As Prepared

Thank you for inviting me to join you today. Europe is a critical partner of the United States on foreign policy and security issues, and this is no more apparent than on nonproliferation and nuclear issues. Whether in the IAEA Board room, the UN, or in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), strong U.S. and EU coordination has been a hallmark of our shared commitment to maintain and reinforce global nonproliferation efforts. The upcoming NPT Review Conference (RevCon) is no exception.

It is often said that the NPT is an essential foundation for efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, to pursue nuclear disarmament, and to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. This is more than a slogan; it’s the basis for our shared security. The world would have been exposed to far greater danger in the Treaty’s absence than we have witnessed with it. That is why all work so hard to support the NPT bargain and strengthen the Treaty in all its aspects.

The basic bargain of the NPT has served the international community well for its 45 years. However, the continued success cannot be taken for granted. While it has proven resilient, the NPT demands continued attention, diligence, and leadership.

We expect a challenging NPT RevCon. Achieving a consensus final document will be an uphill climb given political divisions on certain issues. In this environment, our governments must play a strong and unifying role if we are to protect and reinforce the NPT as an instrument of our collective security.

2015 is not 2010. With changes in relations with Russia, new dynamics and change in the Middle East, frustration with the pace of disarmament, and progress on nuclear negotiations with Iran, the context in which the NPT Parties will meet in New York next month has evolved significantly over the last five years.

It will be a test of our leadership to adjust to this shifting landscape and play the role that’s required of us. It means keeping the focus on what we hold in common as NPT Parties and that we stand together in support of a robust NPT.

Let me discuss what a successful Review Conference would look like from our view and what is called for from each of us to achieve it.

A successful Review Conference will protect the NPT’s authority while strengthening implementation in all three pillars – nonproliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses. Success will advance realistic, achievable objectives, focusing on agendas that can command consensus.

The Action Plan approved in 2010 was a breakthrough achievement and the first of its kind in the NPT review process. It is a useful measuring stick for implementation of steps to strengthen the Treaty.

Parties should use the Review Conference as an opportunity to take stock of progress made on the 2010 Action Plan and of remaining challenges. All of us have taken significant steps in all three pillars to implement the 2010 Action Plan. We should take credit for those steps.

We should view the Action Plan as a framework for strengthening the Treaty, but it is not a short-term checklist or an instrument for creating negative pressure. We are willing to refresh it but not to open it up for wholesale change, and in so doing risk losing it altogether.

Looking ahead to April, the United States seeks a consensus outcome and we stand ready to work with the EU and all other NPT Parties to that end. This should be achievable if Parties stress areas of common interest and are prepared to seek compromise. It will require creativity or flexibility in crafting proposals designed to bridge differences. In this, the United States and the EU should be close partners.

NPT Parties have much to agree on. At the same time, we recognize that there are also areas of legitimate disagreement. A successful conference will have to grapple with those issues in a way that explores differences of opinion without allowing ourselves to be derailed by pursuit of impractical measures or political agendas that divide parties.

This will be where leadership from our governments comes into play; it will be critical in keeping the discussion in New York on the rails. Loss of focus can only diminish prospects for a successful RevCon.

In terms of substance, we anticipate that you will join us in emphasizing the importance of compliance with the Treaty, and the requirement that violators be held accountable and return immediately to compliance with their obligations. The long-term future of the NPT depends on it; let’s not delude ourselves.

It will be important that we make clear in New York our concern over serious regional challenges. Discussion of regional problems should focus on all relevant challenges and not fixate solely on Israel or a Middle East WMD free zone. The conference, in particular, should call for North Korea to comply with its denuclearization and nonproliferation commitments, including a return to the NPT and IAEA safeguards.

The United States and the EU are strong supporters for IAEA safeguards. We agree that safeguards agreements supplemented by an Additional Protocol should represent the accepted standard for verification of non-nuclear-weapon state obligations, and we provide significant assistance to states to implement their safeguards agreements. Our record is very strong on this point.

EU input has also been essential in developing ideas to deal more effectively with potential abuse of the NPT’s withdrawal provision. Many ideas and papers have been put forward recently on this topic. This is welcome, as we hope for a serious discussion on withdrawal at the RevCon. Our responsibility is to steer this discussion in a positive direction and push back on those seeking to use it as leverage for concessions in other areas. Such efforts are short-sighted and fail to serve the interests of the NPT.

We applaud the EU for its leadership in promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In particular, we commend the EU’s leading financial and intellectual support for IAEA efforts to set up the international fuel bank.

We also deeply appreciate the extraordinary support that the EU has provided to the IAEA Peaceful Uses Initiative, including through generous monetary contributions. We look forward to continuing this partnership with the EU and will underscore the progress made since 2010 in promoting the responsible use of nuclear energy. Strides have been made on nuclear safety and security since 2010; this should be reflected in a 2015 decision.

