New Instrument Banning Atomic Bombs Fuels Heated Debate in First Committee, as Non-Nuclear-Weapon Nations Call on Possessor States to Shrink Arsenals

The Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons took centre stage today, as delegates from States without atomic bombs strongly urged States possessing them to shrink their arsenals and work towards the common goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world, as the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) continued its thematic debate on the issue.

Many speakers called on nuclear-weapon States to join the new instrument, warning that the current situation was untenable.  Costa Rica’s delegate said not signing it and “maintaining status quo” would expose Member States to “increasing insecurity”.  Senegal’s delegate warned that thousands of nuclear weapons were currently on alert and many cases of evaluation errors and failures in detection systems could potentially have catastrophic consequences.  The only way to remove the threat of nuclear technology reaching the hands of terrorists was to completely eliminate arsenals.

“Nuclear weapons beget nuclear weapons”, Myanmar’s representative stressed, introducing a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament that reflected the aspirations of two thirds of all Member States.  Indeed, many expressed hearty support for the new instrument, with Mexico’s delegate calling it a “mission accomplished” that was also an achievement proving that, with political will, alternatives could be found.  Echoing that view, Austria’s representative said the new treaty served as a necessary stimulation to trigger action towards the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world and should also help to “delegitimize nuclear deterrence”.

Yet, some delegates from nuclear-weapon States explained why they had not and would not join the new treaty.  The delegate from the United States said nuclear deterrence played a crucial role in preserving and protecting international peace and security and removing it could have potentially catastrophic consequences.  The new treaty only exacerbated political tensions on disarmament, dividing States into nuclear-weapon “supporters” and “banners”, he said, noting that “polarization was a recipe for failure”.

India’s representative said that as a responsible nuclear Power, his country had a policy of credible minimum deterrence based on the principle of no‑first‑use and non‑use of those arms against non‑nuclear‑weapon States.  While India had not adopted the new instrument, he shared the sentiment behind it and his delegation remained ready to work with signatories in multilateral forums.  Moreover, he supported a proposal to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention in the Conference on Disarmament, which should also immediately commence negotiations on a fissile material cut‑off treaty.

Briefing the Committee at the outset of the meeting, Elayne Whyte Gómez (Costa Rica), President of the United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, said the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons represented a momentum that had been driven by an ethical and moral imperative geared towards the goal of achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Underlining that the new instrument was the first convention on nuclear weapons to be adopted by the United Nations in the past 20 years, she said the strong political resolve of stakeholders had led to new ways of thinking, fresh approaches and a new international standard.  The end result had been a landmark norm that was innovative in adopting measures regarding atomic bombs in ways similar to how other treaties addressed munitions, such as weaponized chemical and biological toxins.

During the meeting, the Committee heard the introduction of several draft resolutions, including on humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and on the potential dangers of new weapons of mass destruction.

Also participating in the thematic debate were representatives of Ireland, Cuba, Sweden, Switzerland, Belarus, Republic of Korea, Japan, Kazakhstan, Australia, Canada, Norway, Paraguay, Egypt, Ecuador, Maldives, Malawi, Germany, Singapore and Latvia.

The representatives of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea and the United States spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The First Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Friday 13 October, when it will hear a briefing by the Chair of the High-Level Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty Expert Preparatory Group and continue its thematic debate on nuclear weapons.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard a briefing from the President of the United Nations conference to negotiate a legally‑binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination, and continued its thematic debate on nuclear weapons.  For background information, see Press Release GA/DIS/3571 of 2 October.

Briefing

ELAYNE WHYTE GÓMEZ (Costa Rica), President of the conference to negotiate a legally‑binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination, said the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was the first convention on nuclear weapons to be adopted by the United Nations in the past 20 years.  To date, it had 53 signatures and 3 ratifications.  Congratulating the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, she said 2017 was a landmark year for efforts geared toward the goal of achieving a nuclear‑weapon free world.  Recalling that in 2015, a historic agreement had been reached on climate change, she said the issue of nuclear weapons seemed like the natural step.

