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

The 12th Plenary Meeting of the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is called to order. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, let me start by thanking all of you once again for the dedication and very constructive engagement that you have brought to the work of the conference so far. I do not need to remind this room of what is at stake in the days that remain ahead of us. Throughout the main committee sessions, delegations have put forward their positions with clarity and with conviction. We know where each delegation stands. The task before us is now to find where we stand together. The gaps that remain are known. The paths to bridging them are also within reach, and I will spare no effort in facilitating that process. I count on each delegation to bring the same resolve. In that spirit, what I will ask of delegations as we move into this final phase of negotiations on the outcome document is this: when you take the floor, please bring concrete proposals on the text. And more than that, I ask that you engage with the proposals that are put forward by other delegations. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the Conference will be negotiating the text in the plenaries this week, and given the lack of a nomination for the position of Chair of the Drafting Committee, It is my intention not to convene the meetings of the Drafting Committee this week. I trust that this approach is acceptable to delegations. Turning now to the text before us. As I indicated to delegations at Friday's Plenary Meeting, I have given careful consideration to the interventions made in the main committees, and to the views shared with me in the course of my consultations and provided in writing. On that basis, the Secretariat circulated a further revision of the outcome document on the evening of Sunday, the 17th of May. This text bears the symbol NPT/CONF2026/CRP2/REV2 and represents my best effort to capture the areas of emerging consensus and to narrow the gaps that remain. It is this document that will serve as the basis for our negotiations in the Plenary. In terms of the conduct of our work, I propose that we proceed through the document sequentially, beginning with the Preamble paragraphs and moving through the Operative paragraphs in order. Where there is broad convergence on a paragraph, I will invite delegations to confirm that convergence so that we may set it aside and focus on those paragraphs where divergence remains. Where there is such divergence, I urge delegations to come forward with concrete and constructive proposals for how it might be bridged. As was the case during the meetings of the main committees, the conduct of business in the plenary will be without a formal list of speakers. States may request the floor by pushing the button to register their request to speak. There will be a strict time limit for delegations' interventions. A timer will be shown on the screen and your microphones will start blinking when 1 minute remains for your intervention. Followed by a strict microphone cutoff once the time limit has been reached. Delegations will recall that the time limit for statements is 8 minutes for group statements and 5 minutes for national statements. Well, having said that, I do hope that you will not take up to 5 minutes to comment on one paragraph. Delegations who speak on behalf of a group of States Parties should clearly indicate so when they do to take the floor. With that, I will open the floor for comments and proposals on the text beginning with the preamble paragraphs, Roman numbers I to III. Those delegations wishing to take the floor are requested to indicate so now. I first give the floor to the distinguished Parliamentary Vice Minister of Japan. You have the floor, Madam.

Thank you, Mr. President. I am Arfuya Ari, Parliamentary Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan. On behalf of the Japanese delegation, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for the tireless efforts by you, Mr. President, your team, and the Secretariat to expeditiously circulate the revised draft outcome document, and for your skillful steering of our deliberations towards consensus. I would like to share Japan's views on the designated preamble paragraphs of the draft outcome document. Firstly, Japan expresses its support for PP1. In the general debate, Japan stressed the importance of reaffirming our commitment to the NPT at this review conference. Many delegations have underscored the importance of the treaty as a cornerstone of the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime and renewed their commitment. PP1 is an essential paragraph as the basis of commitments by States Parties to the three pillars of the NPT: nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Regarding PP2, Japan believes that the historic achievement the NPT has played in the past 5 decades deserves commendation. As the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during the war, it is Japan's solemn mission to lead international efforts towards a world without nuclear weapons. We therefore welcome the clear articulation of such a resolute determination in this paragraph. Japan also welcomes the inclusion of PP3, reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and PP4, recognizing the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons. This is language that Japan has consistently attached importance to and has advocated for. Mr. President, distinguished delegates, there remain significant challenges and a number of points on which State parties' views differ, sometimes widely. However, our common mission is to present to the world our shared commitment toward a world without nuclear weapons. This, I believe, is the very reason we are assembled here. In the message addressed to this review conference, Prime Minister Takayichi called on all delegations to make this conference a first step towards dialogue to break the vicious cycle of mistrust surrounding nuclear weapons. In these remaining days, let us once again recall our shared objective and work together to reach consensus. In doing so, I also renew our commitment to this objective and my delegation's steadfast support to the President. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan for her statement. I now invite the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. President. First and foremost, I wish— before addressing the three preamble paragraphs that you set out, I wish first and foremost to take this opportunity to thank you and the Secretariat for the work that has been done in the drafting of this latest version of the draft outcome document. A great deal of work has indeed been done, and this will help us to— in our view, help us to make further progress and will ultimately at the end of the work of the conference hopefully will allow us to reach compromise on the consensus on the document. Another reservation I wish to turn to the delegations, I wish to call upon you not to transform this meeting, this meeting, the purpose of which is to discuss the draft, not to— draft outcome document, not to transform this into a general political debate and rather to focus precisely on work on the text. Having mentioned that, I wish to briefly set out the position of the Russian Federation on those 3 paragraphs that you have singled out. Turning to paragraph— the first paragraph, our proposal is to delete the words disarmament and, and to add after the word non-proliferation regime, after those words, to add the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. I will clarify our position. In the context of the treaty, we can merely talk about the non— nuclear weapons nonproliferation regime, but not a nuclear disarmament regime. And this kind of a regime does— is not entailed under the treaty in accordance with Article 6 of the treaty, nuclear disarmament is set out in the context of general comprehensive disarmament, and in this connection, we propose that we restore the— what is optimal in our view, the language that is proposed by the chairmanship in the initial version of the outcome document. I repeat our proposal on paragraph 1. After the words "of the global nuclear"— to delete the words "disarmament and"— and after the words "nonproliferation regime"— to add the words "the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament." I now turn to paragraphs 2 and 3. Considering their content and considering the significance of what is reflected thereon— therein, we believe that these are acceptable. These are acceptable paragraphs for our delegation. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt, and I would invite you not only to comment, but also on the draft, but also comment on what was proposed, if you do wish to do so.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. We'll be speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, and with your indulgence, we will share a summary of our reactions and reflections to the preamble section as a whole, actually, so as we don't have to take the floor again. Mr. President, the Arab Group would like to commence its engagement with this meeting at the beginning with condemning in strongest terms the drone attack which targeted yesterday the Barakah nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates. The attack constitutes blatant aggression, a highly dangerous escalation that threatens the security of the entire region, and a flagrant violation of international law and the norms governing the protection of civilian nuclear facilities. We affirm our solidarity with the UAE in all measures it takes to safeguard its sovereignty, security, and stability. Mr. President, the Arab Group expresses its appreciation to you and your team for the timely circulation of Ref. 2 of the outcome document. We reiterate our conviction that the successive iterations of the text provided by the President of the Conference offer the most viable pathway to consensus around the substantive outcome document which preserves the integrity and credibility of the treaty and meets the expectations of the overwhelming majority of the States Parties. Mr. President, you continue to have the full confidence of the Arab Group in your leadership and its strong support to your endeavors in leading our deliberations. The adoption of a substantive, balanced, and principled outcome document is our definition of success of this review conference. In this intervention, the Arab Group will communicate its views on the preamble section with its 19 paragraphs while concentrating on the most pressing outstanding issues. The Arab Group welcomes the revisions introduced to PP1 on the characterization of the treaty, to PP5 on affirming the urgent implementation of Article 6, to PP9 on promoting the universality of the treaty. The Arab Group welcomes and strongly supports the retention of PP7 on the urgent, full, effective, and non-discriminatory and balanced implementation of the treaty, PP8 on reaffirming the validity of existing commitments pursuant to previous review conferences. PP10, emphasizing the indefinite extension of the treaty does not constitute endorsement of the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons. PP11, on the need to uphold and strengthen the norm against nuclear testing. Our support remains valid to PP14, PP15, and PP18. The Arab Group appreciates the inclusion of PP17 on the role of the IAEA safeguards regime. On the other hand, we are disappointed by the merger of PP10 at Rev. 1 on the urgent implementation of Article 6 into Para 6. We invite the President to consider the reinsertion of this element as a standalone paragraph. Having said that, the Arab Group invites the consideration of the President to introduce the following limited yet important edits. One, the reference to peaceful uses in PP1 should remain faithful to the text of Article 4 under the treaty on the inalienable right to peaceful uses without discrimination. Two, PP4 should reflect the wide concern among states parties over the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons. This was explicitly captured in Principle A5 under the 2010 Action Plan, and we can't permit a retrogression 16 years after. 3, PP6 needs to reaffirm and not only recall the unequivocal undertakings by nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, leading to disarmament. This reaffirmation was already anchored at Principle 2 of the 2010 Action Plan, and we need to avoid any impression of a weaker commitment. Finally, PP10 needs to restore the words "does not imply" side by side with "does not constitute an endorsement" of the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Egypt speaking on behalf of the Arab Group. I now invite the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Thank you, Mr. President, for giving me the floor. We see— we continue to see in the revision that you have circulated on time, as promised, your tireless efforts together with your team to provide us with a document that can move us forward. We express our full support for the work that you have been doing. On PP1, South Africa supports the changes to this paragraph, which includes some of the proposals that we had made in our initial written comments. The current paragraph reflects the balance between the three pillars. We support the retention of the balance of this paragraph with the languages as is reflected currently with nuclear disarmament and the non-proliferation regime. On PP2, South Africa appreciates the retention of this paragraph as well. We, however, still consider that the element of seeking security for all is important to be added to this paragraph, especially given the current geopolitical climate we live in, and we propose to delete "a safer" and replace that— to delete "a safer world" and replace that with "security for all" and "a world without nuclear weapons." As guided by you, Mr. President, for now, we will comment on this section of the PPs and we will make further proposals as the discussion proceeds with other PPs. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa. I now invite the distinguished representative of China.

Xièxiè. Thank you, Mr. President. China would like to thank you for circulating Rev. 2 of the outcome document last night through the Secretariat. The Chinese delegation is still waiting for instructions from the capital and would like to preliminarily comment on the text. Generally speaking, on the basis of extensive consultations among all parties, the President produced two drafts within a few days, generally adhering to the balanced handling of the three pillars, which comprehensively reflects the discussions and sought as much as possible the greatest common denominator on issues of concern to all parties. The text is a working basis for deepening discussions and seeking consensus, but the specific content is still a certain distance away from consensus. Whether differences can be bridged ultimately depends on the willingness of all parties to sincerely address each other's concerns. As you have just mentioned, in the previous rounds of discussions, we have all made clear our respective positions, core demands, and concerns. In the remaining working days, we should face reality, properly address each other's concerns, and meet each other halfway. Focus on the core objectives of NPT, stay constructive, and work towards an outcome document that respects and addresses the concerns of all parties. This seems to require that all of us should make deletions from the new text, set aside disputes or differences, and gradually focus on possible consensus. China stands ready to participate constructively. I would like to make some specific comments regarding PP 1, 2, 3. The current PP paragraphs are generally balanced and concise. It emphasizes the core role of NPT. China, generally speaking, has no difficulties. As for PP 1, we agree with the opinions of The colleagues who have just spoken, I agree with the proposal from the Russian delegation. China has also noted that all parties have generally emphasized the importance of all three pillars, paying attention to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and promoting NPT to serve the purpose of peace and development. Therefore, China proposes that we add "and development" at the end of this paragraph so as to balance— in a balanced way reflect NPT's role to international peace, security, and development. So the last sentence is "international peace, security, and development." That's our comment on PP1. As for other PPs, we will speak later on. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of China. I now invite the distinguished representative of Mexico. Gracias, señor.

