Blog

This list does not include references from statements delivered in Arabic or Russian. Full statements available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org.

Individual statements

Algeria

24 April: “The conference held in Oslo in March on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons served once again to provide evidence of the devastating, long-term, irreversible effects of nuclear weapons.” (translation)

Argentina

4 April: “Finally, we reiterate the importance our country places on initiatives concerning the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in the context of the disarmament and non-proliferation regime. In this regard, we reiterate the firm commitment of Argentina to these initiatives, remembering that the ultimate end goal in these areas is liberation from the scourge of nuclear weapons for all mankind.” (translation)

Austria

24 April: “Austria is of the view that the discourse about nuclear weapons needs to be fundamentally changed. We will only manage the challenges posed by nuclear weapons if we move away from a debate that is still dominated by outdated military security concepts originating from cold war enemy and threat perceptions. Instead, we need to draw conclusions from our common understanding that any use of nuclear weapons would cause catastrophic consequences and be devastating in its effects for the whole world and all of humankind. The conference that took place on the topic of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in Oslo in March was an important milestone in developing this discourse further and we look forward to continuing these discussions on future occasions.”

25 April: “Austria is convinced that it is necessary and overdue to put the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at the center of our debate, including in the NPT. Nuclear weapons are not just a security policy issue for a few states but an issue of serious concern for the entire international community. The humanitarian, environmental, health, economic and developmental consequences of any nuclear weapons explosion would be devastating and global and any notion of adequate preparedness or response is an illusion.”

“We are highly appreciative that the government of Norway provided the international community with an opportunity for an in-depth and enlightening discussion on this important topic. The discourse needs to be furthered. We look forward to the follow-up conference in Mexico and to other future occasions. Austria was pleased to participate in and contribute to the joint statement that was delivered by South Africa on behalf of over 70 states yesterday.”

“I would like to stress that in Austria’s view, a key motivation behind the NPT and the entire nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime is the humanitarian imperative: to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, to eliminate this existential threat from the face of the earth and to make sure that unacceptable humanitarian consequences from these weapons do not occur. Arguments that this discourse may in any way distract or divert from the NPT implementation are therefore unconvincing and misguided.”

Australia

22 April: “Australia remains deeply concerned by the risk for humanity represented by the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used and the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from their use. The discussions at the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo this year, in which Australia participated, illustrated once more the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects of a nuclear weapon detonation. This is why we strive to realise the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, including through implementation of the 2010 Action Plan. Australia welcomes the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

25 April: “Australia acknowledges South Africa’s contribution to this meeting through its statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. As we noted in our general debate statement, the discussions at the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo this year, in which Australia participated, illustrated once more the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects of a nuclear weapon detonation … Australia welcomes the offer of fellow NPDI member Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

Bangladesh

23 April: “We remain deeply concerned about the possible catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. We support the process that began in Oslo recently to address the issue. Furthermore, realizing the goals of disarmament could benefit us with both peace and development dividends, by saving millions of lives and diverting our valuable resources from armament to addressing pressing development needs.”

Belgium

23 April: “Belgium repeatedly expressed deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and reaffirmed the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law, while [being] convinced that every effort should be made to avoid nuclear war and nuclear terrorism.”

Brazil

23 April: “Brazil welcomed the Norwegian initiative to convene the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of a Nuclear Weapon Detonation. This issue is an important component of the NPT and we very much regret that the NWS decided not to be represented at the event. We look forward to their revisiting this position with respect to the follow-up Conference, to be held in Mexico. We also look forward to further impetus being given to the international movement to delegitimize the very existence of nuclear weapons.”

Canada

25 April: “Canada shares the concern expressed in South Africa’s earlier statement about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from the use of nuclear weapons. Canada welcomed the March 2013 conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Oslo, as an opportunity for valuable fact-based discussions on these consequences and on humanitarian preparedness for a nuclear weapons detonation. We welcome the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

Chile

23 April: “Article VI [of the NPT], which requires nuclear disarmament and the elaboration of a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, has not been implemented.”

