-General debate on all disarmament and international security agenda items
🇷🇺 Russian Federation, 🇰🇵 Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 🇧🇭 Bahrain, 🇫🇷 France, 🇮🇱 Israel, 🇩🇰 Denmark, 🇺🇸 United States, 🇰🇷 Republic of Korea, 🇯🇵 Japan, 🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran, 🇱🇹 Lithuania
Thank you, Chair. We noticed unacceptable and groundless aggregations from some Western states in the context of the military technical cooperation between Russia and Iran. We'd highlight that our country is developing and will continue to develop our relationships with Tehran based on the 17th of January 2025 agreement on comprehensive strategic partnerships. This cooperation is done in line with international legal obligations in the context of implementing the inalienable right to strengthening bilateral ties. This agreement is fully in line with international law and cannot be subject of criticism from third states. Attempts to dispute this fact is something we see to be interference in the internal affairs of our countries. A particularly cynical situation because it is these Western states who are the main weapons suppliers to the Kiev regime in violation of existing export control obligations and in countries of the West who are not stopping their citizens from populating in Ukraine and for armed forces. The hypocrisy of Western delegations is particularly clear against the backdrop of their support for the uh unjustified and unlawful aggression of Israel and the US against Iran, um killing the leader of this country, and bombing civilian infrastructure and providing nuclear facilities under the guarantee covered by the IAA guarantees, and also mendacious narratives about the military aspects of the Iranian nuclear program and Tehran's non implementation of obligations of guarantees of the IAA chair. S assisting in s uh the defense of our no no uh closest neighbor, Belarus, through providing them with gu security guarantees in the nuclear sphere is done as part of a bilateral agreement on security guarantees as part of our union state. Decision about developing these bilateral cooperation was dictated by the need to find a joint response to the Western generated strategic risks and threat to security against Russia, Belarus, and the Union state as a whole. First and foremost, we're talking about years of destabilizing practice of joint nuclear missions of NATO and also the placement of by US in Europe of nuclear weapons, which is covered a whole uh Aims of in the territory of Russia and Belarus. At the same time, infrastructure for this has been developed and the munitions themselves and their vectors are continuing to be modernized and discussion about further these joint nucleint missions on the eastern flank of NATO with is being more and more active. The situation in this context has been worsened and by the increased militarization of Europe, which uh is promoting piles to create a gen nuclear a European nuclear capacity under the American nuclear umbrella. In current cir circumstances, uh the political pressure exerted on pol uh Russia and Belarus, including uh directly undermining the security of our countries, these are the uh this situation creates a strategic reality which we do not plan on ignoring. We must take into account the growing threats on military planning so that we're ready to any option for the how the situation might develop. At the same time, it's very important to bear in mind that unlike the NATO bloc, as whereas the US has rolled out nuclear weapons thousands of kilometres from its national territory, Russia and Belarus cooperate. On principles, and uh the main difference is that the measures that we take to respond are mitigated are moderate and are not comparable with the s the scale of the steps taken by NATO, which is done as part of a general defense space of the and these measures are in response and uh are done strictly compliance with international law. On the Budapest Mederandum, then honestly, the inadequate attempts of countries of the uh West to make claims against Russia in the context of this of this what happened in recent years is has much already undermined itself. Year by year we uh give comment detailed comments on this the speaker's microphone has been cut off.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the floor. The DPRK delegation categorically and totally rejects the stereotyped and absurd allegations of the delegations from Japan, Ukraine, Hungary, Argentina, Slovakia, Greece, and the IAEA about the DPRK's exercise of self-defense rights. No matter how loudly they call for the so-called CVID of the DPRK, the status of the DPRK as a nuclear weapon state has been uncompromisingly and permanently fixed both physically and legally with absolutely no turning back. And the DPRK has not been a member of the NPT and the and the IAEA from long ago, and therefore it is illegal and the height of imprudence to talk about the position of our state and its efforts to bolster up the defense capabilities. And the cooperation between the DPRK and the Russian Federation cannot and should not be a topic of debate here. The DPRK stand remains unchanged, that the Ukraine crisis was obviously caused by the confrontation policy of the US and the West, which have violated Russia's reasonable and legitimate security concerns and escalated NATO's eastward advance. We'd like to say quite a few more words about Japan's provocative remarks against the DPRK. Japan is an A class war criminal state and also an enemy state which is recognized by the UN Charter. In the last century, it inflicted huge sufferings and damages upon the DPRK and other Asian countries. During its colonial rule, Japan forcibly abducted more than 8 million Korean people, massacred over 1 million innocent civilians, and enslaved 200,000 Korean women as sexual slaves for the Japanese military. However, Japan has neither apologized nor compensated for their criminal acts and is now turning itself from a defeated nation to a warring nation. This year alone, it deployed and test fired such offensive weapons as surface to ship guided missiles, high speed gliding projectiles, cruise missiles, and a reconnaissance drone. Its self defense corps showed a drastic increase in the radius of their operation by participating in various joint military exercises with the US and the ROK abroad. And after the US allowed the ROK to possess a nuclear submarine, several high ranking officials in Tokyo openly began to talk about the need to do the same. As everyone knows, Japan is the only non-nuclear state to enjoy the privilege of extracting, stockpiling, and reusing plutonium by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. It has now stockpiled 44.4 tons of plutonium and is planning to complete the spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant within this year. Japan has so far behaved as a peace-loving state, branding neighboring countries' measures for bolstering up their defense self defense capabilities as threat and provocation. It is now clear that such moves were, after all, a camouflaged tactic to cover up its ambition for a military giant. The voices of denunciation and warning alone cannot cool Japan's wild ambition for reinvasion. One effective way is to make Japan fear that its security has been exposed to greater danger due to its greediness. The DPRK determines to build up at an accelerated pace the strength capable of deterring the enemy country's ever increasing attempt for collective confrontation and their military threats and to exercise its sovereignty in a responsible manner. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the Gulf GCC countries, namely Kuwait, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Kingdom of Bahrain, I would like to reply to the statement of the representative of Iran. Security Council Resolution twenty eight seventeen, which was co-sponsored by one hundred and sixty-three states, have condemned the Iranian attacks on the region and called for their immediate cessation. The resolution said that these attacks were a violation of international law and a threat to international peace and security. Paragraph five of the resolution called on the Islamic Republic of Iran to immediately and unconditionally cease its acts of provocation or threats to neighboring countries, including its use of proxies. I would like also to recall the condemnation in Human Rights Council 61 Stroke 1 of 25 March 2026. The resolution condemned Iranian attacks, and I would like to count paragraph 7. It called on Iran to comply with the Security Council Resolution 2817. It also called on it to uphold its obligations under international law, including international human rights law and IHL. It also called on Iran to immediately and unconditionally seize its attacks and provocations and unjustified acts against the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as Jordan, including its use of proxies. It also called on Iran to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. In this context I would re reiterate that we cannot distort facts, thank you.
Chair France would like to exercise its right of reply in reaction to the word said by Iran on the French nuclear arsenal. Chair. The evolution of the defense of our competitors, the evolution of the threat against Europe, and the p ongoing risks linked to proliferation led the president of the French Republic to conclude that increasing uh arsenal was indispensable. As the president recalled, and I quote, This is not a entering into any kind of arms race. That was never our doctrine. Moreover, and I quote once again nuk French nuclear arms are strategic and exclusively strategic. France, since President Francois Mitterrand has abandoned any idea of a tactical use of nuclear weapons, and this will remain the case. In this view of an ass asymmetry, we have always d envisaged thresholds that are strictly in line with operational capacity of deterrence. That's the end of the quote from the President's speech. Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In response to the statement by Iran earlier, we are compelled to react. Iran preaches us about equality, about fairness, about double standards, about justice. Iran complains about the whole world treating it unfairly, while it hides its military nuclear program, threatens international peace and security by arming lethal terrorist groups around the world. Sabotages international maritime routes and then turns to the multilateral fora into a stage to perform its lies trying to blow smoke in our eyes. To be clear, nothing in Iran's military program, the military nuclear program is devoted for peaceful purposes. It has been proven beyond all doubt that for decades Iran has used diplomacy as a tool to bide time so that it can conceal and hide its ambition to advance military nuclear capabilities. The purpose of Israel's operation in june twenty twenty-five and february twenty twenty six was to neutralize an existential threat posed by the Iranian regime military nuclear activity and its accelerated ballistic missile production. Israel was compelled to act before it would be too late to effectively counter these threats. Israel acted in accordance with international law. In stark contrast, the Iranian regime deliberately and systematically targeted the civilian population in Israel and across the Middle East. Iran attempted to inflict pain against Israeli civil population, including with the ongoing use of missiles carrying cluster munitions that were launched against populations in centers in Israel. This is not rhetoric, Chair, but a fact Iranian missiles carrying cluster munitions against cities, against schools, against hospitals. Hundreds. It is therefore deeply ironic to hear the representative of the Iran regime to speak about international law and aggressions following its country's ongoing attack against fifteen countries in the Middle East and beyond. Fifteen. And while it terrorizes maritime traffic and the global energy markets. Lastly, this regime, which sits here and asks for fairness, is the one executing its own citizens by the Southlands. Israel, together with the whole free world, has followed closely the protests of the brave Iranian citizens against their extremist regime. We also witnesses the brutal repression which the regime tried to obscure by cutting off the internet for weeks. Chair, everyone knows what the real intentions of the Iranian regime are, and they have nothing to do with justice or peace. Let us not forget its nature next time we hear preachers about fairness and international law. Finally, Chair, and in reaction to the accusations heard from the Lebanese representative, we wish to refer the Lebanese colleague to reality itself. It is Hezbollah that fired from Lebanese territory missiles and UAVs against Israel, effectively violating the understandings reached in november twenty twenty four between Israel and Lebanon regarding the cessation of hostilities. Hezbollah has for years deliberately targeted civilian population centers. Millions of Israelis remain under constant threats due to missiles, rockets and UAVs from Lebanon. As long as Hezbollah retains its military infrastructure and arsenal in Lebanon, the stability of Lebanon and the wider region will remain under serious threats. The Lebanese representative knows this very well. Israel hopes for a peaceful and stable future future alongside Lebanon, but will act decisively to protect its citizens and borders in accordance with international law. I thank you, Chad.