Thank you, Mr. President. For the Mexican delegation, we agree with the changes made to PP 1, 2, and 3. We believe, just like the South African delegation, that PP1 contains the necessary elements, particularly in terms of the order that we wanted to see them in. And in this sense, we wanted to support the current drafting that you have on PP1. We didn't want to suggest any particular change, particularly on the order, importance, or hierarchy established in the current drafting. For us, it's very important that nuclear disarmament come at the beginning and then we have the other elements thereafter. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for all the hard work that you and your team have put behind REV-II. I'd like to start off by agreeing with the Russian delegation that this is an opportunity to focus on the text and what we hope to achieve, and to try to avoid any further politicization. Having said that, I would like to express preference— although Russia has proposed changes to PP1, and it makes it even more elegant, I would like to say, but although we're flexible, we prefer maintaining your formulation on PP1, except we do support China's proposal to add development as a concept because it is particularly linked to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. On PP2, we understand those delegations would like to replace safer with more secure or secure world, but the concept of security is already there. And we do have some concerns on concepts of just security. Strategic deterrence makes the world, for some delegations, secure, but doesn't necessarily make it safe. So I prefer to maintain your formulation, Mr. President, on seeking a safer world. And we support your formulation on PP3. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines and now invite the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, and good morning to you and distinguished colleagues. Thank you and your team and the Secretariat for circulation of the current draft. And as a general brief remark, we believe that the obligations of nuclear— under nuclear disarmament must be given the utmost priority and We believe that unfortunately it has not been echoed properly as we heard from different corners of the room supporting the implementation of those obligations. And when it comes to safety and security of the nuclear facilities, I think that if we want to achieve anything, we should be very undiscriminate and we cannot discriminate supporting security of some while being silent on others. So this will not lead us to a successful ending, I think. And we believe that the language on the regional issues, including Middle East, should be strengthened. Implementation of the safeguards should be supported in professional and without any politicization approach, and the peaceful uses of nuclear technology— nuclear energy should be supported without any condition. And overall, we believe that the text could be much acceptable if it had chosen a positive language, and we see that overemphasis on non-compliance while we could choose a language in support of compliance, in fact. And I think that this, if it could be applied, can help a lot to the text. And with regard to the three specific preamble paragraphs, we believe that paragraph 1 is exactly what we supported in the discussions and so we support the current wording of the PP1. And with regard to PP2, we have suggested and still we believe that there is a room to express profound concern over lack of progress on nuclear disarmament. This is factual and this has a merit to be incorporated into this paragraph. And finally, on PP3, on the notion of nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, we think that it is conclusively reinforcing with the principle of prohibition of use of force, and therefore, while we see that— that's why we suggested that specific paragraph to come after PP5 because it refers to the United Nations Charter, but still we are— we regret that the reference to Article 2, subparagraph 4 has been dropped and we believe it has to come here. And we think that if we adopt and apply the prohibition of use of force, Definitely avoiding nuclear weapon as another case of use of force is the exact place that we can bring that language here. So we believe that if these two could be merged in order, that can help the text a lot. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and I now give the floor to the distinguished Representative of Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. President. Our delegation wishes to express its appreciation for your continued efforts to advance the draft outcome document and for the constructive and transparent manner in which consultations have been conducted. We recognize the care taken to reflect the diversity of views among State parties and In that regard, we are generally supportive in principle of the direction of the proposed preamble paragraphs, which provide an appropriate framing for the work of this conference. We can support the interventions made by Egypt and South Africa, particularly on PP2. My delegation is not in a position, though, to go along with the suggestions that might be perceived as weakening our commitment to disarmament on PP1. We believe that the text in Rev. 2 reflects the right balance between the pillars, as several delegations have already requested throughout the consultation process. President, further engagement will be required in other sections of the draft. We— where More substantive issues remain under discussions, in particular in the section related to Article 3. Brazil will comment on that in due course. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil and now give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Thank you, Mr. President, for giving me the floor again. We just wanted to react to the proposal made by the delegation of China China to support the addition of development in this paragraph. For us, it makes sense because that paragraph also refers to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the importance of that to advancing development. Thank you, Chair. Mr. President, sorry.

Thank you very much, South Africa, and I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany.

Thank you, Mr. President. And once again, my delegation likes to thank you, your team, and the Secretariat for steering our joint effort to achieve a meaningful outcome document. So yet we recognize that further work will be necessary to get us over the finish line, but let me assure you that my delegation has heard your appeal and we are prepared to see see at the end a text which will make us equally unhappy, as you have put it from the very beginning. However, being unhappy is one thing, being able to live with— to live unhappy with the text is another. However, we will try to make proposals to this end and to work constructively with with all the delegations. On the PPs under consideration, so on PP1, we have no issues with the proposed changes. However, we'd like to put on the record that we understand that the term energy encompasses both power and non-power applications. This reading applies to all sections of the text and I will not repeat it when other paragraphs will be discussed. On the discussion, after listening to the room and the exchanges by other delegations, I draw the conclusion that your proposal, as we see it in the text right now, seems to strike the right balance between diverging positions expressed. So just to assure you that my delegation has no issues with regard to para 1— to parameter para 1, 2, and 3 of your text. Thank you very much.

I thank Germany for your statement. I have now exhausted the list of speakers for— oh, excuse me, I recognize France.

Merci, Monsieur le Président. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish first and foremost to thank you for your efforts, your team, and the Secretariat over the various revisions, the various drafts that you have circulated. Thank you for that. I also wish to assure you of the willingness and readiness of our delegation to help you in this work, to see to it that we achieve consensus on a text. Turning to the three preambular paragraphs, we have heard the remarks delivered by other delegations, and we believe that for PP1 and for PP2, that the text that you have proposed is appropriate and acceptable. Turning to PP3, we propose three of the three following modifications in order to better align the text with the preamble of the NPT. The first revision is as follows: there should be, uh, the quotes around nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. So to put quotations there. Second modification, the deletion of the word urgent in recognizing the urgent need. So delete urgent. And third proposed revision is as follows: at the end of this sentence, to add the danger of such. So it would read, to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the representative of France. I now invite Peru.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to begin by expressing my delegation's thanks for your work in presiding over this conference and also for your efforts to produce this Rev. 2 of the text that my delegation is still looking at. Secondly, we'd like to say that we take note of your decision not to convene the drafting committee. You can continue, obviously, to count on the support of the Peruvian delegation. On the 3 draft preambular paragraphs, in this first part of our meeting today, we'd like to begin by referring to PP1. We welcome your decision to replace the word fostering for promoting. We also believe that the wording that you suggested for paragraph 1, which places global nuclear disarmament as the cornerstone, should be maintained. And we'd like to initially react positively to the Chinese suggestion to include a reference to development because this refers— reflects one of the pillars of the treaty. On PP2, here again, we welcome the inclusion of the words "for more than 5 decades." We think it's important to specify that. Generally speaking, we accept the changes both in PP2 and in PP3. Thank you very much.

I thank Peru for the comments. I now invite the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. President, thank you for circulating Ref 2 of the draft outcome document. We are currently awaiting further instruction from the capital. At this stage, I would like to offer some general comments on the outcome document, and we will share any specific textual edits at a later stage once our internal review is completed. Over the past 3 weeks, we have gathered to consider how best to strengthen the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. To reaffirm our collective commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. And while we have been gathering, a peaceful nuclear power facility of the United Arab Emirates has been a target of an attack. And I want to use this opportunity to brief this conference, as this incident affects all of us. The UAE strongly condemns the unprovoked terrorist attack involving a drone strike that resulted in a fire in an electric generator located outside the inner perimeter of the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant in the UAE. Thankfully, no injuries were reported and the incident had no impact on radiological safety levels. The UAE confirms that the incidents involving a drone impact occurred yesterday within a non-operation and non-radiological area at the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant site. Based on our, on regulatory assessment and coordination with the relevant authorities, there have been no impact on nuclear facility, radiological safety, or plant operation, which remains safe, stable, and fully under control. This outcome reflects the robust safety and security framework under which the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant was designed, licensed, and is operated in accordance with the highest international standards of nuclear safety, security emergency preparedness and in line with the safety standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Multiple independent layers of protection are built into every aspect of the plant's design and operation, ensuring the safe and secure production of clean electricity under a wide range of conditions. Mr. President, the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure is a flagrant violation of international law. And the Charter of the United Nations and international humanitarian law. Attacks against any— against nuclear facility devoted to peaceful purposes are especially grave given the potential catastrophic humanitarian, environmental, and security consequences they may entail. Such act could place civilian lives at risk, cause radiological contamination, inflict long-term environmental harm, disrupt essential services, and generate consequences that extend far beyond the national borders. Such attacks constitute a dangerous escalation, an unacceptable act of aggression, and a direct threat to the security of the UAE and to the wider international community. The UAE will not tolerate any threat to its security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Accordingly, the UAE stressed its full sovereign and legitimate right to take all necessary measures to protect its security and to respond to to such threats in accordance with international law. The UAE further reserves all sovereign legitimate diplomatic, legal, and military rights in response to any threat or hostilities that undermine the sovereignty, national security, or territorial integrity. In light of the seriousness of this incident, the UAE requests and strongly insists on the inclusion of a clear and firm language in the outcome document condemning the drone attack on the Barakah nuclear power plant in the UAE. The outcome document should reflect this development appropriately, including the urgent need to protect nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes from attacks. In this regard, the UAE will share a written proposal for inclusion in the outcome document. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the representative of the UAE for your remarks. I invite delegations to focus on what I asked from the beginning, that is paragraphs— preamble paragraphs 1 to 3. On other topics, we will move to those at a later stage when we address the specific paragraphs. Next up, I invite the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning, colleagues. Focusing on your 3 paragraphs, Mr. President, the UK can accept the language in Preamble paragraphs 1 and 2 as drafted. In Preamble paragraph 3, we support the suggestions from the French delegation, so to remind on those, We know that the language on a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought is taken from the Gorbachev-Reagan statement. That is part of a longer statement, and so to ensure that we are not using that language out of context, we do think it's important that we add quotation marks around that phrase, and as my French colleague noted, The remainder of that sentence should remain true to preambl— the third preamble paragraph of the MPT. So that means deleting urgent and adding the dangers of such a war. And then more generally, Mr. President, on the preamble section, we think perhaps that this section could be strengthened a bit with some additional language on safeguards, both in terms of balance and correlation with the operative paragraphs, and we'll be bringing forward some ideas later in our conversation. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom and I now invite the Netherlands.

