No State or International Body Ready to Address Uncontrollable Destructive Capacity of Nuclear Weapons Use, Treaty Parties Told during Review
Uncertain Political, Security Environment Prompts Calls for Swift Progress
“No State or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation or provide adequate assistance to victims,” Austria’s Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurtz told delegates today, as the month-long Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) reconvened.
Speaking on behalf of 156 countries, Mr. Kurtz said the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons did not only affect Governments, but each and every citizen of an interconnected world with deep implications for human survival. Those appalling consequences were evident from the moment of their first use, and had motivated humanity’s aspirations for a world free from that threat.
He said the use and testing of those weapons had amply demonstrated the unacceptability of their immense and uncontrollable destructive capacity and indiscriminate nature. Successive expressions of profound concern remained as compelling as ever, and awareness of the consequences must underpin all efforts towards nuclear disarmament.
France was fully aware of the severe effects of such weapons, and its nuclear deterrence was strictly limited to defending its vital interests under extreme circumstances of self-defence and in full compliance with international law, said its representative. While his country shared the long-term objective of eliminating nuclear weapons when the circumstances so allowed, the ultimate aim of elimination could not be declared abstractly without taking into account the international strategic context.
France, he said, had consistently demonstrated its commitment to that long-term objective over the past 15 years by halving its total nuclear weapons stockpile and dismantling its nuclear test sites and fissile material production facilities for weapons.
“The Treaty is far too important to be held hostage to impractical demands or political agendas that will not command consensus,” said Romania’s representative, adding that the Conference was not taking place in a political vacuum. Fundamental changes had occurred, and the international order was “overturned”. The NPT’s future relied on the political will of its States parties, as well as on universality.
Luxembourg’s speaker pointed out that the Conference was taking place amid doubts about the stability of the international security architecture, and that it was incumbent upon the participants to strengthen the Treaty. While nuclear stockpiles had been reduced, the cuts had been far below those envisaged by the 2010 Action Plan, and nuclear-weapon States needed to build conditions conducive to creating a nuclear-weapon-free world.
The European Union’s representative called for a revival of multilateral efforts and negotiating bodies, in particular, in the Conference on Disarmament, and noted the severe consequences associated with nuclear weapons use. All States shared the responsibility to prevent that, she said, and stressed the need to remain vigilant and ready to face up to serious proliferation challenges. Of particular importance were the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) safeguards and the Security Council’s primary responsibility in cases of non-compliance.
Everyone had the right to enjoy the benefits of NPT, but they must also share its responsibilities, Belgium’s representative said. The 2010 Action Plan provided a detailed guide to realizing progress on the Treaty’s three pillars. Despite being conscious that nuclear disarmament needed a gradual process, she did not believe in a step-by-step timetable, as some actions could be taken in parallel. Universality of and full compliance with NPT was essential, and she called on Israel, India and Pakistan to adhere to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States. “A building cannot remain standing without a solid foundation,” she added.
Also speaking were representatives, including at the ministerial level, of Kyrgyzstan, Canada, Poland, Serbia, Czech Republic, Germany, Namibia, Liechtenstein, Myanmar, Jamaica, Panama, Mongolia, Bahrain (on behalf of Arab Group), New Zealand, United Arab Emirates, Cyprus, Argentina, Brazil, Turkey, Philippines, Australia, Dominican Republic, Denmark, Finland, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria (African Group, national capacity).
Rights of reply were exercised by representatives of the United Kingdom and Argentina.
The Conference will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 April, to continue its debate.
Statements
ASKAR BESHIMOV, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kyrgyzstan, stressed the importance of recognizing new opportunities to advance nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. As a member of one of the newest nuclear-weapon-free zones, his country expressed concern over the delay in convening a conference on the establishment of such a zone in the Middle East. While the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, new challenges had emerged. In order for it to remain viable, it Treaty must adapt to those changing the changing circumstances, which included the growing risk of nuclear terrorism.
He said that international safeguards and physical protection of nuclear materials and facilities were the first line of defence and his country strongly endorsed the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) efforts in that direction. Stressing the need to preserve the principles and spirit of NPT regardless of whether States remained a party, he took a favourable view of efforts to strengthen provisions regarding withdrawal. All Governments and international organizations with expertise in clean up and dispose of radioactive contaminants should consider providing appropriate assistance for remedial purposes in affected areas. Underscoring the role of education and training to promote disarmament and non-proliferation, he appreciated the leadership shown by Japan and other States parties in continuing to raise the issue in the context of NPT.
DANIEL IONITA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Romania, said the NPT’s future relied on the political will of its States parties, as well as the achievement of its universality. “The Treaty is far too important to be held hostage to impractical demands or political agendas that will not command consensus”, he added. The Conference was not taking place in a political vacuum; fundamental changes had taken place and the international order was overturned, while important agreements were “torn up”. The mistreatment of Ukraine’s commitments in acceding as a non-nuclear weapon State to NPT might question the value of nuclear-weapon States’ security assurances in a broader sense. “Such actions erode the level of trust and undermine nuclear non-proliferation efforts”.
