(4th plenary meeting) Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons — Ninth Biennial Meeting of States

So, first of all, let me say thank you very much for allowing us to have a slight delay. I apologize, and I regret to say I think there may yet be further delays over the course of the afternoon. But as you know, the purpose of this gathering is to bring— to an end our discussions, so I call to order the 4th meeting of the 9th Biennial Meeting of States to consider the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its aspects. The meeting is open, and the purpose of our first action item is to consider the Report by the chair of the Open-Ended Technical Working Group, and in keeping with paragraph 177 of the outcome document of the Fourth United Nations Conference to review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its aspects, I now invite the chair of the Open-Ended Technical Expert Group, His Excellency Mr. Michael Imran Khanu, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations, to report on the work of the Technical Expert Group and its recommendations. Ambassador Khanu, I'm presuming you'll do it from your desk. I beg your pardon, Ambassador Khanu. I apologize, I still don't have the ability to see, as you can see. Ambassador Khanu, please, we look forward to your report.

Thank you so much, dear Chair, Ambassador Larsen. You've been kind enough to have a nameplate for me in the podium, so I'm happy to give the report of the OETG from here. And also, thank you for your kind words on my election on the 1st. Chair, Excellencies, delegates and experts, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for giving me the floor, Chair, to report back on the work of the open-ended Technical Expert Group on Developments in the Manufacturing Technology and Design of Small Arms and Light Weapons. I have prepared my chair's summary that will be an annex to the BMS report. States have been given the opportunity to comment on the key takeaways at the end of the OETG meeting yesterday. And the end of the OETG meeting earlier today. I thank you for your attention as I read out the chair's summary of the first meeting of the Open-Ended Technical Expert Group on Developments in Small Arms and Light Weapons Manufacturing Technology and Design. And I'll proceed to read the report verbatim. One, introduction. The first meeting of the Open-Ended Technical Expert Group on Development in the Manufacturing, Technology, and Design of Small Arms and Light Weapons, established under the mandates of the Fourth Review Conference of the UN Programme of Action, was held at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 4th to 5th June 2026, during the 9th biannual meeting of states. Ambassador Michael Imwenkanu, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations, was elected chair of the OETEG on 1st June. Focused on building a substantive and technical base to support the subsequent development of recommendations, the meeting was structured around 3 thematic panels based on the mandate of the OETEG featuring briefings by subject matter experts invited by the Chair, followed by interventions and discussions with States. Prior to the meeting, the Chair-designate issued a set of guiding questions to structure the proceedings and held several informal consultations with States, intergovernmental organizations, civil society, and industry representatives. Rather than a full record of the meeting, this summary is the Chair's reflection of the submissions and exchanges on core elements and areas of potential convergence which can serve as practical pathways for continued work of the OETG. Prepared by the Chair under his own responsibility, the summary does not imply adoption or consensus views of member states.

2.

