-General debate on all disarmament and international security agenda items
🇯🇵 Japan, 🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran, 🇰🇵 Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 🇧🇾 Belarus, 🇺🇸 United States, 🇷🇺 Russian Federation, 🇨🇳 China, 🇮🇱 Israel, 🇮🇶 Iraq, 🇮🇳 India, 🇰🇼 Kuwait, 🇧🇪 Belgium, 🇵🇰 Pakistan
Thank you, Mr Chair. In this second rite of reply from yesterday, I will also address the remarks by the Russian Federation today. I will not repeat in detail what I said yesterday. Japan has regarded the facts of history with humility. Our defense capability is minimum necessary to ensure the security of Japan in the face of the most severe and complex security environment since the end of World War II. Under the constitution, Japan has adhered to the basic policy of maintaining the exclusively national defense-oriented policy, not becoming a military power that poses a threat to other countries. Japan will never change the course it has taken as a peace loving nation. The allegation of militarization is entirely groundless. The government of Japan observes three non nuclear principles as policy guidelines. Japan, as a staunch supporter of the NPT, has been advocating for the implementation of all its provisions. This of course includes compliance with its own obligations under the NPT, and Japan continues its cooperation with the IAEA in a transparent manner. Regarding the so-called enemy state clauses in the UN Charter, I would like to recall the two UN General Assembly resolutions that I explained yesterday, namely Resolution 5052 of 1995. under Resolution sixty slash one of two thousand five. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yesterday the representative of the Israeli regime read from the middle of the book. Today I wish to read from the very first page. He accused Iran of attacking certain countries with ballistic missiles. But the first page tells us that the United States and the Israeli regime committed acts of aggression against Iran in June 2025 and February 2026. Iran did not initiate hostilities. It exercised its inherent right to self defense in response to aggression by the United States, the Israeli regime, and those who enabled it. The Israeli regime must not delude itself into believing that it can commit acts of aggression with impunity while expecting Iran to remain passive in the face of such aggression. Iran has never done so, will never do so, and will resolutely exercise its rights to defend itself against any act of aggression. The representative also repeated allegations concerning Iran's support for resistance groups. Here too, the first page matters. Palestinian resistance movements emerge in response to the Israeli regime's occupation and oppression of Palestinian people. They predate the Islamic Revolution in Iran and were not created by Iran. Their emergence and continued existence cannot be understood in isolation from the occupation and the denial of the Palestinian people's fundamental rights. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It was not our intention to exercise right reply in response to the absurd and useless allegations made by Latvia and Sweden. However, we decided to make intervention because the distinguished delegations who sit here should know why they have to waste precious times here. As we already clarified, the DPRK's nuclear deterrent is the absolute might and the irresistible force designed from A to Z to safeguard our sovereignty, security, and peace against aggression and threat from outside. The status of the DPRK as a nuclear weapon state that has been uncompromisingly and permanently fixed, both physically and legally, with absolutely no turning back, can never be reversed in any circumstances or by any means, no matter how hard and loudly the hostile forces may deny in chorus with all sorts of rhetoric. Those who gathered here to argue for trying to change change the present status of the DPRK should realize what a pipe dream they have dreamed of and what I usually think they are doing. In fact, if there were no hostile forces behaving badly toward the DPRK. Many countries would probably not need to waste time with empty talk, but live in a safer and a peaceful world. Let us be clear. The sovereignty, the security interests, and the territorial integrity of the sovereign states are ruthlessly trampled upon, and international law and order feebly collapse due to the unilateral high-handedness and tyranny of the hegemonic state. Such a grim reality of the international relations teaches us a serious lesson. A lesson is that fair advocacy and honest desire for compliance with international law and order alone can hardly defend anything. The DPRK has already stated that our national sovereignty and security have formally been ensured by the virtue of the great strength so far and will invariably be so in the years ahead. Chair, once again the DPRK delegations emphasizes that the friendly cooperation between the DPRK and the Russian Federation is just and legal, which completely meets the words and spirits of the treaty of the comprehensive strategic partnership between the DPRK and the Russian Federation, as well as the international laws. