Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

The 13th plenary meeting of the 2026 Review conference of the parties to the Treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is called to order.
This afternoon, we will continue our consideration of the revised draft outcome document, NPT/Conf2026/CRP2/rev2.
I will refrain from repeating the ground rules that we have set for this morning and go straight to inviting delegations to comment on paragraph 12.
Paragraph 12, I invite Australia.
President, with your indulgence, on PP 11, I just wanted to register that Australia is ready to support the original text, and we are ready to look into the language on moratorium, but we think the UK proposal could be a good basis for moving forward.
Thank you, President.
I thank Australia.
I invite comments on paragraph 12.
I recognize the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
On this paragraph, we want to highlight the urgency and importance of compliance by all state parties with their non proliferation as well as disarmament obligations.
This is the element that we think that if we want to address all three pillars equally, there is a room and there is a necessity, in fact, to highlight this effect.
Thank you.
I think the Islamic Republic of Iran, I think you were commenting on paragraph 13, right? 12 13.
Okay.
I now give the floor to the Russian Federation.
Specifics.
Mogens to three princi purgatory, gen drum punctium, Nabraf to transparent, Darnept pool the gaga, Preta muchtepstal is the Ggra stats.
Patm, scriptid checks polarano biographer, slobsm.
Poly a slower transparency, do it slower in relation, Dalia which but door slough of these principles in W gridlock two to the implementation of their obligations would delete Silk statute St, postly lava obligations would delete lava and nuclear disarmament related commitments.
Its obligations under the treaty of Nas Pomovk Dunny paragraph Zu its leadership Oersm, reaffirming states parties commitment to apply the mutually reinforcing principles of irreversibility, verifiability, and transparency in relation to the implementation of their obligations under the treaty.
Name.
I thank the Russian Federation for that proposal.
I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you, Mr.
President and my apologies to come back again.
Actually, you were right that unfortunately, the relevant paragraph was deleted in my text, but I brought it back again.
On this specific paragraph, we want to highlight that the commitments should be implemented by all states parties, particularly the nuclear weapon states to apply the principles.
Thank you.
I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran I do not see any further requests for the floor on this paragraph.
I will move on to paragraph 13 and open the floor for comments on paragraph 13.
I invite the United States.
Thank you, Chair.
I was going to associate with a comment made just a minute ago about the critical importance of compliance and we would be open to changing the need for to critical importance of compliance.
We actually believe this paragraph is important to specifically emphasize nonproliferation given that we've already had several preambular paragraphs addressing Article 6 and several below will address Pillar three issues.
Would also like to see the addition in this paragraph of relevant IAEA Board of Governors and UN Security Council resolutions.
Maybe rather than read that out here, we'll just submit that to you in writing.
But we think it's important to note in particular the Board of Governors resolution 2025 38, and then the one, two, three, four, five different UN Security Council resolutions.
But we'll be happy to provide that in writing.
Thank you.
I thank the United States and I invite Cameroon.
President.
Counsel paragraph c diplomatic means.
Plus traditional P diplomacy.
Mad Garon proposed reduction consumption.
Diplomacy exclusive.
Ma Gon operate through peaceful means, in particular, diplomatic means in accordance with international law.
Maxim.
I thank Cameroon for the comment.
I do not see any further request for the floor on article Paragraph 13.
I will move on to Paragraph 14.
I give the floor to Cameroon.
Paragraph cats a on oblige Pacific in conformity with Article 1, two, three, and four of the treaty.
Mercy.
I thank Cameron, and I give the floor to Australia.
Thank you, President.
On PP 14 and 15, Australia sees a need for an amendment.
We would suggest inserting, quote, in conformity with all the provisions of the treaty, at the end of each paragraph, That would mean that in PP 14, this would be in place of references to specific articles.
We think this would assist with consistency and not picking references to some articles of the treaty over others.
Australia reaffirms that all states have the right to access nuclear science and technology, but this must always be done in conformity with the treaty.
Thank you, President.
I think Australia and I should invite delegations to comment on PP 14, 15, 2016, and 2017 as a package.
If you have already spoken, feel free to ask for the floor again.
Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Japan highly appreciate the variable works of you present and your teams on working over the weekend to craft P two, which Japan considers contains the changes that are constructive in aiming to achieve a consensus.
Regarding PP 14 and 15, I echo two of my previous speakers, distinguished delegate from Kon, as well as distinguished delegate from Australia.
Our implementation of the three pillars of the treaty in a balanced manner is important to maintain and strength in the NPT because nonproliferation, disarmament, and peaceful uses are not independent commitment but form a single interdependent whole.
Previous outcome documents reflect this inextricable linkage.
De valid inclusion of Article 3 in the 1995 outcome document and the further addition of Article 4 in 2010 review outcome document anchored peaceful uses within the broader treaty framework.
This conscious political choice should be respected and preserved.
Therefore, on PP 14 and PP 15, we suggest reverting back to the previous versions that include Article 3 and four.
For PP 14, and I quote, in conformity with all all provisions of the treaty for PP 15 as stated in the 2010 final document.
And finally, on PP 16, we support the addition of this importance of financing to respond to the growing demand for nuclear science and technology.
And thank you, Chair.
I thank Japan, and I now give the floor to Egypt.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
We were not planning to take the floor on this, but the group needs to reaffirm its strong support to paragraph 14 as presented by the president.
I mean, we spent a few minutes trying to relate to the arguments from some of the previous speakers, and then actually we remembered that this is the exact text of Article 4 0.1 of the treaty.
Our margin of maneuvers to try to digest and absorb the arguments of the other colleagues will be quite limited.
We are not in any position actually to try to reframe the inanable right to peaceful users other than what is provided for by the text and the letter of the NPT itself.
I thank Egypt for helping me remind delegations of that, but I now give the floor to Mexico.
Diplomatic for peaceful.
Diploma, is Madras I thank Mexico and I give the floor to Zimbabwe.
Mr.
President, as this is the first time we take the floor during this plenary session, Zimbabwe wishes to express its appreciation for the efficient manner you and the Secretariat circulated the rev two draft outcome document.
We view this as a good basis to work towards a consensual outcome.
Our comments in this intervention are confined to preamble paragraph 16.
We welcome Rev two's acknowledgment of the growing demand for nuclear science and technology, and we welcome the expansion of the paragraph to include the important issue of financing.
However, my delegation proposes the deletion of the word diverse.
This nomenclature of financing has not found consensus at other relevant development financing platforms.
We propose to replace that last part of the sentence with, I quote, mobilization and provision of adequate, predictable, and sustainable financing for this purpose.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank Zimbabwe, and I give the floor to Germany.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
On PP 15, so we did not understand the deletion of the wording in conformity with the treaty.
I've listened to my Australian colleague and indeed, I think we would prefer to see in conformity with all provisions of the treaty added again.
We didn't raise this issue for PP 14 as is addressed, um, exclusively Article 4 issues and I completely agree with my Egyptian colleague that if we refer to Article 4, then we should speak of in conformity with Articles one and two.
Nevertheless, I think, also in PP 15, also in order to use the same language, even if we would prefer in conformity with all the articles of the treaty, we should at least speak of in conformity with Articles one and two of the treaty and we have to add this.
Thank you.
I think Germany I have to say, though, that my understanding is that everything we do with this document is in conformity with the treaty and the provisions of the treaty.
I mean, I take your point, but I would also like to respond to that particular issue.
I I give the floor to the Russian Federation Biology.
V punto, Palin, Sk Cité, Palreom to Nga Palin Var I thank the Russian delegation, and I invite the Netherlands.
For giving me the floor.
I have a few remarks, one indeed with Power 15, like Germany and others, we would like to see their in conformity with all the provisions of the treaty.
I dares we can only repeat the treaty, then we would have an easy job, then we would have finished in the first week, I think.
I think we should also be open for further discussions.
We have seen also proposals from other delegations in that direction.
Then with regard to Power 17, we would like to insert a 17 Bravo and that would read as follows, reaffirming the central role of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA in promoting and facilitating the peaceful use of nuclear energy and ensuring compliance with nuclear safeguards, and the great importance of the IAEA's mandate as well as its impartial, independent, and objective role.
Let me repeat.
Reaffirming the central role of the IAEA in promoting and facilitating the peaceful use of nuclear energy and ensuring compliance with nuclear safeguards and the importance of the EIS mandate as well as its impartial, independent, and objective role.
That's it from the Netherlands.
I thank the Netherlands for the proposal.
I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
On paragraph 14 and 15, we cannot accept any new changes.
And in fact, other than the mere text of the treaty on paragraph 14, we don't see any relationship, for example, between using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes with implementation of nuclear disarmament obligations.
So overall, there is no relationship between these two, and we cannot say in conformity with all provisions of the treaty.
So and other than that, on paragraph 17, we believe that it should be mentioned that the implementation of safeguards should avoid hampering any participation in international cooperation, as well as using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
And with the new suggested paragraph on IAA role, I think that there are lots of paragraphs expressing the same notion, and it will be redundant if we add the and overload the preamble with something that has been covered properly in other parts of the text.
Thank you.
I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran.
May I ask if you have specific language proposal on the idea that you just mentioned? On 17, I can read that after the end of the paragraph, we should add and in this context underlines that safeguards shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with Article 4 of this treaty and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of parties of the parties or international cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, use, or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 and the principle of safeguarding as set forth in the preamble of the treaty.
Thank you.
All right.
I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I will now invite France.