“The Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons showed that there is no possibility of preparation against an offensive nuclear weapon detonation … this reality should be reflected in this process.” (translation)

China

22 April: “China has always stood for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, and [has] actively promoted the establishment of a world free of nuclear weapons.”

WP.29: “The complete prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons, getting rid of the danger of nuclear war and the attainment of a nuclear-weapon-free world, serve the common interests and benefits of humankind.”

“For the attainment of the ultimate goal of general and comprehensive nuclear disarmament, the international community should develop, at the appropriate juncture, a viable long-term plan comprising phased actions, including the conclusion of a convention on the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons.”

Costa Rica

23 April: “Costa Rica and Malaysia have presented a model nuclear weapons convention. This proposal prohibits the use, threat of use, possession, development, testing, deployment and transfer of nuclear weapons and provides a phased program for the elimination of these weapons under effective international control. We believe this could be a starting point for negotiations to create an instrument capable of strengthening confidence in verification and ensuring the supervision of the dismantling and final reduction of nuclear stockpiles.”

“We express our appreciation to [OPANAL] for its work for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, in particular the Declaration of Member States in which they express their conviction to join the efforts of the international community to move towards negotiation of a universal instrument banning nuclear weapons.”

“We cannot fail to mention the humanitarian impact that a nuclear explosion would cause. We fully endorse the joint statement read by South Africa. In 2012 we joined a similar statement both in Vienna and in the First Committee. A few weeks ago in Oslo, we found that it is not possible to prepare for a nuclear explosion and that the consequences of that would be unimaginable.” (translation)

Cuba

22 April: “Cuba gives special priority to nuclear disarmament and highlights the need to adopt a legally binding international instrument that completely prohibits nuclear weapons … The urgent need to move towards nuclear disarmament is a growing demand of the international community. The necessary steps should be taken for the immediate commencement of negotiations allowing the early adoption of an international convention on nuclear disarmament.” (translation)

Denmark

23 April: “At previous meetings Denmark has joined the group of countries behind a statement expressing deep concern by the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects that could follow from the use of nuclear weapons; and so again at this PrepCom with the statement presented by South Africa. In our view this third-track approach to disarmament and non-proliferation is not meant to undermine existing multilateral or bilateral nuclear disarmament mechanisms. They have indeed produced reductions that we welcome. Nor is it meant to reinterpret well-established international humanitarian law. We hope for a fact-based discussion to expand the group of concerned countries, including with the P5, and to increase awareness of these humanitarian consequences.”

Ecuador

23 April: “[T]he existence of nuclear weapons in the world represents a serious threat to human security and the survival of humanity. The only option is to eradicate this threat through the total and complete prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.”

“Ecuador condemns and expresses its frustration and deep concern about the blockade and paralysis of the Conference on Disarmament that has lasted more than 15 years. It is imperative to start negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which provides for their destruction without delay.”

“In compliance with Article VI of the NPT, and in order to ensure nuclear disarmament and the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons, Ecuador advocates the need to start negotiations to adopt a convention that provides an international legal framework, complementary to existing steps, with deadlines and strict verification systems.”

“I wish to conclude with a reference to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, whose use would be catastrophic for mankind … We join the Joint Declaration of a large group of countries noting the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons, their incompatibility with international humanitarian law and the urgent need for a ban and destruction of arsenals.”

“Congratulations to Norway for its leadership on the issue. We strongly support the International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, organized in Oslo on 4 and 5 March this year with great success and international support. 127 states and various international organizations and civil society organizations participated, showing that there is a growing global concern about the effects of nuclear detonations, and that it is a matter of interest and critical importance for all human beings.”

“The Conference was informed that the use of nuclear weapons would cause unacceptable devastation to human life and health, the environment, to economies, development, infrastructure and more; that there is no possibility of appropriate national or international response to such a catastrophe; and that this danger and fundamental challenge to the survival of humanity and the planet must be addressed through prevention.”

