Main Committee III

Exchange of views III (continued)

The meeting was called to order at 10.30 a.m.



Exchange of views (continued)

1. The Chairman said that document NPT/CONF.2000/MC.III/CRP.15/Rev.1, which the Committee had before it, had broadly and constructively taken into account the comments and suggestions made by delegations at the meeting held the previous day. The criterion used in preparing the revised document had been to achieve broad acceptance of the final report. New paragraphs had been added and the numbering had therefore been altered. So far, section II B, paragraph 12, and the last sentence of paragraph 11 in section III did not have the support of all delegations.

2. Mr. Yang Dazhu (China) said that at the meeting held on the previous day his delegation had said that it needed more time to study the revised draft report. To some extent, the revised text reflected the opinions put forward by delegations and, if appropriate amendments were made, it might become a compromise text that would be submitted to the Conference for adoption. His country had participated in the work of the Committee in a constructive and cooperative spirit and hoped that it would be possible, without too much difficulty, to conclude the work on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, particularly in relation to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

3. The structure and content of the revised draft were positive, in spite of the fact that certain parts needed to be improved. In the first place, there was no mention in the text of nuclear power even though a large proportion of the electric power generated throughout the world was of nuclear origin; it was therefore essential, in considering the peaceful use of nuclear energy, to mention that contribution which was of benefit to mankind. In the second place, the subjects of nuclear safety, radioactive waste, the transport of radioactive material, the conversion of military materials to peaceful uses and the utilization of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes took up a major part of the revised draft, while only a small part was devoted to technical cooperation, particularly the subject of funds for technical cooperation. Many delegations had emphasized the voluntary nature of the Technical Cooperation Fund which had reduced its importance. Accordingly, that part of the report should be strengthened. In the third place, many developing island countries had repeatedly expressed their concerns with respect to the transport of radioactive materials. His country considered that those concerns were legitimate and should be reflected in the report.

4. Specifically, in section III, paragraph 2, of the initial draft (NPT/CONF.2000/MC.III/CRP.15) the words "power generation" should be added after "inter alia". During the debate that suggestion had been supported by many delegations, even though it was understandable that some countries, because of their particular situations, had opted not to develop nuclear energy. The elements mentioned in document NPT/CONF.2000/MC.III/CRP.7 should be reflected in the final report, in particular paragraphs 1, 3 and 6. In section III, paragraph 6, second sentence, relating to technical cooperation, the word "voluntary" should be deleted so that the sentence would read: "It urges member States of the IAEA to make every effort to pay in full and on time their contributions to the Technical Cooperation Fund ...". Certain delegations had suggested the addition of the phrase "and reminds them of their obligation to pay their assessed programme costs". His country saw no problem in that. The first version of the report correctly reflected the relevant resolution adopted by IAEA at the 1999 General Conference; accordingly, it was to be hoped that the wording that had been adopted by consensus some months earlier at the Conference would be maintained and that the delegations concerned would reconsider their suggestions. His country supported the proposal made by the Islamic Republic of Iran for the inclusion in the report of the relevant elements given in document NPT/CONF.2000/MC.III/WP.10, in particular paragraphs 2 and 4.

5. Turning to editorial suggestions, he said, with reference to section I, paragraph 6, that his delegation supported the proposal by the United Kingdom with respect to the medium-term strategy. In section II A, paragraph 2, the word "all" should be deleted in the second sentence. His delegation supported the position of France and the United Kingdom concerning section II A, paragraph 4, second sentence, and pointed out that, in paragraph 7 of that section, the word "transparency" should be deleted. In the middle of paragraph 13 of the same section, the expression "to build consensus" should be deleted so that the sentence would read: "The Conference recognizes the activities of IAEA in the search for new approaches on radioactive waste management solutions that are both safe and publicly acceptable". His delegation proposed that, in the last sentence in paragraph 15 of that section, the expression "notes that it is important" should be used instead of the word "urges". He also proposed the deletion of the phrase "nationally or in cooperation with others to ensure that they have efficient liability mechanisms in place". The revised sentence should read: "The Conference notes that it is important for all States to have in place an efficient liability mechanism". Finally, in section II B, paragraph 8, specific reference should be made to "international standards and international law".