We welcome EU encouragement for P5 efforts on nuclear weapon free zones as well as the P5 conferences that are building greater transparency and trust among the nuclear-weapon states. The P5 conference process provides a forum for policy and technical engagement that didn’t exist before and has helped lay the groundwork for future cooperative work.

We recently completed the sixth P5 Conference, hosted by the UK in London. The P5 are not always on the same page regarding NPT-related issues and the format can sometimes be difficult. Expectations should be calibrated with this in mind. But this is a process that can advance NPT and disarmament goals, and we look forward to continuing to hold discussions in this format.

On nuclear disarmament, our governments should give encouragement to negotiation of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. These are foundational agreements that must be in place if we are to move toward a world without nuclear weapons, a goal President Obama moved to the center of the U.S. national agenda and that we spare no effort to advance.

The overlap of our governments in the NPT context is larger than these examples. We may not agree perfectly on every issue, but the crossover between is wide and it is deep. Strong coordination between us will be essential as we move into the RevCon. There will be challenges to success, many familiar and some new.

We regret that Russia continues to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, flouting the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. We have condemned Russia’s actions, just as we praise Ukraine for its important decision to abandon nuclear weapons and join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state in 1994.

We are also deeply concerned by Russia’s violation of the INF Treaty. We continue to encourage Russia to resolve this concern and return to compliance with a treaty that has been such an important cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security and a legacy of the Cold War’s end.

This is not a time to turn away from arms control, but to double down on it. We are encouraged that, notwithstanding our differences, the United States and Russia continue to implement the New START Treaty, a major step toward implementation of NPT Article VI. We’re prepared to go farther. President Obama has made clear our readiness to negotiate with Russia further reductions of deployed strategic nuclear weapons and non-strategic nuclear weapons, but this will require a willing partner and a conducive strategic environment.

In the Middle East, we are worked steadfastly with the facilitator, Ambassador Jaakko Laajava of Finland, and our fellow co-conveners – Russia, the UK and UN – to support regional states in convening a conference on a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction and systems for their delivery in the Middle East.

It should be clear that a process in the Middle East can only succeed if the regional parties take ownership, engage directly, and respect each other’s perspectives and the principle of consensus. Solutions cannot be imposed on the regional parties by the facilitator or co-conveners. We don’t have that power.

We remain hopeful that the regional states will bridge their differences and agree on a date for the conference. We are encouraged that over the past year, Israel and Arab states have participated in five rounds of consultations to discuss the outlines of an agenda, modalities, and documents for the conference.

It will not be possible to hold the Helsinki Conference before the end of April. We hope that the regional states will use the review conference to give a boost to the regional process and not poison the climate by making new demands that will almost certainly break consensus. The principle in New York should be to do-no-harm to Helsinki. It is important that we reject misguided efforts to turn the NPT process into a referendum on this issue.

One area where we are perhaps less of one mind with some EU Members is with respect to the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons. The United States recognizes the severe consequences of nuclear weapons use. We have made clear that this recognition underpins the President’s nuclear agenda and our efforts on nuclear disarmament.

Our concerns have less to do with the humanitarian issue than with the policy implications that follow from it. It should be clear to all here that banning nuclear weapons on paper will not result in their elimination. A ban or nuclear weapons convention is a final step not the next one. As we have said many times over, nuclear disarmament is only possible along a step-by-step pathway, with future steps building on the last. This approach is reflected in the 2010 Action Plan and should remain the basis for discussion on disarmament matters at the Review Conference.

I also want to recall that NATO leaders reconfirmed at last year’s Wales Summit that, “As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.” This is not an expression for the indefinite retention of nuclear arsenals. It is an expression of the security challenges that must be addressed if we are to reach the final stages of elimination.

We fully expect that the humanitarian issue will be a major topic in New York, and we will come prepared to speak to it. We hope that it will be handled, as other challenges should be, in a way that does not allow disagreement on one topic to block progress on all the others.

Strong coordination among us can help facilitate a Review Conference outcome that advances all three pillars of the NPT. National differences will always remain, but they should not be allowed to tarnish our image as tireless supporters for the Treaty.

The Review Conference begins six weeks from today. The United States will spend those weeks continuing to meet with NPT Parties and doing what we can to lay the groundwork for a successful conference.

We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the EU. Together, we can ensure the NPT will thrive, with new opportunities coming open. Divided, we will stumble, with those opportunities lost.

Some may prefer a conference outcome that fails to produce an agreed document. Let’s not be counted among them. Others may see compromise as a weakness or loss of principle. It is not. It is leadership, and it is what’s expected of us and what we should expect from ourselves.

Thank you.