STATEMENT ON NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL DISINFORMATION

Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am speaking on behalf of the Countering WMD Disinformation Initiative of the 31-member Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. This initiative is funded by Canada and Germany and is implemented by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, King’s College London and Open Nuclear Network.

As States Parties meet over the next month to review the implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, we must address a growing challenge affecting multilateral discussions in the nuclear and radiological realm: the amplification and circulation of false or unverified allegations regarding safeguards, compliance or nuclear intent.

Radiological and nuclear issues are technically complex and rely on specialised verification methodologies, established evidentiary standards and clearly defined institutional mandates. When such matters are discussed or claims made without the full context, misunderstandings and opportunities for confusion can arise and positions may harden before clarification or key details are made available.

Unverified, unfounded and false allegations related to compliance, safety or intent can shape diplomatic positions before technical clarification is available. Technical findings may be selectively presented, reframed or simplified, reducing complex issues to binary narratives. This risks distorting discussions and placing delegations – particularly those without specialised technical capacity – in difficult positions, including pressure on neutral or middle-ground states to signal alignment prematurely, narrowing space for balanced engagement and increasing polarisation.

The introduction of serious allegations in multilateral settings carries particular weight. Such claims should be carefully substantiated and, where appropriate, grounded in established reporting mechanisms. Creating space for technical clarification before drawing conclusions can support stability in deliberations.

This challenge cuts across all three pillars of the Treaty.

In the context of non-proliferation, unverified claims regarding safeguards, compliance or intent can undermine confidence in verification processes and distort assessments of risk.

In the context of disarmament, inaccurate or misleading characterisation of capabilities, doctrines or commitments can deepen mistrust and complicate dialogue.

In the context of peaceful uses, misleading narratives about safety, security or intent can undermine cooperation and erode confidence in the benefits of nuclear applications.

To support the integrity of Treaty discussions, key standards should be implemented, including:

• All allegations should be grounded in well-documented and verified information.
• Technical assessments should be referenced in their full context.
• Established clarification mechanisms should be used where uncertainties arise.

Where these standards are not met, caution should be exercised in engaging with or amplifying such claims. Verification through competent international bodies and trusted expert networks, requests for clarification through established Treaty mechanisms and internal coordination before responding should be prioritised. Where appropriate, timely and evidence-based communication should be used to clarify the record and mitigate the spread of misleading narratives.

These principles are not intended to constrain debate. They are intended to protect it. Technical assessment and political deliberation serve complementary roles within the Treaty framework.

The NPT depends on informed engagement, mutual respect and good-faith deliberation. By exercising care in how nuclear and radiological information is presented and interpreted, States Parties can reduce the risk of avoidable polarisation and preserve the integrity of this Review Conference.

We thank you for your attention.

The GP Counter WMD Disinformation Initiative