6. Mr. Gerstler (Germany) said that the text prepared by the Chairman was balanced and represented a consensus formulation of the various proposals made by delegations. However, the proposal by China to amend the wording with respect to matters such as technical cooperation was not acceptable. The same applied to the issues of liability and the transportation of radioactive materials which were technical cooperation matters and should be dealt with in Vienna or Paris. The Chairman's text could not achieve a consensus if it were substantially amended, particularly with respect to the matters he had mentioned.

7. Mr. Pohan (Indonesia) said that section II B, paragraph 11, was of the greatest importance for countries of the Non-Aligned Movement and that it could be strengthened still further. Section I, paragraph 1, of the revised draft should be replaced by the text in paragraph 1 of document NPT/CONF.2000/MC.III/

CRP.7, which read: "The Conference reaffirms the legal obligations of the States Parties, set forth in Article IV of the Treaty, to facilitate the fullest possibility exchange of equipment, materials, scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to cooperate with other States to further development of applications of nuclear energy.

8. Mr. Kerpens (Suriname), while acknowledging the efforts made by the Chairman to prepare a text that would make it possible to reach a consensus, said that the text did not fully take account of his delegation's concerns. In section II B, paragraph 9, of the revised text the concerns of certain delegations had been reflected, particularly with respect to national and international regulations. However, the important proposals put forward by New Zealand, which had been supported by many delegations, had not been taken into account since the paragraph continued to insist on rights but made no mention of obligations. In paragraph 10 of the same section the proposal by Haiti that the expression "welcomes" be replaced by "notes" had not been reflected. He welcomed the fact that the Chairman had not given in to pressure in favour of the deletion of paragraph 12 of the revised text; however, he pointed out that the important amendment proposed by Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago, among others, concerning the environmental impact assessment had been omitted. That was important as a means of enabling small countries to take certain measures in the event of an accident. The proposals made by New Zealand concerning the liability regime should be included in the text so as to avoid any misunderstandings or ambiguities. It was important to emphasize that the overwhelming majority of States supported certain opinions and that only four States were opposed to them. Those States should put forward amendments to the text in a constructive spirit instead of merely insisting on the deletion of certain passages.

9. Mr. de Yturriaga (Spain) agreed with the statement by the representative of Germany. He disagreed with the proposal by China concerning the deletion, in section III, paragraph 6, of the word "voluntary", since the drafting of that paragraph reflected reality and was consistent with the IAEA Statute according to which the technical cooperation contributions were voluntary.

10. Mr. Eslanizad (Islamic Republic of Iran) said that he fully supported the proposals made by China to strengthen section III of the draft. Specifically, China's proposal to add "power generation" after "inter alia" in the second line of paragraph 2 of that section had received the support of many delegations but had not been taken into consideration; nevertheless the use of nuclear power to generate electricity was a resource for many Third World countries. For the same reason, it was difficult to accept section I, paragraphs 8 and 10, in which the peaceful use of nuclear energy was subordinated to sustainable development, which might be interpreted in the restrictive sense that, in order to achieve such development, the use of such energy would have to be curbed. That was inadmissible, because for some countries sustainable development depended precisely on nuclear power. On the other hand, in the penultimate line of section III, paragraph 6, after the words "Assessed Programme Costs", the following text should be inserted: "It also vigorously rejects any attempt by any Member State to use the Technical Cooperation Programme of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as an instrument for attaining political objectives in contravention of the IAEA Statute". Again, section III, paragraph 4, should provide for a balance between the regular budget and the extrabudgetary resources of IAEA, on the one hand, and the political will of donor States with regard to their contributions to the Technical Cooperation Fund, on the other. Accordingly, the Iranian and Thai delegations would submit a document with a proposed amendment to that effect. Lastly, the second sentence of section III, paragraph 11, should be deleted.

