(Main Committee III followed by 11th Plenary meeting) Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, the seventh meeting of main Committee three of the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is called to order.
Excellency, distinguished delegates.
This morning, we will continue to hear delegations reactions to the revised draft outcome document, particularly on the paragraphs assigned to this main committee.
As this is the last meeting of main Committee three, the committee will also need to adopt its draft procedural report.
To enable the most efficient use of our time, I suggest that we first proceed to adopt the draft procedural report before moving to delegations views on the revised draft outcome document.
I trust that this approach is acceptable.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Yesterday, the Secretariat circulated the draft report of main Committee three bearing the symbol NPT slash dot 2026 slash mc dot Roman slash CRP dot, which contains the procedural elements of the committee's work.
As delegations are aware, the Secretariat continues to receive working papers and national reports from delegations.
The list of documents contained in paragraph four are as of yesterday and will be factually updated at a later stage by the Secretariat to reflect all documents that were submitted prior to the end of this review conference.
If there are no objections, the draft report of Main Committee three outlining the procedural work of the committee will be circulated as an official document of the review conference.
I see no objections.
It is so decided.
Distinguished delegates, we will now continue our work to discuss and negotiate the relevant elements of the revised draft outcome document.
I look forward to your reactions on the elements of the text related to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the right of withdrawal from the treaty, and the strengthened review process.
Before opening the door, the floor, I would like to remind delegations that in addition to the discussions in the main committee, delegations are encouraged to send written comments on the draft to NPT at un.org.
Emails sent to this address should clearly state in the subject line that the email contains written documents on zero draft outcome document.
I guess it's the revision one draft outcome document and identify which main committee subject matters it refers to.
Please also allow me to remind you of some guidelines for the conduct of our deliberations.
As usual, there will be a strict time limit of 8 minutes for group statements and 5 minutes for national statements.
There will be a timer shown on the screen.
Your microphone will start to blink when there is 1 minute remaining, and it will be cut off once the time limit has been reached.
Finally, delegations are requested to kindly inform the Secretariat as soon as possible if they wish to exercise their right of reply.
Rights of reply will be heard at the end of the meeting today.
Those allegations that wish to take the floor are requested to press the button in front of you.
The first speaker I have on my list is the distinguished representative of Indonesia.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I'll speak on behalf of the non aligned movement.
But nevertheless, as the draft or statement prepared before the revisions of the SB three draft on the SRP, we would like to indulge the statement concerning part on the SB three prepared to reply to the first revisions of the draft of outcome documents.
Mr.
Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the group of the non allied states parties to the NPT.
We congratulate you and your team and the Secretariat for the efficient and proficsal manner in which you have steer our work during the 11th NPT conference.
The group attaches great importance to the successful outcome of this review conference.
To this end, the group welcomes the president's effort in preparing the revised draft outcome documents at an early stage for consideration by state parties.
Group is pleased to see that a number of the matters raised in our working papers and statement were considered and reflected in the documents.
The group expresses its strong support to the draft reaffirmation of existing commitments pursuant to the 1995, 202010 outcome documents of the review conference.
Notwithstanding this, we have identified some areas which need to be addressed to further strengthen the draft revised outcome document and ensure effective implementations of the treaty.
Regard, the group would like to share our general actions on matter under the purview of main Committee three and subsidiary B three as follow.
We welcome and support the strong reaffirmation on the inalible rights of all state parties to develop, research, productions, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful proposals without discriminations.
Emphasize that proliferation concerns are best addressed through multilaterally negotiated, universal, comprehensive and nondiscriminatory agreements.
Non proliferation control arrangements should be transparent and open to participation by all states and should ensure that they do not impose restrictions on access to material, equipment, and technology for possible purposes required by developing countries for their continued development.
Furthermore, such arrangement must pursue and implement without exception, the conditions of adherence to IAEA comprehensive safeguards and to the treaty on the non proliferation of nuclear weapons as a condition for supply to or cooperation with states not parties to the treaty.
The groups notes the call in paragraph 21 and 23 to eliminate undue constraints on the exchange of equipment and materials.
The conference must reaffirm that the treaty does not prohibit the transfer of use of nuclear technology, equipment, or material for peaceful proposed on any ground, including on the basis of their sensitivity.
We appreciate the recognition of the importance of the IA Technical cooperations program as reflected in paragraph 32.
We believe that the reference could also stress that IAA technical cooperations program be formulated and implemented in accordance with the IA statute and the agreed guiding principles without additional criteria.
We welcome the revised document reflect the importance of capacity building and upscaling of the peaceful applications of nuclear science and technology.
I elements to address the needs of developing countries and maximize the benefit from technical cooperations, including through ensuring that IAA resources for technical cooperations must be sufficient, assured, and predictable, while ensuring that due priority is accorded to non nuclear weapons tests parties in particular developing countries.
Group notes the change concerning paragraph on any attack or threat of tax nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful proposes.
We call for the conference to take in full the recommendations of the group concerning this issue as reflected in paragraph 87 of the working paper on substantive recommendations which provide a comprehensive and balanced recommendations.
Mr.
Chair, on the strengthening the review process, in general, we maintain our view that the lack of progress in the re conferences is rooted in political factor rather than procedural ones.
This stems from the resistance of nuclear weapon states to advance this armament, including by failure to demonstrate transparency and accountability.
At the same time, the group recognizes that the credibility of the review process depends and against this backdrop, our group would like to share with you on several points.
NAM believes that there is considerable room to reach an agreement regarding these issues.
The group believes that this outcome should be adopted as part of the final outcome documents.
The group believes that the reference in paragraph 19 to the di strands of stakeholder should remain general without delineating any category of people over another in order to avoid becoming overly prescriptive.
