What are the positions of other members of the "nuclear club?"

The five nuclear powers are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. They have huge influence and also shoulder special responsibilities in the international arena. In general, the five permanent members are against any move to proliferate weapons of mass destruction, whether biological, chemical or nuclear. However, ambiguities exist among nuclear powers in their attitude toward specific cases.

While some nuclear powers take strong positions in the case of the DPRK and Iran, they seem to hold a different position toward other countries that harbor the intention or have clearly manifested the capability to cross the nuclear threshold.

The double standard toward nuclear proliferation provides incentives to countries that have the potential to go nuclear. This trend will undoubtedly continue to jeopardize the nonproliferation regime.

How do you view the expansion of this group? How does this trend jibe with the spirit of the NPT?

The expansion of the nuclear group is definitely not a good thing. It is against the spirit of the NPT. The expansion of the nuclear group means the technology for the production of nuclear weapons is spreading to more countries, with the possible risk that it may one day fall into the hands of non-state actors. It constitutes a serious threat to the security of mankind and is therefore against the interests of all nations. All countries should stand firmly against the proliferation of all kinds of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

How are the obligations of the NPT being carried out by its members?

Over the years, the IAEA has been making positive efforts to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and conducting routine inspections in NPT member states. The results are positive and encouraging. On the whole, the majority of NPT member states are honoring their obligations in good faith.

On the other hand, we also notice the erosion of the basis of the treaty. Some non-nuclear-weapon countries have so far refused to adhere to the treaty.

Under the stipulations of the treaty, nuclear powers have the obligation to carry out nuclear disarmament. However, no visible progress has been made in this regard. Even worse, we see steps by some nuclear powers to upgrade their nuclear arsenals. These efforts will increase resentment from non-nuclear-weapon countries and will seriously undermine the effectiveness of the treaty.

What is China's relationship with the IAEA since joining in 1984? Can you talk about China's involvement and cooperation with the organization?

China is a member of the governing board of the IAEA. It firmly supports the work of the organization and is taking an active part in it.

Since joining the IAEA, China has maintained a very good relationship with the organization. Dr. Hans Blix, former Director General of the IAEA, visited China on numerous occasions. He traveled extensively inside the country and held serious discussions on cooperation between China and the IAEA.

Over the past 20 years and more, China has conducted fruitful cooperation with the IAEA across a wide range of areas, including research and development for the peaceful use of nuclear energy in agriculture, medicine and other areas.

China has signed all international nonproliferation treaties, including a number of agreements with the IAEA. In 1988, China signed an agreement with the IAEA, subjecting a number of facilities in China to IAEA safeguards. In addition, China further declared that it would report to the IAEA any export or import of nuclear materials and all exports of nuclear equipment.

What is China's evaluation of the IAEA's inspection work in Iraq, Iran and North Korea?

The IAEA, together with UNMOVIC, the UN body responsible for the monitoring, verification and inspection of Iraqi proscribed weapon stockpiles and programs, conducted a thorough inspection in Iraq. Before the coalition army started the Iraq war in 2003, both organizations reported to the UN Security Council that they did not find any proof that Iraq maintained any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. It now has been proven that the conclusions made by the two organizations are correct and that their inspections have been effective.

With regard to the cases of Iran and the DPRK, the situations are different from that of Iraq. For Iraq, there was UN Security Council Resolution 687, under which Iraq was obliged to declare and destroy all its proscribed weapons. The IAEA and UNMOVIC could in theory go to Iraq and conduct inspections anytime, anywhere.

Right now, the IAEA does not have a mandate similar to the one in Iraq. It may initiate an ordinary inspection mission to Iran and the DPRK, as it does to any other NPT members. That is to say, it may only inspect those sites declared by the country concerned.

The effectiveness of the IAEA's inspection depends on multiple factors and it is still too early to predict the result at this stage. The cooperation of the country being inspected is of crucial importance.