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 Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is called to order this afternoon. We will continue our consideration of the revised Draft Outcome Document NPT Conf. 2026 CRP2 Rev. 2. 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 moratoria. 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 States 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 thank the Islamic Republic of Iran. I think you were commenting on paragraph 13. Right.

Okay.

I now give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. President. We are convinced that the three principles reflected in this paragraph irreversibility, verifiability and transparency must be applied by all States Parties when implementing all of the provisions of the Treaty. And therefore we believe believe it is unacceptable that they be referred only as applies to or singling out Article 6 of the treaty. And therefore we propose amending the text of this paragraph as. After the word transparency, add the words in relation and then delete everything up to the word of these principles in add the word to so it would read to the implementation of their obligations. Thus we would delete the reference to Article 6 and then after the word obligations, delete the words and nuclear disarmament related commitments so we would have obligations under the treaty left. In our wording of this paragraph it would read as follows. 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.

I'll repeat it once again. We are of the view that the three principles mentioned here relate to the implementation of all obligations under the Treaty and not only to obligations under Article 6. Thank you.

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. And on this specific paragraph we want to highlight that the commitments should be implemented by all state parties, particularly the nuclear weapons states, to apply the principles. Thank you.

I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran. I do not see any further requests for the floor in 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 need for to critical importance of compliance. We actually believe this paragraph is important to specifically emphasize non proliferation given that we've already had several preambler paragraphs addressing Article 6 and several below will address Pillar 3 issues. We would also like to see the addition in this paragraph of relevant IAEA Board of Governors and UN Security Council resolutions. And 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 20, 25, 38 and then the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 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.

Thank you, Mr. President. Since this is the first time my delegation is taking the floor, we would like to commend you on the work that has been done on paragraph 13. My delegation is concerned by the replacement of the word diplomatic means for my delegation. This replacement weakens the traditional preference for diplomacy and therefore my delegation proposes a consensus wording that maintains the reference to diplomacy without being exclusive. My delegation believes we could say through peaceful means, in particular diplomatic means in accordance with international law. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank Cameroon for their comment. I do not see any further request for the floor on paragraph 13. I will move on to paragraph 14. I give the floor to CAmeroon.

Thank you, Mr. President. Once again, in paragraph 14, my delegation considers that the references to articles 3 and 4 have disappeared, which in the view of my delegation breaks the balance with the safeguards, obligations and peaceful development. My delegation would suggest restoring the full reference as it was in Rev 1 and it could be as follows. In conformity with Article 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the treaty. Thank you.

I thank Cameroon 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 unquote 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 thank Australia and I should invite delegations to comment on pp. 14, 15, 16 and 17 as a package. So if you have already spoken, feel free to ask for the floor again. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Japan highly appreciates variable works of you President and your teams on working over the weekend to craft Prep 2, 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 Cameloon as well as distinguished delegates from Australia. Implementation of the three pillars of the Treaty in a balanced manner is important to maintain a strength in NPT because non proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses are not independent commitment, but form a single interdependent whole. Previous outcome documents reflect this inextricable linkage. The deliberate 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 4 for PP. 14 and I quote in conformity with all provisions of the Treaty, end quote, 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 4.1 of the treaty. So 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 inevitable right to peaceful users other than what is provided by the text and letter of the NPT itself.

I thank Egypt for helping me remind delegations of that I now give the floor to Mexico.

Thank you very much for allowing me to take the floor. I would just like to go back to paragraphs 12 and 13. We agree with the additions that notwithstanding in paragraph 13, we would note the change, as has already been mentioned, of the word diplomatic replaced with peaceful. Mexico considers that they are not necessarily equivalents and therefore we would prefer to return to the word diplomatic because it has a much more precise meaning than what is meant here. Thank you very much.

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 for the efficient manner you and the secretariat circulated the Rev2 draft outcome document. We view this as a good basis to work towards a consensual outcome. Our comments in this intervention are confined to preambler paragraph 16. We welcome Rev2's acknowledgement 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 preferred to see in conformity with all provisions of the treaty added. Again, we didn't raise this issue for pp. 14 as it addresses exclusively article 4 issues. And there I completely agree with my Egyptian colleague that if we refer to Article 4, then we should speak of in conformity with Articles 1 and 2. Nevertheless, I think also in pp. 15, also in order to use the same language, we should, 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 treaty document is in conformity with the treaty and the provisions of the treaty. So, I mean, I take your point, but I also like to respond to that particular issue and I'll give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. I had not planned to take the floor on this paragraph, but in light of the remarks of A number of delegations on pp. 15, we had to do so in the current language. This paragraph creates the same impact as Article 4 of the treaty. So any kind of additions would be an interpretation of obligations under the treaty, the treaty that was agreed upon and ratified by our states. So I think there's no. There should not be any possibility of making any additions. If someone wants to, then perhaps we would have to go back to and revise the actual treaty itself. Is that worth it? We don't think so. Thank you.

I thank the Russian delegation and I invite the Netherlands

for giving me the floor. I have a few remarks. One indeed with para. 15, like Germany and other, we would like to see that in conformity with all the provisions of the treaty, and I dare say if we can only repeat the treaty, then we would have an easy job.

Then we would have finished in the first week.

