Fifty-seventh General Assembly

Plenary

46^th and 47^th Meetings (AM & PM)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY, ENDORSING WORK OF IAEA, ASKS IRAQ TO COOPERATE WITH AGENCY’S

REVIEW OF WHETHER NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES HAVE CHANGED SINCE 1998

In Other Action, Further Progress Sought in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

Panel Meetings Set on Afghanistan; Debate Begins on Central America

The General Assembly this afternoon called on Iraq to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to enable it to carry out its mandate.  It also stressed that, upon its return to Iraq, the Agency must resolve the key issue of whether Iraq’s nuclear activities and capabilities have changed since December 1998.

The Assembly took that action as it adopted a resolution on the report of the IAEA by a vote of 138 in favour to 1 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), with 2 abstentions (Angola, Viet Nam).  (For details of voting see Annex VI.)  That action followed separate votes on certain paragraphs of the text.  (See Annexes II through V.)

In adopting the resolution on the IAEA report, the Assembly also urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to comply fully and promptly with its safeguards agreement.  It noted with growing concern that, although the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Agency continued to be unable to verify the accuracy and completeness of the initial declaration of nuclear material made by it.

No action was taken on an amendment proposed by Iraq, following the adoption of a motion to that effect by a vote of 86 in favour to 11 against, with         26 abstentions.  (See Annex I.)  By the amendment, the Assembly would have welcomed the decision of the Iraqi Government to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.

Replying to a number of delegations, the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that the “nuclear issue” on the Korean Peninsula was not a question to be dealt with at the United Nations or the IAEA, in view of its origin and substance.  As the issue was a product of the hostile policy of the United States, he said, it should be resolved between the two countries.

He said the policy of the United States of preemptive strikes violated the basic spirit of the NPT and killed the inter-Korean joint declaration on the denuclearization of the peninsula.  The United States was, in fact, the number one violator of the NPT.

The representative of the United States said his country had no intention of attacking the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  It would welcome the resolution of the situation there.

Presenting the IAEA’s 2001 report this morning, its Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, said that with the adoption of the Security Council resolution last week, the Agency was preparing to resume its inspection activities in Iraq as early as next week.  The success of inspections in Iraq would depend on, among other things, full and explicit authority for inspection, with immediate and unfettered access to any location or site in Iraq; access to all sources of information, including all information available to States; and active cooperation from Iraq.

He also stated that due to a lack of access to information and sites, the IAEA continued to be unable to verify that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had made a complete and correct declaration of its nuclear material that was subject to Agency safeguards under its NPT safeguards agreement.  The Agency had asked the country to confirm recent reports about its undeclared programme to produce highly enriched uranium, and expressed its readiness to discuss that and other issues relevant to the country’s compliance with its obligations.

In other action, the Assembly adopted a resolution by which it called for the full and early implementation of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was essential for stability and cooperation in the region and the reintegration of that country.  It also demanded that all the parties to the Peace Agreement fulfil their obligations to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

In addition, the Assembly urged the States committed to cooperation with the Tribunal, as parties to the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina, to take decisive action to apprehend and extradite to the Tribunal all indicted.  Further, the Assembly encouraged the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to develop, in close cooperation with the international community, national court capacities to investigate and prosecute cases of lower-profile war criminals. 

Addressing the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina were the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark (on behalf of the EU and associated States), Ukraine, Croatia, Turkey, Slovenia, Japan and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In addition, the Assembly decided to convene, on 18 November, an open-ended panel of the Assembly on Afghanistan, which will have two consecutive sessions, from 9 to 11 a.m. and from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and that it will have as its theme "Afghanistan: one year later".  The text, introduced by Assembly President Jan Kavan (Czech Republic), was adopted without a vote.

Also today, the Assembly deferred consideration of the item entitled “Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)” and decided to include it in the provisional agenda of the fifty-eighth session.

Statements were also made on the IAEA report by the representatives of Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan, Peru, Sudan, Egypt, Denmark (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Cuba, Russian Federation, Japan, Czech Republic,

Slovakia, Ukraine, Australia, Republic of Korea, United States, Armenia, India, Mexico, Indonesia and Brazil (on behalf of the Southern Common Market -– MERCOSUR -– and associated States).

Speaking in explanation of vote were the representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iraq, Canada, China, India, Israel and Pakistan.  The representative of the United States also spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Assembly also began its consideration of the situation in Central America and heard statements from the representatives of Norway and of Denmark (on behalf of the EU and associated States).  It will resume its consideration of that item on 14 November.

The Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 12 November, to consider the necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba.

Background

The General Assembly met this morning to consider the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  It had before it a note by the Secretary-General (document A/57/278) submitting the forty-sixth report of the Agency for the year 2001, which states that the Agency continued to play an important role in 2001 under the three pillars of its mandate, which were technology, safety and verification.

The Assembly also has before it a draft resolution on the report of the Agency (document A/57/L.14), with an amendment to the draft (document A/57/L.17).  The amendment would welcome the decision of the Government of Iraq -- transmitted to the Security Council by the Secretary-General in his letter of 16 September 2002 (document S/2002/1034) -- "to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions".

The report of the IAEA says the Agency served as a catalyst for sustainable development through the transfer of nuclear science and technology, as a key contributor to global nuclear safety and as a cornerstone for nuclear non-proliferation.  Its programme of activities focused on bringing about the development and transfer of peaceful nuclear technologies, building and maintaining a global nuclear safety regime, guarding against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and strengthening the security of nuclear material and facilities.

On technology, the report states that different views on nuclear power were expressed.  In April, at the ninth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, the parties “agreed to disagree” on nuclear energy’s role in sustainable development.  However, they did agree that the choice of nuclear energy rested with individual countries.  Some of the forms of technology discussed involved the use of isotopes to study climate change, nuclear technology transfer to Member States for sustainable development and building strategic partnerships for technical cooperation.

Regarding safety, the report states that national and international efforts continued during the year to enhance the global safety of nuclear power, an attribute that was vital to the credibility of nuclear technology.  This included the establishment of safety standards for research reactors, and help in the upgrade of radiation, waste and transport safety infrastructures.

On the question of verification and strengthening the safeguards system, the report recalls that the Agency has been involved in this work since the early 1990s.  The Agency’s ninth safeguards symposium, “International Safeguards:  Verification and Nuclear Material Security,” was held in Vienna in October–November 2001.  Topics included nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, physical protection of nuclear material, illicit trafficking and future Agency verification roles.

Peaceful uses of nuclear energy would continue to be an important factor in economic development and in improving human welfare, says the report.  In this regard, a capacity in nuclear science and technology was often an asset in its own right, contributing to broader technological development.  There were many challenges facing the world, including understanding climate change, preserving

the environment, protecting the health of the world’s growing population and supplying the water and energy needed for sustainable economic growth and development.

Responding to these challenges required concerted, collaborative efforts by Member States, international organizations and civil society.  It also required the ability to adapt to changing circumstances to achieve common goals.

Adequate investment and continuing innovation were essential to ensure that nuclear technologies remained viable.  Additionally, a comprehensive and effective nuclear safety regime would be effective only if States adhered to it and invested in its necessary infrastructure.  Furthermore, a state-of-the-art verification system must be subscribed to, and, above all, must be underpinned by other parts of the non-proliferation regime.

The report states that for the Agency’s secretariat and Member States to be able to move forward on all these fronts, active partnership was indispensable.  The Agency was committed to reinforcing this partnership.

The draft resolution before the Assembly (document A/57/L.14) would have the Assembly request the Secretary-General to transmit to the Director General of the IAEA the records of the fifty-seventh session of the Assembly relating to the Agency's activities.

The Assembly would also urge all States to strive for effective and harmonious international cooperation in carrying out the work of the Agency, pursuant to its statute, in promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the application of the necessary measures to strengthen further the safety of nuclear installations and to minimize risks to life, health and the environment; in strengthening technical assistance and cooperation for developing countries, and in ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the safeguards system of the Agency.

Among numerous other provisions, the draft would also stress the need, in conformity with the statute of the Agency, to continue to pursue activities in the areas of nuclear science, technology and applications for meeting the basic sustainable development needs of Member States, and also stress the need to strengthen technical cooperation activities, including the provision of sufficient resources, and to enhance continually the effectiveness and efficiency of the programmes.

The draft would also take note of the report of the IAEA Director General to the Agency’s General Conference on the implementation of Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq.  It would commend the strenuous effort of the Agency to that end, and call upon Iraq to implement, in full and without delay, all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Afternoon Meeting

When it met this afternoon, the Assembly was expected to consider a number of items, including the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

Afghanistan

It was also to consider a draft resolution on the open-ended panel of the General Assembly on "Afghanistan:  one year later" (document A/57/L.13/Rev.1).  It would have the Assembly decide to convene, on 18 November, an open-ended panel of the Assembly on Afghanistan, which would have two consecutive sessions, from 9 to 11 a.m. and from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and that it would have as its theme "Afghanistan:  one year later".  The Assembly would further decide that the first session of the panel would focus on political issues and the second on economic issues.

