The third and final session of the 2025 NPT Preparatory Committee (PrepCom), held from 28 April to 9 May in New York, ended in deadlock, with states failing to agree on unanimous recommendations for the 2026 Review Conference, or even adopt a summary report. As divisions between Nuclear Weapon States (NWSs) and Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWSs) deepen amid rising geopolitical tensions, the credibility of the non-proliferation regime hangs in the balance.

In this week’s Pulse, we invited four experts to examine the implications of this outcome: what drove the deadlock, whether the treaty is now at greater risk, and what urgent actions could restore momentum ahead of the 2026 Review Conference. Marianne Hanson, Muhadi Sugiono, Tanya Ogilvie-White and Kawasaki Akira share their viewpoints.

Marianne Hanson

Co-chair of ICAN Australia and Honorary Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Queensland

The Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2026 NPT Review Conference concluded earlier this month. States were unable to agree on a set of recommendations and the meting concluded without adopting a summary report on ways to strengthen the Review Process.

There are three important elements which formed the backdrop to this meeting.

First is the rising threat of nuclear proliferation, as evidenced by some European countries as well as by South Korea, and fears that Iran is inching closer to developing its own nuclear bomb.

Second, geopolitical tensions are at an extremely high level, with no end in sight to the Russia-Ukraine conflict; with some parliamentarians in Israel considering using nuclear weapons against Gaza; and with Israel suspected of wanting to launch a military attack on Iran because of the latter’s nuclear aspirations. Should such an attack happen, Russia and China may well respond. A conflict among several nuclear-armed powers would be disastrous.

Third, the majority of states in the international system are increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress towards disarmament by the nine nuclear weapon states, and the double standards that allow some states to acquire and keep their nuclear weapons while requiring abstinence by others.

The NPT seems far from able to address these issues, and many non-nuclear states are now placing their energies into the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Muhadi Sugiono

Senior Lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Universitas Gadjah Mada

The failure of the NPT Preparatory Committee after two weeks of meeting to agree on a set of recommendations for the 2026 NPT Review Conference constitutes a dire warning for the future of non-proliferation and disarmament. It reflects a growing lack of commitment from increasing NPT states parties to prevent proliferation.

In the face of the alarming threat of nuclear war, NPT states parties are seemingly disregarding the fundamental norm of non-proliferation by advocating for sharing, transferring, or stationing nuclear weapons in new countries. More and more states view nuclear deterrence as the answer to their insecurity amid geopolitical power struggles. The world is in grave danger as the universal norm of non-proliferation is no longer able to restrain the nuclear behaviour of the NPT states parties.

We must remind these countries of the risks of nuclear weapons and the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of their use, as agreed upon in the NPT Outcome Document 2010, and demand that they fulfil their obligations. The provisions in the NPT are legally binding. At the same time, we must also urge all states parties to join the TPNW, which rejects nuclear weapons as instruments for peace.

Tanya Ogilvie-White

APLN Senior Research Adviser

The dismal outcome of the 2025 NPT PrepCom is yet more evidence that international society is being torn apart by the most powerful states. The NPT review process has been in trouble for years, with geopolitical shifts and technological changes compounding its woes, but it is currently facing its nemesis: the superpowers that drove the creation of the NPT more than 50 years ago are now destroying it.

At the PrepCom, Russia blamed Western states for wrecking the international security architecture. Yet Russia’s aggressive actions over the past eleven years have done more than any other state to undermine the treaty system, including the NPT.

The United States called for responsible leadership, a “clear-eyed” understanding of the deterioration of the global security environment, and “the imperative to ensure there is never a need for [nuclear] weapons to be used again”. Yet US actions on the global stage are currently reckless, destabilising and terrifying allies and adversaries alike.

Amid this blundering, a successful 2026 NPT RevCon is an impossible goal. Instead, states parties should focus their attention on highlighting the dangers of nuclear war, preventing further nuclear proliferation, and pressuring all states that possess nuclear weapons to reduce nuclear risks.

Akira Kawasaki

Co-Chair of the Japan NGO Network for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Executive Committee member of Peace Boat

The PrepCom’s failure to adopt recommendations represents the alarming lack of the sense of urgency particularly on the side of those states possessing or supporting nuclear weapons. The UN High Representative Izumi Nakamitsu’s warning that we live in “a world with heightened nuclear risks” might have not reached those states.

It seems that states are divided not just between Nuclear Weapon States (NWSs) and Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWSs), but they also are divided in blocks and criticise each other. A number of NNWSs that are enjoying “extended nuclear deterrence” rejected their own policies becoming the subject of reporting. As long as these positions continue, you cannot expect any meaningful outcome at the 2026 NPT Review Conference.

As South Africa stated on behalf of the states that joined the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons would “transcend national borders, pose grave implications for human survival and well-being.” The NPT states parties should recognise this reality. Holding a dedicated high-level session on the effects of nuclear war at the beginning of the Review Conference may help them remember what they gather for.

The opinions articulated above represent the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network or any of its members. APLN’s website is a source of authoritative research and analysis and serves as a platform for debate and discussion among our senior network members, experts, and practitioners, as well as the next generation of policymakers, analysts, and advocates. Comments and responses can be emailed to apln@apln.network.

Image: SmileStudioAP, iStock.