Furthermore, in paragraph 92, the group believes that the original language in the zero draft which stated that the conference decides that all nuclear weapon states present their national report will be more appropriate language as opposed to welcoming the commitment by nuclear weapon states to do so.
We therefore wish to return to the original text.
We also wish to remove the latter half of the sentence that referred to ensuring a balanced considerations of all three pillars as we believe that the entire objective of this exercise is to focus on the implementations of Article 6, especially as it is nuclear weapon states which are to submit these reports.
The group also proposes to return to the term strictly in the third line of paragraph 93 before the words voluntary when referring to non nuclear weapon states submitting the report.
The group believes that the focus should remain on the reports by nuclear weapon states which have the sole responsibility of achieving progress toward implementing article.
I thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia for his statement on behalf of the group.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Dibbouti, followed by Turkey.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Mm.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Dibouti aligns itself with the statement made by the African countries group and the non aligned movement that has just been made and in the national capacity, I'd like to add the following.
My delegation reiterates its congratulations to you, to your team, and to the Secretariat, as well as to the interpreters for the way in which the work of this subsidiary body three have continued.
In this regard, we welcome the production of the conference Rev one conference paper, which to a large extent reflects the concerns expressed by states parties under the third pillar of the NPT.
I won't touch on the paragraphs that have already been touched on by the NAM and by the African countries group that we support.
However, we reiterate the need for countries to maintain flexibility with regard to amendments.
They express our commitment to rich outcomes from the work of this conference that we hope will see great success.
We fully support the wholehearted respect for Article 4, as was defined in the NPT in 2015.
Developing countries have commitments towards their people to ensure that they can enjoy all of the scientific and technological benefits offered by nuclear science.
This right cannot be overlooked or underestimated.
No reason can justify restricting access to nuclear energy, which is a legitimate right for all states without discrimination.
Therefore, we appeal for international cooperation to strengthen the financial and technical capacities of developing countries to ensure that they can benefit from access to nuclear energy while also ensuring respect for safety and security rules.
Therefore, we wish to reiterate the importance of strengthening the Technical cooperation Program at the IAEA, which contributes to development in key sectors such as research, healthcare, and others, and to ensure that we uphold the norms of the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
We wish a the 11th NPT Review Conference, great success across all of its pillars and we appeal to the flexibility of all delegations.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
I thank the distinguished representative of Dibbouti for her statement.
The next speaker on Malls is the distinguished representative of Turkey, followed by Belgium.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Turkey appreciates the president's continued efforts to guide the conference towards a consensus outcome.
Although certain progress has been reflected in rev one, there remains room for further improvement in order to achieve a balanced text with greater clarity and broader convergence with a view to reaching consensus.
Mr.
Chair, first, we positively note the strengthened language on the IAA's indispensable role in the implementation of the treaty.
With regard to paragraph 93, we support retaining the language strictly voluntary basis as the primary responsibility for transparency and accountability rests with the nuclear weapon states.
As for non nuclear weapon states, the issue is not voluntary reporting itself.
Turkey is already among the non nuclear weapon states that submits its national reports regularly.
Rather, the concern lies in the approach taken in the ongoing discussions, particularly the attempt to place certain categories of non nuclear weapon states at the center of attention, including in the context of interactive dialogue.
Unfortunately, this approach diverts attention from the substantive issues under consideration.
The priority should remain on ensuring the reporting by nuclear weapon states, particularly in view of Article 6 obligations.
We will also continue to follow closely the discussions within the established open ended working group, particularly on reporting, interactive dialogue, and the logistical aspects of enhancing the effectiveness of the strengthened review process.
Turkey remains committed to engaging constructively throughout the negotiations with the aim of adopting a meaningful consensus based outcome document.
I thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I thank the distinguished representative of Türkiye for his statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Belgium, followed by Zimbabwe.
You have the floor, Ex Minister.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Please allow me to convey our thanks to you and the president for the tireless efforts in trying to reach a consensus.
We appreciate the general direction the text is taking under this committee.
We would like, however, to stress the four following points.
First, with regards to nuclear treat, there are presently two paragraphs dealing with this topic and mentioning undue constraints.
Paragraph 21 and 23.
Similar to the suggestion of the delegation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands yesterday, in our view, one reference would suffice, the other may be removed.
Second, the language on Zapper regional nuclear power plan still needs better contextualization.
This is an issue that we stress for the draft and that remains in the ref one.
The text should reflect the unique responsibility of Russia for its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine and the illegal seizure of the Z NPP.
We would also stress the importance to see the need to actively uphold international law and IAEA seven pillars better reflected in the text.
Third, Belgium also supports the inclusion of language on the promotion of the equal participation and leadership of women and men.
Finally, Belgium welcomes also the current consultations organized on strengthening the review process.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Belgium for her statement.
The next speaker or Malis is the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe, followed by Lithuania.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Chair.
Zimbabwe extends its appreciation to President Vt and the Bureau for the leadership and efficient manner you are handling our work during this review conference.
We appreciate the timely circulation of the draft outcome document, which we view as a good basis for a consensus outcome.
My delegation wishes to reiterate that the treaty cannot afford a third consecutive review conference without a substantive outcome.
The word credibility has not appeared in the outcomes of 1995, 2000 and 2010 RevC outcome documents, but it appears four times in the 2026 review.
Rev one draft outcome.
This should indeed be a moment of introspection.
The global nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation regime rests on the success of negotiations in the coming seven days.
Mr.
Chair, we are pleased with the overall direction of the paragraphs under consideration by main Committee three.
On paragraph 27, Zimbabwe welcomes the citation of non power applications, that is health, food, agriculture, water, the environment, industry, and radiation technology.