President 15 proposition in conformity with all the provisions of the treaty paragraph says the importance of mobilizing adequate and diverse financing for this purpose.
I think France and I invite Cameron.
President absolute reserves in conformity with all the provisions of the treaty paragraphs absolute the point of view, the delegation junbou France I think Cameroon and I now invite Brazil.
Thank you very much, President.
In relation to PP 13, about the replacement of diplomatic by peaceful, we can live with both to our understanding diplomatic is more about a method and peaceful is more related to the UN Charter.
If we could combine both, that would be okay for us.
In terms of the conditionalities to 14 and sorry.
Um 15 and 16.
I don't think that we can, again, it's 14 and 15.
The inconformity on 14, as my Egyptian colleague said, is verbating what's in the treaty and in 15, I don't think we need conditionalities on peaceful uses.
So we would urge colleagues to keep 14 and 15 as it is.
We support the suggestion by Zimbabwe around predictable and sustainable resources on 16 and about the suggestions of the Netherlands and Iran.
On the additional paragraph on the IAA, I don't think we need it because we have OP five and 30, and I think the same goes for the suggestion around Article 4 on safeguards.
We already have something similar on OP four.
So we would urge colleagues to keep this streamlined and to the point.
Thank you.
I thank Brazil and I give the floor to Japan.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Further to my colleagues comment, I would like to comment on paragraph 17.
There have been a change from zero draft and lab one on this paragraph.
I have to point out that the previous language was the same as agreed text of 2000 final document.
Our delegation would like to propose that now we go back to the original version, since we should not weaken language on the importance of safeguard in relation with peaceful uses.
Thank you.
I thank Japan and I invite the United Kingdom.
Thank you, Chair and good afternoon, colleagues.
On paragraphs 14 and 15, I think we've heard some delegations wanting to delete references to articles, some delegations wanting to add references to articles.
I think the idea proposed by our Australian and Japanese colleagues is quite neat in terms of returning to language around in conformity with all obligations under the treaty and we would support that.
Um, certainly from a UK point of view, we can support the language suggested by the Netherlands.
I think it was 17 BIS and in response to those delegations who are saying that perhaps this language is covered for in the operative paragraphs of the treaty, there are a number of sections of the preambula paragraph that is reflected in the operative paragraphs.
The fact that they are reflected in one or two is not an argument, I think, for opposing balance across the preambar paragraphs.
As I said earlier, we would like to see some language on the IAEA and safeguards in the preamble paragraphs to ensure there is balance across that language and so we would certainly would support the Dutch proposal.
Thank you.
I thank the United Kingdom and I give the floor to Cuba.
A secret parallels, dept paraplar or rela reticular estaria, coronararo in particular I think Cuba and I give now the floor to the Philippines.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
On preambular paragraph 14, we would like to reiterate our interventions yesterday and what was echoed by Egypt, Brazil, and others, while giving support to the current formulation as drafted.
While the Philippines understands the importance of highlighting Article 3, we would caution against reinterpreting the actual treaty text.
We note that this paragraph was lifted directly from Article 4.
Adding Article 3 would open up new discussions in this regard, while another reference to Article 4, where the text was lifted from would make it circular.
We believe that there is a proper paragraph to discuss Article 3 issues and support such discussions in this regard.
On preambular paragraph 16, we note the stronger recognition accorded to the balanced implementation of the treaty and the growing acknowledgment of the contribution of peaceful applications of nuclear energy.
We support France's comments on the component of the text on financing.
We propose a modest refinement of PP 16 to as follows.
Acknowledging the expanding role of and growing demand for nuclear science and technology and its contribution to bettering the lives and livelihoods of all peoples and recognizing the importance of upscaling and expanding access to the peaceful applications of nuclear energy, including through the mobilization of adequate and diverse financing, partnerships, and capacity building for this purpose.
This change aims to reflect the growing international recognition that the challenge today is no longer merely access to peaceful applications, but their upscaling and broader socioeconomic adoption.
This is already reflected operationally throughout the draft, including references to expanding demand and bringing the results of nuclear science and technology closer to end users.
Our proposal seeks to better capture the evolving direction of nuclear cooperation in this field.
Thank you.
I think the Philippines, and I give the floor to Spain Peds Vuelva, quizzinguli, El Cole Australian, Trio pollar proposal pass, particular Ppado, T alpalo, La Filion, de papel Centra de Lalla, Tanto nuclear El Silva up I think Spain and I give the floor to Egypt.
Thank you, President.
This was also another paragraph that we were not planning to intervene on because we completely supported and also we thought that this would not be a subject to much discussions being identical to the text of the treaty, but similar to a number of previous speakers, Brazil, Cuba, Philippines and others, We are becoming concerned about attempts to rewrite such consequential parts of the treaty.
The upload of these edits can give an impression of conditionality that we completely oppose on the exercise of the area right to peaceful uses a President, you understand the sensitivity of the access to right to peaceful uses, especially for developing countries.
I think that the further pushes in the country direction will be very counterproductive.
On some issues, I understand that we have to bring back things to basics, which is the text of the treaty.
I think I agree with one of the colleagues that speak earlier that at the review conference, we need to go beyond the treaty and we completely agree.
We need to expand and we need to explain.
I even had the same feelings when we were discussing the issue of humanitarian consequences and whether we should quote from the preamble or not.
So this is an issue of fundamental importance, and it's an advanced priority to the global South.
And we plead to you, Mr.
President, that we remain faithful to the letter and spirit of Article 4.
Thank you.
I thank Egypt and I give the floor to South Africa.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
On PP 14, we've been listening to the comments and remarks of the other delegations and we would like to add our voice to retention of Article 3 and four.
It is our view that it is important to reference peaceful uses of nuclear energy within the broader framework of the treaty rights and obligations as a whole.
Uh, including non proliferation safeguards and disarmament and in order to avoid a selective or partial interpretation of the treaty.
On 15, along with the comments made by the delegation of Zimbabwe that we would support the formulation that they provided to have sufficient assured and predictable resources to replace diverse.
We would have preferred to make use of sustainable development terminology to replace lives and livelihoods on that paragraph as well.
On 16 on the role of the agency, this is an important paragraph that which we support the central role and would prefer to retain the formulation.
Thank you.
I thank South Africa and I now invite Turkey.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Turkey appreciates your continued efforts to guide the conference towards the consensus document.
And thank you for the circulation of the new version.
I would like to comment on paragraph 16.
Our proposal is to include wording just after the paragraph after this purpose, also through international financial institutions to be included.
This is to reflect the IAs achievements to have those institutions on board since last June.
Thank you very much.
I thank Turkia and now I give the floor to Slovenia.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I would like to join other delegations in thanking you for your hard work on the preparation of the revised draft outcome document.
I have a short intervention.
First point is on the paragraph 15 where Slovenia would like to support allegations proposing to include at the end of the paragraph the reference to in conformity with all the provisions of the treaty.
And my second point is that Swina in accordance to achieve more balanced texts in the preamble or part would like to support the proposal by the delegation of Netherlands to include a new paragraph on reaffirming the central role of the IAE in promoting peaceful uses and ensuring compliance with nuclear safeguards.
And what is also the important element of the Dutch proposal is also the reference to independent and impartial role of the agency.
Thank you.
I thank Slovenia and I give the floor to Brazil.
Thank you for giving me the floor again, Mr.
President.
I echo the words of my Egyptian colleague and about the comments that I made earlier on keeping the language as is.
The concern is not repetition per se, but the function that the language performs in each part of the document.
When a paragraph is already captured in operative terms, repeating it in the preambular section may risk blurring actually the distinction between contextual framing and agreed action rather than strengthening it.
So our suggestion therefore is aimed at preserving clarity and discipline and the structure of the text that you presented.
In this regard, let me underline the fact that safeguards are already mentioned in PP 17 and you have this whole phrase at the end of OP five, no action should be taken to undermine the authority of the IAA in this regard.
I thank you.
I thank Brazil and I invite the United States, who is also the last speaker on my list for now.
United States, please.
Thank you, Chair.
Just wanted to align with the interventions from Japan, UK, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain on adding in conformity with ops provisions of the treaty at the end of paragraph 15.
And then to say that we also could support the Turkish addition in 16 of the IFIs, we were planning to suggest the word non traditional instead of diverse financing to get at that very point.
Thank you.
I thank the United States I have no further requests for the floor, and I will move on to paragraph 18.
I invite delegations to comment on paragraph 18.
First, I have Indonesia.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
With your indulgence, I would like to go back to PP 17.
And while I have the floor, I would also like to say that we agree with your previous assessment that everything we do here should indeed be pursued in conformity with all the provisions of the treaty.
Indonesia can go along with the PP 16 as presented by the president.
On PP 17, we believe that it should reflect the comprehensive mandate of IEA safeguards, which is essential to the credibility and balance of the treaty.
This should be a factual and straightforward addition.
It does not introduce a new concept or expand the agency's mandate.
It simply reflects what is already provided in the IAEA statute.
Recall Article 3B one of the IA statute, which provides that in carrying out its functions, the agency shall, and I quote, and in conformity with policies of the UN furthering the establishment of safeguarded worldwide disarmament and in conformity with any international agreements entered into pursuant to such policies, end of quote.
This mandate also has practical precedent in the verification role in the nuclear disarmament of South Africa in the early 1990s and the trilateral initiative involving the IEA, the US, and the Russian Federation 1996-2002.
