-Thematic discussion on specific subjects and introduction and consideration of all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under agenda items (from 92 to 109)
🇷🇺 Russian Federation, 🇨🇳 China, 🇺🇸 United States, 🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran, 🇺🇦 Ukraine, 🇰🇵 Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 🇰🇷 Republic of Korea, 🇮🇱 Israel
Mr. Chairman, we b see it necessary to avail ourselves of the right of reply and bring those delegations back to reality that are circulating in this hall a lie about the supposed occup occupation and militarization by the Russian Federation, as they put it, of the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant. First, Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics and also Herson and Zaporizhia regions are an integral part of Russia. The Uh the residents of these territories expressed their will in accordance with the norms and principles of international law, and they were tired of the terror of the Kiev regime, and they made a historic choice in favor of the Russian Federation. Thus, Russian jurisdiction has been extended to the Zaporizh nuclear power plant. Any attempts to dispute the fact that they belong to Russia or in any way to dictate security parameters at the station will be viewed by us as an intervention into the domestic affairs and as a hostile action against our country. Second, the only ones who are threatening the uh nuclear security of the Zaporizhia plant is Ukraine. And uh this is not a secret for anyone, regardless of the fact that some observers don't have the courage to call things by their real names. Everyone understands everything about what is happening in the in the UN and in the IEA and in global capitals, no matter how much the representatives of the Kiev regime try to say the opposite. We're not talking about some coincidental attack on the station. Ukraine regularly and deliberately continues to create threats to the uh uh to uh the threat of a serious nuclear accident in the plant. Moreover, Ukraine has been striking the power lines leading to the power, and they've used tools of psychological pressure like threats and blackmail against the staff of the station and their family members. We'd like to emphasize that Ukraine has organized provocations against other Russian civilian nuclear sites, the Kursk and Smolensk uh nuclear power plants. All of this uh all of these are indisputable facts, and they demonstrate the terrorist nature of the regime sitting in Kiev. Against this backdrop, what appears particularly cynical are the claims against Russia of uh supposedly uh deploying the necessary Security forces in the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant. We'd like to underscore that our country will continue to be guided by the purposes and principles of protecting the Zaporizh plant from Ukraine's attacks. In accordance with our laws and international obligations, the Russian Federation has showed unprecedented transparency as regards the plant. On Russia's invitation, starting on the first of September 2022, we welcome the specialists of the IAEA who saw ongoing provocations committed by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The DG of the IAEA, Grossi, visited the plant five times. The planned visit in August was uh dis disrupted by the Ukrainians. Kiev uh threatened the DG of the IAEA, saying that they couldn't vouch for his security if he approached the plant through Russia. This is uh self-incrimination by the Kiev regime. The Ukrainians aren't hiding their criminal intentions against an agency, uh, one of the largest international organizations, and de facto they're threatening the DG with death and turning him into a target. All of these actions of Kiev would be impossible if there wasn't ongoing material, military, and political support provided to Ukraine by Western countries. Uh this is what is instilling the false hope uh into Kiev of of uh impunity, and this is what is leading it to engage in more risky undertakings and fruitless attempts to pressure our country. I'd like to underscore that in uh encouraging Ukraine, regardless of the madness of its acts, the Western states have uh become accomplices of the crimes of Kiev. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Chinese delegation firmly rejects some countries' erroneous remarks that we intend to discredit China's nuclear policy and national defense force development. China has always taken a very prudent and responsible approach to nuclear weapons. From the first day of possessing nuclear weapons, China has advocated for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. committed itself to no first use of nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances, unconditionally undertaken not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the non nuclear weapon states or nuclear weapon free zones, and has always maintained its nuclear force at the minimum level required for national security. China's nuclear force is not of the same order of magnitude as US or Russia. At this stage, It is unfair, unreasonable, and infeasible to ask China to participate in the so-called trilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations of China, US, and Russia. China's no first use policy is highly responsible and stable. It is a practical measure to fulfill MPT obligations, diminish the role of nuclear weapons in national security policy, and help mitigate strategic risks. It's been widely welcomed by the international community. This policy has not changed and will not change. Nuclear transparency measures should help enhance strategic mutual trust with full considerations for the security, environments, and interests of the countries. Their implementation should be voluntary and tailored to national conditions. There is no one size fits all model. All parties should view rationally the objective differences among nuclear weapon states in terms of nuclear capabilities, nuclear policies, and security environments, and respect the legitimate and reasonable security concerns of the countries on nuclear transparency. In the current international security context, the transparency of intentions and policies is the most relevant. China is firmly committed to a path of peaceful development, a self defensive nuclear strategy, and a no first use policy. This is the transparent transparency measure of the greatest practical significance. Nuclear alliance countries that snuggle under nuclear umbrella claim to support nuclear disarmament and non proliferation, but in fact, they are constantly increasing the reliance on nuclear weapons and heightening the risk of nuclear war. Nuclear sharing and extended deterrence. Are discriminatory arrangements that create inequality among non-nuclear weapon states. These constitute ongoing acts of nuclear proliferation in breach of the purpose and object of the MPT. China once again urges relevant countries to stop spreading false narratives, stop undermining international non proliferation systems, stop upgrading nuclear alliances, and stop creating. New obstacles to nuclear disarmament. Thank you, mister Chair.