11. Mr. Papadimitropoulos (Greece) said that he agreed with the representative of Germany. With regard to China's proposal that the words "power generation" should be inserted after the words "inter alia", in section III, paragraph 2, there were a large number of countries, including his own, which disagreed with it. He proposed that the list beginning with "inter alia" and ending with "industry" should be deleted and replaced by the words "which are referred to in article III, paragraph A, subparagraph 2 of the IAEA Statute", since that subparagraph made a generic reference to what was proposed by China. As he understood it, in the last part of the last sentence of section II A, paragraph 6, it was assumed that nuclear accidents would continue to occur, which was inadmissible; accordingly, he proposed that the sentence should end with the words "international cooperation" and that all the remainder should be deleted. The amendments proposed with regard to the safe transport of radioactive materials were not acceptable; firstly, because the expressions used in the draft under consideration corresponded to those used at the IAEA General Conference the previous year and, secondly, because those proposals affected highly specialized areas, such as environmental law and the law of the sea, which fell within the domain of other forums and in which Main Committee III did not have sufficient competence. Greece was not convinced by China's proposal with regard to section III, paragraph 6, because, in its view, if the word "voluntary" was deleted, the word "urges" would also have to be replaced by another word in order for the sentence to make sense. He also proposed that the last sentence of the same paragraph should be drafted as follows: "It also encourages IAEA to continue to manage its technical cooperation activities efficiently and effectively, having regard to the costs".

12. Ms. Ngawat (New Zealand), referring to section II B, paragraph 9, reiterated her firm opposition to the inclusion of the words "maritime, river and air navigation rights and freedom as provided for in international law", because it was too restrictive and did not include the relevant obligations provided for in international law, which should be referred to in the draft report under consideration. With regard to section II D, the amendments to old paragraph 15 proposed by New Zealand had not been included in the new text, and her delegation insisted on the importance of replacing "or in cooperation with others" by "regionally or multilaterally", since it was highly desirable that there should be a regional dialogue with transporting States in the Pacific Forum. She supported the comments made by Suriname at the current meeting and those made by the Caribbean Community the previous day. Lastly, with regard to the wording of section II B, paragraph 9, New Zealand had been accommodating, but, in its view, no considerable advance had been made over the 1995 version.

13. Mr. Yang Dazhu (China) said that the amendments which he had submitted in his previous statement took into account the fact that the draft report under consideration constituted a good working basis that could be improved on. Replying to the comment made by Spain with regard to the voluntary character of contributions to the Technical Cooperation Fund, he said that, at the opening meeting of the last General Conference of IAEA, the Director-General of the Agency had stated that, although from a strictly legal point of view, contributions to the Technical Cooperation Fund might be termed voluntary, in his view, within the broader scope of contributions to the Fund by States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, those contributions were not voluntary but constituted solemn and binding commitments. With regard to the statement by Greece with regard to the amendments proposed by China, those amendments were in perfect harmony with the decisions of the IAEA 1999 General Conference. Lastly, he agreed with the proposal made by Indonesia.

14. Mr. Wood (Canada) said that he agreed with the statements concerning the need to draft a balanced text that would be the subject of general consensus. He supported the proposal made by Greece with regard to section II A, paragraph 6. He was in favour of retaining section II B, paragraph 12, and section III, paragraph 11, in the draft. With regard to section IV, he proposed that, at the end of paragraph 3, after the words "Trilateral Initiative", the following words should be added: "and in order to guarantee the irreversible withdrawal of fissionable material from weapons programmes", which had been contained in earlier versions of the draft, since, in his opinion, the idea of irreversibility was extremely important for inspiring confidence in the Trilateral Initiative. Lastly, he proposed that paragraph 4 of that section should be deleted, because the reference to the environmental consequences in the production of nuclear weapons lay outside the competence of Main Committee III.

15. Ms. Chahin (Chile) said that her delegation had a special interest in section II B of the draft report, concerning safe transport of radioactive materials. While it was appropriate to include the text of paragraph 12, the call contained in it for improved cooperation and exchange of information among the States concerned and the establishment of a regime of prior notification and prior consultation entailed certain limitations and, in her view, was not sufficient. Accordingly, her delegation drew the Committee's attention to paragraph 18 of the document submitted on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (NPT/CONF.2000/18) and requested that mention should be made in paragraph 12 of the revised draft of the need to improve the international regulation of the transportation of that type of materials. She also supported the proposals made by the Caribbean Community and New Zealand for the inclusion of the concept of obligations in the last sentence of paragraph 9.

