2 November 1998


Press Release
GA/9494



ASSEMBLY CALLS ON IRAQ TO COOPERATE WITH IAEA, STRESSES NEED FOR GREATER TRANSPARENCY BY IRAQ

19981102

The General Assembly welcomed the measures taken by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to strengthen the nuclear safeguards system, in particular, the Model Additional Protocol approved in May, and urged its rapid and universal implementation by all concerned States. It also requested that additional protocols be concluded without delay.

The Assembly took that action by adopting a resolution on the report of the IAEA, by a vote of 113 in favour, to one against (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) with eight abstentions (Bhutan, Botswana, China, India, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam). (See annex.)

The Assembly urged all States to cooperate fully in carrying out the Agency's work, in promoting the use of nuclear energy, to strengthen the safety of nuclear installations, and to provide technical cooperation assistance for developing countries.

The Assembly also commended the Agency for its efforts to implement Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq and called on Iraq to cooperate fully in meeting its obligations, to resume dialogue with the Agency immediately and stressed that greater transparency by Iraq would contribute greatly to the resolution of the few remaining questions and concerns.

Also, it commended the IAEA for its continuing efforts to implement the safeguards agreement between the Agency and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, recognized the important role it played in monitoring the freeze of nuclear facilities in that country and called on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to comply fully with such agreements.

Exceptional cases of violation of IAEA safeguards in the recent past had provided an excuse for certain States to undermine the Agency's tasks and obligations towards the developing countries, the representative of Iran told


General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

the Assembly before the vote. Such policies were pursued for political gains against the interests and needs of even developing countries who were certified by IAEA inspections. Further, Israel's refusal, as the sole non-party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in the Middle East to place its nuclear facilities under the IAEA's comprehensive safeguards, had defeated all efforts aimed at establishing a nuclear weapon free zone in the region.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Myanmar, Slovakia, United States, Pakistan, Egypt, Armenia, Brazil, Cuba, Ukraine, Belarus, New Zealand, Slovenia, Iraq, Syria and Swaziland.

Statements were made in explanation of vote by the representatives of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, India, China, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Russian Federation and Cuba.

The representatives of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea made statements in exercise of the right of reply.

The Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow to elect judges for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.


Assembly Work Programme

The Assembly met this afternoon to continue its consideration of the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a related draft resolution. For further information, see press release GA/9492.

U WIN MRA (Myanmar) said the challenge was to develop adequate and affordable energy services that best supported development and the quality of life, especially in the developing countries. The safety of radiation sources and the security of radioactive material continued to be a matter of special concern. There was a growing realization that the world population was exposed to radiation from a number of sources, including natural, artificial and occupational sources. His country was convinced that the Agency's involvement in the control of radiation sources would bring about a working system of notification, authorization and control, and an inventory of all radiation sources in the participating developing countries.

He said that it was imperative that all IAEA safeguards and verification measures be applied in a non-discriminatory manner and in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Deficiency of energy, protein, vitamins and minerals continued to affect hundreds of millions of people, particularly in the developing world. In that regard, his country was pleased to note that the Agency's programmes which directed attention to the use of isotopic techniques in order to identify populations at risk and to monitor and improve the effectiveness of dietary intervention programmes, were benefiting the developing countries.

DANIELA ROZGONOVA (Slovakia) said she welcomed the Director-General's initiative to provide the Democratic People's Republic of Korea with the model Additional Protocol. She hoped that country would cooperate fully with the Agency in the implementation of its safeguards obligations and negotiate the adoption of an Additional Protocol. Slovakia regretted Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with the Security Council and the IAEA, and urged it to observe the relevant Council resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations Secretary-General. In view of the financial difficulties the Agency had been experiencing over the last decade, her country welcomed the initiatives to put greater emphasis on the programme and budget formulation process by creating a new programme coordination committee. The process of optimizing resource allocation while maintaining the main functions of the Agency had to be carefully evaluated and further developed. The main aim of that process must result in improved cost effectiveness to the benefit of Member States.

