First Committee, 1st plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

The Disarmament and International Security Committee, the first committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly, is called to order. Distinguished delegates, at the outset, allow me to extend a very warm welcome to all the delegations participating in this committee's deliberations at the current session of the General Assembly. I also take this opportunity to state how honored I am and deeply indebted to all of you for the privilege and distinction you have bestowed upon my country and on me personally in electing me as the chair of this very important committee of the General Assembly. I shall do my utmost in full collaborations with other members of the current Bureau to discharge my responsibilities in a manner to ensure that our work is carried out efficiently and that our endeavors meet with success. Before proceeding to the matters at hand, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the entire membership of this Committee in commending Ambassador Maurizio Massari of Italy for the skillful and effective manner in which he conducted the proceedings of the First Committee at its 80th session. I should also like to pay tribute to other members of the previous Bureau for all their hard work in ensuring the success of the sessions. Before proceeding further, I would like to remind delegation that when elections of the Bureau members of the First Committee for the 81st session of the GA took place on June 2nd, 2026, our nominations remain pending for vice chair from the group of Latin American and Caribbean states. It is my pleasure to inform the committee that from that group, the nominations of Mr. Clarkson, Duberry of Antigua and Barbuda, have been received for the positions of the vice-chair of the first committee for this session. Since no other candidate has been nominated for this position, may I take it that the committee wishes to elect by acclamation Mr. Clarkston DuVernay of Antigua and Barbuda to the position of Vice-Chair of the First Committee at its 81st session. I hear no objections. It is so decided. I warmly congratulate Mr. DuVernay on his election. I'm confident that I can rely on the support of all the members of the Bureau, namely the three Vices, Mr. Clarkson Duverri of Antigua and Barbuda, Mr. Arsen Kotanyan of Armenia, and Mr. Fajal Abdel Jameel Salim Mohammed of Sudan, as well as the Rapporteur, Ms. Kim van der Sloot of the Kingdom of Netherlands. I have no doubt that the Committee will benefit tremendously from their collective wisdom. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, as noted in UN Journal, the meeting today will address the organizations of the work of the Committee and will include a debate on the working methods of the Committee and program planning. We will first turn to the organizations of the work of the Committee for this session. The committee has before it the document A/C.1/81/1, containing the 21 agenda items allocated to the committee by the General Assembly at its second plenary meeting on 11 September 2026. The committee also has before it the documents is less C1/81/CIP1 and CIP2. Document CIP1 contains the committee's proposed program of work and timetables for 2026. CIP2 is the draft indicative timetable for the structured discussion of the specific subjects on the adopted thematic approach and determined and international security agenda items. Before examining these documents one by one, with the Committee's indulgence, I should like to inform delegations of the manner in which I intend to conduct our meetings. In order to make full use of the time and conference services made available to the Committee, with your cooperation and support, I shall convene the meetings of the Committee 00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. sharp. Similarly, I shall adjourn the meetings punctually 00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. respectively. I therefore appeal to all the speakers, especially the first three speakers at a given meeting, to kindly be present in the conference room on time. I should also like to remind members that the Assembly has decided to continue its practice during the sessions of waiving the requirement that at least one quarter of the members be present to declare a Main Committee meeting open and permit the debate to proceed. The Assembly made these recommendations on the understanding that Such a departure from the rules did not involve any permanent change in the provisions of the Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure. Returning to the allocation of agenda items allocated to the committee is contained in document A/C.1/81/1. I would like to highlight the following. Some portions of the annual report of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is to be considered directly in plenary meeting under agenda item 891, deal with the subject matter of item 101, general and complete disarmament. According to its program of work, the Assembly will consider the report of IAEA on 23rd October directly in plenary. In this regard, I would like to remind delegation that according to its program of work, the first committee will meet all day that day. Delegations may therefore have to prioritize which meeting to attend that day. Agenda item 124 entitled, "Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly." is allocated to the first committee for the purpose of discussing its working methods as well as considering and taking actions on its tentative program of work for the committee's next sessions in 2027. Agenda item 139, program planning is allocated to all the main committees and the plenary of the General Assembly. This is to enhance discussions of evaluations, planning, budgeting, and monitoring reports. As noted earlier, the Committee will consider items 124 and 139 jointly later this morning. The Secretariat has prepared a note issued is document A/C.1/81/INF/4 under the two items. Distinguished delegates, let us now turn our attention to the Committee's proposed programme of work and timetable as outlined in document A/C.1/81/CRP.1. This document is based on General Assembly decisions 80/515 of 1 December 2025. But in view of the current liquidity crisis facing the organizations, requiring the committee to reduce the number of meetings this session, it reflects the proposals of the current bureau not to meet on October 1, nor on 4 to 6 November. while having an additional meeting on 29 October in the afternoon. The Committee will maintain its established practice of conducting its work in three phases, namely a general debate on all agenda items, thematic discussions on specific subjects, and final reaction on all draft proposals. It will also conclude its work by 3rd November for a total of 28 meetings. After careful and long considerations, the Bureau is proposing a program that fully maintains the required number of meetings for the Committee's general debate and the action phase, while once again including the debate on the working methods of the Committee and program planning in today's meeting. For the best use of the resources, allocated to the committee. The cuts to meetings have therefore directly affected the thematic discussions, which will have three fewer meetings compared to GA decisions of 80/515. The general debate will run from 6 to 15 October for a total of nine meetings. I have been informed that the President of the General Assembly will address the committees tomorrow, 6 October, in the morning. At the end of the general debate on 15 October in the afternoon, the committee will devote at least half a meeting to hear a statement by a representative of civil society in an informal setting, following which delegation will be given the floor to make comments or pose questions to the speakers. To maximize the time available to us during the general debate, I propose that we maintain the practice of using a rolling list of speakers, which is currently open to all delegations wishing to take the floor. As in previous years, inscription on the list of speakers is through the e-speakers tool on the e-delegate portal. I'm aware that a considerable number of delegations have already inscribed their names on the list, and I invite those who intend to speak but have not yet inscribed to do so as soon as possible. As indicated in the program of work, the list of speakers for the general debate will close on Wednesday, 7 October, at 5:00 p.m. I'd also like to remind all the delegations to keep in mind that a rolling list implies that they should be prepared to intervene at any time, possibly even one meeting sooner than they had originally planned to speak. To make the most efficient use of the resources allocated to us under current financial restrictions, I would like to urge all the delegations taking the floor to kindly respect the time limits for statements of seven minutes when speaking in a national capacity and 10 minutes for the speaking on behalf of the group of delegations. To allow a maximum number of participants, the time limit will be strictly enforced by means of automatic microphone cutoff. Delegations with relatively long statements should deliver a concise summary of their takes and submit the full statement in written form for posting in e-statements. Distinguished delegates, the second stage of the committee's work, namely the thematic discussions on specific subjects, provides an opportunity for the introductions of draft proposal submitted under the committee agenda items. The segment will run from Friday 16 October to Monday 26 October for a total of 12 meetings, with the committee meeting all day on Friday 16 October, Tuesday 20 October, as well as 22, 23 and 26 October. At last session, statements in the national capacity are limited to three minutes and a statement on behalf of a group of countries should not exceed four minutes. In line with the Committee's established practice, the details of the programme of work for our thematic segment are contained in the indicative timetable outlined in document A/C.1/81/CRP.2. On 16 October, The Committee is scheduled to have its usual exchanges with the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs on the follow-up of the resolutions and decisions adopted by the Committee at its previous sessions and presentations of reports. I have been informed by the Secretariat that the High Representative will be away from UN headquarters on that day on official business. and that the Director and Deputy to the High Representative, Mr. Adegede Ebo, will attend the meeting on behalf and address the Committee at the meeting. During the second phase, the Committee will take up the seven clusters on which it has traditionally focused during this phase of work, namely nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, outer space, conventional weapons, other disarmament measures and international security, regional disarmament and security, and disarmament machinery. For each of the seven clusters of the thematic discussions, our proceedings will continue to comprise two parts. The first will begin in a formal mode with a panel or guest speaker, as applicable. followed by an informal questions and answers segment during which delegation taking the floor are encouraged to ask concise questions rather than read a statement. The Committee will then resume in formal mode to hear a statement by delegations, including the introduction of draft resolutions and decisions. CRP2 issued reflects all panels and briefings during the thematic segment. It is my understanding that any of the briefers that cannot join us in person will submit written presentations. The list of speakers for the thematic segments will open once the list for the general debate has closed, as indicated in the program of work. The deadline for inscriptions on the list of speakers for the thematic discussions is Friday, 16 October, at 6:00 PM. On 26 October in the afternoon, the committee will hold its traditional certificate award ceremony for graduating disarmament fellows. Distinguished delegates, the third and last segment of the work of the committee, namely action on all draft resolutions and decisions, will run from Tuesday, 27 October to Tuesday, 3 November, for a total of six meetings. As indicated in the program of work, the deadline for the submission of the draft resolutions and decisions is Friday, 16 October, 8:00 to 12:00 noon. Delegations with mere technical updates in the draft resolutions are encouraged to submit their draft proposal by Monday, 12 October. Compliance with these deadlines is important to ensure the timely issuance of all the drafts in all official languages. Sponsors and co-sponsors of draft proposals wishing to schedule informal consultation on their drafts are encouraged to begin as soon as possible in order to ensure that there's sufficient time for those consultations. The Secretariat continues to facilitate the virtual booking of the conference rooms on site. Delegations considering convening virtual informal consultations to ensure that they do not clash with the plenary meetings, as well as informal consultations listed in the schedule circulated by the Secretariat. Taking into account the lessons learned from the Committee's experience over the years on the need for the early determinations of the programme budget implications of draft resolutions and decisions before the Committee, Delegations organizing informal consultations on the draft are encouraged to engage secretariat officials early for guidance. At the same time, I would like to remind all delegations of the views expressed by ACABQ regarding the use of the phrase "within existing resources" as set out in the document A/54/7. Accordingly, the use of this phrase in draft resolutions and decisions should be avoided. All submitted draft proposals to be issued as L documents will continue to be listed in the conference room paper and grouped under the seven thematic clusters. Delegations are reminded that to be reflected as co-sponsor of an issued draft proposal, you must co-sponsor the next text prior to the deadline for submission to the Secretariat. Delegations are further reminded that the sponsoring of draft proposal will continue through the e-sponsorship tool on the e-delegate portal. Distinguished delegates, during the action phase, The committee will continue to be guided by the informal papers issued by the secretariat and continuing the draft resolutions and decisions on which actions will be taken is there. These informal papers will be revised by the secretariat on a daily basis to reflect the drafts that are ready for actions at each of the remaining meetings. In this regard, I propose that the Committee retain the procedures it has followed in previous years, by which draft resolutions and decisions are grouped under the seven thematic clusters. Also, during the action phase, a draft provisional programme of work and timetable for the next year, to be issued as a conference room paper, will be circulated for the Committee's considerations and action. closer to the final phase of our work, further information will be provided on how we will proceed, including the traditional ground rules for taking actions on draft resolutions and decisions prepared by the secretariat and made available on e-delegate portal. Distinguished delegates, the documents before the committee this session including those already issued or forthcoming are listed in information document A/C.1/81/INF/1. A forthcoming document is the list of participants, which will be issued as A/C.1/81/INF/2. The e-list of participants module has been deployed for the main committees for the sessions. Permanent Missions focal points should submit their participants' name as soon as possible. Its mission will only have to make a single submission for all the main committees for the session. The deadline for the submission is the end of October. The UN Department for Global Communications has informed that this session's press release copies of the GA6 main committees will resume. Multilingual transcripts of meetings are also being considered. Webcast will continue to be provided for all the meetings. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, the Committee will now consider its programme of work. It's contained in document A/C.1/81/CRP.1. May I take it that the committee wishes to proceed in accordance. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Russian Federation.

