A/42/PV.42 General Assembly

I should like to propose that the list of speakers in the debate on this item be closed today at 5 p.m. If I hear no objection, it will be so decided. It was so decided.

I therefore ask those representatives who wish to speak in the debate to put their names on the list as soon as possible. I invite the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr. Hans Blix, to present the report of the Agency for 1986. Mr. BLIX (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)): It is my privilege to introduce the General Assembly's annual discussion of the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Before the Assembly is the report of the Agency for 1986. It was a year marked by the Chernobyl accident but also by an unprecedented level of intergovernmental co-operation within the framework of the IAEA. The confidence in the Agency and the traditions of good co-operation which have developed over the Agency's now 30 years of existence proved to be great assets when there was a need for decisive and prompt actions last year. The members found it natural to make use of the IAEA for a comprehensive post-accident review, for the elaboration and adoption of two new conventions on early notification and emergency assistance in the event of nuclear accidents and for the adoption of a number of international measures in the field of nuclear power safety. One hundred and thirteen States are now lA~A members ana among them are all those States which have or are constructing nuclear power s'Cationci. 'l'ne progranunes for nuclear power safety ana radiological protection have become one of the major activities of the Agency. 'rectmical co-operation, which started with a volume ot $US 250,000 in 1958, now amounts to about $US 40 million and has been increasing by 12 per cent a year in the last few years. Saieguards !lOW cover 9:i per cent at all nuclear material in non-nuclear-weapon States, and all five nuclear-weapon States have voluntarily invited the l\gency to perform safegudras illspections at all or many of their peaceful nuclear installations. ~his first international on-site inspection and verification system in the world has now been in operation for 26 years and some 200 inspectors are carrying out more than 2,000 inspections a year in 58 countries. ~Ihile the Agency has not been without controversies and crises, it goes strengthened into its fourth decade, above all because the members consider it a vitally important instrument, and they use it. Since its establishment in Vienna 30 years ago the IAEA has enjoyed continuous assistance and understanding from our host Government and from tne Cl ty of Vienna. For their unfailing hospitality and unsparing effocts to meet our needs, I should like to express the Agency's sincere yratitude to the AU$trian Government and to the people of Austria. On thiS tnirtieth anniversary of the IA~A it seems natural to loo~ b~ck for a moment and ask what the founding members wanted to achieve through the organization and what actually is being achieved oy it. The basic rationale for the organization, as reflected in its statute, is the idea that the atom can and must be mobilized for the benefit of man, that a transfer of nuclear technology, equipment and fissionable material can be effected with guarantees that no military use will be made of them, and that high safety requirements can and must be fulfilled. The statute of any international organization is but the framework within which the members co-operate. Some provisions of the f\gency's statute, for example those allowing the organization to be the owner and operator ot nuclear installations or the custodian of fisslonable material, have not been used to date, while other provisions, for example those concerning nuclear safety, nave been the constitutional basis of dynamically expanding progralll;l1eS and activities. Today, just as 30 years ago, there are sceptics who are of the view that any transfer of nuclear technology or of fissionable materlal entails unacceptable risks of military use, that is to say, of proliferation. It is with some satisfaction that we can note, in the face of such sce~ticlsm, that no nuclear installations or fissionable materials transferred subject to IAEA safeguards have been found tu have been diverted to military purposes. It can also be said with certainty that, if the avenue or continued nuclear secrecy and non-transfer of nuclear technology had been chosen 30 years ago, the world might have wltnessed many independent, indigenous nuclear programmes without guarantees against tne risk of proliferation. I propose now to eXBln.i.ne in greater aetail the rlogency' S wort. in the three main areas: promotion of the use of nuclear energy, notably nuclear power; safety; and safeguards. Lastly, I shall discuss some administrative and financial problems facing interntational organizations, including the IAEA, today. The economically most significant use of nuclear ener~y is for toe prOduction of electricity by power reactors. 