Thank you, President, for giving me the floor and for circulating this text. I can be extremely brief. We support your text proposals for the paragraphs 1 and 2 and we see no need in making any changes. With regard to paragraph 3, we would like to support the proposals made by my French colleague. I thank you for your attention.

I thank the Netherlands and I now invite Djibouti.

Merci, Monsieur.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for Rev2 that you've circulated. We think it's very balanced. In terms of PPs 1, 2, and 3, we believe that the text that you've put to us is balanced, and we'd also like to underscore the word development as proposed by China because the absence of peace and security undermines development. I'd also like to support the French suggestion to put put in quotes, "A nuclear war must never be fought." I thank Djibouti and I now invite Thailand.

Thank you, Mr. President. We welcome the REV2 and wish to register our comment on the 3 preamble paragraphs as follows. The first PP, we support as drafted and we are flexible for the addition of the development at the end of the paragraph. The second one, we could support the paragraph. And the third one, we could support the draft as the text as drafted and also accept the suggestion by the French delegation or the quotation of a nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought. Thank you.

I thank Thailand, and I now invite Mexico.

Thank you, President. Thank you for allowing me to— allow me to take the floor once again. As we mentioned, we don't have an issue with the formulation of PP3, but now we're hearing from some of the proposals to change it. We would like to support— firmly support the way in which you drafted this paragraph. We have many questions about why it would not be urgent to avert a nuclear war. So for us, the urgent element should be kept. I'd also like to ask the delegations that are making these proposed changes, what are the dangers that they're referring to so that I can better understand the context of of these proposals. But once again, we'd like to support the way in which you drafted this PP3. Thank you.

I thank Mexico for their comments. I see no further requests from the floor, and I think there is quite broad convergence on these 3 paragraphs with some additional comments, and I think that we can move on to the next paragraph. I invite now comments on paragraph— preamble paragraph 4. And I invite Austria.

Thank you, President. I'm taking the floor on behalf of Brazil, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, Thailand, and my own country, Austria. The original sponsors of the annual UN General Assembly resolution on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Our countries are deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Past experience of the use and testing of nuclear weapons has demonstrated the devastating humanitarian and environmental consequences caused by their immense destructive capability and indiscriminate nature. Fact-based discussions on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons took place at international conferences convened respectively by Norway in March 2013, Mexico in February 2014, and by Austria in December 2014 and June 2022. These conferences have deepened our collective understanding of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, and a key message from experts and international organizations was that no state, group of states, or indeed the international humanitarian system as a whole could respond to the immediate humanitarian emergency and nuclear weapon detonation would cause, nor could they provide adequate assistance to victims. We firmly believe that it is in the interests of all states to engage in discussions on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons to further broaden and deepen understanding. We welcome participation from the broadest range of experts, survivors, and civil society on this matter. The catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons affect not only governments but each and every citizen of our interconnected world. These consequences have deep implications for human survival, for our environment, for socioeconomic development, for our economies, and for the health of future generations. We note, for example, the strongly disproportionate and gendered impact of exposure to ionizing radiation for women and girls. For these reasons, we firmly believe that awareness of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons must underpin all approaches and efforts towards nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, including in the work of the 11th Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is, of course, not a new idea. The appalling humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons were evident from the moment of their very first use and from that moment motivated humanity's aspirations for a world free from this threat. The humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are reflected in numerous UN resolutions, including the first resolution passed by the General Assembly in 1947, 6, and in multilateral instruments including the NPT. These concerns have become even graver, more pertinent and urgent in light of the continuously growing body of compelling scientific evidence, heightened tensions and increasing nuclear risks. Only in 2024, the academies of science of G7 states stressed the importance to highlight the scientific evidence base that shows the catastrophic effects of nuclear warfare on human populations and the other species, with which we share our planet. And in 2024, the UN General Assembly established a new independent scientific panel to study the effects of nuclear war as a way to better— of better understanding the interconnected effects of a nuclear war and to communicate the risks to communities around the world. We are therefore encouraged that the renewed humanitarian focus established by the 2010 NPT Review Conference, when States Parties expressed deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons is being sustained. Today's statement is further support for that focus. It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances. The catastrophic effects of nuclear— of a nuclear weapon detonation, whether by accident, miscalculation, or design, cannot be adequately addressed. All efforts must be exerted to eliminate the threat of these weapons of mass destruction. We reiterate these concerns today, They've been highlighted as an essential issue in the NPT context consistently by an overwhelming majority of NPT States Parties, individually and across virtually all regional and thematic groups, since 2010 at every NPT meeting, as well as through the annual UN General Assembly resolution that enjoys the consistent support of around 145 States. We therefore urge that the Conference first reiterates its deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, including any intentional, unintentional, or accidental nuclear explosion; second, reaffirms the need for all states at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and the Charter of the United Nations; and three, stresses that awareness of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons must underpin all approaches and efforts towards nuclear disarmament. Thank you.

I thank Austria, speaking on behalf of a group of countries I now invite the United States.

Good morning, Mr. President. We thank you for your continued efforts to bring the delegations together on a text that reflects our shared commitment to the treaty and its fundamental objectives. The United States remains committed to continuing to engage on this text and finding a consensus path forward. At this stage, however, we must emphasize that the current draft before us is further away from commanding consensus than any version we have worked on to this point. With a week remaining, we believe this conference must refocus on the most important objective: preserving the integrity and credibility of the NPT, which includes full compliance with its obligations, condemning non-compliance, and recognition of the greatest threats to nuclear strategic stability and security. We have heard many delegations express that this RevCon must produce an outcome document to be successful. By this measure, we have a lot of work to do, as this text remains far from accomplishing these goals. The U.S. delegation has proposed options language to earlier revisions on many issues, and we will need a constructive, focused, and flexible approach from all, and significant changes to the current draft to reach an outcome. I would also like to take this moment briefly to stand in solidarity with the Arab Group's comment, as well as the United Arab Emirates' comments regarding the recent attack on the UAE's nuclear facility. Regarding PP4, Mr. President, we have requested to change this language several times. We firmly believe that we should be relying on text from the preamble of the treaty that states, "Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples." In that vein, Mr. President, we would like to see the words "any use of" struck between the words "of" and "nuclear," the addition of the word "war" after "nuclear," and the striking of the word "weapons" after the inserted "war." Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the United States and invite the Philippines.

Thank you, Mr. President. Just want to express our thanks to you for maintaining this language all throughout the three drafts and to associate ourselves, if allowed to, with the statement of Austria on behalf of the core group on the UNGA resolution on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences. Thank you.

I thank the Philippines, and I now invite El Salvador.

Grazie, Presidente. Thank you, President. My delegation would also like to associate itself with the statement that has just been read by Austria on behalf of a group of countries. Specifically referring to PP4, we welcome the existing references to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. We believe, however, that the language could be strengthened to more specifically reflect the concerns that have been expressed by numerous states parties during this conference. For El Salvador, the consequence of any nuclear detonation, including accidental or unintentional detonations, would be catastrophic, cross-border, and global in nature. Scientific evidence— the available scientific evidence shows severe impacts that are lasting impacting on human health and environment, food security, and international economic stability. In this context, we believe it's important for the text to more clearly reflect the gravity of these consequences, bearing in mind that understanding the humanitarian consequences is a fundamental part to advance towards the goal of nuclear disarmament. In this regard, the 2010 review conference language is the very minimum that we should be aspiring to in this document. Thank you.

I thank El Salvador and I now invite Senegal.

Thank you, Mr. President. As it's the first time that I'm taking the floor, Senegal would like to thank the presidency for the efforts that you've already made to put forward these texts. We think that we are on the right track. Delegations simply need to show greater willingness to forge consensus around certain elements. We are aware that we will not all be satisfied with the text. I think that if not everybody is satisfied, we can at least have a text that we can all agree on. We wanted to take the floor to support the first 3 paragraphs before reacting on the 4th. Senegal would just like to support the Chinese proposal to include the word development as the 3rd pillar in the first paragraph. We'd also like to support the proposal made by South Africa. We think that their proposal is relevant. Senegal— On PP4, we're not fully happy here because we advocated for broadening out the consequences to cover humanitarian consequences but also environmental consequences. However, we are in a position to be able to accept this wording provided that it remains in the text. For us, it's essential to highlight the humanitarian consequences in the text, and we align ourselves with the statement that was just delivered on behalf of the group that proposes the annual text on the humanitarian consequences. That's what I wanted to say, and I reiterate our readiness to work with you on the proposals that we're currently studying. Thank you.

I thank Senegal, and I invite Ireland.

President, thank you very much and thank you for your efforts. I take the floor on behalf of a group of countries, the New Agenda Coalition—Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and my own country, Ireland. If I may, for efficiency, President, range over some of the preambular paragraphs so that I don't have to take the floor on several occasions, but I can be brief and efficient in doing that with your indulgence. Broadly speaking, to welcome, of course, the efforts that you've made to bridge the gaps across the various areas of the text and continue to work with you constructively. I'm broadly happy also with how you have captured the obligations and commitments on Article 6 implementation specifically, and we welcome your continued approach in reaffirming previous commitments, particularly on disarmament obligations and on nuclear testing. And we urge you to stick with this language. On preambular paragraph 1, if I may briefly, I know it's reverting, but nonetheless, it's simply to say that we welcome the paragraph as an accurate reflection of the treaty's purpose, and we support it as drafted. On 4, preambular paragraph 4, we welcome that the catastrophic humanitarian consequences are addressed, but we, as others have made clear in the past, that we need to maintain the 2010 language, and I quote, which reaffirming deep concern 'at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.' This is a previous— an unquote— this is previously agreed language. In preambular paragraph 6, whilst we welcome the paragraph as a whole, two important amendments we feel are required. We wish to see reaffirmation, quote unquote, of the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, leading to nuclear disarmament. In the final sentence and clause of the paragraph, we would also propose amending strength, which is currently there, to integrity. This would bring it in line with the formulation in line with language elsewhere in the text. On preambular paragraph 8, on previous commitments and decisions, it's very welcome and it's essential, we believe, in its entirety. On preambular paragraph 11, we would suggest the inclusion of global. Ahead of norm. This is on the testing point. That is the totality of my comments for the moment on behalf of NAC. I may seek the floor subsequently in my own right as Ireland. Thank you very much.

