NPT Review Conference
5th & 6th Meetings (AM & PM)
DC/3556

Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Deterrence ‘No Answer’ to Europe’s Security Concerns, Speaker Says in Treaty Review, Highlighting Ukraine Crisis

Hopes of achieving the universality of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) were becoming “ever more remote” amid new challenges to the global security architecture and a general slackening of political will, its Review Conference heard today, as State parties continued a third day of deliberations.

“Nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence are not the answer to Europe’s security concerns,” asserted Austria’s Director for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation.  Contrary to expectations, “we have not seen a determined move away from reliance on nuclear weapons in the past years.”  Instead, political leaders in nuclear-weapon States were “declaring the clear intention to retain nuclear weapons for several decades as being necessary for their national security”.  The modernization and long-term retention plans might not be in direct violation of the NPT, but were certainly contrary to the spirit and purpose of its article VI.

He said his country was also gravely concerned about the crisis in Ukraine and its potential negative repercussion for the entire international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime.  Ukraine, he recalled, had received security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum as an NPT non-nuclear-weapon State.  However, there was much talk again in Europe about nuclear weapons in the context of that crisis.

The Foreign Minister of Ukraine said that the Russian Federation had undermined the NPT not only by violating the Budapest Memorandum but also by infringing upon key provisions of the Treaty through its occupation of Crimea and continuing military threats against his country.  That situation underlined the reality that for some countries, international legal instruments alone were insufficient to preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Given the strategic importance of Crimea, he said, the deployment by Russia of nuclear weapons there could not be ruled out, a situation that required urgent international attention.  Furthermore, Russia had seized nuclear facilities in Crimea in violation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, he said, calling on the international community to act urgently to fulfil established nuclear safety commitments.

Turning to the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway invited nuclear-weapon States to sign the joint statement on that subject.  He also called for an outcome document at the present Conference, which committed to the humanitarian perspective.

The NPT was anchored in the dignity of the human person and in the collective recognition of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any nuclear detonation, the Permanent Observer for the Holy See said.  Possession of those weapons would continue to come at an enormous financial cost, representing resources that could and should be put to development.  The Review Conference was a challenge for all States parties, and “failure is not an option”.

The South African representative said agreement on the 2010 final document was by no means recognition that States parties were satisfied with the progress made in implementing past agreements or that confidence among them had been restored.  Many remained concerned about the lack of urgency and seriousness with which nuclear disarmament continued to be approached.

The Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) said the five nuclear-weapon States all understood that a universal, legally binding, non-discriminatory and verifiable test-ban treaty was essential to having secured the NPT’s indefinite extension in 1995.  With that, he asked:  “Why is it that we have failed to bring the CTBT into full legal standing?”  Doing so was the responsibility of all NPT States parties.  If action was not taken, they would “bear the responsibility for letting the Treaty fail”.

Also making statements today were the representatives of Estonia, Slovenia, Tunisia, Viet Nam, Belarus, Malta, Bangladesh, Singapore, Ecuador, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Latvia, Samoa, Iraq, Senegal, United Republic of Tanzania, Indonesia, Benin, Cambodia, Myanmar, Libya, Syria, Cuba, Paraguay, Greece, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Colombia.  The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine also spoke.

The Review Conference will meet at 10 a.m. on 30 April to continue its general debate.

Statements

PAVLO KLIMKIN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said his country had always played an exceptional role in the field of non-proliferation, having voluntarily renounced the nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union.  Ukraine’s nuclear-freeze success story could be an example for others.  However, that achievement came to naught following the Russian Federation’s aggression against his country.  At a time when the Ukraine was preparing to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum, which allowed the country to join the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State, Moscow’s aggression and occupation of Crimea shattered hopes.  Russia undermined the NPT not only by violating the Budapest Memorandum, but also key provisions of the Treaty by occupying part of Ukraine and continuing military threats.  That situation underlined the reality that for some countries, international legal instruments alone were insufficient to preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

He said his country considered the NPT to be the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime and nuclear disarmament, and he was grateful for the international community’s support of his country during the ongoing crisis.  However, greater pressure needed to be put on Russia to force it to reverse its aggression.  Given the strategic importance of Crimea, the deployment by Russia of nuclear weapons there could not be ruled out, a situation that required urgent international attention.  Furthermore, Russia had seized nuclear facilities in Crimea in violation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, he said, calling on the international community to act urgently to fulfil established nuclear safety commitments.  Describing nuclear terrorism as one of the greatest challenges of the time, he pledged his country’s continued cooperation to increase countermeasures both at the global and regional levels.  Establishment of a zone in the Middle East free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and negotiations on a fissile material control regime would help advance the NPT.