Acknowledging the cuts in nuclear arsenals through bilateral efforts between the Russian Federation and the United States, he encouraged them to further address prospects for nuclear disarmament, as political will was essential to make progress in both nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. Turning to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, he celebrated the sixtieth anniversary since the start of his country’s nuclear programme, adding that Romania had demonstrated its respect for each nation’s right to benefit from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, under the condition that non-proliferation, safety and security were met.
SEBASTIAN KURZ, Federal Minister for Europe, Integration and Foreign Minister of Austria, delivering a joint statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons on behalf of 156 countries, said the use and testing of those weapons had amply demonstrated the unacceptability of their immense and uncontrollable destructive capacity and indiscriminate nature. The fact-based discussion that took place at the conferences convened by Norway, Mexico and Austria in 2013 and 2014 had deepened the world’s collective understanding of the humanitarian consequences. A key message from experts and international organizations was that no State or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation or provide adequate assistance to victims.
He said the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons affected, not only Governments, but each and every citizen of an interconnected world, with deep implications for human survival. Those appalling consequences became evident from the moment of their first use and had motivated humanity’s aspirations for a world free from that threat. Successive expressions of profound concern remained as compelling as ever. Awareness of the consequences must underpin all efforts towards nuclear disarmament, including in the work of the 2015 Review Conference, and the well-established humanitarian focus on the global agenda in recent years was encouraging, he said, adding that the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons would never be used again was through their total elimination. All States shared the responsibility to prevent the use and proliferation of those weapons and to achieve nuclear disarmament, including through fulfilling the objectives of NPT and achieving its universality.
LYNNE YELICH, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Canada, said her country held itself to and consistently met a high standard of compliance with its non-proliferation obligations. Regrettably, the same could not be said of some other States parties. Iran remained the subject of 10 Security Council resolutions and 12 IAEA Board of Governors resolutions and associated sanctions for its ongoing non-compliance with its NPT obligations. Noting Iran’s proven refusal to cooperate with Agency inspectors, she stressed that verifiable progress was the only path for Iran to make the rhetoric of its leaders sincere. Earlier this month, Canada had announced a Can$3 million contribution to IAEA to support its efforts to monitor Iran’s compliance with its commitments under the Joint Plan of Action.
Calling attention to “irresponsible and belligerent” nuclear and proliferation activities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, she said the Review Conference must continue to hold that country to account for its actions and call for concrete steps to achieve a comprehensive and lasting peace. Syria, whose non-compliance with its non-proliferation obligations had been overshadowed by its protracted civil war, also must cooperate with IAEA. Deploring the violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty by the Russian Federation, she reiterated the call to the latter country to withdraw its troops from Ukraine and to respect that country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
LESZEK SOCZEWICA, Undersecretary of State of Poland, said “there are no shortcuts, no simple solutions, no alternatives to this forum”. Implementation of NPT required the efforts of all States. In particular, the nuclear disarmament discussion must be inclusive and pragmatic, he added. Concerned with the security of the European continent, Poland proposed a set of concepts aimed at increasing the transparency of non-strategic nuclear weapons there, in the hopes of their total elimination. Progress in the debate on transparency and confidence-building in the context of non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe was needed, as was the inclusion of those weapons in reduction talks.
Actions contradicting the spirit of international commitments in the nuclear weapons sphere were flourishing, he said, exemplified by the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity perpetrated by the Russian Federation with its illegal annexation of Crimea. On the eve of the seventieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, discussions about European security should be strengthened. He supported initiatives like the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative. Turning to the outcome document, he asked that it be a road map towards a world without nuclear weapons.
ROKSANDA NINČIĆ (Serbia) said NPT remained essential for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Non-proliferation was still the essence of the NPT regime, and she fully supported efforts to further improve international verification obligations, which aimed to uphold the integrity of the Treaty by addressing non-compliance. The adoption of the 2010 Action Plan was a significant achievement, even though not all obligations had been fulfilled. Serbia welcomed efforts invested in pursuing the NPT’s article VI commitments and other initiatives, such as the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative of Japan and other countries, which had special significance this year due to the seventieth anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
She said Serbia shared the view that the test-ban Treaty could serve as a key complementary document to NPT, and it would continue to support efforts for its entry into force. It also remained committed to negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty and considered the French draft document to be a good basis for further talks. Universal NPT implementation was a crucial element of global security, as were other relevant international instruments, including Security Council resolution 1540 (2004). In 2002, Serbia launched the “WIND Project” to remove nuclear materials from Serbia to the Russian Federation, their State of origin. Serbia had become the forty-ninth participating Government in the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2013 and had finalized the procedure for ratification of the Additional Protocol to the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. As the current chair of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Serbia would work towards universal adherence to NPT and would act as a constructive partner in meeting the common goal of strengthening nuclear safety and security.