Also, the Assembly would decide that the panel, to be chaired by the President of the Assembly, would have for each session a maximum of four panellists selected by the President, in consultation with the Member States.  It would also decide that the President would present a summary of the discussions of the panel at the beginning of the debate in the Assembly on 6 December on the items dealing with Afghanistan.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Assembly also had before it a draft resolution on "The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina," (document A/57/L.15), by which it would call for the full and early implementation of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the annexes thereto (collectively the "Peace Agreement"), which was essential for stability and cooperation in the region and the reintegration of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  It would also demand that all the parties to the Peace Agreement fulfil their obligations to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

In addition, the Assembly would urge the States committed to cooperation with the Tribunal as parties to the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina, in collaboration with the international security presence, to take decisive action to apprehend and extradite to the Court all indicted.  Further, the Assembly would encourage the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to develop, in close cooperation with the international community, national court capacities to investigate and prosecute cases of lower-profile war criminals.

The Assembly would also request the Secretary-General to submit a comprehensive report on United Nations activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the period from 1992 to 2002, in view of the experience gained and lessons learned, as a positive contribution to future United Nations operations.

Situation in Central America

The Assembly had before it the report on The situation in Central America:  procedures for the establishment of a firm and lasting peace and progress in fashioning a region of peace, freedom, democracy and development (document A/57/384) which covers developments in the last year related to Central America, especially efforts to overcome the conflicts of the 1980s and build lasting peace and equitable societies.  It also outlines the activities of the United Nations system in the region, in particular ongoing monitoring of the implementation of peace agreements in El Salvador and Guatemala.  The submission of the report was postponed to accommodate the inclusion of developments in El Salvador through the end of August 2002.

In its concluding observations, the report notes that while enormous strides have been made in respect for human rights, in contrast to the 1980s, when the Assembly first began to follow the region closely, several countries on the isthmus lack the resources and political backing necessary to fulfil their mandated functions.  There are also signs that the population at large has yet to grasp the meaning of human rights compliance in peacetime.  Without popular support for the application of human rights standards to everyone in all situations, backsliding could occur, it warned.  Further, several countries in the region are experiencing high crime rates.  The regulation of weaponry is lax, and in some of those same countries, unregulated private security agents outnumber the uniformed police, the report observed.

On El Salvador, the report notes “with great satisfaction” the transformation of Salvadorean society since the signing of the historic peace accords of 1992 and says that the country and the international community, which has been steadfast in assisting it in this regard, has much to celebrate.  The peace accords and the process they put in motion are an accomplishment to be proud of, and in the light of this success, and with the completion of the terms of the accords so nearly at hand, the report urges the Government, institutions, political actors and civil society to redouble their efforts to fully realize the peace accords and build upon them.  With the United Nations almost at the end of its verification of the pending agreements, the Secretary-General’s report calls on the Salvadoreans to safeguard their achievements.  In particular, it urges the Government, political parties and other social activists to commit themselves to a spirit of dialogue and cooperation.

Also before the Assembly was the report by the Secretary-General on the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala:  renewal of mandate (document A/57/584) which summarizes developments in 2002 related to the implementation of Guatemala’s peace agreements.  In light of the number of provisions remaining to be implemented and the deterioration in the situation in the country, the Secretary-General requests a renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA), from 1 January to 31 December 2003.

The report observes that whether the reform process under way in Guatemala is sustainable in the long term will depend on the ability of Guatemalan parties to carry forward the blueprint for peace and democracy established in the agreements.  Now in its eighth year in the country, MINUGUA has begun to prepare for the day when its role as proponent and monitor of reforms and as human rights observer will pass to national leaders.  It was the responsibility of the Guatemalan Government to press ahead with the implementation of the peace agreements, even in the light of tight resources, limited time and political obstacles.

The Assembly also had before it a second report by the Secretary-General on the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (document A/57/336) -- the thirteenth report on human rights of MINUGUA.  The Mission has been monitoring implementation of the peace agreements signed by the Government of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca.  The report concludes that during the reporting period, from July 2001 to June 2002, human rights compliance has deteriorated and violations by the police have increased and impunity is the norm.  The Mission also found that this deterioration was closely linked to the failure to advance on other aspects of the peace agreements.

The report says Guatemala’s panorama of ethnic discrimination and profound social and economic inequalities persists, and the Government has not taken decisive action towards strengthening civilian power and demilitarizing Guatemalan society.  Noting that the Guatemalan Government has a grave responsibility to confront and dismantle illegal groups and clandestine structures, which are in part an unresolved legacy of the conflict and its former counter-insurgency apparatus, the report recommends that stronger actions be taken, in order for the peace process, justice and reconciliation to advance.  It states that an important first step to protect human rights defenders, justice officials, witnesses, journalists, union leaders and clergy would be to carry out serious investigations into the most emblematic of the cases and punish those responsible.

The Government should fulfil its commitments to combat impunity and strengthen the institutions that protect human rights and battle corruption.  In that regard, the Mission welcomes the ratification of several human rights treaties during the period under review and recommends that other steps in the same direction be taken.  An urgent outstanding task of the Government is to advance on a national action plan for human rights, in close consultation with civil society.

In conclusion, the report notes that the Mission, as it approaches the completion of its mandate, will make priority use of its resources to help civil society, peace institutions and the Office of the Human Rights Counsel become stronger and more effective.

South American Zone of Peace and Cooperation

Also before the Assembly was a draft resolution on the South American zone of peace and cooperation (document A/57/L.7), by which it would welcome the Declaration of the Presidents of South America, adopted at their meeting in Guayaquil, Ecuador, on 27 July, in which they declared South America to be a zone of peace and cooperation.  It would also urge States of other regions, particularly weapons-producing States, to cooperate decisively in combating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons throughout South America.

In addition, the Assembly would call on the States of the other regions to contribute to and cooperate with the objectives set forth in the Declaration regarding a South American zone of peace and cooperation.  Also, the Assembly would commend the decision of the States of South America to ban the use, or threat of use, of force among themselves, in keeping with the principles and relevant provisions of the Charters of the United Nations and the Organization of American States.

The Assembly would also commend the decision of the South American States to ban the siting, development, manufacture, possession, deployment, testing and use of any type of weapon of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, biological and toxic weapons, and their transport through the countries of the South American region, in accordance with the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco) and other international conventions on the matter.

Statements

MOHAMED ELBARADEI, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), presented the Agency’s report for 2001, saying that the urgent need for sustained human development would clearly necessitate increases in the supply of energy in the coming decades.  Nuclear power continued to be a significant contributor to the world’s electricity supply, and was the only source that could provide electricity on a large scale with comparatively minimal impact on the environment.  In 2001, nuclear power supplied 16.2 per cent of the world’s electricity, up from 15.9 per cent in 2000.  That increase was mainly due to continuing improvements in the management of nuclear power plants. 

In light of the renewed interest in nuclear power, he said, a key challenge for the industry would be to prove that available new designs addressed the expressed concerns about nuclear power.  Work was being carried out on many new designs that aimed to produce electricity at an enhanced level of safety and with improved economic competitiveness.  Some designs included additional goals, such as producing potable water at minimal cost, incinerating long-lived radioactive waste and reducing plutonium stockpiles.

With respect to the management and disposal of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste, he said that late last year the Agency had launched a new initiative to assist Member States in their efforts to move forward with the disposal of high-level and long-lived radioactive wastes through a “Network of Centres of Excellence” for training and for demonstration of disposal technologies in underground research facilities. 

He said safety in nuclear activities around the globe was vital to the continued sustainability of nuclear technologies.  While safety was primarily a national responsibility, it was equally a legitimate international concern.  A nuclear or radiological accident, like other environmental accidents, respected no boundaries.  It was satisfying to note that nuclear safety continued to improve at power plants worldwide.  Still, more work needed to be done.  The need for a more effective and transparent global nuclear safety regime, thus, continued to be a high priority for the IAEA.  The continuing evolution of a comprehensive body of safety standards, together with assistance in their implementation, was another key component of the global safety regime.  Safety standards were effective, however, only when applied in practice.  

Although the responsibility to counter potential acts of nuclear terrorism rested primarily with individual States, international cooperation was essential, he noted.  In the wake of the 11 September attacks, the Agency moved swiftly to conduct a thorough review of its programmes related to preventing acts of nuclear and radiological terrorism, and to develop a comprehensive plan for upgrading nuclear security worldwide.  The plan was now being implemented on all fronts. 

