Q&A: Dr. Ivana Nikolić Hughes on the 2026 NPT Review Conference | SANE Policy Institute Expert Reactions
Following the 2026 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the SANE Policy Institute convened a range of experts to respond to key questions on the state of the Treaty, nuclear diplomacy, and the prospects for disarmament.
The full set of expert reactions is available HERE.
Below are the complete responses from Ivana Nikolić Hughes, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
SANE: What is your main takeaway from the 2026 NPT Review Conference?
Ivana Hughes
President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
I am deeply disappointed at the failure of the states parties to reach consensus and adopt an outcome document for the third review cycle in a row. To me, this unsuccessful conclusion to the conference is yet another consequence of the longstanding dereliction of the nuclear-weapon states to meet the Treaty’s disarmament obligations. The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, rather than being seen as indicative of the urgency of disarmament, ended up as an excuse to avoid the responsibilities spelled out in Article VI, further eroding the Treaty’s foundation.
SANE: Does the failure to adopt a final document matter substantively, symbolically, or both?
Ivana Hughes
I believe that both are true. This particular outcome can now be added to an already long list of missed opportunities to make the world safer by addressing and ultimately removing the existential threat to humanity, and possibly all life on the planet, posed by nuclear weapons.
SANE: Would you have preferred adoption of the last version of the final document?
Ivana Hughes
If you had asked me ahead of the final session, I would have said that I saw the two possibilities, adoption of a weak document versus no adoption, as a toss-up. However, once President Viet announced in the General Assembly Hall that no consensus had been reached and that he was not even going to call a vote, my heart sank. I was truly and deeply disappointed, and remain so nearly a week later. So much energy, effort, and thought had been put into this Conference by President Viet, by so many excellent diplomats, and by civil society. And in the end, in some sense, we have nothing to show for it, not even the most basic recommitment to the Treaty’s principles.
SANE: What issue deserved more attention than it received?
Ivana Hughes
Humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and the risk that the current arsenals of the NWS pose to our world, continue to be largely ignored by those most responsible. The urgency of disarmament, precisely because the geopolitical conditions are so terrible, was not given a fair hearing in my opinion. I was also surprised that there was not more of a push for the Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone. I think that this is a very important issue for the future of the NPT
SANE: What development most worries you heading into the next review cycle?
Ivana Hughes
The politicization of the discussions was an unwelcome development, and one that could impact the upcoming cycle even more negatively. The NWS need to have clear lines of communication on issues that pertain to the treaty.
SANE: Should Iran be able to enrich uranium strictly for peaceful uses under strict international verification?
Ivana Hughes
Yes, of course.
SANE: What role can the TPNW play at this point in global nuclear diplomacy?
Ivana Hughes
The TPNW needs to continue to put pressure on the nuclear-weapon states and their allies, both externally, from the international community by increasing the number of states that join the Treaty, and internally, by making the general public aware of what is at stake in a world awash with nuclear weapons and of the solution, which is the TPNW.
SANE: Should U.S.-Russia strategic dialogue resume independently of China, or must China be included from the outset?
Ivana Hughes
The United States and Russia possess some 87 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal. The ball is clearly in their court. China is still far off in terms of the size of its arsenal, despite the recent, and unwelcome, increases in the number of its warheads.
I advocate for U.S.-Russia dialogue and agreement on reductions first, and bringing China in when the former two have come down significantly from the 5,000-plus warheads in each of their arsenals.
SANE: What one measure could most advance nuclear disarmament over the next five years?
Ivana Hughes
I think we sorely lack public awareness of even the most basic science, history, and policy issues when it comes to nuclear weapons, followed by genuine and widespread engagement. This seems to be a prerequisite for nuclear-weapon-state governments to actually move in the direction of disarmament.
SANE: Can nuclear disarmament still realistically occur within the NPT framework?
Ivana Hughes
Yes, but it’s getting late and given the current status, the treaty could suffer an even bigger blow over the next five years. Before the NWS can earnestly recommit to their disarmament and demilitarization obligations spelled out in the NPT, they will need to first and foremost recommit to international law and the principles of the UN Charter, which have been brazenly violated over the last several years, and even decades.
