Bastiaan Brink
mijn weblog
Dprk Safeguards Agreement
Categories: Uncategorized

12 May 2003 North Korea accuses the United States of violating the spirit of the 1992 joint North-South Declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and calls the agreement a “dead document” in a KCNA statement. October 21, 1994: The United States and North Korea conclude four months of negotiations with the adoption of the “agreed framework” in Geneva. In order to allay U.S. concerns about Pyongyang`s plutonium reactors and yongbyon reprocessing plant, the agreement calls on North Korea to freeze its nuclear facilities and finally eliminate them, a process that requires the dismantling of three nuclear reactors, two of which are still under construction. North Korea also allows the IAEA to verify its compliance through “special inspections” and agrees to transport 8,000 irradiated nuclear fuels to a third country. All security measures: what was once called “totally unarmed safeguards” based on agreements between the IAEA and non-nuclear states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 3The substantial safeguard agreements are based on the IAEA document, the structure and content of the agreements between the Agency and the States that are needed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, INFCIRC/153, June 1972. The NPT requires the State concerned to accept safeguards in accordance with the IAEA`s status and the Agency`s guarantee system for all its nuclear materials, present and in the future. The protection system is described in the global standard security agreement (based on the IAEA`s INFCIRC/153 document) and related documentation (including the additional protocol on safeguards based on the IAEA`s INFCIRC/540 document). The agreement contains detailed procedures on issues such as registrations, reports, inspections and monitoring. The agreement gives the IAEA both the right and the obligation to ensure that security measures apply to all state nuclear materials. 4Ibid, paragraph 2.

It also implies that the state does not have undeclared nuclear materials. Therefore, in addition to inspections and controls on notified sites, the IAEA has the authority to investigate possible violations of security measures at unreported sites. The international expectation is that multilateral monitoring agencies, with appropriate expertise, will participate in the review of an agreement or agreement with North Korea. This means that the IAEA applies to fissile material and nuclear obligations and the role of the audit agency. Shortly after the signing of the agreement, the U.S. Congress joined the Republican Party, which did not support the agreement. [19] [20] Some Republican senators were strongly opposed to the agreement and found it appeased. [21] [22] Originally, emergency funds from the U.S. Department of Defense that were not under congressional control were used to finance transitional oil deliveries under the agreement[23] with international funding.

Starting in 1996, Congress allocated appropriations, but not always sufficient amounts. [14] [24] As a result, some transitional oil deliveries were delivered late. [25] KEDO`s first director, Stephen Bosworth, later commented, “The agreed framework was a political orphan within two weeks of signing.” [26] In summary, freezing must include either the controlled closure of the centrifuge facility and the monitoring of UFU and UF6 stocks, or the application of strict protective measures and limit values for installation, materials and related operations. If the enrichment facility is still in service, the background freeze should go beyond a freeze and include safety and transparency measures for that facility and related measures.

Comments are closed.