I think so. I think we should also be open for further discussions and we have seen also proposals from other delegations in that direction. Then with regard to para. 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 EIA's mandate, as well as its impartial, independent and objective role. And 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 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 set forth in the preamble of the treaty. Thank you.

I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran. I will now invite France.

Thank you, President. For paragraph 15, we support the proposal to add in conformity with all the provisions of the treaty at the end of the the paragraph and for paragraph 16, we also support maintaining the last part of the sentence, the importance of mobilizing adequate and diverse financing for this purpose. Thank you.

I thank France and I invite Cameroon.

Thank you, President. My delegation is entirely reserved, like certain previous delegations when it comes to the deletion of the words in conformity with all the provisions of the treaty in paragraph 15. And we completely support the view of the delegation that called for that end of the sentence. Thank you.

I thank Cameroon and I now invite Brazil.

Thank you very much, President. In relation to PP13, 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. So if we could combine both, that would be okay for us. In terms of the conditionalities to 14 and, sorry, 15 and 16, I don't think that we can. Sorry again, it's 14 and 15. The inconformity on 14, as my Egyptian colleague said, is verbating. What's in the 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 IAEA. I don't think we need it because we have OP 5 and 30. And I think the same goes for the suggestion around Article 4 on safeguards. We already have something similar in OP4, 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.

And further to my colleagues comment. I would like to comment on paragraph 17. There have been a change from zero draft and level one on this paragraph and I have to point out that the previous language was the same as agree to of 2000 final document. Our delegation would like to propose that 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 paragraph six, 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. 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, I mean, there are a number of sections of the preambler paragraph that is reflected in the operative paragraphs. The fact that they are reflected in one or other is not an argument, I think, for opposing balance across the preambler paragraphs. As I said earlier, we would like to see some language on the IAEA and safeguards in the preambler paragraphs to ensure there is balance across that language. And so we would certainly support the Dutch proposal.

Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom and I give the floor to Cuba.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your efforts, the efforts of your team and the Secretariat to present this revised version of the document. We join ourselves with what has been said by other delegations about the importance of the balanced implementation of the three pillars of the treaty and as relates to pp. 14 on the inalienable right of all States parties to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We would prefer the wording with the reference to articles 3 and 4 on pp. 16. We would like to include a small addition to the text to include a reference in particular to developing countries at the end of the paragraph. Thank you.

I thank Cuba and I give now the floor to the Philippines.

Thank you, Mr. President. On preambler 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 preamble 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 Francis 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 thank the Philippines and I give the floor to Spain.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Very briefly, I would like to join those who have asked that at the end of paragraph 14 and 15 we add a reference to in conformity with the provisions of the treaty and in paragraph 15, that last part is already in the previous version. And so what we're asking is for that to be restored and perhaps this broader language would help in in paragraph 14 as well. And in that we agree with our colleague from Australia. I would also like to take this opportunity to support the proposal by the Netherlands in paragraph or 4, paragraph 17 bis. We believe that that is particularly appropriate and that it brings into the preamble the reaffirmation of the central role of the IAEA both in terms of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and also on the subject of safeguards. We also believe it is necessary and appropriate to underscore the independent mandate of that institution. Thank you very much.

I thank 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 support it. And also we thought that this would not be a subject of 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 enabled right to peaceful uses President, you understand the sensitivity of the access to an enabled right to peaceful uses, especially for developing countries. And 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

would like to add our voice to

retention of Article 3 and 4. It is our view that it is important to reference peaceful uses of nuclear energy within the broader framework of the treaty's rights and obligations as a whole, including non proliferation safeguards and disarmament, 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 as is. 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

a wording

just after the paragraph, after this purpose

comma, also through international financial institutions to be included.

This is to reflect the IEA's achievements

to have dozens of institutions on board since last June.

Thank you very much.

I thank Turkey 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 the paragraph 15 where Slovenia would like to support delegations 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 swena,

in accordance to achieve more balanced tax in the preambler part, would like to

support the proposal by the delegation of Netherlands to include a new paragraph on reaffirming the central role of the IAEA

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 colleagues 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 preambler section may risk blurring actually the distinction between contextual framing and agreed action rather than strengthening it. So our suggestion therefore is aiming at preserving clarity and discipline in 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 OP5. No action should be taken to undermine the authority the iaea. 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 all provisions of the treaty at the end of paragraph 15 and then to say that we also could support the Turkish edition 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 request 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. So Indonesia can go along with the PP16 as presented by the President on PP. 17. We believe that it should reflect the comprehensive mandate of IAEA 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 3B1 of the IAEA statute, which provides that in carrying out its functions, the Agency shall, and I quote lelema 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 IAEA, the US and the Russian Federation from 1996 to 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 IAEA are a fundamental component of the nuclear non proliferation regime, support the advancement of safeguarded worldwide 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.

Thank you, President. I thought it would be helpful to go back to the language in pp. 16, to go back there to the original language of the Declaration of Paris on financing, which was adopted after the summit of March 10th. And the exact language is as mobilizing, adequate, predictable, diversified financing. Thank you.

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 on 17. And also on paragraph 15, we have sympathy for. For the Australian proposal to add phrase at the end.

Thank you very much. I thank Austria. I now 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. So 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.

