2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 10 May 2000
New York, July 17th, 2000
Comments by the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations on the statement of the IAEA representative
(Delivered at the meeting of Subsidiary Body 2 on 10th May 2000)
Mr. Chairman
The representative of the International Atomic Energy Agency issued on 10th May 2000 a statement on the Safeguards and verification activities in Iraq (NPT/CONF.2000/MC.II/SB.2/CRP.4). We believe it is appropriate to make a few observations on this statement, although we have questions about the Status of that statement which was not issued in accordance with the normal procedures of the IAEA.
1- It is clear that the statement was written by the US and merely rubber-stamped by the agency. It reminds us of the statements of Richard Butler which used to be written in the US permanent mission then covered with the rubber stamp of the UN.
2- The statement contravenes the objectives and principles of the NPT, the Statute of the Agency and its safeguard agreement. Indeed, it contradicts earlier statements of the Agency. It is almost an exact reproduction in letter and content of a statement made by the U.S. Representative in a previous meeting of this committee. I shall list below some of these contradictions and injustices:
3- The 1St paragraph of the statement addresses the past, the events of 1991 and resolution 707 of 15 August 1991. This period is unrelated to the period under review by the conference, namely, from 1995 to the present.
4- The 2nd paragraph contradicts itself, at the beginning it states that the safeguards activities had been taking place since 1991within the activities of the agency mandated by Security Council resolutions. It then concludes that the Agency is unable to state that Iraq is in compliance with the Safeguards agreement. In other words, between 1991 and 1999 the Agency shirked its responsibility for the implementation of the Safeguards agreement with Iraq, then it goes to say that Iraq has not complied with that agreement. The Agency stopped activities in Iraq under the Safeguards agreement for no reason. Resolution 707 itself requested the IAEA to follow-up Iraq's compliance with its Safeguards agreement. It states in Operative Paragraph 3/vi: "halt all nuclear activities of any kind, except for use of isotopes for medical or industrial purposes until the Security Council determines that Iraq is in full compliance with this resolution and paragraphs 12 and 13 of resolution 687 (1991) and the IAEA determines that Iraq is in full compliance with its Safeguards agreement with that Agency".
5- It would seem that the Agency had decided to subsume the Safeguards agreement within the Regime of Inspection, espionage and acts of provocation of the American inspectors. The latter, using the most sophisticated technical means available, carried out thousands of inspection and monitoring operations for 8 years. Finally, the Agency officials concluded that the Iraqi Nuclear Program has reached point zero. What more is demanded of Iraq for the Agency to state that it is in compliance with the Safeguards agreement?
6- The statement of the IAEA representative says: " The IAEA carried out in January 2000 a physical inventory verification of the nuclear material subject to safeguards in Iraq with the limited objective of verifying the presence of the declared nuclear material in question." This is a wrongful description of the inspection, which took place in Iraq in January 2000 in accordance with the safeguards agreement between the Agency and Iraq. All nuclear facilities in Iraq have been destroyed. The nuclear fuel has been transferred out of Iraq. All peaceful nuclear activities, including these referred to in Operative Paragraph 3/vi of resolution 707 has come to a halt. The only thing that remains to be subject of the Safeguards agreement is the verification of nuclear materials and the Agency itself has admitted that. Why then does the statement qualify that inspection as one of "limited objective". And what are the other objectives under the Safeguards agreement which the Agency should have achieved but has not thus far?
7- The statement of the Agency also says: "This inspection is not, however, sufficient to provide assurance that Iraq is in full compliance with all its safeguards obligation,". That too is incorrect. The Safeguards agreement is clear. The activities underwent are well-known. The Agency in its letter to Iraq in December 1999 (S/2000/120) requested the resumption of inspection activities under the Safeguards agreement. Iraq agreed. The inspection team of the Agency carried out its task in Iraq in January 2000. In a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, dated 10th April 2000, (S/2000/300), the Agency stated: " the Agency's inspectors were able to verify the nuclear material s covered by the Safeguards, namely, low-grade enriched uranium, regular uranium and depleted uranium. Iraq provided the inspection team with the cooperation necessary for the efficient and effective conduct of its activities." How else would compliance with the Safeguards agreement be?
8- The statement of the Agency says that it has no assurances that Iraq does not divert nuclear materials neither does it have assurances of the absence of undeclared nuclear activities. This statement is extremely irrational. It contradicts the aforementioned statement made by the Director General after the end of the inspection in Iraq. To say that the Agency has no assurances of the absence of undeclared activities is to resort to the logic of (guilty until proven innocent). This is the exact opposite of the legal dictum (innocent until proven guilty). Unfortunately, this is the logic which the US has, for many years, imposed on the UN to justify the continued imposition of comprehensive sanctions on Iraq. That logic which demands that Iraq proves the negative must be rejected. The Agency must state that it has fulfilled its tasks under the Safeguards agreement. If it has any factual evidence to Iraq's non-compliance with the Safeguards agreement, then it must present such evidence to the Board of Governors of the IAEA and to the international community as a whole, but the continued pursuit of the policy of Genocide against the Iraqi people under the pretext of mere suspicions is simply illegal and immoral.
9- The last sentence of the statement of the representative of the Agency says: "It is necessary, until the Security Council decides otherwise, that the IAEA resume its verification activities foreseen under the relevant Security Council Resolutions, including those under the NPT Safeguards" This sentence reaffirms anew that the authors of the statement are not interested in the implementation of the Safeguards agreement with Iraq. Neither are they interested in strengthening the relationship between Iraq and the Agency. Rather, what they really want is to slight the Agency through confusing its professional, technical and neutral tasks with the comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq. This is an erroneous and dangerous attitude. We warn against it, since it will destroy the credibility and independence of the Safeguards agreement. It will undermine the credibility of the Agency and that of the NPT.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.