I am pleased that you are presiding over Main Committee 1. Your skill as chairman was amply demonstrated in the Third Preparatory Committee last year, and I am convinced that under your able and energetic leadership, we will see the work of this Committee through to a successful conclusion. My delegation fully shares your commitment and pledges its support and cooperation.

Our State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Yamamoto, stated in his speech on 24 April that the decision to indefinitely extend the NPT was the right one to solidify the regime it anchors. Indeed, since 1995 Review and Extension Conference, nine countries have become parties to the treaty, moving it closer to universality. The 1995 decision to extend the treaty indefinitely, together with the achievement of near universality, have introduced a new chapter in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Although this is a victory for the NPT and its State Parties, it does not afford us grounds for even a little complacency. On the contrary, the new chapter marks the end of our single-minded pursuit of universality and the beginning of an effort to focus more sharply on implementation of the letter and spirit of the treaty, although the complete universality remains an important objective. The opening of this new era has a particular bearing on the works of this Committee and has to be clearly recognized and embraced by all State Parties, both those that possess nuclear weapons and those that do not. Failing to do so could create unnecessary divisions which would weaken the non-proliferation regime from within.

There are several avenues that we must take to arrive at the goal of nuclear disarmament. I am referring to efforts at the unilateral, bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral levels. Of these, the first three involve only the nuclear weapon States, and no one in the disarmament community denies that they have done immensely important work, which continue　in the years to come. But it should be noted that these are not the only efforts that are being made. Instead, these efforts by the nuclear weapon States are defined in the most important multilateral legal instrument, known as the NPT. Nuclear disarmament is not an exclusive domain of the nuclear weapon States, but rather, a more public affair, which involves and affects all the members of the NPT community.

Moreover, important progress in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation has either been achieved or is being envisaged through such multilateral agreements as the CTBT and an FMCT, on which negotiations were urged in the consensus decision of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference. Considering the length of the journey we must make if we are to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, it would be wrong to assume that an FMCT would exhaust relevant multilateral milestones. Therefore let us start discussions on possible future steps on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation right now.

From the deliberations on nuclear disarmament we have been conducting in various fora, it is evident that the question of pace is particularly contentious, both as we assess the progress that has been made, by looking back and as we try, by looking forward, to formulate measures to be taken in the future.

The international community is united in espousing the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. This is indeed a remarkable achievement, which should be the point of departure for us all. Let us agree, then, not to let our differences on the issue of pace turn into acrimony and mistrust. Because no concrete steps can be taken unless there is agreement among all of us, it is evident that the only way we can proceed is step by step.

It was on the basis of these views that my delegation, together with Australian delegation, submitted the working paper contained in document No. NPT/CONF/2000/WP.1　　　 on further measures to promote nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, measures that we believe must be taken in addition to full implementation of the decision on the Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament of 1995. My delegation has also submitted a working paper on improving implementation of the decision on Strengthened Review Process, which has a bearing on the subjects dealt with by this Committee but does not fall under its mandate. Therefore allow me to limit myself today to formally introducing the working paper on further measures for your consideration.

The adoption in 1995 of the document entitled "Principles and Objectives" was a major milestone in our efforts to realize the goal of the treaty. Five years have passed since then and there has been some forward movements. It would therefore be logical for the States Parties to the NPT not only to reaffirm their commitment to implementing that decision, but also to take into account our achievements so far, and to agree on further measures to promote nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.　

Most of the elements provided in this working paper were already contained in UNGA resolution 54/54D, entitled "Nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons," which Japan sponsored. They are moderate measures. However, my delegation believes that if we are able to reach agreement on them in 2000, it would increase the momentum we have achieved in the past five years, and enable us to leave this Conference with a little more confidence and assurance as to prospects for the future.

The first three paragraphs of the working paper on further measures relate to the CTBT, the FMCT, and the START process. Each of them goes only slightly beyond the language that appears in the Principles and Objectives. In this context, my delegation acknowledges and sincerely welcomes the recent decision of the Russian parliament to ratify the START II agreement and the CTBT.

The fourth paragraph of the working paper refers to further unilateral efforts by the nuclear weapon States to reduce their nuclear weapons and to the commencement of negotiations involving the five nuclear weapon States on the reduction of nuclear weapons at an appropriate stage. In this connection, my delegation would like to draw attention to the fact that the obligations of the three smaller nuclear weapon States to pursue nuclear disarmament are not conditional upon the pace and extent of reductions on the part of the two larger nuclear weapon States.

The fifth paragraph deals with multilateral discussions in the Conference on Disarmament regarding possible future steps towards nuclear disarmament. In this regard, my delegation considers that the language is in line with, and well within the limits of, the obligation articulated in Article VI, namely, "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament."

The other two paragraphs deal with universalization of the IAEA additional protocol and the early establishment of the "Integrated Safeguards" as well as the disposition of fissile materials no longer required for defense purposes and placement all such materials and civil fissile materials under appropriate international safeguards.

With regard to the review work of this Committee, I feel compelled to raise one point. Last year, the Third Preparatory Committee failed to express a view on the nuclear tests conducted in 1998 in South Asia, despite the fact that it was the first opportunity for the State Parties to do so. On the tests, statements were made in the same year in international fora such as the UN General Assembly, the Security Council and the IAEA, but ironically not in the NPT forum, where they were of direct concern. My delegation believes that there should be an appropriate reference to this event in the final outcome of this Conference. Otherwise, the world might get the wrong message -- that the State Parties to the NPT have so resigned themselves to events of this kind that they do not even elicit an expression of disapproval. This failure to express our view was a grave mistake that should not be repeated at this Conference.

It is apparent that, despite all our efforts and the undeniable progress we have made towards nuclear disarmament in the last decade or so, our record of the last four years is not entirely reassuring. All of us acknowledge that in the pursuit of disarmament, the key words are "patience" and "perseverance." However if bona fide non-nuclear weapon States are to demonstrate that they possess such qualities, the corresponding virtues of sincerity and genuine commitment must also be demonstrated by the nuclear weapon States. It is, after all, this group of 180 non-nuclear weapon States that makes up the NPT's constituency which could make or break the treaty.

My delegation understands that the NPT is fundamentally a legal framework within which self-restraint makes possible security and stability for all entities concerned, nuclear and non-nuclear. It is an endeavor that humankind has been pursuing in order to ensure the survival of civilization in the face of the terrible destructive force of the atom unleashed by modern science and technology. The relevance of such an endeavor can not be affected by some deplorable incidents.

Whatever injury the NPT may have suffered, it can be healed by steadily implementing the measures that the international community decided to take at the 1995 Conference and that it will agree upon at this Conference. There is no question, then, that this Conference provides us with invaluable opportunity. Let us make the most of it.