Thank you, President. I would like to support the previous speaker this paragraph, first of all, is illogical. It's not at all clear what message we're trying to send there. If the message is that we need to abide by the treaty and all of its provisions, then this was repeatedly mentioned in the text before. And if we want to declare that that states accused of violating the treaty would be losing their rights under the treaty, or that any violation by any state of the treaty undermines all of the obligations under the treaty, then this is not correct at all. Obligations under this treaty under these multilateral treaties lay upon all states. And violations of the treaty do indeed undermine security as the UN is supposed to preserve. And they decide which measures should be taken with regard to the dangers or risks that are posed by any given violation. So writing here that any violation of the breaches of the treaty undermine all obligations under it. That's entirely incorrect. And we propose to leading this entire paragraph. Thank you.

I think the Russian Federation. There's no further request for the floor on this paragraph. I will therefore move on to the last preambler, paragraph 19. I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And in fact, to be factual, we think that we should replace the word welcoming with not 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.

I wanted to say exactly the same thing at this stage, replacing the word welcoming with noting because the results of the process. Are not yet known. And welcoming results when you don't know what they are necessarily correct. Perhaps subsequently we could use the word welcoming, but for now it would be noting. Thank you.

I thank 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 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. 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.

We do find some wisdom in the proposal of of Russia that it's not

automatic that reaches of a treaty necessarily undermine any of the norms there. Perhaps we can fix it with convince that breaches of the treaty's obligation can undermine nuclear disarmament. And that's our proposal to include can and to retain Article 18 together with

the United States on 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. Or 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, with your indulgence and I would like to support a comment made by and us and 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, Arab group supports Etienne as drafted.

I thank Egypt and I do not see any further requests for the floor. We have now completed the considerations of the. Well, the first reading of the preambula paragraph and we'll move on to the operative paragraphs from. And I invite comments on paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 as a cluster. I open the floor for comments. I recognize the United States,

Mr. President. Many ongoing discussions occurred on many topics that 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 portrayal 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 para two. Para two about extended deterrence touches upon the concept that is vital for the security of our country and even more after February 22nd. And 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 deterrence. But then I miss a lot of text on other issues and the US colleague already made mentioning of one. And 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 non proliferations. Since you have repeatedly not taken aboard tax proposals and suggestions, I am compelled to request the deletion of para 2. I 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 1 and 2. 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. Perhaps 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, 2 and 3, first, I would like again to reiterate that in Article 1 we don't see the necessity for the qualifier non discriminatory. So we don't understand it does not bear any meaning in relation to Article 1 and 2. So we would suggest to stick to the language from the 2022 Outcome Document Draft Outcome Document which speaks about four full and effective implementation. As to Para 2, 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 singled out in the text. Indeed, there have been numerous issues addressed at this conference which are not reflected in the text. And 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 to, but which has been deleted. So this was, for example, a discussion, a very intensive discussion we had which is now no longer present in the tax. And 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 para 2 as it is, but if we want to refer refer to the discussions which we had here in the conference, then we have to make sure that the other discussions and there as I said numerous others, that they have to be reflected as well. So this would be not our preferred option. But if this seems to be necessary, we would be ready to provide text suggestions for 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 to 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 Aukus 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 new paragraph to be added after paragraph 2 and it will be 2 bis. 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 framework of the treaty as indicated by their national statements and review reports. And 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 matter 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 treaties 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 non proliferation of Nuclear Weapons adopted without a vote. And the final document of this 2000 review conference adopted by consensus. Thank you, Mr. President.

I think the Islamic Republic of Iran 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. There are group first on paragraph one. We have indicated before that because this paragraph is 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 2 only. It needs to speak about the implementation of all the provisions of the Treaty. This is what will enable the NPT 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 the 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 non aligned movement, by the African group, by the Arab group, etc. So the situation is as follows that we have a clear situation of divergence of views and it seems that the state 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 the 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. 2, I feel obliged to state that we maintain the request to delete this paragraph. We continue to believe that this paragraph is neither balanced nor 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. So 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. So 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 Ref 2.

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 OP2, 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's 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 and 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 long standing 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. Both 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 there 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 thank 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's email npt nptn.org and I will take them into consideration. And with that, I hope you will agree to move on to the next paragraphs. I do not see any objection. I will then move on to the next section which will be paragraphs 4 to 6. I now open the floor for comments on paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. I invite the United Kingdom.

Apologies, Chair. I did have comments on paragraphs 1 and 3. My understanding is you were 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. And in paragraph three, we're not entirely clear of the intent around the phrase with the provisions of the treaty because of course, there are no compliance provisions within the Treaty itself. And so we would suggest deleting with the provisions of the treaty. And so the paragraph would finish in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom and I invite China.

Thank you, President. We would like to propose make some proposals on paragraph three for some time. The leaders of some countries and senior officials for some countries openly make statements on acquiring nuclear weapons and they may take actions to adjust their nuclear policy which will help practical in the long term.

Negative impact on the treaty.

We suggest add up one sentence in paragraph three. The Conference underscores the Conference expresses concern as statements and actions that are incompatible with Article 1 and 2 obligations. Opposition on paragraph 2 is very clear. I will not repeat it. Originally we wanted to add another paragraph after paragraph two to call on relevant nuclear weapons states to withdraw all nuclear weapons deployed overseas. But in order to reflect flexibility and build consensus, we do not insist on that. Thank you.