On paragraph 28, we welcome the addition of nuclear knowledge sharing.
Transfer of technology and training of a skilled workforce.
These additions should add momentum for the measurable implementation of actions 49 50, 51, 55, and 56 of the 2010 action plan.
We also urge that paragraphs related to strengthening the review process should provide for measures to account for, track and ensure the full and balanced implementation of the treaty across its three pillars.
Mr.
Chair, we conclude by highlighting that as the draft outcome document approaches finalization, there is need for action oriented language.
Specific, measurable, time bound targets in a manner that permits tracking progress with the implementation of all commitments and agreements.
I thank you, Chair.
I thank the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe for his statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Lithuania, followed by South Africa.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Yesterday, Lithuania already presented comments on several paragraphs under Committee three.
Those comments still stand, so I will not repeat them.
Today, we would like to focus specifically on the paragraphs related to strengthening the review process.
We will also submit our detailed written comments in due course.
Mr.
Chairman, Lithuania strongly supports efforts to make the review process more effective and efficient, including through strict time management and ensuring minimal duplication.
We remain open to discussing any other proposals in this spirit and would support strengthening this section of the text.
Mr.
Chairman, Lithuania believes that paragraphs throughout the text concerning reporting, including some under other main committees, must remain clear, precise, and strictly anchored in the treaty and its core obligations.
In the text, there should be clear distinction between the reporting obligations of nuclear weapon states and non nuclear weapon states, which are the only two categories of states under the treaty.
Any further discussion should be anchored in this understanding.
In some paragraphs, we see risk imposing greater reporting burden on non nuclear weapon states than the NPT establish and potentially even more than those placed on nuclear weapon states, which we cannot support.
We'll propose a specific language on this.
Mr.
Chair, we see the ultimate goal of this exercise as institutionalizing nuclear weapon states reporting and interactive dialogue, which is already done by some nuclear weapon states, namely France, the United Kingdom, and United States.
In this context, we would also like to commend South Africa and Switzerland for their work as co facilitators of consultations on enhancing the effectiveness of the strengthening review process.
Lithuania stands ready to work constructively on these issues.
I thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I thank the distinguished Representative of Lithuania for her statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of South Africa, followed by Norway.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor.
My remarks are aligned to the NAM intervention delivered by the Distinguished delegation of Indonesia.
As previously stated, we are grateful to the president and his team for the timely circulation of the revised draft text.
We believe that the revised text provides a good basis to move forward.
South Africa places great importance to a balanced approach and implementation of all three pillars of the treaty as they are interrelated and mutually reinforcing.
My delegation would like to offer the following observations on the text.
We welcome the text in paragraph 22 and also concur with the proposal by the distinguished delegation of Brazil that was made yesterday regarding the placement of fuel cycle policies in the paragraph.
My delegation wishes to also underscore the importance of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the inelieable right of all states parties to have access to nuclear energy, science and technology for peaceful purposes and would support the realization of the national development goals and attainment of the sustainable development goals.
In this regard, we also welcome and support the language in paragraph 25.
We further welcome language in paragraphs 26, 27, and 31.
Chair, on paragraph 38 regarding nuclear safety and security, we concur also with the proposal made by Brazil that nuclear safety and security is the sole responsibility of that state.
On paragraph 41, it is South Africa's view that the conference must adopt language expressing clear and unambiguous norms prohibiting any attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities.
My delegation would like to thank you for your stewardship of main Committee three and assure you of South Africa's support and constructive engagement in the process moving forward.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa for her statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Norway, followed by Australia.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Chair.
We welcome the efforts of you and your team in bringing us closer to consensus.
Given the important role of the IA, including under this pillar and the role of export control regimes in enabling access to peaceful nuclear technology, I would like to start there at the intersection between MC two and MC three.
We welcome the strong language on the IAA in Reg one and encouraged that the agency's independence is also clearly reflected, including in the preambler section.
On OP 16 and OP 33, we stress the importance of an adequately resourced IEA in line with its growing responsibilities and support to retain the language in OP 16 and OP 33.
On OP 20 and 21, export control regimes enable peaceful uses and should not be portrayed as constraints.
While OP 20 has improved, we suggest further strengthening and recommend removing the final clause of OP 21, which says and to eliminate in disregard any undue constraints inconsistent with the treaty.
On OP 23, we see no clear justification for the final clause of the final sentence and suggest its deletion.
OP 26 and 27, we support the references to facilitating the transition to a low emission economy, as well as the emphasis on the involvement of non governmental organizations, research, and academic communities, which we consider important.
On OP 31 and OP 90 on women agender, we note inclusion on a dedicated paragraph on women.
While positive, the language remains far from sufficient.
Stronger and more explicit references to gender perspective should be included.
On OP 35, minimization of highly enriched uranium is a longstanding objective in the NPT context.
During the 11th review cycle, significant international progress had been made on HEU minimization, including through an international symposium and outflow, the outcomes of which are reflected in working paper 36.
Norway believes that the conference should recognize these efforts and encourage states on a voluntary basis and where feasible to further minimize civil in HEU stocks and use, including through experience sharing, transparency, and regular updates.
Lastly, we note the clear absence of language addressing the serious safeguards challenges in Ukraine stemming from Russia's war aggression and occupation, including at Sparta.
The text should reflect the implications for IAA access, verification, and responsibility.
Thank you, Chair.
I thank the distinguished representative of Norway for her statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Australia, followed by Cameroon.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Chair.
We made substantive comments yesterday, and I would like to add one point with regards to paragraph 41.
We assess this paragraph could be strengthened by laying out the existing applicable legal frameworks, in particular, international humanitarian law and the UN charter.
We support the specific proposal made by the UK and several other states in yesterday's session.