'l'oday there are over 400 such reactors in operation producing some 16 per cene of toe world's electricity. Tnere is no doubc that this important industry has help,?d to reduce dependence on oil imports and the pressure on the world's 011 resources. It has also significantly helped to reOUC8 emissions of sulpl'lur, nitcogen oxides and carbon dioxide into the world's The lAEA promotes the use of nuclear power above all by organizing a broad exchange of exerience through conferences and courses, symposiums, workshops, publications, scholarships and services. We have just finished a major conference on nuclear power performance anet safety in which some 500 participants from all over the world shared information, notably to enable the best performers to tell their colleagues how tney attain high reliability and good economic performance in nuclear power plants. I should also mention that the lAEA today runs 10 world-wide intormation systems. For example, through the Power Reactor Information System participants can obtain basic data about all the world's nuclear power reactors and data about their performance. Through the International Nuclear Information system a computerized international nuclear library reference and abstract service has been created in which some 90,000 new items are included each year. A nuclear scientist or engineer in any corner of the world can draw on this service at any time to obtain relevant and recent information. The Agency has also become the world's largest publisher in the field of nuclear science and technology, with more than 200 volumes published each year. Last in this list of examples of promotional activities I should mention that the Agency is responsible for the administration of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, in Trieste, where some 3,500 scientists cOllie each year for seminars, courses and research. The IAEA does not engage in promoting nuclear power by public relations. Lt has a very modest public information programme. It is inevitable, however, that in Agency forums there is discussion of the importance and relevance of nuclear power for the supply of energy in member countries. In the early days of the (Mr. Blix, IAEA) 9-10 ol:tJani~ation this question Wl.l:; not c.:.:ontrov~rsiaL 'l'here Welt:; ,.In allRost unlimited optilnlsll\ about the bLessinys ot nUI;l.l!'.;l1" powQr. 'roday, Cl few member liovernmcmt::> hav~ taKen d('!cislo/ls not to IIse nLlC Lr~ar power, or to prl'HH~ it l)ut, wllile otl,ers are del..:rrtll-:J del..:ll.i.10/l:; ubuut tl'1(~ acquisition of more pli:lnts, and oth~rs still tHwe not yr-~t CI~ilCllt,;!u cll~ar conclul:iluns. (Mr. 1311)(, lAM) However, the majority of member Governments of the IAEA favour an expanded use of nuclear power. France, which already gets 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, is continuing its ambitious programmeJ Japan, which like France lacks indigenous sources of oil, coal and gas, is similarly turning increasin~ly to nuclear power and foresees an increase from 25,800 megawatts of nuclear capacity today to at least 53,000 megawatts in the year 2000. While no new orders for nuclear power plants have been placed for a long time in the United States, its programme of over 100 reactors in operation remain~ the large~t in the world and the recent otficial United States report "~nergy Security" supports the nuclear power option. The same is true of an energy report by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and several policy statements in the Soviet Union underline the Soviet Government's determination to pursue the nuclear power option, while strengthening safety. Several new orders for nuclear power plants have been placed since the Chernobyl accident - for example, in Japan and the RepUblic of Korea - and in the United Kingdom a new programme of nuclear power construction has been set in motion by the Government after a very long pUblic inquiry into all conceivable aspects of - the construction of a new plant at sizewell. Many developing countries, especially those that have few or no fossil or hydro resources, are interested in the nuclear power option, but relatively few have embarked upon it. India has developed a large indigenous capacity ana is planning a considerable expansion. China is at present engaged ~n a aetermined but rather modest nuclear power programme, but its main thrust for expanded electricity production lies in the use of 00111. Yet other devel0J:lin'3 countIlI:S are hesitating, above all because of the heavy inltial investmen~s. A senior expert group which met within the IAEA during the past year affirmed the vital need for added (Mr. Blix, lAEA) of overcoming constraints regarding trained manpower and technical and organizational infrastructure. The group urged the IABA to assist any intereHted member ptate in evaluating the nuclear power option within its overall energy and develoffient planning. It also advocated increased