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 OP1 and that would be to delete articles 1 and 2 in the second line. I think that would make us be more coherent with preambular 7. I do. I was thinking about something for OP2 and maybe instead of in relation, we could work around with regard to their implication for non proliferation or with regard for their implication for compliance with non proliferation. 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 4, 5 and 6, I'd like to acknowledge the reference to to Article 4 in OP4. That is a very, very much appreciated addition. And on OP6, I have to require once again for us to go back to 2010 language. This is very important for us because it regards non compliance. And I think we have to respect what is set out in the statute. And I think 2010 language is more. It comes closer to those steps that are reflected. So I would like for us to change the last lines to with supporting evidence, evidence and information, then to IEA to consider, investigate, draw conclusions and decide. I think this is a very important addition. We've been reiterating this. 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.

Thank you, Mr. President. We echo the statements by delegations that spoke previously on paragraph one and about keeping the reference to the balanced implementation on paragraph two and the discussions that have taken place on this subject. We feel that due attention should be given to the concerns expressed by various delegations during the discussions, including those expressed by the non aligned countries over the issue of deterrence and extended nuclear sharing. And in that regard, we feel that the text proposal in paragraph two as it currently stands could be a way to address these concerns that have been expressed by a State on paragraph 3. We could also support the proposals on compliance with disarmament obligations. Thank you very much.

I thank Cuba and I give the floor to Russian Federation.

Thank you, President. President, we support the language of paragraphs 4 and 6. We entirely agree with it. Paragraph 5. We believe that we ought to make one change to delete the last sentence. No action should be taken to undermine the authority of IAEA in this regard. We believe in principle that undermining the authority of the IAEA is not allowed under circumstances and IEA is the international decision that is responsible for verifying nuclear material for prohibited uses. But at the same time, in this text and in this historic context, this proposal we believe sounds somehow wrong here. It sounds. Like a nod to the infallibility of iaea. But unfortunately recently the IAEA has made a number of non consensual resolutions, often with the minimum majority of votes. And there were several reports by the DG that were rather dubious and it was necessary to criticize such things in order not to undermine the authority of the non proliferation regime. And therefore there are no criteria for what undermines or does not undermine the authority of the IAEA and to what extent it is permitted to criticize it. So we believe we should delete this entire sentence. Thank you.

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 OP4. Reference to Article 4 is a new addition compared to zero draft and Rev1. And we don't think it is necessary because the language of Article 3, paragraph 3, which has been already mentioned, the language of the NPT itself includes 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 mention 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 OP3, 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 comma, 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 OP5, we wish to very strongly emphasize the need to retain the final line. So retain the sentence. No action should be taken to undermine the authority of of the IAEA 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. 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 IAEA's policy making organs to consider and decide unnecessary actions. And the sentence continues. Please. 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 non compliance should be addressed through dialogue, consultation and peaceful means in a manner that preserves international peace and security, avoids escalation and strengthens confidence in multilateral in the multilateral non proliferation 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 5, 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. And as we have already mentioned, implementation of safeguards should not restrict peaceful uses 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. And lastly on paragraph six, first of all, we need to highlight that compliance should be by all State parties and addressing any case of non compliance with safeguard obligations should be handled in full conformity with international law and the statute of the iaea. And we want to delete the last sentence of this paragraph. Thank you.

I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran and I invite France.

Thank you. Mr. President. I'd like to make a few comments on paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. First of all, paragraph 4, we believe that the reference to Article 4 of the Treaty ought not to be mentioned in the same sentence as Article 3, paragraph 3, because the limitation and the guarantee is exclusively under Article 3, and adding Article 4 here would be confusing when it comes to the legal reading of the Treaty. As for paragraph 5, we'd like to support maintaining the last sentence, I.e. no action should be taken to undermine the authority of the IAEA in this regard because we have noted recently they've been recurrent criticisms of the Agency and of the Director General on a certain number of files that this Conference ought to defend, because the IAEA is supposed to be independent and impartial and not to be attacked. So we should reaffirm our support to the Agency in this regard. And lastly, as for paragraph six, we'd like to to insist on the need to implement all of the comprehensive safeguard agreements via, in addition to paragraph 6, after the first part of the sentence, to add after the treaty, including the full implementation by non nuclear weapons states of their comprehensive safeguards agreements under all

circumstances and ELF has, and in the

following sentence, after non compliance with safeguards obligations and outstanding safeguards issues, so that here we could have a reference not only to the implementation of obligations under the CSAs, but also to the treatment by the Board of Governors of the IAEA of outstanding safeguards issues, which has not been mentioned at the text as of yet. Thank you.

I think 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 and 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 four. This is paragraph four in relation to paragraph five, we have set out repeatedly over the past three weeks. And as my French colleague has set out very eloquently, it's really important that we keep the last sentence of paragraph five. And 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 worry 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 if instead of where it starts, with States parties that have concerns regarding non compliance, if it instead says state parties that have concerns regarding non compliance obligations should bring such concerns, comma, with supporting information, comma, to the IAEA for its consideration and appropriate decision on any necessary actions in accordance with the IEA'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 3, which reads that Safeguards should 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 corporation 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 4 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 three, which is exactly what we suggested at the beginning. So we can go either ways. We can go with your language or we can add the language of paragraph 3 of Article 3 as stated in the treaty. On paragraph 6. Also, the Arab Group presented the amendment to return to the agreed language of paragraph 9 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 wanted to retain the full language on providing for evidence and information and for the IAEA to consider, investigate and draw conclusions and decide on the necessary actions in accordance with its mandate. And we join other voices already that has expressed the same interest, including, 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 4 to 6, 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 these 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 as, 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. And I have kept my word. Being transparent, inclusive in. 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. 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. So 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. So 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 I invite 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 7 and 8.

