اللجنة الأولى، الجلسة العامة السابعة والعشرون – الجمعية العامة، الدورة 81
الجمعية العامة
Date: 30 October 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/ar/ga/c1/81/27?lang=en
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

1st Committee · Chair [0:01]:

Could you please take a seat? We will start. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, the 27th meeting of the Disarmament and International Security Committee of the 81st session of the General Assembly is called to order. Distinguished delegates, this afternoon, The Committee will continue to take actions on all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under the agenda items 92 to 2109. We will begin by hearing the explanations of vote after the vote under cluster four, conventional weapons. Before we begin, I wish to inform delegations that A communication has been received from the Russian Federation informing me and the Secretariat of its decision to withdraw draft resolution A/C/1/81/L9, entitled “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security”, submitted on October 2 under agenda item 96, from the considerations of the First Committee at its eighty-first session. Accordingly, the above-mentioned draft resolution is no longer before the Committee. Distinguished delegates, I now call on delegations wishing to explain their positions after the vote. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Singapore, to be followed by New Zealand, Iraq, Pakistan, India, and Russian Federation.


Singapore [2:11]:

Thank you, Chair. I am taking the floor to explain Singapore’s votes in favour of the resolutions 49 and L60. Singapore has a long-standing and consistent position on these two resolutions. and we have traditionally voted in favour of both resolutions. We support all initiatives against the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. In this regard, Singapore has maintained an indefinite moratorium on the export of all anti-personnel landmines since 1998, and on the export of cluster munitions since November 2008. We also continue to support the work undertaken under both conventions, including through our regular participation in their respective meetings, such as the 22nd Meeting of States Parties to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention in December 2025 and the Third Review Conference of the Convention on Cluster Munitions in September 2026. While Singapore supports international efforts to address the humanitarian consequences of these weapons, We believe that these efforts must also be balanced against States' legitimate security requirements. As a small State, we firmly believe that the inherent right of States to self-defence, as well as their ability to acquire arms for legitimate self-defence, cannot be disregarded. We remain of the view that it would be counterproductive to impose a blanket prohibition on all types of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. Singapore will continue to work constructively with the international community with a view to achieving a comprehensive and durable solution that accommodates humanitarian concerns over the use of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [4:01]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Singapore. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of New Zealand.


New Zealand [4:10]:

Thank you, Chair.

I take the floor to explain New Zealand's position on resolution L/67.

New Zealand continues our longstanding support for this resolution and all its paragraphs in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

In operative paragraph 8, the resolution calls upon high contracting parties to consider and endorse the conclusions of the final report adopted by consensus by the Group of Governmental Experts in relation to lethal autonomous weapon systems. and to decide by consensus on the possible modalities of the future work of the group.

While we support this call, New Zealand wants to be clear that in our.

View, it is now time to advance to negotiations on an instrument.

On autonomous weapons systems, as reflected in resolution L37 entitled Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems.

We were pleased to be a main sponsor of this resolution again this year. In closing, I would like to reiterate New Zealand’s enduring support for the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and the Arms Trade.

Treaty, and extend our gratitude for the efforts of the Presidencies on the respective resolutions L/60, L/49 and L/62.

Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [5:26]:

I thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Iraq.


Iraq [5:35]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Iraq voted in favor of the PP8, of the draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects in order to enhance the participation of women in decision-making and the implementation of measures related to the UN programme of action and the international tracing instrument. In this context, we would like to emphasize that the use of the gender perspective in this paragraph comes within the enhancement of women's participation in decision-making and implementation, and does not in any way mean that we accept any explanations or other concepts that could go against national legislation and regulation in Iraq. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [6:33]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Iraq. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Pakistan.


Pakistan [6:40]:

Thank you, Chair. My delegation abstained on draft resolution L/49. Pakistan is a party to Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which regulates the use of landmines to protect civilians from their indiscriminate effects. There are no uncleared mines on Pakistan's territory. We remain committed to ensuring that mines in our military inventory never become a source of civilian casualties. Landmines continue to meet legitimate defense needs of many states. They are an integral part of Pakistan's defense, given our long borders that are not protected by natural obstacles. Recent decisions by several states to withdraw from the convention, citing their own security environment, underlining that this reality cannot be wished away. The sustainable path is one that balances humanitarian imperatives with the legitimate security needs of states, as amended Protocol II does. As one of the largest troop contributors to UN peacekeeping, Pakistan has undertaken demining operations in many parts of the world. We stand ready to do more to advance global humanitarian demining. Chair, my delegation also abstained on resolution L60. As a matter of principle, Pakistan does not support the conclusion of arms control and disarmament treaties outside the UN framework. as was the case with the Convention on Cluster Munitions. We consider the CCW the most appropriate forum to address cluster munitions. Its strength lies in a legal framework that balances the need to minimize human suffering with the legitimate security interests of states. We look forward to a productive seventh review conference of the CCW next month. Pakistan supports international efforts to address the irresponsible and indiscriminate use of cluster munitions. We condemn their use against civilian populations and people under illegal occupation. I thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [9:04]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Pakistan. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of India.


India [9:11]:

Thank you, Chair. We would like to explain our vote on resolutions L/37, L/49 and L/62 in that order. India has voted in favor of the resolution L/37. India welcomes the significant progress achieved by the GGE on laws in fulfillment of its most recent mandate. The outcome document, for the first time, agreed on a working characterization and formulated a set of elements of an instrument without prejudging its nature. This reflects the continuing and indeed growing relevance of the CCW as the appropriate forum for addressing challenges posed by new and emerging technologies, including laws, with a view to striking a balance between military necessity and humanitarian imperatives. India has abstained on PP2 and PP8 because the application of international human rights law does not fall under the subject matter of this Committee. On OP1, we acknowledge that GGE has undertaken significant efforts to foster inclusivity and address issues in a comprehensive manner, and those should be acknowledged. India was therefore constrained to abstain. Further, on OP2, we stress the need to avoid prejudging the future mandate of the Group, which will be considered by the upcoming review conference next month, on account of which we have abstained in the para. Chair, India abstained on the resolution L49. India supports the vision of a world free of anti-personnel landmines. and is committed to the eventual elimination. The availability of militarily effective alternative technologies that can perform cost-effectively the legitimate defensive role of anti-personnel landmines will considerably facilitate the goal of the complete elimination of anti-personnel mines. India is a high contracting party to AP2 of the CCW, which enshrines the approach of taking into account the legitimate defense requirements of states, especially those with long borders. India has fulfilled its obligations under AP2, including, inter alia, stopping the production of non-detectable landmines, as well as rendering all our anti-personnel landmines detectable. India is observing a moratorium on the export and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. Further, India regularly participates as an observer at the MSP to the APMBC. We remain committed to the increased international cooperation and assistance for mine clearance, as well as rehabilitation of mine victims. and has been and have been contributing technical assistance and expertise to this end. Finally, India abstained on the resolution L62 and a number of its preamble and operative paragraphs. India has established strong and effective national export controls with respect to the export of defense items. India subscribes to the objective of the ATT, and our export control system meets those objectives. As part of our commitment to international transparency measures, India submits an annual report under the UN Register on Conventional Arms for the same categories of conventional arms that are regulated under the ATT. India continues to keep the ATT under review from the perspective of our defense, security, and foreign policy interests. India was also constrained to abstain on PP11 because the extract drawn from Resolution 79/1 deals with matters which do not strictly fall within the purview of this committee. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [12:26]:

I thank the distinguished representative of India. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.


Russian Federation [12:36]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would like to explain our national position in terms of our vote on a number of drafts. There’s something we see as promising: the continuation of expert discussions on improvised explosive devices, IEDs. These weapons pose a serious humanitarian threat. We are advocate for continuing the consideration of this issue as part of the expert dialogue under the Additional Protocol II of the CCW, through coordinating efforts with other international initiatives and approaches in this area, as called for by the specialized resolutions of the UNGA and the Security Council. The work being done in the CCW on IEDs should be in keeping with the subject and the purposes of the Convention. We were prepared to join the consensus on document L-48, however. Because it was put to a vote, we had to abstain from the draft on the whole. At the same time, there's something we see as wildly inappropriate: the fact that the document is being saturated with gender and human rights aspects. These aspects have nothing to do with countering the threat of IEDs. That's why we also abstained on these paragraphs. We reiterate our critical view of the International Arms Trade Treaty. We continue to not have the intention to join this mechanism or to partake in any of its official events. That's because the standards this treaty lays out are substantially lower than Russia's. Furthermore, there are questions about how the treaty is applied in practice. There's something else that's widely unacceptable, a situation where its parties have continued directly or indirectly to supply military goods to conflict zones. And the situation when these self-same countries have talked about some positive contribution that the ATT has had on reducing conflicts in the world, that's simply ludicrous. Moreover, we don't think it's possible to find some synergies of the treaty with other documents on conventional weapons. Given the foregoing, we abstain from L62 and the separate paragraphs of other resolutions that mention the ATT. We also oppose paragraph PP10. The Russian Federation fully supports the further implementation of the United Nations Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trafficking in Small Arms and Light Weapons. This is the only specialized global document on combating the illicit trafficking in SALW, we have consistently advocated for strengthening the practical effect of the program, including by strengthening national controls throughout the life cycle of these weapons from their manufacturing to disposal. Given that, we supported L-47. We oppose in no uncertain terms what is set out in the Global Framework on conventional ammunition, language that is on certain political obligations that have to do with national ammunition stockpiles management. Controls here are the exclusive prerogative of states. However, the Russian Federation continues to significantly contribute at the national, regional, and global levels. Specifically, we do this in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the CIS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Given that, we were compelled to abstain from draft resolution L/64 and to abstain from certain paragraphs in other drafts that mention the global framework. Russia is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Primarily, that's because this document, from the very beginning, aimed to introduce discriminatory restrictions. The Cluster Munitions Convention bans completely cluster munitions, certain cluster munitions, but that's just performative. In actual fact, the market here is divided into bad weapons that are banned and certain other types of weapons that are called high-tech cluster munitions, and that fact is beneficial to a specific group of states, producers. We see in these actions a manifestation of double standards. We have serious concerns also about the cluster munitions being delivered to the area of the special military operation by certain NATO countries, including Russia's border areas. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [17:09]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Russian Federation. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia, to be followed by Argentina, Iran, Republic of Korea, and Uzbekistan.


