First Committee, 24th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 80th session

The 24th meeting of the Disarmament and International Security Committee, First Committee, of the 80th session of the General Assembly is called to order. Distinguished delegates, this morning the Committee will continue to take action on all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under agenda items 90 to 106. We will begin by taking action on the draft resolutions and decisions under cluster 3, outer space, disarmament aspects, as contained in informal paper 1/rev.6. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.3, entitled "Prevention of an arms race in outer space". I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Draft resolution L.3 was submitted by representatives of Egypt and Sri Lanka on the 12th of October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/L.3. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.3? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. There are no additional co-sponsors at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee for her statement. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/L.3, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The committee is now voting on draft resolution L.3, entitled Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favor 174, against 2, 1 abstention. Draft resolution L.3 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft decision L.35 entitled "Reducing space threats through norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviours". I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Draft decision L.35 was submitted by the representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 13 October. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. The additional co-sponsors. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary for her statement. The committee will now proceed to take, sorry, A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of draft decisions A/C.1/L.80/L.35, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The Committee is now voting on draft decision L.35, entitled Reducing Space Threats through Norms, Rules and Principles of Responsible Behaviours. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 165, against 7, abstentions 2. Draft decision L.35 is adopted.

The.

Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.36, entitled "Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities". I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Draft resolution L.36 was submitted by the representatives of the Russian Federation and China on the 13th of October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/80/L.36. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.36? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. The additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L.36 are as follows: Burundi, the Congo. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/L.36, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.36, entitled "Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities". The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that your votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 169, against 3, abstentions 2. Draft resolution L.36 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.36, entitled "No first placement of weapons in outer space". I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Draft resolution L.37 was submitted by the representative of the Russian Federation on 13 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/L.37. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.37? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. The additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L.37 are as follows: the Congo. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, the Secretary of the Committee. A separate vote has been requested on the fifth preamble paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/37. We should now begin the voting process. I shall therefore put this paragraph to the vote. First, those in favour of the fifth preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against? Abstentions.

The committee is now voting on the fifth preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.37. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 110, against 15, abstentions 7. The fifth preamble paragraph is retained. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.37 as a whole. Those in favor of draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/L.37, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The committee is now voting on draft resolution L.37, entitled "No first placement of weapons in outer space." The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all the allegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.

The result of the voting is as follows in favor of 121 against 52 abstention 5. Draft resolution L.37 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.38 entitled Further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space. I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Draft resolution L.38 was submitted by the representative of the Russian Federation on the 3rd of October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/L.38. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.38? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. There are no additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L.38. The Congo, Uganda. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee. A separate vote has been requested on the fifth preamble paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/L.38. We should now begin the voting process. I shall therefore put this paragraph to the vote first. Those in favour of the fifth preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The Committee is now voting on the fifth preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.38. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 112, against 49, abstentions 6. The 50th preamble paragraph is retained. Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.38 as a whole. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/L.38, please signify. Those against? Abstentions.

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.38, entitled "Further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space." 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favor 119, against 49, abstentions 7. Graph resolution L38 is adopted. I now call on delegations wishing to explain their position after the vote. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.

Thank you, Chair. Microphone for the speaker, please. we are issuing an explanation of vote on reducing space threats through norms, rules, and principles of responsible behaviors. We do believe that the draft only says that we should keep the item on the agenda, but the Cuban delegation continues to have concerns about this matter, which emerge in the very title, because we're privileging the looking at norms, rules and principles of responsible behavior that are voluntary, and in so doing, we're diluting our priority here, that is having a treaty that is legally binding. In previous sessions, we have analyzed resolutions on this issue and we've seen that there was vague language that doesn't outright exclude the possibility of using or threatening to use force in space. As such, the possibility is left open for technologies, means and systems in space be used for purposes that are incompatible with the goal of retaining international peace and security and straying from the commitment to keep outer space for peaceful uses. Once again, we reaffirm our commitment to continuing to work in favour of preserving outer space as a common good for humankind, but we believe that the approach to this issue is not relevant. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba. Again, the floor to the distinguished representative of France.

Mr.

Chair, I have the honour to deliver an explanation of vote on draft resolutions L.37 and L.38 on behalf of France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Our three countries voted against these resolutions. These resolutions do not offer a credible path towards a safe, stable, secure and sustainable space domain. They offer no tangible and immediately applicable provision to prevent an arms race in outer space in all its aspects. We encourage all States to explore pragmatic, realistic and practical measures to tackle threats to security and safety in outer space and to prevent any uncontrolled escalation. We reiterate our opposition to the proposed treaty aiming to prevent the placement of weapons in outer space. This draft treaty is an impractical measure for PAROS because it fails to define what a weapon in outer space actually is and does not establish robust and reliable verification mechanisms making it possible to confirm whether or not a state is complying with its obligations. The no first placement initiative faces the same difficulty in terms of definitions and verification. And we believe that Russia's actions fail to be in sync with its rhetoric on preventing the first placement of weapons in outer space and its weaponization, particularly in light of Russia's possible plans to place a nuclear weapon in outer space. A results-oriented approach is required if we are to guarantee that space remain peaceful. This approach must emphasize transparency, observability, and security. We cannot focus on negotiating a single, sole, legally binding instrument that would exacerbate insecurity rather than reducing it. Our countries remain determined to advancing pragmatic, realistic, and effective initiatives to address threats to security in outer space and to prevent uncontrolled escalation. Responsible space behaviours should be subject to measures to prevent conflict in outer space, and should be what we use to prevent that conflict. Chair, threats to our space systems are real, complex and ever-evolving. They can affect all countries, whether we are space-faring or not. It is vital to preserve all countries' capacity and ability to use outer space for peaceful purposes. However, these resolutions do not provide the answer to that problem. Chair, I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of France. I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.

Thank you, Chair. Beyond the joint statement made by France, I deliver this further explanation of vote. after the vote in my national capacity. The United States is a world leader in promoting the advancement of peaceful uses of outer space. Accordingly, we must vote no on the resolution on L3, prevention of an arms race in outer space, and L36, transparency and confidence building measures. While the United States supports efforts to reduce the risk of conflict in outer space by promoting the draft treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, These two resolutions have the opposite effect. The PPWT is a failure in two major respects. It does not define what a weapon in outer space is, and it provides no mechanism to ensure any nation's compliance. As a result, including it in these resolutions is counterproductive, since it cannot and will not make outer space safer. It is unfortunate that our proposed revisions to the resolutions to mitigate this flaw were disregarded. Reducing threats in outer space and ensuring its use for peaceful purposes is crucial, but these resolutions are not the answer. Thank you, Chair.

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

Mr. Chair.

Allow me to issue explanations of votes concerning two resolutions under cluster 3. Switzerland once again abstained on draft resolution L.37, No First Placement of Weapons in Outer Space. Our delegation wishes to clarify that our EOVs on previous iterations of this resolution remain valid. Our reservations towards the text have been reinforced by the testing of counter-space capabilities by its promoter, which are inconsistent with the stated goal of the resolution. Turning now to resolution L.38, Further Practical Measures for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, we abstained on the resolution as a whole and on separate paragraph votes. This vote was motivated by the following reasons. We share the view that progress is required to address the risks posed by an arms race in outer space. We remain concerned about the development of weapon systems designed for outer space operations to... target-based assist, and we are of the view that establishing a legally binding instrument in this area remains an important goal. However, the question marks that we have regarding the wording of several paragraphs in this resolution, which we underlined in our explanations of vote at previous sessions of the First Committee, remain unchanged. Additionally, I wish to place on record that while we do welcome the adoption by consensus of the report of the group of governmental experts established Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 77/250, Switzerland does believe its report and the recommendations contained therein are a useful source for potential future negotiations of a legally binding instrument, but should not be its very basis. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.

