General Assembly Session 49 meeting 90

The President

Members will recall that the debate on this item was concluded on Monday, 17 October.

I call on the representative of Turkey to introduce draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2.

Mr. Guven (Turkey)

After lengthy discussions the sponsors of draft resolution A/49/L.2 have tried to accommodate the concerns of some delegations. We have introduced a new paragraph in the preambular part and extended the scope of some of the existing paragraphs. In this context I would like especially to refer to the third and eleventh preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution as now contained in document A/49/L.2/Rev.2.

In the preambular paragraph we have added new language to underline the right of those countries that have concluded relevant safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of the Treaty, other relevant articles and with the object and purposes of the Treaty.

By including the eleventh preambular paragraph in the text of the draft resolution before us, the sponsors intended to emphasize the mechanism for consideration of the enlargement of the Board of Governors of the Agency.

The sponsors are convinced that with these amendments the concerns of some delegations have been adequately addressed. In the same way, by inserting "and other relevant internationally legally binding agreements" in the fourth and fifth lines of the third preambular paragraph, the sponsors accommodated the concerns of some countries that are parties to regional treaties creating nuclear-weapon-free zones - that is to say, the Treaty of Tlatelolco and Rarotonga, to which IAEA safeguards apply.

It is the wish of the sponsors that the draft resolution be adopted by consensus.

The President

I call next on the representative of Iraq, to introduce proposed amendments to draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, contained in document A/49/L.22.

Mr. Hasan (Iraq)

Before introducing the proposed amendments to draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, contained in document A/49/L.22, my delegation wishes to express its great appreciation for the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the quest for a world free of nuclear weapons and for widespread peaceful use of nuclear energy. Proceeding from this understanding of the Agency's role, my country has strongly opposed attempts at politicizing the IAEA and using it as cover for actions that serve the political interests of this or that State.

In document A/49/L.22, my delegation proposes two amendments to draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2. The first relates to the eighth preambular paragraph, which currently reads as follows:

Mr. Hasan (Iraq)

"Noting from the Director General's statement that the Agency is now in a position to implement its ongoing monitoring and verification plan in Iraq". (A/49/L.2/Rev.2, eighth preambular para.)

That paragraph is intentionally vague. To which statement of the Director General does the paragraph refer, and when was it made? Furthermore, the word "now" in this paragraph is also intentionally ambiguous. The fact is that the Director General stated in paragraph 49 of his sixth report to the Security Council, transmitted to the Council on 10 October 1994, that

"with the establishment at the end of August of the IAEA continuous presence in Iraq, all elements of the IAEA Plan are now in place". (S/1994/1151, annex, para. 49)

Thus, my delegation proposes replacing the eighth preambular paragraph with the following factual paragraph:

"Noting from the report of the Director General to the Security Council dated 6 October 1994 [(S/1994/1151, annex)] that all elements of the Agency's ongoing monitoring plans in Iraq have been in place since the end of August 1994". (A/49/L.22, para. 1)

This amendment represents a just and fair reference to the Director General's report.

The second amendment we are proposing relates to the end of operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution, which currently reads as follows:

"... stresses the need for Iraq to cooperate fully with the Agency in achieving the complete and long-term implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions". (A/49/L.2/Rev.2, para. 7)

This wording does not reflect the facts. The report of the Director General to the Security Council, transmitted on 10 October 1994, states that

"The ensuing series of high-level technical talks marked a turning-point in the level of cooperation and support extended by the Iraqi authorities to IAEA and the Special Commission. This change in the Iraqi attitude has enabled inspectors' work to be conducted effectively and has contributed significantly to expediting the process of establishing ongoing monitoring and verification, as called for in the Security Council resolutions". (S/1994/1151, annex, para. 4)

In the light of this clear statement about Iraqi cooperation, our delegation suggests replacing the words "the need for Iraq to cooperate fully" with the words "the need for Iraq to continue its cooperation" (A/49/L.22, para. 2).