Thank you, Chair. Um I had not intended to take the floor, but I take it to ensure that there are no misunderstandings or and to set the record straight after Iran's statements and Russia's right to reply. I can confirm that Denmark uh has accepted an invitation from France to enter into dialogue on nuclear deterrence. The broader background for this cooperation was very very eloquently presented by France President Macron in his important and balanced speech on 2nd March 2026. The defensive cooperation is intended to reinforce the defense of Europe and strengthen European deterrence. The purpose is to contribute to maintaining peace, stability and security in the light of the increasingly complex security situation primarily caused by Russia's unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine. As stated in the speech by President Macron, the cooperation is taking place in full compliance with our international obligations and particularly the NPT. Indeed, in enhancing the security of Europe, the initiative provides significant benefits, including preventing proliferation. The NPT remains the cornerstone of the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, and Denmark remains fully committed to its obligations under the treaty. It goes without saying that Denmark's oblig cooperation with France on nuclear deterrence is fully in line with our obligations under the NPT. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Chair. I take the floor to respond to Iran regarding their assertions on U.S. military operations, space policy, and the MPT Review Conference. As the United States has repeatedly made clear, President Trump is committed to ensuring that Iran never develops or acquires a nuclear weapon. For years, Iran has repeatedly refused to cooperate with the IAEA to resolve serious questions about its past activities. Instead, Iran chose to lie or Obfuscate and deny its wrongdoing, while advancing its nuclear program in a manner inconsistent with any civilian purpose. The United States has pursued a diplomatic solution in good faith for years and is still supportive of a diplomatic solution. Iran, however, has thus far chosen not to take those opportunities. On February 28th, the United States began an operation to protect the American people, U.S. forces, and its partners against attacks and threats of attack posed by a regime that has, for decades, undermined U.S. and international security. Our actions have been directed at military and strategic assets tied to specific threats. The United States takes seriously its obligations under an international humanitarian law, including regarding the protection of civilians. The protection of civilians is of utmost importance, and we will continue to take the necessary precautions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian objects. In contrast, Tehran has conducted indiscriminate attacks impacting neighboring states and civilian objects and put its own people at risk. On space, I refer you to our other rights of replies on U.S. space policy. On the MPT Review Conference, Iran's claim that a lack of political will by some nuclear weapon states was the reason that the 2026 MPT Review Conference failed to reach consensus is also objectively false. The P three engaged substantively and constructively throughout the entire RevCon on issues across all three pillars of the treaty. The P five also discussed risk reduction and multilateral strategic stability dialogues at length, and relevant language was included in the final version of the REVCON document. In fact, the P three would have preferred even stronger language on nuclear disarmament disarmament and Article VI. I'll also note that the United States, the United Kingdom, and France worked tirelessly to increase transparency. In the review process by advocating for the institutionalization of interactive dialogues on all nuclear weapon states nationals' reports. We each held voluntary side events to discuss our reports. The other two nuclear weapon states did not. We were also prepared to accept the final version of the draft outcome document, but unfortunately, the decision was taken to not even present the final outcome document to states parties, probably at Iran's urging. This action seriously undermined the integrity of the entire MPT review process. If for no other reason than to shield a treaty violator, namely Iran. The United States shares in the frustration regarding the review conference outcome, but we will not accept a rewriting of the facts, and we hope that the future MPT RevCons regain relevance by having the courage and integrity to actually name treaty violators. A failure to do so in the future runs the risk of rendering the whole MPT review process irrelevant. Lastly, some countries, including the DPRK and Russia, have criticized US and Republic of Korea exercises. These exercises are defensive in nature, responsive to the security environment, and preserve regional security. I thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation wishes to exercise its right of reply to clarify several points raised by the delegation of the Russian Federation yesterday. First, regarding the Russia Russian Federation's reference to the General Assembly Resolution thirty three ninety B from its thirtieth session in nineteen seventy five, particularly its provision on the withdrawal of foreign troops. We would like to recall that the General Assembly adopted not one but two resolutions concerning Korea at that session, reflecting different views on the matter. The other resolution, Resolution 3390A, recognized that the Armistice Agreement remained indispensable to peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and emphasized the need to ensure its continued observance through appropriate arrangements in conjunction with the dissolution of the UNC. Selectively