World Must Step Back from ‘Brink of Nuclear Madness’ Amid Growing Risk of Miscalculation, Accidental Use, First Committee Told
Stakes Too High for ‘Ill-Fated’ Belief in Nuclear Deterrence, Speaker Warns
It was essential to step back from the “brink of nuclear madness”, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard today as it continued its thematic segment on nuclear weapons.
The representative of Austria said that, right before the eyes of the world, the risks of miscalculation and accidental use were increasing. The readiness to inflict catastrophic humanitarian consequences was abhorrent to morality and ethics. The world could not wait for a catastrophe to react.
He asked the Committee with what legitimacy and authority those existential risks were imposed on humanity and future generations. He rejected the normalization of the risk of nuclear‑weapons‑use, as well as the “ill-fated” belief in nuclear deterrence, which was fraught with uncertainties and had always been on shaky ground. The stakes were simply too high to rely on unproven assumptions.
The representative of the United States said that, as long as nuclear weapons existed, their fundamental role was to deter nuclear attacks on the United States and its allies and partners. Its policy reflected a sensible and stabilizing approach to deterring a range of attacks. The United States would continue to take steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, while ensuring its nuclear deterrent remained safe, secure and effective, and that its commitments to its allies remained “ironclad and credible”.
She said that peace in Europe had been shattered by the Russian Federation’s brutal and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, which constituted an attack on the fundamental tenets of the international order.
China had launched more ballistic missiles than the rest of the world combined and was dangerously deviating from the behaviour of responsible nuclear Powers by limiting launch‑notification cooperation to the Russian Federation, she said, while Moscow launched indiscriminate missile attacks on civilians in Ukraine.
Ukraine’s representative said that Moscow had used missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over Ukrainian cities from the territory of Belarus and was threatening to use nuclear weapons. The Russian Federation’s military aggression against his country provoked a dangerous imbalance in the existing international arms‑control and non-proliferation architecture, undermining the effectiveness and reliability of weapons of the mass destruction and non-proliferation regimes.
The representative of the Russian Federation said his country’s nuclear-deterrence policy was purely defensive in nature, and the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons were limited to extraordinary circumstances. The possession of nuclear weapons remained the only possible response to specific external threats.
In violation of the principle of equal and indivisible security, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) staked its "unbridled, malicious expansion" at the expense of the Russian Federation’s security, he said. United States nuclear weapons were deployed on the territory of its non‑nuclear allies and there were practical scenarios for their use, with the involvement of military personnel of those non-nuclear States. Such irresponsible actions increased strategic risks, including nuclear risks, and hampered disarmament.
Also speaking were the representatives of the Philippines, South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina, Costa Rica, Ghana, Germany, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Bangladesh, Senegal, Hungary, Iran, Algeria, United Kingdom, Slovenia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Australia, Spain, Ireland, Czech Republic and India.
Exercising the right of reply were representatives of the Russian Federation, United States, Japan, Iran, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea and Ukraine.
The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 18 October, to conclude its thematic debate on nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Weapons
MALLORY STEWART (United States) said her country was committed to pursuing risk-reduction measures and arms‑control arrangements that lowered the risk of nuclear war and averted destabilizing arms races. The United States was committed to expeditiously negotiate a new arms control framework to replace the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty when it expired in 2026. Several priorities shaped its nuclear policy. It was a declaratory policy that reflected a sensible and stabilizing approach to deterring a range of attacks. It stated that, as long as nuclear weapons existed, their fundamental role was to deter nuclear attacks on the United States and its allies and partners. The policy also prioritized strategic stability, the avoidance of costly arms races and the pursuit of risk reduction and arms control arrangements, where possible. The United States would continue to take steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, while ensuring its nuclear deterrent remained safe, secure and effective, and that its commitments to its allies remained “ironclad and credible”.
She said the Russian Federation’s brutal and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine shattered peace in Europe and constituted an attack on the fundamental tenets of the international order. China launched more ballistic missiles than the rest of the world combined and was dangerously deviating from the behaviour of responsible nuclear Powers by generally rejecting the practice of notifying those launches to others despite its pursuit of a launch on warning posture. China limited its missile‑launch notification cooperation to the Russian Federation, all while Moscow launched indiscriminate missile attacks on civilians in Ukraine. She called on China and the Russian Federation to reduce nuclear risks. She supported the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty on the basis of consensus and with the participation of all key States. Another crucial step towards nuclear disarmament was maintaining the international norm against nuclear explosive testing. The United States continued to observe its zero-yield nuclear explosive testing moratorium and called on all possessor States to declare or maintain such a moratorium.
ANTONIO MANUEL LAGDAMEO (Philippines), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), expressed support for victim assistance and environmental remediation in the context of nuclear tests. The “onus should be on States that conduct these tests rather than the States that are victims of their reverberating impact”. He regretted the failure of the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to have adopted an outcome document at its last Review Conference. The “grand bargain” underpinning the Treaty, by which non-nuclear-weapon States like his own would fulfil their obligations not to acquire nuclear weapons and nuclear-weapon‑possessing States would pursue disarmament. He called on the latter group to fulfil their obligations and appealed to all relevant States to cease the qualitative and quantitative, as well as vertical and horizontal expansion of their nuclear arsenals. They also should commit to a moratorium on the production of fissile material to reduce the risk of nuclear‑weapons use. Reaffirming that a nuclear war must never be fought and could never be won, he pressed all parties to refrain from dangerous rhetoric.