Mr. Hasan (Iraq)

These amendments do not reflect Iraq's views; they reflect those of the IAEA. They make the text less ambiguous and more realistic. We therefore hope that all delegations will view our proposed amendments favourably.

The President

The Assembly will now take action on draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2 and on the amendments proposed in document A/49/L.22.

The following countries have become sponsors of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2: Lithuania and South Africa.

Before calling on the first speaker in explanation of vote before the vote, I would remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and that delegations should make their statements from their seats.

Mr. Pak (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

The delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea believes that there are no legal grounds whatsoever for the inclusion of serious political issues such as the nuclear issue in draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2 on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency, an agency that specializes in science and technology. We therefore reiterate our strong demand for the unconditional deletion of those paragraphs relating to the nuclear issue.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has stated its position time and again: that the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula should be resolved bilaterally by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States. Particularly, it has long opposed consideration of the nuclear issue by the General Assembly or the Security Council, and has categorically rejected all unreasonable resolutions regarding this issue.

Previous consideration of the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula at the United Nations proved to be of no help to the resolution of the issue. Rather, it was misused by insidious elements in their attempts to block a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue, with the sole intention of increasing pressure upon us and aggravating tensions on the Korean peninsula to the extreme.

All these facts have clearly shown that the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula can be resolved only through the talks between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States of America, not at the United Nations. It is well known that the delegations of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States, at the Geneva talks held from 23 September to 21 October 1994, reaffirmed the DPRK-USA joint statement of 11 June 1993 and signed the agreed framework on the final resolution of the nuclear issue.

It is legally stipulated in the framework agreed between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States that the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is one to be resolved between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States and that those two countries are responsible for it.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States are holding expert-level talks on implementation of the agreed framework, having already taken some measures to implement what is envisaged therein.

There is no justification whatsoever for the adoption of a draft resolution aimed at putting pressure on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea at a time when the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States are undertaking practical measures to implement the agreed framework.

If the United Nations, which has an obligation to help to secure negotiated settlements to disputes, ignores this agreed framework and adopts a draft resolution whose purpose is to put pressure on a party to the dialogue, it will only impede the implementation of that agreed framework. This will amount to wanton violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and of international law and practice.

If the sponsors of the draft resolution want a fair solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula they will not block but, rather, will facilitate implementation of the framework agreed between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States.

For those reasons the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will vote against the ninth preambular paragraph and paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, which was introduced by Turkey.

Mr. Kumar (India)

India has been a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since the inception of that body in 1957. We have consistently attached the highest importance to the objectives of the IAEA, and we are active participants in its activities. Since this draft resolution concerns the activities of the IAEA as a whole -- something to which we attach great value -- we are inclined to go along with it. However, we have considerable difficulty with the third preambular paragraph.

The draft resolution on the IAEA is a traditional one. The language of the third preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2 implies a link between adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and freedom to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that Article II of the IAEA's statute, referring to the Agency's objectives, states explicitly that it

"shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world".

Article II continues:

"It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purposes."

The purpose of article II of the IAEA's Statute is obviously to encourage access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, without any discrimination whatsoever.

By implying that adherence to the non-proliferation Treaty -- a matter on which my Government's views are well known -- has a bearing on access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the draft resolution goes beyond the scope of the IAEA statute. We are therefore constrained to call for a vote on the third preambular paragraph.

Mr. Leahy (United States)

It is the position of my delegation that the amendments that have been submitted in document A/49/L.22 are not accurate. A review of the entire report from which they are drawn reveals instances in which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) determined that Iraqi officials either had been less than forthcoming or had attempted to conceal facts.

The United States applauds the diligence and determination of the IAEA in its pursuit of facts in Iraq, but we cannot support amendments to this draft resolution that, taken out of the context in which they were originally presented, distort the degree of Iraqi cooperation with IAEA inspectors.