I thank the distinguished representative of Australia for his statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Cameroon, followed by Republic of Korea.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr.
Chairman, my delegation would like to at the outset, to pay homage to your efforts and those of the president of the conference so as to ensure respect for the diversity of views expressed by the nuclear weapons states.
We welcome the exemplary weigh the very deft way in which you've steered the work of the third main committee to date against the backdrop whereby where all sorts of challenges and setbacks could have shaken our collective resolve, we have in fact submitted our comments in writing, but we would like to give you a brief outline orally today.
Mr.
Chairman, we welcome on the whole, the revised outcome documents submitted for our consideration.
We welcome the tangible progress that's been made on the text, in particular, the enhanced provisions it now contains.
Regarding nuclear technology facilitation and transfer, capacity building on training.
This is a remarkable step forward for the non nuclear weapons states who are now seeing the legitimate right to access to civilian civil applications of nuclear energy under non discriminatory conditions become a reality.
Developing countries have been submitting their national reports and this work will be facilitated thereby contributing to our common objectives.
Nonetheless, Mr.
Chairman, we cannot but speak about some of the rollback In the document which might undermine the balance achieved in the document, a hard won balance.
First, transparency, which nuclear states the transparency they have to exhibit when fulfilling their obligations.
These states should be committed to genuine accountability.
This revised version commended the voluntary measures Basically, meaning that this measure is devoid of meaning.
This needs to be binding or at least we need a clear and ambiguous request for the nucle states to do so to avoid undermining our work regarding civil nuclear facilities.
We see this version as being much weaker than the initial version.
All of the states with civilian nuclear power and those states who legitimately hope to harness that power so as to achieve sustainable development, the legal security of such infrastructure is a necessary precondition, it's non negotiable.
Stronger language, explicitly recalling the obligations stemming from international law should be included.
Third, We have some very promising initiatives as regards the peaceful applications of nuclear energy.
However, in the revised text, these advances are simply taken note of.
There's no value judgment.
A more positive appreciation, more positive welcome would help us to make progress and meet the needs of developing countries.
Mr.
Chairman.
These comments, which you're taking good note of or as you can see, are driven by a constructive spirit.
Our objective being to draft a document which, and we're convinced it's possible, will garner the support of all member states.
My delegation hopes that our exchanges will result in language that is acceptable to all without sacrificing our ambition, but locking in what's been achieved.
My delegation hopes that today's discussion and work that will take place in future will allow us to come up with a robust, ambitious, and very much a forward looking text.
I thank you.
Yeah.
I thank the distinguished Representative of Cameroon for his statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished the representative of Republic of Korea, followed by Singapore.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
We have submitted our comments to Rev one in writing, and here I would like to briefly reiterate our views on several key issues related to this committee.
First, the Republic of Korea firmly supports the inalienable right of all state parties to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under Article 4.
At the same time, we believe that this right should be exercised in full conformity with obligations under Article 1, two, and three.
In this regard, we join other delegations in supporting the retention of the language to the highest levels of safety and security in paragraph 37.
Second, with regard to Article 10, we welcome the retention of paragraph 83, which recalls that state parties remain responsible for any violation of the treaty committed prior to withdrawal.
We strongly believe that retaining this text is important for maintaining confidence in this treaty.
Third, on strengthening the review process, we take note of the parallel consultations led by Switzerland and South Africa.
We appreciate co facilitators efforts and will continue to follow the discussions closely.
At the same time, we reiterate our position that we do not support any attempts to introduce third category, which has no basis in the NPT regime.
We should be mindful that such attempts risk diverting our attention from the core challenges and undermining our efforts to strengthen the review process.
Chair, we look forward to working constructively with all delegations toward consensus.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Republic of Korea for her statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Singapore, followed by Iraq.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Chair, my delegation thanks the APT president for his circulation of the revised draft outcome document.
We recognize that significant effort has gone into preparing this draft, given the diverse views expressed.
Singapore believes that rev one provides a good basis to advance our work as we enter the final week of the conference and to find acceptable landing zones on the points of divergence.
I will make some brief comments on the relevant sections related to this main committee.
First, Singapore welcomes the inclusion of preambular paragraph 14, reaffirming the inalienable right of all states parties to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles one, two, three, and four of the NPT.
Second, we note that paragraph 25 now acknowledges the increasing and important contribution of nuclear science, technology, and applications to achieve sustainable development.
We welcome the inclusion of a reference to the non power applications of nuclear energy in paragraph 27, as well as new references to nuclear knowledge sharing and the training of skilled workforce in paragraph 28.
We support these additions, which we believe strengthens these paragraphs.
Third, Singapore welcomes the retention in paragraph 37 of the reference to the highest levels of safety and security and the strengthening of language in paragraph 40 on the need for the highest levels of safety and security in the deployment of new and emerging nuclear technologies globally.
My delegation strongly believes that the deployment of nuclear energy must be underpinned by the concomitant responsibility to develop a robust nuclear safety and security architecture.
Fourth, Singpore fully supports efforts to strengthen the NPT review process to make it more efficient and effective, including true inclusive, transparent, and constructive dialogue.
We reiterate the importance of the need for practical outcomes to restore confidence in the MPT's implementation.
In this regard, Singapore welcomes the retention in paragraph 88 of the reference to strict time management and for proceedings to be conducted on a ruling basis.
The addition of paragraph 90 is also an important addition as it recognized not only the benefit of the early engagement by office bearers of the review process with states parties, but the value of perspectives brought by a diverse range of stakeholders.
We believe that such efforts will inject much needed momentum as we head into a new review cycle.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Republic of Korea for his statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Iraq, followed by Switzerland.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
At the outset, if I may, I'd like to express our gratitude to you as well as to the president of the Review conference.