Mr. Chairman. First and foremost, we wish to congratulate you upon your appointment to this post, and we expect that under your leadership, the session of the First Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations will be successful and productive. The Russian delegation stands ready to provide you with every possible assistance to that end. Our country consistently advocates for the integrity and effectiveness of the United Nations disarmament machinery, including the GA First Committee, which is an important forum in the field of arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation, as well as in the sphere of international security as a whole. We presume that collective efforts based on dialogue remained a significant factor for the maintenance of regional and international security. There needs to be a focus on ensuring a proper effectiveness of the multilateral instruments, building their activities on the basis of genuine equality, mutual understanding, and taking into account the legitimate interests of all parties is required. In this regard, it is necessary to create mutually acceptable conditions for the committee's functioning, we consider it inadmissible to approve organizational modalities that would contradict the interests of any member state or would not allow this form to carry out its activities properly. Disregard of this principle could result in undermining the functioning and credibility of the first committee, further disunity and antagonization, as well as a destruction of prospects for solving problems in the field of international security and arms control and disarmament and non-proliferation. In the context of optimizing the work of the First Committee of the General Assembly, we consider it extremely important to maintain a balance between the proposed measures and ensuring the proper functioning of the committee, taking into account its objectives in difficult geopolitical realities. Mr. Chairman, We take note of the draft program of work and indicative timetable for the current session, which are contained in documents AC1/81/CRP.1 and AC1/81/CRP.2, respectively. The indicative timetable is acceptable. Turning to the draft program of work. Despite our repeated calls to revert back to the traditional time frames for statements of delegations, 12 minutes for group statements and eight minutes for national statements during general debates, as well as seven-minute group statements and five-minute national statements within thematic clusters, the document in that section has not been changed. The programme of work of last year was taken as a basis when the duration of statements was significantly reduced, specifically to 10 and 7 minutes for group and national statements, respectively, during general debates, as well as to 4 and 3 minutes for thematic discussions. Last year, we agreed to reduce the number of meetings and the speaking time exclusively with the understanding that these measures would be of a one-off nature and would not create a precedent for the future. However, that experience was negative and it did not contribute to improvement of the effectiveness of the First Committee's work. As a result of the introduced strict time limitations, Member States were deprived of the opportunity to fully consider a wide range of agenda items and to respond to statements made by other delegations. the majority of states had to limit themselves to voicing their national positions while the participation of individual countries was reduced to the issuance of slogans and politically motivated accusations. Full-fledged thematic discussions on specific issues of arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament, as well as international security, which are urgently needed amid current conditions with a view to seeking mutually acceptable solutions did not take place. As a result, the temporary measures which were implemented not only failed to optimize the committee's work, but they also played a significant role in heightened mistrust among member states. They resulted in the politicization of discussions and a significant increase in the number of votes on GA resolutions, including on individual paragraphs there of a matter of particular concern is the fact that attempts to introduce changes to the work of the committee are being undertaken prior to the conclusion of the discussion on working methods and decisions acceptable and prior to the taking of decisions acceptable to all. Furthermore, this is being done for the second year in a row. It is done in an intercessional period without prior arrangement when member states are deprived of the opportunity to engage in a full-fledged exchange of views and to voice their positions during formal meetings. Attempts to justify these measures by some kind of a liquidity crisis at the UN headquarters are inappropriate in our view, and they are irrelevant to the committee's mandate. Those countries that refer to such a crisis themselves are creating it. They are doing so by refusing to pay assessed contributions to the budget of the United Nations. Therefore, the current state of affairs at the United Nations is being cynically capitalized upon by these states as they seek to promote their own approaches within the forum. Mr. Chairman, once again, we call for returning to the practice of the 79th session of the General Assembly to abandon the reduction in the duration of statements by delegations. We stand ready to support the draft program of work, provided that it restores the traditional time frames for statements during general debates and thematic discussions. as we mentioned before, to 12 minutes for groups and eight minutes for national statements during general debates, as well as seven minutes for group statements and five minutes for national statements during the thematic clusters. Otherwise, there is a need to prolong the discussion of member states. by Member States of modalities for the session in order to seek mutually acceptable compromise based solutions. But as the draft program of work currently stands and has been proposed by you, my delegation cannot accept it as it currently stands. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for his statement. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.