In our view, the language regarding Iraq is seriously deficient. It would be far more appropriate for this draft resolution to call upon the Government of Iraq to "improve its cooperation" with international inspectors.

The President

The Assembly will now take action on draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2 and on the amendments contained in documents A/49/L.15/Rev.1 and A/49/L.22.

In accordance with rule 90 of the rules of procedure, the amendments will be voted on first. Rule 90 also stipulates:

"When two or more amendments are moved to a proposal, the General Assembly shall first vote on the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original proposal and then on the amendment next furthest removed therefrom, and so on until all the amendments have been put to the vote."

The Assembly will therefore take a decision first on the amendment circulated in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1.

I call on the representative of Germany, who wishes to raise a point of order.

Mr. Rudolph (Germany)

I should like, on behalf of the European Union and its acceding States -- Austria, Finland and Sweden -- and the other sponsors of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, to raise a point of order in connection with the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1, which was submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

On behalf of the European Union and its acceding States and the other sponsors, I formally move, under the terms of rule 74 of the General Assembly's rules of procedure, that no action be taken on that amendment.

I should also like to request a recorded vote.

The amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 raises an issue that is not relevant to the General Assembly's annual resolution on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The new operative paragraph proposed in the amendment goes beyond IAEA issues to the question of export licensing, for which the IAEA has no mandate. Export licensing arrangements derive from obligations under articles I, II and III of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. They are not within the purview of the IAEA and are not relevant to this draft resolution.

The language of the proposed amendment emphasizes the rights of recipient States without reference to the supplier States' corresponding duty to ascertain whether the potential recipient State is adhering to non-proliferation obligations. The proposed amendment seeks to undermine the broad international recognition accorded to the work of the IAEA each year by the General Assembly. This serves neither the IAEA nor the international community, whose security interests are well served through the IAEA's safeguards system. We should also like to highlight the significant work performed by the IAEA in the framework of its technical cooperation programme to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Such highly divisive language as that contained in A/49/L.15/Rev.1, far from being helpful in this regard, would severely jeopardize the IAEA's role in effectuating the transfer of nuclear techniques for peaceful purposes. In this connection, we should like to emphasize that the sponsors have made every effort to accommodate concerns about this point in the text of the draft resolution.

At a time when the central element of the nuclear non-proliferation regime is being asked by the international community to perform new and expanding tasks, it would be particularly unfortunate if the General Assembly were not to adopt the annual IAEA draft resolution with the customary support. We therefore hope that the proposed amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 will be rejected.

The President

Within the terms of rule 74 of the rules of procedure, the representative of Germany has proposed that no action be taken on the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1. Rule 74 reads as follows:

"During the discussion of any matter, a representative may move the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote."

I shall now call on the two representatives who have asked to speak in favour of the motion.

Mr. Keating (New Zealand)

The annual draft resolution on this agenda item has traditionally been uncontroversial. It has been an opportunity to recognize and express support for the important and valuable work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Up until very recently this annual draft resolution was consistently adopted by consensus. Last year it was adopted with the near unanimous support of the General Assembly. Sponsors last year, like those this year, were drawn from every continent, and only one delegation opposed the draft resolution.

This year a number of amendments were proposed by various delegations. The sponsors have worked hard to include in the draft resolution those amendments which could reasonably be related to the work of the Agency. The sponsors have sought to put together a draft resolution which could command broad support from the international community.

Some amendments, however, could not be incorporated into the text. In this regard, my delegation believes that the amendment proposed in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 should not be included. We believe it introduces a divisive political element into a resolution which should be seen as a consensus expression of support for the IAEA.

The proposed amendment in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 seeks to assert a right of unrestricted access to nuclear equipment, materials and scientific and technological information. While it refers to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the amendment does not take into account the specific provisions of the Treaty. This omission speaks volumes.