For this reason, we request that this paragraph 17 clearly reflects this by adding a limited reference to safeguarded worldwide nuclear disarmament and the paragraph would then read, emphasizing that the safeguards of the IEA are a fundamental component of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, support the advancement of safeguarded earthwhie nuclear disarmament, play an indispensable role in the implementation of the treaty and help to create an environment conducive to nuclear cooperation.
We believe that this minor addition would provide an important basis for future progress on nuclear disarmament while strengthening the credibility, integrity, and balance of the treaty.
I thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank Indonesia and I give the floor to France.
President PP 16 original de Paris suits mobilizing adequate, predictable, and diversified financing.
Mercy.
I think France and I give the floor now to Austria.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
Two short points.
First, to support the very good proposal by Indonesia made just now in 2017 and also in paragraph 15, we have sympathy for the Australian proposal to add phrase at the end.
Thank you very much.
I thank Austria.
I I invite delegations to comment on paragraph 18.
I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
We believe that this paragraph should be deleted because of its legal ambiguity and redundancy and also its potential implications.
Overall, we think that deletion is the best option on this paragraph.
Thank you.
I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran and I invite the Russian Federation.
Specifically, reduce the pert punct, Kaag subsen.
Subsen another sublute hyponggragra, pen star, Pieta, subset adumurgg deteriorate CSA a pravo pavo to to it.
Hernia Prav no urania Kaag.
Besides what this lava atom to Liates I think the Russian Federation.
There's no further request for the floor on this paragraph.
I will therefore move on to the last preamble of paragraph 19.
I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
In fact, to be factual, we think that we should replace the word welcoming with note due to a lot of consideration of the ongoing discussions with regard to strengthening the review process that has not led to any consensual outcome.
So we believe that this is not fair to welcome those discussions.
Thank you.
I thank Iran and I invite Russian Federation.
Hats, Victoria, Nadana Mata welcome and Pascoo zltate Pratt and a Page I think the Russian Federation and Just to say that here we are welcoming efforts and not referring to any results and efforts, I understand, have been done since the last review conference with the important decision to establish the working group to work on the effectiveness of the review process.
But certainly, we can continue that conversation.
I invite the United States.
Thank you, Chair We agree precisely with what you just stated.
I think on paragraph 19, we would see the efforts as having been broader than merely the outcomes or potential outcomes of this review conference.
But a number of efforts have been implemented to improve the effectiveness of the process, including procedures that you have implemented at this review conference.
We also would prefer the retention of paragraph 18.
Quite a lot of our discussion has been dominated this three weeks or into the fourth week about compliance and the imperative to comply with obligations set out in the treaty.
Thank you.
I thank the United States, and I invite the Philippines.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
On 18, we prefer to retain it.
However, we do find some wisdom in the proposal of Russia that it's not automatic that breaches of a treaty necessarily undermine any of the norms there.
Perhaps we can fix it with convince that breaches of the treaty obligation can undermine nuclear disarmament and that's our proposal to include K and to retain Article 18 together with the United States.
On a 19.
Again, there's a bit of a temporal issue here.
We either welcome the results or we welcome the efforts.
Right now, I think we can say that we do welcome the efforts, and if the results are as we desire, then we can address and tweak it a little more.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank the Philippines.
I still have three delegations requesting for the floor.
If it is only on this issue of welcoming or noting, can I ask that we skip this discussion and we will return to it once we have a certain outcome from the discussion of the strengthening review process.
I still see Japan asking for the floor.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair and with your indulgence and I would like to support the comment made by US about paragraph 18 and our delegation would like to see that this paragraph would be retained.
Thank you very much.
I thank Japan and I invite Germany.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Like others, we'd also like to support your suggested language in para 18 and would like to retain the paragraph.
Thank you.
I thank Germany and I invite Egypt.
Thank you, President.
Very quickly, our group supports 18 as drafted.
I thank Egypt, and I do not see any further requests for the floor.
We have now completed the considerations, the first reading of the preamba paragraph, and we'll move on to the operative paragraphs and I invite comments on paragraphs 1, two, and three as a cluster.
I open the floor for comments.
I recognize the United States.
Mr.
President, many ongoing discussions occurred on many topics that did not reach consensus.
It is not acceptable to isolate this one.
If this reference remains, we will need to see further explicit mention of one particular state's opaque and rapid nuclear arsenal buildup, which has also been discussed extensively not only here, but throughout this entire review cycle.
Furthermore, we cannot accept unbalanced or ambiguous betrayal of these legal mechanisms.
In that light, Mr.
President, the US delegation would request deletion of the first sentence of paragraph two.
That is the only edit request we have for those three paragraphs.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Thank you, the United States, and I now invite the Netherlands.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Let me start with the good news.
We have no remarks with regard to Power one and three, but we have with regard to Power two.
Power two about extended deterrence touches upon a concept that is vital for the security of our country and even more after February 22.
If this outcome document is meant to be a reflection of the discussion we have had, then yes, there could be something on the extended returns, but then I miss a lot of text on other issues and the US colleague already made mentioning of one.
If we have something on extended deterrence, it should be correct and it should be balanced.
With regard to correctness, we welcome deleting weapons because indeed, nuclear weapons are not shared under NATO's nuclear sharing arrangement.
We however, have some difficulties with replacing long standing by existing.
Furthermore, we earlier made proposals with regard to balancing the text and reflecting what was said in dozens of interventions with regard to extended deterrence, contribution to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and thus to nonproliferation.
Since you have repeatedly not taken a board text proposals and suggestions, I am compelled to request the deletion of Power two.
Thank you for giving me the floor.
I thank the Netherlands and I invite Italy.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I would also like to comment on paragraph two.
Like many other delegations, we've had serious concerns with this text from the outset.
First, we do not agree with raising this issue in connection with Articles one and two.
This matter does not concern the transfer of nuclear weapons.
Under extended deterrence or nuclear sharing arrangements, there is no transfer whatsoever.
Of nuclear weapons.
We have explained this on numerous occasions over the past few years, including during this review conference.
Custody and control remain with the United States.
We do not own any nuclear weapons.
Therefore, these two articles are not applicable in this context.
Second, we have consistently argued that should a paragraph on this issue be included, it would need to reflect the positive contribution these arrangements have made over decades to one of the NPT's main objectives.
We do not see such recognition in the current text.
As drafted, this paragraph lacks coherence.
If we were to include references to ongoing discussions on issues where views diverge, we would end up with many similar paragraphs.
Indeed, much of this draft could refer to ongoing discussions.
In light of the above, we are left with no option but to request the deletion of this paragraph.
I thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank Italy and I give the floor to Germany.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
With regard to Article 1, two, and three, first, I would like again to reiterate that in Article 1, we don't see necessity for the qualifier nondiscriminatory, so we don't understand.
It does not bear any meaning in relation to Article 1 and two.
So we would suggest to stick to the language from the 2022 outcome draft outcome document, which speaks about full and effective implementation.
U as to para two, I can be brief as others have already pointed out, it is unclear to us why this subject which is highlighted in Article 2, is a in the text.
Indeed, there have been numerous issues addressed at this conference which are not reflected in the text.
I just want to recall that we had an article where there was a call for a moratorium on fissile material production, which I will come later.
Um, too, but which has been deleted.
This was, for example, a, a very intensive discussion we had, which is now no longer present in the text.
It's also a discussion which I would not even see as a discussion, but as a call of many, many delegations here in the room.
So as others have said before, there are two ways, at least in our view, we could either delete the Part two as it is, but if we want to refer to the discussions which we had here in the conference, then we have to make sure that the other discussions, and there are, as I said, numerous others, that they have to be reflected as well.
This would be not our preferred option, but if this seems to be necessary, we would be ready to provide text suggestions for these additional paragraphs on the other issues.
Thank you very much.
I thank Germany and I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
For paragraph one, we suggest to add the word balanced after the full effective balance and non discriminatory implementation.
So this is one suggestion.
With regard to paragraph two, nuclear sharing and extended deterrence, we have already shared our proposal and language on this and we believe that the US involvement in NATO nuclear sharing and also occurs between US, Australia, and the UK should be mentioned as violating the respective obligation of states parties involved and urging them to stop such activities and deciding to consider this violation in the next review conference.
We have a new paragraph to be added after paragraph two, and it will be two B, reading that the conference expresses serious concern over qualitative proliferation by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, including specific instances of developing new types of nuclear warheads, upgrading existing systems, and exercising nuclear options outside the Fragmework of the treaty.
As indicated by their national statements and review reports.
For paragraph three, we have some modifications first to underscore the importance of compliance by all states with the non proliferation as well as disarmament.
Disarmament should be added here.
And in accordance and any non compliance matters should be addressed in accordance with international law and the charter of the United Nations and we believe that the phrase order to uphold in order to uphold the treaty integrity should be deleted.
The means of resolving the issues should be exclusively political and diplomatic And at the end of this paragraph, we should add in this regard, categorically rejects any threat or use of threat.
And we have finally a new suggestion, a new paragraph to be suggested.
And it reads, The conference reaffirms the commitment of states parties to the effective implementation of the objectives and provisions of the treaty, the decisions and resolution of the 1995 Review and extension conference of the parties to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons adopted without a vote.
And the final document of the 2000 review conference adopted by consensus.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I think the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Now, two points.
One is, I have heard very clear the message on paragraph two.
So if delegations that are asking for the floor intends to repeat that message, which is to delete this paragraph, I would hope for your indulgence that you do not need to take the floor on this particular issue anymore.