Indonesia [17:21]:

Mr. Chair, I take the floor to explain Indonesia's position on the draft resolutions under cluster four. On draft resolution L62 on the Arms Trade Treaty, Indonesia voted in abstention. Indonesia also abstained on all references that were made to the ATT in the draft resolutions under this cluster. While recognizing efforts by the ATT for transparency and to regulate trade of conventional weapons, Indonesia maintains its long-standing position that the treaty should not impose undue restrictions on the legitimate needs of states to develop their national defense capabilities, especially those of developing countries. In our point of view, the provisions of the ATT do not adequately take into consideration the complex realities of intrastate conflicts. where sovereign states bear the responsibility to protect civilians and safeguard their national unity and territorial integrity, including in addressing threats posed by non-state actors. Mr. Chair, on the issue of lethal autonomous weapons, Indonesia welcomes the adoption of draft resolution L/37. The growing military application of artificial intelligence and increasing autonomy in weapons systems demand meaningful human judgment and control, accountability over the use of force, and full compliance with international law, including international humanitarian law. Indonesia reiterates its support for the development of a robust, legally binding instrument on lethal autonomous weapons system as establishing effective prohibitions and regulations. At the same time, we emphasize the importance of more inclusive and comprehensive discussions on this issue, which allow all Member States to contribute meaningfully to the process. I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [19:15]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina.


Argentina [19:25]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, I would like to refer to draft L-62, the Armstrait Treaty, operative paragraph 2 on the five-year strategy of the treaty. We state that we have supported that paragraph and the understanding that that is a draft made-up of provisional elements. which are fully open and with respect to which none of its parts has yet been approved. Secondly, Argentina separates from the content on Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development Goals in the subsequent L/47 operative 12 and 62, paragraph 9. Argentina recalls that the 2030 Agenda, to which it committed in good faith, is made-up by legally non-binding areas, and each State in the exercise of its sovereignty can continue to act. Furthermore, with regard to gender, mentioned in L/47, L/49, L/62, we state that Argentina understands that term as in the international law of treaties. that there are two sexes, masculine and feminine, in the context of society and according to the Rome Statute. Finally, with regard to L47, lethal autonomous weapons, Argentina abstained since it considers that the decision on some conventional weapons is the right forum for those debates, since this is an instrument whose purpose and logic have to do with the progressive development of international humanitarian law and allow for the constant evaluation of new technological and weapons This area is also important in terms of representation and experience, since it has been discussed for over a decade with some basic agreements achieved, including main states with technological development in the sector. Our country insists on the need for the discussion to be preserved in Geneva and not in New York, since there would be a risk of fragmenting what has been achieved and to double channel in the process of the CCW. It is important to maintain coordinated study, since this has to do with major technical advances. And finally, we believe that at the next review conference, that will be the right time to go more thoroughly into this topic. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [22:29]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Islamic Republic of Iran.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [22:38]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have taken the floor to explain the vote of my delegation. regarding the draft resolutions L/49 and L/60. Anti-personnel mines have been used irresponsibly during the civil wars in certain regions of the world and consequently have claimed a great number of innocent lives, particularly among women and children. We welcome every effort to stop this trend. However, the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention focuses primarily on humanitarian concerns and does not sufficiently take into account the legitimate military requirements of many countries, particularly those with extensive land borders, for the controlled and limited use of mines in the defence of their territories. Because of the difficulties related to monitoring extensive sensitive areas with established and permanent guarding posts, or effective warning systems, unfortunately, anti-personnel mines continue to be an effective means for those countries to ensure the minimum security requirements of their borders. While these defensive devices should be used under strictly established rules to protect civilians, more national and international efforts should also be made to explore new alternatives to such mines. My delegation appreciates the objectives of L/49, however, due to our particular concerns and considerations, we abstain from voting on this draft resolution. My delegation abstains on draft resolution L/60 for the following reasons: First, Iran did not participate in the negotiation of this instrument and is neither a signatory nor a party to it. Second, we cannot support an instrument that was negotiated outside the framework of the United Nations, in disregard of the legitimate security concerns and interests of many states. As a matter of principle, we believe that negotiations on disarmament issues, given their nature and their implications for the vital security interests of states, must be conducted through a balanced, comprehensive, transparent, and inclusive process based on consensus. This approach is essential, as underscored in the final document of SSOD I, to ensure the right of each State to security and to ensure that no individual State or group of States may obtain advantages over others at any stage. We share the view of many delegations that the Convention on Cluster Munitions was negotiated and concluded through an exclusive process outside the United Nations disarmament machinery, disregarding the concerns and interests of many States. Circumventing the established UN disarmament framework should not be permitted, nor should such a practice be encouraged or promoted by the General Assembly. Furthermore, My delegation expresses its grave concern that despite the repeated use of cluster munition by the Israeli regime against defenseless Palestinians, there has been no accountability or consequences to deter these brutal and inhuman acts. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [26:06]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Republic of Korea.


Republic of Korea [26:15]:

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to explain my delegation's position on draft resolution L/49 and L/60. First, with regard to the draft resolution L/49, the ROK fully share the humanitarian objectives of the Ottawa Convention and remain concerned about the humanitarian impact of the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines. However, due to the unique security situation on the Korean Peninsula, we have not yet acceded to the Convention and therefore abstain from voting for this resolution. This does not mean that we are less concerned about the severe challenges associated with indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines, and we are committed to mitigating the suffering caused by their use. In this respect, the Korean government has been on a steady path of anti-personnel mine clearance where possible. In 2025, we voluntarily removed 38 anti-personnel mines and six anti-tank mines over an area of 43,808 square meters in adherence to the International Mine Action Standards, IMAS. We also exercise strict control over anti-personnel mines and have maintained an indefinite extension of the moratorium on their export since 1997. In a similar vein, Korea has not laid any new landmines in recent years. In addition, the ROK is a party to the CCW and its amended Protocol II, under which we are participating in a range of discussions and activities to ensure the limited and responsible use of existing mines. On the domestic front, my government has also made efforts to institutionalize the mine clearance activities. Law on mine response activities, including mine clearance, was enacted in February 2024. In accordance with the Special Act on the Support for Mine Victims, the Korean government provided more than 1.4 million U.S. dollars in compensations and subsidies to persons and their surviving family affected by mine accidents between 1953 and 2012. Moreover, my government has also been actively taking part in international cooperative efforts to assist mine victims through bilateral and multilateral channels, including the UN Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in Mine Action and the International Trust Fund for Enhancing Human Security. Since 1993, we have contributed over 99 million US dollars to support global mine action activities. The ROK will continue to contribute to the international efforts for mine clearance and victim assistance. Turning to draft resolution L/60, the ROK fully shares the concerns of the international community about the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions and supports its efforts to address the humanitarian problems arising from their use. However, due to the unique security situation on the Korean Peninsula, my government is currently not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and therefore has abstained from voting for this draft resolution. Taking this opportunity, my delegation would like to share with Member States that the Ministry of National Defense of the ROK adopted a directive on cluster munitions in 2028, which includes measures for limited and responsible use of cluster munitions. According to the directive, only the cluster munitions that are equipped with self-deactivation devices and with less than 1% failure rate can be included in the acquisition plans. The directive also recommends developing alternative weapon systems to replace cluster munitions in the long term. While it is regrettable that we are unable to support the resolution at this moment, the ROK will continue its effort to mitigate the humanitarian concerns associated with the use of cluster munitions in a constructive manner. I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [30:09]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Uzbekistan.


Uzbekistan [30:36]:

Excuse me, sir.

We didn't ask the floor.


1st Committee · Chair [30:42]:

Okay. Distinguished delegates, we have just heard from the last speaker for the explanation of vote after the vote on cluster 4, conventional weapons. The Committee will now take up the draft resolutions and decisions under cluster 5 as contained in informal paper Now I shall give the floor to the delegations wishing to make either a general statement or to introduce new or revised drafts under cluster 5, other disarmament measures. Statements are limited to five minutes. With this, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Trinidad and Tobago.


Trinidad and Tobago [31:34]:

Mr. Chair, Trinidad and Tobago is pleased to introduce our draft resolution on women disarmament, non-proliferation, and arms control to be considered under this cluster. The resolution reaffirms the crucial role of women in advancing international peace and security, and recognizes that their full, equal, and meaningful and safe participation is essential to effective disarmament, non-proliferation, and arms control efforts. It also underscores the disproportionate impact that the illicit proliferation and misuse of conventional weapons can have on women and girls, and calls for greater gender-responsive approaches in policy and decision-making. Through this resolution, we seek to strengthen commitments to women’s leadership, enhance international cooperation, and promote inclusive disarmament processes that reflect the experiences and contributions of all members of society. My delegation notes that the resolution is only technical updates. However, we assert that the resolution, which is already biennial in nature, is important to continue to call for and amplify the important role of women in disarmament processes, while simultaneously addressing the impact of conflicts on women and girls. Trinidad and Tobago takes this opportunity to thank all additional co-sponsors and request the broadest possible support for this resolution and the contents therein. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [33:06]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Trinidad and Tobago. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Netherlands.