BARD GLAD PEDERSEN, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway, said the world witnessed the continuation of the Syrian civil war, worsened by the use of weapons of mass destruction.  In addition, the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation was a violation of international law.  The risk of nuclear proliferation remained a challenge and threat to international security, he added.  To address that, the international community should aim for agreement on several points, including on an intensified process of nuclear arms reduction.  Additionally, an accord should be pursued on negotiating a treaty banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes.

Turning to national efforts, he drew attention to the Oslo conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, inviting nuclear-weapons States to sign the joint statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.  He called for an outcome document at the present Conference, which committed to the humanitarian perspective.  Norway would also be chairing the plenary meeting of the International Partnership on Nuclear Disarmament Verification, a coalition of nuclear and non-nuclear-weapon States working together to achieve progress on verification.  Lastly, he drew attention to a partnership with Ukraine to strengthen the safety and security of its nuclear power plants.

ALEXANDER KMENTT, Director of Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-proliferation in the Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration, and Foreign Affairs of Austria, associating with the European Union, said the NPT’s universality for which all strive was “becoming an ever more remote prospect”.  His country was gravely concerned about the continuing build-up of a nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programme in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and felt that the fact that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) had not yet been brought into legal effect was “disappointing and damaging” to global disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.  Austria was also gravely concerned about the crisis in Ukraine and its potential negative repercussion for the entire international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. 

Ukraine, he recalled, had received security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum as an NPT non-nuclear-weapon State.  However, there was “much talk” again in Europe about nuclear weapons in the context of the Ukraine crisis, some of which could be called “nuclear brinkmanship; we hear voices that wish to re-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in the context of the Ukraine crisis”.  Current tensions in Europe, which unfortunately remained the continent most affected by the presence of nuclear weapons, made the focus on nuclear disarmament and the NPT’s full implementation all the more important.  “Nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence are not the answer to Europe’s security concerns,” he asserted.  Moreover, after five years of work on the 2010 Action Plan, it must be concluded that implementation of the Treaty’s article VI and the disarmament part of that Plan was “not sufficiently credible and a cause of serious concern”. 

Contrary to hopes and expectations, “we have not seen a determined move away from reliance on nuclear weapons in the past years,” he said.  Instead, political leaders in nuclear-weapon States were “declaring the clear intention to retain nuclear weapons for several decades as being necessary for their national security”.  That was further evidenced by plans and very large budget allocations to modernize nuclear weapons and the respective infrastructure in nuclear-weapon States.  The modernization and long-term plans to retain nuclear weapons might not be in direct violation of the letter of the NPT, but those decisions were “certainly contrary to the spirit and purpose of article VI and subsequent commitments”.  The Security Council’s permanent members were responsible for the maintenance of peace and security, including efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  However, such efforts suffered from a “credibility deficit” if those same States promoted the concept and supposed value of nuclear weapons for their own security.  That, he stated, was the most fundamental threat to the NPT’s credibility. 

He said his country was strongly invested in promoting the humanitarian imperative in all efforts and negotiations related to nuclear weapons.  That focus and its firm entrenchment in the international agenda was the single most positive and significant development of the past review cycle.  Austria had co-initiated the joint declarations on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons together with the so-called “Group of 16”, whose statement had been delivered yesterday by its Foreign Minister on behalf of 159 States.  Indeed, the humanitarian focus might be the best hope for shoring up support for the NPT and maintaining a strong nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime.  It should be seen as a “wake-up call” and an issue that united the international community into urgent and determined action away from a reliance on nuclear weapons.

MARGUS KOLGA (Estonia), associating with the European Union Delegation, said the Russian Federation’s illegal annexation of Crimea and use of force against Ukraine’s territorial integrity and political independence had clearly violated the Budapest Memorandum, among other international agreements and norms.  He urged the Russian Federation to honour international legal norms and commitments, to end its illegal annexation and to take immediate and concrete steps to fully implement the Minsk agreements.  Also needed was the revitalization of multilateral negotiating bodies, in particular the Conference on Disarmament.  He reiterated his country’s request to participate equally in the disarmament discussions as a full member of the Conference on Disarmament and its call for the early nomination of a Special Rapporteur to review the issue of enlargement.