HARSHANA BHASKAR GOOLAB (South Africa), associating with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that having two consecutive failed NPT Review Conferences had plunged the world into uncharted and dangerous territory. Twelve years of failure was a stark reminder of the lengths nuclear-weapon States would go to retain their nuclear weapons, unchecked, putting narrow security interests ahead of collective peace and security. Without meaningful NPT reviews, the Treaty’s indefinite extension was questionable. The increasing number of States emphasizing the value of nuclear deterrence and relying ever more on nuclear weapons in their military and security doctrines was of growing concern. South Africa called on States that relied on those inhumane and devastating weapons for their security to take urgent steps towards their total elimination. She called attention to the moral and ethical imperatives that had inspired the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, especially the catastrophic humanitarian consequences, and hoped that instrument would catalyse overdue progress. All Annex II States of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) should sign and ratify it. A fissile material production ban would reinforce the NPT’s ideals and complement the CTBT and the nuclear prohibition Treaty. Nuclear disarmament was not only a legal obligation, but also a moral and ethical imperative. She then introduced the resolution on ethical imperatives for a nuclear-weapon-free world (document A/C.1/2022/L.46).
ERIN MORISS (New Zealand) said the Russian Federation’s illegal invasion of Ukraine was a flagrant violation of international law and caused catastrophic and ongoing devastation. Alongside its thinly veiled nuclear threats, the Russian aggression hollowed out the concept of negative security assurances and recharged the international debate about nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction. In the face of the catastrophic risks posed by nuclear weapons and in the interest of humanity’s very survival, there was no other option but to eliminate them. Nuclear arsenals were being modernized, new types of nuclear weapons were being developed, and there were signs of a renewed nuclear arms race. So, too, was dangerous rhetoric and exercises threatening their use. The legacy of the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine must not be an arms race or a more polarized and dangerous world, she said, stressing that the commitment to international institutions, multilateral fora and disarmament was urgent.
ANATOLII ZLENKO (Ukraine) said that today was the 236th day of a full-scale invasion of his country unleashed by the “terrorist” Russian Federation. The Russian Federation’s military aggression against Ukraine provoked a dangerous imbalance in the existing international arms‑control and non-proliferation architecture, undermining the effectiveness and reliability of weapons of the mass destruction and non-proliferation regimes. By occupying Crimea, the Russian Federation had demonstrated the worthlessness of the legal obligations of a nuclear Power to respect the independence and sovereignty of non-nuclear-weapon States, as well as to refrain from the threat or use of force against those States’ territorial integrity. The non-proliferation regime had been undermined by the Russian Federation’s de facto expansion of the geographic area of its nuclear arms deployment after the occupation of Crimea. Moscow already had used missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over Ukrainian cities from the territory of Belarus and was threatening to use nuclear weapons.
He also strongly condemned the recent intercontinental ballistic missile launch conducted by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the series of other ballistic‑missile launches conducted by Pyongyang throughout 2022 in blatant violation of relevant Security Council resolutions. That country should abandon all nuclear and any other existing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic‑missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.
MARIA DEL CARMEN SQUEFF (Argentina) said her country had a nuclear programme in strict observance of the norms enshrined in the NPT. She regretted that its last review, the second in a row, had been unable to adopt an outcome document or recommendations that would permit progress on the Treaty’s implementation. Underscoring the “real and effective” contributions to peace and security of the Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean, she reiterated her call to nuclear-weapon States to withdraw all interpretative declarations on Protocols I and II and to accept the denuclearization of the region. Spotlighting the founding in 1991 of Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials, she expressed hope that the trust-building peaceful regional initiative would inspire the international community. She called for the timely entry into force of the CTBT by all Annex II States, without preconditions. She condemned the test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and called on that country to comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions and re-join the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State. She hoped for the successful conclusion of negotiations furthering full compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action by all parties. Argentina was concerned about Ukrainian nuclear sites affected by the conflict, and called for a cessation of hostilities.
ALEXANDER KMENTT (Austria), aligning with the European Union, said that a brutal war was taking place in Europe, and nuclear risk had not been as high since the Cuban missile crisis. Austria unequivocally condemned any and all nuclear threats, whether explicit or implicit and irrespective of the circumstances. It was simply not acceptable that the risk of nuclear weapons use was “normalized”. Before the world, the risks of miscalculation and accidental use were increasing. He asked the Committee with what legitimacy and authority those existential risks were imposed on humanity and future generations. The world could not wait for a catastrophe to react. Urgent steps were the only option. He rejected the ill‑fated belief in nuclear deterrence. The readiness to inflict catastrophic humanitarian consequences was abhorrent to morality and ethics. Nuclear deterrence was fraught with uncertainties, he said, adding that it had always been on shaky ground. The stakes were simply too high to rely on unproven assumptions. New momentum and a paradigm shift could be found in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The Treaty not only strengthened the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime, but was essential to “move the world away from the brink of nuclear madness”. In that regard, he introduced the resolution on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/77/L.16) and the resolution on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/77/L.17).
