FOURTH COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT RESOLUTION ON EFFECTS OF ATOMIC RADIATION

18 October 1995

Press Release
GA/SPD/64

FOURTH COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT RESOLUTION ON EFFECTS OF ATOMIC RADIATION

19951018 French Nuclear Testing, Chernobyl Accident, Exchange of Nuclear Safety Technology among Topics Discussed

The General Assembly would request the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation to continue its work to increase knowledge of the levels, effects and risks of ionizing radiation from all sources by the terms of a draft resolution approved this morning by the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization).

The text, approved without a vote, would have the Assembly request that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) continue providing support for the Scientific Committee's work and the dissemination of its findings to the Assembly, the scientific community and the public. It would also invite Member States, the United Nations system and concerned non-governmental organizations to provide relevant data to help the Committee in its work. With the approval of this draft text, the Committee concluded its debate on the effects of atomic radiation.

During debate, several speakers called on France to stop its nuclear testing in the South Pacific. The representative of Australia said nuclear testing by China and France were aberrations, belonging to a different era and to the past logic of nuclear confrontation. He rejected France's assertion that testing in the Pacific was "innocuous" and not environmentally harmful.

The representative of Papua New Guinea, said that if France considered it was not environmentally safe to undertake those tests on its own soil, then it was certainly morally wrong for it to continue those tests in the South Pacific against the outrage of people there. He urged France to state publicly that it would take responsibility for any future human and environmental damage caused by the testing.

The work of the Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation would be more complete if the experience of Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation regarding the Chernobyl atomic accident were considered, according

Fourth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SPD/64 8th Meeting (AM) 18 October 1995

to the representative of Ukraine. The Chernobyl area was the unique proving ground to study a nuclear accident's impact on human beings and the environment. He invited interested States and non-governmental organizations to work with his Government's proposed International Research and Technology Centre at the Chernobyl site.

Pakistan said the developed countries must assist developing nations in harnessing the atom for peaceful uses, and exchange nuclear related safety technology and information. Sanctions which prevented developing countries from acquiring nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only compelled them to acquire cheap, redundant technology equipped with minimum safety features.

The representatives of Egypt, Uruguay, Belarus and Egypt also spoke.

The representatives of France, Papua New Guinea and Australia spoke in right of reply.

The Committee will meet again on Thursday, 26 October at 10 a.m. when it is expected to begin consideration of the question of information.

Committee Work Programme

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this morning to conclude its consideration of the effects of atomic radiation (for background see Press Release GA/SPD/64 issued on 16 October).

Statements

GONZALO KONCKE (Uruguay) said his delegation supported the work of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and encouraged it to continue. Uruguay was very pleased that many countries supported the indefinite extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). However, in the field of non-proliferation, good faith could not be seen. He welcomed the draft text before the Third Committee regarding sea transportation of radioactive nuclear waste. The dangerous effects of atomic radiation could cause much damage, which could reach catastrophic levels in small States. The disaster at Chernobyl had damaged the health of the people and the economy at a level that could not be repaired.

Uruguay would like to ensure that efforts would be made to streamline the work of the Fourth Committee; items should be reviewed and possibly deleted from the agenda.

MAX H. RAI (Papua New Guinea) said that France's decision to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific demonstrated its arrogance against the unanimous position of people in the South Pacific. If France considered it was not environmentally safe to undertake those tests on its own soil, then it was certainly morally wrong for it to continue those tests in the South Pacific against the outrage of people there. He urged France to state publicly that it would take responsibility for any future environmental damage and the effects of atomic radiation on the South Pacific region. The hazardous wastes left in the Marshall Islands was clear testimony that all forms of nuclear testing on either land or underground were unsafe, despite scientific knowledge at the time indicating it was safe. Half a century later, the residue of those tests still had a devastating effect on the people of the Marshall Islands and their environment.