I thank Ireland speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition. I now invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you, Mr. President. On PP4, my delegation believes that the language should be strengthened, and for that effect we suggest to add the following at the beginning of the paragraph: Reaffirming the unanimous declaration by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion in 1996 that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of international law. So we believe that this can be added at the beginning, and having said that, we cannot support any suggestion and proposal in dilution of the current formulation of the paragraph. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran. I invite the— sorry, South Africa.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I beg your indulgence as I would like to briefly react to the proposal made by France on PP3 with the request to delete urgent. We would like to support retention of this wording given the developments we face. On PP4, we align with the statement made by Australia on behalf of a group of countries. We reiterate our concern about the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons, which, as we all know, transcend national borders. They pose very grave implications for human survival and well-being and would be incompatible with the right to life. The 2010 outcome expressed deep concern The situation since 2010 has become more precarious, as has our understanding of the catastrophic humanitarian impact of any use of nuclear weapons, which is supported by a growing body of evidence which confirms that their effects are more severe, they are cascading and long-lasting and complex than previously understood. And in our view, the failure of the conference to to express such deep concern only sends the incorrect message that these consequences can be managed and are no longer a concern. So in this context, I would like to propose the following reformulation: Recognizing the deep concern at the catastrophic consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, full stop. State parties affirm that awareness of catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons must underpin our approaches and efforts towards nuclear disarmament. On PP5, we would like to support the retention of the reference to Article 2 on the use of or threat of use of force. South Africa reiterates the need and importance of retaining this reference in the revised draft going forward as it addresses key current developments.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank South Africa and I now give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. President. We wish to state our views in paragraph 4, as was rightly noted by the representative of Austria, The humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons were clear to us immediately after the use thereof in the year 1945. And it is precisely on the basis of this recognition, the recognition of the humanitarian consequences, that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was drafted. And the reference to those consequences, but in the broader con— an understanding was incorporated in the preamble to the treaty at the very, very start. And so for this reason, we propose that we not delete the catastrophic humanitarian— the, the humanitarian consequences from the general understanding of those consequences that could arise as a result of nuclear war, but rather to use language in this paragraph, to use language which is enshrined in the preamble to the treaty. In our view, in our view, this, uh, carries priority over what was agreed upon in the year 2010. Once again, I reiterate, and I would like to underscore that, that the content The content of the provision on the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war in the preamble to the treaty has a broader context and broader definition than the reference to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the Russian Federation and I now invite Norway. First, let me commend you on your work of trying to find consensus language on this, which is very difficult on many areas. We'd like to draw attention to PP4, which is being discussed now on the issue of humanitarian consequences. We know there are diverging views in the room about this. We'd like to draw attention to the draft from 2020 conference, the 2022 document then, which reads, "The conference reiterates its deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons," which then leaves out "any," as is in the draft now. We think that might be something that could move us towards consensus. I thank you. I thank Norway for that proposal and I would invite delegations to also comment on that. Next up is Indonesia.

Thank you. Mr. President, Indonesia would like to thank you for your continued efforts toward a balanced, substantive, and consensus-based outcome document. We appreciate the constructive approach reflected in Revision 2. Before going to PP4, we would like to also support the retention of Preamble Paragraph 1 and the proposal by Mexico to retain the word urgent in PP3, as It appropriately reflects the gravity of the current international security environment and the continued need to prevent nuclear war. On paragraphs 4 to 6, Indonesia aligns itself with the joint humanitarian statement delivered by Austria and echoes the call by several other countries, including the Arab Group, for stronger language on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, including in PP4. We believe the Conference must clearly express its deep concern over the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons. These consequences would have profound implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, and future generations. This concern is even more urgent today in light of compelling scientific evidence, heightened international tensions, and increased nuclear risks. The effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, whether by accident, miscalculation, or design, cannot be adequately addressed. These consequences must therefore be clearly reflected in the outcome document and should also be recognized as a basis that ought to underpin all approaches and efforts toward nuclear disarmament. Accordingly, we request that paragraph 4 be strengthened to read: Recognizing with deep concern the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, which ought to underpin our approaches and efforts towards nuclear disarmament. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank Indonesia, and I now invite Egypt.

Thank you, Mr. President. I know that we promised not to take the floor again, but the conversation is very captivating and you invited us to comment on others' proposals and views as well to keep it interactive, so we'll do so. We will not deliver a statement; we will comment on what has been happening in the last 15 minutes. First, to register support to your formulation of PP3 as drafted. Now, on PP4, on the humanitarian consequences, and we will not address it from the prism of being a substantive imperative, because Austria has very eloquently explained why this needs to be strengthened and anchored in the text, and we listened to views from— I mean, very cross-regional. And also the voting record of the Resolution on Humanitarian Consequences at the General Assembly speaks for itself. But we want to bring it to your attention from the angle of being a dictate of logic. In 2010, the States Parties expressed deep concern. In 2020, at the draft outcome document, they have expressed deep concern. What happened in the last 4 years that make us less concerned or not concerned? If there is scientific evidence-based material that can make the States Parties less concerned, 4 years after, we're willing to look into it. If it's not the case, then it is only logical that we continue to be gravely concerned, not only deep concerned, especially with what's been happening in the last few years. The next point is on— Paragraph 6, I know that it is a small change in the second line from recalling to reaffirming, but this is also a small change but with major significance. How can we explain that we are not in a position to reaffirm the unequivocal undertaking by nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons? This have been reaffirmed several occasions in the past, and I think that this needs to continue to be the case until the objective is achieved. Thank you, President.

Thank you, Egypt, even though you are moving a little bit ahead of me, but thank you. I now invite Brazil.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Brazil aligns itself with Ireland Name of MAG and with Austria. We can support language that strengthens this OP to register the deep concern with the possibility of the use of these weapons. And just quickly going back to PP3, we would like to retain the word urgent, and I question the what would be the benefit of adding the dangers of, since that, in our perspective, would dilute the paragraph, because before it was to avert such wars and not such a war, and not to divert— to avert only the dangers of. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. I now invite France.

This is a challenging topic where there are various positions, and it appears to us that it would be easiest to revert back to the language that we have all— that we were all agreed upon. That is the preamble language from the treaty, and I will read out the first part. Considering the devastation that will be visited upon all mankind by nuclear war, We can reiterate that specific language in this area. Thank you.

I thank France and I invite Mexico. Gracias, señor presidente.

Thank you, Mr. President. In addition to the intervention that Austria made on behalf of several countries, I'd also like to add a little more with our vision on the importance of this paragraph. While we welcome the fact that the humanitarian consequences are reflected, they are not reflected as they should be. Several delegations have already said that in 2010 we had language. We can't understand how there could be a regression since 2010 up to now. Up to now, scientific evidence on the humanitarian consequences has increased. Perhaps previously some countries could have argued that there wasn't major scientific evidence. I think that now, however, we do have that scientific evidence. Various international conferences on the humanitarian consequences have brought experts from different latitudes and different areas. And in different ways they've proven the humanitarian consequences deriving from this. For us, this is a setback, this language. We already had pre-agreed language. Now we've heard from some countries asking for us to use language from the preamble. This isn't the same type of language. It isn't the same level of detail that we already agreed in 2010, and I want to I stress that this was agreed by everyone in 2010. Once again, the question for those countries that don't want to use this language is what has changed since then? Could they please demonstrate, as Egypt was saying, that we would be open to hearing. However, scientific evidence runs counter to what they're saying. So once again, Mr. President, I would like to request that we use the language already agreed in 2010. Thank you.

I thank Mexico and I invite Canada.

Thank you, Chair. I think we've heard a lot of differing views on this issue, but there is some convergence. And so, if you'll allow me, I would point to an adaptation of some language from the NPDIs Working Paper 32 on this. If we maintain the beginning of the paragraph, "Recognizing the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons," we would propose as a possible compromise to then have a comma, "as set out in the 2010 Review Conference in its final document, comma, and reaffirming this recognition underpins our efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament, comma, as stipulated in the preamble of the treaty. I think we very much share the comments expressed that the preamble of the treaty is clear on the nuclear— on the need to avoid nuclear war, but others have said that we do have language from 2010, and so perhaps this might be an alternative But also, as you'd asked, I think the Norwegian proposal is also one that can be considered as well. Thank you.

I thank Canada for your proposal. I think we have heard quite a lot, and I still have a long list of requests for the floor here. I have heard also many proposals suggesting that we might revert to the 2010 language, which I believe is a good option given the fact that it is more recent and also given the fact that similar language was discussed and received broad support back in 2022. So with due respect to all those who have requested the floor, can I ask if there is strong objection to using the language in 2010.

Uh, 2010.

I now will invite reaction to my proposal, and I recognize the Russian Federation.

Spasibo. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to once again take the floor for paragraph 4. We have already explained our position on paragraph 4, and we cannot agree with having this paragraph include language, uh, from the 2010 document. I have already stated that we believe that the preamble to the treaty carries priority over the document that was adopted in 2010. Furthermore, not only our delegation but also a number of other delegations voiced doubts about the feasibility inclusion in the outcome document, inclusion of paragraph 4 using the language that is currently reflected in the second version, the second draft. We believe that given that we have not reached consensus on this matter, we therefore need to to use the language, the language that is where the common ground has been arrived at, unifying language which does not generate division among delegations. And such unifying language is only the preamble of the treaty. Therefore, we will support Frances' proposal, which has already been set out in the, the relevant substitution, and the proposal was made regarding the specific language for this paragraph. And if our proposal is not met with agreement from other delegations, then we will insist on the complete deletion of this paragraph. And I would also like to note that if our language, the language that we are proposing, if, if it is accepted, then with, together with paragraph 5, the subsequent paragraph which refers to international humanitarian law, where reference is made to IHL. In our view, this will, this will accommodate the concerns that were voiced by those delegations that support the language on the basis of the 2010 action plan. I wish to request that you consider the Russian Federation's proposal in the most serious manner. I thank the Russian Federation.

I recognize the United Kingdom. Thank you, Chair.

In response to your direct question, a direct answer. No, we cannot support proposals for the— to use the 2010 language. We support proposals from the United States and France to draw on the language in the preambular paragraphs of the NPT. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom. I do not yet see a way forward for this paragraph, so I will move on to paragraph 5. I invite comments on paragraph 5. I recognize Equatorial Guinea.

Muchas gracias. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I'll refer to paragraph 4. We support the text from 2010 And we do not agree with deleting the paragraph. The delegation of Equatorial Guinea supports the delegation of Mexico, which commented that we should cite the dangers that countries are referring to in paragraph 4. Equatorial Guinea also proposes strengthening the content of paragraph 4 with this text. After the last section, nuclear weapons, we would add the states guaranteed in these— if it's guaranteed— states do not dismantle their arsenals under the supervision of the IAEA in due time. Thank you.