Summary of discussion. Opportunities presented by development in the manufacturing technology and design of small arms and light weapons to strengthen national implementation in line with relevant provisions of the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument. The OETG discussed technological development operational use to prevent diversion of small arms and light weapons. Some states emphasize the value of integrated digital record-keeping systems to replace paper-based archives to prevent diversion during transport and stockpiling, while noting the need to address issues relating to data security and protection. 2D codes, GNSS tracking, and RFID were among the technologies that can enable automated inventory uploads and monitoring of moving containers, while biometrics enable secure access to facilities, containers, and weapons. Greater dissemination of lessons learned from the field deployment of these technologies will improve awareness of their pros and cons in various situations. Regarding detection of illicit small arms and light weapons, some states stressed the need to strengthen the capacities of law enforcement agencies for monitoring online activity related to illicit weapons and digital forensics. Training in AI-supported small arms detection is offered by UN regional centers, among other actors. Some states highlighted automated prohibited items detection systems which leverage computer vision and AI to automatically flag concealed weapons at busy transit and postal hubs. Their development requires maintaining large and updated image training datasets and certification processes to optimize detection and minimize false positives. Some states also expressed interest in automated weapons identification technologies for field officers. Some states stress the importance of international cooperation and information exchange to support weapons identification and tracing. In this regard, they encourage the use of existing tools including IARMS, IBIN, the International Firearms Reference Table, and Purple Notices managed managed by Interpol, as well as ITRIS. They also noted that including high-resolution digital photographs of marks, frames, and stamps in tracing requests prevents errors and increases chances of success. Unified data standards for Automated Ballistic Information System, ABIS, are also needed to facilitate cross-border information exchange and investigations. Some states mentioned the UN Fellowship Training Program on Small Arms and Light Weapons as a valuable tool for information exchange and awareness raising. To address serial number obliteration, a hybrid approach was discussed. This will involve the use of mechanical marking techniques for the serial number on the core component, while laser marking or other methods could be used for the other marks. Inconsistent practices were reported regarding the effective minimal depth of marking needed to recover erased markings, pointing to a need for further discussion of this aspect. Non-destructive techniques such as magnetic optical imaging can be used to restore obliterated marks whilst preserving judicial evidence. Other measures noted included systematizing standard operating procedures for investigating obliterated markings, criminalizing obliteration, and information exchange on the context and methods of obliteration. So to the challenges posed by development in the manufacturing technology and design of small arms and light weapons, in particular polymer, modular, and illicit 3D printing. At the outset, the OETG discussed the lack of formal definitions for modular, polymer, and 3D printing weapons and their parts in the ITI.

Oh shit, this is just awful. You know, this, this is what, this is what people are here for, right?

