In addressing the serious nonproliferation challenges posed by the US, the UK and Australian nuclear submarine cooperation, the Agency's Director General cannot exceed his mandate to address the US, the UK and Australia's acts of nuclear proliferation on his own initiative.

In September this year, the Agency's Director General submitted a report on the US, the UK and Australia nuclear submarine cooperation, overstepping his responsibilities and proposing the so-called legal basis and legal framework for the three countries.  And even more so, when the three countries never declared any information on nuclear materials and facilities related to nuclear submarine cooperation, he proposed the so-called conclusion that "Australia has the discretion to exempt its nuclear submarine cooperation by invoking Article 14 of the CSA ". This is not only absurd, but also invalid.

Under Article 7B of Agency's Statute, the Director General shall be under the authority of and subject to the control of the Board of Governors. He shall perform his duties in accordance with regulations adopted by the Board. Accordingly, what the Director General can and cannot do is governed by rules. As far as the relationship between the two is concerned, the DG should act under the "leadership" of the Member States and in strict accordance with and within the confines of the Agency's Statute and rules of procedure. He must not step beyond his authority, much less purport to position himself above the membership constituted by sovereign States.

With regard to a project like AUKUS, the Agency's Statute has clearly stipulated the reporting obligations of the Director General. It is the duty and obligation of the Director General to submit reports on the issue of AUKUS. In September this year the Director General submitted his first report to the Board of Governors. This was, of course, a step in the right direction. However, such reporting must be factual and strictly technical in nature in accordance with the spirit of the Statute of the Agency and the CSA. The Director General cannot arrogate to himself the right to draw so-called “conclusions” on his own by going beyond his well-defined role and mandate.

In accordance with Article 12C of the Agency's Statute, the Director General is required to report to keep the Board fully informed at each and all stages of the cooperation between the three AUKUS countries and any non-compliance from Austria, if any, and the corrective measures he needs to take. The Director General's report should also answer a series of questions from the political, legal and technical perspectives that have been raised by the three countries since the launch of the nuclear submarine cooperation. The Director General's report should also answer a series of questions that have been raised by member states on a number of occasions since the launch of the nuclear submarine cooperation from the political, legal and technical perspectives regarding the potential risks of nuclear proliferation practices involved in this cooperation. However, not only does the Director General fail to answer the legitimate questions raised by Member States, but his statutory obligations are also not duly reflected in his report.

China hopes that the DG will effectively fulfill his obligations under the Statute of the Agency as well as the CSA and AP in his follow-up report. The follow-up report must remedy the shortcoming of the first report by specifically addressing the concerns of Member States and responding to the series of questions. The objective must be to fully brief the Member States on all aspects of nuclear submarine cooperation in an open, objective and transparent manner and, thereby, create conducive conditions for the proper resolution of the issue of AUKUS nuclear submarine cooperation among the three countries through the member-driven intergovernmental consultation process within the Agency.