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 you President for giving me the floor. Paragraph 7 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 rev. 1. Therefore, we request to modify to refer to serious concern regarding unresolved safeguard issues and non compliance with safeguard obligations. So simply put, to add safeguard issues and after unresolved, that is our suggestion. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I thank Japan and I give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Thank you, President. I'd like to Note that paragraph 7 and 8 are directly linked to Iran. At the same time, the issue of the implementation by specific countries of their obligations under the CSAs was never part of the outcome document of the NPT Review Conference. This alleged non compliance by Iran of its CSAS would not be the first case in IEA's history and not the only one formally closed by the Agency. But the Review Conference had never mentioned this topic in outcome documents and never had mentioned the problem of the Iran nuclear program overall. Never before in any manner. We don't see any need to set a different precedent here. Therefore, we propose here to delete all of paragraph 8 and as for paragraph

7, we should add serious concerns Proliferation regime.

Before proliferation regime, we should add emphasis

that the full and effective implementation of Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, including full and timely cooperation with the IAEA is indispensable to ensure that nuclear material subject to a safeguards remain in peaceful activities.

Taking into account that the focus on Iran would be a very serious. Breach of trust in the treaty, we believe it's important to add Instead of paragraph 8 the following the Conference expresses its grave concerns about the attacks by

the Israel and United States on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 and February March 2026 and call upon all States to refrain from such attacks.

In addition, we believe it's necessary before paragraph 7 to add a paragraph that was in the previous version, Which now is in paragraph 42. The conference reaffirms

inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack authority of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities, operational or under construction poses a great danger to human life and 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 IAEA as stipulated in the IAEA General Conference Resolutions GC 25 Res. 381, GC 29, Res. 444 and Decision GC 34, Res. 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.

President. I thought we were on par 7. I have some comments on Paris 7. We would like to add to Paris 7. 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 thank 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 commit. These crimes were committed against the international law and against the international humanitarian law. They violated the principle of not use authoritative 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 Israeli regime is the only one outside of the NPT and defying the acceptance of the of the IAEA 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.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would also like to speak about paragraph seven and eight on behalf of my delegation in a general way to express our concern regarding what we view as a weakening of paragraph seven and eight on a crucial issue for this conference, the conference on the npt, the non Proliferation treaty. So having a veiled reference here would weaken it with regard to a case that is the key problem for the amplification regime. It's a question of principle and credibility for the npt. Therefore, the fact that we no longer see in the text a mention of the decision of the Board of Governors of the IAEA as well as the re imposition of Security Council resolutions is a weakening that raises a question of principle and of effectiveness, not to mention the integrity of the amendments that we had supported before and we would like to reintroduce. Therefore, we would here like to reaffirm the importance for us that this issue be explicitly addressed because it has to do with the authority credibility of this treaty. Thank you.

I thank France and I give the floor to Canada.

Thank you. Mr. President. You had asked us before this, 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 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 non compliance in nuclear sharing arrangements and extended nuclear deterrence. But when it comes to their own non compliance, 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 it 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. So 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 non compliance with the fact that we need to arrive at co consensus. Thank you.

I thank Canada and I invite China.

Thank you, President.

On this paragraph, the the text does

not reflect the full picture of the Iranian nuclear issue.

The root causes of the current crisis

lie in the abandonment unilaterally by one country of the JCPOA

followed by two military actions against Iran, including strikes on its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.

Therefore, the REVCOM should support all parties to reaching a solution by all parties that accommodates the legitimate security concerns of

all parties, thereby sending the right political signals.

I thank China and I give the floor to Germany.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. So for us the para 7 and 8 are addressing one of the of the main challenges of our treaty and we have certainly serious concerns with regard to the compliance by Iran with its safeguards obligations. So having that 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. We think that para 7 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 to strengthen also para aid. 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 aid 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. So my delegation would suggest that we insert a sentence along those lines after the word purpose in paragraph 8. 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. And 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 considering the repercussions on the non proliferation regime, we also have to simple simultaneously consider the effects on on the safeguards regime. And in this regard, South Africa views the paragraph 8 from our 0 draft as being quite important. In. In this particular particular section we propose this being an 8 bis with the 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 state 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.

Thank you, Mr. President. And apologies from my delegation for taking the flare again floor. Again we wanted to make specific proposals. We would like to amend paragraph seven. This is a technical paragraph which does not target any particular country. And it seems to us that it is in continuation of our previous intervention. We feel that it is important to reaffirm these elements. The amendments that we propose are as follows. We would like to add outstanding safeguards issues after its serious concern regarding unresolved. And then it would read outstanding safeguards issues and non compliance. That is the first change. And the second would be to add at the end of this paragraph 7

and calls upon states to cooperate fully with the IAEA.

That's as far as paragraph 7 is concerned. And then on paragraph 8 I would like to support my British colleague. Thank you.