Noting the importance of the CTBT, he urged States, particularly those whose adherence was required for the Treaty’s entry into force, to sign and ratify it without delay.  He also expressed support for the universality and implementation of the Hague Code of Conduct, the only multilateral transparency- and confidence-building instrument against ballistic missile proliferation.  Underscoring the importance of export controls, he said international agreements served the world community well only when they were fully and effectively implemented and transfers of sensitive weapons of mass destruction enabling goods and technologies were controlled.  He encouraged all States to make use of multilaterally agreed guidelines and principles in developing their own national export controls.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), associating with the European Union Delegation, said his country continued to share the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, noting that all future global endeavours for nuclear disarmament should be encompassed in the NPT framework.  As such, he advocated universalization of the NPT and CTBT and the commencement and early finalization of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.  He encouraged the Russian Federation and the United States to continue the process of nuclear weapons reduction through their bilateral treaty and to address, among other things, non-strategic nuclear weapons, while underscoring that nuclear disarmament was not only the duty of the two States but also that of other nuclear-weapon States. 

Noting the importance of the IAEA, he said that the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements constituted, together with the Additional Protocol, the current Agency’s verification standard.  He appealed to all NPT States parties for its universalization as soon as possible.  Joining others, he condemned cases of non-compliance with the Treaty, notably by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Syria, adding that those cases should be addressed by the Review Conference.  Regretful that the conference on establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East had not yet been convened, he encouraged all States in the region to engage with the facilitator, Finland’s Ambassador, to find proper solutions regarding the agenda.  The initiative on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons should be streamlined in the framework of the NPT and not elsewhere.

MOHAMED KHALED KHIARI (Tunisia), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and African and Arab Groups, said the international community expected the Review Conference to take important steps towards nuclear disarmament.  Although the record of the past five years was not inspiring, the hope was still alive.  The nuclear-weapon States must intensify efforts towards complete disarmament while other States parties fulfilled their respective commitments.  While those goals were too ambitious for some and too vital and realistic for others, they were the ones to which the international community had committed.  The creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, strengthening the IAEA and reinforcing the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes were among measures that could contribute towards building the trust and confidence required to implement the NPT in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner.

NGUYEN PHUONG NGA (Viet Nam), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), said negotiations on a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons would represent a serious commitment to nuclear disarmament.  She called for an exploration of the synergies in the discourse on humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.  On non-proliferation, she welcomed the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, underlining her collaboration with ASEAN member States and nuclear-weapon States to further strengthen the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.  At the national level, Viet Nam strengthened its legal and regulatory framework for nuclear safety and security, including implementing core conversion from highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium fuel.  

ANDREI DAPKIUNAS (Belarus) said the Treaty was a key underpinning of the international security system, which had eroded in recent years.  The usual rhetoric of peace and cooperation expressed at international forums now clashed with the challenges thrown up by the changing security landscape.  In that context, there were two roads: altruism and pragmatism.  The first had inspired Belarus, together with Ukraine and Kazakhstan, to forgo the nuclear weapons it had inherited from the Soviet Union.  However, during that same period, other countries had undertaken efforts to modernize their nuclear arsenals, which highlighted the urgency of pragmatism and called for practical cooperation among States parties to strengthen the three pillars of the NPT by building mutual confidence and trust.

BERNARDITO CLEOPAS AUZA, Permanent Observer for the Holy See, said the NPT was anchored in the dignity of the human person and in the collective recognition of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any nuclear detonation.  The world’s nuclear arsenals still contained far too many of those weapons and their very existence in military doctrines did not definitively rule out their use.  The theory of nuclear deterrence was too ambiguous to be a stable and global basis of world security and international order.  Nuclear and non-nuclear-weapon States alike were aware of the exceptional instability caused by those weapons.  The NPT was far from the idea that the balance of terror was the best basis for the political economic and cultural stability of the world.  The possession of nuclear weapons would continue to come at an enormous financial cost, representing resources that could and should be put to the development of society and people.

He urged recognition that possession of nuclear weapons and the reliance on nuclear deterrence had a very negative impact on the interrelations of States.  As all countries had the right to national security, why was it that some could exercise that right with a particular type of weapons while others must do so without them?  The goal of a world without nuclear weapons was not easy to achieve.  But that was neither a reason nor an excuse not to implement the obligations undertaken in conformity with the NPT.  Lack of concrete and effective nuclear disarmament would lead sooner or later to real risks of nuclear proliferation.  The Review Conference was a challenge for all States parties, as “failure is not an option”.