16. Mr. Issa (Egypt) endorsed the proposal submitted in document NPT/CONF.2000/MC.III/CRP.7 concerning cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and supported the statements made by the representatives of China, Indonesia, on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, and Iran. With regard to the revised draft, he felt that section I, paragraph 8, placed excessive emphasis on sustainable development as a guiding principle in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The reference to mechanisms developed under the Kyoto Protocol for the formulation of projects with the objective of protecting the global environment was also inappropriate, since the Committee could not be expected to approve mechanisms that had not yet been negotiated or agreed. In that regard, the text concerning sustainable development contained in the report of Main Committee III of the 1995 Review Conference (NPT/CONF.1995/MC.III/1, draft text of the Final Declaration, section 1, para. 6), might serve as a basis for the formulation of the present section I, paragraph 8. With regard to section II A, paragraph 1, his delegation would like to have an explanation of the meaning of the phrase "the safety of nuclear installations within their territories" and to know whether it was taken from the IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety.

17. Mr. Abe (Japan) said that contributions to the IAEA Technical Cooperation Fund were partly voluntary in character and partly obligatory. If they had been totally obligatory, they would have had to form part of the IAEA regular budget, while, as things stood, they represented a separate account whose growth had been more rapid than that of the regular budget. Accordingly, he urged the Committee to accept the compromise text that had been submitted. Secondly, in accordance with the consultations held on the subject with the delegation of Ukraine, he wished to introduce two amendments to section II A, paragraph 6, of the draft text, namely to add at the end of the first sentence the words "and welcomes the decision by the Ukraine Government to close the Chernobyl nuclear power plant during the year 2000"; and to insert in the second sentence, after the words "the importance of" the words "the role of the States concerned". Thirdly, with regard to section II B, the text of paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of document NPT/CONF.2000/MC.III/CRP.15 was preferable. The first sentence of paragraph 9 of the most recent text contained controversial elements such as the expression "full protection of States concerned"; the meaning of the word "full" in that context was not clear, and, accordingly, that sentence should be deleted. While it would be preferable to delete paragraph 12, a compromise solution would be to delete the second sentence, to move the first sentence of paragraph 10 of the revised text to the beginning of paragraph 12 and to change the current first sentence of paragraph 12, which would become the second sentence, to read: "the Conference encourages States Parties to continue working bilaterally and through the relevant international organizations to further improve such cooperation and exchange of information". Lastly, the new wording of section D, paragraph 16, concerning liability, should be retained.

18. Ms. Sriswasdi (Thailand) said that she supported the statement made by the delegation of Indonesia on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and fully endorsed the criteria expressed by the representatives of China and Ukraine. With regard to section III of the draft text, she stressed the importance of the IAEA Technical Cooperation Fund. She pointed out that during the period 1995-1999 there had been a disparity of more than 20 per cent between the contributions of States and the agreed targets and that, even with additional financing from extrabudgetary and other resources, there would still be a deficit of approximately 14 per cent. The revised document submitted by the Chairman did not incorporate the changes to paragraph 4 of that section based on document NPT/CONF.2000/MC.III/CRP.7, namely, to insert in the first sentence of paragraph 4 after the words "IAEA's Technical Cooperation Fund" the words "though voluntary in character, should be interpreted as a political obligation consistent with article IV of the Treaty, that needs to be respected". The following words should be added after the last sentence of the same paragraph: "The Conference also places particular emphasis on the achievement and maintenance of a proper balance between IAEA's promotional and regulatory activities". Lastly, paragraph 6 of document NPT/CONF.2000/MC.III/

CRP.7 should be new paragraph 8 of section III of the revised draft text.

19. The Chairman said that, as he had previously informed delegations, the sole criterion followed in accepting texts, amendments and proposals for improvements was that they were likely to receive support that would lead to consensus. On the other hand, it would be for the delegation or delegations concerned to obtain such consensus. The proposal referred to by the delegation of Thailand had been the subject of consideration, and the result was reflected in the revised document.