em~hasis on regional co-operation in energy and nuclear power planning studies. It is clear that in some parts of the world increased regional co-operation in the production and distribution of electricity could be very beneficial. The positive attitude of the majority of the IA.li:A 's member States to nuclear power is based on several considerations: economics, plant reliability, energy independence and protection of the environment. The Governments of some Eastern European countries, such as Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and Poland, which recognize that graye environmental problems are arising from their extensive reliance on fossil fuel, are increasingly seeing the absence of effluents and the small and manageable quantities of wastes as a tremendous advantage of nuclear power. While the attitude of most Governments to nuclear power aevelopment remains positive, it is perfectly clear that the Chernobyl accident resulted in reduced public acceptance. The cooler attitude of a few Governments to nuclear power is presumably also a reflection of the public reaction. It was perhaps inevitable, too, that the World Commission on Environment ana Uevelopment, meeting and discussing energy in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, focused on what it considered to be problems connected with nuclear power without saying one good ~ord about its advantages. In an environmental discussion of different sources of electricity one would have expected not only the Commiss~on's correct comment that every source of energy has its own health and environmental costs, benefits and risks but also the relevant information that the nuclear generation of electricity, producing no sulphur dioxide, no nitrogen oxide and no carbon dioxide, contributes neither to acid rain nor to the 50-called greenhouse effect and that nuclear wastes are small in quantity and therefore possible to isolate with a high degree of safety. As an illustration I might mention that in France, as our recent General Conference was told, the large nuclear power programme has helped to reduce emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides from power plants by 50 per cent since 1980. Similar figures can be given for several other countries. I submit that such figures are worth studying in a world that is cightly in agony over the environmental destruction and danger brought about by the burning of fossil fuels on a gigantic scale. While the Chernobyl accident reduced pUblic support for nuclear power in many countries, it prompted significant action among utilities and Governments to prevent accidents involving radioactive releases from occurring in the future and to mitigate the consequences of any accident. Within the lAEA a substantial supplementary programme of nuclear safety has been evolving since the Chernobyl accident. Let me report briefly on the main developments in this field during the past year. For quite some time the question has been asked whether a new generation of nuclear power plants could be developed with a greater degree of inherent safety than the currently most common types. The answer to that question is that no technology is for ever and that new designs of power reactors are indeed being worked on and tested. This work should be encouraged and the IAEA has set up a group in which Government experts exchange ideas and experience from their respective programmes in this field. However, we must realistically recognize that some 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the nuclear power reactors which will operate in the year 2000 are already in operation. This leads to the conclusion that a (Mr. Blix, lAEA) strengthening of the safety of nuclear power must necessarily focus on operational safety and improvements in these reactors. 'rhis is also the emphasis given in the Agency's current programme. I should mention at this point tnat the achievement of electricity production by fusion reactors, while still several decades away, is being actively promoted through·a new project under lAEA auspices. Tpe United States, the Soviet Union, the European Community and Japan are launching a cO""operative scheme - the International Thermonuclear Exper imental Reac.~or (ITER) - which, under the Agency's umbrella, will develop a conceptual design fo~ a fusion reactor. It is very gratifying that this effort 'to explore one way of meeting mankind's future energy needs is being undertaken jointly by major groups. It is also gratifying that they have chosen to do so within the framework of the IAEA. After the Chernobyl accident there were calls for a system of binding international safety standards for nuclear power. In the Agency's nuclear safety standards there already exists a comprehensive set of standards which are accepted by all but are not mandatory. 