CHRISTOPHER GRIMA (Malta) noted the worsening of the global security environment and called for the implementation of all provisions of the NPT and commitments undertaken during its review conferences.  Despite progress made in nuclear disarmament, proliferation continued to threaten international peace and security.  Technology transfer required for the development of nuclear weapons had become easier, he added, facilitating access to weapons of mass destruction by individuals and terrorist groups.  Turning to non-proliferation, he welcomed the framework agreement of the E3+3 and Iran, as well as the signature by nuclear-weapon States of the protocol establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia, calling for a similar zone to be established in the Middle East.

JEREMIAH NYAMANE KINGSLEY MAMABOLO (South Africa) said agreement on the 2010 final document was “by no means a recognition that States parties were satisfied with the progress made in the implementation of past agreements or that confidence among States parties had been restored”.  Many remained concerned about the lack of urgency and seriousness with which nuclear disarmament continued to be approached, he added.  Progress had been lacking in a range of areas, including reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons stationed outside the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States by those countries that continued to rely on those weapons as integral to their military and security doctrines.  He urged the Review Conference to commit to a thorough consideration of all possible options for a framework of “effective measures” that strengthened the NPT’s article VI as an effective means for achieving the Treaty’s core disarmament objective. 

SHAMEEM AHSAN (Bangladesh) said that reductions in deployment and operational status of nuclear weapons could not be substituted for irreversible cuts in, and the total elimination of, nuclear weapons, and he urged nuclear-weapon States to fulfil their long overdue legal obligations under the NPT’s article VI.  The time had come to conclude a comprehensive convention that would ensure and guarantee the objective of a world free of nuclear weapons.  He welcomed the understanding recently reached between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany on key parameters of a joint comprehensive plan of action.  The entry into force of the CTBT would be an essential step in achieving a world without nuclear weapons, and all States should sign and ratify it.

Full, effective and non-discriminatory implementation of the NPT’s article IV must be another fundamental objective, he said, emphasizing the inalienable right of all Treaty parties to develop, research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II.  With the IAEA safeguards and verification regime in place, it was possible to ensure such peaceful uses.  For that reason, Bangladesh had started the process of setting up a 2000 megawatt nuclear power plant, in compliance with the safeguards agreement concluded with the IAEA in 1982.

KAREN TAN (Singapore) said that the NPT was increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy and relevance.  The international community had striven at the 2010 Review Conference to reach a hard-won consensus on the Action Plan.  However, five years on, progress had been limited.  A few States remained conspicuously absent from the NPT, and discourse on the three pillars had become increasingly political and divisive due to serious questions of non-compliance and unfairness.  All that had resulted in a widening gulf of mistrust between nuclear and non-nuclear-weapon States.

To advance nuclear disarmament, she said, all nuclear-armed States should make concrete commitments to significantly reduce their nuclear arsenals in a transparent, irreversible and verifiable manner.  They should not make qualitative improvements to existing weapons, and all countries, particularly CTBT Annex 2 States, should sign and ratify that Treaty.  Nuclear proliferation remained a serious threat to international peace and security and the international community needed to find the means to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime in practical ways that enabled and facilitated States to abide by their international obligations.  Issues of non-compliance must be addressed, particularly with regard to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  As for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, it was the inalienable right of all States to access such technology.  As more States sought to harness the benefits of nuclear technology, it was important that they reassure the international community of the peaceful nature of those programmes.

XAVIER LASSO MENDOZA (Ecuador), speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), said that the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons raised grave concerns in the region, and he called on all States to address that issue whenever nuclear weapons were discussed, including at the current Review Conference.  The Community was committed to the commencement of a multilateral diplomatic process for the negotiation of a legally binding instrument for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons in a transparent, irreversible and verifiable manner and within a multilaterally agreed timeframe.  Pending the complete prohibition and elimination of those weapons, CELAC urged the negotiation and adoption of a universal and legally binding instrument on negative security assurances within the shortest possible timeframe.

While the United Nations was elaborating its post-2015 development agenda, reaffirming the commitment of developed countries to provide official development assistance (ODA) and explore new ways to finance it, CELAC members regretfully noted that States possessing nuclear weapons continued to invest large sums to maintain and modernize their arsenals, he said.  Half of the annual investment in those arsenals would be sufficient to achieve the internationally agreed development goals for poverty reduction, including the Millennium Development Goals.  For that reason, CELAC urged nuclear-weapon States to allocate more resources to developing countries aimed at promoting peace and sustainable development.