Thank you for presenting this document.
It's an excellent starting point.
We endorse the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of the Arab States Group, as well as by on behalf of the NAM against this backdrop, we wish to underscore the strengthened right to access nuclear technology, the facilitation of access to knowledge related to nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes.
As Article 4 of the TMP, Paragraph 23 within the framework needs to be strengthened.
As regards the sovereign decision of states related to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, That should be enshrined as long as it's in keeping with international agreements.
Furthermore, we wish to support what the document says about the contribution to knowledge of nuclear technologies.
In areas such as agriculture and health, we wish to pay tribute to the role played by the IAEA, specifically through the technical cooperation program, the TCP, which supports developing states so that they are in a position to harness nuclear technologies for peaceful uses and this in a safe manner.
We hope that this vital program will be endowed with sufficient resources regarding nuclear facilities.
We need to uphold balanced wording in paragraph 421, guaranteeing the protection of nuclear facilities against any threat of attack or attack.
We should go back to the previous wording, therefore, by way of conclusion.
We'd like to add that the peaceful uses pillar with peaceful uses without any discrimination should be strengthened.
This is necessary for the credibility and the long term nature of the NPT, I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Iraq for her statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Switzerland, followed by China.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Switzerland would like to thank you as well as the president of the conference and both of your teams for this first revised version of the draft outcome document.
Our initial comments regarding the changes that need to be made still stand and we reserve the right to revert to some of the points at a later stage.
Paragraph 41, we're concerned by the deletion of the reference to the UN Charter, as well as the changes made to the wording about international law.
We recall that international law applies under all circumstances at all times.
Its applicability cannot be conditioned on anything, and there can be no reservations thereto.
Switzerland is firmly opposed to the weakening or militarization of international law against this backdrop.
We believe that the reference that was deleted, the reference to international law needs to be reintroduced.
Paris 42 to 44, we wish to repeat that the conference should take a clear stance regarding the seriousness of the situation surrounding the Zapoza nuclear power plant.
Switzerland believes that this nuclear power plant remains Ukrainian.
Still on the protection of civilian nuclear facilities in armed conflict, in particular, the situation as regards safety, security, and safeguards in Ukraine, Switzerland is of the view, as a number of delegations have said, that existing international law grants sufficient protection to civilian nuclear facilities as long as they're respected and upheld.
This also applies to situations of armed conflict.
There is no need to agree on an additional instrument on this issue.
Sticking to this topic, we support keeping the language regarding the seven indispensable pillars of the IEADG as well as the five concrete principles for the safety and security of the ZD NPP.
We call on all states to fully uphold these principles.
Paragraph 28 could be made clearer without changing the actual meaning.
Mr.
Chairman, we will be submitting these comments in writing to your team.
Last but not least, Mr.
Chairman, regarding The review process, strengthening their review process.
We wish to thank all delegations for their kind words, via Switzerland.
As we spearheaded collaboration on this topic, together with South Africa, we were the co facilitators on this topic.
In turn, we wish to thank all delegations for their constructive engagement in our discussions on this topic.
We are going to continue this work so as to achieve an outcome that is as favorable as possible.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland for her statement.
The next speaker on my list is the Distinguished Representative of China, followed by Poland.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Proceed.
Chairman.
Yesterday, China took the floor to express its views on the paragraphs pertaining to strengthen the review process, nuclear safety and security, and IEA peaceful use of nuclear energy initiatives.
Based on yesterday's discussion, we would like to make the following additional observations and suggestions.
First, regarding the preamble, China suggests adding the word development at the end of PP one, so as to objectively capture the important role of the NPT in promoting international cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and advancing the development and progress of human society.
Thereby giving the treaty a more accurate characterization.
China welcomes and supports the Chair's amendment to the text in terms of the newly added PP 14, reaffirming the peaceful use of nuclear energy is an inim of all countries.
This makes the preamble more balanced in promoting the three pillars of the treaty.
This also is a positive response to the call by many developing countries.
Second, regarding the last sentence of paragraph 23, which reads, Call upon all parties to eliminate an improper restriction inconsistent with the treaty.
The rest of the language is quoted from the 2010 Rev com action plan, which is a consensus text.
It is also in line with the aspiration of many countries that is export control cannot and should not undermine the right of peaceful use of nuclear energy.
The relevant elements should be retained.
Third, During the discussion under discussion on whether the highest standards should be adhered to in paragraph 37 paragraph 40 concerning the nuclear safety and security and deploy of nuclear technology, China has taken note of different views presented.
China fully understands the concern of developing countries that some country may use the so called high standards of nuclear safety and security as a means to introduce restrictive measures when undertaking nuclear technology cooperation, thus impacting and interfering with cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
China also believes it is important to ensure the safe and sustainable use of nuclear energy and nuclear technology.
Especially at a time when nuclear energy Renaissance and international cooperation are on the way and gathering momentum, it is in everyone's interests to ensure nuclear safety and security.
In view of the above and considering that there does not seem to be a very clear definition and quantitative standard high standards at the moment, we hope all parties can discuss the appropriate wording in a constructive manner to ensure objectivity.
Fourth, on the issue of strengthening the review process, China's position remains unchanged.
We believe that the interactive discussion should be based on the voluntary principle, At the same time, countries participating in nuclear sharing should also submit a report and take part in the discussions.
We will not repeat our position, which is well known.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
I thank the distinguished representative of China for his statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Poland, followed by Saudi Arabia.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you Chair.
I would like to focus my intervention on paragraphs 43 and 44 which concern Ukraine and the S NPP.
My delegation recalls that no nuclear safety and security concerns were reported from Ukraine before Russia's aggression and its illegal seizure of the S NPP.