Mr. Chair, the United States would like to thank the Bureau, the Secretariat, and you for your efforts to prepare the program of work for this year's first committee. We acknowledge that some improvements have been made, and we appreciate the Chair's efforts to move the Committee in a more efficient direction. The draft before us is an improvement over where this process began, but let us be candid, it falls short of what is needed. Last year, the United States made clear that First Committee could and should operate more efficiently. The 2025 session proved that point. The committee completed its work in 20 business days, effectively four working weeks, even with holidays interrupting the schedule. We saw no loss of participation, no reduction in the number of interventions, and no evidence that the committee's mandate suffered in any way, to the contrary. The data showed that the work got done. That experience should have settled the matter. Apparently, it did not. Despite repeated calls from the United States and broad support from many delegations in this room for a shorter, more disciplined schedule, the committee still has not embraced the level of reform that the moment requires. At a time when the United Nations faces sustained budget pressure, this body should not defend excess time, excess cost, and outdated habits simply because that is how things were done in the past. The committee should align its schedule with the actual work required and not preserve inefficiency as a matter of convenience. Mr. Chair, The United States remains committed to a more effective, accountable, and results-oriented United Nations, one that advances international peace and security and respects the resources member states provide. That means shorter sessions, tighter speaking limits, fewer unnecessary rights of reply, and a serious movement toward running more technical resolutions on a biennial or triennial basis. While many countries have taken this request seriously, others have not. So, Mr. Chair, let me be clear. This year, the United States will not block consensus on the adoption of the agenda or program of work. We will not call for a vote. We will not offer amendments. We urge other member states likewise to oppose any proposals to make changes to move us in the wrong direction. But let me be clear, we will continue to fight for reform and expect to see additional reductions next year, including materially shorter session and stronger efficiency measures. In that sense, we are putting the committee on notice now. Incremental gestures will no longer be enough. The time for serious reform is here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States for his statement. I have taken note of the concerns expressed. I'm in the hands of this committee. This document, CRP1, was said weeks in advance with all the delegations, but we recognize that concerns may remain. I therefore call all the delegations to be flexible. And may I take it that the Committee wishes to proceed in accordance with the provisional programme of work and timetable contained in document A/C.1/81/CRP.1. Now I give the floor to the Deputy Representative of the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We voiced our position, the position of the Russian Federation vis-a-vis the draft to program of work, and we would like to reiterate and to underscore that this position remains unchanged. We continue to harbor significant concerns vis-a-vis the proposal contained in this draft regarding the reduction In the duration of time statements for delegations during the general debates and thematic discussions, we are keen to revert back to the traditional time lines for statements for delegations, namely, as we mentioned this repeatedly, including during the intercessional period. to 12 minutes for group statements and 8 minutes for national statements during the general debates, as well as 7 minutes for group statements and 5 minutes for national statements during the thematic clusters. If we revert back to these traditional parameters for work, we fail to see how this may impact the effectiveness and efficiency of the work and operations of this committee of the General Assembly, especially in light of the fact that in the past and previous years, a similar number of meetings were conducted in accordance with those organizational modalities which we are proposing that we revert back to, and there were no problems. The forum did not experience any problems in terms of organization of its work and conclusion of its work effectively and efficiently within the established timeline. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, we would like to reiterate the fact that we stand ready to support the draft programme of work only provided that we restore therein the traditional timelines, durations for statements during general debates and thematic clusters. Otherwise, we think it is necessary, we deem it to be necessary to continue to discuss among member states, to hold discussions among member states. This could be done, for example, in informal format. specifically concerning the modalities of the session in order to seek to arrive at mutually acceptable compromises. And this is something that our delegation is wholeheartedly interested in. And we would very much like to reach agreement on such organizational modalities that would be acceptable to all delegations, including the Russian Federation. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for his statement. The representative of the Russian Federation has raised concerns related to the program of work of the First Committee. The concerns raised by the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation have been well noted. I suggest that those concerns be dealt with in due time through appropriate channels. I would, however, like to recall that the Committee has an important task to fulfill during the 2026 session, and the adoption of the program of work is a crucial step to allow the Committee to duly execute its mandate with regard to its items assigned to it by the General Assembly. In this regard, may I take it that the committee wishes to adopt the program of work as contained in document A/C.1/81/CRP.1. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In order not to drag out this discussion, we wish to announce that our concerns persist. And as we announced, these concerns prevent us from supporting the draft program of work as it currently stands in the CRP1 document. Nevertheless, if our concerns are taken into account by you, Mr. Chairman, then without any problems, we will be willing here and now to agree to the adoption of this document in order to continue the work of the first committee in accordance with those significant revisions which we mentioned and which would allow for us to revert back to the traditional organizational modalities of the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly, namely, in the event of a return to the practice of when statements duration of statements during the general debates would be limited to 12 minutes for group statements and 8 minutes for national statements, as well as for during the thematic clusters, for statements on behalf of groups of states to be limited to 7 minutes and national statements to be limited to 5 minutes. only with that understanding would we be willing to consent to the adoption of this document in order to continue the work of the first committee on the basis of these organizational modalities if we find ourselves in a position of continuing disunity or if other states harbor concerns about this, then we believe that it would be possible to continue to hold the discussions about organizational modalities of the First Committee, and this includes in an informal format. so as to reach a mutually acceptable compromise solution that would be acceptable to all UN member states so as to, on that basis, effectively pursue our operations at this committee of the General Assembly. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. I now give the floor to the Islamic, the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We also thank you, your team, and the secretariat for providing the program of work of the committee. However, like Russian Federation, we consider that the established method of works of the first committee remains effective and don't require revision. the changes introduced last year were exceptional measures and should not establish a precedent for the committee's current and future work. Those changes have had unintended consequences, including the dilution of substantive discussion by reducing statements to brief and unelaborated positions and transforming meaningful exchanges into procedural formalities. Therefore, we also believe that the Committee should return to its established practice regarding the number of meetings, the length of statements during the general and thematic discussions, and the exercise of the right of reply. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr Chair, and good morning, colleagues. I congratulate you on taking up your responsibilities, and we look forward to working with you towards a successful conclusion to this first committee. I also want to thank you, the bureau and the secretariat for the work that they have gone into in providing a more streamlined programme of work for the First Committee this year. As you noted, those proposals were shared several weeks ago, and they are proposals that my delegation is prepared to support today. In response to the delegate from Russia, my delegation could not accept the terms that he has sought to set out, and that is for a largely practical reason. Our indicative timetable and programme of work are based on the lived experience of the committee last year. We were able to complete our work within four weeks exactly because we had reduced the speaking times for group and national statements within the main committee and the cluster conversations. There is a contradiction in seeking to return to the practice of two years ago, while preserving the indicative timetable and programme of work that you have presented to us today, that the Russian delegation has indicated a readiness to support. I do not see those two aspects as being compatible. Like the US, my delegation would have liked us to have gone further this year, to have considered even greater reductions to national statements, to reduce the practice of rights of reply amounting in total to a longer period of time than national statements. They are ideas that we want to return to in the future, but certainly, in the interest of compromise, we are not prepared to, or will seek to, press those at this stage. We are therefore prepared today, Mr Chair, to agree to the draft programme of work that you have presented for decision. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. First of all, the DPRK delegation congratulates your election as the chair and believes that many successes will be achieved during this session under your talented leadership. We believe that any changes to the working methods should not result in weakening the First Committee's original role and authority. The argument by some member states that opportunities for meetings and statements should be reduced may ultimately amount to a failure to sufficiently reflect the diverse positions of the UN member states. And furthermore, this is inconsistent with the principles of multilateralism. which place fairness and impartiality at their core, as well as with the spirit of the UN Charter. In this regard, the DPRK delegation shares the views of the Russian colleagues. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of DPRK. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Lithuania.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lithuania appreciates the efforts of the Chair and the Bureau to make the Committee's work more efficient this session. We welcome the efficiency measures introduced, including a shortened programme of work and reduced speaking times with automatic microphone cut-off, while retaining the possibility of uploading longer statements online. We do not, therefore, support returning to the business as usual from the last years. and therefore do not support the suggestions made by the Russian Federation, supported by Iran and DPRK. In this respect, we support the suggestions made by the US and the UK, and while we see the room for improvement for the programme of work, as well as for the working methods. This year, we are ready to support the Chair's vision on that. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Lithuania for her statement. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belgium.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Belgium congratulates you for your elections and congratulates your work and the work of the Bureau to improve the works of this Committee. Much like Lithuania, U.S. and United Kingdom, we were in support of the programme of work because it was rationalizing the work of the Committee. We support the proposals you made to shorten the time of the statements during the general debate and the thematic clusters. We would have also gone further with a limitation of the time for rights of reply. We do not share the concern of certain delegations that it would heighten politicization or that it would heighten the number of resolutions voted among the committee. We believe that it makes more rationalization and more transparency and inclusivity in that committee.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We congratulate you and the members of the Bureau on your election. You can count on the full support of Nicaragua to constructively contribute to the work of this Committee. We recognize the financial difficulties currently facing our organization. However, against that backdrop, we're of the view that it is important to preserve the necessary space for dialogue, negotiation, and the effective participation of all member states. Consequently, we agree with the proposals made by the colleague from the Russian Federation, and we're of the view that in the current context, the Committee must more inclusively address its work, seeking to preserve consensus between Member States. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nicaragua. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belarus.

Mr. Chairman. We consistently advocate for the important role of the First Committee within the international security, disarmament, and arms control architecture of the United Nations, and we believe that the Committee is a unique platform for seeking compromise-based solutions in the area of international security, arms control. And in this connection, we are confident that any innovations in the working methods need to be strictly done in accordance with its mandate. And attempts to supplant professional, profound dialogue with the introduction of certain procedures related to financial difficulties and certain administrative elements of United Nations reform are quite, to be frank, are unacceptable and inadmissible, and we all bore witness to the negative consequences of these so-called time constraints during the previous session. Therefore, we view the previous last year's format as a temporary step which does not set a precedent And we would like to call for the full restoration of the traditional format for the work of the First Committee, first and foremost, to return to the previous durations for statements. under the general debate and during the thematic clusters and the right of replies, as well as to return to the previous number of first committee meetings on the basis of existing practice of previous years. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the distinguished representative of Belarus. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of France.

Mr. Chairman, France supports the efforts undertaken by the Bureau, which have helped to streamline the working methods of the First Committee. We therefore support the programme of work that you have tabled, Mr. Chairman, and we believe that this will facilitate in-depth discussions without any compromise vis-a-vis the substance. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of France. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mali.

Mr. Chairman, we recognize the financial difficulties being encountered by the United Nations. But we would like to underscore the importance of granting states opportunities to express their views. And this can be achieved through dialogue that can result in consensus. Therefore, we support the proposal of the Russian Federation. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mali. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Romania.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, over here. Mr. President, I do admire your patience. Can you hear me? Yes. I do admire your patience. I came here to get a sense of how, indeed, the first committee is starting its work, and I realize that you are discussing about matters that are related to the organization. of this committee and as co-chair of the working group on revitalization for the previous three sessions, I have to say that we had a great deal of conversations among member states on how to make our work more efficient. And here, I've been always saying it is a matter of choice. And first and foremost, we have to secure the sovereign right of every member state to address any meeting in the United Nations format. And sometimes we end up with a choice that has to lead to a limitation of the time, speaking time for member states. And sometimes I think we have three minutes, some other times we have two minutes, some other times we have seven minutes, like is the case in this particular committee. I think it is important that we as member states keep in mind not only the substance of what we're trying to say, but the way in which we're saying it. I will strongly support a very efficient work of this committee, and I'm certain that we can do that without curtailing the rights of member states to address committees or substantial matters. And I do trust your leadership in putting that forward, and I think we as member states, we are now involved into implementing concretely the resolution 79327 from two sessions ago, which talks about the work in the committee as well. and focusing on the resolutions and time limitations. And I think the presidents, they do have an important role in this direction, and you have our full support for that. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Romania. And then now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Poland.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Our delegation congratulates you on assuming your post. Poland supports the Bureau's efforts aimed at the rationalization and proper utilization of Committees' meeting time.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Poland. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Sweden.

Thank you, Chair.

You have our full support and congratulations on your appointment to this difficult job, as it seems. We join others in stating that we attach great importance to the work of the First Committee. We support the work done during the last years aiming at making the Committee more efficient and effective.

And while supporting your proposal today, we think that the work on efficiency and effectiveness should continue.

Apart from steps already taken, such as reducing

speaking times and encouraging putting forward resolutions that do not encompass new operative elements biannually or triannually instead of annually, we do think we could also focus the elements of right of reply.

Right of replies could be clustered to fewer occasions and we could further reduce their length.

So next year, we wish to see even more focused programme of work.