Mr. Rai then spoke as Chairman of the South Pacific Forum (Australia, Cook Island, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Samoa and Papua New Guinea). He said at the last meeting of the Forum in September, its members had considered a number of issues currently before the Committee, including hazardous and radioactive wastes, nuclear testing and other nuclear issues and the rehabilitation of former nuclear-weapon test sites. The Forum welcomed the increased attention given

Fourth Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/SPD/64 8th Meeting (AM) 18 October 1995

to the problems of safety and contamination related to the discontinuation of nuclear operations. It called on all governments to give appropriate assistance for remedial purposes when requested by affected countries. There was still considerable work to be done in that area.

SYARGEI ZVANKO (Belarus) said his delegation was satisfied that the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation would focus on such issues as dose assessment for radionuclides, effects of radiation on the environment, hereditary effect of radiation, radiation- induced cancer and the effects of Chernobyl. However, Belarus was puzzled by the Scientific Committee's report which said that information was "becoming available" on the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The information blockade was broken in 1989, and international experts had access to information on Chernobyl years ago.

Belarus was also surprised by the Committee's intention to "review critically" all information to clarify the possible relationship of childhood thyroid cancer to radiation exposures in Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Were there doubts about the fact that between 1986 and 1994, 400 children in Belarus underwent surgery for thyroid gland cancer compared to 21 such cases between 1966 and 1985, or about the fact that breast cancer in women in Belarus had recently increased by about 60 percent? Genetic diseases were constantly on the rise in the affected areas. It was clear that the 3 million children of the country were the "children of Chernobyl". The Committee should undertake an objective, impartial review of the consequences of Chernobyl, rather than a critical review.

RICHARD ROWE (Australia) said the Committee's work should not be seen in scientific isolation, as it had practical relevance in a world which was still, despite encouraging trends, overarmed with nuclear weapons and where regrettably nuclear testing still continued. He urged Member States to complete the comprehensive test-ban treaty no later than 1996. The continuation of nuclear testing by China, and France's recommencement of testing, were aberrations, belonging to a different era and to the past logic of nuclear confrontation. His Government condemned the decision by those two nuclear States to carry out nuclear explosions -- in one case within days of the indefinite extension of the NPT. It also rejected the assertion by the representative of France to the Committee last Monday that his country's testing in the Pacific was "innocuous" and not environmentally harmful.

A meeting of 14 South Pacific environmental ministers in August had called on France to comply with its international treaty obligations to protect natural resources and the environment of the South Pacific, he continued. The ministers had also called on France to make its data and studies available to the international community for independent assessment. The 1986 South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga)

Fourth Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/SPD/64 8th Meeting (AM) 18 October 1995

established a large area of the South Pacific as a nuclear-free zone and invited the five nuclear States to sign three protocols. His Government welcomed the accession by China and the Russian Federation, but was disappointed that the United States, France and the United Kingdom had not yet ratified the protocols. The South Pacific's vastness and seeming isolation, the oceanic location and dependence on marine resources made it vulnerable to environmentally-dangerous activity. The countries of the South Pacific were opposed to any activity which resulted in the oceans of the region being used as a dumping ground for environmentally-unsafe material.

VALERIY KYRYCHENKO (Ukraine) said his delegation viewed the work of the Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiation as an important contribution to expanding knowledge on the levels, effects and risks of atomic radiation for future generations. However, this activity would be more complete if the Committee considered the great scope of work and invaluable experience of Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation regarding the Chernobyl accident. The Chernobyl area was the unique proving ground to study a nuclear accident's impact on human beings and the environment.

The Ukrainian President's decision to establish an International Research and Technology Centre at the site provided a real opportunity for further international cooperation and study. Ukraine invited interested States, international and non-governmental organizations to jointly develop possible research areas and take an active part in the Centre's activities. Unfortunately, the extent of the health, social, economic and ecological consequences of the Chernobyl disaster had not been fully comprehended by the world. There were over 3.2 million people affected by Chernobyl in Ukraine, including nearly 1 million children. Specialists felt that Ukraine was approaching the period when diseases would rise. Currently 50,000 persons were recognized as invalids. Ukraine did not have the resources to provide needed medical care, and it appreciated all bilateral, regional, international and non-governmental support.