Slovakia was looking forward to the preparation of the medium-term strategy, which would chart the direction of the Agency over the next five years, she said. That document would, in a very concrete form, set out the overall objectives and goals for optimizing resource allocation and maintaining the Agency's main functions. Concerning the strengthened


General Assembly Plenary - 3 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

safeguards system, Slovakia saw in the conclusion of the Additional Protocol, a significant contribution to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the global non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Cooperation between the Agency and member states in nuclear safety and radiation protection was one of the most important issues for her country. Nuclear energy played an important role in the Slovak economy, with nuclear power plants producing nearly 50 per cent of the country's electricity.

HOWARD SQUADRON (United States) said that the IAEA's achievements demonstrated the critical role that the Agency played in encouraging cooperation in the many important peaceful uses of nuclear material and technology under sound non-proliferation conditions. The Agency's safeguards system performed the essential function of verifying compliance with the NPT and other treaties. The United States was proud to have been the first nuclear weapon state to sign the Additional Protocol. Strengthening nuclear safety continued to be the central goal of the IAEA, and its extensive training programmes promoted safety. Operational safety review teams and other safety services provided by the IAEA to its member states offered top-quality advice and helped to focus the Agency's safety assistance and technical cooperation programmes where they were most needed.

Turning to the question of Iraq, he said that the United States strongly urged that country to rescind its August decision to suspend cooperation with United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on the disposal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Agency. As stated in May 14 Security Council Presidential statement, Iraq must answer all of the IAEA's remaining questions and concerns before the Council would endorse a transition to long-term monitoring. As required under Security Council resolution 715 (1991), it must also pass penal legislation prohibiting activity contrary to United Nations Security Council resolution 687 (1991). His country also encouraged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to work with the Agency to take all steps deemed necessary by the IAEA to monitor the Agreed Framework.

Continuing, he commended the IAEA programme for combatting illicit trafficking in nuclear materials and said that 60 countries presently participated in the Agency's database on that subject. He also reiterated his country's continued support for the IAEA technical cooperation programme. As its major contributor, the United States recognized its importance in promoting the quality of human life in many countries.

HADI NEJAD-HOSSEINIAN (Iran) said that his country appreciated the technical cooperation that the Agency extended to Member States in the field of agriculture, industry, medicine and water desalination. In that regard, the importance of sustained funding, particularly through voluntary contributions for its technical assistance programmes needed to be highlighted. The fact that the Agency's technical cooperation fund was not based on predictable and assured resources was a matter of concern for all developing countries.


General Assembly Plenary - 4 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

Exceptional cases of violation of IAEA safeguards in the recent past, however, had provided an excuse for certain nuclear-weapon States and some other industrialized countries to undermine the Agency's tasks and obligations towards the developing countries, and to infringe upon the inalienable rights of the parties of the NPT for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, he said. Such policies were pursued for political gains against the interests and needs of even the developing countries who were certified by IAEA inspections for their peaceful programmes in nuclear energy and had pursued an open door policy regarding IAEA inspections.

Members of the NPT, as the treaty stipulated, had an inalienable right to develop, research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, he said. That right should be ensured by member States, not violated. That did not deprive any State from raising concern about possible mischief by another State; however, action should not be arbitrary or unilateral, as the IAEA was the competent authority to address such concerns. The universality of a new safeguards system was an effective way to ensure compliance of all States having obligations under the NPT and the Statute of the IAEA. The continued operation of the unsafeguarded nuclear facilities in Israel, however, was a source of great concern to the Middle East. Israel's refusal, as the sole non-party to the NPT in the Middle East, to place its nuclear facilities under the IAEA's comprehensive safeguards, had defeated all efforts aimed at establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region.

In conclusion, he added that the Agency's Statute should be revised to make the composition of its Board proportionate to an increased membership. The composition of any geographical grouping of the Agency should only be decided by members of that grouping and not dictated from the outside.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said his country presently operated safely and effectively, two research and one power reactor. The construction of the Chashma nuclear power plant -- provided under safeguards by China -- was also proceeding satisfactorily. Pakistan accorded the highest priority to safety in its nuclear facilities and had benefited from the nuclear safety expertise available though the IAEA. It was important that the Agency maintained its focus on its technical and promotional character. Unfortunately, over the past few years, there had been an inordinate shift towards the verification, rather than the promotional role of the IAEA. That trend needed to be reversed and the balance established in the IAEA's constitution restored. Safeguards were, of course, one of the basic functions of the Agency.