Chair, I wish to issue an explanation of vote on the draft resolutions L37 and L38. Mexico supports the resolution on the commitment to no first placement in outer space, L37. because we agree with underscoring the importance and urgent need to prevent an arms race in outer space, in stringent compliance with our commitment to preserving outer space for exclusively peaceful uses. However, we reiterate the fact that this support must not be understood at any time as tacit endorsement or acceptance of a supposed right to place weapons in outer space or to launch them from Earth if other States are first to do so or in response to an attack. Mexico will continue championing efforts to ensure that no actor under any circumstances places weapons in outer space. Moreover, Mexico reiterates the fact that more specifically, all nuclear weapons must be prohibited and eliminated regardless of their type or location. This in accordance with the Treaty of 1996 and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As regards the references in preamble of paragraphs 11 and 13 to the report of the group of governmental experts and to the agenda and indicative program of work of the recently created OEWG, respectively, we wish to clarify that Mexico's support is rooted in the substantive content of those references and not in the modality through which these documents were adopted, that is, the reference to adopted by consensus. The above is applicable to the operative paragraphs 8 and 9 of the draft resolution L.38, further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. I take the floor to explain New Zealand's votes on two resolutions. New Zealand continues to vote against resolution L37 on no first placement of weapons in outer space. As a spacefaring nation, New Zealand remains firmly committed to a space environment that is peaceful, sustainable, safe and secure. We continue to support efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space. However, we remain concerned that this resolution's narrow focus on the first placement of weapons risks implying tacit approval for second and subsequent placements. It also fails to address the growing threat posed by Earth-to-space capabilities, including ground-based anti-satellite weapons. We are further concerned that, given the physical realities of the space environment and the dual-use nature of many space capabilities, important questions around definitions and verification remain unresolved. New Zealand also continues to vote against resolution L.38 on further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space. New Zealand remains committed to reducing the risk of conflict in space. However, we do not consider that an international legally binding instrument for the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space is a viable mechanism or a comprehensive solution for addressing space security issues. We support a more balanced approach, one that includes voluntary as well as legally binding measures. We want to avoid proposals such as this resolution, which are unproductive and that risk fragmenting the multilateral space security architecture. For these reasons, we voted against this resolution. I take this opportunity to underscore New Zealand's firm commitment to engaging constructively in multilateral discussions on space security, as well as our support for initiatives that are inclusive, coordinated, and capable of delivering timely progress on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of New Zealand. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Pakistan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pakistan abstained on the decision contained in document L.35, titled Reducing Space Threats Through Norms, Rules, and Principles of Responsible Behavior. Pakistan has consistently advocated for advancing negotiations on a legally binding instrument on PAROS as a matter of urgency. Concurrently, we have actively contributed to discussions on non-legally binding measures, such as transparency and confidence-building measures. We recognize the complementary relationship between the two approaches. Historically, non-legally binding measures have contributed to the development of legally binding measures and hold the potential to do so in the future. And we appreciate that the main sponsor of L35 has acknowledged this complementarity. However, this initiative continues to advance an exclusive focus on behaviors while ignoring the capabilities. We believe that we need a more holistic approach to address not only the dual use problem, but also the capabilities being designed, developed and applied for the explicit purposes of war fighting in outer space. Therefore, a comprehensive approach that includes a dual focus on both capabilities and behaviors offers the best pathway for progress, as has been the case in several legally binding and non-legally binding measures developed in other fields of disarmament. Furthermore, the concept of responsible and irresponsible behavior could also be subject to politicization if addressed without verifiable criteria and in isolation in a piecemeal manner. A holistic approach to space security is our best hope to prevent an arms race and to safeguard our space for future generations, ensuring that it remains a domain free from conflict. And I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you, distinguished representative of Pakistan. I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of India.

Thank you, Chair. India has voted in favor of the resolution L37. The resolution underlines that the legal regime applicable to outer space needs to be consolidated and reinforced. India supports this objective as well as strengthening of the international legal regime to protect and preserve access to space for all and to prevent, without exceptions, the weaponization of outer space. Although the no first placement of weapons in outer space is not a substitute for substantive legal measures to ensure the prevention of an arm race in outer space in a comprehensive manner, we view it as a useful initial step. On L38, India has traditionally supported the resolution on further practical measures for the prevention of an arm race in outer space. India continues to support substantive consideration of the prevention of an arm race in outer space and we remain committed to legally binding instrument on PAROS, which is universally acceptable, verifiable and multilaterally negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. Lastly, on both L37 and L38, India called a vote on PP5 due to non-consensual language. I thank you, Chair.

I thank you, distinguished representative of India. You now have the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Japan would like to explain the reason for its vote on L38. further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Japan agrees with the objective of preventing an arms race in outer space and the need for further practical measures. However, Japan voted against this draft resolution for the following problematic issues contained in it. Firstly, given the increasing reliance on and multiplying activities and actors related to outer space, there is a need for a more holistic and practical approach to prevent an arms race in outer space. In this regard, it is particularly vital to take into account the dual use nature of space objects and technologies and address current and potential space threats. Unfortunately, this resolution failed to acknowledge the arguments made in the open-ended working group on reducing space threats through norms, rules, and principles of responsible behaviors. While Japan welcomes the discussions in the group of governmental experts on further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space, my delegation needs to point out that this resolution intentionally focuses solely on the substantive discussions on the legally binding instrument. without taking note of the GGE's recommendations to consider further, continue further consideration of measures on PAROS through norms, rules, and principles of responsible behaviors. Thirdly, Japan reiterates its appreciation for the efforts made by our Egyptian and Brazilian colleagues, which led to the establishment of the open-ended working group on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects, pursuant to UNGA decision 79/512. These efforts have incentivized all participants to engage constructively towards our shared goal of a safe, secure and sustainable outer space. Unfortunately, this spirit of constructive engagement is absent in OP 9 of L38. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have taken the floor to explain the position and vote of my delegation regarding two draft resolutions, namely transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities and no first placement of weapons in outer space, as contained in documents L.36 and L.37, respectively. While my delegation voted in favor of L36 and L37, I wish to put on record that our previously announced position on them remains valid. Furthermore, Iran's vote in favor of this document should not be taken as its support for the report of the Group of Governmental Experts, as reflected in the OP1 of L36. The group was limited and selective, and Iran was not one of its members. Furthermore, our support of these draft proposals should not be employed in acknowledging the Assad proposal as reflected in PP11 of L36. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Costa Rica.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Allow me to briefly refer to the resolution L37, no first placement of weapons in outer space. In this regard, Costa Rica has continued with its pattern of voting in favor of the resolution, but we reaffirm our position that the placement of weapons in outer space is unacceptable in any circumstances, invoking any argument. be that for first, second, or third use, outer space cannot become a platform for the launch of aggressions and war or a place to threaten or guarantee superiority or supremacy. On the contrary, outer space must always remain a zone of peace. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Costa Rica, distinguished delegates. We have heard from the last speaker for the explanation of vote after the vote on cluster three, outer space disarmament aspects. The committee will now turn to the proposals on the cluster four, conventional weapons, as contained in informal paper 2/rev2. Distinguished delegates, before proceeding further, let me inform delegations that given the large number of votes requested under this cluster, we need to dedicate at least one hour to the actual voting. This means that in order for the Committee to complete the voting at 1:00 p.m., It has to start taking action on the proposal on the cluster four before 12 noon in order to respect rule 128 of the rules of procedure on non-interruption of the voting process. Distinguished delegates, I shall give the floor to delegations wishing to make either a general statement or to introduce new or revised drafts under cluster four, conventional weapons. Statements are limited to five minutes. I recognize the distinguished representative of Germany.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished colleagues. I wish to introduce resolution L19, through life conventional ammunition management, which we tabled this year together with France and South Africa. Resolution L19 addresses the instrument largely known as the Global Framework for Through-Life Conventional Ammunition Management, adopted in 2023 without a vote. A distinct and voluntary instrument, complementary to the Programme of Action, which addresses the manifold challenges arising from uncontrolled conventional ammunition flows, thus closing existing gaps in through-life ammunition management. Allow me to underscore its relevance in the words of the Secretary-General, who described the challenge in his 2025 report. The inadequate management of conventional ammunition continues to pose significant security and safety risks. The diversion and trafficking of conventional ammunition remains a global challenge with far-reaching implications for peace and security, the rule of law, and sustainable development. Across both conflict and non-conflict settings, diverted ammunition fuels armed violence, sustains illicit markets and economies, enables the production of improvised explosive devices, and facilitates acts of terrorism and organized crime. Its misuse destabilizes societies and perpetuates cycles of insecurity, hindering progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals." End of quote. Mr. Chair, This year's resolution reflects the results of the successful Preparatory Meeting of States on the Global Framework for Conventional Ammunition Management that was held from 23rd to 27th of June this year under the able stewardship of South Africa. We wish to explicitly express our gratitude for all the efforts invested by the Chair-designate, Ambassador Martinus van Schaik, and his team. The meeting has effectively laid the groundwork for a successful first meeting of States Parties in 2027. We are asking today not only for continued support for this year's resolution, but at the same time for your continued engagement in the process. We all have to make good use of the time available in 2026 for thorough preparation. preparatory meeting has reached consensus on a set of recommendations, giving us the tool and guidance we need for this preparation. So the resolution is meant to be a confirmation of the positive and successful process so far, but also, and particularly, a call for continuing our common journey with the same commitment and engagement in 2026, leading up to the meeting of States Parties in 2027. Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates, resolution L19 has gained already, as in past years, broad support from member states, and we wish to thank all delegations that have already expressed their support through co-sponsoring. Additionally, we wish to invite all those delegations that have not yet done so to support this resolution and this extremely important cause by a positive vote. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Germany. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Japan, together with Cambodia and Zambia, submitted the draft resolution L.30, Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. This draft resolution reaffirms our determination to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines in the world and recommit ourselves to the implementation of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention or APMBC. I would like to express my gratitude for the active and constructive engagement by many states during the informal consultations in Geneva and New York. Japan urges all states to support this draft resolution. The 22nd meeting of the States Parties of the APMBC will be convened in Geneva, Switzerland, this December. This will be an important opportunity to strengthen the implementation of the APMBC in accordance with the guidance set forth in the CMRIP UNCLOS Action Plan adopted at last year's Fifth Review Conference. Japan takes this opportunity to call upon all States to redouble their efforts towards achieving a mine-free world. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honour to introduce draft resolution L.9, entitled the Arms Trade Treaty. This resolution reaffirms the international community's continued commitment to the universalization and effective implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty is a landmark achievement. Adopted in 2013 and entering into force in 2014, it remains the first legally binding instrument to establish global standards for the international trade in conventional on Arms. Its objectives are clear, that is, to prevent and eradicate illicit arms transfer, reduce human suffering, and promote transparency and accountability in the arms trade. This year's draft maintains the core elements of previous resolutions and updates the text to reflect recent developments in the implementation of the treaty, including the outcomes of the 11th Conference of States Parties. Notably, CSP 11 advanced several initiatives to promote universalization, established gender focal points to further strengthen gender mainstreaming within the treaty, and adopted a mandate to develop a long-term strategy for the ATT. Since its adoption, the treaty has contributed to strengthening international norms and cooperation, aimed at preventing and eradicating the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to unauthorized users. We are encouraged by the progress achieved so far and by the continued engagement of States Parties, signatories and observers in advancing the objectives of the treaty. At the same time, we recognize that much remains to be done to achieve its universalization and ensure its full and effective implementation. With 117 States Parties, the ATT continues to move steadily towards universalization. We welcome the recent ratification by Vanuatu, and we support the ongoing efforts by other signatories and non-State Parties to work towards accession. We invite all Member States that have not yet done so to consider becoming State Party to the Treaty, and to join us in our shared goal to promote peace, security and sustainable development through responsible arms transfer. I would like to express our appreciation to all delegations that constructively engaged in the consultations on this draft resolution and to thank the many co-sponsors for their continued support. We hope that all delegations will lend their support to this resolution, which reflects our shared responsibility to promote transparency, accountability and the highest possible common standards in the global arms trade. As one of the main sponsors of the draft resolutions on illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects and L19 on through-life conventional ammunition management, it is our hope that we will continue to receive the support of Member States on these resolutions as well. I thank you, Mr Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Netherlands.

