1997.] {entered 3/11/98 djw}

4/16/97: OFFICIAL PROPOSES SIGNING NWFZ AGREEMENT
Leader of the Belarusian permament delegation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe Valyantsin Fisenka announced to OSCE Standing Committee members in Vienna that Belarus sees "no obstacles" to the signing of a Central and Eastern European NWFZ agreement.
[Belapan Radio, 16 April 1997; in "No Obstacles Seen to Banning Nuclear Deployments," FBIS-TAC-97-116.] {entered 2/12/98 djw}

3/14/97: LUKASHENKA DOES NOT ENVISION REARMING BELARUS
In an interview with the BBC, Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka stated that it would be unlikely that Belarus would redeploy nuclear weapons on its territory. He said that although Belarusian military bases remain intact and could support rearming, the current political situation in Europe deters Belarus from doing so. However, Lukashenka added that this political climate depends on the West, primarily on the question of NATO enlargement, and whether the new NATO member states opt to place nuclear weapons on their territories.
[Interview with Aleksandr Lukashenka, Radio Minsk Network, 14 March 1997; in "President on Integration, Foreign Policy," FBIS-SOV-97-052.] {entered 2/12/98 djw}

1/30/97: NATO SECRETARY GENERAL REJECTS BELARUSIAN PROPOSAL
NATO Secretary General Javier Solana sent Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka a message which stated that NATO member states would be unable to support Lukashenka's proposal to create a Central and Eastern European NWFZ. Solana stated that although NATO has no intention to deploy nuclear weapons on the territories of new members, NATO's nuclear policy will not change. Solana supported Lukashenka's initiative to establish a European security net.
[Interfax, 30 January 1997; in "NATO's Solana Rejects Lukashenka's Nonnuclear Zone Idea," FBIS-SOV-97-021.] {entered 2/12/98 djw}

12/3/96: BELARUSIAN MISSION AT IAEA ADVOCATES NWFZ
The Permament Mission of Belarus to the IAEA made a statement in an IAEA information circular that the removal of all nuclear weapons from Belarusian territory constitutes a solid basis for establishing a Central European Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ). Considering Belarus a NWFZ de facto, the Belarusian Mission stated that a legally secured NWFZ would reduce international tensions created by NATO expansion and potential NATO members willing "to accomodate NATO nuclear weapons on their territories."
["Communication of 3 December 1996 Received From The Permanent Mission of Belarus To The International Atomic Energy Agency," International Atomic Energy Agency Information Circular, INFCIRC/530, 10 December 1996, p. 2.] {entered 2/10/98 djw}

7/11/96: BELARUSIAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION ON NWFZ PASSED
The Belarusian parliament passed an "Appeal to European Parliaments and Peoples" calling for the creation of a NWFZ in Central Europe. The appeal stated, in part, "We express our serious concern over the fact that NATO's eastward expansion is actually ruining the balance and alignment of forces that developed in the course of the Yalta Agreements in 1945, posing a threat of escalating international tension in the center of Europe and actually increasing the risk of nuclear confrontation."
["Appeal to European Parliaments and Peoples," ZVYAZDA, 7/24/96, p. 2; in "Supreme Soviet Appeal on Nuclear-Free Zone in Europe," FBIS-SOV-96-145. ] {Entered 11/10/96 JL}

7/3/96: LUKASHENKA RENEWS CALL FOR NWFZ
In a speech marking the 52nd anniversary of Minsk's liberation from Nazi occupation, President Lukashenka urged the creation of a Central European NWFZ. The statement marked the beginning of a new diplomatic effort by Belarus aimed at advancing the NWFZ concept.
["Belarus Proposes Nuclear-Free Arrangment in the Region," Press Release, Embassy of the the Republic of Belarus to the United States of America, 7/5/96; INTERFAX, 7/3/96, in "Luksashenka Calls For Nuclear Free Zone in Central Europe," FBIS-SOV-96-129.] {Entered 11/10/96 JL}

5/23/96: DEPUTY DEFENSE MINISTER REITERATES NNW STATUS
When asked about the possibility of stationing nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus in response to NATO expansion, Belarusian Deputy Defense Minister Yuryy Partnoy said, "our constitution declares that our country is a non-nuclear state. We have no grounds to change our aspiration for non-nuclear status."
[Yawhen Rostikaw, "Interview with Major General Yuryy Partnoy," RESPUBLIKA, 5/23/96, in "Military Official on Cooperation With Russia," FBIS-TAC-007.] {Entered 2/14/97 Mew}

5/5/96: LUKASHENKA WARNING ON NATO ENLARGEMENT, TACTICAL WEAPONS
Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka announced that if NATO deploys tactical nuclear weapons on Polish or Czech territory, Belarus will respond with "adequate measures." It is uncertain whether or not he intends to delay the withdrawal of SS-25s to Russia as a response to NATO expansion.
["Byelorussiya," EKONOMIKA & POLITIKA, 5/5/96.]