The second point is, I would also urge delegations to try and not add additional language and paragraphs to the text.
As you have recognized from the very beginning, I have tried my best to keep it as concise as possible and adding text at this stage would not be extremely helpful.
I still see some requests for the floor.
I would invite Egypt Thank you, Mr.
President.
The first on paragraph one, we have indicated before that because this paragraph is addressing the promotion and preservation of international peace and security and the effectiveness of the treaty, it needs not to confine itself to Article 1 and two only.
It needs to speak about the implementation of all the provisions of the treaty.
This is what will enable the APT to provide the effective contribution expected to preservation of international peace and security.
Trying to approach it from a minimalistic or a partial way of the implementation of the obligations under the treaty will not give us the most ideal contribution in this field.
Now moving to paragraph two, and we know that this had been subject to very lengthy and complicated discussions.
In our view that this paragraph is heading in the right direction, it might not necessarily capture everything that we want to see or actually express our views on this matter.
However, let me put it this way and we have listened very carefully to the explanations by our colleagues from NATO and others on how do they see and explain their usefulness, the utility, and the legal interpretation of the sharing arrangements.
But I also hope that they have also listened equally carefully to the other points of views, either the ones by the Unallied movement by the African group, by the Arab group, et cetera.
So the situation is as follows, that we have a clear situation of divergence of views, and it seems like the states parties have the willingness and the courage to continue this conversation with a view of trying to help each other understand the matter better and deeper.
And this is exactly hitting the nail in the second half of the paragraph where we believe that this conversation and this dialogue can deepen the confidence into the implementation of the treaty as a whole.
We think that this approach is to a great extent factual.
We support it, although that it does not meet our expectation or at least our substantive views on the matter, but we think that it is at least a good kickoff of a conversation among states parties to help understand each other better.
The only probably less factual part that we will plead for its reconsideration is at the beginning, where it says notes to ongoing discussions.
We don't think that the discussions are happening yet.
I think that there is a growing interest in the discussions, but the discussions themselves are not happening because discussions would require that both sides to listen to each other and try to show understanding and try to explain further.
And this would require the time and the space to do so.
So in conclusion, support to the direction of travel of this paragraph.
We are supportive of having it as factual as possible with a view of finding a landing zone around it.
Thank you.
I thank Egypt and I give the floor to Poland.
Thank you very much, President.
After listening all the speakers regarding para two, I feel obliged to state that we maintain the request to delete this paragraph.
We continue to believe that this paragraph is neither balanced anchored in the regional security context.
We have to stick to the facts and particularly nuclear threats made by Russia, militarization of Kaliningrad, Oblast, and Belarus, as well as the Russia ongoing aggression against our neighbor deserve proper statement.
That's why we stand to be in favor to maintain the request to delete this paragraph.
Thank you very much.
I thank Poland for the comment.
Again, as I stated this morning, I'm not looking for positions anymore, I'm looking for solutions.
If you're only telling me that you support this paragraph or you want to delete it, I do not believe it's necessary to state it again.
If there are proposals of a compromise, I would love to hear them.
So again, I would urge you to try and come with compromise solutions on this paragraph.
I still see a very long list of speakers on this topic, and I would respect that, but still continue to urge you to come with solutions.
I invite Belgium.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
My delegation thanks you for your tireless efforts in bridging divides and for your work on Rev two.
Indeed, as you reminded us this morning, the time has come to start moving towards consensual language and to identify potential landing zones that are acceptable to all delegations.
You have my delegation's full support in this regard.
On OP two, it is clear that the text as it presently stands, does not enjoy the support from a large number of delegations in the room.
In our view, extended nuclear deterrence has made a significant contribution to the prevention of horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons on multiple continents, including our own.
Furthermore, as pointed out by others, there are a number of issues that are under ongoing discussion that do not enjoy consensus and are therefore not reflected in the text, such as the opaque buildup of nuclear arsenals, irresponsible nuclear rhetoric, new and destabilizing capabilities, the Budapest memorandum, just to name a few issues.
We note that there is no consensus view on nuclear sharing arrangements and extended nuclear deterrence, and therefore, come to my proposal, we would therefore suggest that this non consensual section be removed.
I thank you.
I thank Belgium and I give the floor to South Africa.
Thank you, Chairperson.
I'll touch on paragraph one first.
In this regard, we, of course, support the retention of the balance aspect that has been deleted as this was appropriately reflecting the mutually reinforcing nature of the treaty three pillars.
In our view, the effectiveness and legitimacy of the treaty on the NPT depends upon the full effective and balanced implementation of all rights and obligations contained in the treaty.
Also on paragraph one, I think the point raised by Egypt on behalf of the Arab Group is quite essential, and we need to reflect on this aspect and how we capture it in the document, noting that the implementation of all the provisions of the treaty play a vital role in promoting and preserving international peace and security.
On paragraph two, we appreciate the deletion of longstanding as this removes the element of acceptance of this arrangement.
Of course, we also regret the deletion from the zero draft, which was a concern on the current and potential developments related to nuclear sharing.
Our preference, of course, would have been to retain that sentence.
However, with regards to the way forward as you're asking, I think the last sentence is the way forward for us to continue to have discussions, and that's what this is setting forth.
We have views on both sides of the aisle that are saying this is a benefit to the treaty and those that are saying it's in contradiction of the treaty.
But the way forward is the discussion, and that is what exactly this article now provides through the last sentence.
So overall, the support is therefore for paragraph two and especially the last element for the dialogue on the relevant issue.
Thank you.
I thank the delegation of South Africa.
I understand your proposal is to retain the second sentence of paragraph two, is that correct? Thank you, Chair.
We can retain it as a whole and work on the language to accommodate everyone else.
Thanks.
Well, I think South Africa.
I would propose the following.
For those of you who have concrete proposals on this section and in particular paragraph two, I would invite you to send those proposals in writing to me through the Secretariat email pt.org or at u.org, pt at un.org, and I will take them into consideration.
With that, I hope you will agree to move on to the next paragraphs.
All right.
I do not see any objection.
I will then move on to the next section, which will be paragraphs 4 to six.
I now open the floor for comments on paragraphs 4, five, and six.
I invite the United Kingdom.
Apologies Chair.
I did have comments on paragraphs 1 and 3.
My understanding is you are trying to move us on from paragraph two.
But on paragraph one, I wanted to express support for the comments from my German colleague regarding the request to delete and non discriminatory from paragraph one because we don't believe that applies to Articles one and two.
I paragraph three, we're not entirely clear of the intent around the phrase with the provisions of the treaty, but of course, there are no compliance provisions within the treaty itself, and so we would suggest deleting with the provisions of the treaty and the paragraph would finish in accordance with the charter of the United Nations.
Thank you.
I thank the United Kingdom and I invite China.
Descendant intelligent, tell you that.
Descendant Zu article in.
Valentin thresh ungian Hussein bush high weapon, then the descending.
I thank China and I now give the floor to Brazil.
Thank you, Chair.
I've been hesitating in taking the floor.
I have comments on OP one and that would be to delete Articles one and two in the second line.
I think that would make us be more coherent with preambular seven.
I was thinking about something for OP two and maybe instead of in relation, we could work around with regard to their implication.
For non proliferation or with regard for their application for compliance with nonproliferation.
But this is a factual paragraph and we emphasize the We cannot emphasize more how retaining this paragraph is important to us.
Then moving to four, five and six, I'd like to acknowledge the reference to Article 4 in OP four.
That is a very much appreciated addition.
On OP six, I have to require once again for us to go back to 2010 language.
This is very important for us because regards non compliance, and I think we have to respect what is set out in the statute.
I think 2010 language is it comes closer to those steps that are reflected.
I would like for us to change the last lines with evidence and information.
The TIA to consider, investigate, draw conclusions, and decide.
I think this is a very important addition.
We've been reiterating this argument for quite some time.
I would like to colleagues to take note of it and take this into account.
Thank you very much.
I thank Brazil and I now give the floor to Cuba.
Last lags momenta latcca proposa the testinal parados, de la oat Pcubion hepsa patas.
Ella mepogana proptas, the complemental de la hemaasrasis.
I thank Cuba and I give the floor to Russian Federation.
For paragraph of Cité deal Pasolini P no action should be taken to undermine the authority.
I in this regard.
Principle against the business law of the against sector of P, lucigv material, presion, Nvtsmx, mx, chit karate is Pasmia against the as which is to use minimal ambitions from Glaseratoras, criteria, against.
I thank the Russian Federation and I now invite Japan.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and for giving me the floor.
I would like to comment on OP four.
Reference to Article 4 is a new addition compared to draft and Lab one, and we don't think it is necessary because the language of Article 3 paragraph three, which has been already mentioned The language of the NPT itself include the wording, which is in a manner designed to comply with Article 4.
So the element of Article 4 is already being spelled out in the original text.
So if we Article 4 is still needed, it should be the same language as the treaty text itself.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I thank Japan, and I invite Australia.
Thank you very much, President.
A minor edit for legal consistency to OP three.
Namely, we'd like to replace the final phrase in that paragraph with, and I quote, Should be resolved in accordance with the treaty and international law, including the UN Charter, end quote.
President, this edit clarifies that the UN Charter is part of international law and not separate from it.
President, regarding OP five, we wish to very strongly emphasize the need to retain the final line.
Retain the sentence, no action should be taken to undermine the authority of the IAA in this regard.