KOSTANTIN VORONTSOV (Russian Federation) said his country had developed and concluded several international agreements on the reduction and limitation of nuclear weapons, as well as important unilateral steps. It had reduced its strategic weapons potential by 85 per cent from its peak in the 1980s, as well as its non-strategic nuclear weapons by three fourths of that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991. In July 2021, a comprehensive dialogue on strategic stability was initiated between the presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States. The United States, however, had devalued those efforts. The Russian Federation's nuclear-deterrence policy was purely defensive in nature, and the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons were limited to extraordinary circumstances, which were clearly defined in public documents. The possession of nuclear weapons remained the only possible response to specific external threats.
In gross violation of the principle of equal and indivisible security, he said, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), staked its "unbridled, malicious expansion" at the expense of Russian Federation security. The Russian Federation's initiative to work out binding arrangements that would guarantee the restoration of predictability and stability on its western borders and in the European space as a whole was rejected. The United States and NATO used the Russian Federation's forced retaliatory actions as a pretext to move to an all-out confrontation on the verge of a direct armed conflict. The representative was firmly committed to the principle that there could be no winners in a nuclear war and that it should never be fought. United States nuclear weapons were deployed on the territory of its non-nuclear allies and there existed practical scenarios for their use, with the involvement of military personnel of those non-nuclear countries. Such irresponsible actions increased strategic risks, including nuclear risks and hampered disarmament.
MARITZA CHAN VALVERDE (Costa Rica), said that nuclear-weapon States had spent the last seven years flouting the NPT’s provisions and conducting comprehensive modernization of their nuclear programmes, rather than working towards multilateral disarmament and the total elimination of those weapons. The risk of their use had increased to terrorizing levels. The world sought solace by the constant progress made by non-nuclear-weapon States, she said, pointing to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Vienna Declaration as clear commitments in that regard. The world should overcome the “misogyny of militarism”. She urged also a reversal of women’s chronic underrepresentation in disarmament, asserting that their exclusion was at the root of the nuclear problem. The only path towards progress was an approach, which, among others, upended the “nuclear patriarchy”. Without incorporating a gender lens, the world would run the risk of never fully understanding the gendered impact of ionizing radiation. Trinidad and Tobago introduced a resolution on women, arms control and non-proliferation, she added. The international community should change it perception of human security by moving away from national security and power projection and competition and moving towards cooperation. Achieving nuclear disarmament was more than just agreeing on an outcome document. The world should rethink weapon-dependent economies and remove gendered-language like using the masculine-feminine dichotomy of nuclear and non-nuclear-weapon States.
LINDA KESSE ANTWI (Ghana), associating with the African Group and Non-Aligned Movement, said that, although most States had persistently called for a world free of nuclear weapons, the global security climate demonstrated a lack of respect for disarmament and non-proliferation obligations. “Instead of taking concrete steps towards disarmament, we continue to witness advancements by nuclear-possessing States in replacing, modernizing and maintaining their nuclear warheads and tactical nuclear weapons, missile and aircraft delivery systems, [and] nuclear‑weapon‑production facilities,” she said. Nuclear-weapon States and their allies must reconsider their “mantras” on nuclear security doctrines and unite around approaches to guarantee a safer world. While underscoring the inalienable rights of States parties to develop and use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes as envisaged by the NPT, she stressed that those activities must be conducted under strict IAEA supervision. She underscored the need for a moratorium on nuclear testing and for a possible ban on the production of fissile material production for nuclear weapons, pending a legally binding cut-off Treaty negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. She renewed Ghana’s call on CTBT Annex II States to fast-track the ratification process.
THOMAS GÖBEL (Germany) said that the three fundamental commitments relating to nuclear weapons were to prevent their spread, ensure that they were never again used and work towards their elimination. Those efforts had come under bigger strain due to the Russian Federation’s illegal war of aggression. That country’s nuclear threats called into question its commitment to the 3 January declaration. It also had blocked consensus at the tenth NPT Review Conference, whose outcome text would have provided a good basis and signalled substantial progress. Nuclear disarmament required the development of transparent verification mechanisms, he said, pointing to the example of France-Germany cooperation. He did not deem the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons an appropriate framework to make tangible progress on nuclear disarmament and would not accede to it. Instead, he proposed improved dialogue, especially on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, victim assistance and environmental remediation. He called on all States to ratify the CTBT and urged the start of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, as differences on certain aspects should no longer serve as a pretext for deadlock. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s development of its illegal nuclear weapons programme was a huge proliferation challenge. Iran should refrain from nuclear-weapon-capable ballistic missile activities. In addition, further developing the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty would preserve the most substantial nuclear arms control Treaty apart from the NPT, and reign in existing nuclear tensions.
KIM SONG (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said that, despite the international community’s efforts to achieve world peace, security and sustainable development, nuclear disarmament today existed only in name. The United States was the main country that undermined the foundation of the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime, as it persistently pursued astronomical financial investment in the modernization of nuclear weapons. As the hostile policy and military blackmail of the United States against his country grew, it had been compelled, in defiance, to adopt the law on the policy on the nuclear forces. The United Stated had, for the past 30 years, a heinous, hostile policy against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. He also was greatly concerned about Japan’s irresponsible decision to discharge nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean, despite strong opposition at home. The international community should not overlook the dangerous move of Japan to do harm to humanity and to the ocean’s ecosystem.