The universalization, consolidation and strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, including concrete steps to reduce the number of, and dependence on, nuclear weapons, were more important than ever for the continued credibility of the regime.  As reaffirmed in the final document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), verification by the IAEA continued to play a critical role in ensuring the health

and vitality of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.  Regrettably, 49 States had yet to fulfil their obligations under the NPT to bring safeguards agreements with the IAEA into force.

With the adoption of the Security Council resolution last week, the Agency was preparing to resume its inspection activities in Iraq as early as next week.  The success of inspections in Iraq would depend on five interrelated prerequisites:  full and explicit authority for inspection, with immediate and unfettered access to any location or site in Iraq; access to all sources of information, including all information available to States; unified and full support by the Council throughout the inspection process; the preservation of integrity and impartiality in the inspection process, free from outside interference; and active cooperation from Iraq, with a sustained demonstration of its stated willingness to be transparent, and to assist inspectors in fully carrying out their mission. 

Since 1993, the Agency had been unable to fully implement its comprehensive safeguards agreement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he said.  Due to a lack of access to information and sites, the IAEA continued to be unable to verify that the country had made a complete and correct declaration of its nuclear material that was subject to Agency safeguards under its NPT safeguards agreement.  Recent reports had suggested that, during the past few years, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been working on an undeclared programme to produce high enriched uranium.  The Agency had asked that country to confirm the accuracy of those reports, and expressed its readiness to discuss, at a senior level, that and other issues relevant to the country’s compliance with its obligations under its NPT safeguards agreement. 

The Director General noted that, despite the Agency’s steadily growing responsibilities, its regular budget had been “essentially frozen” for 15 years.  That had resulted in inadequate levels of financing for most of its areas of work.  For the Agency to fulfil its obligations and high priorities, while continuing to maintain appropriate balance between development and other statutory activities, as directed by its member States, an increase in the level of resources for the next biennium was essential. 

NABEELA AL MULLA (Kuwait), speaking as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the IAEA, introduced draft resolution A/57/L.14 and said that it underlined the vital role played by the Agency, in collective efforts to promote sustainable development and global peace.  It recognized the totality of the Agency’s work in promoting the application of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, implementing and strengthening safeguards regimes, ensuring and promoting safety standards, including safe transport, preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, improving nuclear security and protection from nuclear terrorism.

She explained that the draft resolution was the outcome of an extensive and exhaustive consultation process.  The aim was to produce a substantive draft text, keeping the draft resolution close to the original language and content of the resolutions already adopted at the IAEA’s General Conference and achieving broad support among the delegations in Vienna for the draft resolution.  After reaching a compromise on several crucial issues, agreement had been reached on almost every paragraph of the text. 

At the conclusion of the negotiating process, she added, there had been a general understanding that the current text would not be unravelled or re-negotiated in New York.  It was hoped that the constructive spirit, for which the Agency was known at its Vienna headquarters, would be continued in New York.

MOHAMMAD SALMAN (Iraq), introducing the amendment to the draft resolution, said that the proposed amendment (document A/57/L.17) contained a factual statement by the Secretary-General, dated 16 September 2002, which informed the Security Council of Iraq’s determination to allow the weapons inspectors back into the country.  In draft resolution L.17, he said, there was a contradiction in the language employed in the preambular and operative paragraphs concerning Iraq.  The language of the preambular paragraph reflected political aims rather than technical realities.  Iraq had, therefore, decided to present this factual statement as an amendment to the draft resolution, since the Charter provided Member States with the right to present their views in the General Assembly.  By the proposed amendment there would be added, after the eleventh preambular paragraph, the following:  “Welcoming the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions, which, in his letter dated 16 September 2002 addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2002/1034), the Secretary-General regards as:  ‘the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally important, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the suspension and eventual ending of the sanctions that are causing such hardship for the Iraqi people and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions.’”  He said the words of the Secretary-General would contribute a needed balance to the text.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) spoke of the anticipated doubling of the world’s population in the next 50 years and the fact that electricity would not grow in the same way over the same period.  The proven and sustainable alternative was nuclear energy.  Given its good safety record and environment-friendly character, he could not understand why there were those who objected to developing countries using such power.  Even the IAEA appeared to be inconsistent in its application of safety standards, especially with regard to developing countries.  He said he wished to caution against the Agency being used for partisan political objectives under the guise of efforts to avoid the possibility of nuclear terrorism.

He said economic growth was linked with the availability of easy and affordable sources of energy.  Pakistan, recognizing the insufficiency of its hydro fossil fuel resources, had incorporated nuclear power into its national energy strategy.  It was encouraged by the IAEA’s 2001 report, which saw improved prospects for nuclear power internationally.  It was building two nuclear power plants which would impact its labour market positively.  With support from the IAEA, Pakistan had been applying nuclear energy for the development of agriculture, health, wasteland reclamation and to combat the problem of salinity.

He said his country had “an immaculate safety record”, and was working to strengthen the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials in cooperation with the international community.  However, he went on, the current safeguards framework to be adjusted to eliminate discrimination.  He called for:  a fair balance between the technical cooperation activities of the IAEA and its regulatory activities; more funds for technical cooperation activities, including technology transfer and training facilities for developing countries; use of more experts from developing countries; inputs on Technical Cooperation for Developing Countries (TCDC) in project design and implementation; full and timely payment of contributions to the Agency’s Technical Cooperation Fund; and increased use of regional resource centres from developing countries.

MARCO BALAREZO (Peru) said the mandate of the IAEA was based on three pillars:  verification and safety of all nuclear activities, technical cooperation and transfer of technology.  He praised the Agency for its work to facilitate the transfer of technology and to ensure the peaceful application of nuclear energy, especially in the fields of medicine, mining, industry, and agriculture.

He spoke of the terrorist attack on the United States just over a year ago, and said the mind boggled at the thought that terrorists might obtain nuclear materials for their criminal activities.  It was important that international instruments be used to heighten nuclear security.  He said he applauded the work of the forty-sixth General Conference of the IAEA, which had approved a resolution on measures to improve nuclear safety and provide protection against risks associated with the use of nuclear materials.  An efficient and effective system of verification was imperative.  Such verification was necessary to detect any undeclared nuclear materials acquired and in use by countries.

He said Peru also had deep concerns about the need for the safe transport of nuclear materials.  States involved in the transport of such materials should be held accountable for any damage that might occur while transporting such materials.  However, he noted, those who had been involved in such transport had built up a good safety record.

ANAS MUSTAFA (Sudan) supported the measures taken by the IAEA to address the challenge of nuclear terrorism.  He said he unequivocally condemned all forms of terrorism.  Nuclear terrorism was an extremely serious danger and required special measures.  He was concerned that the financing of international terrorism was to the detriment of the financing of development and technical assistance.  Nuclear non-proliferation was one of the most important issues for the Agency and had led his country to sign the NPT in 1973.

The situation in the Middle East required much more in-depth analysis, he said, since Israel, the only nuclear entity in the region, had refused to sign the Treaty and its Protocol.  That was a deformed logic, which made it impossible to bring about true peace in the Middle East. 

Donor countries, he added, could give more to developing countries to bolster the Agency’s programmes in those countries.  Technical cooperation programmes were an ideal way for developing countries to build their capacities.  He praised efforts under way between the Sudan and Ethiopia to fight the problem of the mosquitoes that carry malaria.

AMR ABOUL ATTA (Egypt) said that his country appreciated that technical cooperation for the peaceful use of nuclear technology was one of the primary goals of the IAEA.  In this way, technology could make a clear medium-term contribution.  Yet, in terms of control and verification activities, while the Secretariat’s efforts to flesh out the safeguards regime had been noted, this regime could be achieved only if its implementation were universal.  Without universal safeguards, it would be impossible for efforts already under way to yield fruit in the elimination of nuclear proliferation.

On several occasions, he said, Egypt had made proposals to meet the danger of nuclear proliferation.  It had called for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and had always advocated the implementation of global safeguards on all Middle Eastern nuclear facilities.  However, Israel had never shown seriously the will to accept the safeguards regime, which had negative consequences for the universality of that safeguards regime in the Middle East.

Furthermore, Egypt had, on several occasions, said that Iraq needed to meet the provisions of Security Council resolutions, he added.  Viewing Iraq’s cooperation after its September decision to allow inspectors back in to the country favourably, Egypt felt that Iraq should be called on to implement resolutions fully, as a first step in reaffirming that it could not have weapons of mass destruction.  Yet, it was regretful that the latest resolution did not include any provisions for the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

In terms of nuclear safety, 11 September 2001 had reaffirmed the need to strengthen the IAEA’s role in protecting nuclear material from use by terrorists.  As long as some nuclear materials remained outside the Agency's control and supervision, the danger of nuclear terrorism would continue to exist.