However, he continued, safeguards were not an end in themselves. They were designed to create an enabling environment for the promotion of peaceful uses of atomic energy. The regulatory responsibility of the Agency should not lead to the imposition of arbitrary restrictions on the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Unfortunately, restrictions had been imposed, even when it was evident that no proliferation dangers were involved. At times even safety-related information had been refused. The IAEA should


General Assembly Plenary - 5 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

strive to remove all impediments in the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The Agency's purpose was to promote the uses of nuclear power under technically safe conditions and not serve as nuclear policemen or the arm of non-proliferation crusaders.

In that context, Pakistan regretted that certain members forced a discussion of nuclear testing in South Asia into the proceedings of the last IAEA General Conference, he continued. The Agency's technical expertise and professional repute would suffer from recourse to such politically motivated moves. His country was opposed to proposals to criticize its nuclear tests of last May. As explained, it was compelled to demonstrate its nuclear capacity in response to India's earlier tests, in order to maintain the credibility of nuclear deterrence which had existed in undeclared form for over two decades in South Asia. Clearly, that issue was utilized by some nuclear-weapon States to divert attention away from the priority goal of nuclear disarmament.

He said that unfortunate episode not only marred the proceedings of the IAEA General Conference; it clearly revealed the source of the real problem, which confronted the promotion of peaceful nuclear energy -- the crass discrimination practised by the major powers and their military alliance partners. Pakistan hoped such partisan political games would not be played any more in the IAEA.

NABIL A. ELARABY (Egypt) said that his country valued the safeguards system of the Agency. However, there was unmonitored nuclear activity on Egypt's border, which threatened safety in the area. The situation in the Middle East could explode due to Israel's refusal to submit to the full scope of the nuclear safeguards system. That country was also not a party to the NPT. The Middle East should be free from weapons of mass destruction, and Egypt called for appropriate regional arrangements to free the area of nuclear weapons. A recent workshop on verification techniques, which had been held at Egypt's request, had helped the Agency to implement its objectives. However, any future similar activities should address not only the technical, but also the controversial points. The Agency should press ahead with holding such meetings.

Continuing, he stressed the fact that Egypt had, at an earlier date, put forward an initiative to free the Middle East of all weapons of mass destruction. Egypt had also proposed a more comprehensive initiative to free the whole world of nuclear weapons and to call an international conference to achieve such an agreement before the end of the century, within a definite time-frame. Technical cooperation was also of great importance.

Continuing, he touched on the activities of the Agency in Iraq and emphasized the firm stand of his country that Iraq needed to fully cooperate with the Agency and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on the disposal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That would help lift the sanctions against Iraq, which had inflicted the greatest suffering on the Iraqi people.


General Assembly Plenary - 6 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

The report of the Agency contained a reference to the fact that Iraq had no nuclear capabilities left. It was quite logical that without Iraq's cooperation, the Agency would not have been able to reach that conclusion.

Speaking about the amendment of Article 6 of the Statute of the Agency, he said that on several occasions, Egypt had stated that expanding the Board of Governors of the Agency was necessary, for the composition of the Board should reflect the growth in the number of members of the Agency and help it cope with its goals. Such an expansion would contribute to the participation of the developing countries in the work of the Agency.

MOVSES ABELIAN (Armenia) said his country had become the first state with an operating power plant to sign the Additional Protocol. Encouraging States to sign the Protocol would serve two purposes. First, it would subject the portion of the world's nuclear fuel cycle currently under the Agency's comprehensive safeguards to a further strengthened system of safeguards. Secondly, it would exert the required influence on States, which were prone to pursuing undeclared nuclear activities, with a view of their eventual adoption of that new norm. The IAEA was a key partner in developing Armenia's programme of peaceful nuclear energy. He commended the Agency for its ongoing assistance in ensuring the safe operation of the Medzamor nuclear power plant. The Agency's assistance in enhancing the plant's seismic safety was especially important.

The IAEA's technical cooperation programme was an integral part of the Agency's activities, contributing to the sustainable development of developing countries, he said. Armenia hoped that donor states would continue to make contributions to the technical cooperation fund to further assist the newly independent states in strengthening their national infrastructures, training specialists required for the safe utilization of nuclear energy and bringing their operational standards in compliance with the IAEA's current requirements. His country also valued cooperation with IAEA member States, which included implementation of joint projects on nuclear safety research and sustainable development, exchange of technical information, improvement of operational safety standards and radiation protection at the nuclear power plant, seismic safety and the training of technical personnel.