Thank you, Chair. Today, the First Committee will consider the resolutions under the cluster on conventional weapons. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has tabled the transparency in armaments resolution with LDOC number 47. The transparency in armaments resolution is submitted to the First Committee on a tri-annual basis. In 2022, the resolution was adopted by the First Committee with 154 votes in favor. The resolution supports the continuation of the United Nations Register on Conventional Arms, established in 1991, with the aim to enhance confidence between states through transparency in armaments. Through the Register, member states are requested on an annual and voluntary basis, I repeat, voluntary basis, to report international transfers of seven categories of major conventional arms, as well as small arms and light weapons. To date, 175 Member States have reported to the UN ROCA instrument at least once. This and the broad support for the resolution during previous iterations of the resolution at the First Committee confirms the importance of the instrument and its database as a crucial arms control tool contributing to the preserving international peace and security. The resolution also supports and mandates the UN ROCA group of governmental experts. This GGE provides recommendations to the Secretary-General on the continuation of the Register and its further development. The Register and the GGE operate under a long-standing and widely supported mandate. The continuation of the work and the activities of the GGE, as well as the SG's report, will be covered by the UN's regular budget. As the group will continue its work in 2027 and 2028, this resolution does not have a program budgetary implication. The budget will be discussed and approved by the Fifth Committee with the participation of the whole UN membership. The Secretariat will deliver an oral statement to inform Member States on the cost estimation. The statement is available on the e-delegate portal. Let me conclude by thanking the Member States who have co-sponsored this resolution. We look forward to the adoption of the resolution with, again, broad support of the UN Member States. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of the Netherlands. I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of Morocco.

Mr. Chairman, it is an honour for me to be delivering this statement on behalf of the Arab Group. With a view to explaining our vote on draft resolution L47, Transparency in Armaments, At the outset, we'd like to draw your attention to the fact that we're very much committed to the robust commitment of all efforts so as to bolster transparency and build confidence, as well as to ensure stability as regards conventional weapons, and this within a United Nations framework. The position of Arab states regarding the SALW Programme of Action, as well as the global framework for through life conventional ammunition management, well, the vote of the Arab States on relevant resolutions attest to this position commitment. Having said that, the Arab States Group did request a vote on L47 and the register, despite being voluntary, we get the impression that the provision of information is limited to conventional weapons, and that transparency and confidence are circumscribed to this category of weapons, to conventional arms, exclusively. The way we see it, this isn't right. In fact, the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms calls on states to provide information, and this information which is exchanged should extend to all other kinds of weapons as well, including WMDs and nuclear weapons. The principle of transparency and the principle of confidence building or trust apply to the entire arms regime so that we can strengthen our multilateral action. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Morocco. I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of Colombia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This year, Colombia, together with Japan and South Africa, is the primary sponsor of document A/C.1/80/L.51, entitled the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, that was adopted traditionally by consensus with overwhelming support. We are grateful to all delegations for their constructive participation in informal consultations, which we conducted in October to achieve a text which reflects a will for consensus. The illicit trade in and diversion of weapons, parts and munitions threatens global efforts to ensure peace, security and sustainable development. Access to weapons by illegal armed groups and transnational criminal organizations fuels other expressions of crime. Every year, States confirm their commitment to the implementation of the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument. This draft resolution reflects the dialogue, co-operative action and our desire to build consensus around the need to strengthen control on the manufacture, distribution and trade in weapons. However, the persistence of the phenomenon means that these efforts must be built upon, updated and be adapted to emerging challenges. The resolution that we presented contains technical updates and updates that are necessary to implement the GGE and in order to hold the 9th BMS. Moreover, we welcome the first round of the programme, the fellowship programme for 2025, whose implementation was mandated by the 8th BMS. We are grateful to all co-sponsors and we invite all delegations to once again adopt this resolution without a vote. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Colombia. Before the Committee proceeds to take action on the draft resolutions and decisions in class F4, we will hear from delegations wishing to explain their position on those drafts. I recognize the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am making an explanation of position on behalf of Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Japan, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Sweden, Turkey, and my own delegation, the United Kingdom, on draft resolution L41, Lethal Autonomous Weapons. We would like to begin by expressing our sincere appreciation to Austria and the co-sponsors for their constructive engagement on this resolution. We support the resolution's recognition of the importance of continued multilateral discussion on laws and the resolution's call on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Group of Governmental Experts on Laws to complete its important work. We wish to underscore that any future negotiations must take place within the framework of the CCW and must not prejudge the nature of their outcome. The CCW makes an essential contribution to the protections of civilians and combatants from the worst effects of certain conventional weapons. The CCW remains the most appropriate and inclusive forum able to address the many complex dimensions of lethal autonomous weapons, given its established mechanisms and the participation of high contracting parties. We continue to support the fulfilment of the 2023 consensus mandate of the CCW GGE on emerging technologies in the area of laws to, and I quote, "formulate by consensus a set of elements of an instrument without prejudging its nature and other possible measures to address emerging technologies in the area of laws," end quote, under the leadership of Ambassador Indenbosch. We have been pleased with the progress that has been made. We believe that the GGE represents the international community's best opportunity to make progress on addressing laws in a way that can achieve universal acceptance by states. In that regard, we look forward to discussing and agreeing on next steps at the seventh review conference of the CCW in 2026. We encourage all CCW High Contracting Parties and observers to work together on this historic opportunity in the GGE to achieve a consensus outcome in 2026. With two formal sessions remaining, we take this occasion to invite States who are not yet High Contracting Parties to join the CCW, and for any States who are not yet ready to become High Contracting Parties to join the GGE discussions as observers. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Mr.