JAKUB KULHÁNEK, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, associating with the European Union, said that his country, as the first in Europe to have ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), supported the process leading to its entry into force. It also supported the efforts of the Provisional Technical Secretariat to further develop the CTBT verification regime as a strong non-proliferation and confidence-building instrument. Noting the outcome of the Lausanne meetings between the E3+3 and Iran, he urged that country to fully and without delay cooperate with IAEA to enable it to ascertain that there were no clandestine activities in Iran.
He strongly called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programme and return to the NPT and IAEA safeguards, and to unconditionally comply with its international obligations. Any abuse of the NPT’s article X on withdrawal could lead to further proliferation and as such should be reported to the Security Council. For that reason, all nuclear materials, technology and equipment provided by supplier States must be returned or dismantled if requested in case of one’s withdrawal from the Treaty.
MICHAEL ROTH, Minister of State for Europe at the Federal Foreign Office, Germany, said his country, as a member of the E3+3, was actively involved in finding a diplomatic solution to one of the most urgent proliferation crises. In light of the political understanding reached with Iran in Lausanne, he expressed hope that a joint comprehensive plan of action, which addressed the international community’s concerns regarding the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, could be worked out by the end of June. Unfortunately, no progress had been made in the other crises.
Calling attention to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, he said the Review Conference must urge that country to fully comply with its non-proliferation obligations and stop all illegal activities. Also, Syria must be urged to cooperate fully with IAEA. Germany was the third-largest contributor to the IAEA budget and had been operating an IAEA support programme for more than 35 years, last year alone contributing €4.8 million to the Agency’s Technical Support Programme.
Noting that nuclear weapons could only be abolished with negotiations leading to verifiable actions on the ground, he said the breaches of the Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity, had damaged the credibility of negative security assurances vital to the NPT regime. The Conference must send a clear message that that setback could and would be overcome. The Treaty’s credibility must be fully restored. In that regard, he welcomed the ongoing successful implementation of the New Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms between the Russian Federation and the United States. Given the disarmament obligations enshrined in NPT, a new disarmament round between those countries should begin as soon as practicable and include substrategic nuclear weapons. The Russian Federation should respond constructively to the United States President’s nuclear arms control initiative.
MAUREEN M. HINDA (Namibia), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the NTP preamble embodied the fears and hopes of humanity. NPT was born out of a calamity. The Treaty parties had vowed that would never again befall humanity, and therefore, when the crafters of NPT undertook to cooperate in facilitating the application of IAEA safeguards on nuclear technology, they understood the importance of disarmament and non-proliferation and the Agency’s role in that. Namibia was among the major sourced material producers, and given its strong belief in “atoms for peace”, was a signatory and party to all disarmament-related instruments. To ensure NPT’s credibility, efforts should be made to realize its universality, which could be achieved once the nuclear weapons States carried out the agreed practical steps leading to the total elimination of nuclear arsenals.
Africa was a nuclear-weapon-free zone, she said, but the same could not be said of other regions. The indiscriminate destructive nature of nuclear weapons warranted a universal nuclear-weapon-free zone. It was disappointing that, while different nuclear doctrine reviews had been undertaken, so far they had not yielded lower levels of alert. Decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems would represent an important step towards the global vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world. Adherence to NPT by all would not only safeguard the world from potential devastation by nuclear weapons, but also contribute to economic development and prosperity. It was necessary to work collectively to create an atmosphere that encouraged universal adherence.
CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said the implementation of the NPT’s core principles had lagged. “We have spent a disproportionate amount of time disagreeing on which of the three pillars to prioritize,” he said, noting, however, that according to NPT, disarmament and non-proliferation must be pursued simultaneously. While the size of the arsenals of nuclear-weapon States had decreased over time, current levels still posed a grave threat. He took note of the Marshall Islands’ submission to the International Court of Justice aiming to hold States accountable for not delivering on their pledges to disarm.
On non-proliferation, the dialogue on a responsible use of nuclear energy must continue, he said, ensuring that it did not contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons. States also had an international responsibility to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. Security Council resolution 1540 (2004), he added, complemented NPT in a significant way, as it called on States to stop the spread of mass destruction weapons to non-State actors. “Political will to eliminate nuclear weapons is lacking,” he strongly emphasized, while expressing his disappointment that the regional conference on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East had not taken place. “There is no place for cold war mentality”, he said, urging the Conference to deliver new agreements and commitments on the road to a “nuclear-zero” world.
KYAW TIN (Myanmar), speaking on behalf of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), said that the only way to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons was not merely to constrain their spread, but to aim for their total elimination. Therefore, the goals set forth by the Treaty must be pursued simultaneously. Welcoming the increasing humanitarian focus on the consequences of the use of those weapons, he stressed the need for concrete and practical steps to dismantle those remaining in a transparent, irreversible and verifiable manner. At the same time, continued qualitative improvement of existing systems must be halted and all test sites must be closed.