Stressing the importance of nuclear-weapon-free zones, he urged nuclear-armed States to withdraw all interpretive declarations to the Protocols of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which constituted factual reservations prohibited by the Treaty, and to respect the denuclearized nature of the Latin American and Caribbean region, thereby helping to prevent the introduction, presence or possible use of nuclear weapons there.  Despite the NPT’s nuclear disarmament objectives, the world had not been able to reduce that threat.  The step-by-step approach had failed to meet the NPT’s objectives and had not yet achieved the CTBT’s entry into force.  The Review Conference must forge an ambitious path forward and take into consideration the developments since the previous Conference.  For CELAC, simply rolling over previously agreed action plans for another five years was not acceptable, especially given the lacklustre implementation of most as they related to disarmament.  The international community must make headway towards the achievement of full and effective implementation of all the commitments undertaken thus far.

RAYKO RAYTCHEV, Director-General for Global Affairs of the Foreign Ministry of Bulgaria, aligning with the European Union, said a lot remained to be done by all to affirm the NPT’s validity.  The Review Conference was taking place in a very complex security environment much different from five years ago, he said, stressing the need to renew international commitment to full implementation.  It was the responsibility of all States to ensure the implementation of the 2010 Action Plan, he said, adding that advancing nuclear disarmament required joint efforts and had “no short cuts”.  His country supported a constructive, realistic and gradual approach based on practical and implementable measures.  As the cornerstone of the world’s non-proliferation regime, the NPT was operational through the IAEA safeguards system, and all countries that had not done so should negotiate and ratify the Additional Protocol as soon as possible.  States parties must demonstrate a consensual approach in recommending to the Review Conference specific measures for ensuring responsible development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy under the best safety, security and non-proliferation conditions.

The Review Conference, he added, had the potential to bring the world closer to the ultimate goal — a world free of nuclear weapons.  “Let us demonstrate that the political will is there.”

JUAN CARLOS MENDOZA-GARCIA (Costa Rica) noted the forthcoming international conferences and events, including the negotiations of the sustainable development goals and financing for development.  “This Conference must be more than a drop in the sea,” he said, underlining that human security and democracy, as global public goods, required nuclear disarmament.  Those goods would not be obtained by bilateral or unilateral reductions, which were unreliable and not done under the “watchful eye of IAEA”.  Insisting on meeting the obligations of all States parties to the international Treaty was the way forward.  Paralysis motivated many to demand concrete actions to initiate negotiations on a legally binding instrument on the production, storage and transfer of nuclear weapons. 

LASSINA ZERBO, Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), said the indefinite extension of the NPT was achieved through a set of political conditions, a central component of which was an undertaking to complete negotiations on a CTBT no later than 1996.  The five nuclear-weapon States all understood that a universal, legally binding, non-discriminatory and verifiable test-ban treaty was essential for securing the NPT’s indefinite extension.  Therefore, the CTBT was a “stepping stone” for strengthening the NPT and for reinforcing the non-proliferation and disarmament regime.  A legally binding test ban represented a key area on which all NPT States parties already agreed.  “We must ask ourselves, why is it that we have failed to bring the CTBT into full legal standing?”  It had been demonstrated beyond a doubt that the CTBT was internationally and effectively verifiable.  Significant achievements had been made since its opening for signature, he said, adding that words of encouragement expressed on the importance of the Treaty were not enough to secure its future.  Bringing it into force was the responsibility of all NPT States parties.  Just as importantly, if action was not taken, they would “bear the responsibility for letting the Treaty fail”.

GUSTAVO ALVAREZ (Uruguay) reiterated his country’s firm commitment to general and complete disarmament in the multilateral framework, which it had demonstrated responsibly and in a committed way in the context of the NPT review conferences.  He reiterated the importance of all provisions of the NPT, and noted that August would be the seventieth anniversary of the only time when nuclear weapons were used, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It was important to realize the final goal of complete disarmament.  Nuclear-weapon States, throughout the NPT process, had pledged to reduce their arsenals to the point of elimination.  The instruments to achieve that goal would be unilateral, multilateral and bilateral agreements.  Commitments must be assumed by all nuclear-armed States, and be based on the principles of verifiability and transparency.  He also stressed the importance of negative security assurances.

Regarding the CTBT, Uruguay had participated very actively in its preparation and gave full support to the provisional Secretariat and the viability of that system as planned, particularly the international monitoring system.  With respect to a fissile material cut-off treaty, the negotiations were urgent and required the involvement of both nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon countries alike.