ABDUL QADIR KHAN MAMDOT (Pakistan) said that to reduce the risk to man and the environment from atomic radiation the large stockpile of nuclear weapons must be progressively dismantled and destroyed. Pakistan strongly endorsed measures taken by the major nuclear Powers, but there was still a long way to go before the goal of a nuclear-free world was reached. The peaceful uses of nuclear technology must also be promoted for the benefit of all mankind. His Government welcomed the current moratorium on nuclear testing, which had led to the extension of the NPT and believed it should be maintained and further reinforced.

He stressed that the peaceful uses of nuclear technology in the areas of energy, medicine, agriculture and other scientific fields must be shared by the developed nations with the developing countries. He cautioned against the

Fourth Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/SPD/64 8th Meeting (AM) 18 October 1995

application of discriminatory, inequitable and selective restrictions on the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The developed countries must assist the developing in harnessing the atom for peaceful uses. There must also be an exchange of nuclear-related safety technology and information, including the provision of spare parts for nuclear facilities established through such cooperation. Sanctions which prevented developing countries from acquiring nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only compelled them to acquire cheap, redundant technology equipped with a minimum of safety features.

MOATAZ ZAHRAN (Egypt) said his delegation supported the important role of the Scientific Committee, which had reviewed problems relating to atomic radiation. In the Middle East, the presence of nuclear facilities which lacked safeguards continued to pose a threat to millions of people. A new peaceful, secure and safer Middle East, as envisioned by the regional partners in the peace process, was crystallizing. However, he said, progress was being obstructed by ambiguous policies attempting to turn the presence of a nuclear programme lacking safeguards into a fait accompli. Openness and transparency was a key solution. The existing nuclear programmes in the Middle East should operate under the full scope of the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to be followed by other international and regional arrangements towards ensuring non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Right of Reply

YVES DELAUNAY (France), in right of reply, said some delegations had shared their concern about the potential consequences of the nuclear tests carried out by France in the South Pacific. Those concerns were not well- founded. The nuclear tests had been carried out underground, not in the air or atmosphere, and were taking place in a very secure geological area. It was one of the sites of the nuclear Powers that had been the subject of most independent research, which had concluded there had been no effect on the flora or fauna. That was confirmed by group of scientists meeting in Brisbane, Australia, in August this year. France had directed the Director of the IAEA to carry out an environmental assessment once tests were concluded.

Mr. RAI (Papua New Guinea), in right of reply, said France's representative had just repeated what he had said several days ago. The rights of reply were becoming repetitious. The scientific study to which he referred had not been made available to all countries in the region. His Government was clearly and firmly opposed to French nuclear testing. Therefore it called on France to state publicly that it would take responsibility for any future environmental and human damage resulting from the tests.

Fourth Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/SPD/64 8th Meeting (AM) 18 October 1995

Mr. ROWE (Australia), in right of reply, said that in his statement this morning he had stated that Australia did not accept the assertions of France on its testing and rejected entirely the assertion that the concerns regarding French testing were not well-founded. They were well-founded and very serious. In relation to the Brisbane meeting, he said he had already referred to this in his statement. If the testing was so environmentally sound, then one wondered why France has not met its international treaty obligations to protect the South Pacific environment.

Effects of Radiation

The Committee approved without a vote a draft resolution on the effects of atomic radiation, by which the Assembly would request the Scientific Committee to continue its work to increase knowledge of the levels, effects and risks of ionizing radiation from all sources, and report to the Assembly at its next session.

By the terms of the draft, the Assembly would request that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) continue providing support for the Scientific Committee's work and for the dissemination of its findings to the General Assembly, to the scientific community and the world.

The resolution was sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States and Viet Nam.

* *** *