ELLEN MARGRETHE LØJ (Denmark), speaking for the European Union and associated States, underlined the IAEA’s role in combating nuclear terror which, she said, had included the reinforcement and reorientation of ongoing activities, as well as presenting plans for activities aimed at securing a stringent nuclear security framework for nuclear installations and materials.  A universal international nuclear non-proliferation regime, backed by a strong international safeguards system, was an essential basis for the maintenance of collective security.  In this context, Member States had the responsibility to promote the universality of the non-proliferation regime and to adhere to applicable international instruments.

The NPT was the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime, she added, and its essential element was the safeguards system.  That system should be properly funded, and the European Union was prepared to consider increasing its budget where the need could be demonstrated.  Furthermore, the Additional Protocols were an integral part of the IAEA safeguards system and should be adopted by all States, especially the 48 States parties to the NPT that had not yet adhered to them.  Moreover, non-safeguarded nuclear facilities and materials in States not parties to the NPT were a cause for concern.

On the situation in Iraq, she said that, upon its return, the Agency must resolve the key issue of whether Iraq’s nuclear activities and capabilities had changed since December 1998.  Iraq should adhere fully to all relevant Security Council resolutions and grant the inspectors immediate and unhindered access.  As for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, its admission of having conducted a clandestine nuclear weapons programme needed to be further clarified.  Such a programme represented a serious breach of international agreements, including the NPT.

The European Union attached great importance to technical cooperation, she concluded.  This was shown by the high level of its voluntary contributions, which, in 2002, would amount to approximately 35 per cent of total contributions.  There remained concern that a number of States had not lived up to their financial obligations to the Agency.  Reaffirming that a results-based approach to budgeting and enhanced cooperation and coordination between departments should be encouraged, she said the European Union proposed to introduce a single currency system based on the Euro for the 2004-2005 biennium.  That system would contribute to increased transparency, effectiveness and efficiency in the management of the Agency’s financial resources.

ORLANDO REQUEIJO GUAL (Cuba) said his country had deposited its instrument of accession to the NPT on 4 November, bringing to 188 the number of States now parties to it.  When it acceded to the Treaty, Cuba reaffirmed its position that military doctrine based on the possession of nuclear weapons was unacceptable.  Also, it was convinced that the only way to overcome the original flaws of the Treaty was to attain the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

Compliance with the non-Proliferation Treaty, he continued, must also respect the acquisition and use by States of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.  Cuba’s accession was also a clear-cut signal of its commitment to promote and consolidate multilateralism and the international treaties on disarmament and arms control.  As a State party to the Treaty, Cuba intended to become actively involved in the preparatory process for the next review conference.

Cuba, he said, had also deposited, on 23 October in Mexico City, its instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Tlatelolco.  With Cuba’s ratification, the Treaty entered fully into force in its area of application.  Now Latin America and the Caribbean would be the first inhabited area to be declared free of nuclear weapons.

He said he considered the work of the IAEA as very important, and reiterated the need to obtain balance between the main thrusts of the Agency’s work.  It was essential for the Agency to maintain a technical assistance fund that was properly and predictably funded.  The Agency must also play an important role in fighting nuclear terrorism.  He supported the Agency’s work in that connection.

GENNADY M. GATILOV (Russian Federation) said that the Russian-U.S. Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, signed in Moscow earlier in the year, was an important contribution to strengthening strategic stability.  His Government had begun working on its ratification.  The importance of that Treaty and the Declaration on New Strategic Relationship between the two countries went beyond bilateral relations and met the interests of all States.  Excessive utilization of weapons-grade materials and the reduction of nuclear weapons were important aspects of nuclear disarmament.  The Russian Federation continued to implement the agreement between the two Governments of February 1993 concerning the disposition of highly enriched uranium extracted from nuclear weapons.  The Russian nuclear weapons industry was being converted to serve the interests of nuclear energy.

He said the Russian Federation paid increased attention to new nuclear technology research and development.  In accordance with the Nuclear Energy Development Strategy of Russia for the first half of the new century approved by the Government, several innovative projects based on thermal and fast neutron reactors were under way.  Those would particularly help address the problems of safe use of weapons-grade and energy plutonium and prepare the transition to complete closed fuel cycle.  He supported efforts by the Agency to foster cooperation in the field of nuclear technology.  He also attached great importance to the implementation of a number of projects, particularly the regional project on research reactors safety and the model project on improving the radiation protection infrastructure in several members of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

KOICHI HARAGUCHI (Japan) said that as the only country to have suffered the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, and as a country that had long been committed to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, Japan was determined to use its experience for the greater benefit of humankind.  Thus, the country attached the highest priority to safety in the utilization of nuclear energy and strove to promote safety both at home and abroad.

To help maintain momentum for the universalization of the Additional Protocol, Japan, in cooperation with the IAEA, would host the International Conference for Wider Adherence to Strengthened IAEA Safeguards in Tokyo next month.  In that context, he said he urged the IAEA secretariat to make further efforts towards the early adoption of integrated safeguards, in order not only to realize rationalization of the safeguards, but also to provide an incentive to conclude the Additional Protocol.

He said that the nuclear weapon development programme of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a serious security issue for his country, and also a major concern for the international non-proliferation regime.  In the Pyongyang Declaration, issued after the meeting of the leaders of Japan and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea last September, both sides confirmed “to comply with all related international agreements…for an overall resolution of the nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula”.  In the high-official level bilateral normalization talks held in Kuala Lumpur last month, Japan once again expressed its concerns in details and called upon the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to comply with all related international agreements.

Further, he said, at the trilateral meeting of leaders of Japan, United States and the Republic of Korea, and in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders’ meeting held last month, the leaders noted the potential for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to benefit from greater participation as a member of the international community.  However, that country’s relations with the international community now rested on that country’s prompt and visible actions to dismantle its programmes to develop nuclear weapons.  It was important, in that connection, that the country implemented the IAEA safeguards agreement fully, and allowed the Agency to take the necessary actions to draw conclusions on its nuclear development programmes.  He said Japan intended to “continuously work upon North Korea” on that point.

JAN KÁRA (Czech Republic) said the key role of the IAEA was to help mankind increase the benefits and lower the risks related to nuclear power exploitation.  The international community expected the Agency to continue playing its part in verification, safety and technology.

He said that the Czech Parliament's recent completion of ratification of the Additional Protocol on strengthened safeguards, signed between the IAEA and the Czech Republic, was the most visible contribution to enhancing the global non-proliferation regime and its verification.  Others should conclude similar protocols with the Agency without delay.

On the importance of technical cooperation among Member States, he said that Czech organizations and individual experts were taking part in various cooperative programmes and other IAEA-sponsored activities to encourage progress in the development and peaceful use of nuclear energy in Europe and other regions.  As in previous years, the Czech Government had allocated additional financial resources to support activities under the Agency's technical cooperation programme, and had offered voluntary contributions to specific projects in Armenia, Georgia and Ukraine.

He said he was concerned over the attempts to exclude the Agency's peer review services from the regional technical cooperation programme.  High levels of safety of nuclear installations and workplaces with sources of radioactive and ionizing radiation, and physical protection or radiation protection, were among constraints for any use of nuclear technologies.  He referred to the importance of independent third-party peer reviews in maintaining and further developing safety and security levels in the use of nuclear energy and ionizing radiation.

PETER TOMKA (Slovakia) said that, as the responsibilities of the IAEA had become more complex over the years, the promotion of the peaceful uses of atomic energy and ensuring its non-diversion to military purposes posed an ever-growing challenge, which called for the further strengthening of the Agency’s safeguards.  The right path to that goal lay through the bringing into force of the Additional Protocol on strengthened safeguards with as many States as possible, in its universalization and the development of integrated safeguards.

He said the viability of the verification element in the IAEA’s mandate was even more crucial for the sustainability of the global non-proliferation regime when certain discouraging realities were still in place.  One such reality was that the Agency had still not been able to fully perform its duties as mandated by the NPT and the relevant Security Council resolutions in respect to two Sates he did not name.  The challenge to the non-proliferation regime was even greater in light of the recent reports on one of those States breaching its commitments under the treaty.  Though formally outside the province of the IAEA, there were other concrete steps that would ensure a qualitative consolidation of the non-proliferation regime, such as the comprehensive nuclear-test ban and a fissile-matter ban.

Because of the important role the IAEA, as well as its activities in the field of combating terrorism, he continued.  Slovakia also welcomed the Plan of Action, as approved in principle by the Agency’s Board of Governors.