“We welcome the conference to follow up on the results of Oslo that will take place in Mexico in the coming year. Ecuador will continue to work with other states on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, in order to build an alternative to the dependence of states on nuclear weapons, to delegitimize the use and possession of nuclear weapons, and to emphasize that the use of nuclear weapons causes unacceptable harm to humanity and the planet as a whole.” (translation)

Egypt

22 April: “[T]he consequences of nuclear weapons, including the humanitarian consequences, do not stop at borders but they are a matter of threat to everyone and it is the concern of the whole humanity to usher nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapon States indeed say that they do recognize the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, but the question that awaits a satisfactory reply is what has been done to remove those weapons.”

24 April: “The negotiation of a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame ending in 2025, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention, is necessary and should commence without any further delay.”

“Egypt, together with more than 70 States, delivered a statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. This statement, which is gaining the world’s attention, makes clear the unacceptable consequences of any nuclear detonation, whether by design, miscalculation or accident. Given that the only guarantee that nuclear weapons are never to be used again is their total elimination, the continued existence of nuclear weapons represents a threat to humanity.”

“Last month some 127 States and several United Nations agencies attended the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, held in Oslo in early March. It is not at all surprising that the Oslo conference concluded that the historical experience from the use and testing of nuclear weapons has demonstrated the devastating immediate and long-term effects of such weapons; and that while political circumstances have changed, the destructive potential of nuclear weapons remains. Unfortunately, the nuclear-weapon States chose not to attend this important conference which is highly regrettable – hopefully, these States will attend the next such conference which shall be hosted by Mexico.”

“Egypt reiterates its full support to the NAM commitment to vigorously pursue the following priorities leading to the Review Conference in 2015, in full cooperation with all States Parties to the Treaty … 3) Prompt commencement of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, the route to realizing a world free from nuclear weapons by the year 2025.”

Ghana

24 April: “In agreement with the conclusion of the Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, we wish to remind all states that none is safe from a nuclear weapon accident should it occur.”

Finland

25 April: “The humanitarian impacts of the use of nuclear weapons would be most catastrophic and indiscriminate. Such weapons should never be used. In our view, a nuclear-weapon-free world is a far-reaching goal, but a self-evident one. We cannot afford to lose any time in our efforts towards this important goal.”

Indonesia

25 April: “[W]e emphasize the necessity to start negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction, without further delay.”

Iran

25 April: “[T]aking into account the abovementioned measures and principles and also the fact that government support for a convention eliminating nuclear weapons has grown significantly in recent years, I believe it is high time to start negotiation on a Nuclear Weapons Convention in the CD as a matter of top priority. Such a convention must legally prohibit, once and for all, the possession, development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons by any country and provide for the destruction of such inhumane weapons.”

23 April: “The international community cannot wait till the horrors of the nuclear weapons happen and must set a deadline and a target date for the total elimination of nuclear arsenals. Such a cut-off date could enable the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations on Nuclear Weapons Convention and conclude it as soon as possible as the highest priority.”

Ireland

23 April: “The wider UN community’s sense of frustration at the slow pace of disarmament is clear … we see it in the groundswell of support for a meaningful discussion around the humanitarian impact of a nuclear detonation, whether this is caused by accident, miscalculation or design.”

“Ireland welcomes the constructive meeting held in Oslo in March, and looks forward to the follow-on Conference later this year in Mexico. The clear message which emerged from Oslo is that humanity would be powerless to respond to the uniquely destructive power which a nuclear detonation would unleash. We encourage the nuclear weapons states to engage in this process. Their absence from Oslo was, perhaps, a missed opportunity and we hope they will be present in Mexico.”

25 April: “Concrete progress in a number of the areas covered by Action 5 would also go some way to addressing the many humanitarian concerns expressed by Governments at the recent Oslo Conference. These are important concerns, not expressed lightly. They are the concerns of the majority of UN member states.”

“It is a matter of regret that the nuclear weapons states were not present at Oslo to listen to these concerns expressed by Governments and civil society. The message from Oslo was nevertheless clear: humanity will be powerless to respond to the uniquely destructive power which a nuclear detonation would unleash. This was the message delivered again yesterday by our fellow NAC-member South Africa on behalf of seventy-eight NPT states Parties. There is a growing voice from governments and civil society on this issue which should occupy a central place in our deliberations. It is crucial that those who choose to possess these terrible weapons heed these concerns and we encourage them to attend the meeting which our fellow NAC member Mexico will host next year.”