While we support your proposal for this year.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Sweden. Distinguished delegates, it is -- actually, it is for -- now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On this occasion, I take this opportunity on behalf of the Chinese delegation, I congratulate you on your assumption to the chairmanship of this committee. China has listened very attentively to the statement by different delegations with regards to their concerns on reducing this time limit. On this occasion, China would like to express our support to the proposal made by the Russian Federation. China is of the view that against the complex international security landscape with the heightened divisions among parties, we should value and make the best out of this platform so that we can facilitate the exchange of views among parties, deepening understanding and addressing each other's concerns with sufficient time. With regards to the time limit, we should proceed on the basis of consensus while respecting the concerns of all delegations. Higher efficiency does not equate simply reducing the time limit for speaking. Even less, we should not reduce the time limit for its own sake. If we go too far, that will compromise the opportunity for member states to fully express their national positions. It will also reduce the space for bridging the divide, it will not be good for consensus building. In addition, the proposal by the Russian Federation does not does not run counter to the proposals made by the other delegations for reducing time limit. That is to say, if some countries propose the reduction in time limit, those countries can respect the time limit they propose and apply such time limit to their own statements. It is our hope that the chair will listen to the opinions by all parties and take into account carefully the concerns made by all parties. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Thank you, Chair, and congratulations on your election. Thanks also to you and the Bureau for the proposed programme of work and the timetable. We should always try to identify ways to render our work more effective. The budgetary constraints on the UN have added urgency to this issue. We welcome the programme of work. that you and the Bureau have proposed, our experience from last year was that this Committee managed to do its work well within the tighter timeframes that we decided for ourselves. We have heard calls to both extend the speaking times as well as to limit them even further. We believe the approach that you and the Bureau have chosen is the best one for now and that we should give ourselves another year to test this, to build a better basis for assessment. so that next year we will be in a better position to determine what works and what does not. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Norway. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Senegal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin with a word of congratulations to you upon your election to the helm of this committee at this important juncture. We wish to take this opportunity, first and foremost, not to lose time. We do not wish to waste time, but we do believe it is important to facilitate this dialogue to ensure that we heed the views of one another, to ensure that if we consider the benefits of past years and that we engage in greater caution, more prudence, because the question has to do with how far will we go in these reforms? Will we arrive at a conclusion where each states only have one minute to deliver their or they will only circulate them in writing. So we need to consider these issues. And the other issue for us has to do with a small delegation like us. We consider our past experience. Has this improved our participation, yes or no? Did this allow us to be where we have to be throughout? I think that we had some delegations to experience a pick and choose approach on certain themes and certain resolutions. which are in the informal format. And this was exceedingly difficult for certain delegations. And this experience needs to be leveraged if we consider those delegations that experienced this in the past and accepted it. And there are some delegations with just a few people. And our delegation, for example, we had to choose. In Senegal, we were accustomed to participating in five thematic debates, but last year we were only able to participate in two because of the time constraints, so it was exceedingly difficult for us. We don't wish to engage in polemicism, but we wish to reaffirm our support for you, Mr. Chairman, and the Bureau, and we call upon you to bear in mind that even if the reforms did generate certain statistics that may be satisfactory in terms of the overall picture, but we need to bear other issues in mind, specifically for small number, smaller delegations, Africa within the Bureau of the First Committee had to reiterate our positions and what is the experience that we, the lessons we drew from this and what should we, what can be contributed to the debate on that basis. But we are confident in the spirit of dialogue, which has always animated this committee and we have, we are in your hands, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Senegal. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Spain.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This delegation wishes at the outset to congratulate you on your election. We extend to you our full support as you conduct your important mandate as Chair of the First Committee. My second point, we wish to welcome the programme of work for the First Committee this year, and we welcome the efficiency measures that it includes. Spain is of the view that the quest for efficiency within the First Committee must be an ongoing, continuing exercise, which makes a very specific contribution to ushering in the UN80 reform tangible terms. We are of the view that these measures do not work to the contrary of in terms of providing this space for dialogue, so we support them. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Spain. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To keep it brief, Germany supports the draft program of work proposed by the Chair and especially the proposed time length of statements for the general.

Debate as well as for the thematic discussions.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Germany. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt.

Thank you, Chair, and I wish to start by congratulating you on your position, although it's a hard takeoff, but I'm sure you will reach there. Our delegation has three concerns and points that we'd like to share. First, we understand that this program and work and the timetable has been a result of a rigorous discussion within the Bureau for a few months now. So our first position is that we tend to respect processes. This has been discussed already for a few months. And concerns of that nature should have been raised within the Bureau discussion, especially that each region was represented. In our case, we were represented through an African representative in the Bureau. So that's the first point. Second point, we don't think that the relevance of the first committee is measured by the length and duration of the statements. given that we already have a considerable amount of time to raise our concerns and then we could as well upload our full statements on the website. Third and last point, what's happening now is bringing to the memory what happened in the UNDC a few months earlier. What we gathered in the organizational session, now for procedure reasons, we are hindered from having substantive discussions in the UNDC. This for us is a very dangerous precedent. When we gather, a few days, and in our case, just the day before our substantive discussions, and then we obstruct the convening of the substantive discussions. This, for the delegation of Egypt, is a matter of great concern. So our position, Chair, is that we're ready to support the program of work and that any concerns of that nature should be raised during future incidents, maybe during next year's discussion on the way to the convening of the next year's committee. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chairperson, and also let me start off by congratulating you and the Bureau for their election. Chairperson, South Africa supports the proposed proposal the program of work and the indicative timetable. But we would reiterate our support also for your efforts on the working methods. And these are in line with GA resolution 79/327, in which we have been looking at limiting the time limits of statements and making our work more efficient. So we therefore noted this time allocations which we supported in terms of the statements, right of reply, and explanations of vote, as well as points of order. However, we do not believe that it's necessarily a good thing to equate these and have a one, a system where we implement time limits across the board for all the statements and for all the items in the same manner. from our perspective some procedural matters really don't require that much time while there are substantive matters that we do believe can benefit by having this rule relaxed a little bit and we've seen in the General Assembly with debates that ahead of every debate the president of the General Assembly seeks the views of Member States, whether to limit time limits or not. And depending on the status of the issue, depending on the importance of the issue, there is flexibility on these matters. So in order to move us forward, and bearing in mind South Africa fully supports your proposed program of work and the time limits, I think to move us forward on this, we need to be a little bit more flexible and hear out all delegations on those issues that they do believe require more time. And a more flexible approach may be taking us forward. It takes time sometimes for changes at the UN to take effect, for them to be seen to be useful. And sometimes it is not a good idea just to try and enforce a system where we go across the board and basically cut without looking at the merits of each case. So our proposal would be that we might find a way forward in terms of showing a little bit of flexibility, but still sticking to your program of work and seeing where we can allow for a little bit more flexibility when the issue requires that. Thank you, Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, in the outset, allow me to congratulate you for the assumption of your duties as the chair of the First Committee. You have our full support.

Very briefly, I wish to add my voice to the many delegations expressing support to the programme of work and the indicative timetable. We wish that it can be adopted and allow us to commence our very important work very swiftly.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, I wish to congratulate you on your election as chair of the committee. I don't only wish to congratulate you, I extend those congratulations to the other members of the bureau, including our colleague from Antigua and Barbuda, who for several weeks, as Egypt said, worked alongside countries in the region to achieve the greatest degree of consensus possible on this programme of work. I thank you for your flexibility and, as has previously been underscored, I thank you for your patience in terms of letting everyone express their views and have those views heard. have seen that there are different opinions regarding the programme of work, we believe that we might be in a position to move to informal discussions with parties involved to assess their proposals. Of course, we submit this for your consideration, but I do think that we are now at a point where we are compelled to call for more private meetings between the parties so that we can continue to forge ahead and see the wheels of the disarmament machinery grind. Our utmost priority is to have meetings, and substantive meetings indeed, on the main concerns in this forum. There is an increase in global military expenditure and increasing security concerns, and in that context, we can't get bogged down in procedural matters. We need to move to substantive discussions. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. Speaking on behalf of Canada, Australia and my own country, New Zealand, we express our support for the programme you and the Bureau have presented and the rationale underpinning the decisions related to speaking times. In our view, the speaking times provide sufficient time to express national views fulsomely. We would also note, as Egypt did, that oral statements are able to be supplemented. by further elaboration in written form. So we do not agree with the assertion that this proposal would somehow reduce or lower the quality of the debate given those two options that we have there. So again, Kansas is very much prepared to support your program of work and very keen to move to the substantive part of our work. So I thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Chair. As other delegations have done, my country wishes to congratulate you on your election. Mexico did not intend to take the floor in view of the fact that we'll do that during the specific discussion on this matter. However, we did find ourselves compelled to express our support for the comments that colleagues from Senegal, Egypt and others made. Mexico understands the concerns expressed by some delegations and some countries on the importance of having sufficient room to discuss the various proposals pertaining to the committee's methods of work, including, of course, speaking times. At the same time, however, Mexico believes that where the proposed programme of work is concerned, that programme of work is the result of consultations which the has conducted in recent months, including through regional groups. There, all countries were able to bring our perspectives to the table for them to be taken into account. Undoubtedly, any programme of work can be improved, and Mexico is ready to continue contributing to such discussions. However, we are of the view that the proposal we have on the table now stands as a reasonable and balanced compromise. Consequently, we believe it's important to preserve this balance and allow the committee to adopt its program of work and move to substantive discussions. Thank you.

I think the distinguished representative of Mexico. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Namibia.

Chairperson, we congratulate you and your bureau on the assumption of duty to lead our committee. We note the challenge that is before us, and we propose that in light of the current situation, perhaps we could quickly suspend our meeting and allow the Bureau to convene urgently in an emergency meeting to discuss the matter at hand and perhaps to find a balance following the discussion this morning. We propose perhaps that we could have an increase in each category of one minute each both to the national category and also to the group category of statements that will provide a balance between what we had last year and what is proposed this year. Really as a way out of the quagmire that we're in, we should by all means try and maintain consensus in our adoption or consideration of the program of work that is before us. So we put this for your consideration. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Namibia. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nigeria.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me join all that to congratulate you on your election and other members of the Bureau. I think I would like to share the same sentiment with my colleague from Egypt and Senegal. and we are saying that in order not to repeat what happened during the UNDC, I think we should, this discussion has been deliberated a month ago and we had a wider consultation on this, but then we are calling for flexibility from all member states and let's see how we can find a common ground to have a consensus because it will be of place for us to go into voting of uh to adopt this uh program of work which will not be in a good interest of any one of us so in that review in that view I think we should try to find a common ground meanwhile in our national capacity of Nigeria we fully in support of what chair you have presented to us as a program of work thank you Excellency.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nigeria. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Burkina Faso.