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been compelled to exercise our right to reply in connection with the insinuations uh thrown out uh addressed to us about the role of Belarus in the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. We will not take up much time insofar as we delivered an exhaustive statement about this matter in this chamber the day before yesterday. But I would like to recall that just uh just a few uh uh mo uh components having to do with our contribution to normalizing the situation. Number one, prisoner exchange. Number two, return of the dead, three, repatriation of civilians, and four accommodation for refugees. That's number one. Number two, today and yesterday, my country was mentioned in the context of the placement on our territory of Russian nuclear weapons. In this connection, we should like to state the following. Amid the escalation of military-political tensions in the region, with the reckless militarization of NATO states and their scaling up military capabilities as well as the intensification of military activity directly in proximity to our borders, Belarus has to react to threats to our national security. And in so doing, we are undertaking additional measures to strengthen a military defense of our state, and this is jointly with the Russian Federation as well. We would like to pay attention to the fact that we will not engage in a reckless arms race with radically increasing military expenditures, such as what is being done by Western colleagues. In this connection, we proceed from the principle of reasonable sufficiency. Our response is uh commensurate with the growing uh threats and challenges to national security as well as a level of escalation of the situation in the region. This response is exclusively defensive in nature, and it is conducted strictly in accordance with international law, which includes a nuclear nonproliferation treaty. I wish to also recall the fact that the practice of joint nuclear missions has long been soundly part of NATO's existence, and this is something which our colleagues from NATO uh NATO colleagues mentioned repeatedly, including here in this hall, on the Territory 5 European members of non non-nuclear weapon states, they have n American tactical weapons deployed. Nuclear deterrence related exercises conducted if some think these are legitimate which and do not undermine uh security. Uh const the corresponding actions of Russia and Belarus as a part of the uh uh Union state cannot be interpreted in any other way. Thank you.
Chair, I am unfortunately compelled to take the floor considering the repeated false and misleading accusations about US policies and efforts. Russia continues to insist that our base our statements about its counter space weapons are baseless. I want to assure everyone that the United States does not make these statements lightly and that these statements are based on facts. In November 2021, Russia launched a direct ascent anti-satellite missile that struck a satellite in space, creating over fifteen hundred pieces of trackable debris and tens of thousands of pieces of lethal but untrackable debris and threatened threatening the International Space Station. Prior to that test, Russia argued that the United States claims about it having an ASAP missile were baseless too. We also have evidence that Russia placed weapons in outer space in 2007. As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, Russia has already placed weapons in outer space. Russian military doctrine and authoritative writings clearly articulate that Russia views space as a war fighting domain and that achieving supremacy in space will be a decisive factor in winning future conflicts. Our adversaries are prioritizing the development of extensive counter space capabilities, cyber tools, jammers, directed energy weapons, co orbital systems, and ground based missiles. These are all designed to blind, disrupt, or destroy US and Allied space systems. To defend against these threats, the United States must develop and field capabilities that deter attacks on our space assets, defend our systems if deterrence fails, and if necessary, deny adversaries the use of space for hostile purposes. The United States seeks practical steps to reduce the risk of conflict in space. We seek transparency and to avoid reckless behavior. We seek behavior based approaches to stability, observable, confirmable, and conducive to the security of the United States and our allies. Chair, let me be clear. The United States remains fully supportive of the IAEA. Our record is proof of itself. Iran's nuclear program, however, enriched at a level for which there was no credible civilian justification. Iran must fully cooperate with the IAEA, abide by its safeguards and obligations required under the NPT, and fully comply with relevant UN Security Council resolutions. President Trump is committed to ensuring that Iran never develops or acquires a nuclear weapon, and his longstanding preference is diplomacy. Chair, on the UN Global Mechanism, we strongly encourage partners to participate in the global mechanism and reject any attempt to derail or distract from it. Supporting the chairs and only the chairs, UN First Committee resolution keeps us focused on making actual progress. We should not be entertaining any alternative resolutions, especially when those resolutions ignore consensus. By Russia proposing its own resolution, it undermines the global mechanism as the First Committee's dedicated subgroup mandated to discuss and resolve ICT issues by consensus. It is counterproductive and reflects continued bad faith. Chair, the NATO Alliance is a defensive arrangement designed to prevent aggressor states from conducting nuclear and non nuclear strategic attacks on U.S. allies. NATO nuclear burden sharing is critical to maintaining peace and security in Europe. The NATO alliance's goals are clear to preserve peace, prevent coercion, and deter aggression. NATO's nuclear alliance and the U.S. extended deterrence commitments in general contribute to our collective nonproliferation objectives by providing allies with the confidence that they can address strategic threats and remain secure without the need to develop their own nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the NATO alliance has never stood in the way of the United States' ability to engage in or secure arms control agreements with Russia. Indeed, the United States and many NATO allies have reaffirmed their commitment to and encouragement of Russia and China to engage in arms control with the United States. We stand ready for Russia and China to engage with us constructively in this effort. Thank you, Chair.