Given the current security climate, she said urgent attention must focus on disarmament and non‑proliferation.  To do so, the General Assembly had used its available tools to develop legal instruments, with the conference having had a clear mandate to complement other components of the system, including the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.  Citing various factors that had led to its success, she said the groundwork had been set for constructive dialogue and a momentum had been fuelled by an ethical and moral imperative and strong political resolve that had led to new ways of thinking and fresh approaches.  The growing momentum among stakeholders had unfolded with dynamic interactive dialogue between civil society and official delegations.  The success in negotiating the text had also fulfilled the mandate of General Assembly resolution 71/258.  Noting that the path of changing international norms had been an effective way forward in dealing with other types of arms, including chemical and biological weapons and cluster munitions, she said the landmark norm established by the Treaty was innovative in the way the international community approached measures regarding atomic bombs.

Meanwhile, to fulfil the mandate of establishing a legal framework, delegations had been vigilant in ensuring the provisions would complement the Non‑Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear‑Test‑Ban Treaty, she said.  Likewise, Article 3 reinforced International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.  At the same time, the institutional framework covered areas yet to be developed, including the possibility of optional protocols, the establishment of an office to ensure the creation of an international authority and provisions on assistance to victims, compatible with international humanitarian law.  Calling for the instrument’s prompt entry into force, she encouraged those who had signed it to advance the ratification process and emphasized that efforts must aim at attracting new signatories.  In addition, academic and scientific communities should contribute specific proposals and technical inputs.  The goal was to survive as a species and achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, she concluded.

Statements

SANDOVAL MENDIOELA (Mexico), commending the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons for its Nobel Peace Prize, said the award reflected civil society’s pivotal role in promoting multilateral themes concerning the most noble of goals.  Applauding a “mission accomplished”, he said the international community should be proud for successfully paving the way for a treaty to nuclear weapons.  This achievement proved that, with political will, alternatives could be found, he said.  He highlighted the high number of countries that had signed on and noted that Mexico had taken steps to ratify the instrument.  The current situation called for action to ban such weapons, he continued, adding that they caused irreversible damage and were inherently immoral.  His Government rejected nuclear weapons and believed strengthening the global regime for disarmament was a clear priority.  He went on to call for the early entry in to force of the Comprehensive Nuclear‑Test‑Ban Treaty.  He called on Member States to fulfil their obligations.

MS. QUINN (Ireland), associating herself with the New Agenda Coalition, condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s illegal nuclear and ballistic missile testing and urged the resumption of diplomatic engagement leading to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.  Ireland supported the work towards establishing in the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.  She encouraged ongoing efforts so the process would regain momentum, with the involvement of all stakeholders from the region.

ROBERT A. WOOD (United States) said the easing of cold war rivalries had allowed his country and the Russian Federation to make significant progress in nuclear disarmament.  Success was predicated on patience, effective verification and attention to the challenges in an evolving security environment.  Nuclear deterrence played a crucial role in preserving and protecting international peace and security; removing it could have potentially catastrophic consequences.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons violated all those tenets, he said.  Its provisions were vaguely worded, imprecise and contradictory; it was at odds with today’s security challenges and had the potential to cause lasting harm to the non‑proliferation and disarmament regime.  It also endorsed IAEA safeguards without requiring an essential additional protocol, when experience had shown that safeguards alone were insufficient to detect covert nuclear programmes.  The instrument could even damage the Non‑Proliferation Treaty, as it exacerbated political tensions on disarmament, dividing states into “overly simplified” camps “supporters” and “banners”.  Saying there were no “shortcuts to disarmament”, it was unrealistic to attempt to “skip to the finish line”.  That approach would undermine the institutions and standards the international community had worked so hard to achieve.  “Polarization was a recipe for failure,” he said, urging nations to work with the United States in searching for common solutions through consensus.