“We can and must do more to get the disarmament commitments back on track, to begin the world leading to genuine disarmament negotiations, be they for a single, multilaterally negotiated instrument or a series of mutually reinforcing agreements.”

Japan

22 April: “As the only country to have suffered atomic bombings during wartime, Japan actively contributed to the Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in March. With strengthened resolve to seek a nuclear-weapons-free world, we continue to advance disarmament and non-proliferation education to inform the world and the next generation of the dreadful realities of nuclear devastation.”

“Given the awful humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons use, it is an urgent priority as well as a responsible approach to the present state of affairs to firmly implement concrete measures contained in the 2010 NPT Action Plan regarding the CTBT, an FMCT and further reductions of nuclear arsenals in order to substantially reduce this risk.”

Kazakhstan

23 April: “The catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences from nuclear tests in Semipalatinsk – and from other nuclear test sites around the globe – demonstrate that the aftermaths of any use of nuclear weapons are uncontrollable in time and space. Here, I would like to note that development, production or use of nuclear weapons is increasingly being seen worldwide as incompatible with international humanitarian law. The recent Oslo Conference underscored the potential of humanitarian approaches in this dimension.”

“It is our firm conviction that total elimination of all nuclear arsenals is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapons convention or package of agreements as it was suggested by the United Nations Secretary-General in his Five-Point Plan for Nuclear Disarmament acquires particular significance in terms of achieving this noble goal. I take the opportunity to note that Kazakhstan’s initiative to draft a Universal Declaration of a Nuclear Weapon-Free World within the UN is considered as one of the effective vessels to facilitate adoption of a Convention.”

25 April: “We acknowledge a consolidating role of the Oslo Conference of March 2013 in achieving a total and unconditional elimination of all nuclear weapons – a noble aim broadly supported by the majority of states.”

Kenya

23 April: “Kenya welcomes the outcome of the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons hosted by Norway on 4 and 5 March, 2013. It was indeed a significant event. The high number of countries that took part in the evidence-based discussions on these effects highlights the interests and concerns of the wider international community. It reinforces our view that nations serious enough about the elimination of nuclear weapons need to start negotiations now on a treaty to ban them.”

“We believe the initiative can be pivotal in the delegitimization of nuclear weapons in the minds of people. Nuclear deterrence really is threatening mass extermination. The impact of use of nuclear weapons or an accident at a nuclear weapons facility would be catastrophic. Their use would violate Resolutions of the UN General Assembly that have repeatedly condemned their use as an international crime.”

“Needless to state, the debate on humanitarian concerns can contribute to meaningful nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation measures as well as to the implementation of the NPT Action Plan.”

Malaysia

23 April: “Malaysia remains convinced that the total elimination of nuclear weapons should remain on top of the international agenda … Malaysia looks forward to the Nuclear-Weapons States to fulfil their commitments to report to the 2014 PrepCom on the steps that they are undertaking towards the elimination of their nuclear weapons. This however does not preclude us from pursuing negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention.”

25 April: “Malaysia is already a party to the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. While these two Conventions were negotiated and finalised many years ago, we are disappointed at the resistance and reluctance of some States to initiate and support a similar Convention on the complete and total elimination of nuclear weapons.”

Mexico

23 April: “The NPT preamble refers to the conscience of the international community in relation to the terrible consequences of nuclear war visited upon all mankind and the consequent need to avoid the danger of such a war and to take safety measures for the people. The mere existence of nuclear weapons represents a real risk to international security, because as long as they exist, there will be players who will want to own them and use or threaten to use them.”