I thank France for their proposal and I invite the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to note that the reference to the the IAEA Board of Governors decision was adopted with a bare minimum of votes, 19 out of 35 members of the Board of Governors. We do not think that is proper. This is a case in which there is a question of what undermines the authority of the Board of Governors more the decision itself or the criticism and the lack of agreement with the decision. We would like to underscore score that launching strikes, launching attacks on Iran, on Iranian facilities, on its civilian population and on the country's leadership under the pretext of defending the NPT is a most serious undermining of the authority of the treaty and the integrity of the treaty. And that is something that should be reflected in the outcome document. Otherwise it's not at all clear why we have gathered here. Therefore, we Insist on our wording. Thank you.

I thank the Russian Federation and I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And 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 non compliance, and I wish they had listened carefully to our intervention when we ourselves suggested language in support of addressing non compliance issues based on international law and the statute of the iaea. So it shows that in principle we do not have any problem on

issues

with regard to to discuss issues with regard to non compliance. But in the meantime, it has to follow strictly the legal requirements. For example, it was mentioned that non compliance proved by the IAEA 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. So these should be the basis of any conclusion with regard to Iran. But the word non compliance is not in that report. It was fabricated by the E3, 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 a lack of compliance by specific nuclear weapon estates with their nuclear disarmament obligations. But here on this cluster we have definite cases of non compliance in our region, not application of non application of the safeguards in our region. And 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

President for giving me the floor. We already came with new language for para 7. With regard to para 8, 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 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, my friends, 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 IAEA statute. And we believe that this reference should be deleted and it should be adjusted in a way to be compatible with the IAEA statute and any 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 General Assembly. So 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 statitude. Thank you.

Thank the Islamic Republic of Iran. And I now invite Argentina.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm so sorry. I think I was too slow just to request for the floor. So my comments will be Back to paragraph 8. The Argentine delegation support to the comments made by the distinguished representative of Germany and in particular the rotation of this paragraph. We believe that it's 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 traditional language proposal proposed by the UK delegation. Thank you.

I thank Argentina. I do not see any further request for the floor. I will move on to. Okay. I recognize France.

Merci, Monsieur President.

Thank you, Mr. President. On paragraph nine, we believe it would be useful to add at the end of the paragraph language that was agreed in the 2010 Plan of Action as follows. So at the end of the paragraph, and I quote, nous orient apres after with the Charter of the United Nations. It would read as in upholding compliance

with IAEA safeguards agreements and ensuring compliance with safeguards obligations by taking appropriate measures in the case of of any violations notified by iaea.

Thank you.

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.

Thank you, Mr. President. We do not entirely understand why we need paragraph nine at all. The IAEA Director General is the IAEA Director General having any problems accessing the organs of the United nations. But we are prepared to support it as it is currently worded. Thank you.

I thank the Russian Federation and I invite Australia.

Thank you, President. President. Australia remains deeply concerned by Iran's continued continued failure to comply with its legally binding safeguards obligations. Iran must return to full and timely cooperation with the iaea, including on outstanding verification issues. We support calls to recall the IAEA 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 OP7. We would caution against the progressive introduction of formulations on safeguards issues that are not sufficiently anchored in the established legal framework of the treaty. In this regard, we would favor a more disciplined formulation that maintains coherence with Article 3 and with the established practice of channeling safeguards related concerns through the iaea, including its statutory mandate and procedures. And while I have the floor, I would also like to take this opportunity to support support South Africa's suggestion on no. P8 bis.

I thank you.

I think Brazil. I invite the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. President. On paragraph 10 we would like to note that the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements initially did not provide for the verification of undeclared activities. When the MPT was created, nobody ascribed policing functions to the IAEA that came later in the Additional Protocols and incidentally, the obligations of States under the NPT do not require require the pursuit of these activities. Accordingly, in paragraph 10 we propose, just for the sake of bringing it in line with reality, we propose deleting the words and of the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities. And then in the next sentence we would delete a limited level of and at the end we would add the words at declared facilities and then that would reflect what is written in the Model safeguards agreements in 153. Given the reforms in the IAA safeguards regime that have been going on for the last 10 or even 15 years, and also the inability of the Agency Secretariat to provide an adequate reporting about what these reforms entail and what, as part of the new reformed safeguards systems, what the rights and obligations of States and agencies are. We propose adding a paragraph 10bis as

follows, underlines that regardless of any possible modification of the IAEA safeguard system. Sorry. The Conference underlines that regarding of any possible modifications, the IAEA safeguard system shall remain objective, depoliticized, technically sound and fully consistent with the rights and obligations of States and the IAEA under 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.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the Russian Federation and I invite Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Mr. President.

On paragraph six, my delegation supports the

Arab Group and Brazil's suggestions to return

to the consensual draft from the 2010

Review Conference Outcome Document. Turning to paragraph 10, we welcome the

addition of the first sentence on the

importance of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements. However, we want to reiterate the deletion

of any reference to

absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.

This editing will give the impression that the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement is not enough

to meet the requirements of State parties

in line with the treaty.

We would like to recall that the

Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement is the legal framework that is adequate as per the Treaty

to ensure the peaceful nature of the non nuclear states to such activities. We have to address any case of

non compliance on the obligations of non

proliferation in line

with the Article the articles of iaea.

And there hasn't. There has.