Chairman, we would like to clarify the position of the Russian Federation on draft resolution L41, lethal autonomous weapons systems or laws. In previous years, the Russian Federation voted against draft resolutions of the General Assembly 78/241 and 79/62, which cover this topic. We categorically oppose the content of these resolutions. As previously, in this document, the authors of the initiative once again are pushing us towards the start of a negotiations process on an international legally binding instrument on laws. Although the international community has not come to an agreement whether this is advisable. We believe that international law, including international humanitarian law, is fully applicable to LAAWS. Therefore, we do not require to modernize it to meet the specific characteristics of LAAWS. We have unswervingly spoken out against artificial bans on the use and development of LAAWS. We believe that the sole optimal setting for discussing the whole gamut of questions linked to this issue is the Convention on Conventional Weapons. the CCW. This forum strikes the optimal balance between humanitarian concerns and lawful defence interests in relation to such weapons systems. Laws discussions have been underway for years now at the relevant Group of Government Experts. It encompasses the whole spectrum of issues, including legal, technical and military facets. All key States partake in the GGE, those involved in applications in this sphere. At the same time, as per the Rules of Procedure, other interested parties may also participate. The transfer of laws discussions at this stage to any other international fora could undermine the GGE's efforts to bring positions closer and their efforts to find a consensus-based way forward on this very sensitive and important issue. The sponsors of this draft resolution only refer to those elements of the GGE's mandate which meet their interests. They state that the GGE's ultimate objective is the start of a negotiations process, OP3. We see this not only as an attempt to prejudge the outcomes of work on laws, but also to revise the mandate of the GGE. We believe this framing of the issue to be absolutely unacceptable. As for the remaining provisions of the draft, we are disquieted by the fact the document notes that international human rights law, PP2, applies to such weapon systems. We'd like to remind you that this issue should be considered through the prism of international humanitarian law, which is invoked in times of armed conflict, international human rights law. is circumscribed solely to times of peace. We also insist on the need for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of potential ramifications of law's use, ramifications for international security, that is. We believe it's unacceptable to reduce these ramifications solely to risks and threats, as the authors of the document do in PB3, 4, and in OP1. We stand convinced that these weapons systems can demonstrate greater effectiveness than human-operated systems in achieving their stated objectives. They can also reduce the probability of errors and miscalculations. What's more is we are against the imposition of any abstruse or subjective imperatives, for instance, ethical ones. We believe that on laws issues, what's of key importance is the role of States. It is States who must determine the rules and norms for the application thereof. Therefore, we deem it counterproductive the participation on an equal footing with States of NGOs, including academia, civil society representatives, business and industry. We see no added value in the informal consultations on laws held in New York in 2025. These are mentioned in pp. 12 of the draft. We believe that it is not advisable to include on the agenda of the next UNGA session an item on laws, as the authors propose in OP4. Discussions of the work of the GGE under the auspices of the Conventional Weapons Convention might exert pressure on the work being done within the framework of that mechanism. By way of conclusion, we would like to underscore that this draft resolution undermines the activities of the GGE on laws, which risks even greater uncertainty in this sphere. We suggest voting against the draft as a whole, as well as PP.1, 8, 10, and OP.3 and 4. We will be abstaining on PP.2, 3, 4, 9, 12, and OP.1. We call on other states who are in favor of constructive dialogue on laws to follow our example. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Cuba will abstain from draft resolution L.9, entitled "The Arms Trade Treaty". The ATT is an imbalanced treaty in favour of states that export weapons. parameters established for these states evaluate and decide the approval or not to approve transparency and these criteria are subjective and can be manipulated for political agendas and that interferes with the right of states to acquire, possess arms for their self-defence, as recognised in the Charter. The ATT does not prohibit and therefore ultimately legitimises the transfer of arms to unauthorised non-state actors, this in spite of the fact that these are the primary source of the illicit trafficking in weapons. We reject, moreover, attempts to establish synergies between these treaties and other instruments that do have universal acceptance and whose legal nature and membership scope and arms categories covered, as regulated, that is, are different. In light of the above, our delegation disassociates from all paragraphs referring to the ATT contained in the various draft resolutions on which we will take action in the First Committee. Chair. The delegation of Cuba will also abstain on the vote on draft resolution L.30, Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. As regards draft resolution L.30, we reiterate the fact that while we continue to implement the policy of hostility and aggression, or rather see the implementation of that by the USA against Cuba, it's been in place for more than six decades, we cannot reject the use of anti-personnel mines for the protection of our sovereignty and territorial integrity in line with the right to self-defense as enshrined in the UN Charter. Cuba is a State Party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, including Protocol II on booby traps and other devices, and we strictly comply with the prohibitions and restrictions on the use of mines that are established by these instruments. We endorse our commitment to the application of a strict policy aimed to guarantee the responsible use of anti-personnel mines with exclusively defensive goals, in line with Cuba's national security needs. We fully endorse the legitimate humanitarian concerns as expressed in connection with anti-personnel mines. We share them. We support all legitimate efforts designed to ensure a proper balance between humanitarian issues and national security. We support all efforts that are designed to bear those in mind and eliminate the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of anti-personnel mines on the civilian population and the economies of many countries. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Cuba. And I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of Iran.

Mr. Chair, I would like to explain the position of my delegation regarding draft resolution L9 on the ATT, L34 on assistance to states for curbing the illicit trade, trafficking in small arms and light weapons and collecting them, and L41 on lethal autonomous weapons systems. My delegation will abstain from the vote on the draft resolution L9 on ATT for the following reasons. First, in the ATT, the political and commercial interests of certain arms-exporting countries have a higher priority than the observance of the fundamentals of international law. The international prohibition on the use of force by one state against another state is the most fundamental principle of modern international law. However, the ATT has failed to uphold this principle and to prohibit the transfer of arms to parties that commit acts of aggression, including foreign occupation. This is a significant loophole and major legal deficiency in the ATT. Second, we have strong reservations about the notion of complementarity with other instruments, as mentioned in the draft. Furthermore, L9 calls upon non-parties to accede to the treaty. Such a call for the universalization of the ATT is unacceptable, because this treaty was not adopted by consensus due to its substantive flaws as well as disregard for the concerns and interests of some states participating in the negotiation process. Further, some of its state parties are committing major violations of its provisions as well. Exporting billions of dollars of arms to the Israeli regime while they are being used for death and destruction by the regime in Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, and other Middle East countries is only one example of such violations. I would like to state for the record that our position on Arms Trade Treaty applies to all paragraphs in the draft resolutions and decisions adopted or to be adopted by the committee this year. Therefore, my delegation disassociate itself from all such references. Although we joined the consensus on draft resolution L.34 entitled, "Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons." Our position on the ATT remains consistent with what we have articulated regarding L9. My delegation will abstain from the vote on L41 on lethal autonomous weapons systems for the following reasons. First, the definition and the scope of the term lethal autonomous weapons in the draft resolution are not clearly articulated. In this regard, any attempt to broaden the scope of the resolution from lethal autonomous weapons to the more general category of autonomous weapons gives rise to serious concerns. Second, while my delegation remains committed to addressing each topic within its relevant and specialized forum, we believe that the Group of Governmental Experts established under the framework of the CCW CCW remains the most appropriate forum for the consideration of issues related to lethal autonomous weapons systems. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Pakistan.

Thank you, Chair. I wish to explain my delegation's position on draft resolutions L30 and L52. My delegation will abstain on draft resolution contained in document L.30. Landmines continue to play a significant role in meeting the military needs of many states. Reliance on landmines is an integral part of Pakistan's defense in view of our security needs to guard long borders which are not protected by any natural obstacle. Pakistan is party to Amended Protocol II of the CCW that regulates the use of landmines to protect civilians from their indiscriminate and lethal effects. We'll remain committed to ensuring that mines in our military inventory will never become a source of civilian casualties. As one of the largest troop contributors to UN peacekeeping operations, Pakistan has been successfully undertaking demining operations in various parts of the world. We are ready to provide further support to advance global humanitarian demining efforts. Chair, my delegation will abstain on draft resolution contained in document L52. As a matter of principle, Pakistan does not support the conclusion of important international treaties especially those related to arms control and disarmament outside the UN framework. This is also applicable in the context of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Pakistan considers the multilateral framework of the CCW as the most appropriate forum to address the issue of cluster munitions. The strength of the CCW lies in its legal framework that strikes the delicate balance between the need to minimize human suffering without compromising the legitimate security interests of states. Pakistan supports international efforts to address the irresponsible and indiscriminate use of cluster munitions and condemns the use of cluster munitions against civilian populations and people under illegal occupation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Pakistan. The committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.9, entitled Arms Trade Treaty. I now give the floor to the Secretary of the committee.

Draft resolution L.9 was submitted by the representative of South Africa on 7 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/L.80/L.9. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Kindly bear with us two minutes, please. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L9? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. There are no additional co-sponsors for draft, oh, I'm sorry. The additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L9 are as follows. Cameroon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee. Separate votes have been requested on the 10th and 11th preamble paragraphs of draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/L.9. 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 10th preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The committee is now voting on the 10th preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.9. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 129, against 2, abstentions 27. The 10th preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the 11th preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against? Abstentions?

The Committee is now voting on the eleventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution L.9. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 136, against 2, abstentions 19. The 11th preamble paragraph is retained. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.9. As a whole, those in favor of draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/L.9, please signify. Those against, abstentions?

The committee is now voting on draft resolution L.9, entitled the Arms Trade Treaty. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 148, against 1, abstentions 24. GAFTEC resolution L9 is adopted. Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.19 entitled, "Through Life Conventional Ammunition Management." I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Draft resolution L.19 was submitted by representatives of Germany, France, and South Africa on the 10th of October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document AC1.80.L19. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.19? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. There are no additional co-sponsors for draft proposal L.19 at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee for his statement. Separate votes have been requested on the 17th, 19th, 20th, and 21st preamble paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/L.19. We shall now begin the voting process. I shall therefore put these paragraphs to the vote first, one by one. Those in favor of the 17th preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The committee is now voting on the 17th preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.19. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favor 123, against 1, abstentions 28. The 17th preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favor of the 19th preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The committee is now voting on the 19th preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.19. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favor 151, against 0, abstentions 11. The 20th preamble paragraph is retained.

19.

The 19th, I'm sorry. Those in favor of the 20th preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The committee is now voting on the 20th preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.19. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 151, against 2, abstentions 6. The 20th preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favor of the 21st preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The committee is now voting on the 21st preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.19. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 149, against 1, abstentions 11. The 21st preamble paragraph is retained. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L19 as a whole. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/L.19, please signify. Those against? Abstentions.

