Mr President, Distinguished Delegates:

I am honoured to be in a position to address this important Conference on behalf of the delegation of Sri Lanka.

Mr. President, I shall begin by conveying to you, Sir, the warmest of felicitations on your election to the high office of the Presidency of this Conference of Review, in the year 2000, of the Treaty concluded, on the first of July in the year 1968, on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The many speakers that have preceded me to this rostrum, have recalled the objectives of the Treaty and the understandings that were its foundation. They have spoken of the importance of the Treaty, of its significance in the field of disarmament, of its scope and fundamental nature and that it should be universally adhered to. With much that they have said the delegation of Sri Lanka would concur.

Yet, many and in particular the non-nuclear weapon States parties to the Treaty have spoken to their deep and serious concerns and disappointments, as to inadequacies in implementation of Treaty obligations.

The obligations under the Treaty could be said to fall into three principal categories:

• The first category of obligations being the primary obligation on nuclear-weapon States not to "transfer" nuclear weapons; and the primary obligation on non-nuclear-weapon States not to "acquire" nuclear weapons.

• The second category being the consequential obligations which seek to ensure that, under the supervisory authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the primary obligation not to "transfer", and the primary obligation not to "acquire", are scrupulously observed; and that the restrictions on "transfer" and "acquisition" do not prejudice non-nuclear weapon States in use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

• And the third category of obligations being the provisions of Article VI of the Treaty. 
  Article VI of the Treaty which lies, it has been said, at the very heart of the Treaty, seeks to achieve a fundamental "balance'' between, on the one hand, the obligation undertaken by the vast majority of States parties to the Treaty never to acquire nuclear weapons, and, on the other hand, the continued retention into an indefinite future of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapon States parties to the Treaty.

Of the first two categories of obligations: the primary and secondary obligations in the Treaty, we have heard many very useful statements. There is much in what has been said with which the delegation of Sri Lanka would concur.

Yet, I would like to speak today more of the provisions of Article VI; and the unique "balance" the provisions of article VI seek to achieve between nuclear weapon States, on the one hand, and non-nuclear weapon States, on the other.

The provisions of Article VI concern the nuclear arms race, nuclear disarmament, and general and complete disarmament. They read as follows:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

It is immediately noticeable that the Treaty does not, in article VI, contain a prohibition of, or a ban on, nuclear weapons or their use.

It is immediately noticeable that what the Treaty does, in Article VI, is to place upon nuclear weapon States parties to the Treaty a lesser obligation: namely, the obligation to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons - and this, against the obligation undertaken by the vast majority of non-nuclear weapon States to the Treaty "never-ever" to acquire nuclear weapons.

Of this unique "balance" in article VI of the Treaty, the International Court of Justice has spoken unanimously, on 8 July 1996 as follows; and I quote:

"Given the eminently difficult issues that arise in applying the law on the use of force and above all the law applicable to armed conflict to nuclear weapons, the Court considers that it now needs to examine one further aspect of the question before it, seen in a broader context.

"In the long run, international law, and with it the stability of the international order which it is intended to govern, are bound to suffer from the continuing difference Of views with regard to the legal status of weapons as deadly as nuclear weapons. It is consequently important to put an end to this state of affairs: the long-promised complete nuclear disarmament appears to be the most appropriate means of achieving that result."

"In these circumstances, the Court appreciates the full importance of the recognition by Article VI of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of an obligation to negotiate in good faith a nuclear disarmament. The legal import of that obligation goes beyond that of a mere obligation of conduct; the obligation involved here is an obligation to achieve a precise result - nuclear disarmament in all its aspects - by adopting a particular course of conduct, namely, the pursuit of negotiations on the matter in good faith."

"This twofold obligation to pursue and to conclude negotiations formally concern 182 States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or, in other words, the vast majority of the international community."

"Virtually the whole of this community appears, moreover, to have been involved when resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly concerning nuclear disarmament have repeatedly been unanimously adopted. Indeed, any realistic search for general and complete disarmament, necessitates the cooperation of all States."

As the International Court of Justice has advised the process towards nuclear disarmament is the concern of the entire international community.

I express concurrence with the views so ably expressed by Ambassador Wibisono, the Permanent Representative of Indonesia, speaking earlier this week on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and further to the April 2000 Ministerial Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Cartagena.

Aside from the thoughts and proposals presented in the Working Paper Ambassador Wibisono introduced, we have also heard a number of thoughts and proposals made by other speakers in the general debate. They are thoughts and proposals on what should - in the light of the achievements and the disappointments in the field of non-proliferation - be done if the objectives of the Non-Proliferation Treaty are to be realized within the shortest possible period of time.

A number of very thoughtful and very useful statements have been made already on the achievements that have been realised and the disappointments that have been experienced in the field of non-proliferation since the Review and Extension Conference in 1995.

They are thoughts and proposals that we shall need to consider with great care at the formal and informal working-levels.

I shall not endeavour to recapitulate, now, the achievements and the disappointments to which other speakers have already very fully referred.

The steps that have been taken unilaterally, and bilaterally, by nuclear-weapon States, towards nuclear disarmament - a field of mind-boggling complexities and vastnesses - must, of course, be recognized and appreciated.

We are aware of the assurances provided by the nuclear weapon States in the statements they have made to this Conference, earlier this week, of their intentions towards nuclear disarmament.

Yet there is so much more that remains.

Of particular discouragement is the fact that the great promise held out to the world in 1995 at the Review and Extension Conference remains to a very large extent unfulfilled.

The relevant provisions adopted in 1995 at the Review and Extension Conference are to be found in Decision 3 of the 1995 Conference, in its Section on "Nuclear Disarmament".

The Section on "Nuclear Disarmament" in Decision 3 concern:

• the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
• the proposed Convention banning the production of fissile materials; and
• the expectation that there would be "determined pursuit, by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

Thus, it is only to be expected, and heartening that at our present Conference, in the decisions taken, earlier this week, on the establishment of subsidiary bodies, we agreed that the subsidiary body established under Main Committee 1 would discuss and consider the practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to implement article VI of the Treaty and the provisions of the Section on "Nuclear Disarmament" in Decision 3 of 1995.

That we should at this, our present, Conference preserve and build as far as is humanly possible on the fundamentals contained in the Section on "Nuclear Disarmament" in Decision 3 in 1995 is certainly from the point of view of the non-nuclear weapon States of the very greatest necessity. Many speakers have so declared, the delegation of Sri Lanka concurs.

I assure you, Mr President, of our cooperation and support.

Thank you.