Netherlands (Kingdom of the) [33:23]:

I would like to introduce Draft resolution L/34, entitled “Artificial intelligence in the military domain and its implications for international peace and security”, tabled by the Republic of Korea and my own country, the Kingdom of the Netherlands. One of the many takeaways of this first committee is that artificial intelligence is very much on our agenda. demonstrated not only by the remarks of the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Madam Izumi Nakamitsu, and the interventions of a large number of delegations, but also by a sizeable number of side events. These discussions and current developments make clear that military applications of AI, or how you may call it, are no longer hypothetical. They are increasingly becoming part of defence capabilities worldwide. The applied technologies bring both opportunities and risks. They can be benign, but also be monsters. Used responsibly, IA can contribute to enhancing compliance with international law, improve situational awareness, and reduce the risk of certain human errors. At the same time, if developed or deployed without sufficient safeguards, AI in the military domain can increase the risk of misunderstanding, miscalculation, and unintended escalation with serious consequences for international peace and security. The resolution we have put forward does not prescribe an outcome of the process envisaged, nor does it launch formal negotiations on standards or norms. Instead, it supports a step-by-step, inclusive process through which UN Member States can develop or further develop their own positions based on national policies, compare approaches, and reflect together on possible future steps as their knowledge and understanding of AI grows. Chair, the core aim of the resolution is to build confidence and trust. among states, while addressing risks through greater transparency and fostering dialogue. We are grateful that again, around 60 UN member states have joined as co-sponsors this year, confirming broad, cross-regional recognition that both the opportunities and the risks of military AI must be addressed collectively. I would like to thank in particular the members of the core group for their efforts in shaping the text as it now is. as well as for their efforts to gather the support needed in the room. Chair, let me conclude by inviting all delegations to support this resolution, which provides a unique platform within the General Assembly to address the broader implications of artificial intelligence in the military domain for international peace and security. I thank you for giving me the floor.


1st Committee · Chair [36:24]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Netherlands. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of United States.


United States of America [36:35]:

Chair, I take the floor to provide a general statement and to introduce the resolution L17 on compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation, and disarmament agreements and commitments. We appreciate the broad co-sponsorship of this resolution, which reflects the importance of this issue. The purpose of this resolution is straightforward: we believe that compliance by Member States with their non-proliferation, arms limitation, and disarmament obligations is essential to regional and global peace, security, and stability. Compliance is not a peripheral issue, but a foundational one for the international security architecture. Confidence in compliance is essential if the goals of these agreements are to be realized. Yet today, persistent noncompliance by some is weakening implementation of multilateral agreements, and thereby increasing the risk of global security. A treaty without full compliance cannot provide the full measure of confidence towards maintaining and improving international peace and security that its States Parties intended. Member States widely recognize the importance of accountability. Further, Member States broadly agree on the need for effective verification, compliance, and enforcement mechanisms, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Several countries pose compliance challenges with respect to their nonproliferation, arms limitation, and disarmament obligations. Now is the time to send a clear signal that compliance is vital to international peace and security. This resolution sends that signal. We respectfully request that all delegations vote yes on and co-sponsor L17. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [38:32]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.


Mexico [38:42]:

Thank you, Chairman. Mexico is pleased to introduce L-14, United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education. Education is a fundamental tool to move toward a more peaceful and sure world. It is not just transmitting knowledge, but having critical thinking, having awareness of the risks of weapons, and promote a culture of peace. in particular among the new generations. Draft L.14 offers continuity to recommendations of the United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education, and encourages States, international organizations, academia, and civil society to strengthen implementation. At the same time, it encourages international cooperation and exchange of knowledge and capacity development through training programs, educational resources, and digital tools to expand the scope and the impact of disarmament and non-proliferation education. Mexico is thankful to delegations that participated in the consultations and shared their comments in good faith, which were duly considered in preparing the draft. We also recognize the delegations that expressed support for this initiative during discussions of the Commission. It is important to note that Mexico has submitted this resolution biennially since its beginning, which reflects our commitment to efficiency and the rationalization of the work of the First Committee. and tries to maintain a concise and up-to-date text. Mexico invites everyone to vote in favor of L/14 and its paragraphs, thus reaffirming the commitment of the international community to the building of a more peaceful and safe world. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [40:54]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.


Cuba [41:04]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The delegation of Cuba would like to make a general statement under the cluster on other disarmament measures and international security. Cuba will join the joint statement by Russia, and a like-minded group of countries. We encourage all delegations to support draft resolutions presented by NAM under this cluster, that is, L/44, relationship between disarmament and development; L/45, observance of environmental standards and the elaboration and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements; L/36, promotion of multilateralism and disarmament and non-proliferation; and L/41, effects of the use of arms and munitions of depleted uranium, we urge all delegations to vote in favor of draft L/69, promotion of international cooperation and the peaceful uses in the context of international security. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [42:06]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Pakistan.


Pakistan [42:16]:

Thank you, Chair. I'm taking the floor to make general statement on the draft resolution contained in document L/69. Science and technology are key enablers and accelerators for the achievement of sustainable development. We have consistently called for an equitable, non-discriminatory, and criteria-based approach to advance universally shared goals of nonproliferation and promotion of peaceful uses of technology, materials, equipment, and scientific information. In our view, considerations of safety and security facilitate, not hinder, the pursuit of peaceful uses of technology towards promoting the development agenda. Chair, unfortunately, developing countries continue to face considerable obstacles for legitimate access to, uses of, and exchanges in science and technology for peaceful purposes. Derogation from non-proliferation norms and discriminatory exceptions for political and strategic interests has undermined the credibility and legitimacy of the existing export control regimes. The situation should be addressed both from normative and practical standpoints. In this respect, the initiative of promoting international cooperation on peaceful uses in context of international security holds great value for member states. The draft text highlights the significance of safeguarding legitimate rights of all states to peaceful uses. It urges all member states, without prejudice to their non-proliferation obligations, to take concrete measures to promote international cooperation in materials, equipment, and technology for peaceful purposes. The draft resolution highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive and holistic approach to strike a proper balance between nonproliferation efforts and promoting peaceful uses of science and technology for the benefit of all nations and peoples. The initiative supports continued dialogue on promoting peaceful uses and related international cooperation including by identifying gaps and challenges, as well as ideas and opportunities for strengthening cooperation and exploring possible ways forward. The UN remains the most representative multilateral institution and should play a central role in the context of promoting international cooperation on peaceful uses in the context of international security. We encourage all Member States to vote in favor of the draft resolution. I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [45:10]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Pakistan. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Republic of Korea.


Republic of Korea [45:19]:

Chair, the Republic of Korea, together with the Kingdom of the Netherlands, is proud to once again introduced draft resolution L34, titled Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain and Its Implications for International Peace and Security. More than two years have passed since we launched this initiative. Over this period, the global AI landscape has evolved dramatically. The application of AI in the military domain is accelerating at an unprecedented pace, and its growing use in armed conflicts underscores both its potential benefits and serious risks. Today, we believe it's both urgent and essential for the international community to discuss the future of AI in the military domain. Against this backdrop, we have introduced three key updates to this year's resolution to pave the way forward. First, we propose convening three-day structured dialogues in 2027 and 2028. Our informal exchanges in Geneva this June provided a valuable opportunity for member states and other stakeholders to share diverse perspectives. Building on this experience, we believe that the structured dialogues supported by UNODA will provide a more focused and step-by-step approach to addressing the opportunities and challenges of AI in the military domain. These dialogues will also allow Member States to exchange views on possible next steps for future work within the United Nations. Second, We encourage practical efforts to promote knowledge sharing and awareness raising, including through the compilation of a descriptive lexicon and the development of scenario-based exercises. These activities will help bridge gaps in the understanding of AI in the military domain and provide a stronger foundation for future discussions. Third, we welcome the establishment of UNITARE's Center of Excellence on AI, Peace, and Security. We believe the Centre can make a valuable contribution to capacity building and research, and we invite Member States to support its work. Finally, we intend to move towards a biennial cycle for this resolution, allowing more time for substantive discussions and follow-up activities whose outcomes can feed into future resolutions. This resolution provides a unique platform within the General Assembly for addressing the broader implications of AI in the military domain for international peace and security. It is important that we demonstrate, through continued broad support for this resolution, our collective willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and cooperation on this increasingly pressing issue. We encourage all Member States to join as co-sponsors of this resolution and to continue their active support for this important initiative. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [48:03]:

I thank the distinguished representative of ROK. Before I give the floor to another delegation, may I request the delegations conducting consultations in the hall to kindly do so outside the room, so that the speakers can be heard clearly. Thank you for your understanding on this matter. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Russian Federation.


Russian Federation · Belarus, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Iran, China, DPRK, Cuba, Lao PDR, Mali, Niger, Nicaragua and the Russian Federation [48:34]:

Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates, the Russian Federation submitted a draft decision on strengthening the system of agreements on arms control, disarmament and arms control. We also, as you know, the Russian Federation, together with a group of co-sponsors, submitted to this First Committee a draft resolution under the agenda item on achievements in ICT in the context of international security. We have fruitfully worked with delegations. We have received a lot of positive feedback, and we were prepared to vote. However, taking into account the desires of the distinguished Chair of the Global Mechanism on International Information Security, together with the co-sponsors, we decided to provide a gesture of goodwill and change the format of the document, changing it into a joint statement at this session of the GA. I’d like to emphasize that Russia initiated this agenda item. That was back in 1998, and regularly we have submitted draft resolutions affirming that were adopted at the GA, we’ve traditionally advocated for forming a single, permanent, universal negotiations platform on international information security. We played a very constructive role in creating the Global Mechanism, which was launched this year. So we support – so we reiterate our support for the draft procedural decision of the GA from El Salvador, acting as chair of the Global Mechanism. We’re convinced that the content of this document, as of its format, is a constructive contribution to our joint work on international information security at the UN. Its goal is to ensure political support for the work of the Global Mechanism and its chair, and also to provide something very useful and very much needed that is the first of its kind initiative on taking actions to address computerized attacks under UN auspices in order to bolster the capacity of developing countries. We urge all Member States to support the initiative to hold exercises and also to support our efforts in implementing it and practically making a contribution to the work of the global mechanism and that of its Chairman. Considering the foregoing, we'd like to read an extract from a joint statement. It's on behalf of Belarus, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Iran, China, the DPRK, Cuba, the Lao DPR, Mali, Niger, Nicaragua, the Russian Federation. We welcome the creation and the beginning of the work of the global mechanism established by the UNGA pursuant to resolution 80/16. We reaffirm the central role of the global mechanism as a permanent instrument for maintaining dialogue on security in the use of ICT. emphasize the importance of the principle of consensus as the cornerstone of the work of the global mechanism, as well as the consideration of the opinions and interests of absolutely all Member States of the UN when discussing security and in the use of ICTs and ICTs themselves. acknowledge the importance of further discussions to develop legally binding norms of international law in the digital realm and the formation of mechanisms for implementing, and also the general understanding that international law can apply to the use of ICTs and how existing standards can be adapted to the specifics of the information realm. We’re concerned about the impact of AI on security and the use of ICTs, and we recognize that all states have an interest in discussing these issues further in the global mechanism. We also note the importance of further consistent and gradual improvement of the global POC registry, and we underscore the importance of the good faith use of this instrument by states to strengthen trust and establish feedback, including through computer emergency response teams. We underscore the importance of digital sovereignty and the fact that every state can choose itself its sovereign path of developing ICTs, including AI. And we note the fact that capacity building is significantly important for international security, for the cooperation of states, and for building confidence in terms of security and the use of ICTs, and that capacity building respecting national needs and priorities of states, should foster the use of ICTs for peaceful purposes. We underscore the fact that in the global mechanism, further discussions are needed and decisions seeking at concrete efforts to build capacity in the use of ICT. We support Russia's initiative to hold with extra-budgetary resources exercises under the auspices of the UN on addressing computerized attacks, aiming at bridging the digital The full text of this...


1st Committee · Chair [53:35]:

Your microphone has been cut off.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of El Salvador.


El Salvador · Chair of the Global Mechanism [53:48]:

Thank you, Chairman. El Salvador has the honor to introduce draft resolution L/8, entitled Global Mechanism on Developments in the Area of Information and Communication Technologies in the Context of International Security and Advance Responsible State behavior, this is a significant achievement of the international community, the result of more than two decades of efforts and intergovernmental negotiations in the framework of the United Nations. It is important to underscore that this agreement was achieved by consensus and is the common basis on which all Member States have the responsibility to continue to build. Chair, the draft resolution we are introducing has a strictly institutional and procedural purpose. Firstly, it welcomes the start of the work of the Global Mechanism, which met for the first time in March and its first plenary substantive session in July this year. Secondly, we reiterate the request of the Secretary-General to provide the necessary support for the operation of all the components of the mechanism, including the specific clusters, whose first meetings are planned for 7 to 11 December this year, in keeping with the functions and the scope that have been agreed. And this will be included in the provisional programme of the next session of the General Assembly. This draft is brief, deliberately, and that's because of a fundamental consideration: the global mechanism should develop its work in accordance with the modalities agreed to by Member States. We also wish to reiterate that this draft resolution is not open for sponsorship. This decision has to do with our conviction that the global mechanism belongs to all Member States, and its consolidation should be based on collective support without distinctions between co-sponsors or non-co-sponsors. We believe that the adoption by consensus of a unified approach is the best expression of our shared commitment to this new permanent forum, and to preserve the spirit of cooperation that made it possible, we wish to express our sincere gratitude to all Member States for being available for dialogue, flexibility, and commitment toward maintaining a unified approach at this initial stage of the global mechanism. We particularly value the efforts made to preserve consensus and to strengthen the basis of this process. Again, this is something that belongs to all. Its consolidation is shared responsibility. We are at the beginning of a new stage. The mechanism requires time and space, institutional space, to consolidate itself, to finish its first cycle of activities, and to allow delegations to examine its proposals in the form that we have established for that purpose. We believe that the exchanges that will take place at the coming meetings of the specific clusters and at the next substantive plenary session will provide useful elements to guide future discussions, including the consideration of substantive procedures of this General Assembly. This approach does not intend to limit any Member State or prejudge debates. It tries to preserve a common space in which all delegations can participate on an equal footing and contribute to building shared commitments. Chair, we wish to underscore that consensus has been a fundamental principle in the development of this process, necessary to guarantee that the global mechanism will be a credible, inclusive, and effective forum. El Salvador, the chair, maintains its commitment to facilitate a transparent, impartial, and open process, open to all Member States. In this spirit, we submit draft resolution L/8, convinced that it is a timely contribution to support the work of the global mechanism. Thank you very much.


1st Committee · Chair [58:42]:

I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.


China [58:53]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have the honour to introduce draft resolution L/96. entitled "Promoting International Cooperation on Peaceful Uses in the Context of International Security" submitted by China. The draft resolution aims to strengthen the role of the United Nations, promote dialogue and cooperation, strike a balance between nonproliferation and peaceful uses, safeguard the legitimate rights of all countries to the peaceful uses of science and technology, and effectively address the security challenges arising from scientific and technological developments. Since 2021, The resolution submitted by China, entitled "Promoting International Cooperation on Peaceful Uses in the Context of International Security," has been adopted by the GA on three occasions. It has received broad support from developing countries and has reflected the collective call for enhanced cooperation on peaceful uses. Today, emerging technologies such as AI are developing rapidly and have become a key driver of sustainable socio-economic development worldwide. Countries, particularly developing countries, aspire to harness scientific and technological innovation to upgrade industries, improve people's livelihood and well-being, and bridge the digital and intelligent divide. Against this backdrop, China's draft resolution will help promote the inclusive sharing of emerging technologies and safeguard the rights and interests of developing countries in the peaceful uses of science and technology. China has noted that some countries have focused on the relationship between the right to peaceful uses and export controls, and have misrepresented the original intent behind China's draft resolution. China wishes to emphasize that promoting peaceful uses and advancing international nonproliferation efforts are mutually reinforcing and can proceed in parallel. Export controls are an important means for countries to reduce security risks and achieve nonproliferation objectives. At the same time, safeguarding the right to peaceful uses helps clarify the boundaries of control measures, alleviate the concerns of developing countries, strengthen confidence in the international nonproliferation regime, and enhance the effectiveness of nonproliferation efforts. Safeguarding the right to peaceful uses does not prevent countries from fulfilling their nonproliferation obligations or exercising their rights to implement export controls. Countries have the sovereign right to impose export controls on national security grounds. The draft does not challenge the legitimacy or legality of necessary export control policies adopted by countries. Rather, it opposes unreasonable and discriminatory restrictions on items and technologies, particularly excessive control measures targeting developing countries. China wishes to thank countries that have co-sponsored and supported the draft resolution, as well as those that have actively participated in the consultations. We call upon all Member States to continue supporting draft resolution L/69 and all its paragraphs. We look forward to continuing open and inclusive dialogue within the framework of the United Nations, advancing the full and effective implementation of the resolution, and safeguarding the legitimate rights of all countries to peaceful uses and to international cooperation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:02:29]:

I thank the distinguished representative of China, distinguished delegates. Before the Committee proceeds to take actions on the draft resolutions and decisions in cluster 5, we will now hear from the delegations wishing to explain their positions on those drafts. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ireland, to be followed by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, Iran, Algeria, Belgium, Cuba, Belarus.


Ireland · EU [1:03:02]:

Chair, I have the honour to deliver this explanation of vote on behalf of the EU and its member states. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the EFTA countries Iceland and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom align themselves with this statement. Our delegations will vote against draft resolution L/69, submitted to the First Committee by China and entitled “Promoting international cooperation on peaceful uses in the context of international security”. We also call upon other Member States to do so. This resolution builds upon resolutions 76/234, 77/96 and 79/80, reinforcing a central message with which we fundamentally disagree: Divergent views and serious concerns have been expressed consistently since the adoption of resolution 76/234 in 2021, including during the informal consultations this year. Several EU member states took part in the consultations convened by the sponsor both in Geneva and in New York, and we thank China for organizing them. We proposed specific amendments. The concerns expressed are unfortunately insufficiently reflected in the draft text. And on several points, this text has moved further away from what we could support. Our countries are committed to the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials, and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, and back that commitment with resources. We are among the largest contributors to the IAEA technical cooperation program and to the OPCW's international cooperation activities. We also support partner countries with capacity building for their own export control systems, as required by Security Council Resolution 1540. We agree with preambular paragraph 6 that development and international security are mutually reinforcing. Our difficulty is that the resolution does not reflect some of the consequences of that statement. It continues to suggest a false dichotomy between peaceful uses and non-proliferation export controls. In fact, such controls serve as the conditions that allow sensitive items to be transferred with confidence. Multilateral export control arrangements set common guidelines and control lists, which give exporting states the assurance they need to supply trusted recipients. The multilateral export control arrangements, namely the Australia Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the Wassenaar Arrangement, together with the Zanger Committee, support the implementation of the NPT, the CWC, the BTWC, and Security Council Resolution 1540. Through decades of technical work, they have identified the items the misuse or unauthorized use of which could contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery. Their guidelines and lists facilitate international trade by providing exporting states with the assurances needed to supply sensitive items to trusted recipients. They contribute to international peace and security by preventing the diversion of sensitive materials, equipment, and technology to end users of concern. No reliable evidence, including in the report of the Secretary-General contained in A/77/96, supports the claim that existing export controls are excessive or undue. The expertise built up in the arrangements cannot be recreated from scratch. An attempt to do so within the United Nations would put at risk a system that delivers for international security. Chair, on specific provisions of this resolution: First, we cannot accept the suggestion in preambular paragraph 18 that non-proliferation arrangements are used to impose undue restrictions or unilateral coercive measures. Second, preambular paragraph 20 would apply uniform criteria to decisions taken under the export control arrangements. Licensing decisions, however, are of national competence, case by case and risk-based. Third, OP 3 addresses the very instruments through which states implement their non-proliferation obligations, including under Resolution 1540. Unlike OP 1, it does not specify that it applies “without prejudice to their non-proliferation obligations.” Basic scientific research and information in the public domain are already excluded from control. Fourth, OP.4 removes “as appropriate” from language agreed in resolution 79/80. It also places further dialogue “within the universal framework of the United Nations” and omits the reference in PP.22 to “existing mechanisms and arrangements”. Chair, we remain ready to continue this dialogue with all delegations, including with the sponsor. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:07:48]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Ireland. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.