20. Mr. Papadimitropoulos (Greece), in reply to the view expressed by the delegation of China, which had referred to the statements by the Director-General of IAEA concerning contributions to the Technical Cooperation Fund, reiterated that, in fact, in article XIV of the IAEA Statute the voluntary character of its contributions was explicitly recognized. His delegation vigorously supported the strengthening of IAEA's technical cooperation, since Greece was a donor country but also a receiving country which benefited from its activities. He believed that the revised draft had taken that aspect into account by requesting that the resources in question should be "assured, predictable and sufficient" (section III, para. 6), which took care of the interests of many countries, and that the introduction of new phrases would only complicate the Chairman's work. Consequently, Greece joined in the consensus in favour of adopting that document in its current version.

21. Ms. Forde (Barbados), referring to section II B of the revised draft, said that, although it was an improvement as compared with the earlier text, certain questions that were vital for developing small island and coastal States had still not been satisfactorily addressed. Specifically, in paragraph 9, account had not been taken of the amendment proposed by New Zealand relating to the inclusion of the concept of obligations; in that connection the text needed to be better balanced and emphasis should be placed on the clearly defined obligations under international law. Her country noted with satisfaction that, the present paragraph 12, incorporated the proposal made by the Caribbean Community, Ireland, New Zealand, and other South Pacific countries with the support of several delegations. She also noted the comments of other delegations concerning the relevance of that paragraph but considered that the discussion of the matter in Main Committee III was not in any way incompatible with those that took place in other forums such as the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Maritime Organization and the Commission on Sustainable Development. She also supported the view of the delegation of Chile to the effect that the revised text of paragraph 12 was not adequate. The amendment proposed by the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement concerning regulation of the transport of dangerous waste might be a more appropriate formulation for that paragraph. She endorsed the proposal made by Trinidad and Tobago, with the support of Suriname and New Zealand, for the inclusion in the second sentence of paragraph 12, between the words "prior notification" and "prior consultation" of a reference to the environmental impact assessment, and expressed the hope that it might be included in the draft final text. Lastly, her country endorsed the amendment to former paragraph 15 in section III D proposed by New Zealand.

22. Mr. Kuchinov (Russian Federation) said that the revised draft submitted by the Chairman was balanced but needed some further amendments to improve its drafting. With respect to the proposal by Canada concerning section IV, paragraph 3, on the implications of nuclear materials for disarmament, he considered that the present text of that paragraph did not need to be amended.

23. Ms. Frederiksen (Denmark) supported the statement made by the representative of Greece concerning section I, paragraph 2 of the revised draft. If reference were to be made to the numerous activities of IAEA, mention should also be made of articles 3 and 4 of the Agency's Statute, but in her judgement it would not be desirable to lengthen sentences which should be brief and to the point. In connection with Section I paragraph 8, she noted what had been stated by the delegation of Egypt concerning the undue emphasis on sustainable development as a guiding approach to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and was not opposed to the deletion of the first sentence of that paragraph. However, with a view to favouring a compromise solution, it would be sufficient to make some changes to the remainder of the paragraph. Her delegation acknowledged that the Kyoto Protocol was the ideal instrument for discussions on the world environment and that no definitive decisions on that matter had yet been taken, even in IAEA, and she therefore considered that the proposed text was acceptable.

24. Mr. Krokhmal (Ukraine) commended the brevity and precision of section II A, paragraph 6, and welcomed the inclusion in it of the proposals submitted jointly by the delegations of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, the purpose of which was to draw attention to the consequences of the Chernobyl accident which was directly related to the application of the Treaty. With reference to the suggestion made by the representative of Greece concerning that paragraph, he agreed to the deletion of the last part of the last sentence but was categorically opposed to the addition of the end of the first sentence of the words "... and welcomes the decision by the Ukraine Government to close the Chernobyl nuclear power plant during the year 2000", as had been proposed by the representative of Japan. The Government of Ukraine had reaffirmed that undertaking in the framework of the corresponding bilateral and multilateral negotiations and the final document of the Conference was not the appropriate instrument in which to reflect undertakings made by one of the States Parties.