GEORGE WILHELM GALLHOFER (Austria) said that without the extraordinary success of the Non‑Proliferation Treaty, the world would have been faced with more actors possessing nuclear weapons.  However, States currently possessing them were less prone to disarm.  To face current global security challenges, the Non‑Proliferation Treaty must be reinvigorated and States should do more to break the status quo.  For that reason, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons should serve as a necessary stimulation for their total elimination.  The instrument delegitimized nuclear deterrence and highlighted the catastrophic humanitarian consequences from the use of nuclear weapons.  Austria had introduced a draft resolution on humanitarian consequences during the current session, he said, encouraging Member States to support it.  Urging countries to move on from the “cold war concept of mutual destruction”, he said the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons would strengthen security, rather than undermine it.

Ms. AVERHOF (Cuba), associating herself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, raised concerns about the very existence of nuclear weapons, pointing out that the accidental detonation of even a fraction of existing atomic bombs would have disastrous consequences.  With that in mind, she welcomed the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was a vital step forward in the path toward their elimination.  For its part, Cuba had signed the new instrument and supported its prompt entry into force.  Any attempt seeking to preserve the status quo to justify the presence of such arms was unacceptable, she said, urging nuclear‑weapon States to show political will and real commitment toward disarmament objectives.  Going forward, further concerted efforts were needed to fulfil the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

EVA WALDER (Sweden) said true and effective multilateral disarmament and non‑proliferation could be achieved within the Non‑Proliferation Treaty process.  Nuclear‑weapon States must acknowledge that the instrument did not give them the right to possess nuclear weapons forever and they must respect and implement with urgency commitments undertaken at previous review conferences, especially those from 2000 and 2010.  Adding that the Non‑Proliferation Treaty was the subject of heated debate, she said there was widespread and well‑founded frustration with the lack of progress on disarmament.  But, the international community must not let disagreements on prohibition poison discussions on the entire disarmament agenda, she said, emphasizing that it must agree to disagree and move forward.

Ms. DELLAFIOR (Switzerland) called on all parties to preserve the historic achievement of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Expressing concern for explicit and unprecedented nuclear threats, she said the use of such arms was not compatible with international law, particularly humanitarian law.  Switzerland was alarmed that reductions in arsenals had slowed significantly and weapons were being modernized and additional capacities were being added.  While Switzerland had voted in favour of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, she was particularly concerned about its complementarity with other instruments, including the Non‑Proliferation Treaty.  Even though several of her delegation’s concerns had not been considered during negotiations on the new instrument, including those related to verification standards, she said it was time to put aside polarization and build constructive dialogue.

NIKOLAI OVSYANKO (Belarus) said his delegation would again present a draft resolution on the potential dangers of new weapons of mass destruction.  In the current security context, the international community needed new recommendations and standards on the issue, he said, calling on Member States to support the draft text and noting that, so far, 30 Member States had become co‑sponsors.

KIM IN-CHUL (Republic of Korea), supporting the common goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, said the Non‑Proliferation Treaty was “the most realistic, effective and inclusive tool” to achieve it.  Turning to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s testing activities, he said the world needed to make “a strong, united commitment” to fully implement relevant Security Council resolutions.  He also urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to stop supporting the pretext that nuclear weapons would provide security and economic growth and to make the right choice.

More broadly, the international community must continue to strive to make progress in the multilateral disarmament field, he said, emphasizing that “we need to focus on what unites us, not what divides us”.  Calling for a renewed sense of urgency, he said the international community should stand united in further strengthening the Non‑Proliferation Treaty as the cornerstone of disarmament, non‑proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

NOBUSHIGE TAKAMIZAWA (Japan), associating himself with the Non‑Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative and the Group of 29, said substantial measures should be taken with a sense of urgency, given the slow progress of nuclear disarmament.  All nuclear‑weapon States must do more to comply with their unequivocal undertaking to totally eliminate nuclear weapons, he said, emphasizing that it was imperative to do so to uphold the Non‑Proliferation Treaty regime.  It was also vital to resolve regional nuclear proliferation issues.  By unanimously adopting resolution 2375 (2017), the Security Council had sent a clear message to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately abandon its nuclear and missile development programmes.  At the same time, all Member States bore an obligation to fully implement relevant Council resolutions and demonstrate firmness in addressing the threat.