MARKIYAN KULYK (Ukraine) said the IAEA’s work was crucial to overall efforts to ensure a safer international nuclear environment.  The world had recently become aware of the consequences that terrorism could have if sophisticated technology were involved; nuclear terrorism was one of the most horrifying possibilities in that regard.  Thus, commending the IAEA’s speed in outlining a practical programme as an important contribution to fighting global nuclear terrorism, he noted that new challenges had profoundly impacted the Agency’s priorities, while it had to fulfil its statutory obligations under rigid financial constraints. 

Although concerns about operational safety and waste disposal continued to exist, the Agency had helped Member States to improve the safety record, which should help regain public support for nuclear energy applications as an acceptable option for sustainable development.  In that context, the Agency’s Innovative Reactors and Fuel Cycles project (Project INPRO), which would fit user requirements in terms of economic, waste, safety and non-proliferation parameters, deserved to be commended.

The rectification of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident was an integral element of regional sustainable development, he added.  The establishment of a relevant forum of experts within the new strategy for recovery was appreciated, as was the IAEA’s active role in strengthening the regime of physical protection for nuclear material and steps.  Recognizing the core role played by the Agency in the non-proliferation regime through its verification system, Ukraine supported the establishment of binding verification agreements to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to enable the Agency to carry out its mandate.

JOHN DAUTH (Australia) said recent terrorist activities had underlined the need for an international framework which ensured peace and safety for all.  His country commended the IAEA for the progress it had made in tackling issues pertaining to the spectre of nuclear or radiological terrorism.  Australia was convinced that global implementation of an effective system of strengthened safeguards would deliver universal security benefits.  In that respect, his country prioritized wide application of the Agency’s Additional Protocol on strengthened safeguards, which represented the new verification standard for NPT provisions.

Concerning disarmament, he said that goal would be elusive without effective measures to ensure nuclear non-proliferation.  The international community should, therefore, support the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.  There was, too, the continuing need to remain vigilant in looking for clandestine nuclear weapons programmes, he said, making reference at the same time to activities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iraq.  As a party to the NPT, the DPRK had an unconditional obligation to comply with its safeguards.  There must be no support for its nuclear programme.  It was equally important for Iraq to allow inspectors to resume their work and effect the complete implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions.

He called for support for the Nuclear Security Fund, in order to counter nuclear terrorism, and urged all States to work constructively to achieve a consensus on outstanding issues, in order to facilitate the amendment of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.  His country also continued to promote constructive dialogue between shipping and coastal States on the safe transport of radioactive material.  And he disclosed that Australia had been able to increase to $1.995 million (Australian) its voluntary contribution to the Technical Cooperation Fund for 2003, which was well above the 2003 rate of attainment of 90 per cent.

SUN JOUN-YUNG (Republic of Korea) said the effectiveness of the IAEA safeguards system was central to the promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy by fostering confidence in the compliance of the States parties with their obligations to the NPT or other non-proliferation arrangements.  He said the IAEA had made great strides in the field of nuclear safety.  He cited measures to prepare for the Convention on Nuclear Safety and the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. 

The international community should build on those achievements, he said, and draw on them to more effectively address public concerns about the safety of nuclear power, he said.

He said that while primary responsibility rested with the individual countries in which nuclear installations were located, the IAEA had an important role to play in coordinating international efforts with regard to nuclear safety measures and nuclear terrorism in particular, and providing technical assistance to those in need of it.

He said the long-standing nuclear issue with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had taken a drastic turn for the worse recently and the Republic of Korea was gravely concerned about the revelation of that country’s clandestine nuclear programme.  Such a programme constituted a clear violation of the NPT, as well as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA, the 1992 South-North Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Further, it also posed a serious threat to the peace and security of the Korean Peninsula and beyond.

He said he, therefore, called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to dismantle its nuclear programme in a prompt and verifiable manner, and to fully comply with all its bilateral and international non-proliferation commitments without further delay.  Its full compliance was not only in its best interests, but it was also essential for the viability of the inter-Korean peace process.

WILLIAM MARSH (United States) said that today the Agency was confronted with some of the most difficult problems facing the world.  Those included the critical need to address Iraq’s and North Korea’s non-compliance with the NPT and other non-proliferation commitments, the urgency of preventing acts of nuclear terrorism, and the continuing need to strengthen the international safeguards system. 

The bedrock of the nuclear non-proliferation regime was the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the comprehensive IAEA safeguards agreements that it mandated.  The commitments made by States to abide by the terms of the Treaty and their safeguards agreements were binding international obligations.  But commitments were without value if not backed with full compliance.  Both Iraq and North Korea had accepted those commitments and both were in serious violation of them.  The Council resolution passed on Friday gave Iraq one final chance to comply.  Failure to do so would lead to serious consequences.  Recent revelations of North Korea’s uranium enrichment programme for nuclear weapons represented an outrageous act of bad faith on its part.  It must completely and verifiably dismantle that programme.

It was clear, he asserted, that the Agency could continue to excel only if it received the support it needed from its member States.  The facts were nothing short of alarming.  The Agency’s safeguards budget needed to be increased, so that it could implement the effective safeguards that were needed.  Likewise, the Agency’s programme to counter nuclear terrorism also fell short of the funding it needed for full implementation of the programme approved by the Board last March.

MOVSES ABELIAN (Armenia) said that Armenia, as a non-nuclear-weapon State signatory to the NPT, took an obligation to place all its peaceful nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards.

He said that, shortly after its formal accession to the Treaty, Armenia concluded a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA, which made it possible to reactivate Armenia's peaceful nuclear programme with the Agency’s assistance, to alleviate the severe constraints on electricity supply.

He said that Armenia had come a long way in producing the legislative and regulatory framework for national nuclear regulation.  The Government had put in place a "stringent system" of export controls to rule out the illicit diversion of material, equipment or technology in the nuclear field.

He said the inter-agency process for submitting the Protocol Additional to the Agreement between the Republic of Armenia and the IAEA for the Application of Safeguards had been completed and presented to the National Assembly for ratification.  As soon as it was done, Armenia would submit to the Agency the initial declaration and Armenia's programmes for the coming 10-year period for the development of the nuclear fuel cycle.

He said that nearly a dozen of the Agency's technical cooperation projects were being implemented in Armenia at the national level, in such fields as energy and nuclear power planning, radioactive waste management, ageing control, oncology and radiology, safety and accident analysis, technical support and human factor management.  There were also several bilateral projects in the field of nuclear applications.  Cooperation with the countries providing technical, financial and institutional assistance in this field was highly valued.

When the Assembly met again this afternoon to continue its discussion on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency, DIGVIJAY SINGH (India) said the threat of increased carbon dioxide emissions left no doubt that nuclear power was an inevitable option in the development of advanced energy technologies for sustainable development.  It was ironic that, despite its large energy potential, unfounded misconceptions about nuclear energy dominated and had become impediments to sustainable development.  Nuclear power had witnessed simultaneous stagnation, renaissance and growth in different parts of the world.  An integrated view of technology, safety, safeguards and the possibility of nuclear terrorism was necessary, in order to find a holistic way to eliminate the barriers to the large-scale development of nuclear power in a sustainable manner.

He said India’s efforts to accelerate the development of sustainable nuclear power were faced with the restrictive export policies of certain countries.  As India’s nuclear programme was sui generis, any proliferation concern on account of external supplies to India was unfounded.  The Indian atomic energy programme had accorded priority to safety in all its activities; it was unfortunate that, in practice, technologies had continued to be denied even for systems important to safety.

He said the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles of the IAEA was a timely and appropriate means of overcoming barriers to the growth of nuclear power for sustainable development.  Such programmes provided

superior, cost-effective and comprehensive alternatives to the current segmental approach of dealing with technology, safety and safeguards separately.  The time had come to include the project in the Agency’s regular budget.

Any possibility of terrorists exploiting nuclear material should be eliminated, he concluded.  While the prime responsibility for the security and safety of nuclear materials lay with States, the Agency’s additional activities could contribute to protecting against nuclear terrorism, but they should not add to the undue apprehension about the safety of using nuclear power for peaceful purposes.  Furthermore, the existence of “orphaned sources” in some countries was a cause of concern.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA (Mexico) said he was pleased with the work of the Agency, despite the fact that it had been assigned new tasks and operated with limited financial resources.  Its performance in 2001 revealed its successes in the promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear technology and the transfer of technology to developing countries, as well as improvement of the nuclear safety regime and an efficient system of verification.

He urged the development of more effective and cost-efficient integrated safeguards.  Mexico, he said, joined with the rest of the international community in its support of steps being taken by the Agency to prevent nuclear terrorism, and it called for the adoption of a plan of action to prevent terrorism and the establishment of a fund for nuclear safety.