Calling for the universalization of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), he emphasized the importance adherence by the nuclear-weapon States to legally binding negative security assurances and the policy of no first use of those weapons. Reaffirming the Association’s commitment to preserve South-East Asia as a zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, he urged others to conclude agreements to establish such zones in areas where they did not exist, including in the Middle East. Also important was to strengthen the IAEA mandate and capacity.
COURTENAY RATTRAY (Jamaica), speaking on behalf of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the world’s dismal track record of implementing the commitments of successive Review Conferences had led to increasing frustration and raised questions about the credibility and relevance of the NPT regime. At each of the Review Conferences, the overriding feature had been the palpable dissatisfaction of most of the non-nuclear-weapon States parties with the failure of the nuclear-weapon States to live up to their obligations. Legally binding negative security assurances that nuclear weapons would not be used against those States parties that did not have them remained elusive. Selective approaches that focused on the urgency of non-proliferation while paying scant regard to the need for progress in multilateral disarmament, which weakened the Treaty. The international community could not continue to ignore those realities, which undermined NPT’s efficacy.
He said that CARICOM countries were seized with the urgent need to preserve NPT’s indispensable role as the cornerstone of the global disarmament and non-proliferation regime. Despite the many challenges and woeful lack of progress in the past five years, there had been some positive developments, most notably the framework for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme. CARICOM had supported and joined efforts to place humanitarian concerns at the forefront of the discourse and action on nuclear weapons, including at the current Review Conference. The Treaty of Tlateloco was evidence of CARICOM’s commitment and it recognized the importance of nuclear-weapon-free zones.
LAURA ELENA FLORES HERRERA (Panama), associating with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), said nuclear-weapon States had not made concrete progress in fulfilling their disarmament commitments. She joined the international community in calling on all States to sign, ratify and comply with NPT. Her country had indicated in multiple forums that it did not possess, import, produce or handle nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction of any kind. In addition, it had implemented measures to prevent the illegal trafficking of those stockpiles through its country. Panama was part of the first densely populated nuclear-weapon-free zone, and she hoped other regions would follow suit. Along with CELAC, Panama had adopted special declaration 16 during a summit in Costa Rica in January on the urgent need for a nuclear-weapon-free world. She called on the nuclear-armed States to eliminate the role of those weapons from their doctrines, policies and military strategies.
OCH OD (Mongolia), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement NPT States parties, said the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones had proven to be an effective regional tool, and his country was pursuing efforts in that regard. Existing zones needed to be strengthened and measures to promote the establishment of new ones in other regions, including North-East Asia, should be taken. His country, as a North-East Asian State, attached great importance to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, as well as the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region.
He said Mongolia had been vigorously pursuing efforts to institutionalize the country’s nuclear-weapon-free status, declared more than 20 years ago. Its status, evidenced by a wide range of international instruments, such as the final document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, had garnered international recognition. He recalled that, in September 2012, his country had signed a declaration in parallel with the P5 Joint Declaration on Mongolia’s Nuclear-Weapon-Free Status. By that text, the P5 had recognized Mongolia’s unique status, declared that they would respect it and not contribute to any act that would violate it. In that regard, he expressed appreciation to the P5 for their concrete contributions to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
JAMAL FARES ALROWAIEI (Bahrain), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, welcomed the accession of Palestine to NPT, noting that all Arab States had now joined the Treaty, which was proof of their commitment to nuclear disarmament. The Group sought a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, and he called on Israel to accede to NPT. The only way to avoid the risks of the use of nuclear weapons was their total elimination. NPT’s credibility was based on the balance between its three pillars. The possession and development of nuclear weapons posed a serious threat to peace and security at both the regional and international levels. Arab States welcomed the increasing interest of the international community concerning the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons, and the time had come to start negotiations with in the Conference on Disarmament to reach a comprehensive convention prohibiting the possession, development, production, testing, stockpiling, transportation and the use or threat of use of such weapons.
But, despite the efforts of many countries, he said that, in order to achieve the goal of the nuclear disarmament, nuclear-weapons-possessing countries must meet their commitments in line with NPT. Also necessary was to reach international arrangements for negative security assurances. The goals of NPT would not be achieved except without universality. To delay that would be an obstacle to reinforcing the non-proliferation regime. He called on Israel to accede to the Treaty and subject all its nuclear installations to the full-scope IAEA regime, as called for in Security Council resolution 487 (1981). There was a “golden opportunity” now to adopt an ambitious action plan that would make up for lost opportunity and put forth concrete goals for nuclear disarmament.
DELL HIGGIE (New Zealand), speaking in her national capacity, said that consensus was a concept that her country understood very well when it related to nuclear-weapon issues. It placed great store in NPT, which, for 45 years, had been the anchor for global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament policy. Its success, particularly in constraining nuclear proliferation, had been invaluable, largely because of credibility and the promise of article VI to move forward on a world completely free of nuclear weapons. The terms of that promise might well have been drafted differently if, at its outset in 1968, NPT had been envisaged as a complete and permanent measure.