YERZHAN KUATBEKOV (Kazakhstan) said nuclear weapons were no longer an asset but a danger in an interdependent and connected world.  Kazakhstan, after closing its test sites and eliminating its arsenals, had become a symbol of taking concrete actions against nuclear testing.  The international community must now ensure the early entry into force of the Test‑Ban Treaty.  Of the three pillars of the Non‑Proliferation Treaty, the pace of nuclear disarmament continued to generate controversy and since the 1995 Non‑Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, nuclear‑weapon States seemed to have become less proactive in the process of disarmament.  The imperative today was to exert more political will towards ensuring substantial reductions, leading eventually to the total elimination of all nuclear stockpiles.

JOHN QUINN (Australia) said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s irresponsible and dangerous actions, in breach of Security Council resolutions, were a major setback to achieving the shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.  Australia was moving quickly to fully implement related Council resolutions, as all countries must.  Full political, diplomatic and economic pressure must be applied to compel Pyongyang to change course, he said, adding that that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s provocations highlighted the urgency of ensuring the Test‑Ban Treaty entered into force.  He also urged States possessing nuclear weapons to take the lead in demonstrating concrete progress, including through greater transparency with regard to nuclear arsenals.

AMANDEEP SINGH GILL (India), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, expressed support for the proposal to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention in the Conference on Disarmament, which should also immediately commence negotiations on a fissile material cut‑off treaty.  As a responsible nuclear Power, India had a policy of credible minimum deterrence based on the principle of no‑first‑use and non‑use of those arms against non‑nuclear‑weapon States.  India also maintained a voluntary moratorium on nuclear explosive testing and supported global non‑proliferation objectives.  In addition, it abided by the principles of the Non‑Proliferation Treaty despite being a non‑party to the instrument.

While India had not participated in the negotiations on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and could not be a party to it, he said his delegation remained ready to work with signatories in multilateral forums.  Raising concerns about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s testing activities, he called on that State to refrain from actions that threatened peace and stability.  In closing, he introduced draft resolutions on a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons and on reducing nuclear danger.

ROSEMARY McCARNEY (Canada), citing the growing threat posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and a deepening polarization within the international community as causes for deep concern, said the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons had contributed to further divisions and could place the current review cycle of the Non‑Proliferation Treaty at risk.  While Canada had had serious reservations about the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, it nevertheless shared the sentiment behind it.  Disarmament progress had been too slow and nuclear‑weapon States must demonstrate renewed leadership, while non‑signatories of the Non‑Proliferation Treaty must focus on reducing, then eliminating, their reliance on such arms.  Calling for more pragmatic and inclusive action, she said Canada would chair the High‑Level Fissile Material Cut‑Off Treaty Expert Preparatory Group, established to develop treaty elements for eventual negotiations.  Meanwhile, it was critical to fully implement the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran and to tighten global sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, counter its proliferation networks and persuade it to pursue dialogue.

KNUT LANGELAND (Norway), recalling that the Non‑Proliferation Treaty contained disarmament obligations, underscored the need to foster the confidence needed for balanced, mutual, irreversible and verifiable reductions of nuclear arsenals in the future.  The primary challenge today was to preserve and consolidate existing instruments.  While nuclear‑weapon States bore the primary responsibility for reducing and eventually eliminating their arsenals, non‑nuclear‑weapon States should also contribute, including through disarmament verification.  The 2007 United Kingdom‑Norway initiative had paved the way for broadening verification research to include non‑nuclear‑weapon States, he said, adding that Norway had also participated in the International Partnership on Nuclear Weapons Verification.  Citing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s irresponsible actions, he called upon all Annex 2 States to ratify the Test‑Ban Treaty and ensure its urgent transformation into a legally binding instrument.