Thank you, Chair. I take the floor to set the record straight on U.S. extended deterrence and U.S. military exercises in the Indo Pacific. U.S. ROK and US Japan combined military exercises are longstanding, purely defensive in nature, intended to maintain forced readiness, strengthen interoperability, and contribute to regional security and stability. U.S. extended deterrence is foundational to the strength and credibility of our alliances, and remain vital as our countries address an increasingly severe and complex security environment. The United States continues to strengthen extended deterrence cooperation in light of the DPRK's efforts to advance its unlawful and destabilizing nuclear and ballistic missile programs and China's rapid, opaque, and sustained nuclear weapons buildup. U.S. extended deterrence arrangements support the fundamental U.S. goal of advancing shared approaches to peace through strength. U.S. extended deterrence with the ROK, Japan, and Australia specifically serves as a critical pillar. In a broader strategy to preserve peace, deter conflict, and ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific. All U.S. and alliance military or defense efforts comply with the MPT and relevant UN Security Council resolutions, as opposed to the rhetoric and actions by the DPRK, China, and Russia that justify alliance defense postures. The United States remains committed to the denuclearization. Of the DPRK and refutes the suggestion that this is a closed issue. Our commitment to the defense of our allies is ironclad and unwavering. Chair, I take note of the Iranian delegation's complaint about the theme of the familiar and unchanged statements throughout this session. I would reply that if the Iranian delegation wants this to change, the room needs to see verifiable evidence that their actions have also changed. and are not familiar. We need to see verif verifiable evidence that y Iran is no longer violating its obligations. I thank you, Chair.
Mr. Chair, while my delegation strongly rejects baseless allegations against Iran's peaceful nuclear program, We would like to underscore that Iran's peaceful nuclear program conducted under its applicable safeguards obligations must be assessed based on facts and law, not political allegations or double standards. The NPT cannot be a treaty of selective obligations, applied as strictly to some, while interpreted conveniently for others. Mr Chair, the Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy would go to those delegations including Germany, Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, and United States that level baseless allegations against Iran's peaceful nuclear program while refusing even to condemn attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities. And defending their own nuclear sharing arrangements. Those who invoke the NPT against Iran should first answer for their own violations and non-compliance with the treaty's obligations through their own nuclear sharing arrangements. In their defense, these delegations advance two arguments. Neither withstand legal scrutiny. First, they argue that these arrangements predate the NPT, but historical precedence is not a legal exemption. Where does the NPT provide that arrangements established before its entry into force are exempt from its obligations under Article 1 and 2? Second, they claim that nuclear sharing enhances their security and prevents them from acquiring their own nuclear weapons. But preventing one form of proliferation does not legitimize arrangements that violate the very treaty these delegations claim to uphold. Furthermore, these arrangements must also be considered in the context of Article 6 obliged all state parties to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations. By institutionalizing a continuing rule for nuclear weapons in their security policies, participating states cannot simply invoke non proliferation to violate the disarmament obligations. There is also a fundamental question of consistency. Would these delegations accept the same interpretation if another group of states invoked comparable security concerns to justify similar nuclear sharing arrangements? The NPT cannot be interpreted according to the identity of the alliance or the geopolitical interests of its members. In response to the representatives of the US, let me state this plainly the facts are undeniable, and no amount of American distortion can rewrite history. It has been nearly five months since the NPT Review Conference concluded, yet the representative of the US is already attempting to distort what happened. The international community witnessed the fact that it was the United States that blocked consensus on the final document because it was unwilling to reaffirm commitments made at previous review conferences, unwilling to honor its obligation under Article 6 of the treaty. And determined to shield its unlawful nuclear sharing arrangements within NATO from scrutiny. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our delegation's delegation feels compelled to respond to the statement made by the delegation of the Russian Federation. First of all, we categorically reject any claims made by the Russian Federation regarding the Zaporizh nuclear power plant. Z NPP is located within the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine and you and remains Ukrainian nuclear energy infrastructure. Under temporary occupation of Russia. In uh the statement uh dated 2022, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a statement in which uh it called uh the referendums conducted by the Russian Federation in the temporally occupied territories of Ukraine, Hem referendums uh and which violated uh the constitutional laws of Ukraine and the principles of international law. And they produce no legal consequences with regard to Ukraine's internationally recognized borders and territorial integrity. This position is was further supported by United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES 11 4 of 12 October 2022, which condemned the attempted illegal annexation by the Russian Federation of parts of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizh, and Herzun regions of Ukraine, and called upon states and international organizations not to recognize any alteration of the status of these territories as a result of Russia's actions. Uh on the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant. Uh the only it is only Russia that uh continues to pose an unprecedented threat to nuclear safety and security by occupying and militarizing the Zaporizh nuclear power plant. In fact, Russia turned Europe's largest nuclear power plant into an instrument of coercion and nuclear terrorism. Russia put the international community in a situation when a nuclear catastrophe with consequences across the wider European region might be a matter of weeks, not years. As we already mentioned, the nuclear safety and security situation at the ZNPP remains extremely fragile because of repeated losses of offside power, equipment degradation, maintenance constraints, increased fire risks, unreliable water supply, and shortages of qualified personnel, which continue to undermine systems and functions essential for nuclear safety. The IAA has also reported repeatedly reported restrictions on access for the IEA support and assistance mission to Zaporizhia. Russian UAV operators are continuing to use the premises of the ZPP to launch combat drones against Ukrainian government controlled territory. We consider this snuffing as uh nuclear terrorism. Uh with regard to the human rights issues, uh the ZPP seizure uh has resulted in serious human rights violations and abuses that that are an integral part part of Russia's. Genocidal and neocolonial policy. Ukrainian plant employees and residents of Energodar, the satellite city of the ZNPP, have been illegally detained, subjected to torture and ill treatment, and prosecuted or convicted on fabricated charges. Pressure on Ukrainian personnel further undermines the preconditions of the safe and secure operation of the plant. Unless the ZNPP is demilitarized and returned under the full sovereign control of Ukraine, the continued deterioration of the situation will inevitably lead to irreversible consequences for the nuclear safety and security. of of the whole Europe. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I'd like to ask France to study the dictionary or an encyclo an encyclopedia to know the proper names of s of countries that are member states of the UN before they take the floor the next time. My delegation categorically reject those stereotyped and absurd accusations against the DPRK as they are intended to mislead the international community and evade their responsibility for deterioration of the tension of the Korean Peninsula. As we have stated on several occasions, DPRK's possession of nuclear weapons is the sovereign right to defend itself from the nuclear threat of the U.S. Which lasted for several decades. The DPRK's nuclear deterrence is the legitimate defense means to safeguard the national sovereignty and the security of the region. It is the realistic requirement for the DPRK to step on the rapid and accelerated bolstering up of its deterrence to cope with the military threat of the US and its allies, which are getting more rampant recently. The concept of the denuclearization on the Korean peninsula has gone a long time ago. It will never tolerate any attempt to unilaterally change the current status of the DPRK. The DPRK will, as ever, consistently adhere to the line of bolstering up the nuclear force and sorely control the threat and blakemail of the hostile forces by making use of all its own political and military tools and perfectly attain its strategic goal. And regarding the allegation of the ROK who voted for conciliation. I am reiterating once again that we will never see it face-to-face uh with ROK, the most hostile country. It is an unshakable stand of the DPRK. My delegation also rejects those groundless blames against the legal cooperation between DPRK and Russian Federation. This cooperation meets the word and spirit of the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership concluded between DPRK and Russian Federation. and international laws, including UN Charter. Thank you. Now call on the representative of Japan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am compelled to exercise my right of reply regarding Japan's policy in response to the statements by a few states. 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. Japan's fundamental defense policy, which is exclusively defense-oriented policy, remains unchanged. Our defense capability is 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. Our defense capabilities are kept to the minimum necessary. Japan will never change the course it has taken as a peace loving nation. 