Instead, she said, given a shelf life at first of only 25 years, and put in place as a stop-gap measure against the most immediate nuclear security threats then prevailing, its text opted to deal with some issues in an interim fashion. As a product of that text, and of compromise, article VI left over for the future the work necessary to complete its premise. Some have termed that unfinished business a “legal gap” left by NPT — one that had persisted to this day. Responding to the Secretary-General’s call for negotiations to begin on legal frameworks to abolish nuclear weapons, the Coalition, coordinated by New Zealand, would present a working paper to the Conference, which fleshed out the options available to States parties in to eliminate that “legal gap”. She hoped delegations would leave the meeting with a light cast upon the path ahead. NPT was now at a turning point. Progress on non-proliferation and security issues was important, but was not in itself enough to preserve and reinforce the Treaty’s effectiveness.
FEDERICA MOGHERINI, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Vice-President of the European Commission, underscored the importance of universalizing NPT and adhering to its terms. The European Union remained committed to Treaty-based nuclear disarmament and arms control. As such, it called for a revival of multilateral efforts and negotiating bodies, in particular, the Conference on Disarmament. The Union noted the severe consequences associating with nuclear weapons use and emphasized that all States shared the responsibility to prevent such an occurrence. She noted ongoing discussions on the consequences of nuclear weapons and the different views that accompanied that topic, noting in particular an international conference organized by Austria in which not all European Union member States had participated. It did, however, stress the need to remain vigilant and be ready to face up to serious proliferation challenges. It stressed the importance of IAEA safeguards and of the Security Council’s primary responsibility in cases of non-compliance.
The Union, she said, condemned nuclear tests by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and urged it to abandon its nuclear weapons programme and return to NPT and IAEA safeguards. Regarding the E3+3 negotiations with Iran, she called on that country to fully cooperate with IAEA on all outstanding issues and to implement the modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement and to bring into force its Additional Protocol. Syria, too, still must remedy its non-compliance with its Safeguards Agreement. It also must sign, bring into force and implement in full an Additional Protocol with IAEA as soon as possible. She expressed regret that it had not been possible so far to convene a conference on the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems in the Middle East. The European Union continued to support the aim of convening such a conference as soon as possible, on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at between the States in the region.
AHMED AL JABER, Minister of State of the United Arab Emirates, associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab Group, said the Treaty had contributed immensely to establishing international peace and security and his country continued to support its full implementation and universalization. The peaceful use of energy was the right of every country based on the principle of transparency and cooperation in the transfer of nuclear technology. That, along with efforts to promote nuclear security, was vital. His country welcomed steps aimed at strengthening the international framework for nuclear liability. The country acknowledged the rights and responsibilities outlined in the Treaty and the special circumstances surrounding the use of nuclear materials. The clause on Treaty withdrawal must be strengthened to ensure that it was not misused to develop clandestine weapons programme.
Welcoming the efforts by the United States and the Russian Federation to reduce their nuclear weapons, he voiced hope that the Review Conference would result in a positive outcome and stipulate practical steps towards disarmament. His country reiterated its call for Israel to join NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State and to place all of its nuclear facilities under the IAEA comprehensive safeguards. Realization of the obligations of establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East was a priority to achieve practical progress. It was also proof of the Treaty’s effectiveness. He urged the Review Conference to adopt serious steps to ensure the convening of the long overdue conference for that purpose, with the participation of all countries in the region.
ANDREAS MAVROYIANNIS (Cyprus), associating with the European Union, said it was the common responsibility of States to ensure that the breakthrough achieved through nuclear technology remained “a blessing” for humanity and not part of a future tragedy. States should avoid building nuclear power plants in areas of high seismicity or otherwise prone to natural disasters, especially if those areas bordered other States with at-risk populations. Also needed were updated early warning systems concerning nuclear accidents with transboundary implications, particularly seismic early warning systems for nuclear power plants. He welcomed the adoption of the Vienna Declaration on Nuclear Safety, but noted that there were still safety and security gaps that should be addressed.
Security in the Middle East, he said, was directly linked to the security of Cyprus. In that respect, his country attached great importance to the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in that region. While he regretted that the conference had not yet been convened, he commended the efforts undertaken by the co-convenors and facilitator and encouraged all States involved to engage constructively in the process. Also, he expressed hope that continued engagement by Iran and the E3+3 would keep the progress achieved on track and produce a definitive agreement.
MARÍA CRISTINA PERCEVAL (Argentina), associating with CELAC, recognized the Brazilian-Argentine Agency of Accountability and Control of Nuclear Materials, whose work, jointly with IAEA and the Governments of Argentina and Brazil, had articulated a system of double control over the nuclear facilities of both countries, reinforcing guarantees demanded by NPT’s article III. Noting that Argentina was part of the first densely populated area to be declared free from nuclear weapons, she reiterated a request to those States that had issued interpretative declarations to the Protocols of the Treaty of Tlatelolco to withdraw them. Nuclear Powers needed to fully adhere to all such zones.