Thank you, Mr. President. At the outset, I would like to congratulate your Bureau. And to go straight to the point, we think that the rationalization is a goodwill, but the time limit seems to be short and it will may prevent some countries to express their view properly. So we are in the sense that we support the Russian Federation proposal.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Burkina Faso. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Tunisia.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.

It's actually interestingly funny how we're having limitless discussions to discuss our time limit. Regardless of the minutes, of the duration of the statements, let's make use of these minutes to.

Bridge our differences instead of digging into them.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Tunisia. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Italy.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and let me congratulate you and the Bureau for assuming this important role of guiding the work starting this morning. On this very point of streamlining our works, we fully support your approach and the approach of the Bureau. And we only want to stress that the responsibility that we have all together is to go into substantive works. So I tend to believe that some colleagues have already voiced the point that some points and some delegations at certain moments in the works might need more time is worth looking at. So we fully support streamlining the works. We fully support cutting to the maximum extent interventions, but not to the point of being stuck and not going into content and not being able to develop in case it is needed, complex interventions or complex points. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Italy. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Estonia.

Mr. Chair, thank you.

Estonia congratulates you on assuming your responsibilities, and thanks you, the Bureau and the Secretariat, for the work undertaken in preparing the session. Without wishing to prolong the discussion, I would simply like to express Estonia's support for the programme of work. proposed speaking times and the other efficiency measures put forward by you and the Bureau. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, we would like to congratulate you on your appointment as chair of the committee and assure you of our full support throughout the session. We would like to express our support for your proposal as it stands. We'd like to also echo the point made by our Egyptian colleague that this discussion was already held a few months ago and that any concerns regarding the proposal could and should have been raised at that time. Furthermore, since all member states have the opportunity to upload their statements on the committee's website, we do not share the view that a reasonable limitation on speaking time would necessarily constrain substantive discussions. In this regard, we hope that all member states will demonstrate flexibility and support for the proposal so that we can ensure the smooth and efficient conduct of the committee's work. Thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, colleagues. Congratulations to you and the Bureau members. Hearing my colleague from Tunisia with them, so I will set the 45-second time limit for me now to say that-- it's not working, but you know. I will keep in my mind counting. I think we shouldn't spend time to dig in our differences. We should rather find a compromise. I align myself with colleagues from Namibia and South Africa. There may be some discussion within the Bureau, but I don't know to what extent all delegations were able to interact. Having time limit is good. Written statement, I don't know how many of us are reading the written statements that are posted online. I think starting our work on vote would be bad precedent. So let's try to find compromise. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Chair, and good morning, colleagues. First of all, congratulations on your appointment. To be very brief and also show the point of our support to your initial proposal, I would like to reiterate that Latvia is also of the view that we should stick the.

Proposal on the table, and we also believe there was enough time to discuss it before.

That, and now we should basically move to practical work of the Committee. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Latvia. I didn't see any request for the floor. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, let me first stress that it is for the committee to decide on the program of work. not the chair. I would like to remind that this discussion was held for several months in the Bureau, and then I understand that my colleague, Bureau members, I have also reached to the many delegations within their respective group. I therefore remain in the hands of the committee And I have heard statements both in the support and also against the program of work. I would like to remind that if we return to the original time limits, we will need more time for the committee to complete its work. In view of the comment made and also objection raised, I would like to suggest that the committee proceed with its organizational meeting and working methods debate as outlined in the draft program of the work, while I continue consultations on A/AC.1/81/CRP.1. On that, may I take it that the committee decide to proceed organizational meeting and working methods debate, according to the dates outlined in the draft programme of work, while consultations continue on A/C.1/81/CRP.1. I hear no objections. It is so decided. We shall now proceed to consider the draft indicative timetable. Contained in document A slash C one slash eighty one slash CRP two. May I take it that the committee wishes to proceed in accordance with the draft indicative timetable contained in document A/C.1/81/CRP.2. I hear no objection. It is so decided. Before concluding our considerations of the organization of the work of the Committee on the questions of explanations of vote and right of reply, The Bureau wishes to maintain the time limit of the last sessions. That is, a statement in the exercise of the right of reply should not exceed four and a half minutes for the first intervention and two and a half minutes for the second. This statement will continue to be heard at the end of each meeting or at the end of the day if two meetings are scheduled for that given day. For the thematic discussions, a statement in the right of reply will be exercised at the end of each day. Explanations of vote will be limited to five minutes. Longer statement can be submitted to e-statement for the record. Further, in line with the decision taken by the Assembly on 12 September, upon the recommendations of the General Committee, points of order shall be limited to five minutes. May I take it that the committee wishes to proceed in accordance with the proposed modalities as I just outlined? I hear no objections. It is so decided. Distinguished delegates, Before proceeding to the next item on our agenda today, I would like to draw your attention to agenda item 5, entitled elections of the officers of the main committees, and to rule 99A of the rules of the procedures, which reads as follows. All the main committees shall, at least three months before the opening of the session, elect a chairman. elections of the other officers provided for in Rule 103 shall be held at the latest by the end of the first week of the session. In this connection, the General Assembly, in its resolution 72/313 of 20 September 2018, decided to establish the pattern of the rotations of the chairs of the Main Committee for the seventy-fourth fourth to the 83rd sessions of the Assembly. In accordance with the annex to this resolution, the chair of the first committee will be nominated by the group of Eastern European states for the 82nd sessions in 2027. In light of the provision, I would like to propose that the first committee consider this item sometime in May or June 2027. about three months before the opening of the 82nd sessions of the General Assembly. If I hear no objections, may I take it that the committee wishes to proceed accordingly? I hear none. It is so decided. The organizing meeting is thus concluded. Distinguished delegates, The committee will now convene its debate on agenda item 124 entitled revitalization of the work of the General Assembly and agenda item 139, program planning. In connection with the debate, the attention of the committee is invited to a note by the secretariat contained in document A/C.1/80. 81/INF/4, which contains a summary of the inter-sessional informal discussion on working methods that took place in April 2026 and highlights relevant provisions of the General Assembly resolutions 80/233 on program planning. In accordance with the operative paragraph 7 of General Assembly resolutions 233. Whenever the Committee for Program and Coordination cannot provide conclusions and recommendations on a given subprogram or program of the proposed program budget, the plenary of the relevant main committee or main committees of the General Assembly responsible for those mandates will consider the program, said subprogram and program at the very start of the session in order to provide any conclusion and recommendation to the Fifth Committee at the earliest opportunity and no later than four weeks after the start of the session for timely consideration of the Fifth Committee. The Committee for Programme and Coordination recommended in its report issued as document A/81/16 that the Assembly at its 81st session review the programme plan of Programme 3, Disarmament, under the agenda item entitled "Programme Planning". Today's meeting is in response to this mandate. I intend to submit a chair summary of the discussion on the disarmament programme to the Chair of the Fifth Committee following the debate. Similarly, Based on the feedback from the delegations, I will summarize the key points raised by the committee members on the working methods of the committee. I therefore look forward to hearing your views on these important issues. Distinguished delegates, we'll now hear from our first speaker in the debate. The live list of the speakers can be found in today's journal. Statements should be limited to three minutes. Group statements should not exceed four minutes. To assist speakers in this regard and with your understanding, we will use a timing mechanism by which the red light on the speaker's microphone will begin to blink when approaching the time limit for their statement. The time limit for the statements will be strictly enforced, including through microphone cutoff. Delegates who have longer statements are encouraged to send their full statement to statement@un.org so that it could be posted on the UN Journal. At the same time, I would strongly encourage speakers to speak at a reasonable speed to allow adequate interpretation. With this, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of New Zealand, speaking on behalf of the Conferences Group.

Thank you, Chair. In the view of Canada, Australia, and my own country, New Zealand, the First Committee remains an important part of the multilateral disarmament machinery. The First Committee provides the opportunity to address a wide range of issues that are integral to the international disarmament and international security agenda, from nuclear weapons to outer space, autonomous weapons and cyber security. At the same time, CANS approaches the work of all committees, aware of the continuing need for reform and greater efficiencies across the UN system. GA resolution 80/251 under UN 80 workstream 2, as well as GA resolution 79/327 on General Assembly revitalization, and GA decision A/79/516 on transparency and vote calls provide important context and informing guidance to these discussions. This means that while CANS recognizes that some core disarmament issues will require ongoing and at times increased attention, we also welcome further improvement in the working methods of the First Committee. Improvements we can already identify include encouraging the trend for more concise statements, stricter limits on speaking, greater transparency in procedural decisions of the Committee, and a more focused meeting structure. In addition, and consistent with the GA resolutions mentioned earlier, member states contributing to the committee's work should continue to review and, where possible, streamline their approach towards overall numbers of resolutions they propose each year, along with the periodicity of some resolutions that are considered, especially those that have remained largely static for many years. The high volume of resolutions each session ultimately contributes to a diluted focus and more superficial discussions. This creates the risk that we fail to adequately grapple with the key issues of the day, and it can stretch and even exceed the resources of smaller delegations to meaningfully engage. On the topic of streamlining resolutions, CAHNS invites their proponents to consider length reductions, particularly in preambular sections, and more broadly to consider the elements of mandate creation, implementation and review in both continuing mandates, but also where new mandates are required to advance key issues. In the context of stakeholder considerations, CANS continues to underscore the important role of civil society in strengthening the quality and inclusiveness of the first committee's work. And we support continued efforts to enhance their meaningful participation, including by addressing practical barriers to their access. We also further highlight the importance of striving for gender parity in the work of the Committee, including among speakers and panelists in high-level and thematic meetings. On the importance of transparency, CAHNS reiterates our support to the South Africa and Singapore decision, information on requests for votes, passed at UNGA 79. We believe that transparency, including within the Committee's work, is a vital ingredient for building common understanding, which, in turn, is necessary for addressing matters of international peace and security. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand, speaking on behalf of the Cannes Group. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nauru, speaking on behalf of the Upland Group.