JĀNIS MAŽEIKS (Latvia), associating with the European Union, said the complexity of the road ahead lay in maintaining balance between working towards multiple steps that strengthened the NPT and preserving the strategic balance in a turbulent world.  Nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon States both must leave no doubt about the peaceful nature of nuclear programmes and strengthen global non-proliferation initiatives.  The CTBT was of great added value to global disarmament and non-proliferation and it was the responsibility of each State to contribute to ensuring its prompt entry into force.  Supporting the commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, he expressed concern at the stalemate gripping the Conference on Disarmament for more than decade.  The benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology should be available to all parties, which was a right that came with great responsibility.  Expressing deep worry that one party had violated the Budapest Memorandum on security assurances to Ukraine, he said such actions significantly eroded the level of trust and undermined non-proliferation efforts.

ALI’IOAIGA FETURI ELISAIA (Samoa) said the only guarantee for humankind against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was their total elimination.  Samoa was party to the CTBT and had concluded a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, whose role was critical to facilitating the peaceful uses of nuclear energy with verification at the core.  Samoa was taking steps to ratify the Agency’s Additional Protocol and modify its Small Quantities Protocol to strengthen the Agency’s overall safeguards regime.  Noting the region’s establishment of a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone through the Rarotonga Treaty, which came into force in 1986, he supported the creation of such zones in all regions.  He also welcomed the outcomes of the Conferences held in Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna on bringing the humanitarian perspective to the core of the nuclear disarmament deliberations.  He called on States that had not yet done so to ratify CTBT, particularly those whose ratification was needed for its entry into force.

MOHAMED ALI ALHAKIM (Iraq), associating with the Arab Group and Non-Aligned Movement, said nuclear terrorism was one of the greatest threats to international security.  In that regard, nuclear security measures were necessary to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear material.  Although the NPT had been around for five decades, it had not been implemented in a balanced way that reflected the commitments and responsibilities of all Member States.  That imbalance and nuclear-weapon States’ lack of respect for its provisions could have dangerous results if issues were not resolved today.  His Government had taken several steps to implement those commitments.  It had been among the first States to have acceded to the NPT in 1969 and one of the first to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol in 2008.

He said the lack of progress in convening a conference on establishing a Middle East zone free of nuclear and other mass destruction weapons also demonstrated lack of respect for the commitments arising from the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.  Non-proliferation must not be linked to the rights of States to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  Further use of the energy should not be monopolized by a group of States that imposed conditions on its use.

FODÉ SECK (Senegal), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and African Group, said the Conference was an opportunity to reaffirm his country’s commitment to the NPT, which was the cornerstone of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.  Memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki continued to remind the world of the horrors that resulted from the deliberate use of nuclear weapons.  Thus, the question of nuclear disarmament remained a global priority.  Eliminating nuclear weapons could guarantee the survival of the planet and a peaceful world that was safe and prosperous for future generations.  His delegation was convinced that striving towards the universalization of the NPT and acting resolutely for the CTBT’s entry into force were precious benchmarks in the context of general and complete disarmament.  Negative security assurances would further strengthen the NPT.  Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were mutually dependent processes.  Senegal would seek to ensure that the Review Conference led to bold measures to combat nuclear weapons proliferation.

RAMADHAN MWINYI (United Republic of Tanzania) expressed concern that while most non-nuclear-weapon States had lived up to their side of the bargain, nuclear-weapon States were falling short in their obligations.  “It is action, not pronouncement, that would yield the eagerly anticipated goal of universalization of the NPT,” he added.  The slow pace of nuclear disarmament would weaken non-proliferation efforts, he said, stressing the need for their simultaneous implementation.  He commended the essential contribution of some non-nuclear-armed States to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones as those were a valuable contribution to international peace and security.  He added his voice to the call for the establishment of such a zone in the Middle East, which would contribute not only to peace and stability in the region but also to the wider international community.  He favoured the convening of the conference for that purpose, while calling on the nuclear-weapon States to ratify, without reservations, the relevant instruments associated with existing nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties.

DESRA PERCAYA (Indonesia), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, ASEAN, as well as the joint statement delivered by Austria, stressed the need to ensure that the current review cycle was not treated merely as a rollover of 2010.  Together, the international community had to credibly demonstrate that a world without nuclear weapons was achievable.  For many, the status quo would send a negative message and call into question the rationale behind the Treaty.  The little progress in disarmament was further undermined by the modernization of nuclear weapons and its related infrastructure.  The purpose behind the NPT was negated when non-nuclear-weapon States called for nuclear disarmament yet at the same time asked nuclear-weapon States to protect them with those weapons.