Let us remember that article I of the Treaty obliges nuclear-weapon States to ensure that any nuclear technology they provide is not used directly or indirectly for proliferation purposes. Secondly, article II obliges non-nuclear-weapon States not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. And, thirdly, article III obliges recipient States to accept IAEA safeguards. This article explicitly rejects any suggestion that trade in nuclear technology can be unrestricted. So, too, does article IV, which the amendment now before us quotes from selectively and incompletely.

In the text submitted by the sponsors, the issue of technical cooperation and access to nuclear technology without discrimination is already dealt with. The third preambular paragraph of the draft resolution in document A/49/L.2/Rev.2 reflects in an appropriately balanced fashion any legitimate concerns on this issue. Most importantly, the sponsors' preambular paragraph does what the amendment fails to do: it refers explicitly to articles I and II and other relevant articles of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The sponsors of this draft resolution have twice offered compromise language to specifically address the issues raised in the text of document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 Despite the sponsors' best efforts at compromise, we are still faced with essentially the same amendment. Therefore we can only conclude that the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 is not acceptable.

This is a critical period for nuclear non-proliferation. For this reason, we believe it is very important that the work of the IAEA enjoy the full confidence of the General Assembly. The Agency is playing a vital monitoring role around the world. It is increasingly being asked to perform more and more crucially important tasks. All of us therefore have a common interest in supporting the Agency's work.

Consequently, we urge delegations to support this no-action motion. By voting in favour, the General Assembly will collectively be affirming that peaceful nuclear cooperation should continue in a safe and responsible manner.

Mr. Tuma (Czech Republic)

As one of the sponsors of the draft resolution (A/49/L.2/Rev.2) on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), I wish to speak in favour of the no-action motion in respect of the proposed amendment to the draft resolution, which was submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran and is contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1.

We have agreed to speak in support of this no-action motion because of the seriousness with which we view the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1. My delegation considers that this amendment runs counter to the purpose and objective of this essentially procedural draft resolution, which serves as an important endorsement of the work of the IAEA by the General Assembly.

The sponsors have made considerable efforts to take account of the issues which are the subject of the amendment submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the third preambular paragraph of the draft resolution the reference to the importance of access to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy by all States which have concluded safeguards agreements with the Agency has been included in recognition of the importance many developing countries attach to it. We regret that we have had to conclude that the language proposed by Iran in A/49/L.15/Rev.1 is an unacceptable deviation from language agreed by 168 countries in treaty form.

In the same spirit of cooperation the sponsors have added a new preambular paragraph that refers to the resolution on the amendment of article VI of the statute of the Agency adopted by its General Conference in September of this year. My delegation is aware that this is a matter that is of concern to many countries, and we therefore believed it was appropriate to refer to it in the draft resolution. In so doing, my delegation believes that the sponsors have responded to the original second amendment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in a manner which does not encroach upon the authority and responsibility of the Agency.

In conclusion, the Czech Republic attaches great importance to the adoption of the draft resolution with the broadest possible support. It is vital that the work of the Agency, which has played an indispensable role in the nuclear-proliferation regime, receive the support and encouragement of the General Assembly. I therefore wish to ask for the support of delegations for this no-action motion.

The President

We have just heard two speakers in favour of the motion submitted by Germany. Does any other member wish to speak?

Mr. Takht-Ravanchi (Iran)

First, I would like to emphasize the fact that the comments made by the representatives of Germany and New Zealand are irrelevant to this subject because they addressed the contents of our original amendment in A/49/L.15, which is no longer before the Assembly. This is perhaps due to the fact that my delegation has not been given a chance to introduce the revised version of our amendment, contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1.

The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran rejects the motion of non-action moved by the representative of Germany on the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 for the following reasons:

The Islamic Republic of Iran, as a committed Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), firmly believes that the rights of developing countries Parties to the NPT and IAEA to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes are denied by certain developed countries that, in violation of their obligations under the relevant legal instruments, are determined to perpetuate discrimination in international relations through the proliferation of export-control measures, closed-door clubs and ad hoc regimes such as the London Suppliers and Australia Group.

