serious sources of dissatisfaction in the developing world. The elimination of incentives for nations to acquire reprocessing capabilities would be much more a long-term objective, and such an incentive would disappear only when reprocessing, like the rest of the nuclear fuel cycle in its present form, would lose its economic attraction through the development of alternative cheaper, more convenient, more reliable and safer forms of energy. This is one reason why the European Community has initiated a comprensive research and development programme in the field of alternative sources of energy, and it is hoped that a major fusion programme, not dissimilar to those at present underway in both the United States and the Soviet Union, will commence in 1978.

The Joint European Torus,, a Tokamak magnetic confinement system, will constitute a principal part of this project which could lead eventually to fusion superseding fission, perhaps in the 21st century. In the meantime, though it may be regretted, economic incentives for the acquisition of reprocessing capabilities exist, and the refusal of those nations possessing the necessary technology to provide this to less technologically advanced customers might lead to unfortunate interpretation. It could easily appear that a few-economically advanced-nations, by controlling reprocessing, could effectively regulate the nuclear energy output of other-mainly but not exclusively Third Worldnations through control of this aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle.

One of the most pressing incentives for controlling all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle is the subjection of nuclear consumer nations to pressure by supplier nations. At present it seems to be impossible to avoid such pressures unless a large scale market in nuclear fuels develops so that consumers can purchase supplies from a wide variety of sources, uncontrolled by an international cartel, and this, for other reasons, might not be desirable. Over the last six months, Europe has encountered difficulties in obtaining supplies of uranium from its traditional sources, thereby heightening the danger of dependence on imported supplies.

RESEARCH NEEDED

All this reinforces the need for alternative measures, with priority on research and international cooperation. The European Parliament has consistently advocated further examination of the nuclear fuel cycle. As well as the major programmes under way in national laboratories under the budgets of its Member States, the European Community is itself at present financing studies on the nuclear fuel cycle, plutonium recycling in Light Water Reactors, irradiated fuel reprocessing and the storage of radioactive waste. Intensive research on the fuel cycle, on a world-wide scale, is vitally necessary.

None of the points made above detract in any way from the importance of an international inspection system to supervise the use and movement of source and fissionable materials. All Members States of the European Community are subject to Euratom inspection, which is now one of the most thorough, both in accounting and vertification, in the world. The system has developed considerably since the disappearance of 200 tonnes of natural uranium oxide at sea in 1968, and over the nine years which have elapsed since that unfortunate incident the Euratom system has been overhauled thoroughly. It should be noted that Euratom has over 60 inspectors for the nine Member States of the European Community, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, has to cover nuclear installations throughout the world, East and West, with some 150 inspectors. The IAEA, in an enhanced form, operating stringent inspection, vertification and accounting procedures, particularly in areas outside the control of other inspecting bodies such as Euratom, could have an important part to play in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

TERRORIST THREATS

Terrorism on an international scale constitutes a continuous security danger in the 1970s. Up to the present, with the exception of one incident in Argentina, nuclear installations have not been targets of terrorist attacks. Nevertheless the threat remains, and international terrorism can be combatted only on an international scale. In this respect it should be noted that nuclear wastes, and other potentially dangerous substances, are most vulnerable to terrorist attack while in transit. This should be borne in mind when consideration is given to the siting, on a world-wide scale, of reprocessing facilities.

In conclusion, the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons is widely recognised, and all possible realistic steps must be taken to reduce the risk of nuclear war. While one of the major sources of tension in the world comes from the dissatisfaction of the Third World, every effort must be made to ensure that developing countries achieve the greatest possible degree of energy independence as a prerequisite for economic development. This, however, must be accompanied, and not only in the Third World, by agreements, arrived at through negotiation in a spirit of cooperation, by which nations operating nuclear installations would voluntarly renounce the acquisition of nuclear weapons. These agree ments would have to be backed up by a rigorous inspection and vertification system carried out by an international body such as the International Atomic Energy Agency. Concerted efforts against terrorism are also called for.