“This March, 127 countries met with representatives of international organizations and civil society in Oslo to address the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. To expand on this, Mexico will convene, in 2014, a follow-up conference to the discussions had in Oslo. We hope that all NPT parties will be involved … our interest in strengthening this agreement and forging new agreements has its foundation in the humanitarian imperative.” (translation)

24 April: “It is necessary to mainstream the humanitarian perspective of a possible nuclear weapon detonation. The discussion that took place in Oslo will move in this direction and prevent nuclear weapons from being used again and from causing catastrophic humanitarian crises anywhere in the world. Mexico is organizing a follow-up conference, which will take place in early 2014. The participation of 127 countries represented in the discussion, and the growing interest generated by this issue, may be the germ of a process to move substantially towards the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.” (translation)

Netherlands

23 April: “The Netherlands fully subscribes to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The NPT is the essential instrument to achieve that goal. The discussion on humanitarian consequences in Oslo recently reminded us again about the devastating effects of these weapons and hence the importance of making progress towards that objective.”

New Zealand

22 April: “New Zealand takes some heart from the fact that, this year, we have the opportunity to advance collective nuclear disarmament responsibilities in several fora, including via the Oslo conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and the open-ended working group.”

25 April: “The recognition by the 2010 Action Plan of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons was, for New Zealand, a cautionary – and necessary – reminder of the real world implications of the work we undertake in this, and other, nuclear disarmament fora. The Conference hosted by the Norwegian Government in Oslo this past March served to reinforce the Review Conference’s expression of concern by exploring the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in a more systematic way and one which puts the real issues of human security into the fore. Its key message – that no state or international organisation could feasibly address the humanitarian impact of a nuclear weapon detonation – must underpin all of our work on nuclear disarmament and would serve to underline its urgency. New Zealand looks forward to the follow-up conference to be convened in Mexico next year and welcomes the Government of Mexico’s initiative on this … New Zealand fully subscribes to the statement already delivered by South Africa in the general debate here on behalf of over 70 countries concerning the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.”

Nigeria

23 April: “We will continue to emphasize that the existential threat posed to mankind by nuclear weapons, including their possible use or threat of use, remains unacceptable. The Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons hosted in March 2013 by the Government of Norway made clear that the detonation of a nuclear device would have grave humanitarian consequences that will spread beyond national borders and significantly impact human beings across regions and across the world.”

Norway

23 April: “The NPT review conference in 2010 referred explicitly to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences any use of nuclear weapons would have. This was an important message from the world community. Since 2010, we have seen the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons increasingly being recognized as a fundamental, and global, concern that must be at the core of all our deliberations regarding nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.”

“In March this year the Government of Norway hosted an international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. The aim of the Conference was to provide an arena for the international community to have a fact-based discussion of the humanitarian and developmental consequences that would result from a nuclear weapon detonation. The conference focused on what actually happens on the ground after a nuclear detonation.”

“The consequences of a nuclear detonation are relevant to practitioners in such diverse fields as health services, development, environment, finance and emergency preparedness. So far there has been no global arena in which to begin to discuss these issues. This is why Norway decided to organize the Conference, and to invite a wide range of stakeholders. All interested states, as well as UN humanitarian organizations, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, representatives of civil society and other relevant actors were invited to the Conference.”

“The Conference was held over two days and included presentations by international experts and relevant national and international stakeholders concerning three key aspects: 1) the immediate humanitarian impact of nuclear detonations, 2) the wider and more long-term developmental, health and environmental consequences, 3) preparedness, including plans and existing capacity to respond to this type of disaster.”

“128 states met at the Conference, together with UN organisations, the ICRC, IFRC and civil society. The Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs hosted the Conference. The High Commissioner for Refugees, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Director of OCHA in Geneva, the Secretary General of Norwegian People’s Aid and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons addressed the Conference’s opening session.”

“The broad and active participation at the Oslo Conference reflects the recognition that the catastrophic effect of a nuclear detonation is an issue of concern and relevance to all.”

“The main conclusion from the conference is that no state or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation in any meaningful way. No existing national or international emergency system would be able to provide adequate assistance to the victims.”

“We welcome Mexico’s offer to host a Conference to further discuss these issues. We are looking forward to continuing to broaden the discussions on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. This is an issue that affects us all.”
(See rest of statement)

Philippines

22 April: “NPT States Parties underscored their deep concern for the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons … It is for these reasons that the Philippines welcomes the international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons which was hosted by Norway last March. The conference concluded that the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapon use would be unacceptable and urged States to begin work to outlaw these weapons. We also welcome the follow-up meeting to be hosted by Mexico at a future date.”