LI SONG (China) said that, since it first had nuclear weapons more than 50 years ago, China had pledged not to be the first to use them against a non-nuclear-weapon State. China had always maintained its nuclear forces at the minimum level required for its national security and had not engaged in an arms race with any other nuclear-weapon State. The international community should practise genuine multilateralism. The major Powers, especially the nuclear-weapon states, should refrain from using nuclear weapons to claim hegemony, and to bully and coerce non-nuclear-weapon States. The United States and the Russian Federation, as nuclear super-Powers with the largest nuclear arsenals, should fulfil their historical responsibility for nuclear disarmament, further reducing their respective arsenals. In view of the great differences among nuclear-weapon States, there was no uniform template for nuclear arms control, nuclear reductions and nuclear transparency. The nuclear disarmament process should be carried out in a gradual and orderly manner. He called on the five nuclear-weapon States to conclude a "mutual no-first-use treaty" and to actively promote the negotiation of an international legal instrument on "negative security assurances" to non-nuclear-weapon States and avoid double standards. All should work together to create an international and regional security environment conducive to nuclear disarmament.
GBOLIÉ DÉSIRÉ WULFRAN IPO (Côte d’Ivoire) said that his country had never ceased its commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons, underlining the catastrophic humanitarian consequences absent that ethical imperative. He opposed their use and testing and supported nuclear-weapon-free zones, especially in conflict areas, as well as multilateralism as the framework for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Côte d’Ivoire had co-sponsored the annual resolution on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. It had ratified the CTBT in 2003 and had sponsored the related resolution for the past five years. As a member of the Pelindaba Treaty, he underlined the importance of such zones, but stressed that the full elimination of nuclear weapons was the only guarantee against their use or threat of use. He urged the start of a fissile material cut-off ban. His country had been among the first to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, as exemplified by its co-sponsorship of the resolution. Giving the transnational nature of global challenges, he said multilateralism must be strengthened to address the threats.
He introduced the resolution on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use (document A/C.1/77/L.16) and on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/C.1/77/L.52).
MUHAMMAD A. MUHITH (Bangladesh), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said his country had ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, of the belief that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the ultimate guarantee of security, and he welcomed its entry into force on 22 January. Bangladesh was deeply disappointment at the consecutive failure of the ninth and tenth NPT Review Conferences to have adopt a consensus outcome text. He reiterated the urgent need for systematic, progressive, verifiable, irreversible, and time-bound nuclear disarmament in line with the spirit of the Treaty’s article VI. He called on nuclear-weapon States to produce a sustainable outcome at the next NPT review in order to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. He reiterated his country’s support for the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of nuclear and other mass destruction weapons. He also supported the start of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on an effective, non‑discriminatory, legally binding and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Amid the pandemic in 2021, nuclear-weapon States had spent $82.4 billion on nuclear weapons, which could have been put to better use combating poverty and climate change. With that, he urged the international community to make the right choice and be on the right side of history.
CHEIKH AHMADOU BAMBA GAYE (Senegal), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, underscored the need to draw the international community’s attention to the risks associated with growing tensions in the field of nuclear weapons, particularly given the chronic lethargy of the nuclear disarmament bodies. The latest example had been the failure of the tenth NPT Review Conference. He welcomed the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in January, and meanwhile, underscored the need for nuclear-weapon States to reach consensus on a more ambitious programme to eliminate their arsenals. He highlighted the interdependence of the two equally important goals of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. He called for strengthening IAEA’s authority and capacity for action so as to permit it to play a role in stamping out the vertical and horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons, and as a priority, for the conclusion of a legally binding instrument on negative security assurances for non-nuclear-armed States. He reiterated Senegal’s commitment to the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba) and his call for the establishment of a zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. He urged a complete ban on nuclear testing, in line with the CTBT, and for a universal agreement on banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons production.
SZILVIA BALÁZS (Hungary), aligning with the European Union, said that the NPT was the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. Referring to the inability to adopt an outcome document at the tenth NPT Review Conference, she said it was vital for the international community to make next the next review cycle a success. There should be a focus on issues that unite, instead of those that divide. She welcomed the New Strategic Arms Reduction (New START) Treaty’s extension and the January Declaration by five nuclear-weapon States. Hopefully, the United States and the Russian Federation could resume their strategic stability talks, leading to new arms‑control agreements. The current conditions were not conducive to disarmament, however, and the world needed to redouble its efforts by focusing on inclusive and gradual building blocks, and by engaging the nuclear-armed States. The CTBT should be a priority for all as its effective monitoring system was universally acknowledged, and its entry into force was needed now more than ever. The next step was a fissile material ban, which would also contribute to the NPT’s implementation. Nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon States alike should work together on an incremental approach and reliable verification and monitoring system to alleviate tensions and build trust.
HEIDAR ALI BALOUJI (Iran), noting that nuclear disarmament had been on the international agenda since 1946, said that nuclear-weapon States still maintained their nuclear arsenals, with the United States and the United Kingdom topping the list. While all nuclear-weapon States were actively modernizing their arsenals and delivery systems, none were engaged in disarmament negotiations, all explicitly or implicitly justifying that inaction by the doctrine of “nuclear deterrence”. The nuclear-weapon States and the so-called “umbrella States” should be held responsible by upholding their obligations and developing a time-bound, updated disarmament action plan. The Middle East faced a serious impediment, he said, adding that, with the support of the United States, the Israeli regime not only defied international calls to accede to the NPT, despite its clandestine nuclear arsenal, but it also refused to join regional countries in the elaboration of a treaty establishing the Middle East zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons, in the possession of that aggressor, occupier, apartheid regime, and violator of international law, was increasingly harrowing. That regime consistently threatened other countries with nuclear annihilation. He rejected all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, so it served no purpose to reiterate that Iran should not develop them. His country knew their use was a violation of international law and a crime against humanity.