Chairperson, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the African Group. At the outset, allow me to congratulate you once again on your election as chairperson of the first committee at its 81st session. I also extend our congratulations to the other members of the Bureau on their election. Please be assured of the African Group's full support and cooperation in the discharge of your responsibilities. The group wishes to commend you, the other members of the Bureau, for your diligent efforts in preparing a balanced programme of work aimed at facilitating the efficient and effective conduct of the Committee's proceedings. In this regard, the African Group has no objection to the provisional programme of work and indicative timetable before us. The group appreciates the Bureau's continued commitment to improving the working methods of this Committee in accordance with General Assembly resolution 79 327 while preserving the effective conduct of its substantive work the African group reiterates his view that any further reduction in the time allocated for national and group statements during the general debate and the thematic cluster debates could inadvertently diminish the quality and the substance of the committee's deliberations For many developing countries, particularly those represented by small delegations, the general debate and thematic discussions constitute the principal opportunities to articulate national and regional positions across the full spectrum of disarmament and international security issues. While rights of reply, explanations of vote and points of order remain important procedural tools for safeguarding national positions and ensuring fair and balanced exchanges among delegations. The African Group believes that an appropriate balance should be maintained between the time devoted to substantive deliberations and that allocated to procedural matters, with due priority given or accorded to the committee's substantive work. The African Group reaffirms its support for General Assembly decision 79 516 on information concerning requests for recorded votes and underscores the importance of its continued implementation as a means of enhancing transparency in the working methods of the committee. The group believes that any modification to the committee's long-standing working methods should be based on broad consensus and preceded by comprehensive consultations among member states. Such consultation should take due account of the interests, circumstances and capacities of all regional groups, particularly delegations with limited human resources. The African Group remains committed to working constructively with you, the Bureau and all delegations to further strengthen the effectiveness, inclusiveness, transparency and efficiency of the First Committee's work.

I thank the distinguished representative of Namibia speaking on behalf of the African group. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.

Thank you very much, Chair. We are grateful for the working proposals that were presented, but we weren't able to adopt them this morning, unfortunately. We are of the view that on an exceptional basis, several of them constitute an adequate response to the UN's current liquidity crisis and the need to make the best possible use of available resources. Time marches on, so I'll get directly to the following points. One, Mexico has taken due note of the 10% reduction to the meeting scheduled for the main committees. Nevertheless, however, we are grateful that the room set aside for consultations is available or was available from last Wednesday onwards. It continues to be so. Time available for negotiations is already limited and should not be further reduced. My second point, we understand the need for flexibility in terms of how we organise our work, including when it comes to time limits for statements and statements made in right of reply, as well as the fact that it may be necessary to consider bringing forward taking action on draft proposals. However, this measure should not affect the process of informal consultations, bearing in mind that informal consultations make it possible to reconcile positions and explore pathways towards the desired consensus. We hope, however, that when rights of reply are exercised, they do not become an extension of national statements. My third point, Mexico supports efforts to make more effective use of the resources allocated to the General Assembly. This in line with commitments regarding the UNAG initiative. With this in mind, we have reviewed our own initiatives and moved to two or three year cycles for them. We've sought to avoid superfluous mandates or reports which provide very little or very scant added value, we once again appeal to other delegations to consider similar measures. Mexico is of the view that genuine revitalization cannot be limited to simply reorganizing the First Committee's timetable. We must comprehensively review disarmament machinery and the way in which its various components interact. We are concerned that three decades have elapsed since the last time that the CD was fully able to discharge its mandate. This year, That is the Conference on Disarmament. This year, the UNDC was not able to adopt substantive conclusions. Finally, any substantive amendment should be discussed in an inclusive way and sufficiently in advance. And ideally, this should take place before the organizational sessions. With that in mind, we welcome the informal discussion that was held in April. Thank you.

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

Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At first, let me congratulate you on the assumption of the chairmanship of the first committee. Please be assured that you can count on Poland's full support. And with many thanks for your strenuous efforts so far, let me chip into the working methods debate with three points. Firstly, Reducing the number of meetings and streamlining the session should be seen as a joint measure implemented to save time, improve the effectiveness and the general functioning of this committee. The view that fewer meetings would lead to a greater burden for smaller delegations is inexplicable to us. We see the reductions as a chance to reallocate time for further involvement and prepare better for other segments of the session, also to work on the resolutions that are the key results of the committee's work. After all, we work together on these texts and the more informal time we have to discuss them, the better shape they have. Therefore, the ideas put forward by the Bureau, with the strong preference to streamline further, certainly improve the Committee's work. Chair, given that last year we finished ahead of schedule, with the liquidity measures in full force, coming to business as usual would be simply logical. That view was largely echoed in April, when 120 delegations attended the intersessional meeting And of approximately 30 that took the floor, only one was openly against reductions. It was Russia. The same Russia that has already started obstructing the session today. Chair, secondly, Poland supports clustering the exercise of rights of reply statements and regrets that this idea will not be implemented this session. RRR interventions are very often repetitive and ill-conceived. Even though an intervention constitutes an inherent right of a state, it does not mean that one should abuse the right and treat the RRR segment as an opportunity to deliver another or sometimes the same statement. RRR's aim is to respond, not to repeat. Therefore, clustering and shortening these interventions is a convenient way forward that reduces the level of repetitiveness and debate fatigue, issues about which many states complain. Thirdly and finally, I would like to draw your attention to the figures presented by the Secretariat in April. Last year, approximately 40% of 1C resolutions were subject to non-substantive updates. In other words, almost half of the texts were technical rollovers. Let me be clear, adding a number and date to the resolution does not amount to constructive engagement in disarmament talks. It preserves legacy structures. That political objective is understandable but does not have to be fulfilled every year. We urge delegations planning to table technical rollovers to biennialize or triennialize them. Chair, to conclude, let's build on good practices, like Franco-German non-paper or internal bureau ideas, so that we work effectively rather than aimlessly. As a former bureau member, I wish you and your team best of luck. You can count on us. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. El Salvador is grateful for the opportunity to once again contribute to this debate. We regret the fact that we were unable to adopt all the provisions of the programme of work. We encourage the holding of more consultations on it. On working methods, in recent years, my delegation has consistently raised the need to move towards a first committee that is more inclusive, efficient and streamlined. We have supported the biennialisation and triennialisation of resolutions, the merging of mandates when possible and the promotion of omnibus resolutions. We wish to emphasize this year, particularly that last point, El Salvador fully recognizes the sovereign prerogative of all member states to present draft resolutions for the consideration of the General Assembly. At the same time, as we have indicated since 2023, we believe it's important to continue contemplating situations in which resolutions are presented on one single issue that contains significant overlaps. The overlapping and the proliferation of resolutions and mandates increases the workload of the committee, and it makes it difficult for all delegations to participate effectively. That's particularly true for small delegations such as my own. As such, we're of the view that greater coordination between resolution proposers will not only streamline our work, but it will also preserve the coherence of the processes that unfold within this Committee. Chair, Member States have worked tirelessly to, in various fora, build spaces for dialogue and cooperation. On occasion, after complex negotiating processes, We are of the view that it is important for the work of the first committee to strengthen these fora and to allow them to fully discharge the mandates that have been entrusted to them. With that in mind, we encourage those proposing resolutions that are tackling similar issues to step up the pace of consultations and explore as far as possible, when the circumstances allow, to merge their proposals into common texts. That will serve to avoid overlap and to facilitate broader participation of members as well as to foster more coherent implementation of the mandates agreed upon. We recognize that there are substantive differences between states and that achieving that goal will not always be possible. It is precisely for that reason that we believe that coordination, dialogue and flexibility between those proposing texts should be promoted as part of our working methods. This is particularly true when we already have established fora and mandates within which we can continue to tackle these differences of opinion. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, we wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your willingness and readiness to continue the discussion of the program of work of the fifth committee of the first committee we thank you for your flexibility so as to ensure that the views of all delegations are born in mind in this important matter we believe that the reconsideration of the principles and working methods of the committee of the first committee is possible exclusively on the basis of a consensus in order to genuinely improve and streamline the work of the committee there's a need to conduct a broad informal consultations ahead time on any new initiatives, which are geared towards changing the parameters for its operations. I now turn to the broadly discussed matter of reduction in volume of meetings, reduction in time for meetings of the First Committee. We do not agree that this will in any way enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of our negotiations organ. For last year, reduction in the volume of meetings resulted in a dearth of time for comprehensive substantive discussions and a reduction in the volume of agreed-upon documents and heightened tensions. Furthermore, this is exceedingly uncomfortable for smaller delegations, as we already saw and heard from statements in this hall, including for the Belarusian delegation. We have a profound, in-depth, substantive dialogue. Such a dialogue requires time, and this is something which we all know well. Instead of an in-depth professional analysis of problems, frequently we have to limit ourselves to condensed statements. And these kinds of so-called these savings undermine international security, arms control, and nonproliferation. To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I to highlight two important, as we see it, components. The first is as follows. Any initiatives to change the frequency of resolutions submitted need not encroach upon the sovereign right of delegations to submit documents under their discretion. At their discussion, another important issue has to do with the deadline for the tabling of resolutions. We propose that this be shifted to the third week of the session. This will ease the work of smaller delegations and will provide sufficient time for reaching agreement on the documents. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chairperson. South Africa aligns with the statement delivered on behalf of the African Group. Chairperson, South Africa also supports the proposed provisional program of work and indicative timetable. We would like to reiterate our support for efforts to improve the working methods of the committee in order to ensure that work is conducted in an effective and efficient manner. We note the proposal on time allocations. And as indicated, we believe that these measures can contribute to the efficient use of the committee's time, as demonstrated by the 80th session of the committee. At the same time, such allocation should not create an imbalance between the consideration of procedural issues and substantive matters, which in our view warrant adequate time and attention. South Africa supports the consideration of the biennialization and/or triennialization of resolutions, particularly those that primarily contain technical updates. However, we do not consider that decisions regarding the periodicity of resolutions should be based on a uniform approach. Rather, each resolution should be considered on its own merits, taking into account each subject matter, relevance, intended purpose, and current developments. Chairperson, another important matter on the working methods is that of transparency. Over its previous two sessions, the Committee has been able to create more space for transparency to thrive through the implementation of Decision 79/516 on information on requests for votes, which was adopted by consensus. South Africa therefore affirms the continued validity of this decision and supports its sustained implementation as an important and constructive measure for building trust and confidence among Member States. We wish to restate that the purpose of this decision is neither to name and shame Member States, nor to restrict their right to call a vote. It is intended to assist delegations by providing timely information on requests for votes and provide Member States with an opportunity to engage each other on issues of concern and common interest. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Lithuania. Microphone, please, to Lithuania.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is never too late to congratulate you on your election as Chair of the First Committee and to congratulate the other members of the Bureau. You can count on Lithuania's full support and cooperation. Lithuania reiterates its appreciation for the efforts of the Chair and the Bureau to make the Committee's work more efficient. Without repeating myself, we welcome the efficiency measures introduced, and hopefully, we will be able to agree on them quite soon. Lithuania still believes that there remains room for further improvements to the Committee's efficiency. Let me briefly touch upon a few areas. First, the length of the programme of work and related streamlining measures. Measures such as enforced time limits, shorter sessions and early informal engagement have proven beneficial. Reported increase participation in 2025 with a higher number of speakers in formal debates demonstrated the value of these efforts. The Committee's successful completion of its work ahead of the schedule during the previous session suggests that further efficiencies could be explored. provided that sufficient time is preserved for substantive discussions and informal consultations. Second, the right of reply. While it remains an important procedural tool, it should not be used to circumvent agreed speaking limits or to prolong interventions through lengthy exchanges, especially that are not directly relevant to the Committee's mandate and agenda. We therefore support the time limits for rights of reply that are proportionate to the speaking times allocated during the corresponding debate. Third, Lithuania would encourage continued reflection on the periodicity of resolutions. We encourage Member States to consider whether certain resolutions that undergo only technical updates from year to year could benefit from alternative periodicities or where appropriate to use of decisions while preserving substantive engagement on the issue. We also see scope for consolidating closely related resolutions where appropriate. Such steps could help reduce both committees workload and associated financial burden. At the time of growing security challenges and continued financial constraints facing the United Nations, our efficiency should be measured by the quality of our outcomes rather than the length of our interventions. Lithuania remains open to discussing. We appreciate the contributions made by delegations to this discussion and remain open to discuss further improvements in the future. I thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman. we firmly believe in the relevance and importance of traditional working methods of the First Committee, and we see no need in their revision. The relevant approaches have been set out in detail in the position paper of the Russian delegation, which was circulated among all United Nations member states, and this specifically pertains to the First Committee's working methods. We call upon all delegations to familiarize themselves with this. I now turn to the duration of statements. There is a need to preserve the traditional duration so as to ensure that delegations have the opportunity to engage in a substantive matter agenda items of the first committee and to seek to arrive at mutually acceptable solutions for real, not imaginary, problems in the area of international security, arms control, nonproliferation, disarmament. I now turn to the right to reply, which certain delegations resort to. The main reason, based on statistics in recent years, the main reason is precisely politicized, deliberately factually incorrect statements which are emanating precisely from those states who so ardently call for limitations on this right and calling for our delegations to be stripped of the opportunity to respond to obvious attacks. Consequently, through a simple resolution to the problem is as follows: such countries that call for restrictions on the right to reply, they simply can not engage in politicized, clearly false allegations and statements targeting other participants. Enhancement of the effectiveness and efficiency would be facilitated by a thorough, good-faith preparatory work, including the conduct of open-ended consultations on all new initiatives at the committee. At the same time, it is important for states not to impose deliberately non-consensus-based ideas, which result in further divisions in the international community, rather for them to seek a positive agenda. They wanted for the goal to be merger of efforts. This would help to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the relevant initiatives. I now turn to the proposals of a transition to a biennial or triennial basis of the draft resolutions. We would like to underscore that such ideas should not undermine the sovereign rights of member states to advance their proposals to determine the content and the periodicity of the resolutions and General Assembly decisions, and the attempts to arbitrarily limit to member states' opportunity to present documents and the advancement of their initiatives in the area of arms control disarmament and nonproliferation are unacceptable in our view. The relevant decisions need to be taken by the sponsors of the resolution independently based upon their specific circumstances. Thank you for your attention.