I thank Equatorial Guinea and I now invite Peru.

Gracias, señor presidente. Thank you, President. In line with your question, or rather your request for us to comment on paragraph 5, we'd like to state our position. As we said after the circulation of Rev. 1, we think that the Rev. 1 language seemed more appropriate because it included an explicit reference to Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter, and in this new version, this explicit reference has been deleted. So we prefer the previous version. While I have the floor, I'd like to also say and touch on paragraph 6. We'd like to support what the distinguished delegation of Egypt suggested here in the second line that we should replace the word recalling with reaffirming for the aforementioned reasons. We also believe that the new wording and the reference to the urgent implementation of Article 6 is positive. And I'd like to express my delegation's support for the proposal made by Ireland to replace the word strength with integrity. Thank you.

I thank Peru and I now invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. My delegation does not support rewriting the treaty which obviously does not have any added value because we have that text there. And rather, we believe that we should build on the language both from the treaty and also the decisions of— consensual decisions of the previous review conferences. And specifically on paragraph 5, we believe that we should retain the language and reference to Article 2 of the UN Charter on the use or threat of use of force. And as we have already mentioned, we believe that the PP3 should be merged here at the end of the paragraph, and we believe that it's not just the Gorbachev and Reagan Declaration that initiated this principle, but it has been repeatedly supported by all nuclear weapons states, including the latest one which took took place in 2022 that unanimously confirmed this principle and adherence to that. So we believe that it should not be changed in any way to reflect only the initial suggestion. Thank you.

I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran, and I now invite the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Democratic Republic of the Congo wishes to take this opportunity to thank you for your efforts and for the language that has been proposed. We think that this is a good basis in enhancement of our discussions. We wish to state our views in paragraph We wish to associate ourselves with the statement delivered by Australia on behalf of a number of states regarding the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons. As you are well aware, Mr. President, these concerns are significant, and this is precisely why we wish to have this language not only be retained, but for it to be enhanced. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I now invite Ireland.

Thank you, thank you, Chair. Very briefly, speaking as Ireland on this occasion, just to be clear, on paragraph 5, reaffirming the obligation, etc., we would wish to see the reinsertion of the version that you opted for in Rev 1, on including the use of— use or threat of use— the language on use or threat of use, and Article 2.4. And whilst I have the floor, simply to say that on paragraph 3, which I didn't comment on previously, we can agree your formulation on paragraph 3. And on paragraph 6, to simply reiterate the point about reaffirming the unequivocal undertaking of nuclear weapons states.

Thank you very much. I think Ireland, and I invite Mexico.

Gracias, señor presidente. Thank you, President. On PP5, while the important elements continue to be reflected, for us it would be preferable to include a reference to Article 2, as was just mentioned by the delegation of Ireland. Thank you.

I thank Mexico and I invite Germany.

Thank you, Mr. President. We can support Para 5 as it is because it is our understanding that all articles of the UN Charter are included if the Charter itself is included. If Article 2 needs to be mentioned, we believe it is equally necessary to mention Article 1.

Thank you. I thank Germany and I invite the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. President. We wish to make the following proposal: a slight amendment to paragraph 5. Our proposal is to delete the words "the obligation of" and to, after the word "reaffirming," to add "that." And then after the words "at all times," to delete "to" and to replace it with "should." In our version, this paragraph needs to be as follows, English: That all states at all times should comply with applicable international law, in particular the Charter of the United Nations and international humanitarian law. We think that our proposed language more accurately reflects the idea of the binding nature of states' obligation to comply with applicable norms of international law, the Charter of the United Nations, and international humanitarian law. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the Russian Federation, and I now invite Switzerland.

Merci, Monsieur le Président. Thank you, Mr. President. First and foremost, I wish to thank you for all of your efforts your personal efforts, those of your team, and those of the Secretariat in drafting this new outcome document. I have a few comments on paragraph 5. We can support the proposal made by Ireland, enhancement of paragraph 5. And given that I have the floor right now, I also wish to briefly revert back to the question that was posed Regarding the recognition of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences, the Switzerland's position was set out on a number of occasions during the conference. We support the text as it has been proposed, as we proposed it. And turning to paragraph 3, since I did not take the floor before, the language that has been proposed is entirely acceptable to us and we support your proposal. Step forward, if I may. I think that the language that has been proposed by Egypt to— we're calling to be replaced— reaffirming that is appropriate and acceptable. And generally speaking, we don't think it's— paragraph 6 is ideal. It is ideal for us to eliminate the language of commitment, but we wish to underscore and to support in particular your proposed change to have the urgent implementation for paragraph 6. We'll move later to that. We also support your proposal.

Thank you. I thank Switzerland and I invite France.

Thank you, Mr. President. We can support this paragraph 5 and we would also like to propose an improvement And because we are listing the obligations incumbent upon all states, uh, after the Charter of the United Nations, we wish to add a mention of Security Council resolutions, uh, after Charter of the United Nations, UNSC resolutions accordingly, and leave the rest in international humanitarian law unchanged. And we also particularly wish to refer to those resolutions which highlight the responsibility of states when it comes to violations of the treaty that are perpetrated prior to withdrawal. These are Security Council resolutions 1887, dating 2009 in particular. Thank you.

I thank France for those comments. And that was the Last request for the floor on this paragraph. I have taken careful note of the proposals and I will move on to paragraph 6. I invite the United States.

Mr. President, we have some very specific requests for paragraph 6. We would like to strike the word urgent. And in addition, we would like to strike the term— the words and strength after credibility. And prior to credibility, insert the words integrity and. I would note that this reflects language that you have in other locations in the text, and we think it's more appropriate than the word strength.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the United States and I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Just a quick reaction to— with regard to paragraph 5, we do not support reference to UN Security Council resolutions. And with regard to paragraph 6, we think that we should reaffirm obligation of all states parties to pursue in good faith the negotiations leading to a treaty in prohibition of nuclear weapons. And therefore, we believe that again there is a merit to reference to the advisory opinion of the ICJ where it said there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion a negotiation leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. And with regard to the last part of the paragraph, we believe that we should retain the language in Rev. 1. Thank you.

I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran and I now invite the Netherlands.

Thank you, Mr. President. We support your changes to the text, but we have one addition. We will I would like to also add here and recalling the numerous multilateral, regional, bilateral, and unilateral measures undertaken in this regard because we think the text in this state would not do justice to all the things that have been done in the last 50 years. Thank you.

I thank the Netherlands and I invite the Philippines. Thank you very much, Mr.

President. We fully support your addition towards the end of— and affirming that the urgent implementation of Article 6 is essential to the credibility and strength of the treaty. We fully support that addition, Mr. President. However, we do support the proposal by the United States and others to use the word integrity instead of strength.

Thank you very much. I thank the Philippines and I invite Austria.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. President. This is the first time I'm taking the floor nationally. Let me just take this opportunity to thank you and your team and Secretary General for Eurovision and also especially for the transparent conduct of the negotiations. I'll quickly brief to be faster, sorry, a group to be faster. So first of all, strong support for the PPs 1 to 3 without the changes proposed in the room, particularly not removing urgent or the dangers in paragraph 3. Just briefly on 4, to come back, I want to fully align with the comments by Egypt and Mexico who pointed out that the language has already significantly developed in 2015 and 2022, just as scientific understandings on safeguards and peaceful applications have significantly developed, so has understanding of the humanitarian environmental consequences, so we think that needs to be reflected. PP5, we completely support in your formulation. And on 6, I want to support proposals to replace recalling with reaffirming and strength with integrity, but very much otherwise want to keep your formulation. There is one element that I'm not sure where to raise best, but we do have a more sort of overarching question. We are very strong on, of course, highlighting the many achievements of the treaty, but we feel there is an element lacking also in highlighting the challenges that the treaty faces. Now, I'm not sure where best I don't know how to put this, but we think that we should include some sort of formulation that highlights these challenges also accurately, something like expressing concerns about challenges to the treaty, including resurgent nuclear threats, increasingly strident nuclear rhetoric, and to severe weakening of the treaty, not least through rising proliferation pressures, to highlight that and to balance the very right laudations that we give to the treaty. Thank you.

I thank Austria, and I now invite Russian Federation.

Spasibo. Thank you, Mr. President. We have a few proposals regarding the modification of this paragraph. First and foremost, we propose that the first line, that the word "total" be replaced with "ultimate and complete." elimination of nuclear weapons. And subsequently, our proposal is to completely delete the second part of that paragraph, and instead our proposal is to either have a new additional paragraph or to, to add on to that paragraph using the following language, English. The ultimate goal of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons pursuant to a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. We believe— and in print, this is in, in principle— when it comes to the whole text, we firmly object to highlighting the theme of nuclear— to remove this from nuclear disarmament. And we object to the partial or selective quotation of Article 6. We think that it is possible to reflect the thought in this paragraph in the preamble differently. Specifically with a reference to the purposes of Article 6 and in a way that is rooted in the outcomes of the first document of the first special session of the UN Special Session on Disarmament in 1978. And we think that it is necessary in one of the paragraphs for here, for this paragraph, for us to reflect to reflect the fact that nuclear disarmament is enshrined in the context of general and complete disarmament. For now, the preamble of the draft outcome document does not have this provision anywhere. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the Russian Federation. I give the floor to Equatorial Guinea.

Thank you very much, President. My delegation does not agree with the inclusion of the word urgent in paragraph 5.

Uh, could the delegation of Equatorial Guinea, um, State again your request, please. There is no word urgent in paragraph 5. Paragraph 5.

I'm referring to paragraph 5. A proposal was made to delete the word urgent. My delegation does not agree and we think I think we should keep that word. Oh, sorry, paragraph 6, says the delegate, paragraph 6.

Thank you. I give the floor to China.

Thank you, Mr. President. On PP6, I have listened carefully to the remarks by my Russian colleague. I agree with his proposal for amendments. That said, we have also put forward specific proposals for amendments. Our proposal is as follows: to add a new text after PP6. As a necessary guiding principle for advancing nuclear disarmament, there is consensus on the outcomes from the previous review conferences For example, the conclusions and recommendations for follow-on actions of the 2010 final document. Under the chapter on principles and objectives for nuclear disarmament, paragraph 4, it is pointed out that the significant steps in nuclear disarmament should promote international stability, peace, and security, and should be based on the principle of undiminished security for all. Therefore, we propose to add a text After PP6, I read that significant steps by all the nuclear weapons states leading to nuclear disarmament should promote international stability, peace, and security, and be based on the principle of increased and undiminished security for all. As for the specific place, positioning of this text. We wish to put it in PP6. Well, it can also be placed after PP12. Thank you, Mr.