Mexico was also pleased with efforts to promote the use of nuclear technology in various fields such as health, agriculture and the provision of water resources.  It recognized the use of isotopic techniques for the provision of sustainable water resources.

He said his country attached the highest priority to security and the safe and peaceful use of nuclear technology.  It favoured a culture of safety and supported the international plan of action on radiological protection.

MOCHAMAD S. HIDAYAT (Indonesia) emphasized the importance of promoting a framework of confidence and cooperation, within which the transfer of nuclear technology and material could take place, since they played an important role in catering to the requirements of national development.  This was essential even for countries with a current and potential abundance of resources.

He said that Indonesia had supported the IAEA’s role in helping its member States to launch projects within the framework of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, based on each country’s decisions and the principle of sustainable development.  Those activities made many functions easier, including the optimal use of resources, and the planning and implementation of nuclear power projects, monitoring their performance, plant reliability and improving technical skills.

He acknowledged the Agency’s role, among others, in organizing a regional technical cooperation project on nutritional studies with the participation of Indonesia and other members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations who took advantage of the Agency's nuclear safety review services and assistance.

He said he was gratified to note that the IAEA was already engaged in a range of activities pertinent to combating nuclear terrorism, including nuclear safety cooperation among relevant organizations and member States, as well as programmes to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear materials and other radioactive sources and to provide advisory services against theft and sabotage.

SANTIAGO IRAZABAL MOURÃO (Brazil), speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), said he was happy to note that the IAEA continued to be a centre of excellence.  Technological cooperation had a positive impact on peaceful uses of nuclear technology; it benefited developing countries.  He mentioned the technical cooperation between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay to develop water resources.  With the help of the Agency, Brazil was also involved in the development of sustainable energy sources.

He said members of MERCOSUR shared the concern of all to strengthen efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism and the threat of radioactive materials being obtained and used by terrorists.  They were ready to cooperate fully in that regard.  He also said they saw the need to improve the safety of nuclear facilities.  It was important to promote standards of safety and a culture of safety; their region was taking steps towards that end.

He also expressed MERCOSUR’s concern about the transport of nuclear materials.  Given its recent experience, Brazil was particularly sensitive about that matter.  Those countries proposed to take an active part in the           2003 conference on the safe transportation of such materials.  The recent IAEA General Conference had attained significant consensus on the matter.  He called for integrated safeguards, and also expressed support for action to improve verification safeguards.

Action on Text

Ms. AL MULLA (Kuwait), on a point of order, called on the Assembly not to take action on the amendment proposed by Iraq.  Following negotiations, it was the wish of the co-sponsors that the text be adopted as it stood.  The request for the motion was also based on the fact that the amendment referred to the announcement of Iraq, which had already been incorporated in the preambular section of draft resolution L.14.

Also, she continued, the latter part of the amendment referred to an issue not taken up by the Agency.  In addition, the text of that latter part did not reflect the language of the resolution adopted by the General Conference of the Agency.  Members of the Agency agreed that the language in the draft resolution should reflect faithfully the language used in the resolution of the General Conference.  Iraq had the opportunity to submit amendments during the negotiations in Vienna.  However, no support had been expressed for Iraq’s amendment then.

Mr. SALMAN (Iraq) regretted the request for a “no action” motion, which denied a Member State from expressing its views.  It was also regrettable that such practices were being tolerated in the Assembly, which was not meant to rubber stamp resolutions presented to it.  He asked delegations to consider the outcome of their vote on the future work of the Assembly and asked them to vote against the “no action” motion for the sake of the Assembly’s credibility.

The Assembly adopted the “no action” motion by a vote of 86 in favour to   11 against with 26 abstentions.  (For details of vote see Annex I.)

Since the motion was adopted, no action was taken on the amendment contained in A/57/L.17.

Explanations of Vote

JON YONG RYONG (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that he could not go along with the draft and would vote against it.

Mr. SALMAN (Iraq) said that he had no other choice than to ask for a separate vote on operative paragraph 12, as it did not recognize Iraq’s decision to allow the return of weapons inspectors.  Also, it introduced new language that would serve aggressive policies.  In addition, it did not refer to Iraq’s cooperation with the IAEA in carrying out its mandate regarding the safeguards agreement.  He urged delegations to vote against operative paragraph 12.

Assembly President JAN KAVAN (Czech Republic) announced that since the introduction of the draft, a number of countries had joined as co-sponsors.

The Assembly adopted the third preambular paragraph of draft resolution  L.14 by a vote of 132 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel) with three abstentions (Ghana, Lesotho, Pakistan).  (See Annex II.)

Next, it adopted the twelfth preambular paragraph of the draft by a vote of 122 in favour to none against, with 15 abstentions.  (See Annex III.)

Following that, the Assembly adopted operative paragraph 5 of the draft by a vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Ghana, India, Israel, Pakistan, Syria).  (See Annex IV.)

The Assembly then adopted operative paragraph 10 of the draft by a vote of 134 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States) with one abstention (Viet Nam).  (See Annex V.)

Finally, the Assembly adopted the draft resolution as a whole by a vote of 138 in favour to 1 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) with     2 abstentions (Angola, Viet Nam).  (See Annex VI.)

Speaking after the vote, JOHN GOSAL (Canada) said he voted in favour of the draft.  While it was, in fact, a reiteration of the report of the Agency’s activities, the report did not reflect the most recent developments.  The thirteenth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 11 did not reflect the situation that had evolved as of today.  Based on the consensus reached, he was able to accept the language in the text.  As a whole, he believed a shorter text should be considered in the future.

WU HAITAO (China) said that his Government had consistently supported the Agency’s work.  Therefore, his delegation voted for the draft resolution.  Regarding the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, his country had always believed that denuclearization and peace and stability on the peninsula should be maintained.  Also, parties should implement in good faith the agreements reached.

HARSH VARDHAN SHRINGLA (India) said he had voted in favour of the draft resolution.  Nonetheless, he had serious difficulty with the third preambular paragraph, the language of which appeared to link adherence to the NPT and the freedom to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  The statute of the IAEA had stressed the principle of sovereignty of all its members.  That was to encourage unfettered access to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  The Agency predated the NPT.  The NPT was not an equitable treaty.  Also, article 6 of the NPT should not be used to discriminate among the members of the IAEA.  He had voted against the third preambular paragraph.

DAVID GOVRIN (Israel), in explanation of vote, said that during the negotiations in Vienna, Israel had expressed its reservations regarding some paragraphs, including operative paragraph 10 (referring to the Middle East Region).  Israel had been ready to discuss the language of this paragraph and had proposed alternative suggestions, but to no avail.  Therefore, Israel had had to vote against operative paragraph 10 of the resolution, as it did last year.  The language in operative paragraph 10 was inconsistent with the consensus reached for the last eight years in the IAEA General Conference on the resolution entitled “Application of IAEA safeguards in the Middle East.”

He said Israel strongly opposed the attempt to use the IAEA’s annual report to change the meaning of that consensus resolution, which had been difficult to achieve in the first place.  Taking certain elements out of the overall context, while ignoring other elements of the consensus language, would jeopardize the spirit of consensus and harm the credibility of IAEA General Conference resolutions. 

Israel had, nevertheless, supported the resolution as a whole, out of recognition of the IAEA’s important role, especially pertaining to questions of international security in the nuclear domain.  It could only be hoped that next year the unfruitful process of negotiations on this resolution would be avoided.

AIZAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY (Pakistan), speaking in explanation of vote, said his country had abstained on the third preambular paragraph and operative paragraph  5, because the third preambular paragraph linked the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, such as energy, to the NPT.  This preambular paragraph should refer to the IAEA statute only.  As Pakistan was not party to the NPT, it could not accept this inclusion.  As for operative paragraph 5, it was discriminatory and was meant to keep developing countries from developing nuclear power for peaceful uses.  The IAEA should avoid taking sides on political issues like this.  However, because of the importance of the IAEA’s work, Pakistan had still voted in favor of the resolution as a whole.

Rights of Reply

Speaking in right of reply, Mr. JON (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) stated the position of his country on the so-called “nuclear issue”, in response to the statements made by Denmark on behalf of the European Union, Japan, Australia, United States and Republic of Korea.  The “nuclear issue” on the Korean Peninsula was not a question to be dealt with at the United Nations or the IAEA, in view of its origin and substance.  The solution of any issue should be based on an objective and impartial analysis of the essence of the issue and realistic ways and means to address it.  The IAEA’s inclusion of “stereotyped and unrealistic contents on the ‘nuclear issue’”, and the unilateral and coercive debate as undertaken today, did not help to achieve a proper solution of the issue.