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.19, entitled "Through-life conventional ammunition management". 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 171, against 0, abstentions 4. Draft resolution A/19 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/29, entitled "Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects." I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Draft resolution L29 was submitted by the representative of Bulgaria on the 13th of October. The sponsor of the draft resolution is contained in document AC180L29. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee for her statement. The sponsor of the draft resolution has expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft resolution L29 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.30, entitled "Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and their Destruction." I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Draft resolution L.30. was submitted by representatives of Japan, Cambodia, and Zambia on the 13th of October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/80/L/30. 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 L/30? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. The additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L30 are as follows. Cabo Verde. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee for her statement. A recorded vote has been requested. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.30. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/L.30, please signify. Those against? Abstentions.

The Committee is now voting. on draft resolution L.30, entitled "Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction." 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 154, against 1, abstentions 23. Draft resolution L30 is adopted. Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L.34, entitled "Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them." I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Draft resolution L.34 was submitted by the representative of Nigeria. on behalf of the states members of the United Nations that are members of the Economic Community of West African States on the 13th of October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/80/L/34. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.34? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. The additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L.34 are as follows: Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Congo, Trinidad and Tobago, Burundi. Angola. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee for her statement. A separate vote has been requested on the 16th preamble paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/34. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of the 16th preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against? Abstentions.

The Committee is now voting on the 16th preamble 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 kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 142, against 1, abstention 24. The 16th preamble paragraph is retained. The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft resolution L.34 is adopted.

Could you announce this now and then I give you the next one.

We will not take action on draft proposal L41 at this time. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L47 entitled "Transparency in armaments". I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Draft resolution L47 was submitted by the representative of the Netherlands on the 14th of October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document AC180L47. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L47? If yes, I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. The additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L47 are as follows: Bosnia and Herzegovina. The present oral statement is made in the context of Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. The present statement has also been distributed to Member States. Under the terms of operative paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would, and I quote, reaffirm its decision to keep the scope of participation in and use of the register on the review with a view to consider its further development and to that end, request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts, to be convened for one week each at the end of 2027 and at the beginning and in the middle of 2028, and with the broadest possible participation, and on the basis of equitable geographical and gender representation, to prepare a report on the continuing operation and relevance of the Register, including by exploring the relationship between the participation in, scope of, and use of the Register and its further development, taking into account the work of the Conference on Disarmament relevant deliberations within the United Nations, the views expressed by member states, and the reports of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, with a view to taking a decision at its 83rd session; Requests the Secretary-General to implement the recommendations contained in his 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025 reports on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development. In particular, the recommendations contained in paragraphs 129A to S of the consensus report of the 2024-2025 Group of Governmental Experts are specifically addressed to the secretariat request the Secretary General to ensure that sufficient resources are made available by the United Nations so that the secretariat can effectively implement its core functions for the effective operation of the register as outlined in paragraphs 129 a to s of the 2025 report in including in relation to the recommendation in paragraph 129G pertaining to the translation of the online database and other essential documents, such as the guidelines entitled "The Global Reported Arms Trade transparency in armament through the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms into all six official languages of the United Nations for continuing operations of the register using resources made available through the regular budget. Request the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its 83rd session on progress made in implementing the present resolution." End of quote. The requests contained in operative paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the draft resolution would constitute additional workload to the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, the Office for Disarmament Affairs, the Office of Information and Communications Technology and the UN Office in Geneva as follows. For the Department of General Assembly Conference Management, Section 2, additional resource requirements estimated at $148,500 for 2027 and $243,600 for 2028, excluding staff assessment, would be required for interpretation in all six languages for a five-day meeting in New York in 2027, a five-day meeting in Geneva in 2028, and a five-day meeting in New York in 2028 operative paragraph 6 and translation in all six languages of the online database and other essential documents such as the guidelines entitled the global reported arms trade, transparency in armaments through the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms in 2027, operative paragraph 8, and the Secretary-General's report in 2028, operative paragraphs 6 and 11. For the Office for Disarmament Affairs, section 4, additional requirements estimated at $162,100 for 2027 and $284,700 for 2028 would be required to cover travel costs, daily subsistence allowance, and terminal expenses for up to 20 governmental experts to attend the three five-day sessions, one in New York in 2027 and one each in New York and Geneva in 2028. A consultant to provide technical support for the substantive servicing of the work of the UN Group of Governmental Experts in 2027 and 2028. A consultant for the technical upgrade of the UN Register of Conventional Arms to enable translation into six official languages in 2027. And travel of two staff of the Office of Disarmament Affairs to provide substantive and technical support for the session in Geneva in 2028. For the Office of Information Communications Technology, section 29C, additional resources estimated at $14,500 for each of 2027 and 2028 would be required for IT conference services for the five-day meetings in New York in 2027 and 2028. For the UN Office in Geneva, section 29E, additional resources estimated at $4,000 would be required for sound technician and recording operator for the five-day meeting in Geneva in 2028. Accordingly, Should the General Assembly adopt draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/47, the related resource requirements may be included in the proposed programme budget for the relevant years for the consideration of the General Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee. Separate votes have been requested on the sixth preamble paragraph and operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/Add.47. We should now begin the voting process. I shall therefore put these paragraphs to vote first. Those in favour of the sixth preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The Committee is now voting on the sixth preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.47. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 120, against 0, abstentions 30. The sixth preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 6, please signify. Those against, abstentions.

The committee is now voting on operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution L.47. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows in favor of 129 against zero. Abstentions 23. Operative paragraph 6 is retained. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L47 as a whole. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/L.80/L47, please signify. Those against? Abstentions?

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L47, entitled "Transparency in armaments". The voting machine is unlocked. The 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 149, against 0, abstentions 25. Draft resolution L.47 is adopted. Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L51, entitled "Illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects." I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Draft resolution L51 was submitted by the representative of Colombia, also on behalf of Japan and South Africa, on the 14th of October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/L.51. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.51? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. The additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L51 are as follows: Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, the Congo, Kiribati. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee. Separate votes have been requested on the 8th, 21st, and 23rd preamble paragraphs of draft resolution A/C.1/L.51. 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 eighth preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against? Abstentions?

The Committee is now voting on the eighth preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.51. The voting machine is unlocked. The 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 159, against 1, abstentions 7. The eighth preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the 21st preamble paragraph, please signify. Those against, abstentions?

The Committee is now voting on the 21st preamble paragraph of draft resolution L.51. 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.

The result of the voting is as follows. In favour 138, against 1, abstention 23. The 21st preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the 23rd paragraph, please signify those against, absentees.

The committee is now voting on the 23rd preamble paragraph of draft resolution L51. The voting machine is unlocked. The delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all the delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.

The

result of the voting is as follows: in favour 148, against 0, abstentions 18. The 23rd preamble paragraph is retained. The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so. decided. Draft resolution A/51 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/52, entitled "Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions". I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.

Draft resolution L.52 was submitted by the representative of the Philippines on behalf of states members of the CCM, Coordination Committee, on the 14th of October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document AC180.L.52. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/L.52, please signify. Those against? Abstentions?

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.52, entitled "Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions". 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.

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 131, against 2, abstentions 41. Draft resolution L.52 is adopted. I now call on delegations wishing to explain their position after the vote. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.

Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. We would like to provide some explanations for several of our votes in cluster four on conventional weapons. On L29, the United States is proud to strongly support the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Particularly, this includes the ongoing work of the Group of Governmental Experts on emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapon systems. We encourage all CCW high contracting parties and observers to work together to achieve a consensus outcome in 2026. Because we strongly support the GGE fulfilling its current mandate and with a view to further deliberations and consensus among the CCW high contracting parties on a future instrument and other measures, the United States does not support L41, the Laos resolution, and voted against it. In particular, the United States is deeply concerned about preambular paragraph 7 and operative paragraph 3. Language in these paragraphs does not reflect what has been agreed to in the CCW. Moreover, the resolution endorses the informal consultations that occurred earlier this year in New York, which were not helpful. and proposes to take up the resolution again next year, when the CCW process will be ongoing and the outcome of the CCW 7th Review Conference in 2026 will be unknown. On L30 and L52, which cover the Ottawa Mine Ban Convention and the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions, respectively, we deeply regret that both resolutions contain language calling out states that have decided to withdraw from these conventions. A state's decision to join, to not join, or to withdraw from a treaty should be respected as an exercise of its sovereign rights. Many states have decided not to join these conventions based on careful considerations of what is necessary to safeguard their national sovereignty, including their sovereign interest in contributing to international peace and security in the exercise of collective defense. It is not regrettable, but commendable when states have decided to better contribute to the defense of their own countries and their allies. For this reason, after years of abstaining on the resolution relating to the implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the United States voted against the resolution and encouraged others to do the same. While we are concerned about this language, we want to be clear that we seek to mitigate harm to civilians and other harmful consequences of war. The United States is proud to be a global leader in military operations in the clearance of landmines, improvised explosive devices, and explosive remnants of war. It is this work that we believe most directly addresses the human suffering that can occur, and we encourage all countries to join us in these efforts. Finally, we dissociate from language in L19 on conventional ammunition, on L34 on assistance to address the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, on L47 on transparency in armaments, and L51 on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons related to the Arms Trade Treaty. The strength of the UN program of action on small arms and light weapons and the global framework on ammunition management is that all states participate in them. Assistance between states to curb the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons is likewise improved by greater engagement. By contrast, the United States and many other states are not parties to the ATT. The inclusion of language welcoming an aspect of a separate treaty to which the United States and many other states are not parties and to whose obligations we are not bound undermines important work in the sector by distracting from the broadest possible participation. On L47, we have reviewed the associated oral statement, which appears consistent with past practice related to this triennial resolution, and would like to emphasize no augmented resources should be devoted to this effort. We will address this resolution's language on geographic representation and gender in a later EOB applicable across First Committee resolutions. Thank you.