'rhose standards are now being updated and it is· likely that many Governments will explicitly indicate that they accept and resp~ct them, even if their own national standards are even more detailed. Among the actions undertaken in the IAEA after Chernobyl was the elaboration and adoption of the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and on another on emergency assistance in the event of future nuclear accidents. Those Conventions have since entered into force and steps have been taken to makethern operative. The Soviet Union notified the Agency of an accident involving a nuclear. submarine in the north Atlantic last autumn and Brazil has recently asked for and received emergency assistance afterthe theft of a radiation source had led to several persons being contaminated with caesium. (Mr. Blix, lAEA) A shortcoming which was sorely felt after the Chernobyl accident was the absence of any international agreement on the radiation levels at which the consumption or importing of different kinds of food should be banned because of radioactive contamination. The widely differing standards applied by different Governments - often leading to the unwarranted rejection of foodstuffs - did not increase the pUblic· s confidence in the authorities. The ultimate decisions on intervention levels undoubtedly lie wit.h Governments. However, a methodology for defining. such levels has been worked out within the lAEA and we are now assisting our sister organizations the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the Codex Alimentarius Commission in their further Hwork. Among the agency programmes for promoting operational safety, hardly any has enjoyed such quick and spectacular acceptance and expansion as its programme of Operational Safety Review Teams (OSART). Under this programme, an international team:of some 12 experts - often managers of nuclear-power plants - is sent by the lAEA on invitation by a member Government to a nuclear-power plant to examine its operational safety. It stays for a period of some three weeks and thereafter submits a report. The high competence of the experts whom the agency has been able to secure for these misions has resulted in much appreciation for their comments and reports. Requests for OSART missions have come from East and West and North and South. Recently, we concluded the first mission to a plant in the United States and we have been asked to send missions next year to the Soviet Union, Japan, the United Kingdom and several other member States. At this point I should report that very recently an international meeting took place in Paris among utilities producing electricity by'means of nuclear power. They decided to set up an international organization to promote safety, especially by exchanging operating experience. We at the intergovernmental level have reason to welcome this initiative taken at the non-governmental level. The prime responsibility for nuclear safety always lies with the operator, and nothing should be done at the governmental level or the international level to dilute that responsibility. While operational safety has been and remains in focus, Governments also co-operate with the agency on questions of the safe handling of spent fuel and the disposal of waste. The view has long prevailed among experts that no scientific or technical breakthroughs are needed in this field. However, it is clear that· that view is not yet generally accepted by the public, nor indeed by the Commission on Environment and Development. Perhaps only the actual establishment of repositories will influence the public. This is also where current developments are taking us. Many non-power applications of nuclear energy are of vital use to society, and a large part of the IAEA's technical co-operation with developing countries consists of the transfer of technology and knowledge concerned with the use of nuclear energy in medicine, agriculture and industry. During several years of zero growth or near-zero growth in the Agency's regular budget, the technical assistance and co-operation programme, funded by voluntary contributions has constituted a main element of expansion in our activities. In absolute terms, the sums involved are not overwhelming, ana greater resources could be put to good use. A great deal has already been achieved, however, and I am happy to say that our developing member States generally feel that they are genuinely and significantly benefiting from their membership. Testimony to that effect was offered at the united Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, held in Geneva last spring. I should also add that radiation protection has increasingly become an important element in the Agency's technical assistance programmes, either as a (Mr. Blix, IAEA) separate item or as an adjunct to assistance in other areas. While the exceptional consequences of the Chernobyl accident increased the awareness of the need for a capacity to monitor the environment and food, there has often not been an equal awareness of the need for regulation and supervision of the daily use of radiation in medicine and industry, and accidents have occurred. The