NAZIM KHALDI (Algeria), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, African Group and Arab Group, said nuclear disarmament was not only a legal obligation, as declared by the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice in 1996, but also an ethical imperative. He was concerned about the lack of progress, despite the unrelenting efforts of the majority of Member States towards ridding the world of those weapons. He urged all parties outside the NPT to join it without delay or conditions and called on nuclear-weapon States to fulfil their obligations under its article VI, as well as to engage meaningfully in the Treaty’s next review cycle. He welcomed the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Turning to the CTBT, he called on the remaining eight Annex II countries to sign and ratify it without delay. Algeria reaffirmed support for the establishment of nuclear‑weapon-free zones around the world and underscores the importance of a zone in the Middle East free of nuclear and other mass destruction weapons. He advocated for a legally binding and irrevocable instrument on negative security assurances for all non-nuclear-weapon States, as well as the negotiation and conclusion of a non-discriminatory, multilateral and verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.
AIDAN LIDDLE (United Kingdom) said that, since the end of the cold war, the United Kingdom had halved its stockpile of nuclear weapons and was the only nuclear-weapon State to have reduce its deterrent capability to a single delivery system. The Russian Federation's unprovoked and illegal war in Ukraine, and its deeply irresponsible nuclear rhetoric, cast a dark shadow over international disarmament negotiations. He remained deeply concerned about the proliferation activities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iran. The United Kingdom considered reducing strategic risks as one of its foremost responsibilities. Alongside France and the United States, the country produced a working paper for the NPT Review Conference on the principles and responsible practices for nuclear weapon States, which set out the ways in which those Governments were working to implement the statement on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races, published by the leaders of the nuclear-weapon States in January. The United Kingdom was leading serious work on transparency, verification and irreversibility, the three principles that underpinned the collective work on disarmament. He reaffirmed his country’s existing national security assurances regarding the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon NPT States parties. In the face of a grave international security situation, it was more important than ever to strengthen the NPT as a fundamental pillar of international security.
BOŠTJAN MALOVRH (Slovenia), aligning with European Union, condemned the Russian Federation’s unprovoked and unjustifiable war against Ukraine. The nuclear-weapon threats were dangerous, irresponsible and unacceptable, and went against the January Declaration. While consensus had not been achieved at the tenth NPT Review Conference, the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons remained the final objective. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s ballistic missile launches were not conducive for peace and stability in that region. Aligned with the Stockholm initiative, he stressed the importance of reducing the nuclear risk. He called for maximize transparency of nuclear arsenals and for nuclear-weapon States to take practical measures to reduce their arsenals and show nuclear restraint at the highest political level. In that regard, he welcomed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty extension and the CTBT’s ratification’s progress.
SARMAD AL-TAIE (Iraq), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab Group, emphasized the need to prioritize nuclear disarmament until the final objective of the elimination of those was achieved. Noting that there have been imbalances in the NPT’s implementation over the past 50 years, he said that nuclear-weapon States had not shouldered their disarmament commitments and had instead pressed on with their military doctrines and developed new types of weapons. He was disappointed at the failure of the last two NPT Review Conferences, and welcomed efforts to create a working group ahead of the next one. Regarding the 1995 resolution on the Middle East, of which Iraq was a co-sponsor, he called for its accelerated implementation, including in line with 2010 NPT action plan and the support of the international community in that pursuit. There was no way, however, to implement the resolution without Israel’s adherence as a non-nuclear-weapon party, by allowing its nuclear facilities to be submitted to scrutiny. Against the backdrop of rising regional and international tensions, the CTBT was of increasing importance, and he urged its entry into force and its ratification by those States that had not yet done so.
PAHALA RALLAGE SANATHANA SUGEESHWARA GUNARATNA (Sri Lanka), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the world was a place of “nuclear giants and ethical infants”. In this Committee, it was repeated ad nauseum that nuclear weapons were the most destructive, non-discriminatory and inhumane weapons ever invented. Nuclear-weapon States must comply with their legal obligations and eliminate their nuclear weapons as, unfortunately, they were in breach of the NPT and had imperilled the world’s existence. Universal, unconditional, non-discriminatory and legally binding instruments on negative security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States were crucial, pending those weapons’ total elimination. Citing author Arundhati Roy, he said that it was a supreme folly to believe that nuclear weapons were deadly only if used. Their existence would wreak more havoc than the world could begin to fathom. “They bury themselves like meat hooks deep in the base of our brains. They are purveyors of madness. They are the ultimate colonizer.” Their elimination, therefore, was a sine qua non. He welcomed the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones and hoped for one in the Middle East. Non-proliferation policies should not inhibit States’ inalienable right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. He valued cooperation with IAEA, but the primary responsibility for nuclear security lay with individual States. Results-oriented multilateral engagement would remove the constant threat to survival.