HENRIQUE VALLLE (Brazil), speaking on behalf of the countries of the Southern Common Market (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) and the delegation of associated States of Bolivia and Chile, said that he attached great importance to the IAEA in promoting the use of nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes and in international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. It also fully supported the safeguards regime administered by the Agency. In that regard, he noted the cooperation between Argentina and Brazil to account for and control nuclear material, as well as a technical cooperation agreement between both countries and the IAEA concluded in May of this year. Both countries had also offered to share their experiences with other countries in order to contribute to the international non-proliferation


General Assembly Plenary - 7 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

regime. In that context, he applauded the conclusion of the Treaty of Cooperation for the Promotion of Science and Nuclear Technology in Latin America as an instrument to build multilateral cooperation for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in the region.

In conclusion, the integrated and associated States of the Southern Common Market fully supported the IAEA's work in the application of the nuclear safeguards regime and urged international cooperation to that end.

RAPHAEL DAUSA (Cuba) said that at the outset, his country wished to express its condolences to the Central American countries which had experienced loss of life as a result of Hurricane Mitch.

He said Cuba like many other countries had benefitted from technical cooperation with the IAEA. In turn, it had shared those benefits with other countries. His country was concerned, however, by the position adopted by many developed countries which sought to minimize technical cooperation. The Agency's annual report also reflected its difficult position regarding funding. The figures for the 1999-2000 biennium did not cover real needs. The priority challenge for the Agency was the adoption of an integral and effective programme to strengthen technical cooperation and to raise the efficiency levels of safeguards.

He said the United States, last week, adopted the Omnibus Law; a measure to obstruct the Cuban nuclear programme. Actions of that nature were reprehensible and categorically rejected by his country. Cuba had serious reservations on the NPT. It was a selective and discriminatory non-proliferation agreement. Non-nuclear-weapons States were expected to comply with rules and regulations that were not applied to nuclear-weapons States. He said the draft resolution had controversial wording with regard to specific country situations. The text should reflect those issues that received consensus support and agreement of Members. He hoped that in future, that would become the practice.

SERHIY REVA (Ukraine) said his country was satisfied with the implementation of technical assistance projects in Ukraine and with the broad involvement of its representatives in the Agency's regional projects of technical assistance. The problem of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant remained the focus of attention of Ukraine and the international community. He detailed the progress achieved in implementing the Memorandum of Understanding between the G-7 countries, the European Commission and Ukraine, signed in Ottawa in December 1995. He also referred to the Chernobyl Shelter Fund which had entered into force.

According to the Chernobyl Memorandum, the completion of construction of compensatory power units was among the preconditions for the decommissioning of the nuclear power plant, he stated. In view of the present situation, Ukraine would only be able to complete those energy units if the G-7 countries


General Assembly Plenary - 8 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

and the European Community member States took the appropriate emergency steps to secure the necessary financial resources. Otherwise, the failure of the agreements regarding Chernobyl would produce a negative reaction both, in Ukraine and in other states, and would adversely affect the common cause of the safe utilization of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

VALERY ZHDANOVICH (Belarus) said that the Agency was called upon to ensure nuclear safety and organize technical assistance to States. Compliance with the principles of non-proliferation was a major objective for his Government, which was taking consistent steps to attain a status of a non-nuclear State. For that reason, it was party to the relevant international Treaties, including the NPT and the CTBT. Belarus had also signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. There was a need to establish a nuclear-free space in Central Europe. Such an initiative would allow a consolidation of the existing obligations undertaken by the States of the region and prevent proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction. Such a space should be based on the balance of legal and political, multilateral and unilateral obligations of States.

Belarus attached great significance to the strengthening of the safeguards system and wanted to ensure nuclear safety. Donor States had provided Belarus with significant assistance in creating a State system of monitoring nuclear materials, as well as monitoring the transfer of those materials through the territory of the country. Belarus had seen from experience that any accident at a nuclear plant had a trans-border character and it had signed the protocol to the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage.