United States of America [1:07:56]:

Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take the floor. The United States must vote no on draft resolution L/69, promoting international cooperation on peaceful uses in the context of international security. The United States firmly believes critical and emerging technologies hold the promise to enrich lives, create prosperity, and solve global challenges. We want to work with countries to harness their potential. This access to sensitive technology, however, must be paired with measures that provide exporters with confidence that goods will not be misused, misappropriated, or diverted to programs that undermine international security. The United States has voted against this resolution in the past. Unfortunately, the text not only fails to address the concerns we have consistently raised, but also raises further concerns by including many new provisions that would seek to interfere in the work of independent treaty bodies and international arrangements. The draft text further encourages member states to take steps that go beyond states' commitments and would interfere in member states' legitimate sovereign decisions. We oppose the inclusion of language encouraging Member States to do certain things, such as formulating purported guiding principles. We note the existing obligations of States Parties to the NPT, the BWC, and the CWC, as well as the obligations of Member States under UN Security Council Resolution 1540, all of which aim to prevent a nation's exports from undermining international peace and security. Such obligations each come in a particular context and form part of broader instruments. The text of this resolution seeks to call for more general approaches relating to science and technology that ignore the specific obligations and the context in which they are established. We reject this approach. Instead, it is for States Parties within the frameworks of the relevant instruments to address the relevant provisions. I also want to address our concerns with the text that, quote, "calls upon all Member States to refrain from using nonproliferation arrangements to constrain peaceful uses of science and technology and basic scientific research," close quote. The notion that multilateral export control regimes constrain sharing science and technology for peaceful uses or limit basic scientific research is false. The United States, for example, is a leader in facilitating worldwide access to nuclear energy, science, and technologies for peaceful uses, including through the IAEA and in compliance with multilateral export control regimes. The United States promotes civil nuclear cooperation and uses frameworks for the transfer of nuclear materials and equipment for peaceful use purposes. Moreover, the United States is also deploying full-stack superintelligence export packages worldwide, led by industry consortia and backed by U.S. federal financing tools where needed. The United States believes this resolution would undermine international cooperation in science and technology. All countries should benefit from cutting-edge technologies, which hold the promise to enrich lives, create prosperity, and solve global challenges. Yet new technologies also create new risks and could contribute to the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Thus, countries need to cooperate within multilateral structures to ensure the safe transfer of these technologies for peaceful uses. Nonproliferation export control regimes are critical for implementing their associated treaties. This resolution would lead to an erosion of those vitally important regimes. There is no evidence the existing nonproliferation agreements and regimes hamper the international exchange of technology or hinder a country's economic development. Given our serious concerns with this resolution, we must vote no and urge others to do so as well. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:12:14]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland · France, the United Kingdom and the United States [1:12:23]:

Chair, the United Kingdom is delivering this explanation of position on behalf of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. On L/44, we continue to question the notions implied in a symbiotic relationship between disarmament and economic development, and of a diversion of military expenditures from development needs. We want to make three things clear: first, conditions conducive to effective arms control and disarmament are not dependent on development only; second, in some cases, defence investments are necessary to uphold peace and security, which facilitates economic development; and third, economic development contributes to the capacity for effective arms control and disarmament. Defence investments deliver peace and security, and in return facilitate economic development. On L/45, regarding environmental norms, we want to make clear that our three countries operate under stringent domestic environmental impact regulations. We see no direct connection, as implied in this resolution, between general environmental standards and multilateral arms control. In resolution L/57, We underscore that the rights referenced in this resolution are those specified in the CWC, the BTWC, and the NPT, which can only be understood in the context of the nonproliferation obligations under those treaties. As PP5 makes clear, States must exercise those rights in accordance with international obligations, including their nonproliferation obligations under those treaties. None of these three treaties recognizes an inherent, unconditional right to technology or a right to sensitive materials that entitles a state to obtain such technologies or materials from other states. Indeed, this is why nonproliferation tools remain critical. Simply put, nonproliferation tools build confidence among trusted partners and facilitate peaceful cooperation. On L41, we stressed that the environmental and long-term health effects of the use of depleted uranium munitions are not new issues and have been thoroughly investigated by a number of our domestic agencies as well as international organizations. While investigations are still ongoing, none of these inquiries have documented long-term environmental or health effects attributable to the use of these munitions. We continue to support and monitor active surveillance of veterans most affected by depleted uranium exposure to address uncertainties and potential health concerns. It is therefore regrettable that the lack of negative environmental or health findings has been consistently ignored. Given the lack of tangible evidence of significant long-term effects, we do not believe that Member States should be bound by any additional depleted uranium-specific obligations. We therefore do not support UN resolutions that do not adequately reflect the existing body of medical research and mischaracterize depleted uranium as posing a long-term environmental or health hazard. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:15:34]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.


Russian Federation [1:15:44]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, we would like to explain our position on document L/36, promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and nonproliferation. We didn't ask for a vote on this draft. We support it, and that's why in the ninth version of the table, our country is indicated incorrectly in this agenda item. We also want to explain the position of our delegation on L/34. artificial intelligence in the military domain and its implications for international peace and security. We view the draft – we see the idea of a structured dialogue, OP 12 and OP 14, as an attempt to formalize discussions at the UN. Considering the agenda item, the discussion is going to focus on something proposed by Western groups of states, the context of the responsible use of these technologies, based on something controversial and foreign to international law, something that hasn't garnered consensus, that is criteria. This concept is designed to strengthen the leadership of a group of countries in this area and impose on the international community exclusive rules and standards that would give these states a free hand and restrain the development of such technology by unfavorable countries. It seems that the summary of the discussion is going to be prepared by the UN Secretariat. So possibilities of member states to have an influence over the content of this document, which later on could be used as a basis for a further discussion of the military use of this technology in our global organization, these opportunities will be very restricted. We also think that the structured dialogue is of dubious added value. It will require additional financial resources. We’re in a liquidity crisis at the UN, so we think this is wasteful. The Russian Federation has an interest in a substantive discussion of these issues in the military realm, in the relevant international venues. We are pleased with the GGE of the States Parties to the CCW on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. considering the military use in the context of the GGE is broad, and it doesn’t only boil down to laws, and it discusses a number of issues, including law, inter alia, that has to do with the use of this technology for military purposes. As for the UN, then the ideal place is the Disarmament Commission, as we see it. We believe the dialogue should be based on consensus and inclusivity, and it should be intergovernmental. Only provided these conditions are met can significant concrete results be achieved in this area. Now, resolution LP 4. We welcome welcome what's being done here, the informal consultations on a summary, that's A/81. And this document was prepared without the participation of delegations and is only the opinion of the UN Secretariat. For us, what should be the guiding document should be is the compilation of AAC181/5. The draft resolution also emphasizes risks and threats posed by the use of new technologies, PP6, PP9, PP16, and human rights aspects, PP1, OP1, are issued, provided on equal footing with other issues. We think that's inappropriate. We're convinced that the use of these technologies in weapons could substantially enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of missions being carried out. It could decrease the liability of oversights and mistakes. We also think it's we also have an opinion on the participation of other stakeholders. Given this fact, we are going to vote against the draft resolution on the whole and against a number of its paragraphs, and will abstain on PP2, PP6, OP3, OP4, OP5, and OP6.


1st Committee · Chair [1:20:45]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for her statement.

I recognize the distinguished representative of Islamic Republic of Iran.

You have the floor.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:20:57]:

My delegation must vote against draft resolution L/17, entitled “Compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements and commitments.” The United States has no standing to appoint itself the guardian of compliance. A state cannot credibly demand accountability from others while placing itself above the law. Compliance is a legal obligation, not a political weapon against adversaries or a privilege for allies. Existing treaties already establish their own compliance mechanisms. A General Assembly resolution cannot replace these arrangements or confer upon individual States authority to determine the compliance of others. This draft does not advance compliance; it weaponizes it. turning international obligations into instruments of political coercion, selective condemnation, and double standards. Rather than strengthening existing mechanisms, it risks creating another platform for selectively scrutinizing states. The credibility of a compliance initiative cannot exceed the credibility of its sponsor. The United States’ own record is a striking indictment of this initiative. The United States is the only state ever to have used nuclear weapons. It continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal while failing, for more than five decades, to fulfill its disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT. Its President’s call for renewed nuclear testing further exposed the contradiction between its rhetoric and conduct. There can be no credible discussion of compliance that emphasizes nonproliferation while marginalizing disarmament. Article 2 cannot overshadow or excuse the persistent failure to fulfill Article 6. Nonproliferation cannot be demanded indefinitely while nuclear disarmament is indefinitely deferred. This double standard is particularly evident in the case of Iran. The U.S., alongside the Israeli regime, committed acts of aggression against Iran in 2025 and 2026, including attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. What credibility can a state claim when it invokes nonproliferation while attacking facilities protected by international safeguards? Any genuine discussion of compliance must also address the protection of peaceful nuclear activities against military attacks. A framework that scrutinizes states for exercising their treaty rights while remaining silent on such attacks is fundamentally incomplete and discriminatory. The same selectivity is evident in the Middle East. As a co-sponsor of the 1995 NPT resolution on Middle East, The U.S. has a particular responsibility to advance a zone free of nuclear weapons and other WMDs in the region. Instead, it obstructs progress while shielding the Israeli regime’s military nuclear program, which remains outside the NPT and beyond comprehensive IAEA safeguards. The U.S. also unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA despite Iran’s verified implementation of its nuclear-related commitments. It further obstructed the adoption of the agenda of the 2026 Disarmament Commission, preventing substantive work from commencing. These actions underscore its disregard for multilateral commitments and processes. This is the fundamental contradiction of draft resolution L/17. Its sponsor demands compliance from others while disregarding its own obligations and shielding its allies from scrutiny. International law is not a menu. Treaties are not binding only when politically convenient. Compliance and accountability must apply equally to all states, without exception or political selectivity. Let me emphasize: we don’t oppose compliance; we oppose its politicization. We don’t oppose accountability; we oppose double standards. The First Committee must remain a forum for genuine multilateral deliberations, not a platform for unilateral assessments and politically motivated allegations. For this reason, my delegation categorically rejects draft resolution S/17 and calls upon all delegations to vote against it. We must not allow this text to legitimize double standards or provide political cover past and future coercive policies and unlawful actions by the U.S. and its allies. I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:25:55]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria.