RUTH HILL (Australia) said that President Vladimir V. Putin’s nuclear threats underlined the danger of those weapons as the urgent need for progress on nuclear disarmament. While not a substitute for disarmament, risk reduction initiatives could contribute to security and assist in creating conditions conducive to progress. Transparency regarding nuclear weapons remained a core objective. She also urged States participating in the Conference on Disarmament to begin negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. An immediate step would be a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices. That would be a vital unilateral contribution towards global disarmament. Confidence-building and credible verification measures were necessary steps to ridding the world of nuclear weapons. She condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s destabilising development of its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and urged it not to resume nuclear testing. She also remained deeply concerned by Iran’s NPT safeguards issues.
ALBERTO MIRANDA DE LA PEÑA (Spain), aligning with the European Union, said the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime was facing a crisis, and he condemned the Russian Federation’s unjustified use of nuclear rhetoric in the context of its aggression against Ukraine. That was a “huge step backwards” and a setback for international peace and security. He also regretted the Russian Federation’s blocking of the outcome document — acceptable to other delegations — at the tenth NPT Review Conference. That had exposed the fragility of the non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. He called on all nuclear-weapon States to comply with their commitments under the Treaty’s article VI. Initiatives such as the Stockholm Declaration, of which Spain was a part, were valuable towards reaching consensus on concrete and progressive disarmament measures. He underscores the importance of starting negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament for a fissile‑material ban, and called for a moratorium in the meantime. He called on all CTBT Annex II States to ratify the text to enable its entry into force, and meanwhile, to maintain the testing moratorium. He supported the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and urged Iran to comply with its commitments. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must halt its missile tests and move towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
JAMIE WALSH (Ireland), associating with the European Union, condemned the Russian Federation’s repeated nuclear threats and said that its military forces’ reckless acts were cause for concern. He reiterated his support for IAEA and regretted that States had failed to agree on an outcome at the last NPT review, solely due to the Russian Federation’s decision to block consensus. There was no question that all NPT obligations were valuable and should be honoured. Ireland was preparing for the next review cycle and focused on accountability, gender, and humanitarian consequences. He voiced support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the Vienna Declaration, and the CTBT, calling on the remaining Annex II States to ratify it and on all States to abide by a testing moratorium until its entry into force. Nuclear-weapon-free zones enhanced regional peace and security, he said, underlining his support for the establishment of such a zone in the Middle East. He commended the role of IAEA, its comprehensive safeguards, and export control regulations. In addition, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was the only way path to confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must return to NPT compliance as well as sign the CTBT. Ireland supported a gender perspective in disarmament processes, noting the disproportionate impact of ionizing radiation. In closing, he said the world must recognize that nuclear weapons did not create safety or security.
JAROSLAV ŠTĚPÁNEK (Czech Republic) condemned in the strongest possible terms the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The Russian nuclear rhetoric was irresponsible and deplorable. He firmly believed in multilateralism and international cooperation, and in returning to the full respect of the Charter, as well as strengthening the rules-based international order. He vigorously supported a balanced approach to all three pillars of the NPT. He fully supported Ukraine’s independence, unity, and territorial sovereignty within its internationally recognised borders, as well as its full sovereignty over its nuclear facilities. With deep concern, he observed the lack of substantive cooperation from Iran to support IAEA efforts during the past two years to clarify the outstanding issues related to the correctness and completeness of its safeguards declarations. He urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to return to the NPT and submit its nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards. Accelerated progress in the development of dual-capable missiles by several countries, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea among others, was alarming. Both quantitative missile capabilities and their qualitative improvement required intensive efforts by proliferators to procure high-end materials, technologies and the knowledge needed for the domestic research, development and production capacities. He valued the role of export control regimes, the Nuclear Security Summit and its follow-up, as well as other relevant international security initiatives, and reiterated that there was no evidence that the existing counter-proliferation measures would limit access to peaceful uses. He added that China’s role as a responsible stakeholder was crucial for the effectiveness of the global system of strategic arms control.
ANUPAM RAY (India) said that his country, as a responsible nuclear-weapon State, had a policy of maintaining a credible minimum deterrence with a no-first use posture and non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States. Nuclear disarmament must be universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable and could be achieved in a time-bound manner via a step-by-step process underwritten by a universal commitment and an agreed multilateral framework. One of India’s resolutions requests the Conference on Disarmament, the sole multilateral negotiating forum in that field, to commence negotiations on a comprehensive convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Such a multilateral, universal and legally binding agreement would generate necessary political will among State possessors to engage in negotiations leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. India's resolution on reducing nuclear danger drew global attention to the hair-trigger alert of nuclear weapons and called for steps to reduce the risk of their unintentional or accidental use, including through de-alerting and de-targeting. He reiterated that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, negotiated outside the Conference, in no way constituted or contributed to the development of any customary international law. He also sought the start, in the Conference, of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices.