President. China for that proposal. I invite South Africa.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. On PP6, Article 6, we support the retention of the waiting commitment by state parties to Article 6. And we've been listening to the comments in the room. We would like to support the retention of the waiting agent before implementation of Article 6, as well as the proposal that was made to replace strength with integrity, so we would support to replace strength with integrity in PP6. We believe that it is important that in the preamble paragraphs that we reaffirm that all states are committed to Article 6 and the total elimination of nuclear weapons. This is in accordance with the obligations of the treaty reaffirmed through advisory opinion of the ICJ and the commitments of 1995, 2000, and 2010. While I still have the floor, Mr. President, I just wanted to record the apology for the earlier error of referring to Australia instead of Austria in the group statement that was made. Thank you.

Thank you, South Africa, for that clarification. I think both Australia and Austria are very happy to hear that. I now invite France.

Thank you, President. For PP6, we'd like to delete the term urgent before the urgent implementation of Article 6. And at the end, just like the United States, we would like to include the terms integrity and strength of the treaty. And since I have the floor, I'd like to make a proposal to add a paragraph that would be included after 6, so it would be 6-bis or new 7, so that the preamble reflects all of the obligations of the treaty. We think it's important to have a separate paragraph on non-proliferation. This paragraph would be as follows. Je cite, I quote, reaffirms that the full and effective implementation of the nuclear non-proliferation regime in all its aspects plays a vital role in promoting international peace and security by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. My delegation— my delegation will send this proposal in writing to the Secretariat. Thank you.

I thank France for their proposal, and I would invite delegations again to comment on a proposal made by China earlier and also just now by France. I give the floor to Mexico.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. On PP6, we are mostly comfortable with the proposal that you've made. Obviously, it could be improved and also strengthened. One of the main points is that we cannot lose the word urgent. We've already heard that some delegations want to delete the word urgent for us. This isn't possible. Honestly, we don't know how much longer some of the countries— how much more time they would need to be able to advance towards assignment. We've said this from the beginning. This is one of the fundamental reasons why many of our states have joined this treaty. I'd also like to refer to the proposal to use the word integrity We believe that this is appropriate and we can support that. We have repeated this many times that the reference to Article 6 should include this issue of urgency, but it should not be a condition to it, therefore, unless— we include another word in the sense of urgency, we cannot support this. And also any other conditioning steps to the implementation of Article 6, that would also be something that we would not agree to. We'd like to also support the proposal made by Austria relating to the inclusion of the concept of the challenges to the treaty. We can't operate as if this treaty were perfect in the sense that there are challenges and we now see challenges in proliferation. We have setbacks in disarmament and challenges in proliferation. I was just hearing that the delegation of France was suggesting a paragraph on non-proliferation. If this— if we are to consider this, it would have to be relating to challenges to the proliferation that we are seeing, and this should also be one of the focuses of this conference. So for now, we'd like to support the paragraph as you've suggested it, and also the change to integrity. We can support that. And in no way can we support deleting the word urgent. Thank you.

I thank Mexico, and I give the floor to Canada.

Thank you, Mr. President. Canada was comfortable with this paragraph as drafted. However, hearing some other states— it had been something we had said earlier— we would agree that credibility and integrity of the treaty would be preferable, or alternatively, credibility and effectiveness of the treaty. Thank you.

I thank Canada, and I invite New Zealand.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, colleagues. We also would like to express support for paragraph 6 as you have redrafted it, Chair. We think it's really important to have unequivocal undertakings by nuclear weapons states to to accomplish total elimination of their nuclear weapons, and we don't understand why there are calls to delete the word urgent from completing obligations— implementing implementation obligations of Article 6. So we would very strongly support retaining that. We can also support the proposal by Austria to put reaffirming instead of recalling this unequivocal undertaking, and we can also support the idea of replacing strength with integrity, as we think this makes a lot more sense. Thank you.

I thank the delegation of New Zealand. I still have 10 speakers on my list here. However, I have to say that after— almost 2 hours, we have only gone through 5 paragraphs, moving on to the 6th. And I have to say that I'm very worried not only about time but also about the approach we all are taking here. I do not really see any eagerness to engage in compromise. This is still very much stating your preferred positions. So I will have to urge all of you to try and think about how we can move this forward rather than just continuing in the way that we have for the last almost 2 hours. I will suggest now that I think I have heard enough on paragraph 6. I will ask for the indulgence of those who have requested the floor on this paragraph and just to move on to hear your comments on paragraph 7. I don't see objection to that proposal. I will invite delegations to comment on paragraph 7. I call upon the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, and definitely we welcome your guidance on avoiding to introduce any non-consensual language, including the one that we heard to have a new paragraph on non-proliferation. And having said that, with regard to paragraph under the discussion, we just want to add particularly on nuclear disarmament in the second line of the paragraph to give priority with regard to implementation of Article 6 obligations. Thank you.

I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran. I now invite Namibia.

Thank you, President. It's the first time we're taking the floor since We have resumed in this plenary setting following the submission, of course, of REV2. We want to congratulate you, sir, in the manner in which you are leading us and together, of course, with your vice presidents and chairs from the main committees and subsidiary bodies. The NPT has served humanity for more than 5 decades but its future cannot be taken for granted. The treaty remains and continues to serve as a foundation for international security, peace and security, and sustainable development for current and future generations. Namibia therefore believes that this conference must deliver a consensus outcome to reaffirm the treaty's integrity and usefulness and effectiveness and the need to strengthen its core values and principles to further restore confidence in the balanced implementation across all three pillars. So having said that, we had comments on previous paragraphs. We will refrain from making such, and just to say we support the language as is in paragraph 7. Suffice to say, maybe to add a comma after States Parties. Thank you.

I thank Namibia and I invite the Netherlands.

Thank you, President. We can support Para 7 as it stands. Earlier you asked for reactions to proposals made with regard to 6, so we owe you still an answer to that, and the answer is that we will— that we can support the proposal as made by my French colleague to have a para on non-proliferation. It looks for us very appropriate to have in the preamble a text on non-proliferation. This is the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Thank you.

I thank the Netherlands and I invite the United States.

Mr. President, I would just like to— I'd like to speak to what happened a moment ago. Our French colleagues proposed a new paragraph 6-bis. We would be supportive of that. And we are, of course, happy to provide additional similar text shortly, pending some additional guidance.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the United States. I invite Germany.

Thank you, Mr. President. And like others, I will also try to follow your advice and will comment on the proposal brought forward by France. We could preliminarily support the idea of adding a new para on the vital role of the non-proliferation regime. Furthermore, we believe that on para 6— 7, sorry— that the implementation of the treaty in all its aspects is essential, and we should not narrow it down to only one pillar as proposed by one delegation. Furthermore, we continue to fail to fully understand the meaning of non-discriminatory in this context and would therefore ask to delete this qualifier. Thank you.

I thank Germany and I invite the Philippines.

Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I agree completely with how you are conducting our meeting, that we do need to maximize our time. So thank you very much. For that. My comments initially on 7, but going back to 6, if a proposal for a 6-bis is a way of a compromise that we can retain 6 as you have formulated, then we can— we'd like to really look at that and see that as a possible way out. Now, on, on 7, we fully support your change from noting the importance of to committing to pursue policies, and we believe this strengthens the PP in this context.

Thank you very much, sir. I thank the Philippines and I invite the Russian Federation. Spasibo. Thank you, Mr.

President. I wish to first and foremost voice our support for the proposal of our Chinese colleagues regarding addition of a paragraph In addition to paragraph 6, we— I would also like to state that we will submit our written proposals for paragraph 6. Turning to paragraph 7, we propose two minor revisions. First and foremost, to delete the word urgent at the beginning of this paragraph and to delete after the words "the integrity" to delete the words "and credibility of the treaty." We think that it is realistic in certain components and logical also to talk about the slow implementation, but we do not see it realistic or logical to talk about the urgent implementation of the treaty. Implementation of the treaty that is operating on a permanent basis since its entry into force in many components is a process. It is not an endpoint, so the use of the word urgent is something which in this instance is unsubstantiated. Thank you.

I thank the Russian Federation. I do not— well, I do see Brazil has requested the floor.

Thank you, President. I think we'll have to keep the formulation on 6 as you proposed, but I think we could, if we were to have more reaffirmation on the unequivocal undertaking, maybe we could see other language on non-proliferation, but we'd have to see where we could put that. We agree with Austria that there needs to be something about the challenges to the treaty, but we cannot accept any kind of conditionality on PP6, so any language about undiminished security, increased and undiminished security for all, for us is not acceptable. Thank you.

I thank Brazil and invite Egypt.

Thank you, Mr. President. Just to register our strong support to PP7 as you are introducing it to the room, we consider this paragraph as very instrumental to understanding the entire scope of the document at hand. We see it as balanced, as actually not something new on how we are approaching our treaty. The implementation of the obligations under the treaty is inherent to the preservation of its credibility and integrity and sustainable health as well. So full support to this. We take note of the French proposal on adding something on non-proliferation for the purpose of the balance. This is something that we do not oppose in principle, but we are also— our attention was invited to to that we have PP8 in the preamble, which speaking about the compliance by states parties to their non-proliferation obligations, and this is by default also extends to the effective implementation of the safeguards. If we are seeking a balance to PP6 that have a spotlight on Article 6, we find actually that this balance was already anchored in the text by the president in PP8, and This will also be complemented further down in the text by the element on peaceful uses. We see that the balance is there already in the preamble, Mr. President. We are afraid that if we continue to upload with further reinforcements of specific elements, that this balance might be offset. So just to reiterate our support, and we are willing to proceed on the basis of PP7 as it stands. Thank you.

I thank Egypt, and I now invite France.

We can accept paragraph 7 as it is with the deletion at the beginning of the word urgent. Thank you.

I thank France. I do not see any further requests for the If no one wants the floor, we will move on to paragraph 8. I open the floor for comments on paragraph 8, and we'll start with Equatorial Guinea.

Thank you, President. I asked for the floor before we moved on to paragraph 8. I just wanted to say that once again we reiterate that we should not change the word urgent, We support paragraph 7 as you have drafted it. Thank you. It's fine. Thanks.

I thank Equatorial Guinea. I invite the United States.

Mr. President, we have some concerns about the language of paragraph 8 and have some recommendations. The primary reason is the United States cannot embrace all previous past commitments. Um, we understand that this is an important to many countries, but for legal and other reasons, we cannot embrace everything that has happened in the past, in part because some things do not exist anymore. They're just simply obsolete. I would point to New START as an example. But that is not the only example. So therefore, we would recommend the following hard edits: striking— reaffirming the validity of all existing and inserting recognizing the commitments of past review conferences, striking undertaken. We believe that language would be sufficient. We would also propose in the alternative a complete— a different formulation for that sentence, and it would read as follows. Quote, reaffirming the validity of outcomes of past review conferences, comma, including the decisions and resolutions of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, comma, the outcome document of the 2000 Review Conference, and outcome document of the 2010 Review Conference. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the United States. Can I ask for your indulgence to repeat the proposed language that you just mentioned?