HTIN LYNN (Myanmar), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, introduced a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament.  The only thing to protect mankind from such weapons was their total elimination, he said, as “nuclear weapons beget nuclear weapons”.  The draft text focused on practical, achievable steps and, in addition to technical updates, it reflected efforts of a working group of the Conference on Disarmament and expressed deep concern about the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.  The draft resolution also reflected the will and aspirations of two thirds of Member States, he emphasized, inviting all Members States to lend their support.

JULIO CÉSAR ARRIOLA RAMÍREZ (Paraguay) said the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was a historic landmark for peace‑loving nations like his country.  The Treaty filled a gap in international law and complemented related instruments.  All States must fulfil their obligations in achieving disarmament, he said, calling for the development of a programme of work to extend zones declared free of nuclear weapons, particularly in the Middle East.  Concerning the universalization of disarmament and non‑proliferation commitments, he urged States to ratify or accede to the Non‑Proliferation Treaty, Test‑Ban Treaty, Arms Trade Treaty and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  At the same time, it was important for nuclear‑weapon States to review their nuclear doctrines and adopt measures to reduce risks.  He also underlined a need to redirect resources allocated to modernizing nuclear weapon stockpiles towards achieving the goals set out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

AMR ABDELLATIF ABOULATTA (Egypt) said the continued existence of nuclear weapons and failure to achieve the Non‑Proliferation Treaty’s universality, especially in the Middle East, was one of the biggest challenges to international efforts in disarmament.  Grave dangers posed by possessing such weapons by one State in the region was a pressing threat to regional security, leaving it prone to chronic armament races, conflicts and instability.  Although more than 20 years had passed since adoption of the resolution on the Middle East, its provisions on creating a nuclear‑weapon‑free zone had remained unimplemented due to a lack of sufficient international effort.  Egypt also continued to reject any restrictions on States’ rights to peaceful uses of nuclear energy that went beyond Non‑Proliferation Treaty obligations.

ISIDOR MARCEL SENE (Senegal) said thousands of nuclear weapons were currently on alert and many cases of evaluation errors and failures in detection systems could potentially have catastrophic consequences.  Senegal was committed to achieving the goal of world free of nuclear weapons, especially considering the increasing risks of those arms falling into the hands terrorist groups.  The elimination of nuclear weapons should be based on a strong prohibition regime.  Further, the issue of establishing a nuclear‑weapon‑free zone in the Middle East was more relevant now than ever before.  Urging nuclear‑weapon States to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and contribute to the enhancement of other elements of the disarmament and non‑proliferation regime, he said the lack of international authority to monitor the respect of the new instrument should be addressed and corrected.

FERNANDO LUQUE MÁRQUEZ (Ecuador) said the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was a universal, legally binding instrument that was perfectly in line with and complemented the current disarmament and non‑proliferation architecture.  He regretted to note that several nuclear‑weapon States had called for not signing that essential instrument.  The efforts and rhetoric of those States demonstrated that they acted outside international law.  To claims that the new instrument would cause division, he recalled what the representative of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons had said ‑ it was not the treaty that divided them, nuclear weapons did.  He also regretted to note the refusal by some nuclear‑weapon States to fulfil Article VI under the Non‑Proliferation Treaty, their insistence that those weapons actually ensure security and that eight States had impeded the Test‑Ban Treaty’s entry into force.

Ms. SHAREEF (Maldives) noted that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons marked a new phase in the 70‑year effort to prevent nuclear war.  Maldives had never produced any armaments or weaponry of any type, nor did it have the desire to do so in the future.  Regarding the Korean Peninsula, recent tests represented a clear violation of international law and Security Council resolutions, she said, welcoming efforts to find a peaceful solution through a multilateral framework.  Maldives also hoped to get elected to the Security Council in 2018 and, if elected, would bring disarmament and nuclear non‑proliferation to the centre of the Council’s discussions.  The aim would be to focus that body’s attention on the growing risk of nuclear weapons reaching terrorist groups and closing gaps in the proliferation and spread of such technology.