The draft resolution in document A/49/L.2 and its revised version, L.2.Rev.2, despite some cosmetic changes, fails to recognize explicitly and reaffirm the rights of States Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The first paragraph of our original amendment in document L.15, dated 8 November 1994, was taken from the substantive paper submitted by the group of non-aligned and other States to the Third Preparatory Committee of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, document NPT/CONF.1995/TC.3/13, of 14 September 1994. It was nothing but a reaffirmation of the rights of States Parties under article IV of the NPT and a call for the removal of discriminatory restrictions that affect the inalienable rights of Parties under that article.

The second paragraph of the original amendment called for an early decision on the expansion of the Board of Governors of the IAEA, which was dictated by such new realities as the increasing disparity between the overall membership of the Agency compared to the current composition of the Board of Governors, which was established more than 30 years ago.

The sponsors of the draft resolution refrained from negotiations on our amendment until 8 December 1994, when they approached the Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to work on a compromise language. Subsequently, a small group of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and a small group of sponsors met on 8 and 9 December and negotiated and agreed, ad referendum, on two compromise operative paragraphs which would replace our original amendment, namely, L.15. Unfortunately, the subsequent response of the sponsors to the compromise formulations was negative, and they reneged on the agreement and decided not to continue the negotiations. Therefore, one cannot but doubt the sincerity of the move made on 8 December to work on a compromise language.

In light of the foregoing, my delegation, after consultations with some of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement, decided to submit a revised version of L.15 based on the compromise language negotiated between a small group of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and a small group of the sponsors on Friday, 9 December 1994. Moreover, we decided not to insist on the second compromise language on the expansion of the Board of Governors for the time being, in order to enhance the chance of a smooth adoption of the draft resolution. The amendment contained in A/49/L.15/Rev.1 is consistent with article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the thrust of the draft resolution. We do recommend to Member States, in particular the developing countries, to support this amendment in its entirety and to reject the motion of non-action by casting a negative vote on it.

The President

I should simply like to note that the amendment in A/49/L.15/Rev.1 was not introduced because there was no request to do so, unlike the case of A/49/L.22, introduced by Iraq.

Does any other delegation wish to speak against the motion?

Since that is not the case, I shall now put to the vote the motion submitted by the representative of Germany that no action be taken on the amendment contained in A/49/L.15/Rev.1.

The President

Since the motion for no action is adopted, no action will be taken on the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1.

The Assembly will next proceed to take a decision on the amendments contained in document A/49/L.22.

A separate vote has been requested on each amendment. As I hear no objection, I shall put each amendment to the vote.

I first put to the vote the amendment contained in paragraph 1 of document A/49/L.22.

The President

I will next put to the vote the amendment contained in paragraph 2 of document A/49/L.22.

The President

A separate vote has been requested on operative paragraph 7, just amended, of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2.

A separate vote has also been requested on the third and ninth preambular paragraphs and on operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2.

As there appears to be no objection, I shall put those paragraphs to the vote first.

I shall put to the vote first the third preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2.

The President

I next put to the vote the ninth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2.

The President

I now put to the vote operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2.

The President

I now put to the vote operative paragraph 7, as amended, of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2.

The President

I now put to the vote draft resolution A/49/L.42/Rev.2 as a whole, as amended.

The President

Several representatives wish to speak in explanation of vote. May I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Mr. Leahy (United States)

My delegation was pleased to join others in support of this resolution, which recognizes the important work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The diverse programmes of the IAEA serve the interests of the international community in many ways. Countless individual lives on all continents benefit from IAEA-supported programmes such as nuclear medicine, agriculture, animal husbandry and pest control. The safety with which nuclear materials and technology are managed worldwide is enhanced daily by IAEA-sponsored training and guidelines. International security is reinforced through the ongoing application of IAEA safeguards.

The United States is proud of its long and well-established record of strong support for the IAEA, and I should like to reiterate my Government's commitment to continuing this support. We look forward to working with others to strengthen further the work and role of this vital international institution.

