Mr. Chair,

This current session of the Board of Governors of the IAEA, upon the request of China, has included for the 8th time as a standalone formal agenda item on the “Transfer of the nuclear materials in the context of AUKUS and its safeguards in all aspects under the NPT”. With the new situation on the AUKUS nuclear submarine cooperation, the discussion on this item at this session represents a new beginning and a new chapter in the intergovernmental discussion process on AUKUS within the IAEA framework.

The essence of AUKUS is that the United States and the United Kingdom, as Nuclear Weapon States, decided to conduct nuclear submarine cooperation with Australia, a Non-Nuclear Weapon State and their military ally, involving transfer of tons of weapon-grade HEU. For a well-known geopolitical purpose, the AUKUS partners decided to launch such a strategic military cooperation, which unprecedentedly steps over the threshold of the NPT principles and practices, and poses severe impact to the international non-proliferation regime with the NPT as its cornerstone, as well as severe challenges to the IAEA safeguards regime.

AUKUS is the outcome of the cold war mentality and bloc confrontation. It is the reflection of the same cold war mentality and bloc confrontation to “politicize” and “polarize” the AUKUS issue within the IAEA framework and coerce the Member States to take sides. The United States, the United Kingdom and Australia package AUKUS into an issue of routine safeguards arrangement between a Non-Nuclear Weapon State and the Agency and request for non-application of safeguards by applying Article 14 of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement is no different from trying to cover other people’s ears while stealing a bell. It is in fact tantamount to coercing the Secretariat to give endorsement for AUKUS.

Here I would like to stress that AUKUS is neither an issue between China and the AUKUS partners, nor an issue that can be dealt with and resolved between Australia and the IAEA Secretariat. Instead, it is an issue between the AUKUS partners and the rest of IAEA Member States, which involves legal, technical, procedural and all other aspects and as such, should be addressed appropriately in an open, transparent, equitable and impartial manner through a serious and highly responsible intergovernmental process.

Last month, the Permanent Mission of China organized at the Vienna International Centre a workshop with the title of “AUKUS and Article 14: Challenges Ahead”. All Board members and other interested Member States were invited, and the IAEA Secretariat was also represented at the workshop. At the workshop, top experts in the fields of safeguards and non-proliferation had in-depth exchanges with the participants. The participants raised a series of questions on AUKUS from different perspectives, and expressed their views and concerns. The workshop demonstrated the profound complexity and huge controversy surrounding AUKUS and was highly revealing for the IAEA Member States to further understand AUKUS.

For example, AUKUS represents the first time for Nuclear Weapon States to transfer tons of weapon-grade HEU to their Non-Nuclear Weapon military ally. Whether Article 14 can be applicable to such kind of cooperation? Does the Secretariat alone have the authority to make interpretations with regard to the implication and applicability of Article 14? Can the precedent set by AUKUS really be applicable to other Member States in the future? Who IS the “Agency”? Does the role of the “Agency” in the AUKUS process refer to the role of the Secretariat, the Board as a whole, or some of, or all Member States? When it comes to issues concerning new practices and new development of the IAEA safeguards regime, is there a right for other Member States to participate and speak? There are many other such thought-provoking questions. China has made a summary and a compilation of presentations that had been made during the workshop, and has asked the Secretariat to circulate them as an INFCIRC document. We believe this document would be useful for all parties to further understand the AUKUS issue, particularly issues concerning the common interests of the Member States other than the AUKUS partners.

Mr. Chair,

If we look back into the history, IAEA safeguards regime has been developed, improved, and put into practice based on broad participation of Member States in a process jointly pushed forward on the basis of consensus. The tradition of inclusiveness and consensus is therefore the quintessence of the IAEA safeguards regime. Each and every time when a new safeguards issue or need emerged, IAEA Member States have always carefully looked into them and extensively discussed them through an open and inclusive intergovernmental process with broad participation. Sometimes there were protracting debate and hard negotiations before reaching agreements, but the agreements reached have all been endorsed and adopted by consensus by the Board. This approach has helped the safeguards regime evolve and improve, thus maintaining its relevance and authority. If this tradition is challenged or undermined, there will be far reaching negative impact on IAEA comprehensive safeguards regime with unpredictable consequences.

The AUKUS partners told us that, over the 18-month consultation period, they have had numerous technical exchanges with the IAEA to develop a non-proliferation approach that sets a strong precedent for any other countries that might seek to acquire naval nuclear propulsion in the future. It seems that they will continue to do so. Such mentality, statement and practice can only make other Member States more confused, frustrated and concerned. Who endowed the AUKUS partners with the above rights to establish a “strong precedent” for other countries? Does the “IAEA” in the mind of the AUKUS partners include all Member States, or it only means the Secretariat? For such a “strong precedent”, is there any opportunity and right for other Member States to express their views and participate? When you set rules for others in the past, you always advocated "Member States driven process". Now you are setting rules first for yourselves and then impose them to others, you are so reluctant or even reject inter-governmental process. I can see no rationale for such a practice!

The AUKUS cooperation entails a great number of complex issues within the framework of IAEA. Member States, based on their own interests, concerns and their take of the situation, may have divergent views and claims. This is the reality that all parties should face squarely. During this Board session, Member States, from different perspectives, have further put forward many views of great importance. The numerous issues and differences will not be addressed overnight. And according to the AUKUS partners, their nuclear submarine cooperation will be a long-term process spanning over two decades. China believes therefore the current priority for Board members, together with other interested Member States, is to steadily advance an open, inclusive, transparent and sustainable intergovernmental discussion process.

In this intergovernmental process, we should avoid the attempt of allowing only one voice during the discussion, or “double standard”, let alone attempts to characterize countries with different views as “politicizing the issue”, or to coerce Member States to take sides. Instead, this process should allow frank exchange of views and ideas, so that we can clarify issues, bridge gaps and work towards consensus. It would embody the Vienna Spirit and true multilateralism, and serves the interests of all IAEA Member States, including that of the AUKUS partners.

I take note of the DG’s comments, as prepared by the Secretariat, under agenda item 6(f) “Naval Nuclear Propulsion: Brazil” on 7 June. China, like other interested Member States, will carefully study these comments, and share our views in future discussions. I have also noted that the DG has emphasized in his introductory statement for this session that, the current discussion on AUKUS among Member States is only the beginning of a long process, there are many views and concerns on AUKUS, and the DG, as well as the Secretariat, will listen to everybody and take these views and concerns very seriously.

We hope the Secretariat, in line with its obligations under the Statute and the mandate given by Member States, plays its role in an impartial, transparent and professional manner, by assisting Member States in maintaining and advancing the intergovernmental discussion process. We also hope that future reports on AUKUS submitted by DG to the Board will fully respect and objectively reflect discussions among Member States, by including different views and concerns expressed, as well as the significance of IAEA’s tradition of inclusiveness and consensus for upholding the authority of the Agency’s safeguards regime and maintaining the effectiveness of NPT.

Dear colleagues,

We find ourselves now at a new starting point of a long-term intergovernmental discussion process on AUKUS. The mission for our generation of Governors and Ambassadors is to make sure this process advances steadily in the long run, so as to contribute wisdom and strength to properly address issues around AUKUS, uphold and further strengthen the NPT and IAEA safeguards regime. We urge the AUKUS partners to take concrete actions to respond to the international community’s concerns, faithfully fulfil their nuclear non-proliferation obligations, and maintain frank and transparent communications with other Member States on the basis of equality and mutual respect. I, together with my team, stand ready to continue communication and cooperation with Member States, including with AUKUS partners, in a responsible and professional way.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.