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

Mr. Chairman, Belgium reiterates our words of gratitude for your efforts, which are geared towards improving the working methods of the First Committee. We regret the impossibility this morning of adopting a working program of work. In light of a dense agenda and constraints as a result of growing resource constraints, it is incumbent upon us to see to it that the First Committee become an effective, efficient forum that can dedicate more time to substantive discussion seeking concrete solutions. We support the initiative proposed by the Bureau for the working program of work for this session, specifically reduction in the overall duration of this session, as well as proposals to limit the duration of time statements, as well as to strictly cut off microphones at the expiration of time limits? There is some leeway, and to that end, we believe that there is room, rather, for improvement in the operations of the Committee. To that end, we would like to recall our support for the proposals in the Franco-German non-paper that was proposed. This includes a five-minute statement for national statements, eight minutes for statements on behalf of groups during the general debate, to second, a more selective approach the submission of draft resolutions by prioritizing texts which include new mandates or substantive modifications, and third, to prioritize biannualization or triannualization of resolutions, and fourth, the merger of thematic clusters six and seven. Lastly, we believe that the question of rights of reply also warrants particular attention. Belgium can accept keeping things unchanged in the spirit of compromise this year, but we would like next year to have an organization of rights of response be held every other day rather than on a daily basis, as well as the grouping together rights of response at the end of each thematic cluster during the thematic cluster, and stricter limitations on speaking times during rights of response. We believe that three minutes for the first statement intervention, two minutes for the second intervention is sufficient. As was mentioned, we do not support some delegations' view that this will have an impact on trust among states. will result in an increase in the number of resolutions voted upon. We believe that bringing together all of these measures will help to significantly reduce the duration of work of the First Committee to four weeks, while at the same time maintaining their quality, transparency, and inclusive nature. And this will help to free up more time for informal discussions as well. We stand ready to engage and pursue dialogue with all delegations in order to identify pragmatic and consensus-based reforms to help the First Committee become more effective and efficient. Thank you.

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

Mr. President, let me reiterate again my congratulations for your important role and that of the Bureau. We are convinced that working methods focused on efficiency, pragmatism, and oriented on results are the best possible way to make the work of this committee relevant and fruitful. Streamlining working methods does not mean neglecting the importance of the discussions carried out. It means focusing on them with a-- focusing them on what is most urgent to achieve progress in the field of disarmament and international security. And exactly by allowing every delegation to have the full chance to express its views, while at the same time preserving a smooth and really interactive debate, real exchange of views, in which the positions of every niche of the delegations can be better highlighted, understood in the very essence, and receive full attention they deserve on a ground of true parity. During the last session of the first committee last year, it was proved that putting together streamlined working methods and full inclusivity of the debate is possible and is fruitful.

Therefore, we are very grateful

to you and to this Bureau for having proposed efficiency measures that we fully support. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Italy. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

Mr. Chairman, Switzerland would like to thank you, as well as the Bureau and the Secretariat, for the efforts undertaken to prepare the programme of work and the working methods for the 81st session of the First Committee. Switzerland supports the measures put in place, both with regard to the programme of work and the working methods. We consider them to be useful steps towards ensuring the effective organisation of our work. Going forward, we believe it would be useful to finalise the arrangements for organising the work of the first committee sufficiently in advance in order to facilitate the planning of the participation of member state delegations. In this spirit, Switzerland encourages the continuation of these efforts during the next session, and we wish to put forward the following three suggestions. First and foremost, we encourage delegations to consider biennializing or even triennializing resolutions whose content does not undergo substantial changes from one year to the next, without prejudice to the possibility of reconsidering them in light of new developments. This is merely an encouragement. Second, We encourage the strict and consistent application of speaking times, including where appropriate by cutting off the microphone, applied equally to all delegations. This measure would help to ensure fairness amongst speakers and respect for the programme of work. These measures, in our view, should go hand in hand with preserving the inclusive and substantive nature of the First Committee's debates. Third, we encourage further consideration in a more in-depth way of the practice of the right to reply. We take note of the measures introduced in this regard, and we appreciate the efforts undertaken We encourage the chairmanship to continue to engage with delegations in order to identify for future sessions a way to make this practice even more effective and targeted, while fully respecting the rights of all delegations. In this regard, the proposal to group rights of reply at the end of each thematic debate, rather than at the end of each day, in our view, is constructive. Switzerland looks forward to continuing this discussion with the chair and all delegations. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nicaragua.