25. Ms. Ramoutar (Trinidad and Tobago) regretted that there was no reference in section II to the vulnerability of island and coastal States. She therefore supported the proposal by New Zealand to make a specific reference to rights and obligations under international law. With reference to paragraph 12, she accepted the suggestion by Japan to move the first sentence in paragraph 10 to the beginning of paragraph 12 but replacing the words "welcomes that" by "takes note that", as had been proposed by Haiti. A possible definitive wording of that paragraph based on the proposal by Japan might be: "In this context, the Conference encourages States Parties to continue working to develop additional measures to improve cooperation and exchange of information in areas such as notification and prior consultation, and the assessment of environmental impact among the States concerned".

26. Mr. Zarkasi (Indonesia) pointed out that there was no reference in section III to the transfer of technology and proposed the incorporation in paragraph 3 of that section as part of the first sentence in section III, paragraph 2, of document NPT/CONF.1995/MC.III/1 which read: "The Conference acknowledges the importance of IAEA as the principal agent for technology transfer".

27. Ms. Chan (Singapore) agreed with the comments made by the representative of Indonesia on behalf of the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, in particular with respect to section II B. She had no objection to making a reference in paragraph 9 of obligations under international law, as proposed by New Zealand and other delegations.

28. Mr. Pinel (France) said that many delegations, including his own, had problems with section I, paragraph 8, because of its vagueness in referring to the mechanisms which might be developed under the Kyoto Protocol. He suggested, in the interests of clarity, the inclusion of the second part of paragraph (f) of the preamble to the resolution adopted by the IAEA General Conference in 1999, entitled "Strengthening of the Agency's technical cooperation activities", which read: "Conscious of the great potential of nuclear power for meeting energy requirements in many countries and the need to protect the environment, and recognizing that many countries consider nuclear power, being a climatically benign source of energy, to be an eligible option under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol". With regard to section II A, paragraph 6, he supported the proposal of the representative of Greece to end the paragraph after the words "international cooperation", since the rest of the sentence had a negative and pessimistic tone. As for section II B, which his delegation considered essential, he supported the statement by Japan, especially concerning the suggestion to delete the first sentence of paragraph 9 because the reference to regulations and standards was too imprecise. The suggestion to move the first sentence of paragraph 10 to the beginning of paragraph 12 and the new wording for the first sentence of that paragraph also had merit. However, he could not accept the last sentence in paragraph 12, as it was premature to refer to a prior notification regime. What was being referred to in section IV, paragraph 4 must be clarified. Finally, the question of transport was essential to his delegation, which was prepared to hold consultations on the subject with other interested delegations.

29. The Chairman, replying to the representative of France, said that section IV, paragraph 4, had been included on the proposal of the delegations of Kazakhstan and other States of Central Asia. Furthermore, the wording was not totally new, but could be found in document NPT/CONF.1995/MC.III/1.

30. Ms. Gallini (United States of America) endorsed the proposal to shorten the second sentence of section II A, paragraph 6, and to delete the second sentence of section II B, paragraph 12, and said that her delegation opposed any change to the text of section II D and section III, paragraph 6. It agreed with the delegation of the United Kingdom that the wording of section IV, paragraph 2, was inadequate and proposed that it should be replaced by paragraph 29 of document NPT/CONF.2000/MC.II/1, which read "The Conference takes note of the Declaration of the Moscow Nuclear Safety and Security Summit of April 1996, including in relation to the safe and effective management of fissile material designated as no longer required for defence purposes, and the initiatives stemming from it". With regard to section IV, paragraph 4, her delegation agreed that it should be deleted. Lastly, it accepted the proposal of the delegation of Indonesia to add the first sentence of section III, paragraph 2, of document NPT/CONF.1995/MC.III/1 to the beginning of paragraph 3.

31. Mr. Akopov (Belarus) said he welcomed the fact that the proposal of the three delegations affected by the Chernobyl accident had been reflected in section II A, paragraph 6, and supported the position of the delegation of Ukraine regarding the proposal by Japan. Concerning the suggestion of Greece that the last part of the last sentence of section II A, paragraph 6, should be deleted, he said that the first part would then be meaningless, and it would therefore be better to delete the entire sentence.