many Radiation Protection Advisory Teams which the Agency has sent to member States since 1984 have shown that there are many countries where the basic radiation protection infrastructure is not in place. The Agency is ready to assist such countries, at their request, to train manpower and establish regulatory rules and structures. The IAEA's safeguards fulfil the vital function of creating confidence that non-proliferation pledges are being respected. In doing so, they are helping to allay some of the concern that exists that an expanded use of nuclear power and transfer of nuclear technology might increase the risk of horizontal proliferation - that is to say, the spread of nuclear weapons to more countr1es. The safeguards function of the Agency has expanded considerably over the years, as more States have adhered to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Tlatelolco Treaty and more nuclear installations and material have been submitted to safeguards. Four additional States became parties to the NPT in 1986, and Spain's adherence should be finalized before the end of the year. Safeguards are today a pre-condition for nuclear trade. By the end of 1986 there were worldwide no fewer than 485 facilities containing safeguarded nuclear material and 414 other locations containing small amounts of safeguarded material in non-nuclear-weapon States. In addition, nine facilities were under safeguards in nuclear-weapon States. I should also mention that agreement has been reached in principle on the contents of a safeguards agreement pursuant to the offer by China to place some of its civilian nuclear instllations under Agency safeguards. When this agreement enters into force, all five nuclear-weapon States will have submitted all or some of their peaceful nuclear activities to safeguards. That is the bright side of the picture. We must also take note, however, of the criticism by many countries that the efforts in the field of nuclear disarmament promised in the NPT have not so far resulted in much agreement. There is no doubt that if the present negotiations result in significant reductions in nuclear-weapons arsenals and - equally important - a complete test ban, that would reinforce the political support for the NPT and the safeguards which verify that it is respected. An important question would then arise: how to verity the non-military storage or the peaceful use of the considerable quantities of enriched uranium and plutonium which would result. The lAEA is not called upon to participate in disarmament activities, but it has well-established experience in safeguarding nuclear material for peaceful purposes, including such material in nuclear-weapon States. Regrettably, the zero-growth policies which have been pursued in recent years have not allowed the Agency to perform more than token safeguards operations in the nuclear-weapon States, despite the recommendation of the Third NPT Review Conference that the voluntary offers of these States be more fully used by the Agency. I should also report, under the heading of safeguards, that although Agency discussions with South Africa regarding the voluntary submission of its semi-commercial enrichment plant to safeguards have not advanced this year, an announcement was recently made by the South African President of the intention of his Government to begin discussions leading to the signing of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Needless to say, the Agency is ready to discuss immediately the details of (Mr. Blix, lAEA) a standard NPT-safeguards agreement with the Government of South Afr ica. Such an agreement - if concluded - would undoubtedly help to allay fears in Africa about the dangers of a South African nuclear capability. During the celebration of the lAEA's thirtieth anniversary, this year, many expressions of support and much praise came from heads of State and Government of member States. Unfortunately, an organization cannot live on praise alone. It needs a budget that matches the tasks it is asked to undertake; it needs payment of membership fees; and its needs working and employment conditions that attract and retain a very competent staff. Regrettably, I must tell the Assembly that we have been experiencing problems in all these regards. (Mr. Blix, IAEA) The IAEA has been, and is, fortunate in having highly skilled technical and scientific staff. Some 60 per cent of the professional staff have fixed-term contracts for five or six years and only some 40 per cent remain on a long-term basis. In this way both renewal and stability are achieved. Moreover, we must be competitive with the private market in all States in order to attract new staff and to retain our long-term staff. The way in which the United Nations common system has worked in the last few years has hurt us. I shall give only two examples. Our professional staff have their major expenses in Austrian schillings and are paid in Austrian schillings, whereas their salaries are calculated