Believe this, this bullshit reading of a text, which allow for the rapid swapping of components across multiple calibers, can result in a single weapon containing mismatched serial numbers, increasing the risk of misidentification and hampering tracing. To mitigate these challenges, some states suggested mandating manufacturers to designate the primary control component that will bear the serial number. Under this approach, only the primary component serial number generates a record in national databases, while manufacturers provide each weapon's full range of caliber configurations and other relevant information for inclusion in firearms reference tables. There was also discussion on the utility of markings on secondary components, with some contrasting views shared. This topic will benefit from further technical discussions. Lastly, on this point, it was suggested that all manufacturers producing components for the same model of modular weapons follow the same marking protocol. Some states expressed concern over the growing sophistication and spread of 3D printing small arms components and conversion devices. A discussion followed on the reliability and efficiency of different categories of these weapons. To address these challenges, Some states updated their regulatory frameworks to criminalize illicit small arms manufacture, including through 3D printing, and the online distribution, download, and possession of weapon computer-aided design— that's CAD files— and blueprints. Other solutions discussed include using blocking software to prevent the 3D printing of firearms, adapting procedures for the detection, seizure, forensic analysis, investigation, and tracing of 3D-printed weapons, prioritizing relevant customs and police training, including on digital forensics, and establishing online community platform for reporting on illicit arms-related activity. Proactive outreach targeting law enforcement, postal shipping services, additive manufacturing companies, and social media platforms could further contribute to flagging risk and removing unauthorized files and instruction materials. Some states emphasized a balanced approach to protect licensed activities and ensure that resources are not diverted away from countering conventional weapon diversion. On international cooperation and assistance, building capacities, sharing expertise and technical assistance to address the challenges and opportunities presented by development in the manufacturing technology and design of small arms and light weapons. Some states recall the OETG's mandate to examine and identify concrete international cooperation and assistance measures to build the capacities of states including sharing expertise and good practices and providing training opportunities. Others noted that effective assistance to address developments in small arms and light weapons technologies should be demand-driven, reject one-size-fits-all approaches, and actively involve local expertise. Some states suggested that developments in technologies can be considered in existing funding mechanisms like UNSCAR and Salyent, as well as integrated and voluntary guidance tools like MOSIQ, regional best practices guide, and national training modules. Some states noted the benefit of technology-related assistance programs received from coalitions of intergovernmental and other international partners, as well as non-governmental organizations. They also highlighted the importance of establishing appropriate resource national coordination mechanisms, national policies, and action plans to support implementation and ensure long-term outcomes. The relevance of the use of existing international tools and databases and opportunities for enhancing these platforms' interoperability with other systems was also reinforced in this regard, as comprehensive data on seizure is critical for understanding emerging problems and tackling them. Some states expressed the view that regional and sub-regional platforms and roadmaps prevent administrative overlap by coordinating intelligence exchange and access to new technologies to combat illicit small arms and light weapons directly at field level. They streamline information exchange and create direct lines of communication between neighboring authorities to address trafficking pipelines early. They can also facilitate the pooling of cross-border investigative and forensic resources and prepare model laws and standard operating procedures for addressing emerging threats. Regional organizations finally strengthen local ownership of assistance programs and the sustainability of results by supporting the development of regional pools of expertise and capabilities. Some states highlighted that civil society can support, among other aspects, the development of tech-enabling legislation, the deployment of digital record-keeping systems adapted to different contexts, and the provision of policy-relevant research and baseline studies on emerging threats and opportunities. On sustainability, some states noted that technology transfers should be doable. They need to be accompanied by long-term resources for recurring costs like replacement parts, translated guides, and software licenses. Inequal access to enabling technologies such as the internet, digital and ballistic systems, for instance, notably in some low-income countries, was highlighted as an important contextual parameter that should inform the provision of technology-related assistance in different contexts. Some States suggested the OETG could examine technical options that will allow for greater cooperation and information exchange between countries with differing technical capabilities, or that they operate systems that are not be readily interoperable. In this regard, coordinated joint law enforcement operations such as Interpol's Operation Striga were highlighted as a successful mechanism for countries with different technical capabilities to share real-time tactical intelligence, detect trafficking routes, identify diversion points, and dismantle transnational criminal networks. It was stressed that the lessons learned from failures need to be understood and shared, with a particular focus on whether assistance enables the sustainable transfer of comprehensive and contextually adapted technology packages and related skills. Some states noted that assistance is more sustainable when aligned with broader peace security and development strategies, and crucially, national priorities to ensure new technology integrates smoothly without duplicating or overriding existing cooperation and assistance frameworks. 3, on next steps for the OETG. As per GA Resolution 79/40 and 80/38, The OETG will next convene during the 10th Biennial Meeting of States in 2028. The mandate is to develop agreed recommendations by consensus for consideration at the BMS X and no later than the 5th Review Conference in 2030. To drive this forward, States are encouraged to consider taking on roles as supporters, Champions, or Friends of the Chair. Some states noted the need for a strong intersectoral process. In this connection, the Chair encourages states in a position to do so to provide the necessary resources in support of intersectoral activities. The intersectoral period can be used to refine common technical terminologies and definitions and deepen technical consultations on modular and polymer frame markings and the marking obliteration and forensic recovery. The intersessional period could finally be used to raise awareness and improve access to information regarding existing technology-related tools and counter-diversion assistance programs and their relevance to different needs and settings. Some states suggested that the at least one in-person session be organized during the intercessional period. Sponsorship programs and interpretation will be vital to ensure technical experts can fully participate in future meetings. Some states preferred virtual sessions, in particular for discussions on specific technical topics, to allow for the participation of experts in capitals. Some states highlighted the useful role that regional centers can play in the intersectoral process, while others requested that guiding questions be developed in advance of meetings to facilitate the nomination of the most relevant national experts. Moving forward, the Chair will continue and strengthen engagement with the private sector, including arms and additive manufacturing industries, technology firearms, shipping couriers, and online platform Some states also suggested that discussions maintain inclusive participation and mainstream a gender perspective. This enables the OETG to fully understand how technological developments like 3D printing affect patterns of misuse and diversion, and how they differentially impact women, men, girls, and boys. Finally, because evolving manufacturing and trafficking methods outpace the timeline of the current OETG mandate. States could use upcoming cycles to evaluate how to address the long-term implications of new technologies beyond the current mandate. The Chair iterates his availability and commitment to lead the OETG process to a successful outcome. Chair, distinguished delegates, that's the report of the OETG. I thank you for your kind attention going through for what is really a lengthy but a very useful report. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much indeed, Ambassador Kanu, and indeed the trust we placed in you was— or colleagues placed in you was indeed well deserved, so thank you very much for that extremely useful report. I now would invite any delegation who wishes to make comments from the floor to indicate your wish to do so before we conclude this agenda item. Is there any delegation who wishes to make a comment from the floor? In the absence of any delegation wishing to make any comments in relation to that report, again, thank you, Ambassador Kanu, and that concludes our consideration of agenda item 9, and I thank you. We now move to Agenda Item 10, consideration of the draft final document. As all of you will be aware, we have not yet circulated a draft final document, and that's as a consequence of some ongoing discussions with an extremely small number of delegations. I would like, in accordance with the rules of procedure, which exhort us to seek to move to the greatest degree possible to a consensus outcome. I propose to suspend this meeting for a period— let me say initially for a period of 30 minutes to allow for some final consultations in the hope of being able to produce a draft final document which would support consensus. So I therefore adjourn this meeting, or suspend the meeting rather, for a period of 30 minutes, which means we would resume at 4:15 PM. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Colleagues, thank you very much indeed for your very kind patience. The 4th meeting of the 9th Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects is resumed. As we indicated before we suspended the meeting, the meeting will now continue its consideration of agenda item 10, entitled consideration of the draft final document. The draft final document has been issued as document A/Conf/192 BMS 2026 CRP1 Rev. 1 in English only. And I'm going to invite the Secretariat to speak to that document and identify a number of oral revisions. So I invite, I invite the Secretariat to take the floor. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Revisions were made in paragraph 6 to include On line— the fourth line from the bottom of that paragraph to include conducive to terrorism. That is the sentence that begins with, "States also recognized the adverse effects of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, in that it exacerbates terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism. That's the included amendment. The Second Amendment is the chapeau of Section A, which reads as follows: Bearing in mind the different situations— and there should be an insertion here. Bearing in mind the different situations, capacities, and priorities. And delete constitutional and legal systems, capacities, and priorities. The rest remains. Insert after state resolve to undertake the following measures. Insert subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of states, without prejudice to states' commitment under applicable international law. I repeat the insertion: subject to respective constitutional and legal systems of states, without prejudice to states' commitment under applicable International Law. That's the insertion.