“Now is also the time to set in motion negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention (NWC). Some argue that a NWC would move the focus away from the NPT. On the contrary, it could get the ball rolling as it ensures full implementation of the NPT.”
“A NWC is the only comprehensive, universal and non-discriminatory way towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. An international conference can be held in the near future that will set the parameters for the elimination of nuclear weapons and prohibit their production, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and provide for the destruction of such weapons within a specified time frame or timeline.”

“The upcoming High Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament would be a good opportunity to drum up support for such a Convention. I urge States that have provided us with a model NWC to take the lead once again in jumpstarting discussions for a NWC.”

Republic of Korea

25 April: “In view of the risk of accidental nuclear war and its indiscriminate catastrophic consequences, it is the collective duty of all NPT State Parties to fulfil their obligations under Article VI of the NPT.”

Slovakia

25 April: “We also pay due attention and seriously consider the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. The 2010 Review Conference of the NPT expressed ‘deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons’. There would be no single country that could address it alone. This issue extends discussions on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The international conference on humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons held recently in Oslo has been an example of it.”

“We must work together to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, whether deliberate or accidental. That is why we continue to support the process that would lead to the total elimination of nuclear arsenals, including the reasons for their existence thus eliminating effectively the above threat.”

South Africa

22 April: “South Africa shares the deep concern expressed by the vast majority of States Parties to the NPT about the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Along with many others, we remain convinced that nuclear weapons do not guarantee security, but rather detract from it. As long as these weapons exist, and vertical and horizontal proliferation persists, humanity will continue to face the threat of catastrophe and mass annihilation.”

Sri Lanka

22 April: “The situation which prevails in the Korean Peninsula reminds us of the urgency of the call for the total elimination of nuclear weapons since we firmly believe that total elimination of nuclear weapons from the world is the only possible way for the survival of humanity. It is for this reason that we continue to stress that states should move forward towards total elimination and the absolute ban of the nuclear arsenal.”

Sweden

23 April: “The use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences, which is why we must work towards their elimination.”

Switzerland

22 April: “I would especially like to emphasise the very positive and encouraging Oslo Conference last March on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. This conference is perfectly consistent with the spirit of the Final Document of the 2010 Review Conference. Indeed, the 2010 outcome had introduced the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament as a new avenue to be explored to facilitate the implementation of Article VI of the NPT. It therefore seems crucial to us that all States Parties to the NPT engage in the discussion of this dimension. My delegation fully associates itself with the statement that will subsequently be made on this issue by South Africa on behalf of a group of States.”

25 April: “In 2010, all Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) expressed their deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons. Our delegation associates itself fully with the joint statement delivered yesterday by South Africa on behalf of 77 States. Switzerland remains convinced that nuclear weapons do not generate security but are a threat to international as well as human security.”

“Two-thirds of the UN membership as well as representatives of important international and non-governmental organisations met last month in Oslo to give further consideration to this deep concern expressed in 2010. The main conclusion of this conference is clear: no matter how well governments or humanitarian actors prepare, the immediate as well as the wider effects of the use of nuclear weapons cannot be mitigated and the consequences would be unacceptable. Efforts must therefore be redoubled to prevent any nuclear detonation – be it caused by accident, miscalculation or wilful intent. We welcome this fact-based, fresh and long overdue humanitarian approach. We are also looking forward to deepening discussions on this issue, including at the follow-up meeting that Mexico will host.”

“The establishment of the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) by resolution A/RES/67/56 is a reaction to the continuing deadlock in the CD. This working group offers the possibility to work together collectively and inclusively to advance nuclear disarmament. Just like the Oslo Conference, this working group is in full conformity with the spirit and letter of the NPT. In this regard, our delegation would reject to qualify as ‘distraction’ any efforts undertaken in good faith to achieve the common goals enshrined in this treaty.”