Mr. Wu Chengjiang (China)

The Chinese delegation abstained on draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In that connection, I wish to state the following.

First, our abstention on the draft resolution does not affect the Chinese delegation's view of the work of the IAEA. In our statement in the general debate on this item on 17 October last, we gave a comprehensive and positive appraisal of the work of the IAEA over the past year.

Secondly, as regards the individual resolutions referred to in the resolution adopted by the Agency's Board of Governors at the General Conference, the Chinese delegation reserves its views as expressed in the relevant forums.

Thirdly, the Chinese delegation believes that the General Assembly resolution on the Agency's annual report should not enter into the specifics of the work of the Agency, especially on issues as controversial as the Korean nuclear question. This is not helpful when the parties concerned are conducting negotiations.

Fourthly, the Chinese delegation would like to reiterate China's principled position on the Korean nuclear question. We have always supported the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. We welcome the negotiations between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States and the progress that has been made, and we support the various parties in making further efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and reasonable solution of this question at an early date through patient negotiations and consultations.

Mr. Jacob (Israel)

Israel voted against the third preambular paragraph of the draft resolution just adopted. Israel believes that all States members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, without discrimination, and regardless of whether or not they are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or other relevant international agreements, should enjoy the full rights envisaged in the Agency's statute. The language of the third preambular paragraph is not clear enough in this regard. Therefore, Israel voted against this paragraph.

Mr. Kumar (India)

An important area of the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) relates to the application of safeguards, and the Agency has embarked upon a major exercise on the strengthening of the safeguards system. We attach importance to this exercise, which is aimed at making the safeguards system more efficient and cost-effective.

In this context, one of the recurring themes over the past year in the meetings of the Agency's Board has been the implementation of the safeguards agreement between the Agency and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. This is a complex and substantive issue in which there have been many developments, both technical and political. Our point of view has been consistent. We believe that the best way in which this difficult issue can be resolved is through patient discussions among all the concerned parties. We have supported a policy of cooperation and dialogue, rather than confrontation and deadlines, and in this spirit have welcomed the discussions between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

It was for that reason that in the Board we abstained on those resolutions that we felt were not contributing to a positive result. We had similar reservations concerning the ninth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, and therefore we abstained on those paragraphs.

Nevertheless, since the resolution concerns the activities of the IAEA as a whole, to which we attach great value, we went along with it.

Mr. Moradi (Iran)

The Islamic Republic of Iran attaches great importance to the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and we have therefore consistently supported its activities.

I should like to refer to our statement on 17 October last, before the Assembly, under agenda item 14, when we took note with satisfaction of the report of the Agency and the statement of Mr. Hans Blix, its Director General.

However, my delegation abstained on the draft resolution contained in document A/49/L.2/Rev.2, for the reason that we explained earlier today -- namely, the lack of any reference to the rights of the States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to use and have access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, free from discriminatory restrictions promoted by certain developed countries.

The President

May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 14?

The President

The Assembly will now consider the reports of the First Committee on agenda items 53 and 64 (f), 54 to 73 and 153.

I request the Rapporteur of the First Committee to introduce the reports of the First Committee in one intervention.

Mr. Goosen (South Africa)

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the General Assembly the reports of the First Committee on agenda items 53 and 64 (f), 54 to 73 and 153. Those reports are contained in documents A/49/690 to A/49/711.

Responding to the Assembly's appeal that it conduct its work in a spirit of rationalization and make better use of the Organization's resources, the Committee further reduced the number of its meetings and concluded its work in the course of 26 formal and eight informal meetings. In order to enhance its effectiveness, the Committee this year adopted a new format, which included a structured discussion of specific subjects on the thematic approach. That has lent a higher degree of cohesiveness to the discussions and made them more focused and action-oriented. It may be pertinent to note in that connection that, for the first time in the annals of the First Committee, the relevant draft resolution entitled "Rationalization of the work and reform of the agenda of the First Committee" was adopted -- in fact, without a vote.