The rest remains.

And the new paragraph will read as follows: Bearing in mind the different situations capacities and priorities of states and regions, states resolve to undertake the following measures, subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of states, without prejudice to states' commitment under applicable international law to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacture of and trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as their diversion and illicit international transfer to unauthorized recipients. The third.

Okay. Good.

That's it, Chair.

I thank the Secretariat. I now need to draw call colleagues' attention to Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure, the 24-hour rule. I wish to remind the meeting of its decision on the Rules of Procedure for the 9th Biennial Meeting adopted during its first meeting, whereby the meeting agreed that the Rules of Procedure of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its aspects held in 2001 shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the meeting. In this sense, I wish to recall that Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure, as contained in Document A/Conf/192/16, states that unless the conference decides otherwise, substantive proposals shall be discussed or put to a decision no earlier than 24 hours after copies have been circulated in all languages of the conference to all delegations. In light of the fact that the oral revisions to the draft outcome document of the meeting, as contained in Document A/Conf/192/BMS/2026/CRP/1/Rev/1, were just announced, it would be necessary for the meeting to adopt a decision to waive the relevant provision of Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the Conference, and I will proceed to do so on the basis if there are no objections. But may I take it that the meeting agrees with this proposal? It is so decided. Let me open the floor should any delegation wish to make any intervention in relation to the draft final document as orally revised. If you could please indicate your desire to speak in the usual way. I have no speaker, therefore may I take it that it is the wish of— Iran, Islamic Republic of Iran, you have the floor. One moment, Iran, if you would. I need to consult the Secretariat. If you'll forgive me for one moment, the Secretariat would like to clarify an issue in relation to the text as orally revised. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Very quickly, Chair, just to indicate that the chapeau language as revised, which I read out, applies to both Section A and B. Thank you.