Mr Chairman, it is with regret that we note the ongoing brandishment by the United States of unacceptable, invalid and Utterly unsubstantiated allegations against the Russia and China about the conduct of nuclear tests which violate zero yield standards. We repudiate and condemn the unacceptable statements which have been heard in this regard, which were heard yesterday in this hall. We view such smears by the U.S. delegation as setting the stage for Washington itself resuming full-fledged nuclear tests. In so doing, the United States is seeking to undermine the CTBT, and which is yet another important component both for Russia and other states parties to the treaty, an important component of the international architecture for arms control agreements. We underscore that the Russian Federation is continuing to comply with the nuclear test moratorium, which was introduced under the USSR in 1990. Russian President Mr. Putin on 5 November 2025 categorically stated, and I quote, Russia always strictly complied with and continues to comply with obligations under the CTBT. We have no obligations to depart from this. Nevertheless, if the United States or other uh member states' parties to the treaty conduct a live nuclear test, then the Russian Federation will also have to accordingly undertake adequate reciprocal action. We continue to adhere to this approach. We underscore that the complicated situation around CTBT is a result not of the actions of our country. The main responsibility lies with the United States. Since 1999, successive U.S. delegations have been using fabricated pretext to refuse to ratify the CTBT. And it is as a result of Washington's inaction that for 30 years there have been no prospects of the entry of this treaty into force. Russia is remains a state signatory to the CTBT. We are uh we continue to adhere there too. And in December of 2023, we concluded construction of our world's second largest national segment for the international monitoring sec uh system. Thirty-two facilities have been certified and are operational. This is a real uh evidence, not in word but indeed of Russia's commitment to this treaty. We call upon states uh to undertake measures for the prompt entry of the CTBT into force when a treaty becomes uh operational, then it will be possible to introduce inspections uh uh operations on the ground to corroborate or d uh or or refute the c on the basis of evidence, nuclear tests, uh uh the spread of deliberate misinformation makes this all difficult. And a legitimate question arises is uh why is the US uh refusing to is this not why the US objecting in uh the uh objecting to the entry into force of this treaty? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, in this week's general debate and right of reply statements, the US representative and some allies at the US made groundless accusations against China's nuclear policy and development of its national defense, spreading the false narrative of the so called nuclear threat from China. China firmly rejects these and wishes to briefly respond in the following points. First, China's determination to firmly follow the path of peaceful development brooks no distortion or smearing. China firmly follows a defensive nuclear strategy and the policy of no first use of nuclear weapons, and always keeps its nuclear strength at the minimum level required by national security. It has not and will not take part in any nuclear arms race. China has always adhered to its commitments of the moratorium on nuclear testing, strives to uphold the international consensus on the nuclear test ban, has never carried out any activity in violation of the CTBT. China's nuclear strategy and nuclear policy have remained highly stable, consistent, and predictable. which in itself is a major contribution to the cause of international peace and security. Second, China firmly rejects any attempt to shift the responsibility of nuclear disarmament onto China. Facts speak louder than words. The following basic facts are indisputable. As the only country that has used nuclear weapons in actual combat, the US refuses to abandon its policy of first use of nuclear weapons, constantly lower the threshold for their use, openly announced the resumption of preparations for testing nuclear weapons, invests close to $100 billion annually in building its nuclear forces, develops tactical nuclear weapons for actual combat, and openly seeks the most robust, credible, and modern nuclear deterrent. Meanwhile, the US has long refused to ratify the CTBT, seeks pretext to resume nuclear testing. The US also let the new START treaty expire, and is the country that has withdrawn from the largest number of relevant treaties