32. Ms. Cliff (United Kingdom) said that document NPT/CONF.2000/MC.III/CRP.15 and its revised version constituted a sound basis for a consensus text. With respect to technical cooperation, her delegation supported the comments of the German, Greek and Japanese representatives to the effect that the current text established a careful balance that the new paragraph 8 proposed by Thailand would undoubtedly upset. With regard to section IV of the draft report, the United Kingdom supported the suggestions by the Canadian and a number of other representatives that new paragraph 4 should be deleted. In the view of her delegation, the text proposed by Japan on transport was balanced, reasonable and conciliatory. Although her delegation had indicated that it was prepared to accept the amendments to paragraph 9 requested by some States parties, specifically the final sentence regarding the concerns of small island developing States and other coastal States, it had difficulty accepting the new wording which had been added to section II B, paragraph 9, of the revised text and shared the concerns and endorsed the comments of the representatives of Japan and France in that regard. Concerning the reference to international standards in that paragraph, her delegation had previously expressed its preference for maintaining the text of the first draft, which read "in accordance with the relevant standards of IAEA and the International Maritime Organization (IMO)". It strongly believed that that all of paragraph 12 should be deleted. Although the suggestion of the representative of Japan was interesting, she would prefer to consider it in greater depth. For the moment, she suggested the following text: "The Conference notes that some States Parties would welcome improved cooperation and exchange of information among the States concerned". Her delegation was, however, prepared to accept other formulations. The second sentence of paragraph 12 created difficulties for her delegation.

33. Mr. Yang Dazhu (China) supported the Indonesian suggestion regarding transfer of technology. The positive suggestion of France with respect to the text of the IAEA General Conference resolution was also worth considering.

34. Mr. Tyson (Australia) said that his delegation felt that, in certain paragraphs, the previous text should be reinstated. With regard to section II B, concerning the safe transport of radioactive materials, his delegation had some difficulties with the first sentence of the new paragraph 9, and therefore supported the proposal by the representative of Japan to delete that sentence. The Japanese proposal to move the first sentence of paragraph 10 to the beginning of paragraph 12 was also reasonable, and his delegation supported the United Kingdom proposal that paragraph 9 should include a reference to the relevant standards of IAEA and IMO. It had no difficulty with the inclusion of the second sentence in paragraph 12, although it was not sure what the practical effect of that sentence would be. It would prefer to maintain the existing wording of section II D, concerning liability. His delegation was satisfied with the existing wording of the section on technical cooperation. It had no objection to the inclusion of a reference to power generation, as proposed by the representative of China, although there did not seem to be consensus in that respect. The Greek proposal to make a reference to the IAEA Statute instead of including a list of items should therefore be given careful consideration. His delegation would prefer to maintain the existing text of section III, paragraph 11. With regard to section IV, paragraph 3, concerning the conversion of nuclear materials to peaceful uses, his delegation supported the Canadian proposal to include a reference to the irreversible withdrawal of fissionable material. It also supported the Canadian proposal to delete paragraph 4 of that section, since it opened up a debate which was not germane to the work of the Committee.

35. Mr. Bompadre (Argentina) said that in general the revised draft report was a balanced document which was acceptable as it stood to his delegation. There was no doubt that the suggestions made during the debate could enrich it, provided that they did not depart too much from the minimum language acceptable to everyone, which was reflected in the current document. His delegation supported the proposal made by the representative of China with regard to section III, paragraph 2 that a reference should be made to power generation, although it recognized that the topic was not acceptable to all delegations. Like the representative of Australia, it believed that the Greek proposal to avoid specific descriptions and to refer to the IAEA Statute could be an acceptable solution for everyone.

36. Mr. Abe (Japan) proposed that, at the end of the first sentence of section II A, paragraph 6, the following words should be added: "in support of the actions taken by the Governments concerned"; that would meet the concerns expressed by the representative of Ukraine and by his own delegation. He could also support the deletion of the second sentence of that paragraph.

37. Mr. Hoey (Ireland), referring to section II B, paragraph 9, proposed that the word "full" should be deleted from the first sentence; the meaning of that sentence would not be changed. His delegation had no problem with the addition of the words "and obligations" in the second sentence of the same paragraph. With regard to section II B, paragraph 12, the delegations of Japan and of Trinidad and Tobago had made very valid points and, in the light of those points, his delegation proposed that the first sentence of paragraph 10 should be moved to the beginning of paragraph 12, replacing the word "welcomes" by the word "notes", and that that sentence should be followed by a sentence along the following lines: "In this context, the Conference encourages States parties to continue working to formulate additional measures aimed at improving cooperation and the exchange of information among the States concerned in areas such as prior notification and consultation and environmental impact assessments".