Thank you. Once again, let me open the— let me open the floor for any delegation who wishes to intervene. I have the United States followed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. United States, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We first would like to thank you and your team for the leadership during this entire BMS process. During the process, we have objected to divisive language that remains in the text and therefore must call for certain paragraph votes, specifically 3. As the United States has repeatedly stated in UN meetings, the UN needs to meet greater efficiency and go back to the basics. In that regard, we call on states to take greater responsibility for implementing their obligations under the POA and ITI. We believe that the language regarding capacity building should more directly reflect states' responsibilities to manage these commitments without ongoing assistance from donor states. We therefore call for a, a vote on paragraph 9. The United States also strongly supports the protection of women and girls the defense of their rights and empowerment. To that end, we must— we remain committed to protecting and promoting the ability of women and girls to engage in all aspects of social, civic, political, and economic life. That said, the United States opposes considerations of anything other than merit in hiring or promotion. The language in paragraph 12 could be construed as supporting the consideration of factors other than merit in decisions relating to the implementation of the POA. We therefore call for a vote on paragraph 12. We also oppose vague language regarding technology transfer because we are concerned that such language might be misconstrued to imply an obligation or commitment where they do not otherwise exist to engage in such transfers. To be clear, we do not view the PoA as entailing any commitment to engage in technology transfers. For that reason, we call for a vote on paragraph 62. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the United States. If I may suspend for one brief moment, I wish to consult with the Secretariat, but following that, Iran has indicated a wish to take the full the floor, but I will suspend for a moment. Iran, Islamic Republic of Iran, you have the floor.

Distinguished delegates, my delegation participated actively and constructively in this session of the biennial meeting of the state parties— of the states and submitted specific proposals with a view to achieving a more balanced outcome document. Our proposals sought, inter alia, reaffirm the voluntary nature of the measures contained in the document, consistent with the nature of the POA and ITI, to ensure due regard for national laws, priorities, circumstances, and security conditions in the implementation of the measures, and to strengthen provisions relating to international cooperation and assistance, including by addressing obstacles to implementation such as— such as— obstacles to implementation, such as unilateral coercive measures. Regrettably, these proposals were not adequately reflected in the text. We also shoved flexibility at the last minute to reach a compromise language on some of our proposals, which unfortunately did not succeed. As a result, my delegation is not in a position to join the consensus on the adoption of the document in its in current form. In addition, we have consistently expressed our concerns regarding the reference to maritime dimensions in paragraphs 6 and 28. In our view, such language expands the agreed scope of the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument and creates expectations regarding new commitments that have not been collectively negotiated or agreed by consensus. Accordingly, my delegation requests separate recorded votes on paragraphs 6 and 28, followed by a vote on the draft outcome document as a whole. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran. I have Belgium. Belgium, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I would like to take the floor to object the request by the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the delegation of the United States of America to a paragraph vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Belgium. I have South Africa. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and let us once again thank you for all your efforts and extend our appreciation for coming up with the draft outcome document. We believe that this provided a good basis for us to reach consensus. It is regrettable that we have calls for a vote on some parts of the draft outcome document. Therefore, in line with what Belgium has said, we would also reject the vote on the text para by para and would want to see, or rather would prefer, that if we are going to have a vote, which we are doing reluctantly, then it should be on the text as a whole. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. I have Ghana. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The delegation from Ghana would concur with Belgium and South Africa to say the request for votes, if it has to take place, we would reluctantly want to go ahead with the votes, the text as it is, the delegation from Ghana would want it to remain.

Thank you. Thank you, Ghana. Just so that I'm clear in my own mind, are you asking for the text to be considered as a whole, not paragraph by paragraph? If you could clarify that for me, please.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ghana. Colombia followed by Nigeria. Colombia, you have the floor. Gracias.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I applaud the effort that you have made along with your colleagues to achieve this result. The document that we have before us represents a clear effort to maintain the kind of messages that Colombia is one of the original authors of the resolution on small arms and light weapons. Considers that it maintains the necessary sequence to continue working to combat this scourge. So Colombia is against voting paragraph individually, paragraph, and similar to Belgium and other colleagues, considers the document as a whole. Thank you.