The Committee considered 46 draft resolutions and two draft decisions altogether, while one draft resolution and one draft decision were withdrawn by the respective sponsors. Twenty-four, or 60 per cent, were adopted without a vote.

The disarmament calendar for 1994 has been very intensive. During this last year, Member States have been addressing issues that range across the full spectrum of disarmament questions. The debates of the First Committee were a reflection of this, and the statements that were made by Member States were characterized by a large measure of consensus on the issues that need to be focused upon. Some of the issues that were most widely referred to included the following.

One issue was the recognition of the disarmament-related advances that have been achieved over the last year. A number of delegations, however, noted that the high expectations that prevailed following the end of the cold war have become subdued. They also noted that there is a disturbing escalation in armed conflict around the world.

Another issue was the 1995 Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which will be reviewing the Treaty's operation and which will also be deciding on the extension of the life of the NPT. Virtually every delegation that spoke during the debates referred to the NPT and its extension. Also, negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) are being conducted within the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Many delegations made a point of noting that the draft CTBT text is still heavily bracketed.

Other issues included the proposed treaty for the prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices; calls for the early conclusion of legally binding nuclear security assurances in favour of non-nuclear-weapon States; the recognition by most delegations of the importance of nuclear- weapon-free zones as a means to achieving international peace and security; and the chemical weapons Convention and the work which is being done in The Hague with regard to the establishment of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Another issue was the establishment of the Ad Hoc Group of Governmental Experts of the Biological Weapons Convention. The progress which was made at the September 1994 Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention in Geneva was commended by most of the speakers.

With respect to transparency in armaments with specific reference to the Register of Conventional Arms, the role that greater transparency plays by inspiring confidence was generally recognized. The important role of the United Nations Register in this process was also raised by most speakers. It was, however, acknowledged that the Register as it is now structured can be improved.

A final issue was the international community's concern about the carnage that is being caused by anti-personnel land-mines and the ongoing negotiations currently under way concerning, inter alia, Protocol II of the Convention on certain conventional weapons.

Fifteen out of 45 resolutions that were adopted dealt with nuclear-related issues. The Non-Proliferation Treaty was the focus of two draft resolutions. I should like to take this opportunity to draw members' attention in particular to the accession to the NPT by a number of new States Parties, and in this context the Ukraine's accession as a non-nuclear-weapon State deserves special mention.

As was the case last year, the issues related to the comprehensive test ban treaty commanded keen attention from the Committee. The Committee once again adopted a consensus draft resolution on the CTBT, in which it welcomed the progress achieved in the course of negotiations within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament and urged the Conference

"to negotiate intensively, as a high priority task" (A/49/694, para. 4).

Other nuclear-related draft resolutions that were considered and adopted by the Committee were two draft resolutions on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations. The draft resolutions on nuclear-weapon-free zones in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America were adopted without a vote. Two others on such zones in South Asia and the South Atlantic attracted wide support.

A new draft resolution in which the Committee has requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons was introduced.

Draft resolutions were also introduced on the "step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat", on "Weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery" and on "Nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination on nuclear weapons". The first two draft resolutions are somewhat similar in conceptual thrust and aim at the destruction proper of certain types of weapons and their delivery means within an agreed time frame.

On regional disarmament measures issues, three draft resolutions were adopted: the "Regional confidence-building measures" draft resolution, which was adopted by the Committee without a vote; and the "Regional disarmament" and "Conventional arms control on regional and subregional levels" draft resolutions, which carried by a comfortable majority of votes.

As was expected, the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms received considerable attention. The confidence-building potential of the Register was emphasized by some delegations. At the same time, concerns were expressed at a number of issues relating to the Register and its implementation. This included the lack of agreement by the Group of Governmental Experts on recommendations for the expansion of the Register to include other categories of weapons in it, as well as data on procurement and military holdings.