in united States dollars. For a long period the system nas been unable to neutralize the effects of currency fluctuations and staff members have actually seen their take-home salaries reduced over the years. Even more dramatic inequities have arisen in the calculation of pensions. They have been reduced in a manner that the staff consider a violation of an acquired right. Moreover, the fluctuations in the dollar-schilling exchange rate have been allowed to have a major impact on the schilling volume of pensions. In a period of a falling United States dollar, going into retirement a year later, or even a month later, can mean a reduced pension in schillings. Between two staff members who have both served for 20 years in the same grade, one retiring later can receive up to 25 per cent less pension than the one retiring earlier. Such inequities are not good for staff morale. The Assembly again has before it some proposals by the International civil Service Commission and the united Nations Joint Staff Pension Board regarding the conditions of service of international civil servants. I welcome the recommendation that at least there should be three years' rest in the review of pension benefits. I also hope that the Assembly will find it possible to agree to " the recommendations to increase contributions to the Pension Fund in order to J --_-----.::=~-l. .., I i lIt, j j ,, improve its actuarial status, and to establish a floor for the exchange rate in order to stop the downward trend in the take-home pension which pensioners are also experiencing because of exchange rate fluctuations. , I can well understand that discussl.ons in New York mainly visualize condition:3 in New York. However, if the common system is to be viable more consideration must be given to the conditions of service of the large number of staff serving in , Vienna and Geneva and other stations away from New ~ork. My last point relates to the lAEA budget and the payment of membership dues. It is understandable that Governments which are worrying about seriously unbalanced budgets and/or shortages of foreign currency have been restrictive in their attitudes to the budgets of international organizations. In the lAEA we have tried successfully for a number of years to carry out an expanding progranune with zero or near-zero budget growth. However, given t,he Agency's duty to safeguard a continuously increasing number of nuclear facilities and growing quantities of nuclear material and to administer growing technical co-operation funds, the zer'o-gtowth policy risks undermining the quality, and even the implementation, of our programme. If members wish more work to be done, either some currently performed activities must be dropped or some budget growth must be accepted. Last year, special voluntary contributions enabled us to carry out many non-programmed meetings and activities following the Chernobyl accident, ana for the current year and 1988 minor budgetary increases have been accepted so as to accommodate the supplementary nuclear safety programme. While this has enabled the IAEA to work in high gear during the current year, regrettably and paradoxically, the risk of a cash crisis owing to the late payment of some membership dues forced us recently to step on the brakes. Travel, meetings and purchases that could possibly be deferred were deferred. Inevitably, such action l1as negative consequences for programme implementation. Some activities that member States had put into the programme for this year will not take place at all, or will be delayed. What is now needed in the IAEA is that the healthy expenditure discipline that was impressed on the organization during years of zero or near-zero budget growth: be matched by a comparable payment discipline on the part of member States. Although the financial reyulations approved by member States require the payment of assessed contributions at the beginning of the year, many Governments have ,routinely paid much later, indeed often at th1e end of the year. Special circumstances, such as a rising dollar-schilling exchange rate in 'past years, delayed the crisis until it hit us this fall. It goes without saying, however, that no organization can function and utilize its resources evenly and economically over the year if a major part of the contributions arrive only at the end of the year. If this continues to be the case, then, as Dr. Mahler, Director-General of the World Health Organization has said, we do not have budgets in real terms but in unreal terms. This means a poor utilization of the staff -and other resources, and a blow to the programme of co-operation which Governments have agreed upon, and it cannot but be contrary to members' own interests. The sooner member States commit themselves to respecting the existing financial rules, or else agree on new rules that will provide their organizations with resources throughout the year, the better for the interests which members pursue throu~n these organizations.