38. Mr. Al-Berkdar (Iraq) said that a few days earlier he had requested that some additions should be made to section III, paragraph 1, concerning agriculture and medicine. With regard to medicine in particular, he proposed that a reference should be made to cancer, the incidence of which had increased considerably in Iraq after the United States of America and the United Kingdom, in their attacks on that country, had used substances like enriched uranium and depleted uranium. An explanation was needed as to why there had been no mention at all of the amendment his delegation had proposed in that respect.

39. Mr. Pohan (Indonesia), referring to the proposal by the representative of Ireland concerning section II B, paragraph 12, said that the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries was proposing a new version of that paragraph, but remained flexible as to the final wording. The new version of the paragraph would be along the following lines: "The Conference calls upon States parties to continue working through the competent international organizations to develop and enhance international measures and norms in relation to the international maritime transport of radioactive waste and spent fuel. In that respect, the Conference calls for the adoption of additional measures, such as measures to improve cooperation and the exchange of information among interested States, and for the consideration, along with the competent international organization, of an effective and detailed regime for prior notification and advance consultations with States which might be affected by the transport of radioactive materials". His delegation also felt that it was very important to maintain the first sentence of section II B, paragraph 9.

40. Mr. Du Preez (South Africa) said that he supported the proposal by the representative of Indonesia, which incorporated valuable elements of the document submitted by the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (NPT/CONF.2000/MC.III/CRP.8) and better reflected the interests of the States parties, especially small island States and other coastal States like South Africa. He took note with satisfaction of the proposal made by the representative of Ireland with regard to paragraph 12, which was very close to the Indonesian proposal. He also supported the proposal made by the representative of Ireland with regard to the first sentence of section II B, paragraph 9. He agreed that a reference should be made to obligations in the second sentence of that paragraph. Lastly, associating himself with the Canadian proposal with regard to section IV, paragraph 3, he proposed that, after the words "Trilateral Initiative", a phrase should be added along the following lines: "to cover the five nuclear-weapon-States in similar agreements and ensure the irreversible withdrawal of fissionable material from weapons programmes".

41. Mr. Kerpens (Suriname), speaking on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations belonging to the Caribbean Community, took note with satisfaction of the position of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries with regard to security in the transport of radioactive materials, expressed by Indonesia. He also commended Ireland for proposing a compromise solution for that difficult question, particularly in relation to section II B, paragraph 12. Lastly, he thanked South Africa for having shown the way to be followed to achieve progress.

42. Ms. Frederiksen (Denmark), referring to section I, paragraph 8, said that her text was based on the resolution of the General Conference of IAEA referred to by the representative of France, but was based on an operative paragraph, not a preambular paragraph.

43. Mr. Malolo (Tonga) said that he fully supported Ireland's proposals with regard to section II B, paragraphs 9 to 12. He also supported the proposal to add "and obligations" to the second sentence of section II B, paragraph 9.

44. Mr. Cabiera (Peru), referring to section II B, paragraph 9 of the draft revised text, said that the current wording was better than that of the earlier version, but should include the main elements of the relevant paragraphs of the proposal made by the Caribbean Community, New Zealand and other countries. He also supported Ireland's proposal that the word "full" should be deleted in the first sentence of that paragraph. Furthermore, and in order to contribute to a compromise solution, his delegation fully supported the proposal made by Indonesia on paragraph 12 of the same section.

45. The Chairman requested delegations, in view of the time constraints, to make compromise proposals on section I, paragraph 8, and section II A, paragraph 6; in relation to the latter paragraph, he called on the delegations of Japan and Ukraine to reach agreement. He would also welcome duly negotiated compromise proposals with regard to section II B, paragraphs 9 and 12, and called on the delegations of Indonesia and Ireland to try to formulate a joint proposal. He also wished to know about the position of delegations with regard to section III, paragraph 11. He would therefore adjourn the meeting so that delegations could try to reach agreement on the basis of consensus.

The meeting rose at 1 p.m.

777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008