Expressing deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, he said the only guarantee against the use or threat of use of those weapons was their total elimination.  The widening imbalance in the implementation of the three NPT pillars would continue to erode the trust that non-nuclear-weapon States had in the Treaty regime as central to global non-proliferation and disarmament.  He supported further efforts at establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones, particularly in the Middle East.

JEAN-FRANCIS RÉGIS ZINSOU (Benin), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said the threat posed by nuclear possession, development and proliferation was evident in the recent nuclear accidents, the consequences of which went beyond the means of affected States.  He called for urgent action, including the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in all areas of the world.  The international community must strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime and security of nuclear installations to prevent terrorist groups and non-State actors from gaining access to nuclear material and technology.  That required greater international cooperation and improved nuclear security measures.  The promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy under the IAEA’s guidance was a constant part of Benin’s foreign policy given the many benefits of that energy in areas such as medicine, electricity and agriculture.  The IAEA’s efforts in several countries should be applauded and extended to countries, such as his, which employed tremendous resources to address a deficit in electricity.

RY TUY (Cambodia), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and ASEAN, said that since the NPT’s entry into force, Cambodia had worked relentlessly through the United Nations and other international and regional forums to reach common objectives.  However, little progress had been made and increasing conflicts in various parts of the world were diluting the essence of the NPT, in particular its three pillars.  While it was clear that nuclear deterrence could be an option, the total elimination of those weapons was the only guarantee to maintaining peace and security.  He welcomed the first International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.  On regional efforts, ASEAN was adhering to its principles of living free from nuclear weapons as enshrined in its Charter and reinforced by the longstanding Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.

KYAW TIN (Myanmar) said that the only guarantee against the danger of nuclear weapons was their total elimination.  Noting that the NPT was the only legally binding document requiring nuclear-weapon States to achieve nuclear disarmament, he expressed concern at the slow progress in implementing those obligations.  He shared the view that it was in the interest of all nations to extend forever the 70-year record of non-use of nuclear weapons and associated himself with Austria’s statement on their humanitarian consequences.  Every year since 1995 his country had tabled a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament in the General Assembly, which received broad support from Member States.  Following the road map in the text, coupled with strong political will, could lead to an earlier realization of a nuclear-weapon-free world.  He stressed the importance of negative security assurances and encouraged continued efforts to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones in regions where they did not exist, including in the Middle East.  However, their establishment should not substitute for the total elimination of those weapons. 

Noting that his country was State party to the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, he expressed hope that the nuclear-weapon States would be early signers of its Protocol.  Stressing the inalienable right of all NPT parties to develop, research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, he said that nuclear safety and security standards should be strengthened to prevent accidents.  Thus, Myanmar had signed the additional agreement for the application of safeguards in connection with NPT.  In that regard, he recognized the role of IAEA in verifying that nuclear energy was used only for peaceful purposes.

IBRAHIM O. A. DABBASHI (Libya), associating with the Arab Group, African Group and Non-Aligned Movement, said nuclear-weapon States were duty-bound to take practical and effective measures to reassure the international community that they were serious about getting rid of those weapons.  Stockpiles reductions were not enough.  Expressing concern about the catastrophic humanitarian effects emanating from the use of nuclear weapons, he said it was important to conclude negotiations on a comprehensive convention banning their possession, modernization, production and acquisition through an internationally binding legal document.  Supporting the rights of all States to peaceful uses of nuclear energy was also important.  Nuclear safety measures must be strengthened and all States must abide by them.  He urged nuclear-weapon States to accelerate their efforts in nuclear disarmament and called for the expeditious creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones.

BASHAR JA’AFARI (Syria) said the NPT took effect in 1970, more than 45 years ago, yet fears of new threats persisted, which demonstrated that the universality of the Treaty had not yet been achieved.  The NPT was the backbone of the collective universal security regime and represented basic principles from which no one should deviate.  Syria was among the initial States in the Middle East region to have signed the NPT in 1968, proceeding from the conviction that the possession of nuclear weapons by any State in the region threatened regional and international security alike.  Syria was at the forefront in calling for freeing the Middle East from all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.  Its accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention should be viewed as a first basic step to establishing such a zone.  Israel should accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State like all the other States in the region and submit its installations and activities to the IAEA.  The supply to Israel by some nuclear-armed States of sophisticated nuclear technology was a blatant violation of the NPT’s article 1.  The problem was manifold, given Israel’s nuclear military programme.