I call on the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany to introduce draft resolution A/42/L.6. 1!1 Count YORK von WART£NBURG (Federal Republic of Germany): On the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it is a special pleasure for me to open the debate on the Agency's report- by thanking the Director General, Mr. Blix,. for the statement he has just made in introducing the report, and commenaing the organization for its successful work. Its political and technical competence has found general recognition. The outstanding reputation which the Agency enjoys throughout the world is based on its success. I should like to express our appreciation to the Director General, Mr. Blix, and his cglleagues, who through their high qualifications and strong personal commitment have contributed greatly to the Agency's effective work. The Agency has succeeded, over a period of 30 years, in striking the sometimes difficult balance between promoting and checking nuclear power, which are the Agency's two I:Jrimary tasks and at the same time the most important elements of the , , Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. A good example of the effectiveness of the Agency is the role it played in creating, as a consequence of the Chernobyl disaster, the basic conditions for improving nuclear safety at the international level. The Federal Republic of Germany .is one of the founaing members of the IAEA. We have been actively involved in the Agency's activities and have supported them ever since.* *Mr. Wijewardane (Sri Lanka), Vice-President, took the Chair. The events at Chernobyl again prompted a debate on the nuclear energy policy issue. In such debates my Government has always advocated the continueo utilization of nuclear power with the highest possible safety standards being applied. In this context, it has stressed the following considerations. The use of nuclear energy protects the non-renewable reserves of fossil sources of energy and if our country or other countries gave up nuclear power competition for fossil energy sources would be strongly increased. Such a development would have an adverse effect, in particular on many developing countries. Furthermore, wider use of fossil fuels would entail a drastic increase in environmental pollution. The Agency did an excellent job in 1986, in particular in the field of nuclear safety. Following the extremely prompt elaboration of the early notification and assistance Conventions, one can note with satisfaction that the Conventions have been signed by more than 60 nations and have already entered into force. In this context, my Government hopes that a satisfactory solution to the problem of international nuclear liability can be found as soon as possible. My Government appreciates the Agency's activities in the field of nuclear safety because they strengthen the confidence of the population that the highest possible safety standards are being, or will be, applied to nuclear power everywhere on the basis of the responsibility of each Government and in the framework of understanding and co-operation between countries. It should be noted that in 1986 the Agency again arrived at the conclusion that there is no evidence of any diversion or misuse of nuclear material under safeguards. In our view, it is of great importance that meanwhile all nuclear-weapon States have placed all or some of tneir facilities under IAEA safeguards within the framework of voluntary-offer agreements, or have indicated their intention to do so. Tnis is an essential contr1bution to enhancement of the credibility of the safeguards system. Therefore, we call upon the nuclear-weapon States to include within this fraffiework more installations of advanced technology than hitherto in order to increase the value of such voluntary offers. All interested countries should have access to the technologies for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In providing technical assistance the Agency offers an important service to interested countries. My delegation is happy to note that further progress has been achieved in this field. My country is, however, deeply concerned to find that during this year's anniversary the Agency's successful work might be in jeopardy as a result of the dramatically increased backlog in contributions to the budget. In view of the situation, my Government urges all Member States to use their best efforts to ensure that the Agency can continue to function effectively in the years to come. In this context, we consider the principle of universality to be the prerequisite for the proper functioning and effectiveness of the IAEA as a world-wide organization. In my capacity as representative of the country holding the chairmansnip of the Agency's Board of Governors, and also on behalf of Hungary and Iraq, the other members of the bureau, I have the honour to introduce the draft resolutlon A!42!L.6 "Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency". 'l'he draft resolution is the result of informal consultations among interested member ~tates in both Vienna and New York. The draft resolution follows, to a lar~e extent, the format and text of earlier resolutions adopted by the General Assembly under this item, with some additions in both the preambular and operative parts reflecting recent lAEA nuclear (Count York von Wartenburg, Federal Republic of Germany) In operative paragraphs land 2 the General Assembly would take note of the report o~ the Agency and affirm its confidence in the role of the Agency in the application of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In paragraph 3, the draft resolution "Urges all States to str ive for effective and harmonious international c~operation in carrying out the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, pursuant to its statute, in promoting the use of nuclear energy and the application of the necessary measures to strengthen further the safety of nuclear installations and to minimize risks to health~ in strengthening technical assistance and co-operation for developing countries~ and in ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of tne Agency's safeguards system", Paragraph 4 requests the Secretary-General to transmit to the Director ~eneral of the Agency the records of the forty-second session of the General Assembly relating to the Agency's activities. We hope, and are confident that, in keeping with our previous tradition and in view of the importance of the SUbject-matter, the General Assembly will adopt the draft resolution without a vote.

Consideration of this item will continue tomorrow morning,