We note that that is a sentence which has attracted very strong support from a wide and diverse range of states, and we wish to see it retained.
Thank you, President.
I thank Australia and I invite South Africa.
Thank you, President.
South Africa notes with appreciation the changes to paragraph six.
However, to provide more clarity, South Africa proposes adding the policy making organs to the last sentence of the paragraph, that is after the IAEA to read as follows.
The IAEAs policy making organs to consider and decide on necessary actions, and the sentence continues.
Uh, President, I'm just going to go back to paragraph three.
On paragraph three, South Africa supports a retention of the reference to resolving compliance concerns through political and diplomatic means, as this is consistent with the spirit and objective of the treaty and the principles of the charter of the UN.
In our view, issues relating to noncompliance should be addressed through dialogue, consultation, and peaceful means in a manner that preserves international peace and security, avoids escalation and strengthens confidence in the multilateral nonproliferation regime.
Retaining this language also helps ensure a balanced and non selective approach to the implementation of the treaty.
Thank you.
I thank South Africa and I now give the floor to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you, Mr.
President, we believe that on paragraph four, we should drop the reference to subparagraphs, and it suffices just to refer to the Article 3 and Article 4 in their entirety.
With regard to paragraph five, we believe that it should be mentioned that the conference reaffirms that exclusive purpose of the verification is the fulfillment of obligations of assumed by the state parties.
As we have already mentioned, implementation of safeguards should not restrict peaceful users and international cooperation.
The last sentence should be deleted and definitely this is one of the points that cannot garner consensus in the conference and I avoid giving detailed explanation, but overall it is very vague and very general and we don't need it.
Lastly, on paragraph six, first of all, we need to highlight that compliance should be by all state parties and addressing any case of noncompliance with safeguard obligations should be handled in full conformity with international law and the Stitute of the IAA.
We want to delete the last sentence of this paragraph.
Thank you.
I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran and I invite France.
President paragraph guarantee exclusive confusion, Son sac sou Martin France, no action should be taken to undermine the authority of the IAA in this regard.
The critic the critic to Director General dossier Cosette conference a avocation f avocational in the basque ence opportune.
Arctic necessity, misonu de ensemble des guarantees paragraphs, premier parts de France to add after the treaty, including the full implementation by non nuclear weapon states of their comprehensive safeguards agreement under all circumstances and Aris souvent after non compliance with safeguards obligations and outstanding safeguards issues, do foreign reference, obligation The outstanding safeguards issues.
I thank France, and I now give the floor to the United Kingdom.
Thank you, President.
Paragraph four is important for emphasizing the indispensable role safeguards plays in the implementation of the treaty.
We need to ensure it remains focused on that objective.
We had preferred earlier versions of this paragraph which were more positive in this context.
But in order to seek efforts towards compromise, we think this formulation could work, but as others have remarked, we would need to delete the reference to Article 4, this is paragraph four.
In relation to paragraph five, we have set out repeatedly over the past three weeks and as my French colleagues have set out very eloquently, it's really important that we keep the last sentence of paragraph five.
Then on paragraph six, I would just like to register my delegation's concern, Mr.
President, that repeatedly through the course of this morning's conversations, the Iranian delegation has sought to delete language on compliance with the treaty from several different areas of our text.
That's something that the UK has taken strong note of and is very concerned about.
Thank you.
I thank the United Kingdom and I invite Canada.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
A concrete suggestion from my delegation on paragraph six.
The second sentence in that paragraph, we have concerns.
I think everyone in this room understands what the intention is, but worry that it might not be well understood to a broader community.
So if I may, we believe that it could be better understood instead of where it starts with states parties that have concerns regarding non compliance, instead says, state parties that have concerns regarding noncompliance obligations should bring such concerns with supporting information, com to the IAEA for its consideration and appropriate decision on any necessary actions in accordance with the IA's mandate.
We believe that that might clarify some elements that could be misunderstood in the current formulation.
Thank you.
I thank Canada and I give the floor now to Egypt.
Thank you so much, Mr.
President.
Mr.
President, on paragraph four, the Arab group earlier suggested that we add the full language of Article 3 paragraph three, which reads that safeguards shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with Article 4 of the treaty and to avoid hampering economic and technological development of the parties or international cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international Exchange, so on and so forth.
With this suggestion in mind, in our understanding that the complementarity between Article 3 and four is very crucial, and that's why we presented this addition.
The current formulation is something that we can absolutely support and retain, but we've also heard other delegations saying that they would prefer the exact language of paragraph three of Article 3, which is exactly what we suggested at the beginning.
We can go either ways.
We can go with your language or we can add the language of paragraph three of Article 3 as stated in the treaty.
U On paragraph six, also, the Arab Group presented the amendment to return to the agreed language of paragraph nine of the 2010 language.
Dealing with concerns from third party is something that we all understand and this is something that the agency deals with, but the process and the nuances in the agreed language is very relevant and that's why we want to retain the full language on providing for evidence and information and for the IE to consider, investigate, and draw conclusions, and decide on the necessary actions in accordance with its mandate.
We join other voices already that has expressed the same interest, including Brazil.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank Egypt and I now invite Germany.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I didn't intend to take the floor on Paris four to six, but after being listened to the comments in the room, I would just like to signal that we would support the proposals which have been put forward with regard to this Paris by Canada and France.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank Germany and that was the last speaker on my list.
I will move on, but before doing so, I will say this again.
Now, from the moment that you elected me or nominated me as president designate of this conference, I have pledged to you to be as inclusive and as transparent as possible.
And that is exactly what you have asked me to do.
I have kept my word, being transparent, inclusive in this entire process.
I have also presented a draft to you much earlier on and you have had more than a week now to state your positions on the drafts.
All right.
But now, as I stated this morning, we do not have much time left, and we are almost coming to the end of the day and we are at paragraph six.
There are 85 more paragraphs to go.
Just for context.
I am afraid that I have to ask you once again to move beyond your stated positions and come with proposals on language that you genuinely believe can garner consensus.
That is my ask to all of you once again to please come with language that you genuinely believe can garner consensus instead of only restating your positions on certain paragraphs.
With that, I will move on to paragraph seven and open the floor for comments.
I invite the United States.
Mr.
President, the United States would actually have strong interest in seeing much stronger language for both paragraph seven and eight.
But in the interest of time, we will obtain written language from you once we get full clearance from Washington and respond in writing.
We appreciate your efforts.
Thank you, sir.
I thank the United States.
I give the floor to Japan.
Thank the President for giving me the floor.
Paragraph seven, we understand that this paragraph now expresses serious concern when there are issues to be addressed in general terms.
Thus, we should be very much careful about its scope.
We believe that this should cover not only non compliance cases, but also unresolved safeguard issues.
That was the case with the previous version in one.
Therefore, we request to modify to refer to serious concern regarding unresolved safeguard issues and non compliance with safeguard obligations.
Simply put to add safeguard issues and after unresolved.
That is our suggestion.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Represent.
I thank Japan and I give the floor to the Russian Federation.
Ham to photograph for him, business, Fu, Vp, Kas, Nile talk about the community of Abs Takingn p podumoga Russo solution attacks and form is a vinst.
Nica we talk about Rchnia absorb consistency, Nin Ravnkk Nin parabens param of sem, acclci immunivdpd divide, abrane president, satram, Vsimoid paragraph, P odalid, Aids, Slava Nina express its serious concerns.
I proliferation regime on Wicita attack.
The conference emphasized that the full and effective implementation of comprehensive safeguard agreement, including full and timely cooperation with the IA is indispensable to ensure that nuclear material subject to AA safeguards remain in peaceful activities.
Uchitad Irano evaluates serious chin, Padvav, Musah, Mr.
Vamova paragraph three, the conference expressed grave concerns about the attacks by the Israel and the United States on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 and February March 2026 and call upon all states to refrain from such attacks.
Chrome, Muchte Yaphdem Punctam and W which category, one of the misled paragraphs.
The conference affirm the in inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities, and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities, operational or under construction poses a great danger to human life and the environment and constitutes a grave violation of international law, the principles and the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations.
And the regulations of the IA as stipulated in the IA General Conference resolutions, GC 25 slash ReS 381, GC 29 slash 444 and decision GC 34 slash re slash 533 and strongly urge all states to refrain from attacks or threats of attack on such facilities.
Thank you.
I thank the Russian Federation, and I invite the Netherlands.
Good, President, I thought we were on Power seven.
I have some comments on Power seven.
We would like to add to Power seven.
No non nuclear weapon state must be allowed to seek, acquire, or develop a nuclear weapon.
So add no non nuclear weapon state must be allowed to seek, acquire, or develop a nuclear weapon.
I think you I thank the Netherlands.
I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
Mr.
President, from our perspective, also paragraph seven and eight are linked together, and we cannot accept any reference to Iran's peaceful nuclear program.
And in fact, we heard very eloquently from our Russian colleague that if we want to name the application of safeguards and concerns with regard to that program in the region, it must start with the concerns, coming from the actual arsenal of nuclear weapons by the Israeli regime.
And also, if we want to reflect the facts, we should start with condemnation of the attacks in 2025 and 2026 against Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities.
These were committed these crimes were committed against the international law and against the international humanitarian law.
They violated the principle of not use or threat of use of force in the United Nations Charter.
They committed different times war crimes by attacking our civilian infrastructure, including the nuclear facilities.