Thank you, Colombia. Uh, Nigeria, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. Nigeria will prefer to have the whole voting to consider the whole document and not to vote paragraph by paragraph.

Thank you, Nigeria. I have nobody else who is seeking the floor. I will suspend for a moment while I consult with the Secretariat. Colleagues, I have a procedural matter to draw to colleagues' attention, and that is Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure, which state, inter alia, that if notwithstanding the best efforts of delegates to achieve a consensus, a matter of substance comes up for voting, the President shall defer the vote for 48 hours, and during this period of deferment shall make every effort to facilitate the achievement of general agreement and shall report to the conference prior to the end of that period. Rule 33 further states that if by the end of the period of deferment the conference has not reached agreement, voting shall not take place in accordance with Rule 35. That is a— Mr. Patel, take place. That is a procedural rule which ordinarily would allow for 48 hours of consideration for any text before the meeting, and I would like to propose to the meeting that, obviously, given where we are in the meeting schedule, that we waive that rule. And so I would propose that we waive the relevant provision of Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure, uh, which apply to the 48 hours of notice, uh, to the text. And of course, we're talking about the text which has been, uh, orally, uh, provided this afternoon by the Secretariat. If there are no objections, may I take it that the meeting agrees to the proposal to waive that aspect of Rule 33? I see no state taking the floor. It is so decided. I need to consult with the Secretariat on one further aspect before we proceed. Please, uh, bear with me. Colleagues, thank you again for your patience. As all of you have heard, objections have been made to the request for division, uh, by several delegations under Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure. In accordance with Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure, if a representative objects to the motion for division— and by this I'm referring to the motion to consider the text paragraph by paragraph or particular paragraphs— so if any representative objects to the motion for division being voted upon, permission to speak on the motion shall be accorded only to two representatives in favor of and to opposing the division. If the motion is carried, those parts of the proposals that are subsequently approved shall be put to the conference for a decision as a whole. If all operative parts of the proposal have been rejected, the proposal should be considered to have been rejected as a whole. Does any other delegation wish to speak on the request for a division? And so just to reaffirm the position. The United States and Iran, they have each proposed a division of the text to consider individual paragraphs, whereas Belgium, South Africa, Ghana, Colombia, and Nigeria have all made the case— I hope I've collected— included— have all made the case that they wish to consider the text as a whole. Can I ask the meeting, uh, is there, uh, anybody else who wishes to speak on this matter? United States, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. From the standpoint of the United States, we disagree with the interpretation that is being given to Rule 40. From the United States' standpoint, we have made 3 proposals. We have 3 paragraphs that we want votes on, and we have a proposal that there be a vote on each on each proposal. So that is 3 proposals. Each proposal is a vote on a particular paragraph. So we don't see this as a situation in which there is a single unitary proposal that is being proposed to be divided. Thank you.

Thank you, United States. Does any other delegation wish to speak on this issue? Islamic Republic of Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you. We also think that the rule 40 does not apply to this situation. So we believe that our request for the vote on paragraphs 6 and 28 should be followed and the rule 40 does not apply. Thank you.

Thank you, Iran. Does any other delegation wish to take the floor? I have no other delegation which wishes to take the floor. Let me, for the sake of clarity, read— I beg your pardon, I have Belgium who wishes to take the floor.

We would like to object and we think it is the same proposal and we will be ready to repeat the proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Belgium. On the basis that no other delegation wishes to take the floor, For the sake of absolute clarity, I will read out Rule 40. Rule 40 provides that a representative may move the parts of a proposal be decided on separately. That is what has occurred this afternoon on the part of two delegations. If a representative objects, and that is also what has occurred this afternoon, the motion for division shall be voted upon. Permission to speak on the motion shall be accorded, etc., etc., etc. If the motion is carried, those parts of the proposal that are subsequently approved shall be put to the conference for decision as a whole. If all operative parts of the proposal have been rejected, the proposal shall be considered to have been rejected as a whole. So the proposal that we have before us is— if you wish to have a paragraph consideration of the text that the Secretariat has distributed and orally amended in today's proceedings, if you wish to consider the individual paragraphs in that text, you would vote yes to the vote that we are just about to have. If you wish to have the text considered as a whole and voted on as a whole, you would vote no to the vote that we are just about to consider. So yes is a vote in favor of the propositions made by the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. No is a vote which is consistent with the views expressed by those other delegations who have objected to those proposals from those two states. So in accordance with Rule 40, I shall now put to recorded vote the motion for division, and we shall now begin the voting process. And I pass to the Secretary for this purpose.