Algeria [1:26:05]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation has asked for the floor to explain its vote before the vote on on draft resolution L/34, entitled “Artificial intelligence in the military domain and its implications for international peace and security”. We would like to express our sincere thanks to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea for their considerable effort on preparing this important text. My delegation, Algeria, will vote in favor of the resolution as a whole, recognizing the importance of establishing an international framework to address the opportunities and challenges related to the use of AI in the military domain. We particularly appreciate Excuse me, there is a technical problem, says the speaker. Can we hold the timer? Or I will speak on behalf of the group after that. Thank you. We particularly appreciate the emphasis placed in the resolution as a whole, recognizing that the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law fully applies to artificial intelligence in the military domain. This is a fundamental principle that should guide all developments and applications of AI in military systems. However, Algeria will abstain on some paragraphs of the draft resolution for the following reasons. First, Algeria notes that there is no agreed language or definition agreed upon under the UN framework regarding some notions mentioned in the resolution. The lack of clarity and consensus on terminology could lead to varying interpretations and potential misuse. Such terminologies, while apparently attractive, remain ambiguous and could be subject to divergent interpretations. In the absence of a clear and consensual definition of these notions, such as what constitutes responsible application in the military context, we are concerned that this could be used selectively or serve to legitimize certain uses of military AI without sufficient guarantees. Second, we believe that compliance with international law provides a more objective and established framework for assessing the legality of military AI applications. We would like to emphasize that Such notions and concepts should have been left for future discussions within the United Nations framework. The inclusion of undefined terms at such an early stage may prejudge the outcome of forthcoming delegations. We must recall that this is still an emerging issue. Therefore, we should approach these discussions carefully, allowing for thorough consideration. and development of shared understandings of their key concepts. Preemptively including specific terminology or approaches may constrain the scope and effectiveness of future discussions. Algeria emphasizes that the development and use of any AI systems in the military domain must strictly comply with international law, including international humanitarian law principles such as distinction, proportionality, and precaution. Algeria remains committed to international efforts aimed at ensuring that the development and use of AI in the military domain contribute to, rather than compromise, international peace and security. We will continue to participate constructively in future discussions on this important issue, within the United Nations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:30:41]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belgium.


Belgium [1:30:50]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Belgium supports resolution L/41, effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium. On the 11th of May 2007, Belgium approved a law. That law classifies as prohibited weapons inert munitions and armor plating containing depleted uranium or any other type of generalized industrial uranium. It entered into force in 2009. This makes us the first country in the world to have banned this type of weapon due to the principles of precaution and care. Indeed, the adoption of our law was preceded by parliamentary hearings. Scientific experts spoke at them. Various viewpoints were expressed about the evaluation of the danger to health and the environment through the use of weapons containing depleted uranium. Belgium is placing great attention on any developments in the scientific analysis of dangers linked to the use of depleted weapons systems. That includes studies carried out on this issue at the international level. Belgium hopes that the resolution that we’re adopting today in the First Committee will help to fuel a better understanding at the international level of possible effects from depleted uranium munitions, so as to produce in timely fashion a common assessment. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:32:12]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Belgium. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.


Cuba [1:32:21]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Cuban delegation will join in the consensus on the draft resolution L/8 on the global mechanism in the area of ICTs and in the context of international security and the promotion of responsible behavior by states in the use of ICTs and communications technologies. draft resolution, we welcome it. It reiterates the request of the Secretary General to provide necessary support for its operation, including the work of the clusters that will meet from the 7th to the 11th of December 2026. The Cuban delegation actively worked to contribute to this on the basis of our firm commitment to toward the working group, a forum created on the proposal of Russia and a group of like-minded countries, including Cuba. We attach great importance to this for developing countries. We are grateful to delegations for agreeing to this despite diverse positions. We wish to reiterate that there is no common understanding on the supposed neutrality of ICTs. At the same time, We should not try to force humanitarian international law and its application to cyberspace. Some states are developing offense capacities through the use of ICTs, and we believe that instead of considering the possibility of a scenario of armed conflict in cyberspace, we should address the essential purpose of preserving ICTs for the exclusively peaceful uses for development. We hope that in this new stage, that it will be based on legally binding obligations with regard to the scope of security of ICTs and their use. This would facilitate common understandings as to how international law applies this and addresses the various legal obligations. Cuba maintains its commitment to actively contribute to this purpose. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:34:37]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belarus. Belarus, you have the floor.


Belarus [1:35:07]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Republic of Belarus supports – we support the draft resolution L/8 on the global mechanism for ICTs – the global mechanism on developments in the field of information and communications technology in the context of international security and advancing responsible state behavior on ICTs. the first substantive session of the Global Mechanism, we hope that it will spur further useful work in the future. We note the importance of the December session of the Special Thematic Group under the Global Mechanism. Its work is intended to ensure a practical, action-oriented work of the Mechanism. We call for preventing the blurring of the activities of this group or any shifting of its scope of activity. We underscore the importance of maintaining the principle of the primary role of member states in adopting decisions, both as regards the parameter for the working of the bodies of the global mechanism and also as regards drafting substantive decisions and recommendations. We’re prepared to significantly contribute to the work of the global mechanism, and we urge all States to constructively cooperate to that end so as to develop agreed parameters for regulations in the area of global ICT security. We fully support the Chinese draft resolution L/69, promoting international cooperation on peaceful uses in the context of international security. We fully agree with the spirit and the principles of this document. We note the fact that all countries, absolutely all countries, be they large or small, developed or developing, have the right to use the achievements of science and technology for peaceful purposes. We advocate for measures to ensure the goals of nonproliferation and arms control, not to prevent international cooperation in terms of exchanging materials, technologies, and equipment for peaceful purposes. the right to peaceful use should not be subject to abuse under the pretext of affirming the non-proliferation regime. We continue to fully agree with the purposes and the principles of what was earlier submitted by a group of states, that is the draft resolution L/9 on achievements in information communications technology in the context of international security, which was We're referring to L9, which was withdrawn. We think that this resolution's practical measures, including carrying out exercises to stop computerized attacks, will foster capacity building and will help international cooperation in terms of establishing international ICT security. We cannot support L34 on artificial intelligence in the military domain and its implications for international peace and security. Last year, we abstained on the text of the resolution as a whole and also on the specific paragraphs that were put to a vote. Our position hasn’t changed. priority is to resolve all of these issues in the context of already existing multilateral formats for cooperation that have the appropriate mandates, specifically the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems in the context of the CCW and other formats. the appropriate forums for discussing these issues are also the Disarmament Commission, including the appropriate groups within that. We abstained from this resolution on the whole, as well as from all the paragraphs that have been put to a vote. The Republic of Belarus has the position of supporting all of the resolutions put forward by the NAM. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:39:23]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Belarus. Distinguished delegates, now the Committee will proceed to take action on draft resolution L/8, entitled "Global mechanisms and developments in the field of information and communication technologies in the context of international security and advancing responsible state behavior in the use of information and communication technologies. Firstly, I give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:39:59]:

Draft resolution L/8 was submitted by the representative of El Salvador on 2 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L.8. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:40:20]:

The sponsors of the draft resolutions have expressed the wish that the draft resolutions be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objections, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft resolution L/8 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take actions on the draft resolutions L/14, entitled United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education. I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:41:09]:

Draft resolution L/14 was submitted by the representative of Mexico on 5 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L.14, the additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal. Of the First Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution? A/C1/81/L14? If yes, may we kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order for them to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded? The additional co-sponsors for draft resolution L/14 are as follows: Suriname, Zimbabwe. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:42:08]:

I thank the Secretary. Separate votes have been requested on the seventh preamble paragraph and operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution A/C/1/81/L14. We shall now begin the voting process. I shall therefore put these paragraphs to the vote first, one by one. Those in favour of the seventh preamble paragraph, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:42:40]:

Suriname, please press the button. The Committee is now voting on the seventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution L/14. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? We have a problem. Distinguished delegate, please bear with us. It seems like we're having a technical issue with Thank you to the technical staff. The Committee is now voting on the seventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution L/14. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:45:35]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 161 in favour, 1 against, 3 abstentions. The seventh preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the operative paragraph 4, please signify; those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:45:53]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 4 of draft resolution L/14.

The voting machine is unlocked.

Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.

Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:46:34]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 160 in favour, 1 against, 4 abstain. Operative paragraph 4 is retained. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/14 as a whole. Those in favor of the draft resolutions A/C/1/81/L.14, please signify; those against, an abstention.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:47:02]:

The committee is now voting on draft resolution L.14, entitled United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education.

As a whole, the voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:47:45]:

The result of the voting is as follows. 179 in favour, 1 against, and 1 abstained. Draft resolution L/14 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/15, entitled "Women, disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control". I give the floor to the Secretary first.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:48:17]:

Draft resolution L15 was introduced by the representative of Trinidad and Tobago on 6 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L15. The additional co-sponsors in the delegate portal of the First Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to be co-sponsor? Draft resolution A/C1/81/L15? If yes, may we kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order for them to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded? The additional co-sponsors for draft resolution L15 are as follows: Brazil, Suriname, Tunisia. Thank you, Chair. Please press the button.