Ukraine's nuclear power plant.
I stress Ukraine's as there is no such thing as Russia's nuclear facility in Zapposa.
Russia is solely responsible for having put the safety and security of Ukraine nuclear facilities at grave risk, potentially endangering the population of Ukraine, neighboring states, and beyond.
T, the situation remains extremely serious.
Even today, Director General Grossi released another statement warning that the SPP has been operating for more than seven weeks on only one backup power line after its main 750 kilowatts connection was disconnected on the 24th of March.
Since then, the plant has already experienced three complete losses of off site power.
At the same time, military activity around Ukraine's nuclear facilities has intensified sharply with more than 160 drones recorded near nuclear sites within just 24 hours.
The IAEA teams at several plants were forced to take shelter because of nearby military activity while a fire covering hundreds of hectas broke out in the Chronobyl exclusion zone after a reported drone strike.
Those attacks, new nuclear infrastructure and damage to critical power lines essential for maintaining nuclear safety are significantly increasing the risk of a nuclear accident under current wartime conditions.
Chair, there is nothing about these issues in the text.
There is no context whatsoever, and this is extremely dangerous.
Without the proper regional context, we fall into a trap of implying false conclusions.
We know very well why the NPP is in a dire situation, and by the same token, we understand the whys and wherefore of Ukraine's nuclear and general security concerns.
So, Chair, once again, the text, as it stands now, is devoid of a balanced message and such a situation is unacceptable for our delegation.
Therefore, Poland kindly asks for reflecting the situation in Ukraine in a factual and just manner.
Overall, the final document should accurately reflect the existing international legal framework, including international humanitarian law and the UN Charter and avoid language that could be interpreted as introducing new legal standards, new terminology or definitions, or expanding existing obligations.
References related to the use of nuclear weapons should therefore remain fully consistent with established principles of international humanitarian law and the UN Charter.
Our other comments have been already provided in writing.
Thank you, Chair.
I thank the distinguished representative of Poland for his statement.
The next speaker on my list is the Distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia, followed by the United Kingdom.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Sra.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
If I may, I would like to first extend our heartfelt thanks to you for all of your hard work facilitating our debates as part of this main committee.
I would now like to make the following comments on the paragraphs which fall within the mandate of this committee.
Paragraph 37 first regarding safety and security parameters when developing nuclear energy.
We believe that the 2010 action plan wording is more appropriate to meet our requests.
Therefore, the highest standards of safety and security we believe should be replaced.
And we would suggest the following wording appropriate.
We suggest the word appropriate so that the basis for this is more practical.
All the while we highlight the need to apply safety and security measures fully in keeping with the relevant international obligations.
Moreover, I'd like to add that the proposed wording avoids mentioning absolute parameters.
That's not necessary, but all the while it conserves preserves our common objective that is upholding safety and security in the development of nuclear energy.
Moving on to paragraph 40.
This is the paragraph on the dissemination of emerging new technologies, in particular, modular reactors.
We would like to adopt the wording that we agreed on in the 2010 action plan that would allow for a more practical and more balanced approach to this issue.
It would also help avoid imposing these absolute parameters, thereby allowing us to uphold the agreed nuclear safety and security objectives.
I'd also like to add that we note the reference made of national legal systems and various frameworks governing these technologies.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia for his statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Chair.
Following on from some of the comments made in the room both today and yesterday, I would like to make a few brief points.
The United Kingdom encourages states to continue efforts to minimize highly enriched uranium, HEU, and civilian stocks, including through conversion to low enriched alternatives.
We therefore welcome and echo the emphasis made by Norway on the importance of this issue and to support suggestion to include new text on this matter.
We've listened carefully to statements from a number of delegations regarding nuclear safety and security.
We would like to take this opportunity to underscore the importance of upholding the highest standards as mentioned by the Republic of Korea and Singapore.
Maintaining robust safety and security frameworks is critical to strengthening international confidence in the nuclear sector, especially in light of growing interests from nuclear newcomer states and the development of new technology and reactor designs.
In this context, safety and security should be understood not as barriers, but as essential enablers of peaceful uses of nuclear technology, underpinning public trust and long term sustainability of the industry.
Chair, we note that a number of delegations have suggested reversing paragraph 41 to the language of the zero draft.
However, as we set out on Monday, the zero draft language was not correct as a matter of fact or law, and therefore we cannot accept it.
As we said yesterday, we also have legal and technical reservations on rev one.
We will be submitting written proposals accordingly.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom for his statement.
Are there any other delegations asking for the floor? The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Thailand.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Chair.
Thailand aligns itself with the statement delivered by Indonesia on behalf of the non aligned movement.
We thank the president and his team for the revised draft.
We thank you, Chair for steering our work.
We know some positive developments and some areas where further consultation is needed.
As we approach the final week of the NPT, we encourage all delegations to exercise flexibility and assert the political will to achieve a meaningful consensus outcome.
I would like to highlight our priorities on peaceful uses of nuclear energy before sharing our views on strengthening the review process.
On peaceful uses of nuclear energy, Thailand wishes to underline the central importance of this pillar as one of the foundational elements of the treaty and a key driver for sustainable development.
We therefore welcome the addition of preambbola paragraph 14 reaffirming the inalienable right of all states parties to develop, research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
We also support the language in paragraph 22 to 24, in particular, ensuring that any activities carried out in the pursuit of peaceful uses of nuclear energy are not constrained and are in conformity with all the provisions of the treaty.
On paragraph 25, we believe that the increasing and important contribution of nuclear science and technology and applications to achieve sustainable development should be duly acknowledged.
We also emphasize the importance of IAEA's technical cooperation program, which covers wide range of areas, including non power applications, as reflected in paragraph 29 to 33.