The meeting is now voting on the motion for division. Voting in favor means that the meeting wishes to consider the proposal, that is, the outcome document, paragraph by paragraph. Voting against means that the outcome document should be considered as a whole. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.

Thank you, colleagues. The result of the vote is as follows: in favour, 3; against, 94; abstentions, 24. The motion for division is not adopted. May I take it that it is the wish of the meeting to adopt the draft final document of the 9th Biennial Meeting as contained in Document A/Conf/192/BMS/2026/CRP1/Rev1 as orally revised and to include it in the final report of the biennial meeting? Iran, Islamic State of Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As my delegation expressed earlier, we request voting on the document as a whole. Thank you.

Thank you, Iran. I have no other delegation requesting the floor. Can I just clarify that no other delegation is requesting the floor? In that case, thank you, Iran. A recorded vote has been requested. The meeting shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of the draft outcome document contained in Document A/Conf/192/BMS/2026/CRP1/Rev1 as orally revised, please signify. And those, those against and abstentions. I pass now to the Secretariat.

The meeting is now voting on the draft outcome document contained in Document A/Conf/192/BMS/2026/CRP1/Rev1 as a whole and as orally amended, um, revised. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.

Thank you, colleagues. The voting result is as follows: in favor, 128, 128, against 1, abstention 1. The draft outcome document, as orally revised, is adopted. I now open— one moment, please. Thank you. I was extremely slow on that gavel. Now it's an opportunity for any party who wishes to give an explanation of vote after the vote. Let me open the floor. United States, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, for giving us the floor. First, the United States must take this opportunity to lodge our objection to the application of the rules of procedure during this afternoon's session. The rules are crystal clear that if a matter of substance comes up for voting, voting shall take place. We made 3 proposals calling for votes on 3 individual paragraphs. Such individual paragraph by paragraph votes have been previously allowed. Through a blatant misreading of Rule 40, our right to to an individual vote was eliminated in this circumstance. Because of— additionally, because of these certain aspects remain in the document that we objected to, we must disassociate from certain portions of the final text. In particular, it is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. We reject the notion of gender understood as referring to a subjective sense of self-disconnected from the biological reality of sex. Paragraphs 11 and 50 are consistent— inconsistent with this policy. We therefore disassociate from those paragraphs. Additionally, paragraph 60— 6, excuse me— paragraph 6 refers to crimes that affect the environment, including illegal exploitation of natural resources. We view this paragraph, this phrase, as unacceptable. Unhelpful because it is so broad and undefined that we have no idea what is intended to denote. We therefore disassociate from paragraph 6. Similarly, paragraph 7 refers to the root causes and socioeconomic and environmental drivers where they exist of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. Such language is vague and unhelpful. We would therefore disassociate from paragraph 7. Chair, we refer to the explanations of votes we offered concerning paragraph 9, which we were not able to do, and encourage the United Nations to get back to the basics. We believe language related to sustainable capacity-building measures must include greater responsibilities for states to implement their obligations under the PoA and ITI. We therefore disassociate from paragraphs 25 and 59. Additionally, regarding paragraph 62 regarding technology transfers, we do not view the POA or ITI as entailing any commitment to engage in technology transfers. We therefore disassociate with paragraphs 10, 17, 46, and 53. Paragraph 30 calls to continue strengthening the United Nations National— Regional Centers for Peace and Disarmament. Paragraph 56 references the United Nations Regional Centers alongside states, international, regional, and sub-regional organizations providing technical assistance to requesting states. As the United States has previously stated in various UN meetings and venues, we call for greater efficiency in the UN system. As we have raised, we question the value and efficiency of these centers. We therefore disassociate from paragraphs 30 and 56. We must disassociate from the paragraphs in which we call— which we have previously mentioned and ask this be recorded in the decision. Thank you.