Belarus attached great importance to ensuring maximum radiation safety to its population, especially taking into account the Chernobyl accident. In 1998, his country adopted a law on that issue. A draft law on the use of atomic energy and nuclear protection was being considered by its Parliament. One of the priority areas was solving problems involving safety of nuclear waste, and much work was being done in that respect. In the near future, Belarus envisioned cooperation with the IAEA in the development of nuclear medicine and establishment of reliable system of reaction to nuclear accidents, as well as reclamation of contaminated territories.

TREVOR HUGHES (New Zealand) said his country rejected any suggestion that the Agency did not, or should not, have a role in countering nuclear proliferation. Indications conveyed recently in the Assembly relating to the signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) offered some encouragement. He urged India and Pakistan to stop their nuclear-weapon development, to sign and ratify, without delay and without condition, the CTBT, and to adhere to the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon States. It was clear that the IAEA had to also continue to play a significant role in Iraq, to compile the kind of clean bill of health that would enable it to rejoin the


General Assembly Plenary - 9 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

international community. It was also clear that that would only happen with the full cooperation of Iraq.

The safeguards agreement between the IAEA and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea remained legally binding and in force, he said. It was disappointing that the eleventh round of technical consultations, held between the parties in October, had again seen little progress. New Zealand urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to make available the information that was required to verify the completeness and correctness of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's initial declaration.

DANILO TURK (Slovenia) said that on behalf of the co-sponsors, he would inform the Assembly of a revision to the draft resolution contained in document A/53/L.18. In an effort to get the broadest support for the amendment following the negotiations of the co-sponsors, Iraq, a revision of paragraph seven was proposed. In the last line of paragraph seven, the word "few" should be inserted before the word "remaining". The last two lines of that paragraph would now read as follows: "...and stresses that greater transparency by Iraq would contribute greatly to the resolution of the few remaining questions and concerns". The co-sponsors agreed on the revision with the understanding that Iraq would withdraw its amendment as contained in document A/53/L.19.

KHALED S. H. AL-HITTI (Iraq) said that in a spirit of compromise on behalf of the co-sponsors of document A/53/L.18, his country would not insist on its amendment contained in document A/53/L.19. He therefore withdrew the amendment.

The President of the Assembly said that additional co-sponsors of the draft text (document A/53/L.18), which had been orally amended and revised, included Belarus, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Greece, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand and San Marino.

KHALIL ABOU-HADID (Syria) said the draft resolution before the Assembly which had now been officially distributed would have political effects. He appealed to the President of the Assembly to defer any decision on the current draft so that delegations could receive instructions from their capitals. They could not go behind their officials and vote without those instructions. Until 3 p.m. today, there had been consultations on the amendment to the draft.

DANILO TURK (Slovenia) said other sponsors were aware of the political importance and sensitivity of the issue. The draft, however, was circulated last week. Following a period of extensive consultations, discussions this morning, and a very constructive spirit, it had been made possible for the sponsors to agree with the author of the amendments in paragraph seven. He suggested that the co-sponsors take action on the draft now.


General Assembly Plenary - 10 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

MOSES M. DLAMINI (Swaziland) said his delegation supported the view of Slovenia. He appealed to the Syrian delegation to afford the Assembly the latitude of taking action on the resolution currently before it. While the issue was a delicate one, consensus was also the soul of success.

KHALIL ABOU-HADID (Syria) said that his delegation had not tried to place any obstacles before the General Assembly. The work of the IAEA was commended by his country, and he appreciated the efforts of the Agency and its Director-General. His delegation had received the draft this morning, and not on Friday. Once again, he hoped that the rules of procedure would be taken into consideration. He respected the ruling of the President and wanted to extend his gratitude for the appeal made by Swaziland. He then said that he would not seek a vote on the deferral.

Explanation of Vote before the Vote

KIM CHANG GUK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said that it was regrettable that the General Assembly was once again to vote on the draft which was of no use for settling the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. As he had stated time and again, that was not an issue to be voted on at the General Assembly. It should be settled between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States. The two countries had agreed on a Framework Agreement in October 1994, which demonstrated that it was a political and military issue to be settled between those two countries.