1st Committee · Chair [1:49:19]:

I thank the Secretary. Separate votes have been requested on the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 16th, and 17th preliminary paragraph, and operative paragraphs 4, 5, and six of the draft resolutions A/C/1/81/L.15. We shall now begin the voting process. I shall therefore put these paragraphs to the vote, first one by one. Those in favour of the fifth preambular paragraph, please signify; those against; and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:49:55]:

The Committee is now voting on the fifth preambular paragraph of draft resolution L.15.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:50:32]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 160 in favour, 2 against and 5 abstentions. The fifth preambular paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the sixth preambular paragraph, please signify, those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:50:48]:

The Committee is now voting on the sixth preambular paragraph of draft resolution L/15.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [1:51:26]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 163 in favour, 2 against and 2 abstain. Sixth preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the seventh preamble paragraph, please signify, those against and abstention.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:51:44]:

The Committee is now voting on the seventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution L/15.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [1:52:21]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 166 in favour, 1 against, and 2 abstain. The seventh preambular paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the eighth preambular paragraph, please signify, those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:52:39]:

The Committee is now voting on the eighth preambular paragraph of draft resolution L/15.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:53:16]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 164 in favour, to against, to abstain. The eighth preambular paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the eleventh preambular paragraph, please signify, those against and abstention.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:53:35]:

The Committee is now voting on the eleventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution L/15.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:54:16]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 163 in favour, 1 against, 5 abstentions. The eleventh preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the thirteenth preamble paragraph, please signify; those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:54:35]:

The Committee is now voting on the.

13th preamble paragraph of draft resolution L15. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:55:18]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 167 in favour, 1 against, 2 abstain. The thirteenth preambular paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the fifteenth preambular paragraph, please signify; those against and abstention.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:55:36]:

The Committee is now voting on the fifteenth preambular paragraph of draft resolution L15. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [1:56:15]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 135 in favour, 1 against, and 28 abstain. The fifteenth preambular paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the sixteenth preambular paragraph, please signify, those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:56:34]:

The Committee is now voting on the sixteenth preambular paragraph of draft resolution L-15.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.

Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:57:16]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 151 in favour, 2 against, abstentions 12. The 16th preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the 17th preamble paragraph, please signify; those against; and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:57:34]:

The Committee is now voting on the 17th preambular paragraph of draft resolution L-15.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:58:14]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 162 in favour, 1 against and 5 abstain. The seventeenth preambular paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the operative paragraph 4, please signify; those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:58:34]:

The committee is now voting on operative paragraph 4 of draft resolution L/15. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:59:14]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 150 in favour, 2 against, and 13 abstain. Operative paragraph 4 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 5, please signify; those against; and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:59:31]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 5 of draft resolution L15. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [2:00:11]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 162 in favour, 1 against and 3 abstain. Operative paragraph 5 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 6, please signify; those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:00:28]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution L15. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:01:08]:

The voting result is as follows: 156 in favour, 2 against, and 7 abstain. Operative paragraph 6 is returned. The committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution L/15 as a whole. Those in favour of the draft resolution A/C1/81/L/15, please signify; those against, and abstention.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:01:36]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L/15, entitled “Women, disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control as a whole”. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:02:16]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 175 in favour, 2 against, and 3 abstentions. Draft resolution L.15 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution L/17, entitled "Compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements and commitments". I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:02:49]:

Draft resolution L/17 was submitted by the representative of the United States of America on 6 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L/17. The additional co-sponsors in the delegate portal of the First Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor co-sponsor draft resolution A/C1/81/L.17? If yes, may we kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order for them to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded? There are no additional co-sponsors for draft proposal L.17. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:03:51]:

A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of the draft resolution A/C/81/L.17, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:04:07]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.17, entitled compliance with nonproliferation, arms limitation, and disarmament agreements and commitments. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:04:56]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 159 in favour, 5 against, and 13 abstain. Draft resolution L/17 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.30, entitled "United Nations disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services". I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:05:30]:

Draft resolution L.30 was submitted by the representative of Nigeria on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L.30. The additional co-sponsors in the delegate portal of the First Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution A/C1/81/L.30? If yes, may we kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order for them to be added to the list of sponsors and be due The additional co-sponsors for draft resolution L/30 are as follows: Paraguay, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Georgia, Liberia, Ghana. Thank you. Press the button, please.


1st Committee · Chair [2:06:38]:

Recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of the draft resolution A/C/1/81/L.30, please signify, those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:06:55]:

The committee is now voting on draft resolution L.30, entitled United Nations Disarmament Fellowship, Training, and Advisory Services. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:07:35]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 178 in favour, 2 against and 0 abstain. Draft resolution L.30 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/34, entitled “Artificial intelligence in the military domain and its implications for international peace and security.” Now I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:08:13]:

Draft resolution L/34. was submitted by the representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L. L/34. The additional co-sponsors in the delegate portal of the First Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution A/C1/81/L.34? If yes, May we kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order for them to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded? The additional co-sponsors for draft proposal L.34 are Paraguay. Thank you. Press the button, please. The present oral statement is made in the context of rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. The present statement will also be distributed to Member States. Under the terms of operative paragraphs 11 and 12 of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would: decide to convene structured dialogues in Geneva for states to further share perspectives focused on recent trends and development, transparency and confidence building measures, building shared understanding of key concepts, sharing best practices and risk mitigation measures, and exchanging national views on possible next steps, including scope, modalities, and outcomes which could inform consideration of future work within the United Nations, and that the Office for Disarmament Affairs of the Secretariat will provide the support necessary for convening these structured dialogues and prepare one written factual summary following each structured dialogue to be submitted to the First Committee at its 82nd and 83rd session, respectively. Operative paragraph 11. B also decided that the structured dialogues should be composed of one three-day meeting in each of 2027 and 2028. informal, with interpretation, and that these consultations shall be open to the full participation of all Member States and observer states and international and regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, academia, civil society, including the scientific and technical community, and industry. Operative paragraph 12. Three, the request contained in operative paragraphs 11 and 12 of the draft resolution would constitute additional workload for the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, section 2, the Office for Disarmament Affairs, section 4, and the United Nations Office at Geneva, section 29, 9 (e), as follows: For the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management, the implementation of the mandate would constitute additional meetings and documentation workload and require additional resources in 2027 and 2028. The structured dialogues would require interpretation services in all six official languages for three days in Geneva in 2027 and 2028, comprising six meetings, one morning meeting and one afternoon meeting per day during regular working hours each year. The cost for interpretation services amounts to 57,000 US dollars each year. Documentation services in these six languages would be provided for one post-session document in 2027 and 2028, based on the estimated word count of 3,000 500 words, the cost of these services would amount to 10,100 US dollars each year. B. For the Office for Disarmament Affairs, implementation of the mandate would require additional resources estimated at 9,400 US dollars in 2027 and 2028 to cover the travel costs of two staff members of the Office to provide technical and and substantive support for the meetings in Geneva. C, for the United Nations Office at Geneva, section 29E, the implementation of the mandate would require additional resource requirements estimated at 3,000 US dollars in 2027 and 2028 for a sound technician and recording operator to support the meetings in Geneva. Accordingly, should the General Assembly adopt draft resolution A/C1/81/L34, the Secretariat will, to the extent possible, seek to absorb the requirements within the overall approved budget. regular budget resources for 2027, with any portion that cannot be absorbed to be reported in the context of the financial performance report for the year. The related resource requirements for 2028 will be included in the proposed programme budget for 2028 for the consideration of the General Assembly at its 82nd session. The Secretariat also wishes to inform the General Assembly that its ability to implement the mandate will depend on the availability of adequate liquidity resources. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:14:20]:

I thank the Secretary. Separate votes have been requested on the first, second, third, sixth, ninth, tenth, and fifteenth preamble paragraphs and operative paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the draft resolution A/70/11. C1/81/L.34. We shall now begin the voting process. I shall therefore put these paragraphs to the vote, first one by one. Those in favour of the first preambular paragraph, please signify; those against, an abstention.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:15:02]:

The Committee is now voting on the first preambular paragraph of draft resolution L.34.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:15:38]:

The result of the voting is as follows. 154 in favor, two against, and seven abstain. The first preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favor of the second preamble paragraph, please signify, those against, and abstention.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:15:56]:

The committee is now voting on the second preamble paragraph of draft resolution L/34.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:16:34]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 152 in favour, 1 against, and 11 abstain. The second preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the third preamble paragraph, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:16:51]:

The Committee is now voting on the third preamble paragraph. paragraph of draft resolution L/34.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:17:27]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 149 in favour, 2 against, and 12 abstentions. The third preambular paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the sixth preambular paragraph, please signify; those against; and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:17:45]:

The Committee is now voting on the sixth preambular paragraph of draft resolution L/34. The voting machine is unlocked. delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:18:20]:

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 154, against 0, and 9 abstain. The sixth preambular paragraph is retained. Those in favor of the ninth preambular paragraph, please signify; those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:18:38]:

The committee is now voting on the ninth preambular paragraph of draft resolution L/34. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:19:14]:

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 152, to against 9, abstain. The ninth preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the tenth preamble paragraph, please signify, those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:19:31]:

The Committee is now voting on the 10th preambular paragraph of draft resolution L-34. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:20:10]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 150 in favour, 4 against and 8 abstain. The 10th preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the 15th preamble paragraph, please signify, those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:20:28]:

The Committee is now voting on the 15th preambular paragraph of draft resolution L-34. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:21:09]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 149 in favour, 0 against, and 13 abstain. That 15th preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the operative paragraph 1, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:21:29]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph one of draft resolution L-34. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:22:09]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 150 in favour, 1 against, 13 abstain. The OP.1 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 3, please signify, those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:22:26]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 3 of draft resolution L/34. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:23:05]:

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 155, one against, and eight abstain. Operative paragraph 3 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 4, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:23:23]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 4 of draft resolution L-34. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:24:01]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 153 in favour, 3 against, and 6 abstentions. Operative paragraph 4 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 5, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:24:17]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 5 of draft resolution L.34.