citing one resolution while disregarding the other presents an incomplete and misleading picture of the General Assembly's deliberations and their outcome. Second, with regard to the Security Council resolutions concerning the DPRK, we wish to recall that these resolutions explicitly require the DPRK to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and to suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program. They also prohibit member states from procuring from the DPRK assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance, or use of arms and related materials. These resolutions remain in effect and reiterate the importance of their full implementation by all member states. Third, I wish to emphasize that the ROK U.S. combined defense and deterrence posture is defensive in nature and is intended to respond to the DPRK's growing military threats. It also responds to the earlier comments raised by certain delegations on this issue. It is in this context that the Republic of Korea maintains its combined defense and deterrence posture with the United States. At the same time, as my government uh as my government has consistently emphasized, the Republic of Korea remains committed to pursuing peaceful coexistence on the Korean Peninsula. We hope that the Russian Federation will play a constructive role in supporting our efforts to promote peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am compelled to exercise my right of reply in response to the DPRK's statement and the DPRK's right of reply. Issues regarding the history were raised by the DPRK representative. Each and every country and region should squarely face its own history with humility. This is exactly what Japan has been doing and it is proven by the path it has walked since the end of World War II. Over the past eight decades, Japan has consistently walked the path of a peace-loving nation and has consistently contributed to peace and prosperity in the international community. This is widely and accurately recognized and highly appreciated by the international community. Freedom, democracy, and fundamental human rights remain unshakable foundations of Japan's every decision and action. Guided by these principles, Japan has made persistent efforts to promote the rule of law in the international community, stressing the importance of compliance with international law, including the UN Charter. The claims and figures that the DPRK representative mentioned regarding Japan are based on factual errors and are groundless. Japan's defense capability is minimum necessary to ensure our security 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. Japan continues to uphold the principle of not possessing plutonium without specific purposes and uses most of its plutonium stockpile for nuclear fuel power plants, nuclear fuel or power plants, with the remaining amount used as material for peaceful nuclear research. Also, Japan has declared a policy to reduce the amount of its plutonium stockpile in 2018, and the amount has decreased since then. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In response to the baseless allegations made by certain countries in our region, I refer them to my delegation's general debate statement and previous right of reply, which highlighted the role played by these countries in facilitating and enabling the acts of aggression committed by the United States and the Israeli regime against my country. In response to one delegation's claim that these allegations are false, I invited it to consider the public statements of U.S. officials who have openly acknowledged and expressed appreciation for the assistance provided by certain countries in our region in the attacks against Iran. Mr. Chair, while firmly rejecting the baseless allegations levelled against Iran in connection with the situation in Ukraine, I reiterate that Iran's position on this matter is clear and consistent. In this regard, my delegation aligns itself with the remarks just made by our distinguished Russian colleague regarding bilateral cooperation between Iran and the Russian Federation. My delegation categorically rejects and condemns the baseless and outrageous accusations made by the representatives of the Israeli regime. Such accusations have become a recurring tactic of distraction and deliberate distortion. They are intended to obscure the Israeli regime's long and well documented record of aggression, occupation, and atrocities across our region. Whenever the Israeli regime's crimes are exposed, its representatives resort to diverting attention toward Iran. Rather than answering for its crimes against the Palestinian people and its unlawful and terrorist attacks against Iran in June 2025 and February 2026. Let us be clear the root cause of the Middle East instability is the Israeli regime's occupation, apartheid, terrorism, genocide, aggression, and WMDs. Yet it diverts attention through disinformation against Iran, like a man searching for lost keys under a street lamp while ignoring the place where he actually dropped them. Given the Israeli regime representatives' persistent attempts to label legitimate resistance movements as terrorists in order to deflect attention from and justify its own crimes, genocide and acts of aggression in Gaza and across our region, I wish to underscore once again that these movements emerge in response to the Israeli regime's occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people. Their emergence and continued existence cannot be understood separately from the continued occupation and the systematic denial of the Palestinian people's fundamental rights. The Israeli regime must understand that no disinformation campaign or calculated attempt to evade accountability can erase its crimes or absorb it of the responsibility under international law. History will record these crimes and the international community must ensure that they don't go unanswered. I strongly urge the representative of the Israeli regime to stop shedding Kolocotoil tears for the Iranian people while the regime continues its crimes in Gaza and across our region. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the floor. My delegation is taking this floor again in response to the repeated groundless accusations of the delegations from the US, Japan, and the ROK. First of all, it is quite absurd that the US talks about the defensive nature of its military drills with the ROK. This year alone, the US and the ROK have conducted joint military exercises in different spaces and spheres without space time gap, including the bilateral air drills body squadron in February, the combined small unit drill and large scale joint military exercises Freedom Shield in March. The US ROK Navy Combined Salvage Exercise, Combined Mine Warfare Exercise, and the Combined Large Scale Air Drills Freedom Flag in April, Combined Air Training Hercules Guardians in May, the Combined Logistics Support Drill and Bilateral Air Drills Body Squadron, and the Combined Joint Sustainment Training in July, and the Joint Military Exercises Urgy Freedom Shield in August. The DPRK experienced no change in the provocative, offensive, and hostile features of the US ROK military duels involving the nukes, which endangers the global disarmament and non-proliferation architecture and gives a realistic justification to the renewal and expansion of the DPRK's war deterrent. And as for the ROK, it is still unaware that struggling to deny the DPRK's position as a nuclear weapon state and talking about its daydream of realizing the denuclearization just revealed its lack of common sense. We will show with patience that denuclearization is a pipe dream which can never be realized even if it talks about it a thousand times. As for Japan, its history of aggression clearly proves that in case it possesses even nuclear weapons, global states will suffer a horror nuclear catastrophe even far greater than during the World War II. The DPRK regards Japan as a serious threat, which means Japan is the DPRK's military target, and Japan's security is in more dangerous state. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In response to the statements made by Iran and by the Russian Federation, Lithuania wishes to make following points. NATO's nuclear sharing arrangements are fully consistent with the NPT. U.S. nuclear weapons remain under the exclusive custody and control of the United States at all times. No transfer of nuclear weapons control or decision making authority takes place. These arrangements predate the NPT itself and were taken into account during the negotiation of the treaty. For Lithuania, a neighbor of the nuclear armed Russia that continues its aggression against Ukraine while engaging in irresponsible nuclear rhetoric, credible deterrence remains essential for security and stability. NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO is not a threat. Russia's actions are. While referring to international law, including the UN Charter and international humanitarian law, Russia continues to violate the very rules it claims to uphold. We also heard attempts to justify military cooperation with the DPRK, Iran, and Belarus. Cooperation with DPRK is a violation of Security Council resolutions. Yesterday we heard DPRK dismisses relevant Security Council resolutions as so called. Let us be clear these are binding Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. UN sanctions against Iran were instated following the snapback mechanism. Russia cannot credibly invoke respect for the UN Charter while disregarding Security Council resolutions it once supported it voted to adopt. Russia started war of aggression against Ukraine, whatever name it chooses to give it. Belarus continues to enable Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine by making its territory available to support Russian military operations. Ukraine is exercising its inherent right to self-defense under Article fifty one of the UN Charter and all the support for Ukraine is in line with international law. On the other hand, the aggressor, Russia, cannot credibly portray itself as victim. And I thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In response to US Representative, I would like to underscore that the most blatant hypocrisy during the general debate of the First Committee has been the US Representative's most recent lecture on diplomacy and respect for international human rights law, while seeking to justify the United States' unlawful aggression against Iran. A state that resorts to military aggression cannot present itself as a defender of international law. The whole world has witnessed the real face of the United States, particularly under the current administration, and no amount of rhetoric can disguise this record or evade accountability of these violations. In response to the IAEA representative, my delegation wishes to express serious concern that these remarks don't reflect the technical impartiality and objectivity expected of an international organization entrusted with such an important mandate. The agency's credibility depends on addressing nuclear issues in a balanced and impartial manner, including by acknowledging and condemning the attacks by the United States and the Israeli regime against Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities. Any assessment of Iran's nuclear program that overlooks these attacks fails to address the root cause underlying the current situation. We therefore expect the agency's leadership and representatives to address these developments objectively and without selectivity, in keeping with the agency's technical mandate and responsibilities. I thank you, Mr. 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.