I thank the representative of the United States. I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. We wish to issue an explanation of vote on draft resolutions L9, L19, L30 and L51. We voted in favour of those drafts, and we wish to refer to those drafts of resolutions that contain language on Agenda 2030, the Pact for the Future, gender perspective and that was language in particular from which we dissociated. As regards references to Agenda 2030, as we have been stating, for the Argentine Republic, Agenda 2030 comprises legally non-binding aspirations that each state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, has a right to interpret and pursue in full freedom. Moreover, we recall that Argentina disassociated from the Pact for the Future when it was adopted. As such, we do not believe the references to that document apply. As regards the gender perspective, we wish to underscore that the commitment of the Argentine Republic to women's rights is a long-standing one and is rooted in and enshrined in our legislation and in internal practices which go above and beyond international standards. However, we warn that using a sector-specific approach to examine human rights generates inequalities that run counter to the non-discrimination goal that we're pursuing. Thank you.

Representative of Argentina, I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of Finland.

Mr. Chair, I have the honor to deliver an explanation of vote on the resolution entitled Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personal Mines and on their Destruction. Finland decided to abstain because Finland has formally notified its withdrawal from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention in accordance with the procedures outlined in the convention. The withdrawal will take effect on 10th January 2026. The decision to withdraw from the convention is based on Finland's defense needs in a deteriorated security environment. Finland shares a long border with Russia over 1300 kilometers. Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine has demonstrated a disregard for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states. Russia has blatantly violated the UN Charter and breached the European rules-based security order. It poses a long-term threat to Europe and to transatlantic security. The withdrawal from the convention will enable Finland to reintroduce the anti-personnel mine system to the range of its available means of defense. Finland will not deploy mines during times of peace. All mines, including the anti-personnel mines, will be stored. The training and exercises are the only exceptions on this. Mines are defensive tools for Finland. The withdrawal will not affect Finland's other obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, which will continue to be respected. Despite the withdrawal, Finland continues to support the humanitarian objectives of the Convention and remains committed to humanitarian mine action. Finland has supported humanitarian mine action, such as mine clearance and victim assistance, with 125 million euros since 1991. Provisionally, there are 15 million euros budgeted for humanitarian mine action for the years 2026-2030. The concrete projects are under planning. Humanitarian mine action will continue to be an important part of Finland's international engagement. Thank you.

Thank you, representative of Finland. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt.

Mr. Chairperson, I wish to deliver this explanation of vote regarding Egypt's position on a number of resolutions voted under cluster four. First, On resolution L9, Egypt has always been and continues to be at the forefront of any genuine effort aiming at combating illicit trafficking in arms. Nevertheless, the Arms Trade Treaty suffers from a number of shortcomings, particularly the absence of precise definitions and clear criteria, making the implementation of the treaty prone to selectivity and subjectivity. The treaty also ignored the prohibition of intentional state-sponsored supply of weapons to unauthorized recipients, including terrorists and non-state armed groups. Therefore, Egypt has abstained on L9 as well as other paragraphs referring to this treaty in draft resolutions L34 and L47. Second, on resolution L19, Egypt is fully committed to efforts aiming at strengthening the response to existing gaps at the through-life conventional ammunition management. It's within this context that Egypt voted in favor of this draft resolution. However, it's our belief that dealing with the diversion of ammunition to unauthorized recipients on one hand and the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons on the other hand should not be overlapped and that both issues should be tackled in separate tracks to preserve the centrality of the program of action on illicit flow of small arms and light weapons. Accordingly, Egypt has abstained on PP16 of this draft resolution and as well as PP23 and document L51. Third, on resolution L34, on several occasions, Egypt has expressed its reservations on the imbalanced nature of this instrument on the convention of AP mines, which was developed and concluded outside the framework of the United Nations. Furthermore, and as a primary victim of the World War II mines plantation, The convention does not establish any legal obligation on states to remove the anti-personnel mines they have placed in the territory of other states. For those reasons, Egypt abstained on this draft resolution. Fourth and finally, on resolution L52, Egypt abstained on the resolution on the convention on cluster munitions in light of our view on the selective and imbalanced nature of this instrument, which was developed and concluded outside the framework of the UN, and which lacks an equitable and clear definition of cluster munitions, risking the possibility of selective applications. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the representative of Egypt. I give now the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Mr. Chairman. We would like to clarify the position of the Russian Federation on L9, the Arms Trade Treaty. We are compelled to note that the principles of transparency and responsible behavior of states engaging in the international arms trade, that these principles are not being complied with. They fall far short of the high standards applied to the military and technological cooperation between Russia and other importers and suppliers of arms. The treaty has a lot of shortcomings which don't allow us to effectively cut off channels for arms being trafficked, leaving room for ambiguous and bad faith interpretation of the treaty. In light of the above, we do not intend to join the treaty and will be abstaining on the draft resolution. Turning now to L19, through life ammunition management, conventional weapons. The Russian Federation categorically opposes what the global framework says. In fact, it mentions political commitments of some sort as applied to management of national ammunition stockpiles. control over national stockpile management, determination of optimal standards for their physical security, excess ammunition quantity parameters, marketing, accounting, and record-keeping for arsenals, and the choice of the means and technologies for the disposal thereof, all of the above is a sovereign prerogative of states. In the Russian Federation, we have very effective regulations covering control and trade as well as the export of ammunition. We play an important role in combating illicit trafficking in ammunition at the national, regional and global level, in particular within the framework of the CSTO, the CIS and the SCO. In light of the above, we must abstain on this. Next, L.30. implementation of the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention, or the Mine Ban Treaty. We'd like to remind you that the Russian Federation is not a party to this convention. Having said that, the latest events have once again reaffirmed that we made the right choice. This regime is weak and unreliable. The convention does not have the requisite levers for exerting pressure on countries shirking their responsibilities. A good example of this is the fact that Ukraine has disregarded its obligations under this international treaty. The convention states that Kiev... should have, back in 2010 already, destroyed all of its anti-personnel mines aside from a minimal quantity, which is required for Ukraine to develop methods for mine detection and to train its specialists. However, Kyiv has not yet done so. Further evidence of the weakness of this regime is the fact that a number of Western countries have initiated procedures for withdrawing from the Convention. This demonstrates that the Convention is not well positioned to help strengthen peace nor disarmament. Therefore, the has voted against this draft resolution. Mr. Chairman, given that the Russian Federation is not a participating state in the Cluster Munitions Convention, we were compelled to vote against draft L.52, implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Despite activists taking measures to minimize the negative consequences of these weapons being used, negative consequences for the civilian population. The Russian Federation believes that this document is ambiguous. It was prepared hastily outside UN auspices. Our position remains unchanged. We believe that from the very outset, the convention was established to introduce discriminatory restrictions. The convention states that there's a blanket ban on cluster munitions. What happens in practice is that there are endeavors to redistribute market share in cluster munitions. There are bans being imposed on so-called bad cluster munitions. Meanwhile, so-called high-tech cluster munitions are permitted, all of which means benefits accrues to a specific group of producer states. We see this as a manifestation of double standards, and this is why we voted against this draft resolution. I thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to issue an explanation of vote on draft resolution L51. My delegation aligned itself with consensus for the adoption of draft decision L51, the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, because of the importance that the issue of combating this traffic has for us. It's a national priority. It's a priority for national security. However, we wish to place on record our disappointment because one more year has elapsed without the membership having a discussion on substantive issues related to the two next BMS meetings. We must recall that the issue of the themes was postponed to the intercessional period because we could not reach an agreement within the framework of the fourth review conference for the programme of action in 2024. the deliberations should have taken place in the intersessional period. That was something that did not happen last year. Now, we once again are facing a number of reluctances, but the outcome was the same: no deliberation. This pattern of a lack of monitoring of agreements is a source of concern. And unfortunately, it prompts my country to seek to ensure that any document and resolutions contain specific information around expectations to avoid similar situations in the future. I conclude by emphasizing the fact that determining specific themes in an early fashion is in the benefit of all of those that seek to forge ahead with the implementation of the program of action. I reiterate the readiness of my delegation to work together to ensure the success of the upcoming BMS. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Mexico. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I take the floor to explain Indonesia's positions on the draft resolution under cluster four, conventional weapons. On the draft resolution L9 on the Arms Trade Treaty, Indonesia voted in abstention of the draft resolution. Indonesia also voted in abstention to all references that were made to the Arms Trade Treaty in all resolutions under this cluster. We noted that the treaty is a step towards strengthening cooperation on transparency and regulating the trade of conventional weapons that would contribute to international peace and security. However, we believe that the treaty should not impose restrictions that could hinder the development of capabilities, especially for developing countries. Furthermore, the treaty provisions fail to adequately take into account for intrastate conflicts. in which sovereign states have a responsibility to protect civilians and defend their national unity and integrity against non-state actors. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the representative of Indonesia. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Singapore.