“It is necessary to develop more concrete measures and instruments in order to prevent and ban the use of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminate them, as all other weapons of mass destruction. Switzerland will continue to contribute to efforts towards progressive delegitimization of nuclear weapons in order to pave the way for our final and common objective of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Thailand

23 April: “We also welcome the result of the Conference on Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo in March this year, which further illustrated the devastating effect of the use of nuclear weapons on human life as well as the environment. We hope that such abhorrent scenarios have rendered any contemplation to engage nuclear arsenals as irresponsible, reprehensible and unthinkable.”

“More broadly, Thailand hopes that the fresh initiatives introduced at the UN General Assembly last year will revitalize the Conference on Disarmament and looks forward to the commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material, as well as a nuclear weapons convention, which should be held in an inclusive manner.”

Turkey

22 April: “[W]e remain concerned by the risk that nuclear weapons pose for humanity. The participants of the recent Oslo Conference have been further acquainted with the horrific consequences of a nuclear use or accidental detonation. Turkey believes that a robust awareness should be raised at the informational level so that future generations do not have to fear for the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Turkey welcomed the discussions at the Oslo Conference and looks forward to actively participating to the follow-up.”

Ukraine

23 April: “Ukraine considers the total elimination of nuclear weapons to be the only absolute guarantee against the scourge of nuclear warfare and supports the call for the immediate adoption of the comprehensive international agreement on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. This ultimate goal requires a consistent long-term approach with specific practical steps and effective disarmament measures to be taken by the international community in a transparent, non-discriminatory, verifiable and irreversible manner, building a system of mutually reinforcing instruments for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons.”

United Arab Emirates

22 April: “UAE supports the international efforts in addressing the humanitarian aspects of using nuclear weapons with an objective, in the long run, to ban the use, threat and eventually owning of these weapons.”

Joint statements

Humanitarian initiative

24 April: (On behalf of 78 nations) “Our countries are deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. While this has been known since nuclear weapons were first developed and is reflected in various UN resolutions and multilateral instruments, it has not been at the core of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation deliberations for many years. Although it constitutes the raison d’être of the NPT, which cautions against the ‘devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of people’, this issue has consistently been ignored in the discourse on nuclear weapons.”
(See rest of statement)

International Committee of the Red Cross

24 April: “In 2010, the States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) took a ground-breaking step in recognizing the ‘catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons’ and the relevance of international humanitarian law in this regard. This step has inspired a renewed focus on the horrific human suffering that would result from the use of nuclear weapons and the implications of such weapons on the environment.”

“The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) welcomes this development. In our view, an informed view on these weapons must include a detailed grasp of the immediate consequences of nuclear weapons on human health and on medical and other infrastructure. Equally important is an understanding of the longer-term effects on health and the implications for the world’s climate and food production. Recent studies by the ICRC, IPPNW and other organizations have highlighted these implications.”

“It was a deep and profound concern about these consequences that led the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to make a historic appeal on nuclear weapons in 2011. In it, the Movement called on States to ensure that nuclear weapons are never again used, regardless of their views on the legality of such weapons, and to pursue in good faith and conclude with urgency and determination negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binging international agreement, based on existing commitments and international obligations.”
(See rest of statement)

League of Arab States

WP.40: “The Arab States welcome the events on nuclear disarmament that will take place in 2013. They affirm the importance of the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Oslo on 4 and 5 March 2013, at which it was noted that no one was capable of addressing the consequences of a nuclear-weapon detonation, regardless of whether such a weapon was detonated deliberately, as a result of a misjudgement or unintentionally.”

“The attention of the Conference on Disarmament should be drawn to the importance of establishing a subcommittee responsible for the immediate commencement of negotiations on the formulation of a nuclear disarmament treaty, with a view to gradually eliminating nuclear weapons within a specified period of time. That treaty would outlaw the development, production, stockpiling and use of such weapons and provide for their destruction, and ensure that removal is complete, non-discriminatory and verifiable.”

New Agenda Coalition

22 April: “The 2010 NPT Review Conference expressed ‘deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons’ and reaffirmed ‘the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law’. Furthermore, a significant number of States highlighted this concern at the 2012 NPT Preparatory Committee and at the 2012 General Assembly First Committee session.”