Drawing attention to a situation created by the United Kingdom, she said that country’s campaign for militarization of the South Atlantic had introduced in the denuclearized area of the Treaty of Tlatelolco submarines with the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom had also refused to provide assurances of the absence of nuclear weapons. That behaviour constituted an implicit threat, which her country strongly rejected. States that had renounced nuclear weapons had the right to live without being threatened by those who, under NPT, had committed to disarmament, but had not yet complied.
BÉNÉDICTE FRANKINET (Belgium) said that everyone had the right to enjoy the benefits of NPT, but they must also share responsibilities for it. The 2010 Action Plan provided a detailed guide to realize progress on the three pillars of the treaty. Despite being conscious that nuclear disarmament needed a gradual process, Belgium did not believe in a step-by-step timetable, as some actions could be taken in parallel. Universality of and full compliance with NPT was essential, she said, calling on Israel, India and Pakistan to adhere to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States.
Recognizing the positive reductions in nuclear weapons made by the Russian Federation and the United States, she encouraged them to include non-strategic nuclear arms in negotiations on reductions. “The catastrophic consequences of a nuclear explosion make our work urgent,” she told, welcoming initiatives aimed at furthering the understanding of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. Turning to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, she informed parties of the establishment at the national level of an innovative nuclear research facility aimed at supporting the scientific community with additional data. “A building cannot remain standing without solid foundation,” she said, calling for strengthening the three pillars of NPT.
ANTONIO DE AGUIAR PATRIOTA (Brazil), associating with the New Agenda Coalition and CELAC, said his country could not accept that the burden of the NPT regime continued to fall exclusively on the non-nuclear-weapon States, with the ever-increasing imposition of obligations that affected only those who already faithfully complied with their Treaty obligations. Clearly, the so-called “step-by-step” approach advocated by nuclear-weapon States and those countries under their umbrella had failed to deliver on initial expectations. CTBT had been finalized almost 20 years ago and had not yet entered into force, while the beginning of negotiations on a fissile material treaty had been stalled for over a decade. However, real and meaningful progress was possible if there was political will.
He said the re-emergence of the humanitarian approach to nuclear disarmament had brought renewed energy to the debate on nuclear weapons, as it highlighted the catastrophic consequences of their possible use. The positive momentum stemming from the Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna Conferences should have an impact on nuclear disarmament both at this Conference and in multilateral disarmament forums. A timeframe, however flexible, would contribute significantly to upholding the credibility of the NPT regime. A time horizon for nuclear disarmament must eventually take the form of a comprehensive convention, and while that was a priority, other options must not be discarded. Recently, in the context of the Conferences on the Humanitarian Impacts, his country had associated with others seeking to fill the legal gap for the ban on and elimination of nuclear weapons.
HALIT ÇEVIK (Turkey), associating with the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative and the European Union, said the long-term relevance of NPT would be closely linked to its effective implementation and universalization. He joined calls for the systematic, progressive, verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament and encouraged all State possessors to take further practical steps in that direction. The exercise of the right to withdraw from the Treaty should not prejudice the overall obligations of a country or endanger international peace and security. The cessation of all nuclear weapon tests was an important building block towards both disarmament and non-proliferation, as was the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among States of the region concerned. By failing to convene the conference to declare such a region in the Middle East, the international community missed a crucial confidence-building measure and a significant stimulus to the review process.
In closing, he said that any new initiative on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons must be complementary to and in line with existing mechanisms and attain the level of universality of NPT, if not more. He stressed the essential role of IAEA in assisting developing States parties in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
SILVIE LUCAS (Luxembourg), associating with the European Union, said the Review Conference was taking place at amid doubts about the stability of the international security architecture. It was incumbent upon the participants, therefore, to strengthen the Treaty along with all of its three pillars. While nuclear stockpiles had been reduced, the cuts had been far below that envisaged by the 2010 Action Plan, she said, urging nuclear-weapon States to build conditions conducive to creating a world without them. There had been scant progress on non-proliferation regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, while there were some promising signs concerning Iran. A breakthrough on the Iranian nuclear issue would also raise the prospects for establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Efforts aimed at ensuring the effectiveness and credibility of the IAEA safeguards must be supported by the international community, while the peaceful development of nuclear energy should be pursued with the highest standard of transparency and non-proliferation.
LOURDES O YPARRAGUIRRE (Philippines) said her country intended to submit a report on the actions it had undertaken over the last five years to implement the 64-Point Action Plan adopted in 2010. Among them was its endorsement of the Austrian Pledge, which, among other things, called for effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. Together with its long-time partners in the Non-Aligned Movement, the Philippines would continue to call for a nuclear weapons convention that would finally give meaning to NPT article VI. It had repeatedly called for the prompt entry into force of CTBT and promoted its universalization at the bilateral, regional and international forums.