Mr. Chair. I am taking the floor to explain Singapore's votes in favour of the resolutions A/C.1/L.30, Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, and A/C.1/L.52, Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, that have just been adopted. Singapore has a longstanding, consistent and clear position on these two resolutions, which we have traditionally voted in favour of. On the resolution Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Singapore supports all initiatives against the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines. And since 1998, Singapore has declared an indefinite moratorium on the export of all anti-personnel landmines. On the resolution implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Singapore has consistently supported regional and global initiatives against the indiscriminate use of cluster munitions, especially when directed at innocent civilians. It is for this reason that Singapore also declared an indefinite moratorium in November 2008 on the export of cluster munitions. Singapore supports the work of these conventions through our regular attendance at the meetings of States Parties to these conventions, such as the 13th MSP to the Convention on Cluster Munitions held recently in September 2025. At the same time, as a small state, Singapore firmly believes that the legitimate security concerns and the right to self-defence of any State cannot be disregarded. In that regard, a blanket ban on all types of cluster munitions and anti-personnel landmines may be counterproductive. Singapore has and will continue to work with the international community to find a comprehensive and durable solution to address humanitarian concerns over the use of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, representative of Singapore. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Austria.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to inform delegations that shortly before the voting, our delegation became aware of technical errors in the version circulated as document L41, specifically in PP2 and PP4.

We understand that these mistakes occurred during the editorial phase.

And we therefore kindly request the Secretariat to receive our corrections and to issue the corrected text for consideration and voting in due course.

Thank you.

I thank the representative of Austria. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Lithuania.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chair, my delegation wishes to explain its abstention on resolutions L30 implementation of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, and L52, implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Lithuania reaffirms its respect for the humanitarian objectives that inspired the Convention on Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, the Ottawa Convention. We deplore the suffering inflicted upon civilians by the indiscriminate use of such weapons. We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to international humanitarian law and its principles. That said, Lithuania has decided to withdraw from the Oslo Convention, effective 6 March 2025, and Ottawa Convention, effective 27 December 2025. These decisions were not taken lightly or in isolation. They are a direct result of the fundamental deterioration of regional security caused by Russia's illegal, unprovoked, and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine, and Russia's massive militarization along NATO's eastern flank. Russia, not a party to either convention, has extensively and indiscriminately used cluster munitions and mines in Ukraine. deliberately targeting civilians and violating international humanitarian law. In this security environment, Lithuania cannot accept unilateral constraints that would undermine its self-defense. The sovereign and transparent decisions to withdraw were made in full accordance with Article 20 of the respective conventions, following extensive consultations with partners. withdrawals does not signal a weakening of humanitarian standards. Lithuania continues to implement the Geneva Conventions, their additional protocols, and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Our armed forces are trained and equipped to apply the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution in all military operations. We remain actively engaged in mine action, including through the Demining Capability Coalition for Ukraine, co-led by Lithuania and Iceland. While the resolutions express regret over the withdrawals, we believe the emphasis should instead be placed on the deeply troubling security environment and the mentioned exceptional circumstances that necessitated such actions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, representative of Lithuania. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to present Israel's explanation of vote regarding our vote on resolutions L9 and L30. Regarding L9, titled the Arms Trade Treaty, As a signatory state, Israel supports the purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty, and many of the treaty's principles and standards are already embodied in Israel's robust export control mechanisms. Israel participates in the ATT's work program throughout the year and submits working papers and proposals for the purpose of contributing to the substantial discussion of the forum. Furthermore, Israel voted yes on this resolution in previous years, in light of our support of the treaty's essence and due to its importance to arms control, including regarding the issue of diversion to non-state actors. However, unfortunately, we have been witnessing the deterioration of the ATT's professional posture and blatant attempts to politicize our discussions. This undermines the treaty's integrity and risks crippling its capacity to undertake the important task envisioned for it. This is why Israel chose to abstain on the resolution. With regard to resolution L30, titled "Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction," which Israel chose to abstain on, we wish to emphasize that the decision to accede to an international instrument or to withdraw from one is the sovereign prerogative of any State. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the representative of Israel. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Poland.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to explain Poland's vote on the resolution L30, Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. Chair, Poland remains deeply committed to the principles of the UN Charter and to international humanitarian law. We share the global aspiration to reduce the suffering caused by armed conflicts and to promote responsibility and transparency in the use of conventional weapons. At the same time, the reality of our security environment has changed profoundly. The ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine, a war of aggression being waged in direct proximity to our borders, has eroded the foundations of European security. In these circumstances, Poland, as a front-line member of NATO and the European Union, must preserve the credibility of its defence posture and ensure the safety of its citizens. In this context, Poland has decided to initiate the process of withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention, one of the decisions that are not taken lightly, as my Lithuanian colleague has just said. Yet it stems from the need to maintain effective national defence capabilities in a drastically altered strategic environment, while continuing to uphold our humanitarian responsibilities and our respect for international law. Mr. Chair, in conclusion, let me emphasise: Poland's approach does not signify a departure from humanitarian values. We remain firmly committed to minimising civilian harm, developing modern and controlled defensive means, and engaging constructively in global efforts that balance humanitarian concerns with legitimate security needs. Poland's stance reflects responsibility, transparency, and a sober recognition that true peace is inseparable from security. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, representative of Poland. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Latvia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to explain Latvia's vote on resolution L30, implementation of the convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personal mines and on their destruction. Latvia abstained in this vote. Over the past years, we have witnessed fundamental change in security environment in our region and globally, resulting from Russia's full-scale military aggression against Ukraine. While it continues to claim that its actions do not constitute threats to other countries in the region, we have learned to judge Russia by its deeds rather than statements. It is worth noting that just days before its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia continued to insist that no such invasion was being planned. Recent airspace violations of several neighboring states clearly illustrate threats posed by Russia. Russia's actions constitute grave violation of international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law. If Russia upheld its international obligations and if Russia did not itself widely use anti-personal mines in Ukraine, Latvia would not have been compelled to take certain decisions to safeguard our sovereignty and territorial integrity. The decision to withdraw from the convention prohibiting anti-personal mines is aimed at providing additional flexibility and means to our armed forces to strengthen our national defense and further secure the EU and NATO external border. Our actions are transparent and defensive in nature. Latvia has thoroughly followed the provisions that regulate withdrawal from the convention. Latvia continues to fully comply with our international obligations, including international humanitarian law. While withdrawing from this convention, Latvia remains committed to supporting humanitarian mine action. We are contributing financially to the UN Mine Action Service, UNMAS, and remain actively engaged in demining projects, particularly in Ukraine. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Latvia. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Estonia.

Thank you, Chair. I'm delivering this explanation of vote on the resolution L30 entitled Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. the outset we would like to thank Japan for the resolution and reaffirm our support to the humanitarian objectives of the convention Estonia has decided to abstain on the resolution in light of our recent decision to withdraw from the anti-personnel mine ban convention on 27th of June 2025 Estonia officially notified the depository on all States Parties and the members of the United Nations Security Council of this decision. The withdrawal was undertaken in full accordance with the procedure set out in the Convention and will enter into force on 28th of December 2025. The decision of withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention was taken based on a thorough reassessment of our national security needs. prompted by the drastically changed security environment in our region. Estonia shares its eastern border with the Russian Federation, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which continues its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. Russia is acting in a blatant violation of international law, including the fundamental principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, by using military force to pursue its aggressive expansionist aims. This unlawful aggression, combined with the continuous use of hybrid warfare tactics elsewhere in Europe, has fundamentally destabilized the European security order and poses a grave threat to neighboring states, including Estonia. Our decision to abstain reflects current legal and security circumstances and does not alter our continued adherence to international humanitarian law. We remain fully committed to taking all feasible measures to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure during armed conflict. Despite our withdrawal, we continue to support international cooperation and assistance aimed at addressing the humanitarian consequences of anti-personnel mines and explosive remnants of war. Estonia has long supported humanitarian demining activities, both bilaterally and through its contributions to international organizations. We remain firmly committed to supporting humanitarian mine action and the fulfillment of our international obligations. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the representative of Estonia. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of India.

