Ministry Statements & Speeches:
Mr Chair,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of Ireland, Switzerland, and my own country, New Zealand, to introduce our joint working paper (working paper no. 7) on enhancing transparency and accountability under the Treaty in the form of a draft outcome on this matter for adoption by the Conference.
More than five decades after the Treaty’s entry into force Article VI and its successive related commitments agreed in 1995, 2000, and 2010 remain largely unfulfilled.
This gap between commitments and implementation, particularly under its disarmament pillar, is having a detrimental effect on the confidence of States Parties in the balance of the Treaty’s implementation and the integrity of the “Grand Bargain”. Rebuilding that confidence must be a central task for this Review Conference.
Our proposal on transparency and accountability is intended as a practical starting point in that effort.
At present, there is no structured or shared way for States Parties to collectively assess progress on disarmament obligations and commitments. National reports are submitted by nuclear-weapon States. Statements are made. Side-events are held. But there is no mechanism through which that information is systematically examined, compared, or discussed. This weakens the ability of the review process to perform one of its core functions: to provide accountability for implementation.
Transparency and accountability are issues that are integral to the effective functioning of the Treaty. They are certainly not substitutes for disarmament. But without them it is difficult to demonstrate progress, to sustain confidence, or to have a meaningful discussion on how to move forward.
This is the gap our proposal seeks to address. It does so in a targeted and pragmatic way:
- through enhanced national reporting by nuclear-weapon States, with a clearer and more consistent focus on Article VI and related commitments; and
- by establishing a regular practice of in-person, interactive dialogue on those reports formally integrated within the review cycle.
We are proposing to introduce, for the first time, a structured forum for substantive engagement on the implementation of disarmament obligations and commitments.
Importantly, this builds on existing practice. We are not attempting to re-invent the wheel. Nuclear-weapon States already submit national reports. What is missing is a mechanism to consider them in a meaningful and systematic way.
The proposal therefore improves the utility, comparability and accessibility of reporting, rather than introducing new or burdensome obligations. It draws on agreed outcomes, including the 2010 Action Plan, while preserving flexibility and noting national security considerations.
Within the review process, a structured dialogue mechanism could be accommodated under Main Committee I, given its clear relevance to transparency and accountability in relation to Article VI. Alternatively, it could be established as a cross-cutting process, without a direct link to any Main Committee or Treaty “pillar”. We see merit in both approaches and remain flexible as to the most effective way forward. Likewise, we remain flexible on the form of establishing such a mechanism, whether part of a comprehensive outcome of the Conference or as part of a standalone Decision.
Mr Chair,
We are operating in an environment of increasing strategic competition, conflict, ongoing modernisation of nuclear arsenals, and concerning rhetoric related to the use of nuclear weapons. All these factors strengthen the argument that greater transparency is needed now more than ever, to take steps towards rebuilding trust and confidence in each other and in the regime that has been steadily built over the past half-century.
There is an expectation from the vast majority of States Parties that this Review Conference should deliver a practical and meaningful forward-looking outcome. Transparency and accountability is one area where consensus is achievable. Our consultations over this review cycle have demonstrated broad, cross-regional support for improving the quality and horizontal and vertical comparability of reporting by nuclear-weapon States, and for introducing more structured engagement with that reporting.
We also wish to be clear about the nature of what is being proposed. This is a modest and balanced step.
- It does not impose new legal obligations.
- It does not require the disclosure of information that States are not prepared to provide.
- And it does not prejudge wider debates or measures on disarmament.
For nuclear-weapon States, it represents a limited and manageable commitment: participation in a structured dialogue with all States Parties once per review cycle, building on, and enhancing, the national reports they already submit and contributing to the further strengthening of their common reporting framework.
At the same time, it offers a clear strategic benefit for all. Strengthened transparency can reduce misperceptions, support more informed engagement, and demonstrate continued implementation of disarmament commitments. Our proposal would also accommodate voluntary reporting by non-nuclear-weapon States.
More fundamentally, it helps build confidence among States Parties and sustains confidence in the NPT itself, something that is in the collective interest of all of its States Parties.
Mr Chair,
We believe this proposal represents a practical step that States Parties can take now to strengthen the Treaty. Agreement on transparency and accountability would provide a much-needed demonstration that this Review Conference can respond to evident gaps in implementation, and of delivering a concrete outcome in support of the Treaty.
Conversely, the absence of any progress in this area would risk reinforcing perceptions that the NPT review process is no longer able to deliver, even on an area where there is overwhelming support for doing so.
For these reasons, we consider it important that enhanced transparency and accountability measures are reflected in the outcome of this Review Conference. We encourage you to give this issue due consideration in the preparation of your draft outcome text, and to support focused engagement among delegations with a view to achieving consensus. Over the course of this review cycle, we have consulted extensively with States Parties. The proposal we have presented today reflects that engagement. It is not a narrow national or joint position, but what we assess to be a balanced and credible landing zone, informed by feedback from across groups and regions.
We remain ready to engage constructively with all States Parties to finalise language that can command broad support and bolster our Treaty moving forward.
Thank you.