At the 2026 NPT Review Conference (27 April - 22 May), States parties will examine the implementation of the Treaty's provisions since 2022, noting that, despite intensive consultations, the 2015 Review Conference and the 2022 Review Conference were not able to reach agreement on the substantive part of the draft Final Document.
🇷🇺 Russian Federation, 🇨🇳 China, 🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran, 🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates, 🇺🇸 United States
Спасибо, господин. Thank you, Mr. President. Our delegation requested a right of reply regarding the reckless statements by the representatives of the Kiev regime. Not for the first time now as part of the NPT review process, the delegation of Ukraine is deigning to make the same irresponsible, lie-ridden, unfounded statements that are detached from reality. Their content entirely reflects the criminal nature of the Kiev authorities and also the essence of their domestic and foreign policy. It is clear that this is being done with a single aim to convince the international community of their own innocence, their their lack of guilt for an aggressive nationalist policy in crimes against the Russian part of the Ukrainian population and numerous war crimes. convinced uh and to convince them of the their innocence for the um daily numerous attacks on the Zaporizan nuclear power plant, which has jeopardized the safety and security of the power plant itself and which could uh generate a um lethal nuclear catastrophe. Attempts to roll back history and to get revenge in the context of the Ukrainian crisis at the expense of hundreds of thousands of their own citizens' lives. This only confirms the conclusion that the Ukrainian authorities have no interest in a prompt settlement of the situation through political and diplomatic means, which Russia has consistently been calling for. A confirmation of the aggressive efforts of Kiev and its hope to change the situation in its favor by any means possible are behind their statements about the desire to acquire nuclear weapons. It's important to note that Kiev has gone from words to action and has undertaken a real attempt to acquire the elements of a nuclear weapon. These steps by Kiev and its backers from a number of European states are undermining the MPT regime. We deeply regret the position of those states that echoed these statements in support of the statements of the Ukrainian decl delegation and are voicing an anti Russian narrative that is being advanced by Kiev. In so doing these countries uh maintaining and feeding this aggressive Revanchester plan by Kiev and are um Making the NPT conference and its outcomes dependent on its dangerous political plans. The Russian delegation reserves the right subsequently to respond to other anti Russian statements that we ha um have heard during the conference. Thank you for your attention.
Mr. President, in today's general debate, certain countries that participate in nuclear military alliances or benefit from a nuclear umbrella or country groups have made groundless acquisitions against China's nuclear policy and nuclear development, and have hyped up the fallacy of a so called China nuclear threat, which China firmly opposes and will never accept. China Firmly committed to the path of peaceful development, pursues a self-defensive nuclear strategy and adheres to a no-first use policy. China unconditionally undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the non nuclear weapon states for nuclear weapon free zones. China's nuclear policy and intentions are highly transparent, stable, consistent, and predictable. China has always kept its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security. and has exercised utmost restraint in both the scale and development of its nuclear arsenal. China does not compete with any other nuclear weapon states in terms of investment quantity or scale, whereas never, nor will it ever, engage in a nuclear arms race with any country. However, some countries turn a blind eye to these and deliberately exaggerate claims that China is pursuing a nuclear arms race while rapidly expanding its nuclear Arsenal and promote the so-called China nuclear threat, such acquisitions are completely baseless and driven by ulterior motives. China actively advocates the comprehensive prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons and actively supports and participates in international arms control, disarmament, and non proliferation efforts. China maintains an open attitude towards arms control dialogue, but will not participate in any negotiations aimed at curtailing China's national defense capabilities or undermining the strategic security environment. Genuine dialogue must be based on mutual respect. Any approach that calls for dialogue while engaging in confrontation will not be accepted. China's nuclear arsenal is not at the same level as those of countries possessing the largest stockpiles. And its nuclear policy and strategic security environment are fundamentally different. At this stage, requiring China to join the so-called trilateral nuclear arms control negotiations is unfair, unreasonable, and unfeasible. The so called multilateral nuclear arms control and the strategic stability dialogue ignores China's legitimate concerns and positions, and cause is in essence it serves as a pretext for certain nuclear weapon states to shirk their own disarmament responsibilities and to divert international attention. By contrast, if we look at the countries that make groundless acquisitions against China, some are engaged in nuclear sharing or extended deterrence, some benefit from a nuclear umbrella, and even openly advocate for acquiring their own nuclear weapons, and some have explicitly stated their intention to increase their nuclear warheads and even try to establish a new collective nuclear deterrence arrangements in Europe, attempting to base regional security architecture on nuclear proliferation, thereby undermining the purposes and principles of MPT. In effect, these countries are complicit in damaging the international nuclear disarmament process and the nonproliferation regime. Driven by geopolitical self-interest and a flawed understanding of their own security environment, these countries turn a blind eye to the negative actions of their superpower ally in the field of nuclear arms control, but instead hype China's nuclear policy and nuclear force development. This double standard approach not only fails to address their own security dilemmas, but also seriously undermines their credibility in international arms control. China urges relevant countries to engage in self reflection rather than shifting blame onto others and take more actions conducive to safeguarding the international nuclear arms control and international peace and security, and to stop distorting and smearing China's nuclear policy and exaggerating the so called China nuclear threat. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Mr. President. My delegation categorically rejects the statement delivered by the United Arab Emirates during this morning's session. The allegations are baseless, politically motivated, and aimed at misleading this conference. Iran's candidacy has been duly endorsed by the non aligned movement, representing more than 120 estate parties. This endorsement reflects the confidence of a large majority of the international community in Iran's constructive engagement and its commitment to the treaty. It is therefore deeply concerning that the UAE itself, a member of ANAM, has chosen to disregard the collectively agreed position of its own group. This runs counter to the fundamental principles of unity, solidarity and respect for collective decisions and sets a troubling precedent. We have consistently underscored the nominations put forward by regional groups should be respected. It is therefore particularly alarming that the UAE is now challenging the decision of its own group. The same delegation has also refused to condemn the recent illegal and unprovoked attacks carried out by the United States and the Israeli regime against Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards. Such silence raises serious questions about its commitment to the principles and objectives of the treaty. Furthermore, in referring to the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, the representative of the UAE presented a selective and misleading narrative omitting the root causes of the current tensions, namely the unlawful attack of the US and the Israeli regime against Iran, facilitated by the logistical support from military installations in the region, including within the UAE, as well as the impact of the United States' illegal blockade on Iran. Such omissions underscore the inconsistency of the position presented. Iran is a committed state party to the treaty. Its nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful and under international verification. Its nomination to the Bureau reflects its continued commitment to the treaty and this process. I thank you, Mr. President.
Mr President, my delegation is compelled to respond to the statement made by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We heard once again the familiar language of denial, deflection, and accusation, but no amount of political rhetoric can erase the central fact before this conference. Iran record is incompatible with the responsibility it has just assumed. Iran cannot simply invoke the MPT when it wants to claim rights and disregard the same treaty when it comes to obligation. Iran cannot claim commitment to safeguard while failing to provide transparency required by the IAEA. Iran cannot speak of peace while destabilizing its region and attacking its neighbors in violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. And Iran cannot speak of freedom of navigation while threatening and obstructing one of the world's most vital waterways. I thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, President. I take the floor to respond to previous comments. To be clear, neither the United States nor the other states who spoke this morning are violating the treaty. Nobody has found them to be in noncompliance with their NPT obligations even once, let alone twice. Conversely, Iran is violating the treaty, and that is why it is inappropriate and an embarrassment to have it serve as a VP of this review conference. If Iran dislikes this fact, rather than point fingers elsewhere, it should abandon its nuclear ambitions, resolve outstanding issues with the IAEA, and come into compliance, stop violating the treaty. On February 28th, the United States began an operation to protect the American people, U.S. forces, and partners against threats posed by a regime that has for decades undermined U.S. and international security. Including by advancing its nuclear program in a manner inconsistent with any conceivable civilian purpose and repeatedly stonewalling the IAEA. This was not our preferred course of action. Indeed, the United States repeatedly pursued a diplomatic solution in good faith, and in doing so, we always provided clear time frames for meaningful dialogue, including the most recently in Islamabad on April 11th. Iran, however, has thus far chosen not to take those opportunities. Diplomatic efforts remain underway but have thus far not succeeded primarily because Iran has refused to commit to the responsible path. Iran continues to violate the treaty, and more must be done to hold Iran accountable to its NPT obligations. The administration is continuing to test a diplomatic path from a position of strength. President Trump has been clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution. But Iran has to make the right choices. If not, Iran will continue to face mounting military, economic, and diplomatic pressure with no relief in sight. We ask you all to join us in using this REVCON to defend the NPT and the safeguards system, to uphold the IAEA's authority, and to hold Iran to account. Further, we also ask this body to join us in urging Iran, loudly and resolutely, to engage constructively with us as we continue to pursue a deal to verifiably address Iran's nuclear program. Iran has an opportunity. We should all encourage it to seize the moment. Yeah.
Verbatim from the transcript. A reply is identified from its own words, the Chair's grant, or its place in the right-of-reply sequence; delegations and addressees follow the transcript's attribution.