She said the Philippines had joined members of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative to push for transparency measures, and a group of other States that was looking into nuclear verification systems. Her Government had worked with civil society organizations and educational institutions to raise awareness about nuclear disarmament. On non-proliferation, it had signed an agreement with IAEA for the Application of Safeguards. Further, it was working to pass legislation that would prevent the proliferation of mass destruction weapons through trade management of strategic goods. In addition to such domestic endeavours, the Philippines had joined with other countries, regional partners and international organizations to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
GILLIAN BIRD (Australia) said that, for 45 years, NPT had provided important security and welfare benefits to all States, whose collective commitment to the Treaty had prevented a global nuclear arms race and contained the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It had also enabled the international community to benefit from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy technology. Australia, a strong supporter of IAEA’s work, was a leader in the use of low enriched uranium for producing medical isotopes, thus minimizing stocks of highly enriched uranium and reducing the associated proliferation risks. It also contributed to the Agency’s Technical Cooperation Programme and had provided in-kind and financial support for the Peaceful Uses Initiative. This year, the Government would make an additional voluntary contribution to the Initiative of €350,000.
While a growing number of States had expressed frustration at the slow pace of nuclear disarmament and had led some to call for a treaty banning nuclear weapons, she said it was important to address the security concerns that led States to develop nuclear weapons, and to persuade the possessor countries to get rid of them. Australia stood for practical, realistic measures to achieve actual nuclear disarmament and would elaborate on that view shared by a significant number of States in a separate statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. This Review Conference must look forward at practical ways to implement commitments under the Treaty and the 2010 Action Plan and focus on concrete steps, such as the CTBT’s entry into force, as well as commencing negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.
FRANCISCO ANTONIO CORTORREAL (Dominican Republic), underlining that his country was nuclear-weapon free, emphasized his support to any proposals aimed at halting the proliferation of those weapons, which were the most serious obstacle to global security. Universalization and full implementation of NPT would save the world from possible devastation. As a founding member of IAEA, he highlighted the work done by the Agency to ensure safe and secure use of nuclear energy. Recognizing the benefits of that technology, including in combating cancer, tuberculosis, HIV and malaria, he called for broader support to the Agency, whose safeguards and protocols were important to strengthen NPT. The Latin American region had an impeccable history on disarmament and non-proliferation, he said, underlining that establishing its nuclear-weapon-free zone was of pivotal importance to achieve nuclear disarmament throughout the world. He said peace, security and development were interrelated, and he urged all to remember that when negotiating a new action plan.
JEAN-HUGUES SIMON-MICHEL, Ambassador of France to the Conference on Disarmament, said the 2010 Action Plan adopted by consensus contained a long-term collective ambition to advance in all areas of the Treaty — an ambition that must be maintained. The preliminary understanding between Iran and the E3+3 countries was an important step forward in the field of non-proliferation, which needed to become a robust, sustainable and verifiable agreement. Unfortunately, other crises had worsened since the last review cycle, particularly in North Korea, while the Syrian nuclear programme remained to be clarified. He recalled the successful discussions of the Group of Governmental Experts on a fissile material cut-off treaty, the report of which had been adopted by consensus earlier this month. Progress was made at every review on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
On disarmament, France shared the long-term objective of eliminating nuclear weapons when the circumstances so allowed, he said. It had consistently demonstrated that objective over the past 15 years by halving its total weapons stockpile and dismantling its nuclear test sites and fissile material production facilities for weapons. But, the ultimate objective of elimination could not be declared abstractly without taking into account the international strategic context. It could only be reached through a series of concrete measures.
He said that, since disarmament required trust and reciprocity, the French President had announced new transparency measures in February and solemnly reaffirmed its negative security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations. France was fully aware of the severe effects of such weapons, and its nuclear deterrence was strictly limited to defending its vital interests under extreme circumstances of self-defence and in full compliance with international law.
SUSANNE RUMOHR HÆKKERUP (Denmark) said political will was the main factor to overriding scepticism about the possible positive outcomes of the Conference. To realize that vision, action was needed, as “not acting is not equal to standing still; not acting is equal to retracting even further from the ultimate goal of the NPT”. From the very outset of the nuclear age, scientists, politicians and security experts debated ways to ensure that nuclear energy would not unleash catastrophic humanitarian consequences, but rather be harnessed for prosperity and health. To continue down the road towards “global zero”, trust was needed among all stakeholders. At the same time, she said, “trust is not something you claim, it is something you gain […] building-block by building-block”. At the national level, Denmark had contributed to several working papers. She stressed the urgency of CTBT’s entry into force, as well as the need for effective export controls. In that connection, she underlined the centrality of nuclear safety and security.
KLAUS KORHONEN, Ambassador for Arms Control for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, associating with the European Union, stressed the great importance of the implementation, as well as the universalization, of the Treaty. Nuclear power accounted for nearly 30 per cent of Finland’s electricity production, he said, adding that a functioning nuclear regime provided by the Treaty was important to its national interests and was an essential element of the global security architecture. Human beings created nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and as such, they could remove them. Everyone should ask whether it was acceptable — or even possible — to base security on those weapons.