From the first days of the adoption of the Agreed Framework, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had frozen all the relevant nuclear facilities and put them under IAEA monitoring, he continued. It had also allowed inspection of the facilities not subjected to the freeze. However, the United States had not implemented any of its obligations under the Agreed Framework. It had not lifted sanctions and continued its hostile policies towards the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Almost a year had passed since the groundbreaking ceremony at construction of light water reactors, but it was unknown when the full construction work would begin.

The United States had not delivered the heavy oil on schedule, which created additional difficulties for the economy of his country. The United States was saying that it was unable to fulfil its obligations because North Korea was building a secret underground structure for a nuclear facility, which was one of the latest attempts of the United States to break the Agreed Framework. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had constructed many underground facilities for peaceful use and would agree to the inspection of the one regarding which the United States was making its claims, on the condition that when its peaceful nature was confirmed, the United States would have to pay compensation for slander.

His country was not going to beg the United States not to break the Agreement, he said. Once it was broken, his country would be free to develop


General Assembly Plenary - 11 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

its own independent nuclear power industry without relying on the inconvenient technology of others who were reluctant to share their technology. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea accepted the IAEA activities within the boundaries of the agreed framework, which was not based on trust, but on simultaneous actions by both sides. The activities of the Agency in his country were correlated with the Agreed Framework and should be conducted in proportion to its implementation. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea did not have unilateral obligations, and if the Democratic People's Republic of Korea-United States Agreed Framework was broken, the Agency activities would automatically come to an end. In that regard, he recalled that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had decided to withdraw from the NPT in March 1993, but had suspended the execution of that decision on condition that the United States should implement the Agreed Framework. If the Agency was really concerned with the settlement of the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula, it would not press the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but urge the United States to implement the Agreed Framework. His country would vote against the draft resolution, because it would hinder, rather than help the settlement of the issue.

Action on the Draft

The Assembly then adopted the resolution with 113 votes in favour, one against (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) and eight abstentions (Bhutan, Botswana, China, India, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam).

Explanations of Vote After the Vote

ALDYIAN MANICKAM (India) said he could not go along with the resolution since he had difficulty with preambular paragraphs 3 and 12. The language in preambular paragraph 3 appeared to link adherence to the NPT and the freedom to develop, research, produce and use energy for peaceful purposes. By inferring that adherence to the NPT, the resolution deviated from the objectives enshrined in the Statute of the IAEA. The purpose of the Agency's Statute was to encourage unfettered access of Member States to the peaceful uses of atomic energy without any discrimination whatsoever, albeit with appropriate safeguards. The Agency's Statute predated the NPT, and the Agency had not been designated as a secretariat of the NPT. The NPT was not an equitable treaty and should not be used for discriminating between members of the IAEA.

India was concerned about how the IAEA's basic objectives were being distorted, both in terms of the NPT and now in terms of taking up matters like the CTBT, which were not of any relevance to the Agency's statute, he said. It was obvious that the matter and modalities used to push through the resolution left little confidence in the minds of Member States, including even many of the co-sponsors, as reflected in the polling. Therefore, India had abstained on the entire resolution.


General Assembly Plenary - 12 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

SEN PANG (China), said his country had reservations on certain issues in the draft resolution. China sought appropriate responses to problems. Applying pressure was not conducive to finding solutions. His delegation therefore abstained from voting.

PEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), said Pakistan had abstained on the vote because of the inclusion of preambular paragraph 12 on nuclear testing. At the last IAEA General Conference, Pakistan had again opposed that same issue. That was consistent with its 1995 position. Her country also had reservations on preambular paragraph 3 and on operative paragraph 9 regarding the pre-emptive assertion of the role for the Agency in combating illicit trafficking.

KKALIL ABOU-HADID (Syria) said his country had abstained from voting. The Agency's work and the role it played were highly appreciated in Syria. Syria, however, abstained from voting on the draft because Israel had not acceded to the NPT. Consequently, a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East could not be established. It was a fact that Israel alone in the Middle East had not acceded to the NPT or subjected its nuclear facilities to safeguards regimes. That constituted a real danger to the world and would threaten international peace and security. Syria called on the international community to make Israel demonstrate a responsibility to and a respect for the IAEA.