Thank you, Chair. India has abstained on L30. India supports the vision of a world free of anti-personnel landmines and is committed to their 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 AP II of the CCW, which enshrines the approach of taking into account the legitimate defence requirements of states, especially those with long borders. India has fulfilled its obligation under AP II, including inter alia stopping the production of non-detectable mines, as well as rendering all our anti-personnel mines detectable. India is observing a moratorium on the export and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. India remains committed to increased international cooperation and assistance for mine clearance as well as rehabilitation of mine victims and has been contributing technical assistance and expertise to this end. India regularly participates as an observer at the MSP to the Convention. Chair, India has abstained on the resolution L9. India has established strong and effective national export controls with respect to export of defence items. India subscribes to the objectives 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 United Nations Register on Conventional Arms for the same categories of conventional arms that are regulated under the ATT. Our commitment is further reflected in India's participation in Wassenaar Arrangement. India continues to keep the ATT under review from the perspective of our defence, security and foreign policy interests. India has abstained on the PP11 because the extract drawn from A/Resolution/79/1 deals with matters which do not strictly fall within the purview of this Committee. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of India. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have taken the floor to explain the position of my delegation on draft resolutions L/19, entitled "True Life Convention on Ammunition Management," L/30, on the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines, and L52 on implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. While my delegation joins the consensus on L19, I wish to place on record that our previously stated position on this matter remains valid. Anti-personnel mines. have been used irresponsibly during the civil wars in certain regions of the world and consequently have claimed a greater number of innocent lives, particularly among women and children. We welcome every effort to stop this trend. However, the Anti-Personal Mines Convention focuses primarily on humanitarian concerns and does not sufficiently consider the legitimate military requirements of many countries. particularly those with extensive land borders, for the controlled and limited use of mines in the defense of their territories. Due to the difficulties of monitoring vast and sensitive areas through permanent guard posts or effective warning systems, antipersonnel mines regrettably remain, for some countries, the only viable means of ensuring the minimum security for 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 objective of L30, however, due to our particular concerns and considerations, we abstain from voting on this draft resolution. My delegation abstained on draft resolution L/52 on implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions 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-1. "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 munitions by the Israeli regime against defenseless Palestinians, there has been no accountability or consequence to deter these brutal and inhuman acts. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the delegation of Iran for its explanation of vote after the vote under cluster four. And now the floor would go to the delegation of the Republic of Korea.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. I'd like to explain my delegation's position on draft resolutions L30 and L52. Firstly, on L30, the Republic of Korea fully share the humanitarian objectives of the Ottawa Convention and remain concerned about the humanitarian impact of the indiscriminate use of anti-personal mines. However, due to unique security situation on the Korean Peninsula, we have not yet acceded to the convention and therefore abstained from voting for this resolution. This does not mean that we are less concerned about the severe challenges associated with indiscriminate use of anti-personal 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-personal mine clearance where possible. In 2024, we removed 167 anti-personal mines by adhering to the core principles of the International Mine Action Standards. We also exercise strict control over anti-personal mines and have maintained an indefinite extension of the moratorium on their export since 1997. In addition, the Republic of Korea is a party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons 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. 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 compensation 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 International Trust Fund for Enhancing Human Security. Since 1993, we have contributed over $90 million to support global mine action activities. The Republic of Korea will continue to contribute to the international efforts for mine clearance and victim assistance. Next, on draft resolution L.52, the Korean government 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 Republic of Korea adopted a directive on cluster munitions in 2008, which includes measures for limited and responsible use of cluster munitions. According to this 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 munition in the long term. While it is regrettable that we are unable to support the resolution at this moment, the Republic of Korea will continue its efforts to mitigate the humanitarian concerns associated with the use of cluster munitions in a constructive manner. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Korea for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Liberia.

Thank you, Chair.

Liberia votes in favor of the draft resolution on the conventional weapon cluster, including those on.

The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, conventional ammunition, transparency in armaments, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions is inspired by its commitment to global peace, security, and development. strengthened by several GS resolution which aim to advancing responsible arms management, transparency, and the protection of civilians. As a post-conflict nation deeply committed to preventing any relapse into armed violence, Liberia consider effective conventional arms control essential to fostering national resilience, regional stability, and sustainable development.

Therefore, Liberia.

Underscores the significance of the UN Program of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons, the Arms Trade Treaty, and the Global Framework for Conventional Management, among others.

Additionally, we review these instruments as vital to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 16.

And to realizing the African Union's Silencing the Guns initiative.

Finally, Liberia's yes vote is therefore a.

Vote for prevention, accountability, and sustainable peace, a reaffirmation that effective disarmament is essential to human security and national development. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Liberia. We have just listened to the last speaker on explanation of vote after the vote for this section of resolutions under cluster four. I shall now call on delegations who have requested the right of reply. May I remind members that statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to four and a half minutes for the first intervention and to two and a half minutes for the second intervention. I call on the representative of the Russian Federation.

Mr. Chairman, we reject all the unsubstantiated and groundless allegations levied by the U.S. delegation as regards Russia's strategic activities. Russia has clearly and meticulously complied with international legal norms and all nonproliferation and arms control undertakings currently in force. Testing the Poseidon and Burevestnik systems were conducted by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in full compliance with the international legal obligations of our country. As for the worsening crisis we see in strategic stability, well, full responsibility for exacerbating this situation falls squarely on the US and their allies. As a reminder, the important and timely initiative put forward by the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, on 22 September, the initiative being to maintain the status quo in strategic offensive arms of Russia and the US, thanks to the New START Treaty, has gone unanswered. This step taken by the Russian side aims to prevent a strategic arms race, to maintain an acceptable level of predictability and restraint, as well as to further the objectives of the NPT. However, the Russian Federation seems to be in no rush to respond to the initiative of the Russian leadership. In the meantime, there is an accumulation of problems in the strategic sphere. The cause is the fact that the US and its allies are pursuing highly destabilizing doctrinal paradigms, as well as military and technological programs in the pursuit of overwhelming military supremacy. We're particularly concerned by the hostile policy pursued by NATO states, which could lead to a confrontation of nuclear powers. We are concerned by joint nuclear missions, including the broadening of the geography of the US's nuclear presence in Europe, the building by the US of a global multi-sphere anti-missile defense system, the growing of high-precision long-range capabilities for so-called disarming strikes, including forward deployment of ground-launched short and intermediate range ballistic missiles, US plans and plans by its allies to send weapons into space, turning space into an arena for military hostilities. Owing to these earlier destructive steps taken by Washington, the very foundations of constructive relations and practical cooperation between nuclear states were significantly undermined. To restore these, must agree not to encroach on each other's core interests, to recognize the concerns of the other party, to be ready to work on eradicating the root causes of fundamental contradictions, as per the principle of equal and indivisible security. The key among these root causes is the forthright expansion of NATO in the post-Soviet space in an attempt to subsume it geopolitically and to develop it in military and strategic terms. Under these conditions, my country will continue to take the necessary steps to uphold our national security. Mr. Chairman, we also repudiate all of the groundless and unsubstantiated allegations levied at us as regards the outer space activities of the Russian Federation. For those who On the uptick, let us repeat what we said earlier. Our efforts to explore outer space are being conducted in keeping with our international obligations for solely peaceful purposes. They do not threaten the activities of other states in outer space. Furthermore, we would like to respond to the groundless statements made by some delegations who are trying to distort the situation regarding the situation surrounding anti-personnel mines, that treaty. Completely divorced from reality were the statements of Western states. They are trying to pin blame on the Russian Federation, blame for their own irresponsible decisions and their own undermining of the anti-personnel mines treaty. Countries bordering with Russia are trying to withdraw from this convention, and this clearly shows that they're playing fast and loose with their international obligations. These restrictions no longer suit these countries, so they've decided to shirk them. And they're not even using substantive rationale to justify their actions. I thank you.

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation for his statement. And I give the floor to the representative of Israel.

Thank you, Chair. I'm compelled to react to the AOVs made by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran earlier today. We categorically reject his baseless accusations. We note that Iran's objection to the ATT failed to mention one crucial element, namely the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a terror-sponsoring state who deliberately transfers arms to terrorists. The consequences of such illicit trafficking of arms are, among others, intentional and indiscriminate terror attacks against civilians, with the October 7th massacre being the prime example. Through the Quds Force, Iran supports terrorist organizations by transferring large amounts of military equipment, as well as providing training and assistance with the maintenance of weapons, transferring components and knowledge for independent production, assembly, upgrading, and more. Chair, we believe that the prevention of diversion and proliferation of arms to unauthorized recipients in particular to terrorists, is paramount and must be accorded due attention in the ATT and beyond, as mentioned earlier today by other countries in our region. In this regard, it must be clear that terror organizations and violent non-state actors, specifically in the Middle East, are well-funded organizations that holds arsenals outnumbering those of some states. Since terror organizations do not see themselves accountable to any normative nor moral standard, the only way to stop them is by denying them the possibility to acquire weapons in the first place. In this light, strongly condemning the activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran can enhance the collective securities of all states, especially in the Middle East. I thank you.

I think the representative of Israel I'll give the floor to the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation once again firmly rejects and categorically condemns the absurd and baseless allegations made by the representative of the terrorist and child-killing Israeli regime. I would simply note that a regime which stands as the greatest violator of international law, human rights, and international humanitarian law has no moral authority to lecture others. These statements are nothing but a desperate and deliberate attempt to whitewash the Israeli regime's heinous crimes and atrocities in the Middle East. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the representative of Iran. That was the last request for the right of reply for this session. Distinguished delegates, we have exhausted the time available to us this morning. Tomorrow, the committee will not meet due to the floating holiday of. The next meeting of the committee will be held Thursday, 6th of November. 00 a.m. in this conference room. We will take action on the remaining draft resolutions and decisions contained in Informal Paper 2/Rev.2. The meeting is adjourned.