We should not have any additional obligations on the countries in line with the treaty.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank Saudi Arabia. I realize that some delegations have started to comment on paragraph 10. So I will now invite delegations to provide comments on paragraph 10 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 Bera Nein. 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 by the French delegation would be an improvement, a further improvement of this para. 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 Saudi colleague on his intervention about Op 10. Now, Onopi 12 and 13, my delegation would like to underline that the language developed in the context of the IEA 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. In this light, 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 OP12. We would have the first sentence of OP13 taken to OP12. So it would begin by the Conference that 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 in the sentence. 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 10, we believe that the language should be strengthened in a way to replace the word should with shall then and with some additions afterwards. So it will be requesting to implement a comprehensive Safeguard Agreement. Or let me put it in this way. The Conference reaffirms that the comprehensive Safeguard Agreements shall be applied here. We have some. Some additions technically, impartially and non discriminatory and without politicization and in full conformity with related provisions of the Treaty. And then we also need to modify the language on credible assurance and to replace it with credible evidence on diversion of nuclear materials. And the purpose should be to prove that there is no credible evidence of diversion. And we think that the end part of the paragraph should be deleted as it was supported by some delegations. And 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, thus unfortunately resulted in hampering economic or technological development of the parties concerned. And we have a new paragraph here after paragraph 11 as 11B, which refers to confidentiality. And this has 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 IAEA statute. And we believe that from paragraph 14 to 17 should be deleted because they are too detailed and not necessarily to be discussed here. They have to be addressed in Vienna and in the IAEA 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 I invite Argentina.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. On paragraph 10, Argentina supports what was said by the distinguished delegation of Saudi Arabia with the understanding that CSAs are a compliance with the obligations established in Article 3 of the treaty. On paragraphs 12 and 13, we support the position and the suggestion made by the distinguished delegate of Brazil in that we would prefer to revert to language that was in a previous version and then merging the two paragraphs beginning with the voluntary nature that is a sovereign decision of every state to conclude additional protocols. And so we support the suggestion of Brazil on the language of what would be a combined 12 and 13. And lastly, we also support and reiterate what was said by the delegation of Argentina and others on the inclusion of language referring to bilateral and regional safeguards agreements. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I thank Argentina and I now give the floor to Japan.

Thank you, Mr. President. To give me the floor first, concerning paragraph 10 to 13, I suppose there is an issue of guiding principle and everybody in this room knows that IAEA this resolution plays a very important role to indicate what is consensus among themselves. So I suppose looking at these paragraphs, I suppose there is a lot of many languages of IAEAGC resolution text have been reflected down here. However, and I have to point out that in looking at paragraph 13, the mentioning of voluntary is strangely deviated from the resolution text. So cherry picking of GC resolution cannot be justified because as I said, IAEA GC resolution was adopted by consensus. So it is either we adopt the GC wording or we do not. If we adopt GC language, voluntary paragraph 13 must be deleted. I suppose that might be the consensus and Mr. President, 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 and paragraph 10 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 and we don't think it is a good idea and we very much hope that text as proposed by you, Mr. President, you these reference should be kept and retained concerning 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 IAEA GC resolution format and 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 extensions expressions in the Rev2 and when combined with other paragraphs on CSA make the AP appear as if it would be 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 Ops 13 on top of the deletion of the voluntary and we also request the deletion of in conformity with their national registration and 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 complementary access and if it is subject to 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 10. Comprehensive safeguards agreements should be treated with a clear positive legal connotation. They are legally required instrument under Article 3, paragraph 1 and the foundation for the Universal Application of the IAEA Safeguards. Paragraph 10 as it stands now, Mr. President blurs the findings of the Comprehensive Safeguards 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 departments 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 CSA on the basis 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 IAA safeguards first before referring to any individual case. This would better reflect agreed IAA 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 IAEA 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 welcomed the conclusion of Comprehensive Safeguards 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 preambler paragraph to an operated paragraph. So 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 biscuits which we provided in the Rev 1 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, the Additional Protocol is a legal obligation. And then we continue paragraph 12 as 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 between and the legal distinction between Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and the Additional Protocol. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank Egypt and I invite Mexico.

Thank you very much, President. On paragraph 13, we believe that the changes make the wording clearer and there is no longer a contradiction between the voluntary nature and obligatory nature of the Additional Protocols, taking into consideration that it is a sovereign decision of any State to conclude an Additional Protocol. But once it is in force, for each country, the Additional Protocol is a legal obligation. What we would suggest would be adding at the end of that phrase, and I'll say in English starting from line

two for the Additional Protocol is a legal obligation to those States that subscribe it.

End of the quote.

Finally, we believe that the final reference to conformity in conformity with their national legislation is appropriate. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I think Mexico and I give the floor to France.

Merci, Monsieur President.

Thank you, Mr. President. Generally speaking on this paragraph, on these paragraphs from 10 to 14, we support strong language on the mandate of the IAEA. For paragraph 10, we support the paragraph as is. This is language coming from the last resolution on these safeguards by the GC of the IAEA of 2024 the IAEA has the mandate of verifying the peaceful nature of nuclear programs and implementing the safeguards agreements on all of a country's facilities. So we support this paragraph as written. For paragraph 11 we believe it is important to go back to the language of Article 3 of the treaty as proposed in Rev.1 of the text. Therefore, we would like to introduce the following change. At the beginning of the paragraph we would have importance of achieving the universal application and here we would like to add application of comprehensive safeguards agreements among non nuclear weapons states parties. That's I've proposed addition for this paragraph. As for paragraph 12, I believe it is important to underscore that the conclusion of an additional protocol provides the Agency doubtless with more information which would allow it to arrive at expanded conclusions. Therefore, we would propose language drawn from the safeguards glossary as follows. We propose at the end of the paragraph to add the only combination of instruments that allow the IAEA to draw

a broader conclusion that all nuclear material remain in peaceful activities.