So overall, we do not see any fair and legal direction in these two paragraphs.
Otherwise, if the US and the Israeli regime had been condemned, for their crimes against Iran, then we could say that it has considered overall picture.
But we know that the Israeli regime is the only one outside of the NPT and defying the acceptance of the IAA safeguards.
So we cannot accept any even indirect reference to Iran, and therefore, we believe that these two paragraphs deserve nothing but complete deletion.
Thank you.
I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I invite the France.
President proliferation disarmed nuclear.
A reference oil posing questions the principle credibility to Lit text decision.
Do you consider the governor the way you are an position, the resolution, do you the security constitute inebly small keys in question efficacy, me for donkey, mart to lack credibility, proliferation pharmacy.
I thank France and I give the floor to Canada.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
You had asked us before these two paragraphs to try to offer what you said was consensus language.
I think this paragraph or these two paragraphs now combined are in many ways as challenging as paragraph two.
I think you also asked not to repeat national positions.
I think you will be unsurprised that Canada in our national capacity would want to see stronger language here.
That being said, I think it is clear to us that you are seeking or trying to seek balance.
In terms of what our Iranian colleagues have just said, I find it surprising that they are very fixated on noncompliance when it comes to perceived noncompliance in nuclear sharing arrangements and extended nuclear deterrence.
But when it comes to their own noncompliance, they refuse to have it in the text.
I will just say that again, I think for my delegation, this comes near the floor of what we can accept, but we do believe that you are trying to find compromise, that this is trying to reflect a balance between very difficult positions from very different perspectives.
I think we reflect and we see your attempt to make it very factual in terms of its stressing the support for the diplomatic resolution, then the necessity of the implementation of the Safeguards agreement and the full cooperation with the IEA regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities.
Again, I just would like to say we're getting close to our floor, but we do believe that this is a good faith effort on your part to find a balance that reflects, as my French colleague has just said, the serious concerns we have about noncompliance with the fact that we need to arrive at consensus.
Thank you.
I thank Canada and I invite China gender ginger gender.
Tongan Geng Chen ginger.
I thank China, and I give the floor to Germany.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
So, for us, the Para seven and eight are addressing one of the main challenges of our treaty.
And we have certainly serious concerns with regard to to the compliance by Iran with its safeguards obligations.
So having this, I don't see that the deletion of this paras would be an option.
We have made proposals with regard to these two paras.
I won't repeat it now here in the room.
And we think that paragraph seven should be changed in order to make clear that we would like to have language that reflects the conference concerns regarding outstanding safeguards issues.
We have made similar proposals in order to strengthen also para eight, and we will submit this to you again in writing.
However, what I certainly not see as a way for consensus is as it was proposed to delete these paragraphs, and I certainly don't see that the language which has been put forward by the Russian delegation to replace Para eight is a contribution which would bring us closer to consensus.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank Germany, and I give the floor to the United Kingdom.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
We have spent much of today discussing language around ensuring the continuing credibility and integrity of the NPT.
Let's be clear that that integrity and that credibility is threatened if we are not able to factually recall the findings of the IAE Board of Governors that Iran is in non compliance with its safeguard obligations.
That simply reflects established IAEA board findings and safeguards practice without introducing new assessments.
My delegation would suggest that we insert a sentence along those lines after the word purpose in paragraph eight.
This would be a new sentence that reads, The conference recalls the findings of the IAEA Board of Governors that Iran is in non compliance with its safeguard obligations.
Subsequently in that paragraph, instead of saying undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations, we would say, with the IAEA regarding all nuclear material and activities at all locations and then continue as drafted.
Thank you.
I thank the United Kingdom and I invite South Africa.
Thank you, Chairperson.
While we're considering the repercussions on the nonproliferation regime, we also have to simultaneously consider the effects on the safeguards regime, and in this regard, South Africa views the paragraph eight from our draft as being quite important in this particular section.
We propose this being an eight B with a slight change to the zero draft formulation.
And in this regard, it would read, the conference notes the grave concerns expressed at the legality of attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities in terms of the UN charter and international law and calls upon states parties to exercise maximum restraint to avoid such attacks.
In our view, it's important that the review conference refers to this attack on the safeguards regime and the NPT.
Thank you.
I thank South Africa and I invite France.
Deposition technique a outstanding safeguards issues, it's serious concern regarding unresolved outstanding safeguard issues and non compliance, paragraph set, and calls upon states to cooperate fully with the IAEA.
Set at suit me Brittany mercy.
I thank France for their proposal and I invite the Russian Federation.
Ha admitted to Silk Rugate minimal ablations from Golazv David, probably, Myra Kaag uchist Pad, critic, Padgna Kusini glacis anemia.
I at, N, Udera, poor, Abuk, Ira poor, raapoor vouch I thank the Russian Federation and I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
In fact, I didn't have the intention to take the floor again, but as we heard, two delegations refer to our remarks with regard to noncompliance.
I wish they had listened carefully to our intervention when we ourselves suggested language in support of addressing noncompliance issues based on international law and the statute of the IAA.
It shows that in principle, we do not have any problem on issues to discuss issues with regard to noncompliance.
But in the meantime, it has to follow strictly the legal requirements.
For example, it was mentioned that noncompliance approved by the IAA Board of Governors.
Why not to refer to the very report of the Director General in which he explicitly mentioned that Iran has no military nuclear program and Iran has never diverted nuclear material.
These should be the basis of any conclusion with regard to Iran.
But the word noncompliance is not in that report.
It was publicated by the Ether, supported by the US, and it is a politicized decision, legally flawed, and we can never, ever base our work based on a legally flawed decision, which was taken by vote, not a consensus.
Here we are trying to produce a consensus language and a consensus document.
But that resolution avoids any notion of consensus.
So again, we cannot accept any reference to Iran and we want to delete those references.
Otherwise, as I mentioned, there are a lot to be reflected in the report, and we are not talking about lack of compliance by specific nuclear weapon states with their nuclear disarmment obligations.
But here on this cluster, we have definite cases of noncompliance in our region, not application non application of the safeguards in our region.
Also, we have proposals with regard to prohibition of attacks against nuclear facilities that we will share when we discuss the related paragraph.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran and I now give the floor to the Netherlands.
So don't for giving me the floor.
We already came with new language for P seven.
With regard to P eight.
We will not make it more difficult, and we would like to support the proposal made by the United Kingdom.
I thank you for your attention.
I thank the Netherlands, and that was the last speaker on my list.
I will move on to paragraph nine.
I recognize the United Arab Emirates.
Thank you, Mr.
President, for giving me the floor.
I don't want to repeat what other delegation have been saying and proposing.
I just wanted to say that we support the proposal made by the United Kingdom regarding paragraph eight, and we also support the proposal made by France regarding paragraph seven.
I thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank the UAE and I invite comments on paragraph nine.
I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
On paragraph nine, the notion of giving access to Security Council and General Assembly to the IAA Director General is contradictory with what requirements are set out in the IAA statute and We believe that this reference should be deleted and it should be adjusted in a way to be compatible with the IAA statute and similar case should be reported to the Board of Governors, Board of Governors will discuss it and if there was any decision, then that decision can be reported to the Security Council and to the to the General Assembly.
The power of transferring or access to Security Council is not a direct competency to be given to the Director General.
Therefore, we need to have the language compatible with the Stitute.
Thank you.
Thank the Islamic Republic of Iran and I now invite Argentina.
Hi.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'm so sorry.
I think it was too slow just to request for the floor.
So my comments will be back to paragraph eight.
The Argentine delegation supports the comments made by distinguished representative of Germany and in particular, the retion of this paragraph.
We believe it is very important for the conference to acknowledge what was the situation regarding Iran's nuclear programs, and in particular, the decision made by the IA Board of Governors in Vienna and therefore also would like to support the language proposed by the UK delegation.
Thank you.
I thank Argentina.
I do not see any further requests for the floor.
I will move on to I recognize France.
Merci President, paragraph Neuf, Nim duutera Dgagenrait with the charter of the United Nations Je Sisi in upholding compliance with IAEA safeguards agreements and ensuring compliance with safeguards obligations by taking appropriate measures in the case of any violations notified by IAEA.
Mercy.
I thank France and I give the floor to Greece.
Thank you very much.
Very shortly.
Greece would like to thank the very fruitful and productive proposals made a few moments ago by France and others.
Thank you very much.
I thank Greece and I give the floor to Russian Federation.
Prince paragraph, yeast Pospic organ of uikusi I thank the Russian Federation and I invite Australia.
Thank you, President.
President Australia remains deeply concerned by Iran's continued failure to comply with its legally binding safeguards obligations.
Iran must return to full and timely cooperation with the IAA, including on outstanding verification issues.
We support calls to recall the IAA Board of Governors resolution and relevant UN Security Council resolutions, and we thank the UK for its intervention on that issue.
Thank you.
I thank Australia, and I invite Brazil.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
My comment is more related to some suggestions that were made to OP seven.
We would caution against the progressive introduction of formulations and safeguards issues that are not sufficiently anchored in the established legal framework of the treaty.
In this regard, we would favor a more discipline formulation that maintains coherence with Article 3 and with the established practice of channeling safeguards related concerns through the IAA, including its statutory mandate and procedures.
While I have the floor, I would also like to take this opportunity to support South Africa's suggestion on OPA B.
I thank you.
I thank Brazil.
I invite the Russian Federation admitted to against the law.