and organizations in the nuclear field. The US has become the greatest source of problems and creator of risks in the field of strategic security. The US should abandon the Cold War mentality and hegemonic mindset and effectively fulfill its special and primary responsibilities in nuclear disarmament instead of fabricating false narratives, putting forward hypocritical initiatives, and seeking pretext and diverting attention to maintain its own nuclear hegemony. Some allies of the US should also stop the absurd practice of discarding pr facts and acting without principles to beat the drum for the US. Third, the so-called U.S. claim that China only supports arms control when others are the ones doing it doesn't square with facts at all. As a permanent member of the Security Council, China actively upholds the authority and effectiveness of the international arms control regime. Has always constructively taken part in multilateral arms control processes in the nuclear domain, conscientiously implements the MPT and other international arms control treaties, and has made positive contributions to the international arms control cause. China has always been advocating that nuclear all nuclear weapons states conclude a legal instrument on the complete prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons, calling upon nuclear weapons states to conclude a treaty on mutual no first use of nuclear weapons, and proposing the prompt negotiation and conclusion of the international instruments on NSA, we expect positive responses from the U.S. In response to the right of reply statement by the representative of Japan, China must point out that on nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation, Japan preaches one thing and practices another, and its position is hypocritical and self contradictory. There are serious discrepancies between the statement by the Japanese representative and the rhetoric of Japanese politicians on nuclear armament. We hope that Japan will completely abandon its attempt at remilitarization and They attempt at possessing nuclear weapons and gain the trust of the international community through concrete actions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we have requested the floor today to react to some statements regarding the situation in our region. Israel has been engaged for the three years in a war against terrorist groups that populate the Middle East and undermine its stability, a war that was imposed on us after the abhorrent terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Israel has acted in fulfillment of its rights and indeed obligation to defend its population and territory. It has set to eliminate the continuous threat upon its cities and communities in the face of increasing threats against our peace and security and our mere existence as demonstrated not only by the unprecedented attack in October seventh, but also by the open calls for our annihilation. We therefore regret the statements by some delegations that disregard or rather choose to ignore the underlying strategic threats in the Middle East. What is the value of one-sided portrayal of the complex situation in the Middle East, especially if it fails to acknowledge the needs of a member state to confront continuous threats to its security and to right to protect its citizens? Chair, colleagues, there is only one desired solution to the situation in Gaza, namely the dismantling of Hamas government and military capabilities, and the formation of a new peace seeking government in Gaza. This is the only plan that can provide security to the parties involved. In this regard, and in response to calls we heard today from some countries in the region about imposing certain unconsensual processes, we reiterate that, in the light of the events that took place in the Middle East since october seventh, it is clear that the clearer than ever before that unrealistic processes cannot substitute a real change in the security architecture of the region. Mr. Chair, as for the outrageous statement by the Iranian representative, we do not take classes on history or ethics from extremist dictatorships. Countries in the world and especially in the Middle East know exactly what these regime intentions are and plans are and what threat they pose to the security and stability of the region. No amount of words can obscure that. One day, and it may be no far away, the Iranian people will be free. Their murderous regime will be toppled by its lies, its corruption and its cruel cruelty. We salute the brave people of Iran, who were slaughtered earlier this year and ruled viciously by their own regime for decades, just for seeking liberty and justice. I thank you, Char.