Reminding the Conference that tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons were not covered by any legally binding verifiable international arrangement, he urged participants to address the issue during the session. Welcoming the growing focus on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, he called for the creation of more nuclear-weapon-free zones. All parties should promote the development of responsible and peaceful uses of nuclear energy while ensuring that related technologies and goods were not disseminated for other purposes.
ABDALLAH Y. AL-MOUALLIMI (Saudi Arabia), associating with the Arab Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed disappointment that the conference on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, which was supposed to have been held in Helsinki, Finland, by the end of 2012, had not been convened because of Israel’s refusal. States must not doubt the wisdom of accepting an indefinite extension of NPT, or accession to it, but those concerns would keep increasing as long as Israel remained a non-signatory. On Iran’s nuclear programme, he hoped that the framework agreement reached in Lausanne would lead to a final binding accord that strengthened regional security and stability.
He said his country had declared its intention to develop an ambitious programme to exploit nuclear energy for peaceful purposes to achieve the goals of sustainable development and to preserve valuable hydrocarbon resources for future generations. That was consistent with nuclear security requirements and met the maximum standards set by IAEA’s guiding criteria. It was also committed to the establishment of a national system of accounting oversight and control of nuclear materials and to the development of customs and border control devices, as well as to law enforcement agencies’ ability to detect and prevent illegal trafficking in hazardous materials.
U. JOY OGWU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group and associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed extreme concern at the threat of possible nuclear weapons use. The Group also reiterated its deep concern over the slow pace of nuclear disarmament and the lack of progress by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals in line with their legal obligations and undertakings. The NPT’s indefinite extension should not be construed as the indefinite possession of nuclear arsenals. Any such assumption was incompatible with the objectives and purposes of the Treaty, its integrity and sustainability, as well as the broader objective of maintaining international peace and security.
He urged States parties’ continuing commitment to strengthening the objective of non-proliferation, the significant second pillar, by ensuring compliance with the appropriate guidelines provided by IAEA. Nuclear-weapon-free zones played an important role in preventing proliferation, enhancing global and regional peace and security, and contributing towards realizing the objectives of disarmament. The Group stated its strong disappointment at the failure to convene the conference on establishing such a zone in the Middle East in 2012, as agreed. The 1995 resolution on the Middle East, an integral and essential part of the package on the basis of which consensus had been reached on the indefinite extension of NPT, remained valid until the zone’s establishment.
Speaking in her national capacity, she welcomed the gesture by nuclear-weapon States to reduce the stockpiles of those inhumane weapons. The expectation remained their total elimination, and she urged the nuclear-armed States to fulfil in good faith their legal obligations under the NPT’s article VI. Only a demonstration of their full commitment to nuclear disarmament could truly lead to meeting the Treaty’s objectives. Her delegation saw neither moral nor acceptable reason for other States not party to the Treaty to threaten international peace by developing, testing and adamantly defending their possession of those weapons. The many benefits of nuclear disarmament were never in doubt, and NPT States parties, and all United Nations Member States, must demonstrate sincerity of purpose and commitment to that goal.
Right of Reply
Speaking in exercise of right of reply in response to the intervention made by the representative of Argentina, the representative of the United Kingdom said his country had ratified the protocols to the nuclear-weapon-free zone Treaty covering Latin America and the Caribbean and fully respected those obligations. The United Kingdom’s position on its deterrence was unambiguous — it would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against NPT States parties in compliance with NPT. He regretted that Argentina had yet again made unfounded claims about the United Kingdom’s military presence in the South Atlantic, despite the many clarifications provided and repeated requests to desist from making such false allegations. The United Kingdom had made every effort to be transparent about its defensive posture in the Falkland Islands[1] and had brief military attachés based in London in 2013 on the purpose of its military assets there, and issued an invitation to the attaches to visit the islands.
Also speaking in exercise of right of reply, the representative of Argentina reiterated the statement made earlier and rejected the United Kingdom’s response. Argentina had sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and surrounding maritime area. The islands were illegally occupied by the United Kingdom and subject to sovereignty dispute between the two countries, which had been recognized the by the United Nations and other international and regional organizations. Military activities by the United Kingdom in the Malvinas, including military exercises twice a year, were against the United Nations General Assembly resolution urging both sides to desist from unilateral action pending resolution of their dispute. Argentina, like other countries, had requested information on the transfer of nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom in the South Atlantic, but no such information had been provided. Argentina’s concern about the militarization of the South Atlantic was shared by the region as a whole.
Taking the floor a second time, the representative of the United Kingdom reiterated that his country’s position on military aspects were very clear. His country had no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, and the principle of self-determination underlay that position.
Speaking again, the representative of Argentina said the principle of self-determination was inapplicable to the sovereignty dispute, as General Assembly resolutions had made it clear that both countries would have to resolve it bilaterally without mentioning self-determination.
[1] A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).