Right of Reply
The representative of the Russian Federation, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, rejected all unfounded accusations regarding the Zaporizhzhia power plant. After the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson referenda, those regions entered the Russian Federation as newly constituted entities, in full compliance with the Charter, which stipulated the people’s right to self-determination. The Russian Federation’s jurisdiction spread out to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. That reality did not remove the issue of Ukraine’s shelling of the plant and its unacceptable attacks against it since July, which posed the risk of accidents with radioactive materials. The indiscriminate artillery shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces would be impossible without the military and political support of Western countries, which gave Ukraine a sense of impunity and provoked it to continue ever-more risky undertakings. The United States and Western countries had not undertaken efforts to put “Zelenskyy’s regime” in its place, which was playing with its own citizens and all Europeans’ lives.
He said that the Russian Federation did its utmost to ensure the IAEA mission at the power plant, despite provocations by Kyiv. The IAEA Director General had proposed an initiative for a protective zone around the Zaporizhzhia power plant, which the Russian Federation supported in principle. However, there was a need to agree on the zone’s parameters. Regardless of the talks’ outcome, attacks should be stopped completely. He sought the demilitarization of the power plant, which would limit terrorist acts, and conditions for precluding a counter-offensive by the Ukrainian army. The power plant could not be unguarded for even a minute, which was why his country would continue to protect it. The meeting between Russian Federation’s President Vladimir Putin and the IAEA Director General focused, in part, on the power plant. The Russian Federation’s work with IAEA would continue.
The representative of the United States, also speaking in exercise of its right of reply, said that the statements of the Russian Federation required a response to set the record straight. The Russian Federation blamed everyone but itself for the atrocities. It was the Russian Federation that chose to further invade Ukraine in February, which had provoked the worst instability in Europe since the Second World War and created a global economic and food crisis. The international community would hold the Russian Federation accountable. The United States continued its steadfast support for the rules-based international order and for reducing the suffering of Ukraine and all other States resulting from the Russian Federation’s behaviour.
The speaker said that pursuit of the New START Treaty required a willing partner operating in good faith, but that was now being tested by President Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine. The United States had suspended the Strategic Stability Dialogue with the Russian Federation, because of its actions. During the last meeting on 10 January in Geneva, its officials said they would not invade Ukraine. “Those officials lied to us.” At this rate, he could not say when it would be appropriate to resume. The Russian Federation had a choice between diplomacy and war. It had chosen war.
Responding to South Africa, he said that the United States had released details regarding its nuclear warhead stockpiles at last year’s Committee. Responding to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he said that that country had made a mockery of the international rules-based order, with the Russian Federation and China preventing any effort to hold it responsible. He condemned the missile firing over Japan as a clear violation of multiple Council resolutions and a demonstration of that country’s unlawful threat to its neighbours and the region. He urged it to refrain from further escalation and engage in sustained dialogue. The United States was prepared to do that. In addition, naval nuclear propulsions were not prohibited under the NPT. The United States took its non-proliferation obligations seriously and rejected all insinuations to the contrary.
The representative of Japan objected to the remarks made by the delegate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea concerning the discharge of treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, adding that his country had been engaged in discussions on a scientific basis at appropriate fora, including IAEA. The Tokyo Electric Power Company had ensured that the release of water was done with a minimal impact on human health and the environment, and assessed through internationally recognized scientific methods, which had shown the levels of radioactivity would be very small. An IAEA review by was ongoing, he said, adding that Japan had been explaining the process to the international community in a transparent matter, based on scientific evidence.
The representative of Iran said he wished to clarify assertions made with respect to “the so-called use of Iranian drones in Ukraine”. He recalled his country’s unwavering position since the start of the crisis to call on all Member States to adhere to the United Nations Charter and engage meaningfully towards a peaceful settlement of the dispute. He called for objectivity and impartiality. He rejected unfounded claims by Germany that his country was selling unmanned aerial vehicles, adding that such assertions constituted propaganda from certain States to further their agenda. Iran stood ready to engage with technical and expert cooperation to clarify the unfounded accusations against them. He went on to underscore that Iran’s missile programme represent the boosting of its homegrown capability under its international commitments. Iran respects the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, he continued, adding that the additional protocol is a voluntary instrument.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea categorically rejected the provocative statements of the United States, as it desperately tried to distort the nature of the issue on the Korean Peninsula. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had never recognized and would never accept United Nations resolutions as they were a fall-out of the United States’ hostile policy towards his country. The United States sought to disarm his dignified republic and was desperate to spread disinformation aimed at demonizing his Government, saying that its self-defensive capabilities posed a threat to global peace and security in the region. The goal of the United States was to overthrow his Government and pressure it to disarm and give up its right to self-defence. The United States was resorting to nuclear threats and blackmail against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, unprecedented in scale, scope and method.
He warned again that the United States and Republic of Korea’s joint military drills were a vivid expression of a hostility against the Korean Peninsula. Those exercises had been staged without interruption in the past, even when the climate and improved relations and detente had been created on the Peninsula. The United States’ chief executive, in his visit to the Republic of Korea this year, discussed, among others, scaling up the joint military exercises. That showed how persistent the United States was to start military exercises against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The United States was triumphant about negotiations, but he had nothing to talk about, nor had he felt the need to do so. There would never be such a thing as abandonment of nuclear weapons or demilitarizing first, nor would there be negotiations or a bargaining chip in the process. His country had a right to self-defence, clearly stipulated in the Charter and international law, to arm itself with self-defensive means to counter the United States’ heinous hostility, which inflicted indescribable misfortunes and pains upon his people and constantly posed nuclear threats and blackmail. If the current United States’ Administration sought to address the Korean Peninsula issue by relying on the anachronistic methods of calculation, the result would remain unchanged.