I'll repeat paragraph 12. We propose adding at the end of the paragraph a combination of instruments that allow the IAEA to draw a broader conclusion that all all nuclear material remain in peaceful activities. For paragraph 13 we would like to support the proposal by Japan to delete voluntary in our view this is redundant given the presence of the term sovereign. Thank you.

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 10 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 recognise it is 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 the MPT of MPT obligations pursuant to so, just to

repeat that to tweak the words which are legally required to say for the

implementation of MPT 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 States parties in concluding Additional Protocols. This recognises 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. So 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.

Thank you, President. In addition to what was said, what we said on paragraph 10 in paragraph

11,

We are here at an NPT Review conference for the Non Proliferation Treaty which provides for comprehensive guarantees. And so we would propose in paragraph 11, before the word IAEA to add the word comprehensive, comprehensive IAEA safeguards beyond any other kind of guarantee or safeguard. Next, in paragraph 12, We ought to clearly state that the decision to sign to conclude an Additional Protocol is the independent decision of States. And we would also propose simplifying the language of this paragraph using the language from the GC resolution. So we propose writing paragraph 12 as follows. The Conference emphasizes that the decision to

conclude an Additional Protocol remains a voluntary measure and a sovereign decision of each State and that once enforced, an Additional Protocol constitutes a legal obligation. The Conference stress the importance of the Model Additional Protocol in CIRC 5, 4, 0 corrected approved by the Board of Governors aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of and improving the efficiency of IAEA safeguards that equips air with broader information and access, enabling it to provide increased assurances regarding both the non diversion of nuclear material placed under safeguards and the absence of undeclared materials and activities Activities for estates as a whole.

If paragraph 12 is amended, then the text would suit us for 14. We also have no objection going back to paragraph 11. There is a mention. Estates that have not yet concluded safeguards agreements. Now, for understanding of the room, perhaps you could clarify which states are we talking about here? Thank you.

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.

It can be very brief.

Austria is very committed to traditional protocol and we therefore support the very good

compromise language which should you have proposed

in the current draft, especially on 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. Can also be brief on OP12. 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 OP13 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 Yara Group on OP11 and NOP11BIS. Let me also note that.

The condition of supporting the language of the IA Glossaril which has not been agreed upon by Member States. Thank you.

I thank Brazil and give the floor to cameroon.

Thank you, Mr. President. Paragraph 10, my delegation would prefer language underscoring that these agreements, correctly implemented already provide credible assurances of non diversion and that all the problem has to do with the application and not the instrument itself. Therefore, we propose deleting the last sentence about the limited level of assurance and replace it by the following language.

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 diversion of nuclear material from declared activities. The Conference underlines the importance of continued efforts to strengthen the effectiveness of of this agreement.

Paragraph 12, the last sentence describes the combination of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements plus the Additional Protocols as an enhanced verification standard. We believe that this language suggests that the Additional Protocol ought to be considered considered as a condition for nuclear cooperation or even an obligation, an implicit obligation which would run counter to the voluntary nature of this instrument. So we propose replacing enhanced verification standard for that State with the with more flexible language which would run as follows.

Seizures contained in both instruments represent a comprehensive verification framework that can provide increased confidence regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activity

in paragraph 13. My delegation believes this paragraph tries to balance the voluntary nature of the conclusion of an Additional Protocol with a call for all States to conclude them as soon as possible. My delegation therefore suggests to lighten that final recommendation and to say 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 States that have not yet done to that are not yet done to consider concluding and bringing into force Additional Protocol in conformity with their national legislation.

Paragraph 14 My delegation proposes restating, rephrasing the paragraph to recognize the legitimacy of existing arrangements and to encourage, without imposing the updating of the agreements and to focus on cooperation with the iaea. In our view, these changes would allow us to maintain the overall goal of strengthening verification by the IAEA while respecting the voluntary nature of this approach in the sovereignty of States and our proposal would be as follows.

Note that some States Parties have Small Quantities 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 decision of such Protocols as appropriate in order to enable the IAEA to draw soundly based safeguarding 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.

Thank you, President.

I thank Cameroon. I now give the floor to Egypt.

Thank you, Sir. 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 10. As for the mentions in paragraph 12, some of the suggestions has been made we cannot go along with because references to non consensual documents from the iaea, including its glossary, is something that's something that we cannot go along with. Mr. President, the mentions in paragraph,

in

paragraph 11 bis that we suggested about the universalization actually of the complete of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol could be the way forward to address the importance of the two instruments. And 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 Protocols 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 the 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, the. 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 are 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 week, more than a week of discussing these topics with the draft outcome document as the basis. So, you know, 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 possible at all. And at the same time, what I have been hearing today is fundamentally a repetition of the written inputs that you have sent in to 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 Rev1 as well as this Rev2. 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, you know, 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 with two more comments on paragraphs 10 through to 14, which are new Zealand and Cameroon. So I would adjourn the meeting now and invite you to come back to this room at 10am tomorrow morning. The meeting is adjourned.