This issue had originated from actions of the United States in the massive stockpiling of nuclear weapons in the Republic of Korea and its vicinity -- thus threatening the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and raising “nuclear doubt” about his country with the aim of destroying it by force, against the backdrop of the newly prevailing international political environment of the late 1980s and early 1990s.  As the issue was, therefore, a product of the hostile policy of the United States, it should be resolved between the two countries.

He said the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had signed the 1994 Agreed Framework in order to address this issue, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been implementing that agreement in good faith  Because of this implementation, the safeguards agreement would be naturally carried out.  In compliance with the Agreed Framework, nuclear facilities had been and continued to be frozen and the storage of spent fuel completed.

However, he went on, the United States was not carrying out any of its obligations under the Agreed Framework, including those concerning the provision of light water reactors, movement towards the normalization of political and economic relations, and formal assurances against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.  Instead, the United States had listed the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a member of the “axis of evil”, and listed its as a target for pre-emptive nuclear strike. 

Furthermore, under the Agreed Framework, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was to allow nuclear inspections only after the “delivery of essential non-nuclear components for the first light water reaction unit” was completed.  But the United States had come out with a unilateral demand for nuclear inspection and had carried out a misleading campaign to put pressure on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Questioning the basis for the “concern” expressed by other countries, he said the decision of the United States to label the his country as a part of the “axis of evil”, and a target for pre-emptive nuclear strike, constituted an open challenge to the obligations of the Agreed Framework and, therefore, nullified it.  Moreover, the United States policy of pre-emptive strikes violated the basic spirit of the NPT and killed the inter-Korean joint declaration on the denuclearization of the peninsula.  The United States was, in fact, the “number one violator” of the NPT. 

He said it was unrealistic to urge the unilateral implementation of the safeguards agreement at this point.  As the United States threatened its sovereignty as never before, the will of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had put forward the proposal to conclude a non-aggression treaty between the two countries as a reflection of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to remove the grave situation on the peninsula and safeguard the peace and security of Korea and northeast Asia.  Urging the United States to give this proposal serious consideration, he noted that the Bush Administration had denied the proposal and insisted that the so-called “nuclear weapons programme” be scrapped first.  He said this denial would mean that the United States had the intention to attack the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

As a small and divided country, he went on, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea valued its sovereignty and right to existence more than life itself, and regarded the removal of threats to its sovereignty and right to existence as criteria for settling all issues concerning it.  The insistence of the United States that the “nuclear weapons programme” first be scrapped constituted a direct threat, and it would inevitably spark a new clash.  In that case, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would be compelled to exercise its power, prepared in order to cope with that kind of situation. 

Finally, he said, it should be noted that the United States had taken up the “nuclear issue” at the very moment when relations between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea, and between Japan and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, had been improving.  One reason the issue had been raised was to interrupt this progress.  The United States was now trying to create pressure against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea through “policy coordination” with its allies.  In this regard, the countries around Korea were urged not to follow the United States blindly.

JAMES P. MICHAELS (United States), speaking in right of reply, said that the United States had no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and had no plans to place any there.  He welcomed the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone on the Korean Peninsula.  The United States had no intention to attack the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he added, but would, instead, welcome the resolution of the situation there.

Speaking further in right of reply, Mr. JON (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that if the United States earnestly wanted peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, it should halt its hostile policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  This hostile policy was a full reflection of the pursuit of the United States’ unilateral interest in the region and, as long as it persisted, a second or third nuclear problem could arise at any time.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

MIRZA KUSLJUGIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina), introducing the draft resolution (A/57/L.15/Rev.1), reminded the Assembly of the reasons for which the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina had been an item on its agenda every year since  1992, highlighting the causes of conflict, the targeting of civilians and the lack of a timely response by the international community, and concluded that, in spite of all this, substantial progress had been made in the process of rebuilding a multi-ethnic, democratic, sustainable and modern State that would be fully integrated into European structures.  Entering the second decade of its full United Nations membership, he said, Bosnia and Herzegovina was on its way off the agendas of United Nations bodies.

The current resolution gave an overall picture of the current situation, progress achieved in the last year and recommendations for future actions, he said.  In the last year, Bosnia and Herzegovina had become a member of the Council of Europe, met requirements to sign the Stabilization and Association Agreement with the European Union, successfully prepared and organized general elections for the first time in post-war history, acted promptly in the global effort against terrorism, developed the State Border Service to full capacity and reduced illegal migration.  It had further improved bilateral relations with Croatia and Yugoslavia, signed bilateral free trade agreements with the countries of the Stability Pact for South-eastern Europe and reduced military assets and established the Standing Committee on Military Matters with the aim of admission

to the Partnership for Peace.  Additionally, the international community had carried out the final activities of the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) and prepared for transition to the European Union.

Considering the progress achieved in the last year as one phase in a long-term transition process from war to peace, he said, there were, nevertheless, major remaining problems.  The General Framework Agreement for Peace (the Dayton-Paris Peace Plan) laid down the principles of the future organization of the State, but it had been used more by obstructionists to stop progress and impede the development of common State institutions than as a foundation to be built upon for the benefit of the entire community.  Thus, further development of political structures was one urgent priority.  Other problems included the continued liberty of war criminals, the need to establish the rule of law, the need to revive the economy, the need to continue returning refugees and property, and tackling corruption, organized crime and illegal criminal activities, which seriously hampered improvement in all the previously mentioned areas.

OLE E. MOESBY (Denmark), also speaking for the European Union and associated States, said that Bosnia and Herzegovina and all the countries in the region had to take much more responsibility for their own development.  With falling aid and mounting debt, economic reforms had become more urgent than ever in attracting foreign investments to fill the gap.  The European Union reconfirmed its commitment to assisting Bosnia and Herzegovina in its effort towards change and a better future, and urged the rapid formation of administrations genuinely committed to increasing the pace of the reform process.

He said that the international community had identified the rule of law, institution building, economy, the return of refugees and reconstruction as priority areas, crucial to the reform process in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  It was now crucial to invigorate the pace of reform.  The strengthening of the rule of law was an essential component of democratization, while reviving the economy and creating sustainable development through the adoption of structural reforms should be a priority in the work of the future Government.  He added that implementation of those reforms would be a precondition for continued international financial assistance.

Establishing the rule of law also included full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia by all States and parties in the region, and the European Union remained determined that all indicted for war crimes should be brought to justice.  The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the administrations of both entities, should spare no effort to locate, arrest and transfer such persons to the custody of the International Tribunal.  The European Union had also learned with great concern of arms exports from Bosnia and Herzegovina through the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Iraq, which was a violation of United Nations sanctions.  The European Union, therefore, demanded a swift response from the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, both at State and entity levels.  It also emphasized the need for a sustainable solution to the issue of displaced persons.

Mr. KULYK (Ukraine) said that Bosnia and Herzegovina remained "on the right path”.  Next week, it would be seven years since the Bosnian war ended.  The fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina, together with the international community, had succeeded in going this far in implementing the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement was evidence of the viability of its design.

He said the recent accession of Sarajevo to the Council of Europe was another example of changes on the ground.  The involvement of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the process of European integration was the only way to finally overcome the consequences of war.  It was important for the international community to "send a strong message" to the winners of the 5 October general elections that their victory meant the additional responsibility of making progress in the pursuit of reform.  The newly elected leaders should demonstrate in practice their readiness to fulfil their responsibilities.

He reaffirmed the importance of ensuring national minority rights in the country, and called upon the Bosnian authorities to continue their efforts to protect those rights.  His delegation believed that all the national communities should be represented in the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in the Parliaments of the entities.

He also hoped that the new Law on National Minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina would become a useful instrument to allow minorities to exercise their rights according to European standards.  Having already expressed its interest in participating in European Union-led military crisis management operations and in European Security and Defence Policy-related processes, including military and civilian aspects, he said that his Government reiterated its readiness to contribute to the European Union Police Mission.

JASNA OGNJANOVAC (Croatia) said that, because of geographic and economic links with Bosnia and Herzegovina, her country firmly supported stability there.  The people of those territories had, through recent elections, expressed their will to live in a common State.  That desire was hindered by the de facto partition of the country, though constitutionally it was one country.

Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, she said, could lend their trust only to a political system that guaranteed them the preservation of their national, cultural and religious identity and allowed them to be genuinely represented in all joint institutions.  She recommended that the constitutional structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina be allowed to develop and evolve with the dynamics of the country’s political, economic and social life.  That was the road to a democratic and self-sustainable Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The Dayton arrangement, she agreed, was a floor and not a ceiling.