RODOLFO BENITEZ VERSON (Cuba), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and CELAC, said the NPT’s credibility was increasingly challenged and could endanger its future relevance.  Urging action without delay, he said it was the responsibility of States parties to have, at the end of the meeting, a practical and well-defined plan of action with specific deadlines for compliance, in particular with respect to nuclear disarmament. 

He proposed setting several objectives that would permit tangible progress.  Among them was the declaration of any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons as a violation of international humanitarian law and crime against humanity — immoral and unacceptable in any circumstance.  He also called for the immediate cessation of programmes to modernize existing nuclear weapons and develop new such weapons and the rejection of the concept of nuclear deterrence and any role for nuclear weapons in military doctrine and security policies. 

FEDERICO ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ FRANCO (Paraguay), associating with CELAC, said that the NPT’s renewal and strengthening should be built not only on the basis of statements of good intentions but also on ambitious and substantive programmes of action.  A renewed NPT should be broader and more transparent.  The risk inherent in the traffic of weapons of mass destruction and their possible use by non-State actors remained a clear threat to international peace and security.  The first nuclear-weapon-free zone had been created in Latin America almost five decades ago, and it was now more relevant than ever to recognize that region as peace-loving.  In the Latin American and Caribbean context, it was important to recall the diverse set of rules of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), particularly the declaration of the region as a zone of peace.  With respect to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, his country was in the advanced process of building and regulating the national radiological and nuclear authority and appreciated all of the efforts and cooperation provided by the IAEA.

CATHERINE BOURA (Greece) acknowledged progress made with the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, but emphasized the need for ratification of the CTBT and, among others, negotiations towards a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.  On peaceful uses of nuclear energy, she underlined the importance of nuclear waste management.  The idea of a multinational approach for a cost-effective, politically neutral fuel cycle — supported by the European Union — was an opportunity for diminishing the circulation of low-enriched fuel.  It would also allow for the disposal of vast amounts of weapons-grade fissile material by downgrading them for peaceful use.  Non-discriminatory access to nuclear fuel minimized the risks of further nuclear proliferation and terrorism. 

RIYAD MANSOUR, Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine, associating with the Arab Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said the State of Palestine was proud to have recently become the 191st State party to the NPT.  However, despite positive developments towards a nuclear-weapon-free world, it was regrettable that threats remained to international peace and security, particularly in the Middle East.  The fact that Israel remained the only non-party to the NPT in the region and refused to subject its nuclear program to international scrutiny made that threat more formidable. 

In that regard, he said the Conference must give serious consideration to the Arab Group’s recommendations, in particular to reaffirm and retain the validity of the 1995 resolution on the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction, and to call upon Israel to immediately sign and ratify the NPT without further delay and the Secretary-General to convene a conference within 180 days from the conclusion of the Review Conference aimed at launching a process to conclude a legally binding treaty establishing a Middle East zone free of nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction.

KHIANE PHANSOURIVONG (Lao People’s Democratic Republic), associating with ASEAN and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the continued existence of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction caused fear and concern about their possible use or threat of use, in particular in the context of growing interest by terrorists and non-State actors to acquire such weapons.  The international community, therefore, must redouble its collective efforts in the pursuit of a world free of nuclear weapons.  Universal adherence to the CTBT would certainly contribute to the promotion of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.  He welcomed recent ratifications of that Treaty, which were important steps towards its universalization.  Huge challenges remained, but his country believed that with strong political will and determination, the international community would one day be able to achieve the ultimate goal of the NPT.

MARÍA EMMA MEJÍA VÉLEZ (Colombia), associating with CELAC and the Non-Aligned Movement, said her country’s Constitution prohibited the manufacture, import, and use of weapons of mass destruction, and the search for general and complete disarmament was one of the principles of its foreign policy.  Underscoring the need for the CTBT to enter into force, she appealed to the countries that had not yet done so to ratify it.  The Conference on Disarmament, of which her country was a member, should resume its leadership, as its past achievements were decisive for international peace and security.  Political will was needed to achieve agreement on a programme of work.  As party to the Treaty of Tlatelolco, Colombia formed part of the first nuclear-weapon-free zone created in a densely populated area.  She urged others to pursue such an initiative.

For information media. Not an official record.