For many states parties, the tangible benefits of nuclear science and technology are realized through the IAEA technical Program, the principal vehicle for translating the peaceful uses of Pillar into concrete outcomes that improve people's lives.
In this regard, Thailand stresses the importance of ensuring sufficient, assured, and predictable resources for the technical cooperation program.
We therefore strongly support the efforts to further mobilize resources and strengthen support directed towards the technical cooperation activities, particularly through broader partnerships and enhanced contributions and cooperation from additional sectors and stakeholders as reflected in paragraph 36.
The same time, Thailand wishes to highlight the importance of an appropriate allocation of the IAA's limited resources.
The increasing demands placed on safeguards implementation and verification activities should not inadvertently constrain resources available for technical cooperation and peaceful use its activities, which remain essential for developing countries.
Chair, Thailand has witnessed firsthand the growing limitations faced by the technical cooperation program due to resource constraints.
We therefore believe that the strengthening support for TC is necessary to ensure that member states can benefit equitably from the peaceful applications of nuclear technology in line with the objectives of Article 4 of the treaty.
Turning now to nuclear safety and security, we welcome the recognition that the responsibility of nuclear safety and security rests with the individual states and the reaffirmation of the central role of the IAEA.
On paragraph 41, we need a clear language that prohibits any attack or threat of attack on nuclear facilities.
We add our voice to the call for retaining the language on international law.
We hope that the relevant delegations can work on the language that is acceptable for all.
On strengthening the review process, we have been engaging actively in the informal consultation, and we appreciate South Africa and Switzerland as the co facilitators and note positive direction of our discussion.
Several of our inputs have been incorporated in the draft ref two, and I wish to share our key priorities as follows.
First, we note the lack of progress on the implementation of Article 6, and we therefore wish to see further elaboration on the modalities in paragraph 92 and 93 to ensure the credibility of the treaty.
Second, we would like to support the proposal to add equal and meaningful participation of women and men.
Third, we support having a clear distinction between the obligations of nuclear weapon zones and nuclear weapon states and non nuclear weapon states.
Thailand remain firmly committed to working constructively with all states parties to arrive at a consensus based outcome.
Thank you, Chair.
I thank the distinguished representative of Thailand for her statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Brazil.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor.
I have made Brazil's remarks on these sections yesterday, but I just want to I Take note with caution of something that has been proposed by Norway and UK in this session and this has to do with proposals aimed at limiting the use of highly enriched uranium for peaceful purposes.
I think this should be approached with due caution.
Under the existing legal framework of the NPT, states parties retain the inelible right to the development and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in conformity with their nonproliferation obligations.
Measures that seek directly or indirectly to constraint access to specific technologies or materials risk introducing new forms of discrimination not envisaged in the treaty and may inadvertently affect the delicate balance among its three pillars.
At the same time, it is fully recognized that the use of HEU entails particular proliferation sensitivities which warrant careful handling through effective safeguards, transparency, and responsible practices.
Balanced approach, one that addresses legitimate nonproliferation concerns while preserving the rights and policy choices of states remains essential to maintaining confidence in the regime.
I thank you, chair.
I thank the distinguished Representative of Brazil for her statement.
The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Russian Federation.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Mr.
Chairman, I took the floor in order to comment the proposal to include provisions regarding the need to minimize the use of HEU.
I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that within the framework of the OCS partnership, which all states have endorsed, those which are promoting the minimization of HEU, Well, then in that case, tens of tons or dozens of tons of HEU would be transferred to some states and they would be used to power nuclear submarines.
That's what would happen.
We don't believe it's advisable to include these calls.
They sound very cynical against the backdrop of what OCS is doing.
I also wanted to exercise my right to reply at a later stage.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Russian Federation for his statement.
The next speaker on Mali is the distinguished representative or Neal.
You have the floor excellent.
Thank you, Chair.
Let me begin by expressing our sincere appreciation to the president and to you chair for the continued steadfast leadership and the commendable contribution to bring out the reg one of the draft outcome document.
As we await official response from our capital, allow me to express some of our preliminary comments.
We welcome the man of the inalienable right of all states parties to the treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination in the preambular para XIV, in addition to paragraph 22 of the draft.
Nepal welcomes the draft strong emphasis on capacity building and equitable access to the peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology.
We also value the focus in paragraph 28 on bridging the nuclear science and technology gap, including through capacity building and south south and triangular cooperation.
Further, in the para, we suggest adding and affordability to further facilitate access.
It will be to further facilitate access and affordability.
We support language reaffirming the IAA's central role in promoting peaceful nuclear applications and sustainable development including through its technical cooperation program, and by enabling safe and effective access to use of and benefits from nuclear science and technology.
Our delegation welcomes the language in paragraph 23 that reaffirms the rights of all states parties to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials, and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, its facilitation thereof, and elimination of any undue constraints inconsistent with the treaty in this regard.
We are of the view that as per the Article 3 of the treaty, states parties to the treaty should not impose restriction or limitation on the transfer of nuclear equipment, material, and technology to states parties with comprehensive safeguards agreements.
We call for retention and strengthening of this pa.
Nepal remains committed to working constructively with all delegations to achieve a balanced, forward looking, and consensus based outcome that strengthens the treaty.
Thank you, Chair.
I thank the distinguished representative of Nepal for his statement.
Are there delegations asking for the floor? The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Indonesia.
You have the floor, Excellency.
Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor.
Just to add what we already have previously delivered during yesterday's meeting, on two points.
First, regarding paragraph 38, we note that the current text still limits the responsibility of safety and security limited to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
We believe that to ensure a truly comprehensive approach to global nuclear risk, we believe this paragraph need to be significantly strengthened by acknowledging reality that vast majority of the world's nuclear material exists outside of peaceful programs.
