ON THE IAEA NPT ISSUE AND MEETING AT UN ...US  REFUSED TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE,PROVING THEIR FRAUDULENT CONCERNS AND SO CALLED COMMITMENTS TO THE NPT AND NON NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION ISSUE...AND ISRA-HELL HIDES  & PLAYS POSSUM DUE TO MEETINGS FOCUS ON ITS ILLEGAL NUCLEAR WEAPON STOCKPILES AND ITS REFUSAL TO SIGN ONTO NPT...   

A/RES/66/7

Plen.

86

A/66/PV.48 2 Nov. 2011 GA/11167 without vote

A/66/L.6 + Add.1

Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency

Sixty-sixth General Assembly

Plenary

48^th & 49^th Meetings (AM & PM

2 November 2011       http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2011/ga11167.doc.htm 

ESHAGH AL-HABIB ( Iran) said that nuclear technology played a significant role in the advancement of human society by contributing to such peaceful applications as food, medicine and agriculture.  According to its statute, he stressed, IAEA should “accelerate and enlarge” that contribution, including by facilitating the transfer of technology and the promotion of the scientific and technological capacity of Member States.  The inalienable right to the peaceful applications of nuclear technology, without discrimination, was the very foundation of the NPT.  Iran underscored that such a right should never be restricted, including through “ulterior outside political considerations”.  Additionally, the implementation of related provisions of the NPT and the IAEA statute required a realistic and balanced approach.Unfortunately, he said, developed States parties to the NPT, as the main suppliers of nuclear high technology, by continuing the application of a discriminatory, selective and highly politically motivated approach in their nuclear cooperation, had given rise to two “dangerous impressions”.  First, being a party to the NPT and the IAEA Safeguards Agreement did not facilitate but impeded nuclear cooperation, and, therefore, was not a privilege.  And the second impression was that non-NPT parties were more richly and generously rewarded through nuclear cooperation.It was a source of grave concern that those who had chosen not to accede to the NPT not only were not subject to any pressure to do so, but were encouraged and rewarded.  He said that the United States, the United Kingdom and France, in particular, provided well-documented assistance and cooperation to the Zionist regime which, in addition to its unsafeguarded nuclear programme, possessed one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons.  Indeed, such double standards contravened the letter and spirit, as well as the universality, of the NPT, and undermined the integrity of that treaty.Iran emphasized the need to avoid the use of extralegal unilateral measures and attempts to use the Agency as an instrument in support of short-sighted political interests.  By calling IAEA a “watchdog organization”, a neglected task of the Agency was ignored:  that of nuclear disarmament.  Iran was proud that it had been able to exercise its inalienable right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and remained fully committed to its nuclear activities, which were, and had always been, for peaceful purposes.  Despite all external pressure on IAEA, it had always repeatedly confirmed the non-diversion and peaceful nature of that programme.  Finally, from a legal point of view, he pointed out that IAEA should verify only “declared” nuclear material, and the recent report of the IAEA Director General had mentioned “all nuclear material”, which was legally incorrect.

BASHAR JA’AFARI ( Syria) said that despite the fact that there was universal understanding that the sole danger in the Middle East lay with Israel’s nuclear weapons, some of those who turned a blind eye to that “clear-cut situation” were pleased to raise new allegations with suspect motives.  That non-impartial and non-objective trend exposed the falsity of those countries’ statements to the effect that they wished to see a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  They themselves had supplied Israel with nuclear materials for decades, he said.  Those States had further tried to divert attention from such facts during last year’s NPT conference.The “nuclear hypocrisy” which marked the minds of Western States did not further the goals of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, he said.  Instead, it encouraged irresponsible nuclear activities by a Power that refused to place its programme under the safeguards of IAEA.  In that regard, the Agency should hold Western States responsible for their violations of Articles I and II of the NPT.  Referring to the “crass insinuations” made against Syria yesterday by the Head of the delegation of the European Union, he reminded the Assembly that many States in the European bloc did not comply with their nuclear commitments.The Director General of the IAEA had stated yesterday that the Agency had come to the conclusion that a building at the Dair Alzour site, discovered in 2007, was a nuclear reactor that should have been declared to IAEA.  Further, the Board of Governors had found in June 2011 that Syria did not comply with its international nuclear obligations.  Contrary to that opinion, Syria in fact made the NPT the main pillar of its policy.  He recalled that, in 2003 — when Syria had been a non-permanent member of the Security Council — it had presented a draft resolution to the effect of creating a zone free of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.  That resolution remained unadopted.   Syria’s credibility could, therefore, not be questioned, he said.  Its policies had simply clashed with those of the major Security Council Powers.Moreover, the Council and IAEA did not condemn Israel’s “gross aggression” against its sovereignty in 2007 — a fact that Syria had hoped would have been mentioned in the Director General’s report, but was not.  He quoted a paragraph written by the former Director General of IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei, entitled “The Age of Deception:  Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times”.  It stated that “one of the strangest and most striking examples of nuclear hypocrisy […] must surely be Israel’s bombing of the Dair Alzour installation in Syria in 2007”.  The then-Director General had informed countries that anyone with evidence that the installation had been nuclear in nature should come forward, but none had done so. Later, in a television interview, Mr. El-Baradei had been asked whether the facility was a nuclear reactor.  He had responded that Syria had not seen any evidence to conclude one way or another.  However, he had added that, “to bomb first and ask questions later”, as Israel had done, was deliberately undermining the system.  Only the IAEA had the means to verify allegations of clandestine nuclear activity.  Moreover, he recalled that the former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, had been asked in a separate interview what he thought of the assertion that Israel should have brought its evidence to IAEA; Mr. Bolton had replied that “the notion that Israel or the United States would put their national security in IAEA’s hands is just delusional”.  To hear those sentiments coming from the United States Ambassador to the United Nations was “dreadful”, the former Director General had noted.