“In March this year, Norway hosted an International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons aimed at developing a greater awareness and understanding of the catastrophic consequences of their use. Mexico has offered to host a follow-up conference to continue this long overdue discussion. Given that it is abundantly clear that no State or group of States can mitigate the effects of a nuclear weapon detonation on civilian populations, it is our expectation that all NPT States Parties seize the opportunity to permanently rid our world from the threat posted by nuclear weapons.”

“All States Parties must seize the opportunity of this PrepCom to begin work in earnest on the construction of a comprehensive legally-binding framework of mutually reinforcing instruments for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons. Such a framework should include clearly defined benchmarks, timelines, and be backed by a strong system of verification. Given the threat posed to all of humanity by these instruments of mass annihilation, it is time for use to act now, for tomorrow may be too late.”

WP.27: “Reiterating the Treaty’s recognition of the devastation that would be visited upon all of humanity by a nuclear war, the 2010 Review Conference expressed its deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and asserted the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.”

“Since the 2010 Review Conference, awareness has been growing about the humanitarian consequences of a nuclear detonation, as most recently illustrated by the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, which was held in Oslo on 4 and 5 March 2013. Given the indiscriminate and disproportionate effects of nuclear weapons, the humanitarian concerns should inform actions and decisions during the 2015 review cycle and beyond.”

“Furthermore, the 2015 Review Conference should work towards the construction of a comprehensive framework of mutually reinforcing instruments for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons. In order to be transparent, efficient and credible, such a legally binding framework for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons must include clearly defined benchmarks and timelines, backed by a strong system of verification.”

Non-Aligned Movement

22 April: “The Group … emphasizes the necessity to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction, without further delay.”

24 April: “The Group also reiterates its firm commitment to work for convening a high-level international conference to identify ways and means of eliminating nuclear weapons, at the earliest possible date, with the objective of an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction.”

25 April: “The Group emphasizes the necessity to start negotiations, without further delay, on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction.”

“[T]he Group reiterates its firm commitment to work for convening a high-level international conference to identify ways and means of eliminating nuclear weapons, at the earliest possible date, with the objective of an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction.”

WP.14: “The nuclear-weapon States should be urged to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of their nuclear weapons within a specified time framework, including a nuclear weapons convention.”

“An international conference at ‘the earliest possible date’ to achieve agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame, including, in particular, a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons convention).”

Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative

23 April: “The members of the NPDI participated in the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons that took place in Oslo, Norway, on March 4 and 5, 2013. The NPDI remains deeply concerned by the risk for humanity represented by the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used and by the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from their use. The discussions at the Oslo Conference illustrated once more the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects of a nuclear weapon detonation. We welcome the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

24 April: “[I]n view of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of a use of a nuclear weapon, they simply cannot be considered to be just a weapon like any other.”

“We encourage all States parties to contribute to raising awareness, in particular amongst the younger generation, of the tragic consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.”

WP.4: “In view of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, it is imperative that the more than 65-year record of nuclear non-use be extended forever. Members of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative thus see the need for determined steps by the nuclear-weapon States towards nuclear disarmament, with the final objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world.”

OPANAL

24 April: “[T]he Conference recently held in Oslo … introduced the humanitarian vision of the use of nuclear weapons, bringing a breath of fresh air to these debates, a breath full of hope. By exposing the catastrophic consequences of using any nuclear weapon, the raising of awareness regarding the threat that they pose to the world would be promoted. Humanity should not continue under this risk as a consequence of the security policies lacking an alternative to replace nuclear deterrence doctrines with more effective measures, with truly safe measures for humanity as a whole.”

“We welcome the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue, a country well known for its leadership in nuclear disarmament.”

“With the spirit to see the future positively, I am pleased to reiterate that Latin American and Caribbean States adopted the 2011 Declaration, a document that I presented to the UNGA First Committee in the same year, in which they agreed to join the efforts of the international community to take forward the negotiation of a legally-binding instrument aimed at prohibiting nuclear weapons. Today, this consensus is one of the guidelines of the Agency’s agenda.”