LOT THAUZENI PANSIPADANA DZONZI (Malawi), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, stressed that while his country did not have nuclear weapons and did not intend to produce any, the impact of a nuclear weapon detonation would not be constrained by national borders and could have regional and global consequences.  In that regard, Malawi had signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, along with similar instruments, such as the African Nuclear‑Weapon‑Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba).  Malawi would also continue to cooperate with other like‑minded States and international actors for the achievement of common goals.

MICHAEL BIONTINO (Germany), associating himself with the Non‑Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative, said nuclear disarmament could best be reached through a pragmatic, step‑by‑step approach that considered the prevailing security environment and engaged nuclear‑weapon States.  Condemning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for its illegal nuclear programmes, he said that case had provided various lessons, including the need to redouble efforts when it came to strengthening the Non‑Proliferation Treaty and its three equally important pillars.  Turning to nuclear security, he said that threats went beyond borders.  Maintaining cybersecurity and the security of radioactive sources in civilian use would be a challenge for Germany and others for years to come.  Regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme, he emphasized the importance of the strict implementation of the agreement and warned against any action that might potentially jeopardize the plan and the important progress in the area of non‑proliferation it had generated.

Ms. LEONG (Singapore) said several concrete steps should be taken to advance nuclear disarmament, including that States must maintain and strengthen their commitment to the Non‑Proliferation Treaty and continue to work towards the Test‑Ban Treaty’s entry into force.  While the established norms against testing were reassuring, they did not replace the need for a legally binding instrument.  In addition, it was vital to strengthen support for nuclear‑weapon‑free zones, she said, reaffirming Singapore’s support to the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon‑Free Zone (Treaty of Bangkok).  She expressed support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the goal of a world free from those arms.  The priority was not to lose sight of that ultimate goal, she added.

JUAN CARLOS MENDOZA GARCIA (Costa Rica) said it regretted that nuclear‑weapon States had decided to disassociate themselves from the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Inaction was not an option and maintaining status quo exposed Member States to increasing insecurity.  He urged all States to sign Treaty, and encouraged those who had signed to ratify it.  With more than 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world, instead of destroying them, millions of dollars were being spent on their modernization.  Regretting to note the limited progress in reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles, he called for the prohibition of the production of fissile material.  Nuclear disarmament could not rest solely in the hands of nuclear‑weapon States, he continued, adding that non‑nuclear‑weapon States would continue to advocate for the total elimination of those arms and ensure that States possessing atomic bombs fulfilled their obligations.

JĀNIS MAŽEIKS (Latvia) expressed strong support for efforts to strengthen the global nuclear disarmament and non‑proliferation regime.  The Non‑Proliferation Treaty was the cornerstone of those initiatives and States should be careful not to undermine the instrument’s strategic importance.  The global community was faced with increasing security challenges that should be addressed multilaterally, he said, emphasizing that a unified approach was needed now more than ever before.  Urging both nuclear‑weapon and non‑nuclear‑weapon States to work together, Latvia advocated for a continuous implementation of a progressive approach to disarmament taking into account the wider security context.

Right of Reply

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said the issue on the Korean Peninsula was created by the United States, which had threatened his country for decades.  Moreover, the United States had deployed nuclear submarines and bombers.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would defend its sovereignty against such threats, he said, adding that the ultimate goal was to achieve a balance of power with the United States.  Responding to comments made by his counterpart from the Republic of Korea, he said groundless accusations and lies were unacceptable.  The Republic of Korea was the only Member State that had passed over military control of their country to outside forces.  In response to his counterpart from Japan, he said he should stop finding excuses for rebuilding its military power and apologize for past crimes committed against Asian people.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was using every opportunity to contend that the world was misunderstanding the facts.  Facts were facts.  What the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was engaging in was not self‑defence; they were breaking the law.  It was not the world that was hostile, but that they had a hostile attitude toward the whole world.

The representative of the United States said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear and ballistic programmes posed a great threat to the Korean Peninsula, the region and beyond.  He called on all States to implement the Security Council resolutions against the regime, noting that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must comply with its international obligations.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rejected arguments that had been made by the Washington regime and the Republic of Korea’s representative.