4/5/96: BELARUSIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER ON LINK BETWEEN NATO ENLARGEMENT, SS-25 TRANSFER
Belarusian First Deputy Foreign Minister Valeriy Tsepkalo stated that Minsk would not remove the remaining 18 SS-25s from its territory if Poland, the Czech Republic, or Hungary were to deploy tactical weapons on their territory after their admission to NATO. A day earlier President Alyaksandr Lukashenka said that Belarus would take "adequate" measures if tactical nuclear weapons were deployed in Eastern Europe.
["Minsk Warns It May Keep Strategic Nuclear Weapons," THE MONITOR, 4/8/96; INTERFAX, 4/4/96; INTERFAX, 4/10/96.]

2/28/96: LUKASHENKA: NO REASON TO SUSPEND MISSILE TRANSFER
The Russian press quoted President Alyaksandr Lukashenka as saying that he is against NATO expansion eastward but does not see any reason to suspend the withdrawal of the 18 Russian missiles on Belarusian territory as Belarus does not control them.
[Svetlana Sukhova, "Belovezhskaya Memories," KOMMERSANT DAILY, 2/28/96, p. 3 in THE CURRENT DIGEST OF THE POST-SOVIET PRESS, 3/27/96, p. 21.]

2/2/96: PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR ON NATO ENLARGEMENT, MISSILES
A Belarusian government official asserted that the comments made by President Lukashenka two weeks earlier on 1/20/96 were made strictly in terms of potential Belarusian responses if NATO were to expand eastward. The official reported that Belarus has not swayed from the course of denuclearization and that the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Belarusian territory is on schedule and should be completed by 12/96. He noted that the Belarusian government will not speed up the process of withdrawal at the expense of safe and secure delivery of the warheads to Russia.
[CISNP Discussions with Belarusian government official, 2/2/96.]

1/20/96: LUKASHENKA WARNS THAT BELARUS WOULD REDEPLOY NUCLEAR WARHEADS IF NATO EXPANDS
In line with his statement on 1/8/96, Belarusian President Lukashenka stated that if NATO expands, Belarus will be forced to redeploy nuclear weapons on its territory. He also reportedly informed the Belarusian parliament that he regretted his nation's pledge to become a non-nuclear state and he wanted to use the remaining missiles as a bargaining chip for financial compensation.
[Ustina Markus, "Belarusian President Criticized Over Statement On Nuclear Weapons," OMRI DAILY DIGEST, 1/22/96. See also INTERFAX, 1/18/96; INTELNEWS, 1/15/96; UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, 1/14/96.]

3/15/94: BELARUSIAN CONSTITUTION RATIFIED
The Belarusian Parliament ratified the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, in which the general principles of Belarusian security policy were outlined. Article 18 states, "...The Republic of Belarus aims to make its territory a nuclear-free zone, and the state, neutral." This policy was originally outlined on 7/27/90 in the Declaration of State Sovereignty.
[SOVIETSKAYA BELORUSIA, 3/30/94; in Anatoliy Rozanov, "Belarusian Perspectives On National Security And Belarusian Military Policy," paper prepared for conference on "Multilateral Security: Eurasia and the West," Barnett Hill, England, 7/94, p. 2.]

1990: BELARUS PROPOSAL TO UN ON NWFZ
Belarus submitted an initiative to the UN on the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone from the Baltic Sea to Black Sea. The zone would include the three Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine. According to an article by Sergei Martinov, Belarusian Ambassador to the U.S., at that time both the West and the Soviet Union viewed denuclearization in Belarus and Ukraine as impossible.
[Sergei Martinov, "Belarus and NPT Challenges," Director's Series On Nonproliferation, 12/27/94, pp. 45-46.]

Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty

On 18 April 1995, Belarus commended the creation of an ad hoc committee on the cut-off of fissile materials production at the UN Conference on Disarmament, and expressed hope that its work would also include existing stockpiles of weapons-grade fissile material.[1] On 17 October 1995, Belarus noted that a legally binding treaty on the prohibition of fissile material production for nuclear weapons is also one of its high priorities.
Sources:
[1] Belarusian statement from the NPT Review Conference, 18 April 1995.
[2] 50th UNGA plenary, 17 October 1995.

Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear Weapon States

While Belarus welcomed the initiative of the five nuclear weapons states to adopt UN Security Council Resolution 984 (1995), granting positive security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states, it called for a timely resolution guaranteeing both positive and negative assurances in a legally binding framework.

Last updated 8 April 2003

Comments or questions? Contact Michael Jasinski at MIIS CNS: Michael.Jasinski@miis.edu

This material is produced independently for NTI by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of and has not been independently verified by NTI or its directors, officers, employees, agents. Copyright © 2002 by MIIS.

HOME | CONTACT US | SITE MAP