P sano, etoniali fun, et sgidis, puns palagm pros status of the Unity delete salva and of the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities.
De lavish would delete a limited level of B salva at the declared facilities.
Propin moduma three.
Chrome of If Secretariat against Priam guarantees paragraph DC the conference underlines that regardless of any possible modification of the IA safeguard system, the conference underlines that regarding of any possible modifications, the IA safeguard system shall remain objective, depoliticized, technically sound, and fully consistent with the rights and obligations of states and the IA and respective safeguards agreements.
Serious modifications in safeguard system and approaches to safeguards, implementation shall be subject to considerations and approval by the agency's policy making organs, specific precedent.
I thank the Russian Federation and I invite Saudi Arabia.
Female you have to be ready.
Much Hamed Moel Arabia, will be Brazil.
A lab cont for Kalkraj time and financier.
All to a limited level of assurance regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.
Mama.
If you had the haltic fib with mohder Webster, literal canon in global cafe bimo myhedr, let hack meatbami libra tack and no is a dual rela hea troph, embogisht Of semen local dira atria.
When ferma a had a dualism beg.
I think Saudi Arabia.
I realize that some delegations have started to comment on paragraph ten.
I will now invite delegations to provide comments on paragraph ten through 14.
I believe this is a cluster of paragraphs that would be useful to consider them together.
I recognize Germany.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
So I'm still with paragraph nine, just to say that we are fine with the language you proposed to nine.
We think this is a very important paragraph.
However, after having listened to the room, we see that the addition which has been proposed by the French delegation would be an improvement, further improvement of this paragraph, and we would like to support it.
Thank you.
I thank Germany.
I give the floor to Brazil.
Thank you very much Chair.
I fully support my Suge colleague on his intervention about OP ten.
Now, on OP 12 and 13, my delegation would like to underline that the language developed in the context of the IA General Conference cannot be transposed ipso facto into the framework of the treaty.
While both processes are complementary, they operate within distinct, legal and institutional parameters.
Care must therefore be taken to ensure that the formulations adopted in this forum remain grounded in the provisions of the treaty itself, in particular, Article 3, which establishes the core of safeguards obligations while accommodating the diversity of national, bilateral and regional verification arrangements recognized in practice.
This slide, we would favor a streamlined approach, maintaining a single balanced paragraph on the additional protocol that clearly reflects its voluntary and sovereign nature.
Expanding this section through the selective incorporation of general conference language risks creating unintended normative implications and unsettling the carefully calibrated balance of rights and obligations under the treaty.
A concise formulation firmly anchored in Article 3 would better preserve both legal clarity and institutional coherence.
In this regard, we would like to propose a change to OP 12.
We would have the first sentence of OP 13 taken to OP 12.
It would begin by the conference emphasizes that it is the voluntary sovereign decision of any state to conclude an additional protocol, but once enforced, the additional protocol is a legal obligation.
This is more or less what's the first sentence of 13 with some changes.
We would delete 13 and we would have 2010 language on bilateral and regional safeguards systems.
I thank you.
I thank Brazil and I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
On paragraph ten, we believe that the language should be strengthened in a way to replace the word should, we shall then and with some additions afterwards.
It will be requesting to implement a comprehensive safeguard agreements or let me put it in this way.
The conference reaffirms that the comprehensive safeguard agreements shall be applied Here we have some additions, technically, impartially and non discriminatory and without politicization and in full conformity with relative provisions of the treaty.
Then we also need to modify the language on credible assurance and to replace it credible evidence on diversion of nuclear materials and the purpose should be to prove that there is no credible evidence of diversion.
We think that the end part of the paragraph should be deleted as it was supported by some allegations.
Also we have addition here to recognize that there have been some cases that safeguards agreement have been applied based on political interests of certain states, unfortunately resulted in hampering economic or technological development of the parties concerned.
We have a new paragraph here after paragraph 11 as 11 B, which refers to confidentiality and This is not been mentioned in anywhere of the text, and therefore, we believe that there is a merit to suggest a standalone paragraph on this which reads, The conference stresses the importance of maintaining and observing fully the principle of confidentiality regarding all information related to implementation of safeguards in accordance with safeguards agreements and the IAA statute.
And we believe that from paragraph 14 to 17 should be deleted because there are two detailed and not necessarily to be discussed here.
They have to be addressed in Vienna and in the IAA itself.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I invite the United States.
Mr.
President, of the paragraphs that are under review at the moment, the United States would only request a specific edit to Paragraph 11, namely, it would be the deletion of the words by six states parties to the treaty after the word agreements and the insertion of the word six before comprehensive safeguard agreements.
That's our only request for this group.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank the United States, and then I invite Argentina.
A apos Lindt, lost all paras fsolve tras comsanto voluntaria too they conclude a protos additional Azaz ta, la suren e, aminaposam ethrams Argentina, otras, contrala.
They include lengua, gaga referencias los a cords, bilatergn present.
I thank Argentina and I now give the floor to Japan.
Thank you, Mr.
President, to give me the floor.
First, concerning paragraph ten to 13, I suppose there is an issue of guiding principle and everybody in this room knows that IAEA GC resolution plays a very important role to indicate that is consensus among themselves.
I suppose looking at this paragraph, I suppose there is a lot of many languages of IAEA GC resolution text have been reflected down here.
However, I have to point out that in looking at paragraph 13, the mentioning of parentally is strangely deviated from the resolution text.
So cherry picking of GC resolution cannot be justified because, as I said, IAE GC resolution was adopted by consensus.
So it is either we adopt the GC wording or we do not.
If we adopt this language voluntary in paragraph 13 must be deleted.
I suppose that might be the consensus and Mr.
President and you are urging us to look into.
But if we are not taking that approach and we have various proposals to make in each paragraph.
Now, let me go into each paragraph.
In paragraph ten, And I have heard in previous speakers and some of them proposed to delete the reference to absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or the reference to have also provided a limited level of assurance and the last part of it.
We don't think it is a good idea, and we very much hope that the text as proposed by you, Mr.
President, this difference should be kept and retained.
Conning paragraph 11, and we very much would like to state that we welcome the addition of as soon as possible and without further delay and in this paragraph to be in line with past and agreed paragraph.
And concerning paragraph 12, this is in case that we are not taking an IAA GC resolution format.
If that is the case, we request to modify importance at the beginning of this paragraph to significance and reference to very important and the latter part of it to essential because those expressions in the lab two and when combined with other paragraph on CSA, to make the AP appear as if it would have secondary importance, and we also request to add the language welcoming the conclusion by massive number of state of APs as has been proposed by various speakers including UK.
On OP 13 on top of the deletion of the voluntary, and we also request the deletion of in conformity with their national registration which was added at the last part of it.
Since we cannot be sure of the effectiveness of the provisional implementation of AP, including the effectiveness of the complimentary access and if it is subject to national registration.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank Japan and I give the floor to Egypt.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair for giving me the floor.
For the paragraphs that you suggested that we allude to, I want to start with paragraph ten.
Comprehensive safeguards agreements should be treated with a clear positive legal connotation.
They are legally required instrument under Article 3, paragraph one and the foundation for the universal application of the IEA safeguards.
Paragraph ten as it stands now, Mr.
President, blurs the findings of the comprehensive Safeguard Agreement states only with that of comprehensive safeguards and additional protocol countries.
That's why we strongly recommend and support the suggestion just made by Saudi Arabia, and this is a suggestion is being made by the Arab Group in its entirety.
And as well as hearing the other comments made by other delegations, including Brazil, that we will highly suggest to remove the last sentence of this paragraph and have also provided a limited assurance regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.
We see that this finding is very much attached to the additional protocol and measuring the CSE on the pieces of the additional protocol is something that is counterproductive.
On paragraph 11, we see that the language on universalization should place a universal application of IA safeguards first before referring to any individual case.
This would better reflect agreed IA and review conference language and would preserve the general legal character of the obligation.
Therefore, the Arab group suggests reformulation of paragraph 11 to reads as follows.
The conference reiterates the importance of achieving the universal application of IEA safeguards and urges all states which have yet to bring into force comprehensive safeguards agreements to do so as soon as possible.
The conference calls on states parties to consider specific measures that would promote the universalization of the comprehensive safeguards agreements, and then the conference further welcome the conclusion of comprehensive safeguard agreements by six states parties to the treaty since the last review conference.
We note that paragraph 12 here is taken from the general conference resolution while changing it from a preamble paragraph to an operative paragraph.
It's only logic to copy the general conference resolution on the CSA here as suggested by our delegation now on paragraph 11.
Regarding the element of the balance between application of safeguards on nuclear weapon states and non nuclear weapon states as well, the Arab group suggests adding a paragraph 11 B, which we provided in the rev one as well, which basically is action 30 of the 2010 document.
Now, on paragraph 12 and 13, the Arab group as well joins other voices that we need to delete paragraph 13 as it stands now and we would start paragraph 12 by referring to the emphasis that the voluntary and the sovereign decision of any state to conclude an additional protocol and that once enforced additional protocol is a legal obligation, and then we'll continue paragraph 12 as it stands now.
Mr.
President, we see that the balance between paragraphs 10, 11, 12, and 13 and with the addition of the language on application of safeguards on nuclear weapon states is extremely crucial to keep the balance the legal distinction between comprehensive safeguards agreement and the additional protocol.
I thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank Egypt and I invite Mexico.
Scleral reductions contradiction additional proto additional legal.