I thank the United States. I have a number of other delegations which have sought the floor, including Argentina, Cuba, Libya, Cameroon, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. I'm informed by the Secretariat that the room will need to close very, very shortly. Can I ask that all delegations who wish to submit statements do so using the eDelegate portal, and that will be taken into account by the Secretariat. But unless there were a very strong objection from any delegation from the floor, it would be my preference as Chair to conclude consideration of Agenda Item 10. Can I proceed on the basis that that is an agreed approach, on the basis that those delegations wishing to make statements will have the opportunity to do so via the eDelegate portal? I have Argentina still on my list. You have the floor, Argentina.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We support what you've proposed, uh, if other delegations are in agreement.

Thank you, Argentina. Cuba.

Gracias.

Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, I have to give my statements. I do apologize, but I promise it will be very brief. Just a short moment.

I'm so sorry, Kuba. I have actually been advised by the Secretary they will literally shut us off in 3 minutes. So, if you'll forgive me, I will exercise my prerogative as Chair to comply with the Secretariat's request in all of our collective interests. So, I'm so sorry. With that, can we regard agenda item 10 as having concluded by way of consideration? And I would like to move us to agenda item 11, which is adoption of the report. In accordance with our program of work, we will now consider the adoption of the report. The draft report is contained in document A/Conf/192, BMS 2026/L4. Allow me to go over this document very, very briefly. Section 1, entitled Introduction, contains historical mandates. Section 2 is entitled Organizational Matters. Section 3 is entitled Proceedings. And Section 4 is entitled Adoption of the Draft Final Document. And Section 5 is entitled Adoption of the Report. And I would like to indicate that it would be my proposal that we adopt that report as this meeting. Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you. In the first session of this biennial meeting, my delegation requested that the records of the meeting reflect that the Islamic Republic of Iran dissociates itself from the consensus on the decision to appoint Australia to the chairmanship of this meeting, so we request that our request be duly reflected in the procedural report. Thank you.

Thank you, Iran. United States, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to reflect our objections as well as the disassociations that we have raised to be recorded in the decision of the meeting. Thank you— in the report of the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, United States. Does any other delegation wish to intervene on the matter of 'I have Iran'? No, I do not have Iran? You have disappeared. In that case— Thank you. My screen is not working very well, I'm sorry. Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you. I think it is important for my delegation to place on record some important points. First, we disagree with the interpretation of the rules of procedure that was made, and we consider it inappropriate and incorrect. Second, we dissociate ourselves from the paragraphs 6 and 28 of the document, and we request that our disassociation will be reflected in the document. Thank you.

Thank you, Iran. And now, may I— I have Libya, you are seeking the floor.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I don't want to extend our discussions too much. However, I just wanted to reaffirm a very salient point. My country's delegation would like to thank you for all of the efforts made to adopt the outcome document, and we insist on the fact that Libya joined the consensus on the adoption of this document. And this is part of our fight against small arms and light weapons. We wish to warn against the effects of these weapons, especially on women and children. And this in line with our domestic legislation and in line with our values as a country. We want to put on record that we disassociate ourselves from non-consensus-based concepts internationally, in particular the gender concept.

Libya—

interrupt you, I'm so sorry. I am advised by the Secretariat that we will lose sound and light very soon. You do have the opportunity to make remarks and submit them via eDelegate, and I encourage you to do that. May I take it that it is the wish of the biennial meeting to adopt the draft report as contained in document ACONF192BMS2026L4 and authorize the chair to finalize the report? If I hear no objection, It is so decided. Thank you. I have very elegant comments written by the Secretary to conclude this meeting. I will not deploy them. I have a question from the Secretary. I'm sorry, the meeting is concluded. Thank you all for your patience and consideration.