Acknowledging that cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was one of the obligations of those who signed the accords, she stated there could be no sustainable Bosnia and Herzegovina with Karadzic and Mladic at large.  She added that the road to statehood necessitated serious consideration of reform proposals put forward by the High Representative.  The State had to be strengthened; corruption had to be brought under control, thus encouraging foreign investment; and young people should be provided with incentives to remain in the country.  One good step forward was membership in the Council of Europe.

MEHMET KEMAL BOZAY (Turkey) said that the consolidation of State institutions, the pursuit of economic reform and the return of refugees and internally displaced persons were the main priorities of his own country in reviewing the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The priorities of the international community in that country would be justice, then jobs, through

reforms.  The entrenched power structures, which retained power in various cantons, cities and public enterprises, were among the main obstacles to establishing true rule of law in Bosnia.

The new Governments at State and entity levels, he said, should work in earnest to eliminate those power structures, and should fully cooperate with the international presence in Bosnia to that end.  In the same vein, the Government should implement economic reforms thoroughly, which would stimulate domestic production and foreign investment.  It should pursue effective policies of collecting or generating sufficient revenues.

The return of refugees and displaced persons was the litmus test of the Dayton Accords, he said.  Improved security conditions, a more cooperative and receptive political mindset —- still lacking in some areas -- as well as countrywide implementation of property legislation might positively affect the returns.

ROMAN KIRN (Slovenia) said Bosnia and Herzegovina were at an important juncture in the process of consolidation of the State.  It should continuously demonstrate its determination to create a modern European State with effective government, stable institutions and concern for raising standards of public life.  In bringing about that change, Bosnia and Herzegovina deserved the support of the international community.  A continued international presence was vital for the successful completion of the work of transformation initiated seven years ago.

The departure of the UNMIBH should not signal a scaling down of political support and financial resources of the international community.  In that respect, the European Union Police Mission, which was taking over in January 2003, was of particular importance.

He indicated that Slovenia was setting the example through economic cooperation, and its persistent support for the integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina into European structures.  It was also actively involved in stabilization processes.  Through establishment of the International Trust Fund for mine clearance, and the Regional Centre for the Psychological Well-being of Children, it sought to impact the lives of ordinary people who continued to be affected by the legacy of war.  Slovenia had also been one of the biggest investors in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

He said his country strongly supported efforts of the High Representative to strengthen the rule of law and build a solid judicial system in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

KOJI HANEDA (Japan) said his country was encouraged by the fact that last month’s general elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the first since the end of the conflict in 1995, were carried out smoothly and largely in accordance with international standards.  The elections were thus a milestone in the peace implementation process.  The four-year tenure of the newly-elected officials would be equally crucial to that process, and Japan looked forward to the early formation of a new, effectively functioning Government which would assume responsibility for the future of the country, in cooperation with the international community.

He said it was especially important that the new leaders had committed themselves to working together to advance reforms necessary for the establishment of the rule of law and creation of employment.  It was essential that the new Government cooperated with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and he urged the leadership and all other parties concerned to fully support its work and surrender all those who had been indicted.  “We urge Bosnia and Herzegovina to restructure its justice system as a whole, and to develop the national capacity to prosecute less serious war crimes,” he said, adding that corruption and organized crime were further issues demanding the authorities’ urgent attention.

DEJAN ŠAHOVIĆ (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) said that cooperation with and development of stable and friendly relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina were among the top objectives of Yugoslavia’s foreign policy.  Both bilaterally and regionally, important progress had been achieved over the past year in pursuing those goals.  For example, negotiations on border identification between the two countries were progressing, and over 50 per cent of the border had been identified.

In addition to the Free Trade Agreement, the two countries had recently signed an agreement on dual citizenship that would significantly facilitate the exercise of rights of citizens on both sides of the border.  Those agreements, together with the existing non-visa regime, were aimed at ensuring free flow of people and goods across the borders.  Agreements on road transport and social insurance had also been signed, while several other bilateral agreements were currently in preparation.

While much had been achieved in normalizing relations between his country and Bosnia and Herzegovina, much still remained to be done to overcome the difficult legacy of the 1990s.  One issue that required particular attention was the 140,000 refugees still remaining in Yugoslavia.  Further joint efforts, both bilateral and regional, were necessary to speed up the return process.

Action on Draft

Prior to action on the text, the Assembly was informed that the United States had joined co-sponsorship of the draft resolution.

The Assembly then adopted the resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina without a vote.

Central America

The Assembly then turned to the situation in Central America.

HANS BRATTSKAR (Norway) said that while there had been some important advances since the Consultative Group meeting last February, there had not been a true acceleration in the implementation of the peace accords.  In some areas, backsliding was apparent and respect for human rights had eroded in the past year.  Harassment of human rights defenders had continued, violations by the police had increased and illegal groups and clandestine structures still existed.  Stagnation in the implementation of the peace accords, coupled with deterioration in other

areas, could jeopardize the progress made since 1996.  The Government, together with civil society, should continue to implement the accords and the nine points from last February’s meeting.

He said part of Norway’s support for the peace process had taken the form of contributions to maintain the presence of the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA).  As the end of MINUGUA was scheduled to coincide with the change of Government following elections in the fall of 2003, and it was doubtful that adequate mechanisms to replace MINUGUA would be in place before then, Norway supported the extension of the Mission’s mandate, in a restricted form, until the end of 2004.  The focus of this restricted presence should be on human rights, indigenous rights and the role of the army in a democratic society, with the highest importance given to ensuring that Guatemalan authorities be ready to take over MINUGUA’s role as soon as possible.  Moreover, the struggle against corruption in Nicaragua was of great interest, as were the proposals put forward to end the border dispute between Guatemala and Belize.

Mr. MOESBY (Denmark), speaking for the European Union and associated States, said that through its Framework Cooperation Agreement and the Community Action Plan for the Reconstruction of Central America, the European Union's commitment to Central America had "materialized" into concrete actions.  The efforts focused on regional integration, and areas such as health, education and environmental protection.

He said that the European Union had seen with concern a deterioration of the human rights situation in Guatemala in 2002.  Of particular worry was the serious increase in the threats and assaults directed against human rights defenders.  The European Union condemned those acts "in the strongest possible terms".

He said MINIGUA had performed remarkably well in consolidating the achievements of the peace agreement.  The Government and Parliament of Guatemala must fulfil their responsibilities in accordance with the peace process if the democratic process were to succeed.  This would include ensuring transparency in public spending and intensifying the fight against corruption.  Guatemala must initiate land reform, ensure respect for the rights of the indigenous population and establish civilian control over State intelligence agencies.

Turning to Nicaragua, he said the European Union supported the efforts of President Bolaños to raise ethical standards in public life, to fight corruption and to modernize the Nicaraguan economy.  It urged State institutions in Nicaragua to collaborate with the President.

Regarding Honduras, he said the European Union was concerned about the ongoing violence and the recent increase in human rights violations.  The European Union underscored the need for stronger government measures to protect and safeguard the rule of law in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law.

He also said the high number of killings of Honduran children and youth was a source of great concern for the European Union, and he called for further efforts of the Government, under President Manduro, to address the situation.

On El Salvador, he said the European Union commended the appointment of an “ombudswoman” -– an institution with a key role to play in protecting vulnerable sections of the population.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on motion to take no action on amendment to draft A/57/L.14

The Assembly adopted a motion to take no action on the amendment to draft resolution A/57/L.14 on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (the amendment contained in document A/57/L.17) by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 11 against, with 26 abstentions, thus:

In favour:  Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.

Against:  Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Jordan, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Abstaining:  Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Brunei Darussalam, China, Egypt, Ghana, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mexico, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Palau, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on third preambular paragraph of IAEA draft resolution

The Assembly adopted the third preambular paragraph of the draft resolution on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (document A/57/L.14) by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions, thus:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against:  India, Israel.

Abstaining:  Ghana, Lesotho, Pakistan.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on twelfth preambular paragraph of IAEA draft resolution

The Assembly adopted the twelfth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (document A/57/L.14) by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 0 against, with 15 abstentions, thus:

In favour:  Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against:  None.

Abstaining:  Algeria, Bangladesh, Cuba, India, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on operative paragraph 5 of IAEA draft resolution

The Assembly adopted operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (document A/57/L.14) by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 0 against, with 5 abstentions, thus:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against:  None.

Abstaining:  Ghana, India, Israel, Pakistan, Syria.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on operative paragraph 10 of IAEA draft resolution

The Assembly adopted operative paragraph 10 of the draft resolution on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (document A/57/L.14) by a recorded vote of 134 in favour to 2 against, with 1 abstention, thus:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against:  Israel, United States.

Abstaining:  Viet Nam.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on report of IAEA

The Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (document A/57/L.14) by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to  1 against, with 2 abstentions, thus:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against:  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Abstaining:  Angola, Viet Nam.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

* *** *