In the short term, while nations heavily dependent on insecure imported sources of energy cannot be expected to eschew the development of Fast Breeder Reactors, research should be intensified into the fuel cycle, peaceful uses of plutonium and reprocessing so that plutonium is not misused.

In the long term, the solution to the problem might be in the development of alternative major sources of energy such as fusion.

Tuesday, July 12, 1977, Morning

SUMMARY

III. SECOND PLENARY SESSION

A. REPORT TO THE PLENARY SESSION BY THE WORKING GROUPS

Mr. Cousté, spokesman for the Human Rights Working Group, explained the decisions taken and the recommendations made by the working group at its meeting the previous day.

-the delegates emphasized the hopes raised by the Helsinki Final Act in this field, and the need to obtain more tangible results; -action should not be taken in isolation but should be concentrated on clearly defined objectives, particularly as regards the external relations of both the United States and the EC; -concern for human rights should not be limited to studies of the situation in certain countries as opposed to others, but should effectively include all countries, wherever they may be, whenever alarming information and strong evidence came to hand. Reference was made to the work of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Belgrade Conference; and -it was agreed to request the Secretary General of Amnesty International to follow up his declarations to the working group by submitting a report on the form of relations which Amnesty International wished to establish with the European Community and certain practical proposals in this connection (consultative status as a non-governmental organization).

CIVIL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS

Mr. Fraser pointed out that, 28 years after the signing of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, most countries were in breach of their own undertakings in one way or another. Human rights today encompassed civil rights as well as political, social and economic rights. Defenders of human rights in the United States concentrated their efforts on the violation of personal integrity, and in particular on clear violations of established international rights, especially in the form of torture, length detention without charge or trial, or any other cruel or inhuman treatment. The American Executive was now pledged to suspend military aid to countries which systematically violated human rights, and would also suspend economic aid unless it was shown that such action would worsen the situation for the least-favored categories of the people concerned. Mr. Fraser stressed the importance of international support on as wide a basis as possible for the achievement of the desired objectives. This action for the protection of human rights could only be undertaken progressively, and should not give rise to ideological confrontation over separate issues or to excessive expectations.

Mr. Cousté agreed with the additional points made in the exchange of views. The two delegations noted their agreement with the conclusions of the Working Group on Human Rights, which would continue its work in preparation for the next meeting.

NUCLEAR DISCUSSION

The Chairman asked Mr. Fithian to report on the results of the working party dealing with nuclear nonproliferation.

Mr. Fithian read out a short paper summarizing the areas of common agreement, the areas of disagreement and recommendations of the Joint Working Group. He said that a joint working group on nuclear energy should be established in the context of relations between the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament to continue the study of common problems in the field of nuclear nonproliferation, as well as access to the supply of nuclear materials (see Annex A).

Mr. Fithian felt that such a joint working group should study, inter alia,

-the political problems involved in the storage of nuclear waste; -the uranium supply situation; and

-the impact of American decisions on the energy sitaution in Europe.

Mr. Fithian said that he believed that research and development in the field of fast breeder technology would continue in the United States, even though work on the Clinch River project had been halted. He regretted that many questions of substance and of detail had not been treated owing to lack of time.

DISAPPOINTMENT EXPRESSED

Mr. Ryan expressed his disappointment at the results of the working group. He felt that too much emphasis had been given to nuclear energy as an alternative to oil. Mr. Ryan then spoke about the danger involved in reprocessing and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste, as well as the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations. He felt that alternatives to nuclear power had not been investigated sufficiently, neither had enough consideration been given to conservation.

Mr. Fraser asked that paragraph 11 of the summary of results of the working group be amended by the addition of the following sentence to the end of the paragraph: "but other U.S. delegates believe that commercial development of the fast breeder would not go ahead at this time".

Mr. Faure said that it would be necessary to go into the problem of nuclear nonproliferation in greater detail during the next European Parliament/U.S. Congress meeting in Washington.

He spoke about the energy gap and the need for more research and development into alternative sources of energy.

Mr. Faure was in agreement with all President Carter's proposals in the field of energy conservation, and pointed out that Europe, as well