In addition, he said, Japan must hold the decision to discharge nuclear contaminated water in the ocean, which would have an immense negative impact on life, security and safety of the people in the region.
The representative of the Republic of Korea rejected the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s claims on nuclear issues. Any attempt to justify its possession and potential use of those weapons, including the adoption of the nuclear forces law, would not be recognized by the international community. Outlining the brief history of the three decades-long nuclear issue, he said there was a clear distorted cause and effect. It surfaced in early 1990s, right after two country’s joint statement on the Korean Peninsula’s denuclearization. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea avoided IAEA inspection, but demanded a suspension of the joint military exercises, which his country did. When confronted with the truth, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea threatened to withdraw from the NPT in 1993. In a 1994 agreement, that country had pledged not to develop nuclear weapons in return for compensations and improved relations, notably with the United States. The deal was broken when the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea secretly carried out enriched‑uranium activities. There was another crisis in 2002, after which ore talks ensued. A hard-won agreement in 2005 had a huge compensatory package. The following year, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea conducted its first nuclear weapon test. After renegotiations, an agreement was reached in February 2007. In 2009, a new nuclear test came, and in 2012, a new agreement was reached, but a few days later, a new ballistic missile under the guise of a satellite launch, was fired.
Nuclear tests and ballistic‑missile launches did not stop. As stated by the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea during the general debate, his country had stopped joint military exercises for a few years. Now, there were only unprecedented missile launches. Over time, with every agreement came numerous incentives, like food and heavy fuel oil, but that went nowhere. If a country that had started a war and invaded the Republic of Korea continuously cheated and broke agreements, and projected its hostile intentions via acts and words, then a defensive and measured response was inevitable to cope with the threats in accordance with the inherent right to self-defence. That was not the cause, but the effect. If the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea invoked the right to self-defence in Article 51, his country would like to invoke Article 25 of the Charter, which emphasized that all United Nations Member States accept and carry out the decision of United Nations resolutions. That was the double standard. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear and ballistic‑missile programmes were unlawful and a serious threat to peace and stability in the region and beyond. He strongly urged it to stop provocations, return to denuclearization talks and remain open to dialogue.
The representative of Ukraine rejected all allegations by the Russian Federation regarding shelling in connection with the Zaporizhzhia power plant. Only one country was fully responsible for actions against the plant, and those posed unprecedented nuclear risks to Ukraine and beyond. The Russian Federation seized and occupied it and had been shelling it. Military forces were constantly present at the station, and on 6 October 2022, undertook an illegal attempt to seize operational control of the plant, he said, condemning the threat to nuclear safety. He called on the Russian Federation to ensure the safety of Ukrainian citizens responsible for the critical function of the plant. Efforts were being made for the plant to return to Ukrainian control. Dialogue was ongoing with IAEA on ways to ensure nuclear safeguards were in place in Ukraine.
The representative of Japan, speaking a second time on the issue raised by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on treated water, said that Japan would continue to explain to the international community the efforts it was undertaking, and would discuss the matter in detail based on scientific evidence at appropriate international fora.
The representative of the Russian Federation said he categorically rejected the accusations by the United States and Ukraine accusations against his country. Regarding the United States’ insinuations, he had had laid out in detail last week his country’s approach to the special military operation in Ukraine. The Russian Federation protected the residents of the Donbass, in accordance with the Charter’s Article 51. That was only after the Kyiv regime, with the approval of its Western sponsors, publicly buried the Minsk process. Then, because the efforts to use force against the Luhansk and Donetsk people’s republics became apparent, it was unavoidable. Some activities would imperil the Russian Federation’s security. That was the idea underpinning the special military operation. His country had also uncovered documents of Ukraine’s general staff.
Regarding the shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, he said that commenting on that would be strange, because it was fully at odds with common sense and general logic, especially now, as it had become property of the Russian Federation. According to Ukraine’s delegate, the Russian Federation was shelling itself, shelling its own site. Regarding weapons on the territory of the power plant, he advised the Committee to look at the information of IAEA observers on the territory. They had not confirmed those allegations and had been given all assistance needed from the Russian Federation’s specialized agencies so they could fully carry out their tasks. For example, they had been given full access to all rooms and areas on the territory of the nuclear power plant.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in right of reply, totally rejected the “absurd logic” of the Republic of Korea. Historically speaking, the denuclearization process was destroyed owing to the hostile policy, nuclear threats and blackmail by the United States. That hostility had compelled his country to take an inevitable choice. As long as the hostilities persisted, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear deterrence force would never stop. However hard the Republic of Korea tried, it could not hide the aggressive nature of the joint military exercises. Its current conservative Government resorted to an extremely ferocious and confrontational policy against its fellow countrymen and to “acts of flankism”. The new Government of the Republic of Korea had designated the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Government and army as “arch enemy” and had resorted to all sorts of evil and inappropriate acts. The Republic of Korea was growing more frantic in developing weapons and strengthening its defence industry in a desperate effort to shore up its military inferiority to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He was closely watching all its military actions with the United States. If the Republic of Korea continued to commit acts such as taking issue with his country’s exercise of its right to self-defence and aggravating military tensions, while threatening its security, it would inevitably pay a high price for it.