For both the edits and the full sentence?

I can do both, sir. The full sentence would help. Thank you.

The full sentence would read as follows: "Reaffirming the validity of outcomes of past review conferences, including the decisions and resolutions of the 1995 review and extension conference the outcome document of the 2000 review conference, and the outcome document of the 2010 review conference, unquote.

I thank the United States. The floor is open for comments on paragraph 8 as well as on the proposal made by the United States. I invite the Russian Federation.

Spasibo. Thank you, Mr. President. We listened attentively to the proposal made by the United States of America, and we will need some time in order to closely study it. But for our part, we wish to propose our amendment to this paragraph, which perhaps may be used as a basis for the achievement of compromise for the language of this paragraph. And our proposal is to have the word "reaffirming" replace— to have "recalling" replace "reaffirming" and to delete "validity of all existing," to strike those words out. So to simplify the text, which in our version would read as follows: Recalling the commitments undertaken, including those contained in the decisions and resolutions of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, the outcome document of the 2000 Review Conference, and the conclusions and recommendations for follow-on actions agreed by the 2010 Review Conference. We believe that this language will result in this paragraph being acceptable for all delegations. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the Russian Federation for that proposal. I now invite South Africa.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. On PP8, South Africa would like to express its strong support for retention of the paragraph as you have it. It is important for the review conference to reaffirm all past decisions and commitments of state parties. Thank you.

Thank you, South Africa. I invite Mexico, and please also comment on the proposals made by the United States and Russia, if you can. Mexico, please. Muchas gracias, Presidente.

Thank you very much, President. I'll be very brief. I just want to support paragraph 8, as South Africa already commented on. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mexico. I invite Brazil.

Thank you, President. I understand that this might bring some difficulties to some delegations, but we cannot accept language that in practice doesn't allow us to move forward with implementation of the action plan of the 2010 review conference. So we would strongly support South Africa and Mexico in their interventions of keeping the text as it was. Thank you.

I thank Brazil for that comment. I invite Austria. Thank you very much.

Very much like previous speakers, we also prefer to keep the text as it was. Also, briefly, maybe to come back on PP6, we also would want not to see any new conditionality being introduced in the text and also very much support the attention of Urgent in Seven.

Thank you. I thank Austria. I do not see any further requests for the floor. I think this paragraph I will need to consult further with delegations. I will then move on to paragraph 9. And I invite comments on this paragraph. I do not see any requests for the floor. I then move on to paragraph 10. I invite the Russian Federation.

Mr. President, I do apologize. I didn't have time to press the button to request the floor for paragraph 9. We propose a more concise language in support of universal accession adherence to the treaty. Our specific proposal is to have this paragraph read as follows, English. That all States Parties should exert all efforts to promote the universalization of the treaty. We think that this kind of concise and very accurate language is sufficient for this paragraph.

I repeat the language: that all States Parties should exert all efforts to promote the universalization of the treaty.

Thank you for your attention.

I thank the Russian Federation. Just a point of clarity, that is to change "promote universal adherence" into "universalization" and then keep the rest. Is that correct? Russian Federation.

Uh, no, no, no. Uh, once again, in our— as our— for our language is as follows: to To start the paragraph as follows: determined that all States Parties should exert all efforts to promote, and then we write the universal— universalization. So the is then made a universalization of the, of the treaty, and the words adherence to are stricken out, and the end of the paragraph is also delete— our proposal, rather, is to delete the end there.

Thank you, Russian Federation. I invite Namibia.

Uh, sorry, President, to take us back, um, in light of some of the comments that were made earlier in paragraph 8. I'm wondering, uh, whether we could consider saying— reaffirming the validity of all past commitments instead of all existing commitments. I'm wondering whether that will make a change for those delegations who had expressed concern. Thank you.

I thank Namibia, and I now invite Denmark.

Thank you, Mr. President, and since it's the first time I take the floor, thank you for your work and all involved in the work. So I have a remark on the Russian proposal to change universal adherence with universalization. I think it changes the paragraph quite significantly. I think we would all like to see a universal adherence to it. We would also like to see universalization, but I think to change this would actually take us away from ensuring assuring adherence to the treaty.

So, from the outset at least, we have reservations on that change. Thank you. I thank Denmark. And I will now invite comments on paragraph 10. I invite Egypt.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. We'll take this opportunity to explain the comment that we said at our very early intervention. In the earlier iterations, we recall that the formulation was "does not imply." and does not imply, in our view, represents a common and shared understanding about— among the States Parties. When the language is becoming now is that it is not constituting endorsement of the indefinite extension, in our view, it gives the impression that some might consider it that it is and others they do not endorse. I know that this was not the intention of reformulating the paragraph this way, but we will be of the strong preference of going back to a language that ensures the coherence of the view of the States Parties on the indefinite extension of the treaty vis-à-vis the lack of endorsement for indefinite possession of nuclear weapons. Thank you.

I thank Egypt for that comment. I invite the Russian Federation.

Mr. President, we think that this paragraph is redundant for the preamble of the outcome document, and I will explain why. This is because the treaty itself provides for nuclear weapons not having the right to exist on an indefinite basis, and therefore, Rethinking this idea, which is enshrined in the treaty, uh, the outcome document of the review conference, is, is pointless. And moreover, the proposed language for paragraph 10 looks like an attempt to rethink the treaty itself, the 1995 treaty itself. And we think that this kind of, uh, reinterpretation or reconception, redesign needs to be avoided. The agreements are explicitly set out in the document that was adopted in 1995, and they don't require any interpretation. Once again, in our view, this language is redundant because the treaty itself, it carries within it the idea that nuclear weapons cannot exist indefinitely. This is why we think it needs to be stricken out.

I thank the Russian Federation and I invite El Salvador.

Gracias. Thank you, President. I'd like to support what the colleague of Egypt has just said, and in addition, El Salvador prefers ask if we could return to the additionally proposed language which affirms the urgent need for the implementation of Article 6, which is essential to the credibility and strengthening of the treaty. In our view, this language represents— very well represents why it's necessary to have this preambular paragraph here. We'd like to see it reflected We believe that the previous iteration is more representative of what we have been hearing in discussions on this. Thank you very much, President.

I thank El Salvador, and I invite Equatorial Guinea.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. In response to what was said by the delegation of Russia, I would like to say that President When we began this session, the President reminded us of the times of the— both within a group level and the importance of a document recalling what is said in a treaty. Therefore, paragraph 10 reminds countries of the treaty, and I don't see the issue with that. Thank you.

I thank Equatorial Guinea and I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. We have a proposal here to reflect that rejecting any assumption that nuclear weapons have been legally owned or legitimately the held weapons either before or after the extension of the treaty. And in fact, we believe that this is one of the most important paragraphs of the document and deserves to be reflected in the operative part as well. Thank you.

Could I ask if Iran has a language proposal? Could you read that again, please?

Of course, our proposal reads, rejecting any assumption that nuclear weapons have been legally owned or legitimately held weapons either before or after the indefinite extension of the treaty. Thank you.

I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran, and I now invite United Kingdom.

Uh, thank you, Chair. On paragraph 10, we can support as drafted, um, in response to comments from Egypt and El Salvador on the language around strengthening. I believe that language has now been moved and is reflected in preamble paragraph 6, um, uh, so I think we've addressed that question within PP6, and therefore I would propose that we accept the language as drafted by you in current PP10. Thank you.

I thank United Kingdom. I invite South Africa.

Thank you, Mr. President. On PP10, we express full support for the current formulation as you have it.

Thank you. Thank you, South Africa. And I invite Canada.

Thank you, Chair. Canada was comfortable with the current drafting. I think we would also be comfortable with the proposal from Egypt to move it back to "does not imply," noting this was in Rev 0, was actually an operative paragraph, so this language has been weakened. I just want to comment on or respond to the Russian Federation Mr. Jenkins' maybe broader comment about this is in the treaty and doesn't need to be re-said. The challenge with that logic is that there's a lot in the treaty that doesn't need to be re-said, and that's what preambular paragraphs are meant to do. And so I think, you know, it can be a bit tricky if we start picking and choosing what does and does not need to be said. My final point is that I think we've also heard this morning a number of delegations asking for the removal of urgent to a lot of the Article 6 elements. And I think we should be conscious that removal of urgent implementation and then saying we don't need to imply that nuclear weapons require, you know, indefinite extension. So I just would caution that there's a little concern. I think non-nuclear weapons states want a clear reflection that nuclear weapons will at some point hopefully soon not be in this world anymore.

Thank you. I thank Canada and I invite the Russian Federation.

Spasibo. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to briefly react to the statement made by our Canadian colleague. So it turns out that for paragraph 10, we are talking about the fact that previously in the treaty, this provision about nuclear weapons not should not existing indefinitely does not exist. So essentially we're talking only up until 1995 did this— only did this provision arise in connection with the extension of the treaty. But that is not the case. Initially, from 1968, the treaty had at its basis the idea that nuclear weapons need to ultimately be destroyed. And so the arguments being made by our Canadian colleague are unsubstantiated in our view.

I thank the Russian Federation and I invite Canada.

Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick responder to that. I think that's— I would argue that the Russian delegation is making my point. The fact that we then did indefinitely extend the treaty indicates that there is value in saying clearly that the indefinite extension, however, does not mean that nuclear weapons will exist forever. And we have heard some arguments made by some that Article VI actually doesn't say nuclear disarmament has to take place, just good faith negotiations. So again, I think there is value for the vast majority of non-nuclear weapons states to have this language in the preamble paragraph or an operative paragraph.

Thank you. I thank Canada. There's no further request on— for— well, I see Belgium. Thank you, Mr. President. In the spirit of interactive dialogue, I would briefly like to take the opportunity to react to some proposals made in the room. Belgium can support the proposal made by France for a PP6bis, on non-proliferation. And I can also confirm that my delegation takes issue with the Russian proposal in BP.6 to remove the reference to universal adherence to the treaty, as well as the deletion of BP.10 on indefinite possession.

For both those paragraphs, we support the language proposed by you in REV.2.

Thank you, Chair. I thank Belgium and I invite the Philippines.

Thank you, Mr. President. On 9, we understand the legal certainty that the Russian proposal holds because when you say universal adherence legally, that does not necessarily mean universally becoming a state party. Technically, you can adhere to norms, to a treaty without necessarily being a party. So I can understand that. However, having said that, I'd like to prefer the original language that you have proposed. On 10, we would like to maintain the formulation in the Chair's Rev. 2. Thank you.

I thank the Philippines. I propose that we move forward. On paragraph 11, I invite comments on paragraph 11. I invite the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thank you very much, Mr.

President. We believe that this paragraph in terms of the language can be adjusted and moved to operative part of the document. Thank you.

I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran. I invite the United States.