On paragraph 41, we believe that there should be a distinctions between specific situations concerning attacks against nuclear facilities.
Uh, with the principal aspect of the inviolability attack against attacks against nuclear facilities because we believe I think in other part of the outcome documents, we see a specific reference concerning specific situations on which I think it's difference with the principal, uh, uh, positions that I think this paragraph will be better and will be more benefit in reaffirming the principal positions concerning tax nuclear facilities and on this aspect, we believe that I think the zero draft provide more balanced language than the revised draft of the outcome documents.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia for his statement.
Are there any other delegations asking for the floor That was the last speaker on my list for this session.
Distinguished delegates, one country has requested the floor to exercise its right of reply pursuant to Rule 19 of the rules of procedure.
May I remind delegations that in accordance with Rule 19, such statements shall be as brief as possible.
I urge delegations to limit their interventions to 5 minutes.
May I also remind delegations that in accordance with established practice, the number of interventions in the exercise of the right of reply for any delegation is limited to two.
Second intervention should be limited to 3 minutes.
I now give the floor to the representative of Russian Federation.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I want to draw everyone's attention to the cynical statements, unacceptable cynical statements delivered by a number of delegations as regards the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and as regards whether certain facilities do or do not belong to the Russian Federation.
I'd like to underscore that there is no Zaporoza nuclear power plant.
There's no Zaporiz PP.
There is a Zaporoza NPP, which belongs to the Russian Federation.
But this has nothing to do with the review conference.
Therefore, we're particularly displeased to hear statements from a number of states who've completely forgotten about the topic at hand, here at the review conference, here at the main Committee, main Committee, who are speaking about one and only one issue.
Once again, this is an issue which bears no relation to the topic of our discussion here.
I believe that by doing this, these states are seeking to prevent us from garnering consensus on an outcome document.
It's particularly cynical what they're saying when taken against the backdrop of ongoing Ukrainian attacks on the Zaporosa NPP just this week.
There was a strike on a school, there was a strike on the operators of the Z NPP, the Zaporosa NPP, and there were casualties, the strikes, used EU and NATO provided technologies using communications devices which were supplied by the EU and NATO as well as using intelligence provided by the EU and NATO.
It's possible that this factor, that this is what we should condemn in the outcome document.
We're going to Have a think about this.
So far, we've exercised restraint.
We've not introduced such wording, we're seeking consensus.
But if there's a group of countries who don't want consensus who aren't interested in consensus, well then perhaps then yes, indeed, we should probably get put together a document condemning the actions of Ukraine and the states which support Ukraine.
I thank you.
This concludes my list of speakers for this meeting.
Distinguished delegates, we have now completed all meetings of the main Committee three.
While there are many paragraphs which appear to enjoy broad support of states parties, there are also some paragraphs that continue to receive divergent views from states parties.
I intend to inform the president of both areas of convergence and divergence in the hope that this may assist him in achieving the consensus outcome that we all seek.
May I take this opportunity to reiterate my appreciation to all delegations for the constructive spirit in which you have engaged in your work.
In our work.
I trust that this positive spirit will continue in the final week of the review conference under the stewardship of the president.
Personally, this has been a rewarding experience.
I might even write my memories about it.
I wish to record my gratitude to Mr.
Artur Balv of Russian Federation and Mr.
Donald Charmbira of Zimbabwe for their dedicated support as vice chairs of Main Committee three.
I also wish to record my gratitude to the Secretariat and my wonderful team members, as well as the interpreters for their support throughout the work of the main Committee three.
The meeting and the plenary will start at 5:30 P.M.
In this conference room.
The meeting is adjourned.
The 11th plenary meeting of the 2026 Review conference of the parties to the Treaty on nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is called to order.
Excellencies, distinguished delegates, we have now concluded the third week of our review conference, and we have concluded the work of the main committees and adopted the reports of the main committees.
I take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to the chairs and vice chairs of the main committees as well as the subsidiary bodies and to all of you delegations for the work throughout these weeks of deliberation.
Also wish to express my appreciation for the constructive manner in which delegations have engaged with the revised draft outcome document, NPT 2026 slash CRP two slash Dv over the course of yesterday and today.
I'm mindful that this revision was only circulated on the evening of Wednesday, the 13th of May and that delegations may have had limited time to study the text and in many cases, to consult with their capitals.
But the quality of the engagement with the text under those circumstances really reflects the commitment of all states parties to this process, and I am very grateful for such commitment.
I have listened carefully to the interventions made in the main committees and to the views shared with me directly in the course of my consultations and I have taken all of these contributions fully into account.
On the basis of that consideration, I intend to circulate a further revision of the outcome document on Sunday evening.
The Secretariat will distribute this text, which will bear the symbol NPT slash co 2026 slash CRP two slash rev two to all delegations ahead of our resumption on Monday morning.
When we convene in the plenary on Monday, the 18th of May, we will work through that revision sequentially, beginning with the preambular paragraphs and proceeding through the operative paragraphs in order.
As we do so, I ask that delegations come prepared with concrete proposals for bridging the gaps that remain.
This is the stage of our work where positions must give way to proposals and where proposals must be directed towards consensus.
I again thank all of you for your continued engagement, and I believe that the days ahead of us will require focused efforts and a genuine readiness to find common ground, and I remain committed to working with all delegations in the remaining days that we have towards that goal.
With that, I would open the floor for any questions or comments that delegations may have.
It seems like the room is ready for the weekend and for the president and the Secretariat to work during the weekend before you receive the text on Sunday evening.
We will resume our work on Monday, the 18th of May at 10:00 A.M.
In this chamber.
Thank you very much and have a good evening.
The meeting is adjourned.