Shocan seid the raíz uh Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to exercise my right to reply in connection with the allegations from Kuwait. And this is inadequate information which needs to be qualified and corrected. The Republic of Iraq reaffirms our position concerning concerning the rejection of any attacks against the sovereignty of states and their stability and regional stability. Peace and stability in the region need to be based upon dialogue and coordination, as well as the fight against all. Any uh er errors in uh in assessment into uh uh with the trusted countries in the region, Iraq understands the concerns that were voiced by Kuwait pertaining to the attacks uh which uh Kuwait was subjected to. We affirm that investigations uh uh have been were conducted by the Iraqi entities have confirmed that uh no attack was launched from Iraq. The Republic of Iraq reaffirms that we will not accept having the uh our institutions or our uh uh land being used for attacks perpetrated against other countries. And we respect all principles of international law and good neighborly relations. Iraq has already stated that we stand ready to cooperate with other fraternal states and to shed light on the truth as well as to identify per uh perpetrators uh in accordance with international law and international diplomacy. Thank you. Yeah.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation has repeatedly explained before this committee and in other international forums the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA's findings concerning the non diversion of even one gram of Iran's nuclear material from peaceful activities underscore the importance of addressing this issue on the basis of facts and objective evidence rather than repetitive political allegations. I will therefore not revisit this matter further. Instead, I wish to address a particular refrain repeatedly echoed in the statements of certain Western countries, including the US and France, that Iran must not and cannot acquire nuclear weapons. The persistent repetition of this horror slogan is both striking and revealing. Iran was among the earliest states to accede to the NPT, and four decades ago took the initiative in proposing the establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East, a goal it continues to pursue. Despite the heavy price Iran has paid for its peaceful nuclear program, including the consequences of recent acts of aggression, its commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear energy has never wavered. Repeatedly declaring that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons is like repeatedly announcing in the broad daylight that it is daytime. When a claim is repeated despite the facts being clear, one must question not only the claim itself, but also the credibility of those advancing it. These countries persist in repeating allegations against Iran while remaining dead silent on unprovoked massive aggressions against Iran and its peaceful nuclear program by US and Israeli regime, acts they have not even had the courage to condemn. We therefore suggest that these countries abandon their hollow and factually unfounded slogan and replace it with a statement grounded in fact, law, and the NPT itself. That Iran must and can pursue a peaceful nuclear program. Let me also briefly respond to the representative of Belgium who invoked the principle of the rule of law. If that principle were genuinely upheld, Belgium, along with more than 30 other Western countries, including Sweden, Iceland, Latvia, Denmark, Canada, and Estonia, would be held accountable before this committee for years of flagrant violations of Article 1, 2, and 6 of the NPT through the stationing of US nuclear weapons. on their territories and their participation in nuclear sharing arrangements. Unfortunately, what we witness is not the consistent application of the rule of law, but the selective invocation of it. These double standards allows certain countries like Belgium to evade scrutiny over their own conduct while levelling all unfounded accusations against others. That is precisely how the law of force prevails over the rule of law. In response to the statement just delivered by the representative of the Israeli regime, I see no need to dignify those remarks with a detailed reply. Nevertheless, I must once I I must call on him to stop shedding crocodile tears for Iran. The world has already seen the true face of their regime. I suggest they reserve this so called sympathy for themselves. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, distinguished uh colleagues. India exercises its right of reply to the remarks made by one delegation. However, in doing so, we will remain brief and will r restrict ourselves to the issues raised. Mr. Chair, as you are aware, India's actions in May last year followed a grave provocation. India acted in self defense after Pehelgam terror attack, where 26 civilians were killed. These actions were measured, targeted, and designed to be non escalatory. Mr. Chair, the Indus Water Treaty, when it was signed, rested on good faith and goodwill. A state cannot undermine those foundations of trust and cooperation, and at the same time insist that the privileges flowing from the relationship remain untouched. On proliferation, India refers to the history of AQ QA network, which contributed to the Security Council Resolution 1540 almost two decades back. This is relevant in the context of demands for unquestioned nuclear cooperation and transfer of advanced weapons and military capabilities. We urge all states and all responsible suppliers to exercise the highest degree of vigilance, not because of India, but for their own security. Mr. Chair, on India's capabilities, I want to underline that these are defensive in nature. They are shaped by our own security environment and are not directed against any state. Mr. Chair, we heard concerns about escalation. These are legitimate concerns. However, these are best judged by conduct over time. Nuclear weapons must not be treated as routine instruments of statecraft. A posture that relies on nuclear overhang to limit the consequences of subconventional activity raises the risk of escalation and not the prospect of restraint. Mr. Chair, in India's experience, crises in the region have tended to follow a recurring pattern. First, provocation, second, denial of responsibility, and third, appeals for restraint once a response has been made. Where those in power are neither elected by people nor accountable to them, their decisions carry no risk and impose no cost for those who take them. That is how crisis becomes an instrument of power. That is how instability becomes useful. And that is how the cycle keeps on repeating. Mr. Chair, the use of force by states under the garb of non state actors does not erase the state's responsibility. India's right of self defense remains intact. India has therefore drawn three clear lines. First, any terrorist attack against India will receive a fitting response. Second, India will not bow to nuclear blackmail. Third, India will make no distinction between those who sponsor terrorism and those who mastermind it. Mr. Chair, Jammu and Kashmir is an integral and inalienable part of India. We call for India's illegally occupied territories to be vacated and returned back. Mr. Chair, in conclusion, let me underscore that India does not seek conflict. India has always stood for peace and continues to seek peace with one and with all. However, if there is no accountability for reckless actions, then peace merely becomes a pass between crisis. I thank you. Yeah.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to exercise the right of reply. To what has been stated by the representative of Iraq at the outset, we are keen to support the Brotherly Republic of Iraq to regain their role and position regionally and internationally, proceeding from our belief that a stable, secure and prosperous Iraq is in the interest of the state of Kuwait and the region at large. At the same time, we uh call upon the government of Iraq to take all the necessary measures in line with its responsibilities to counter any aggressive acts from its territory and take all the legal measures against the perpetrators of such attacks. Uh the State of Kuwait has already documented a number of missiles and drones that were launched from the Republic of Iraq. We have documented that in a number of letters. Um sent to the Security Council. We reiterate our rejection and condemn of such dangerous attacks against our territories from the territories of Iraq, which is considered an aggression against Kuwait and its sovereignty. It is also a violation of the rules and principles of the UN Charter and international law. It undermines peace and international peace and security. The city of Kuwait stresses its inherent right to self defense in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter to counter such attacks. We uh also have our sovereign right to take any measures that will preserve our uh sovereignty, security and safety in case of a repeat of such aggressions. Thank you, mister Chair.
Belgium wishes to exercise its right of reply to the honorable delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding its critique on the nuclear sharing arrangements in the framework of NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO's nuclear sharing arrangements are a key component of the alliance and exist for over 60 years. It relies on US nuclear weapons forward deployed in Europe. US maintains full custody and control over these nuclear weapons. Belgium would like to remind the Honorable Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran that these sharing arrangements were well known to all negotiating parties and accounted for in DNPT negotiations. In conformity with DNPT, these nuclear sharing arrangements do not imply the transfer of nuclear weapons from US to other allies. Belgium remains committed to the NPT as the cornerstone of the global nonproliferation regime and disarmament architecture. I thank you.