Thank you, Chair. I just realized I might be one paragraph ahead of you. Are we on testing or the testing paragraph, correct? Correct. Great. Thank you, Chair. We're really appreciative that you've, that you've added this sentiment to the preamble. I think the fact that there are 6 or 7 paragraphs about this topic in the operative language is a good indication that there should— probably should be a line about this topic in the preamble. We would actually like to raise the ambition of this paragraph, however. We don't believe that the norm against nuclear testing actually exists at the moment. As we've laid out in a number of our statements, we believe that norm has been and is ongoing is being broken. However, we do think that the word adherence to moratoria would strengthen the paragraph. So that could read, underscoring the need to uphold and strengthen adherence to moratoria against nuclear explosive testing. We would add the word explosive here as that's the level of precision that is in all of the existing moratoria that we are aware of.

Thank you, Chair. I thank the United States. I invite Ireland.

Thank you, thank you, President. Just on the testing point 11, which you've asked us to comment on, to say first of all we welcome its appearance, inclusion here. We could have lived with the original language, and indeed we suggested earlier in our capacity as NAC the addition of the word global ahead of the norm. I've heard the comments from the US colleague and we look closely at that. We think there are some constructive elements in there which we think would be very useful. Whilst I have the floor, simply to say that we could live very much— live also very well with what you had in paragraph 9, indeed paragraph 10, and very briefly in paragraph 8 similarly, but we've noted the the proposals by two delegations in particular on paragraph 8, and we'll take a look at them. But just to say that that point on reaffirmation of the existing commitments is a fundamental one and a very serious one. So we look closely at what's being proposed, but we certainly could have lived with what you had there initially.

Thank you very much. I thank Ireland, and I give the floor to the Netherlands.

Thank you, President. We would like to support the para— 11 regarding strengthening the norm against nuclear testing. We hear what the US is saying, but we have, of course, many norms that are not always perfectly abided by. So that is perhaps not the issue, but we are willing to look into any constructive proposal also with regard to moratoria. Thank you.

I thank the Netherlands, and I give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. President. For this paragraph, it is unclear what norm prohibiting nuclear tests is being referred to beyond the treaty itself, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In our view, the outcome document needs to contain a clear reference to the need for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We cannot support references to vague and abstract norms, and this is why we propose that the paragraph be amended and for it to include— to be included in the outcome document in the following terms, underscoring the need— English. Exert all possible efforts to ensure the early entry into force of the CTBT. Once again, underscoring the need to exert all possible efforts to ensure the early entry into force of the CTBT. This language can also be included in the operative part of the document. And as far as we understand, there are a number of paragraphs there already that are directly dedicated to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Thank you.

I thank the Russian Federation, and I give the floor to Sweden.

Thank you, President. Since this is the first time we take the floor this morning, we would like to thank you for your continued efforts to guide us towards a consensus document and for the transparent process. Regarding PP-11, and as one of the co-chairs of the Article 14 process within the CTBT, We want to underline that the norm against nuclear testing has been key to avoiding further proliferation. In only a few decades, nuclear testing has gone down from thousands to a relatively small number today. This is one of the unsung success stories of our joint disarmament and non-proliferation endeavours, and therefore firmly deserves a reference in the preamble section. We like the text as it stands, but we are also open to a strengthening of the text along the lines that has been proposed by the United States. Thank you.

I thank Sweden for the comments, and I invite the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Chair. On paragraph 11, I think we share the concerns of some delegations that references to a generic references to a norm are possibly vague and not explicitly tied to a relevant treaty or obligation. And we also think we might want to bring greater precision to the term nuclear testing. We have some language to propose around, quote, underscoring the need to uphold existing prohibitions prohibitions and moratoria on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions. We could explore how that might work alongside the US amendments because there's overlap there, I think, so perhaps we can explore with our US friends how those two can be brought together. So just to repeat, it would read: Underscoring the need to uphold existing prohibitions sanctions and moratoria on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions. Thank you.

I thank United Kingdom. I invite Austria.

Thank you, Mr. President. I, of course, would like to quickly draw your attention also to the joint statement on nuclear testing that's supported by 38 states at the beginning of the conference. I just quickly wanted to also react to a couple of the proposals. A norm that is challenged, of course, should be strengthened, and we also very much agree with the— having a strong call on the global moratorium against nuclear testing. One way to approach this— and sorry to add yet another proposal— but it could be to sort of combine some of the proposals that we've heard in the room, saying something like, and I quote, 'Underscoring the need to uphold and strengthen the norm against nuclear testing and the global moratorium against nuclear explosive testing. Thank you.

I thank Austria and I now invite Norway. Thank you, Chair. I think we would like to echo the views pointed out by our Dutch colleagues here. We don't see that norm exclude reference also to a moratorium and maybe these could be combined in one way or another. Thank you. I thank Norway. I invite China.

Thank you, President. With regard to Para 11, we have no difficulty with the current wording of this paragraph, but at the same time, we support what was said by Russia, that is, there is a need to promote the early entry into force of CTBT. Thank you.

I thank China. And I now invite Kazakhstan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this first time my delegation taking floor this morning. I'd like to praise all your efforts regarding the new draft and particularly on Para 11. To Kazakhstan, the issue of nuclear testing is very sensitive and important and I'd like to keep the current language or this— we all in your hands to improve it with the proposals made. We can use the words— the need to uphold moratoria, strengthen the norms against nuclear testing, and call for the early entry into force CTBT. So for the record, My delegation wants to keep the wording against nuclear testing, but we can agree on many proposals that have been made today. Thank you.

I thank Kazakhstan and I give the floor to France.

Bonjour. We also think that this paragraph needs to be reinforced and to that end we support the British proposal. Thank you.

I thank France and I give the floor to Egypt. Thank you, Mr. President.

Our initial position that we put on record at the beginning of this conversation that we fully support this paragraph and we continue to do so. However, in our view, we do not believe that the relationship between upholding the norm against nuclear testing and adherence to the moratorium are in any way competitive or adversarial. They are very complementary. They belong to the same tissue. And we don't mind to see them actually featuring side by side in the same paragraph. We should not look at them from a categorical zero-sum choice. On the entry into force of the CDBT, I think that there will also be no difficulty to this, but we have to bear in mind that this is a preamble. —section where we are just setting the stage for the more concrete and executive steps and measures that will be outlined in the operative paragraphs. And we have a very rich and ambitious paragraph 49 under Article 6 that deals with the early entry into force of the CDBT and the expectations of the different States Parties to this effect. So, to conclude, support to the paragraph as it stands. If there will be any changes, we don't mind to see both ideas appearing side by side.

Thank you. I thank Egypt and I invite Mexico. Muchas gracias. Thank you very much, President.

I'll be very brief. I just want to echo the comments just made by the distinguished representative of Egypt. In our view, likewise, paragraph 11 as it was drafted was fine. However, in line with the comments that we've heard this morning, a proposal that is similar to that put forward by Austria to mention the moratorium together with the text that is already currently included, I think that's something that we we could definitely support. Thank you.

I thank Mexico, and I now give the floor to the Philippines.

Thank you, Mr. President. We've, uh, we're quite happy with the 11 as you drafted it. However, there, there is, uh, like many others have said, there is no incompatibility with the moratoria. In fact, these moratoria should be welcomed, they should be acknowledged, and we did so historically when they were made, whenever they are re-emphasized We welcomed them. We saw them as a step in the right direction. And I see no— like many others— incompatibility between 11, as it's stated now, and recognition of the moratoria. Thank you, sir.

I thank the Philippines. I give the floor now to Japan. Thank you, Mr. President. Like many of our previous speakers, we have been ready to support the PP 11 as when it was drafted, but after hearing various proposals, I think the proposals made by U.S. and particularly U.K., U.S. on the moratorium can be added to— added or somehow rephrased this paragraph. But we were ready to support the original and we are very much open to look into the moratorium language. Thank you. I thank Japan and I give the floor to Germany.

I also thank Japan because that is exactly the point we wanted to make. We are in a position to support your proposal, but like others, we also share the view that that power merits strengthening. And in that vein, we support the proposal made by the United Kingdom on the moratoria. Thank you.

I thank Germany and give the floor to Switzerland. Merci, monsieur.

Thank you, Mr. President. As was mentioned by A number of our colleagues— the proposal on the paragraph on norms is important. We support it as well. And we also don't see any contradiction between what has been proposed in this language and the inclusion of the language on the importance of moratoria. Thank you.

I thank Switzerland, and I now invite South Africa.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. We are listening carefully to the conversation on this particular paragraph and agree with Ireland that the addition of global before norm is a useful addition. But listening to what has been said in the room, perhaps the formulation that you have may be the best compromise going forward. Thank you.

I thank South Africa. I invite the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. President. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to support the idea of bringing together the reference to a certain norm against nuclear testing. A vague norm with moratoria. And this is because the moratoria themselves are not such a norm, and it would be difficult for us to merge these two messages, which our colleagues have proposed for reflection in this article. Furthermore, once again, I stress that we fail to understand what norm against nuclear testing we are talking about here. For now, this kind of a norm for us is the CTBT. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the Russian Federation and I invite Indonesia.

Indonesia, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Very briefly, my delegation would like to register our support for the retention of paragraph PP11, and we are also very supportive for reinforcing the language as suggested by Austria and Kazakhstan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank Indonesia, and I give the floor to the United States.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. President, I've listened carefully to the debate, and I think there— it sounds like there are multiple elements that delegations would like to tie together. So I wonder if this might do it. I'll read it slowly. Underscoring the need to reestablish a norm against nuclear explosive testing, and in that regard, strengthen adherence to moratoria against nuclear test explosions pending the entry into force of the CTBT. I think this would be a way that we could bring together that entry into force of the CTBT is something many delegations would like to see. That's actually not a priority for my delegation, but we can work with language pending its entry into force. It would get at the need to strengthen adherence to the existing moratoria, which many delegations have expressed concerns about during this review conference, and it would also indicate the need to reestablish a norm against nuclear explosive testing. Thank you.

I thank the United States. I do not see any further requests for the floor and our time for this meeting has also run out and we have gone halfway through the preamble paragraphs. I have some announcements, Mr. President. Which is very worrying at the pace of our work, so I would I would just repeat myself in asking all of you to come back this afternoon a bit more ready to engage in compromising and compromise proposals so that we can move forward our work a little bit faster. Before we conclude, I invite the Secretariat for some announcements. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

South Africa and Switzerland will hold informal consultations on the strengthened review process from 1:15 to 2:30 PM in this room to discuss the revised text on the SRP circulated last night. I'd like to remind States Parties that the final deadline to submit updates to the list of participants was noon today. Delegates who have previously submitted updates to the list of participants do not need to resubmit their amendments.

Thank you very much. I thank the Secretariat. We will reconvene at 3 PM today. The meeting is adjourned.