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 NOPT, and Japan continues its cooperation with the IAEA in a transparent manner. Japan continues to uphold the principle of not possessing plutonium without specific purposes. and uses most of its plutonium stockpile for nuclear fuel or power plants, with the remaining amount used as material for peaceful nuclear research. Also, Japan has declared the 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. My delegation wished to address uh several misleading claims made by the DPRK. First, it must be clearly understood that our military posture, including combined training and exercises, is a necessary and legitimate response to the to the DPRK's escalating military threat, not their cause. The DPRK's unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programs pose a grave threat to peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and beyond. Our combined military posture serves a strictly defensive purpose to protect the lives of our citizens, deter aggression, and uphold regional peace and stability. Second, the DPRK has asserted that its nuclear weapons program is an exercise of its sovereign rights. However, sovereignty does not exempt. A UN member states from its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1718 and subsequent resolutions, clearly demand that the DPRK abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and cease all related activities. Third, the DPRK has characterized its military cooperation with the Russian Federation as an exercise of sovereign rights under a bilateral treaty. And as consistent with the Charter of the United Nations. However, under Article 103 of the Charter, obligations under the Charter prevail over obligations under any other international agreement. A bilateral treaty between the two countries cannot therefore provide legal cover for conduct prohibited by the relevant Security Council resolutions. Under Security Council Resolution 1718, 1874, and 2270, all UN member states are prohibited from supplying arms and related assistance to or receiving them from the DPRK. Fourth, contrary to the DPRK's assertions, the Republic of Korea remains steadfast in its pursuit of inter Korean reconciliation and cooperation through dialogue, as our government has reiterated on numerous occasions. Finally, responsibility is demonstrated through compliance with international obligations, not through self proclaim proclaimed labels. The DPRK's contribution to peace and stability should begin with compliance with Security Council resolutions. I thank you, Mr. Chair. I I now call on the call on the representative of Iran for the second intervention. Mr. Chair, my delegation rejects and condemns baseless and absurd allegations by the representative of the Israeli regime against Iran's peaceful nuclear program. The Israeli regime is the last entity on earth entitled to lecture Iran or anyone else. A regime responsible for the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza has no moral authority to lecture others. A regime that has carried out unlawful attacks against Iran, including its peaceful nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards, has no credibility to lecture Iran on nuclear non proliferation. As the only entity in the Middle East that has not acceded to the NPT, the Israeli regime is in no position to lecture Iran, a state party to the NP Treaty since 1970, on compliance with or implementation of the NPT. And a regime that continues to obstruct the establishment of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction cannot lecture Iran, which initiated this historic proposal in 1974. I urge representatives of the Israeli regime to look at the shocking videos and photographs circulating in the media and on social media, depict children who have lost their entire families. whose siblings have all been killed and who have been left with amputed limbs and severely disfigured faces. These are not abstract statistics or political talking points. They are human lives shattered by the Israeli regime's violence. Next time, before presuming to lecture others, I urge them to look in the mirror and reflect on the atrocities for which their own regime must be held accountable. I thank you.
Thank you, Chair. I didn't intend to take the floor, but I'm compelled to react to the absurd comments we have just heard from the Islamic Republic of Iran. On Saturday morning, February 28th, Israel launched Operation Royal Lion in close cooperation and coordination with the United States Operation Epic Fury. The purpose of the operation was to neutralize the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime, regime's militar military nuclear activity, and accelerated ballistic missile production. Israel was compelled to act before it would be too late to effectively counter these threats. Israel has acted in accordance with international law. In stark contrast and in true terrorist fashion, the Iranian regime deliberately and systematically targeted the civilian population in Israel and across the Middle East. Iran attempted to inflict pain against Israel's civilian population, including with the ongoing use of missiles carrying cluster munitions that were launched against populations centers in Israel. Chair, l let me be clear, nothing in Iran's military nuclear program is devoted to peaceful purposes. No one can argue that the agency's safeguards have been statistically applied in Iran, as the border governors has determined time after time. Iran denies its legally binding obligation, violates the atomic agency privileges and immunities, arbitrarily rejects experienced inspectors, massively sanitized locations, and hides undeclared nuclear material and equipment. It is deeply ironic to hear the representative of the Iranian regime speaks about international law and aggression after its country attacked fifteen countries and the Middle East and beyond, terrorized the maritime traffic, terrorizes the maritime traffic, and executes its own citizens by thousands. The Iranian attempt to divert the attention from its actions and intention will not succeed. I 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.