But once enforced, the additional protocol is a legal obligation to those states that subscribe it, E of the quote.
I thank Mexico and I give the floor to France.
President resolution, guarantee conference La Nature Pacific program nuclear, Metro Neves guarantee ensemble, Telcle, du, c propose du text, mod, deb Nusion Bearing in mind the importance of achieving the universal application, universal application of comprehensive safeguards agreements among non nuclear weapon states parties.
Paragraph soul, conclusion and protocol additionel Furse Amere Neves for, bore conclusion,age du safeguards, glossary, Equi Sisi paragraph date, and the only combination of instruments that allow the IAEA to draw a broader conclusion that all nuclear material remain in peaceful activities.
Neon la join paragraph, and the only combination of instruments that allow the IAEA to draw a broader conclusion that all nuclear material remain in peaceful activities.
Proposition Japanese, the Suprema voluntary and constituted sovereign.
I thank France and I invite the United Kingdom.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
We think the efforts to move us forward on this cluster are going in the right direction and we thank you.
Paragraph ten in this revision of the text is something we can support.
It has added further emphasis on the CSA, that is understandable for us and we recognize it as a response to calls by some parties.
But we do think a small deletion of the word central would finesse the balance appropriately here and make the meaning clearer in this context.
Also, just to enhance the precision of the text, we would suggest tweaking the words which are legally required.
To say for the implementation of NPtee obligations pursuant to.
Just to repeat that, to tweak the words which are legally required to say for the implementation of NPTe obligations pursuant to.
This is a technical change to reflect established review conference language and accurately reflect the treaty.
Similarly, we wish to retain paragraph 13, but have a similar point on precision.
We therefore suggest changing the words legal obligation to legally binding agreement.
Finally, regarding paragraph 12, we welcome this paragraph, but continue to believe, as noted by Japan and others, that this conference should welcome the significant progress made by state parties in concluding additional protocols.
This recognizes important and tangible advances in strengthening safeguards in line with the 2010 action plan rather than just restating principles.
It also mirrors the approach taken elsewhere in the text in welcoming the conclusion of comprehensive safeguards agreements, whilst fully preserving the established understanding that the decision to conclude an additional protocol remains a sovereign one.
We suggest adjusting the first line to add this conference welcomes that a significant majority of state parties have now concluded an additional protocol.
Thank you, Chair.
I thank the United Kingdom and I invite the Russian Federation.
The Gosport training comprehensive guarantee.
Topography v Magan comprehensive IA safeguards Kaag guarantee.
Leadership, I mean, topography.
Nada Aznch Rushinaucne particular topographer formula is a resolute magate for for Mauro, do not see paragraph three.
The conference emphasized that the decision to conclude an additional protocol remains a voluntary measure and a sovereign decision of each state and that Once in force, an additional protocol constitutes a legal obligation.
The conference stressed the importance of the model additional protocol in SIG 540 corrected approved by the Board of Governors aimed at strengthening the effectiveness and improving the efficiency of IA safeguards that equips IA with broader information and access enabling it to provide the increased assurances regarding both the non diversion of nuclear material placed under safeguards and the absence of undeclared materials and activities for estates as a whole.
ESgetn tomabgraphn topographer pumiag chromea Russia isd stompographer, Tamminids a Sarant.
I think the Russian Federation I'm advised that the one state remaining is Equatorial Guinea for your information, Russian Federation.
I now invite Austria.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I can be very brief.
Austria is very committed to traditional protocol, and we therefore support the very good compromise language that you've proposed in the current draft, especially in this section, especially paragraph 12 that we would prefer to keep as it is, but we also would welcome the further clarifications as proposed by France and also would like to support the UK proposal to add welcoming of countries that have joined the additional protocol.
Thank you.
I thank Austria and I invite Belgium.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
We can also be brief on OP 12.
We support the Japanese suggestion to speak of essential instruments instead of very important or alternatively, indispensable could be considered.
And we also support the French proposal to add to the end of paragraph OP 12.
Thank you.
I thank Belgium and I now give the floor to Australia.
Thank you, President.
I'll be brief as well, just to record our support for the proposal by Japan and France to delete the word voluntary from OP 13 on the basis that it is indeed redundant.
Thank you.
I thank Australia and give the floor now to Brazil.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President for giving me the floor again.
I would just like to support the intervention made by Egypt in the name of thera Group on OP 11 and OP 11 B.
Let me also note that.
I think Brazil and give the floor to Cameroon.
President.
Paragraph D, prefer formulation lans.
Cote Neves offer design as credible non e to proposed the France relative or limited level of insurance plus para formulation The conference recognizes that comprehensive safeguards agreements based on constitute the core of the IAEA verification system and when fully implemented, provide credible assurance of non division of nuclear material from declared activities.
The conference underlines the importance of continued efforts to strengthen the effectiveness of this agreement.
Paragraph two.
Mafi la combination, guarantee global PS protocol addition, them.
Ma protocol, condition nuclear obligation contrary duct volunteer Mag proposed, the enhanced verification standard for the state Echela Sivnte.
The measures contained in both instruments represent a comprehensive verification framework that can provide increased confidence regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activity.
Ographsgraph, de calibre du carte volunteer con de la conclusion debut de France lapel at est de.
Polid las Jen Final.
Liu, bearing in mind that it is the voluntary sovereign decision of any state to conclude an additional protocol, but once in force, the additional protocol is a legal obligation.
The conference encourages state that have not yet that are not yet done to consider concluding and bringing into force additional protocol in conformity with their national legislation.
O paragraph cartoons, Madam Garson proposed the low paragraph A duct legitimate does exist, Dacogen, like mijo QP, the made copy like you are.
The presidency, penetrate the material objective, force, la verification, pact.
The conference notes that Some states parties have small qualities protocol based on the original standard text.
The conference encourages those state parties that have not yet done so to consider on a voluntary basis, and in consultation with the IAEA, the amendment or rescission of such protocols as appropriate in order to enable the IAEA to draw soundly based safeguard and conclusions.
The conference reaffirms that any modification of a small quantities protocol shall be carried out in accordance with the relevant IAEA procedures and the sovereign decision of the state party concerned.
President.
I thank Cameroon, I now give the floor to Egypt.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
President for giving me the floor again.
I want to reflect on some of the comments that has been made thus far on the paragraphs under consideration.
Mr.
President, I think that we will highly suggest that we should not tamper with balance between the CSA and additional protocol and I'm highly encouraged that we will be able to arrive at a more balanced text in these paragraphs while recognizing, of course, all of the improvements that you have provided in this particular rev.
Mr.
President, we've heard some suggestions to try to water down that the CSAs are not legally required, and this is something that we insist to keep and we reiterate our position as an Arab group as well to delete the last sentence of paragraph ten.
As for dimensions in paragraph 12, some of the suggestions that has been made, we cannot go along with because references to non consensual documents from the IEA including its glossary is something that's something that we cannot go along with.
Mr.
President, the mentions in paragraph 11 B that we suggested about the universalization actually of the safeguards agreement and additional protocol could be the way forward to address the importance of the two instruments.
Again, I reiterate this is action 30 of 2010, and the essence of this is that it reads that we stress that comprehensive safeguards and additional protocol should be universally applied once the complete elimination of nuclear weapons has been achieved.
In our view, Mr.
President, any attempt to consolidate or celebrate the languages of additional protocol on the expense or being the standard, again, is a comprehensive safeguards agreement.
It's something that we cannot accept and we always link between the entirety of the text of the outcome document between non proliferation aspects versus disarmament as well as peaceful uses.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank Egypt.
I still have three delegations who have requested the floor, but since time is running out, I would defer them to tomorrow morning session.
Before we conclude, allow me to say a couple of more words.
First of all, from the very beginning, all delegations have clearly indicated to me their determination, their commitment, their willingness to work towards consensus, and to have an outcome document after this review conference.
Unfortunately, I do not see that reflected in the work that we're doing here today.
I recognize, of course, that there are many, many difficult issues and we need in depth discussions.
But at the same time, we have had a more than a week of discussing these topics with the draft outcome document as the basis.
So unless we seek and we work actively to seek consensus, I don't think we can get there.
And time is really running out and with the pace we are working right now, I do not see that, you know, possible at all.
So at the same time, what I have been hearing today is fundamentally, you know, a repetition of the written inputs that you have sent into me, as well as the statements that you have made at the committee meetings.
And all these inputs, I can assure you have been taken into account when we work on the Rev one as well as this Rev two.
The reason the text is as it is, is because of the divergent views and because of the assessment on my part, the judgment on my part, that this is the best case or the best language that can meet the demands, the requests from different delegations.
So I understand that repeating some of the positions may be necessary, but I think that if we are to achieve consensus, I would need from you many more suggestions that you think may at least may garner consensus and not simply restating the positions that you have been stating.
So again, I call upon all delegations to come prepared tomorrow morning to engage in the discussions with a genuine determination to achieve consensus and to come with more suggestions to bridge the differences.
Again, I would urge you to look at the revisions that I have proposed and to try and see that I have been trying to balance the different perspectives from the different delegations.
So that is once again my call to all delegations, and I hope that tomorrow morning we will continue to engage in a much more constructive, much more productive discussion on the draft text.
We will convene tomorrow morning with a Two more comments on paragraphs 10 through 14, which are New Zealand and Cameroon.
I would adjourn the meeting now and invite you to come back to this room at 10:00 A.M.
Tomorrow morning.
The meeting is adjourned.