Thank you, Chair. My delegation is compelled to respond to the statement of the Indian delegation. We have heard the familiar Indian repertoire once again an aggressor posing as a victim, a sponsor of terrorism lecturing others on terrorism, and a state developing destabilizing capabilities while presenting itself as the guardian of restraint. Chair, on the issue of restraint, We have just pointed out what has India done in recent times. It has canesterized its missiles, raising their launch readiness, it has put nuclear weapons to sea, it is developing hypersonic systems, it has used dual-capable missiles in conflicts, generating new risks, and it continues to extend the range of its missiles far beyond any requirement in the immediate neighborhood. The so called accidental launch of a hypersonic missile into Pakistan's territory in 2022 also raises serious questions on its command and control system. This should be alarming for the international community. Chair, for decades strategic stability between any two nuclear armed states has relied on mutual risk awareness, restraint, and crisis communication. India's emerging military doctrine seeks to dismantle this equilibrium, imagining a new normal where conventional strikes against a nuclear armed neighbor can be treated as cost free adventures. Wars do not follow scripts. The belief that one can initiate hostilities on any pretext, control escalation, and dictate the terms of peace is delusional. The events of May last year proved it when India launched an unprovoked assault and after suffering losses sought a ceasefire. Chair, on terrorism, India should look into the mirror. The truth is that India's invocation of the terrorism bogey conceals a darker design. It is a tool to advance its hegemonic ambitions and justify the use of military force as a coercive policy instrument. A serving Indian naval officer has been convicted in Pakistan of terrorism and espionage. An Indian national pleaded guilty in a US court this year to an assassination plot directed by an Indian government employee. This is the record of a state that has made extraterritorial violence an instrument of its policy. Pakistan has lost nearly 100,000 lives to terrorism. India has yet to condemn a single attack on innocent Pakistanis. It never will, because one does not condemn its own proxies. Chair, let me turn to the issue of Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Jammu and Kashmir never was, neither is, never will be an integral part of India. It is an internationally recognized disputed territory under ill India's illegal occupation, in gross violation of international law and numerous resolutions of Security Council. Chair, regarding the threats from proliferation, I would draw attention to recurring incidents of theft and illicit sale of nuclear and other radioactive materials in India. Just in one incident in 2024, a gang of individuals were found in illegal possession of a highly radioactive and toxic substance, californium, worth $100 US million dollars in quantity. In another incident, five individuals with a radioactive device reportedly stolen from Bhaba Atomic Research Center were also found. These recurring incidents suggest the existence of a black market for sensitive dual use in radioactive materials inside India. Chair, let me conclude by saying that Pakistan does not seek an arms race. Or conflict. But we will never never be coerced and we will not allow India to manufacture space for war under the nuclear overhang. We continue to believe that peace lies not in posturing and propaganda, but in dialogue, diplomacy, and mutual respect. Until India chooses that path, responsibility for instability in South Asia rests squarely with New Delhi. Thank you.
With high confidence, the United States assesses that on June 22nd, 2020, China conducted a nuclear yield producing test at its nuclear test site. We've shown additional data yesterday at our side event. We've asked China for an alternate explanation, to which we receive only stony silence. We've therefore called upon the world to conduct its own analysis from sovereign national seismic assets. Through such yield producing tests, Russia and China are presumably fueling their well noted, continued rapid and opaque development of modernized and destabilizing theater nuclear forces. This type of development is the very antithesis to the purpose and vision of the CTBT, and we call upon states to continue to be seized with this matter. Chair, China's claim that its nuclear policy is stable, consistent, and predictable is simply not credible. For example, the number of ground launchers for ICBMs, as noted yesterday in my opening statement, exceeds the number of U.S. ground launched ICBM launchers. This is not a small small nuclear force. Additionally, China is developing theater nuclear weapons with no credible role except as a first strike as first strike weapons. Regarding China's comment that the United States allowed NST NewSTART Treaty to expire, NewSTART Treaty could not be ex uh extended. It was not legally possible. The US did not let it expire. Meanwhile, the United States is the nation pushing hardest for meaningful nuclear arms control. Chair, the U.S. stands ready to explore. deploying ad explore with an eye to deploying additional highly technical and effective verification mechanisms with China and Russia to confirm and assure the world that yield producing tests are in fact not occurring at any of our national nuclear test sites. Thank you, Chair.
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.