The voting machine is unlocked.

Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:24:54]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 156 in favour, 1 against and 6 abstentions. Operative paragraph 5 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 6, please signify; those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:25:11]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution L/34.

The voting machine is unlocked.

Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:25:52]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 156 in favour, 0 against and 7 abstain. Operative paragraph 6 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 8, please signify, those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:26:11]:

The committee is now voting on operative paragraph 8 of draft resolution L34.

The voting machine is unlocked.

Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:26:47]:

The voting result is as follows: 154 in favour, 3 against and 6 abstentions. Operative paragraph 8 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 9, please signify, those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:27:05]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 9. of draft resolution L-34. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:27:46]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 153 in favour, 3 against, and 9 abstentions. Operative paragraph 9 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 10, please signify; those against; and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:28:03]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 10. of draft resolution L-34. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [2:28:43]:

The result of the voting is as follows: Fifty-five in favour, three against and seven abstain. Operative paragraph 10 is retained. Those in favour of the operative paragraph 11, please signify, those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:29:04]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 11 of draft resolution L/34. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [2:29:41]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 154 in favour, 3 against, and 6 abstain. Operative paragraph 11 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 12, please signify, those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:29:59]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 12 of draft resolution L/34. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:30:40]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 154 in favour, 4 against, and 6 abstentions. Operative paragraph 12 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 13, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:30:58]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 13 of draft resolution L/34.

The voting machine is unlocked.

Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:31:36]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 156 in favour, 2 against, and 6 abstentions. Operative paragraph 13 is retained. The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution L/34 as a whole. Those in favour of the draft resolution A/C1/81/L.34, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:32:06]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L/34, entitled “Artificial intelligence in the military domain and its implications for international peace and security as a whole.” The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:32:52]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 171 in favour, 4 against, and 6 abstain. The draft resolution L.34 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft decision L/35, entitled Strengthening and developing the system of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements. I give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:33:28]:

Draft decision L/35 was submitted by the representative of the Russian Federation on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft decision are contained in document A/C1/81/L35. The additional co-sponsors in the delegate portal of the First Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen? who wish to co-sponsor draft decision L-35? Thank you. If yes, may we kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order for them to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded? There are no additional co-sponsors for draft decision L-35. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:34:26]:

A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of the draft decision A/C/81/L.35, please signify; those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:34:40]:

The Committee is now voting on draft decision L.35, entitled “Strengthening and developing the system of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements”. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:35:22]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 119 in favour, 22 against, 32 abstain. The draft decision L.35 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolutions L. 46, entitled "Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation." I now give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:35:54]:

Draft resolution L/36 was submitted by the representative of Indonesia on behalf of the States members of the United Nations that are members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/AD1/L/36. Oh, no, that's it. Closed. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [2:36:21]:

A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of the draft resolution A/C/1/81/L.36, please signify; those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:36:37]:

The committee is now voting on draft resolution L.36. entitled Promotion of Multilateralism in the Area of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:37:15]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 128 in favour, 6 against, and 49 abstained. Draft resolution L/36 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/41, entitled “Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium”. I give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:37:43]:

Draft resolution L/41 was introduced by the representative of Indonesia on behalf of the States members of the United Nations that are members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L.41. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:38:06]:

A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of the draft resolutions A/C/1/81/L.41, please signify; those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:38:19]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.41, entitled “Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium”.

The voting machine is unlocked.

The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:38:55]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 144 in favor, 4 against and 32 abstentions. The draft resolution L/41 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution L/44, entitled "Relationship between disarmament and development". I give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:39:22]:

Draft resolution L/44 was submitted by the representative of Indonesia on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L/44. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:39:45]:

A separate vote has been requested on the fourth preamble paragraph of the draft resolution A/C/1/81/L.44. We shall now begin the voting process. I shall therefore put this paragraph to the vote first. Those in favour of the fourth preamble paragraph, please signify; those against; and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:40:06]:

The Committee is now voting on the fourth preambular paragraph of draft resolution L/44. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:40:42]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 123 in favour, 2 against, and 46 abstain. The fourth preamble paragraph is retained. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/44 as a whole. Those in favour of the draft resolution A/C1/81/L.44, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:41:09]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L/44. entitled “Relationship between Disarmament and Development as a Whole.” The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:41:46]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 180 in favour, 1 against, and 1 abstain. Draft resolution L/44 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/45, entitled "Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of the Agreements on Disarmament and Arms Control." I now give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:42:19]:

Draft resolution L/45 was submitted by the representative of Indonesia on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L.45. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:42:44]:

A recorded vote has been requested. The committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/45. Those in favor of the draft resolution A/C1/81/L.45, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:43:02]:

The committee is now voting on draft resolution L/45, entitled "Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:43:46]:

The result of the voting is: as follows: 179 in favour, 1 against, and 2 abstained. Draft resolution L/45 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/57, entitled Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament. I give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:44:14]:

Draft resolution L57 was submitted by the representative of India on 14 October. The sponsor of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L. L/57, the additional co-sponsors in the delegate portal of the First Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/C1/81/L/57? If yes, may we kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order for them to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded? There are no additional co-sponsors for draft resolution L/57.


1st Committee · Chair [2:45:03]:

I thank the Secretary. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of the draft resolutions A/C1/81/L.57, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:45:19]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L/57, entitled Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament. The machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [2:45:58]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 180 in favour, 2 against, and 0 abstain. Draft resolution L.57 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/69, entitled “Promoting international cooperation on the peaceful use in the context of international security.” I now give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:46:29]:

Draft resolution L/69 was submitted by the representative of China on 15 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C/1/81/L.69. The additional co-sponsors in the delegate portal of the First Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution A/C/1/81/L.69? 68? If yes, may we kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order for them to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded? The additional co-sponsor for draft resolution L/69 is Comoros. Thank you, Chair. South Sudan. Comoros and South Sudan. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:47:29]:

I thank the Secretary. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of the draft resolution A/C/1/81/L.69, please signify, those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:47:46]:

The Committee is now voting on.

Draft resolution L/69, entitled “Promoting international cooperation on peaceful uses in the context of international security.” The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board?

The voting has been completed.

The machine is locked. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:48:24]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 109 in favour, 54 against, and 19 abstentions. The draft resolution L.69 is adopted. Distinguished delegates, I shall now call on the delegations who have requested the right of reply. May I remind members that the statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to four and a half minutes for the first intervention and two and a half minutes for the second intervention. I now give the floor to the representative of Israel.


Israel [2:49:11]:

Chair. Thank you, Chair. My delegation has listened carefully to the statement by the representative of Iran in explanation of vote on cluster 4, in which he referred to the alleged use of cluster munitions by my country. I believe the representative of the Iranian regime was confused, as his country, Iran, is the one that has used cluster munitions repeatedly against Israel, as well as other neighboring countries of Iran. It is difficult to take seriously expressions of concern for civilian from a delegation representing a regime that has itself used cluster munitions against civilian population centers. In June 2025, Iran launched for the first time a ballistic missile with a cluster warhead directed against the civilian population and in a manner intended to disperse over a wide area, demonstrating its desire to maximize civilian harm. The warhead split at an altitude of seven kilometers and scattered some 27 munitions over a radius of about eight kilometers over civilian areas in Israel. Since then, over the past year, Iran has significantly expanded its use of cluster missiles against the civilian population, with each warhead carrying more than 20 submunitions and at times up to 80, weighing up to five kilograms each. Iran has launched many thousands of cluster missiles at population centers in more than 15 cities in Israel. The Iranian regime makes no effort to hide its desire to cause as much death and destruction as possible. Those who speak of accountability and of the protection of defenseless should be expected to apply the same standards to their own conduct. Chair, I have no such expectation of a regime that killed many thousands of its own people last January and continues to execute many more. It is important that other delegations are aware of the reality on the ground. I thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:51:39]:

Now I give the floor to the representative of the United States.


United States of America [2:51:47]:

Chair, we would like to provide brief explanations for some of the U.S. votes in cluster 5 on other disarmament measures and international security.


1st Committee · Chair [2:51:55]:

This is right of reply, not the explanation.


United States of America [2:51:57]:

Oh, I’m sorry. Just kidding.


1st Committee · Chair [2:52:00]:

So you’re not. I now give the floor to the representative of Iran.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:52:12]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We categorically reject the baseless allegations made by the representative of the Israeli regime. It is both ironic and absurd that a regime with a long record of aggression, occupation, genocide, and violation of international law dares to accuse others; a regime that possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons and is armed to the teeth by its Western allies, including with various types of missiles, cluster munitions, incendiary weapons, and American 2,000-pound bombs used against the defenseless Palestinian population in Gaza and targets across the region, including my country, has no standing to lecture others about their defensive capabilities, let alone to question their right to possess defensive weaponry. Our missile program is a conventional and legitimate defense capability. Our missiles are designed solely to deter acts of aggression, such as those committed by the U.S. and the Israeli regime in June 2025 and February 2026. and to safeguard our people and sovereignty. Any attempt to portray this as a threat is deceptive, politically motivated, and aimed at undermining Iran’s inherent right to self-defense under the UN Charter. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:53:37]:

Distinguished delegates, we have just exhausted the time available to us this afternoon. The Committee will reconvene on Monday morning at 10:00 AM in this conference room. We will first hear the explanation of votes after the vote under cluster 5, and we will continue to take actions on the remaining draft resolutions and decisions contained in informal paper 7. The meeting is adjourned.