REZA ZIARAN (Iran) said his delegation voted in favour of the draft. He wanted, however, to put certain points on record. The provisions of preambular paragraph 14 on decisions relating to the geographical groupings of the IAEA should remain the prerogative of the member States of regional groups. Regarding operative paragraph 3, Iran felt that the protocol should be applied equally and in a non-discriminatory manner to the nuclear facilities and activities of all State members of the agencies, in particular those of nuclear-weapons States.

Speaking after the vote was taken DIMITRY V. SPIRIN (Russian Federation) said that his country had voted in favour of the resolution, but it had not been registered. He wanted it to be placed on record that his country had indeed voted for the draft.

RAPHAEL DAUSA CESPEDES (Cuba) said his country had supported the draft for it made an important contribution for the developing countries. The role of the IAEA was important, and the draft contained elements that were not part of the subject matter. He wanted it reflected on the record that if some of the paragraphs were voted for separately, his country would have abstained.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, KIM CHANG GUK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said that several countries had referred to the situation on the Korean peninsula, urging his country to comply with the Framework Agreement. He was only going to reply to Japan and South Korea.


General Assembly Plenary - 13 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

South Koreans were traitors to the nation, who had brought foreign arms to the Peninsula. They were begging the United States for a nuclear umbrella, which contributed to the nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. That country should have no voice on that issue. They were trying to isolate his country from the international community, but the more they tried to slander the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the more they revealed their real nature.

As for Japan, it was operating the largest reprocessing facility in the world. Japan had no real interest in settling the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. It was just finding excuses for its own nuclear armament. Its policy should be the real issue in the area. Japan should know that to earn the trust of the neighbouring countries, it must show integrity and sincerity.

CHO CHANG-BEOM (Republic of Korea) said he had listened carefully to the statement made by the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and was disappointed at his statement. It was disturbing because the language used lacked the minimum courtesy and civility warranted in a debate on such an important issue such as the report of the IAEA. The Republic of Korea totally rejected that. Going into the details would take several hours, so he would refrain from reciprocating to such uncivilized language from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

He was also disappointed because he could not find one new element in the intervention by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, he said. He could not detect any indication that they would respond to the appeal from the international community to cooperate with the IAEA for full implementation of the Agency's safeguards agreement. During his explanation of vote, the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that he was under no legal obligation to implement the Agreement. That was not acceptable to the Republic of Korea. Without a doubt, they were under legal obligation to implement the IAEA safeguards agreement. He supported the full implementation of the framework since it was important for peace and security on the Korean peninsula.

The framework complemented the legal obligations the Democratic People's Republic of Korea undertook when it signed the safeguards agreement, he continued. Today, once again, the Assembly adopted a resolution calling for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's full cooperation for implementing the agreement and expressing deep concern over their non-compliance. He appealed to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to become reasonable and more forthcoming in its technical discussion with the IAEA, and to comply with full implementation of the Agreement which remained in force and was legally binding on them.

MR. GUK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said it was quite funny and ridiculous that traitors were teaching patriotism. The Republic of Korea intended to invite a foreign nuclear attack on its own compatriots and was


General Assembly Plenary - 14 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

pursuing the isolation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea from the international community. What the Republic of Korea representative had just said showed that ulterior intention. The Republic of Korea did not even know the political and military situation on the Korean peninsula. Once again, they were traitors of the nation.

MR. CHO (Republic of Korea) said he had again listened with great disappointment at the intervention by the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It was not the time to refute what was said because no new element was mentioned, but the same language, which lacked courtesy and civility, was repeated. He wanted to state for the record's sake that he rejected that. However, one new element was that regarding the Republic of Korea trying to isolate the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. That was incorrect. His country was actively pursuing a comprehensive engagement policy vis-a-vis the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It did not want a confrontational setting, but wanted to open a new age of reconciliation and cooperation on the Korean peninsula. The engagement policy rejected isolation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and sought to bring them into the international community for the well-being and peace of the Korean peninsula. He appealed to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to understand the Republic of Korea's genuine intention to engage it in a new era of cooperation on the peninsula.

(annex follows)


General Assembly Plenary - 15 - Press Release GA/9494 51st Meeting (PM) 2 November 1998

ANNEX

Vote on Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

The vote on the draft resolution on the Report of the IAEA (document A/53/L.18) was adopted by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 1 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte D'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen.

Against: Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Abstain: Bhutan, Botswana, China, India, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Pakistan, Syria, Viet Nam.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

* *** *