Two draft resolutions, respectively calling for a moratorium on the export of anti-personnel mines and welcoming the progress achieved in reviewing the Convention on chemical weapons, were adopted without a vote. There was general outrage at the human suffering caused to innocent civilians by these weapons. In this connection, the report of the Secretary-General on the subject was highly appreciated by the Committee.

Once again this year the Committee took up the issue of science and technology. As in previous years, it was not possible to have a unified draft resolution on this issue. The substantive work that was done during the last year, especially within the United Nations Disarmament Commission, however, ensured that the differences between the two were less pronounced.

The debate on the draft resolution on the biological weapons Convention was mainly focused on the recent Special Conference. The establishment of a working group to consider appropriate measures, including possible verification measures, and draft proposals to strengthen the Convention in a legally binding instrument had a positive influence on the debate and enabled the Committee to adopt the relevant draft resolution without a vote.

The Committee furthermore adopted a draft resolution on the convening of the fourth special session devoted to disarmament. The fact that it was adopted without a vote is proof of the need for a renewed focus on disarmament and international security issues.

I turn now to the First Committee's work related to agenda item 67 "Question of Antarctica". It should be noted with satisfaction that for the first time the relevant draft resolution was adopted without a vote. The statements made during the debate on this issue show the shared conviction that for the benefit of mankind Antarctica must be preserved as a zone of peace, where the environment is protected and freedom of scientific research exists. Under the draft resolution the Assembly would welcome the provision by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to the Secretary-General of the final report of the Eighteenth Consultative Meeting. It would also encourage close cooperation between the Antarctic Treaty Parties and the United Nations Environment Programme.

Let me now briefly turn to a few errors of a technical nature which have crept into the texts of the following reports:

In document A/49/692, part III, "Recommendation of the First Committee", operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution should begin with the words "Also invites".

In document A/49/700, part III, "Recommendation of the First Committee", the text of draft resolution C, "Regional confidence-building measures", should be corrected as follows: operative paragraph 4 should begin "Takes note of"; operative paragraph 8 should begin "Also requests"; and operative paragraph 9 should begin "Further requests".

In document A/49/704, part III, "Recommendation of the First Committee", operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution should begin: "Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on Antarctica and of the report".

I would ask delegations to take note of those technical corrections.

Before concluding, I should like to pay a well-deserved tribute to all the delegations that participated in the work of the Committee for their spirit of cooperation in the common search for a better, safer and more stable world.

I should like to make special mention of the Chairman of the Committee, His Excellency Ambassador Luis Valencia-Rodriguez, who, with his intimate knowledge of disarmament and international security matters as well as his general diplomatic skills provided the Committee with vision and able leadership.

Let me also thank the Committee's Vice-Chairmen, Mr. Thomas Stelzer and Ambassador Yoshitomo Tanaka, who were most effective in discharging their duties.

I should also like to express my appreciation to the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Mr. Marrack Goulding, for his valuable contribution, and to the Acting Director of the Centre for Disarmament Affairs, Mr. Prvoslav Davinic.

In that connection, special thanks go to the Secretary of the First Committee, Mr. Sohrab Kheradi, whose vast experience and high degree of competence made a significant contribution to the successful outcome of the Committee's work.

I should also like to express my gratitude to Mr. Kheradi's staff, including Mr. Mohammad Sattar, Mr. Timur Alasaniya, Mr. Francesco Cottafavi, Mrs. Ruby Kulanusorstit and Mrs. Anna Nania.

The President

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the First Committee that are before it today.

The President

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote or position.

The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of the Committee have been made in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records.

May I remind members that under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401 the Assembly agreed that

"When the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, i.e., either in the Committee or in plenary meeting unless that delegation's vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee."

May I also remind delegations that, also in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we shall proceed to take decisions in the same manner as in the Committee, except in those cases where delegations have already notified the Secretariat that they wish to do otherwise. This means that where recorded or separate votes were taken, we shall do the same.

I also hope that we can proceed to adopt without a vote those recommendations that were adopted in the First Committee without a vote.