Chair, we congratulate you and the members of the Bureau on your election. You can count on the full support of Nicaragua. in terms of constructively contributing to the Committee's work. Nicaragua is of the view that it is pivotal to preserve the intergovernmental, inclusive and representative nature of the first Committee. We should guarantee that all Member States are able to fully and equally participate in the First Committee's work. We acknowledge the financial difficulties currently faced by our organization. As such, in our view, it is important to ensure that measures adopted make it possible to preserve the space necessary for dialogue, negotiation and the effective participation of all Member States. The First Committee broaches particularly sensitive issues for international peace and security. As such, we reiterate that it is vital to have sufficient time for general and thematic debates. Consultations between delegations and the exercise of the right of reply foster substantive exchange, and that is helpful in terms of building understanding. Moreover, of the view, any substantive amendment to the committee's working methods should, in our view, be examined in a balanced fashion without stymying debate and while preserving fully the prerogatives of member states, as well as seeking always to achieve consensus. All member states to sovereign right to propose resolutions must be preserved. Consultation should be allowed to preserve the inclusive nature of the Committee's work. We continue to trust that your Chair will provide us with important input as we seek to bolster the First Committee's ability to effectively discharge its mandate. We hope that you will allow us to ensure the First Committee remains a vital space for discussion on disarmament, we will continue to constructively foster a process of negotiation rooted in dialogue, mutual respect, multilateralism, consensus, and the equitable participation of all States. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nicaragua. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Thailand.

Mr. Chair, as this is the first time my delegation takes the floor, allow me to congratulate you and the members of the Bureau on your election. This is a pleasure to see a close friend from the Asia-Pacific at the helm. You have Thailand's full support. We also thank the Secretariat for providing the statistics and information that inform our work. Mr. Chair, Thailand welcomes the continued efforts to improve the work of this committee. The 80th session showed that the efficiency and inclusivity can reinforce one another. Efficiency should serve substance, not replace it, and should preserve attention to longstanding priorities, including nuclear disarmament. Let me reflect on some points raised on the program of work. We concur with Norway that the streamlined arrangements should continue for another year before we assess them again. One year of statistics is a starting point, not a proof of success. That assessment must include the views of smaller delegations. Senegal's experience of engaging in only two thematic discussions last year, fewer than before, deserves our attention. Mr. Chair, reform begins with how we Member States work. We see three practical steps. First, earlier and more inclusive engagement. Early circulation of drafts helps build wider support. Consultations in Geneva and Vienna are valuable. Virtual formats could connect them with New York, home to the widest membership, including smaller delegations represented only here. Participation means ownership. Second, more focused reporting. Consolidated and targeted requests for views would ease the burden on smaller delegations. This could generate more responses and add value to their reports. Third, a voluntary review of the periodicity of resolutions. Texts with only technical updates could be presented every two or three years. This would free time for issues requiring deeper discussion, while fully respecting every state's right to submit proposals. Mr. Chair, improving our working methods is an ongoing process. We should continue good practices such as speaking time limits and transparency on requests for recorded votes, and pursue measures that enjoy broad convergence. These include issues such as further rationalizing the speaking time limit, merging thematic clusters, strengthening the disarmament machinery. Progress ultimately depends on political will, but there is room for practical improvement through inclusive consultations with all stakeholders. My delegation would welcome continued intercessional discussions, should you and the Bureau see merit in it. Thailand stands ready to contribute. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Thailand. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe.

Thank you, Chair. Zimbabwe congratulates you, Chair, and your Bureau on your election to lead the First Committee during its 81st session. Please be assured of Zimbabwe's full support and constructive engagement. Zimbabwe aligns with the statement delivered by the African Group and adds the following in a national capacity. Distinguished delegates, the prevailing international security environment has made it more imperative for the First Committee to fulfill its mandate in line with the Charter of the United Nations. With the ongoing qualitative and quantitative arms race that appears to be underway, Zimbabwe underscores that the First Committee has an even greater role today to refocus global attention on the need for general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. Chair, Zimbabwe welcomed the inter-sessional informal discussion on the working methods of the First Committee held in April 2026 and noted the various positions expressed by Member States. In that vein, we maintain the view that time limits for national and group statements and for rights of reply should not be further reduced, as this may diminish the quality and substance of exchanges. Drawing from the position paper of the Russian Federation, which was circulated by the Secretariat in August 2026, Zimbabwe adds its voice to the view that member states should not be arbitrarily restricted from submitting documents and promoting their initiatives in the sphere of arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation. On another note, Zimbabwe continue to support General Assembly decision 79516, which has enabled the identification of Member States calling for a vote in the interest of transparency and dialogue. Finally, we reiterate that measures that were implemented due to financial crisis should not remain in force beyond the necessary timeframe. Let me conclude by extending appreciation to the Bureau for its steadfast efforts to improve the Committee's working methods. We also appreciate the dedicated support of the Secretariat. I thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. We congratulate you once again. on your election as Chair of the First Committee. We also congratulate the Vice-Chairs that will accompany you during this session. We wish you every success as you discharge your mandate. We take note of the proposal on the table regarding the working methods for the 81st session. We also note the comments made by several delegations on the working methods assessed. In view of the Organization's current financial situation, it is necessary to guarantee a sensible use of resources available. However, these measures should not stymie the full and effective participation of all Member States in the work of the Committee, neither should they affect the exercise of their rights. In the current international context, marked by growing challenges to international peace and security, it is crucial to preserve adequate space for substantive, inclusive and transparent dialogue on disarmament and non-proliferation. Like other delegations, we are currently concerned by the reduction to the number of meetings as well as to the time available for statements during the general debate. These measures should be... and remain strictly exceptional and should not set a precedent for future sessions. We recognise, against this backdrop, efforts made by the Bureau under Nepal's leadership to facilitate an organisational process that can allow the Commission to adequately discharge its mandate. We reiterate the importance that my delegation attaches to maintaining the exercise of having rights of reply at the end of every day of thematic discussions. This practice will serve to guarantee a balanced exchange of views and the effective exercise of the rights of all Member States. Chair, regarding the proposals to reduce biennialised or triennialised resolutions, And regarding the recommendations regarding technical roll-overs, this measure should not be used as an economic means to limit the rights of a State or a group of States, including the NAM, to present draft resolutions or decisions. Neither should it be used as a measure to determine their content or their frequency. We are staunchly committed to multilateralism, disarmament and international security, as well as the efficiency of the First Committee. That efficiency should be measured according to its ability to promote substantive participation and the full participation of all member states and its ability to seek mutually acceptable solutions. We are ready to constructively participate in all the committee's work. Thank.

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

Thank you, Chair. Pakistan recognizes the First Committee as a unique, most inclusive, and universal forum on arms control, disarmament, and international security. Entrusted by the General Assembly to carry out on its behalf critical deliberations on a range of regional and international security issues, The First Committee provides an important opportunity to all Member States to take stock of developments in key disarmament areas across the globe. We support the continued efforts to promote efficiency as well as smooth and effective functioning of the First Committee. In this respect, we offer the following points. First, we should be clear-headed about the purposes and overarching goals of any efficiency exercise. All efforts and their outcomes should aim to preserve and further enhance the salient and strategic nature of the first committee. Second, we must strike a balance between cost-cutting and promoting efficiency while fostering effectiveness and productivity. We should avoid the urge to turn this solely as a mechanical exercise of progressive cut down, rather should ensure optimal level of resources. Third, Any exercise should strive for the widest possible views of member states in transparent and inclusive manner, and decisions should ideally be taken by a consensus. This would ensure the buy-in of all member states in these important endeavors. Ultimately, our overall goal is to further enhance common understanding of all issues, including on working methods and allocation of precious time and resources. With the above in view, we suggest that member states may initiate a dedicated in-depth exercise of these issues in a comprehensive manner, where deliberations and decisions are taken holistically, inclusively, and transparently. While any decision in this respect is the member state's responsibility, the secretariat may be requested to prepare a comprehensive conference paper providing a detailed background of all related issues with historical development and evolution of the first committee and share options for consideration of member states. Chair, as a practical manifestation of our commitment to the efficiency drive, Pakistan has decided to biennialize its two resolutions in the regional disarmament cluster. We hope that this step would not only contribute to improving efficacy of the FES committee, but also be reciprocated positively by member states through their continued support to these initiatives. I thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you, Chair. I congratulate you and members of the Bureau on your election. You will have the full support of the Maldives. Let me also thank the Bureau for the careful work undertaken to organize this session. For a small delegation, working methods determine our ability to participate meaningfully. We suggest three areas for attention. First, predictability. Rolling speakers list and changes to the schedule may sometimes be necessary, but reasonable notice matters. There should also be sufficient time between circulation of drafts, consultations and action. For smaller delegations, compressed timeline can mean fewer opportunities to engage with substance. Second, The first committee does not operate in isolation. Important parts of disarmament architecture are based in Geneva and Vienna. Not every delegation can maintain a specialist to cover all three duty stations. We therefore encourage better connectivity between these processes. Before each session, the secretariat could provide a concise mapping of relevant documents in Geneva, Vienna, and elsewhere against the committee's thematic clusters. with briefers and documents readily accessible to delegations in New York. Within the committee, we support a single user-friendly digital platform, bringing together current draft texts, revisions, consultation schedules, and status of action. New initiatives should also be discussed early enough for delegations to genuinely shape them. Third, accountability. This year's arrangements are exceptional. And at the end of the session, a short assessment could identify what worked, where process errors, and what lessons could inform future sessions. On program planning, agreed mandates must have the resources needed for effective implementation. Planning should strengthen delivery of these mandates, not reopen decisions already taken by member states. For the most Good working methods means every delegation, regardless of size or capacity, has the realistic opportunity to follow, negotiate, and contribute. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Maldives. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Denmark.

Thank you, Chair. Let me start by congratulating you on your election as chair of the First Committee. is looking forward to working with you and the entire Bureau, and I can assure you of our full cooperation and support. Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, as we start our deliberations in the First Committee this year, we welcome the proposals on the working methods, the programme of work and the timetable with the measures taken. We find the proposals are a useful basis as a compromise between different positions for our work over the coming weeks. They will improve our work, and we can support them. In the proposals, we specifically appreciate the speaking times in the general debate are kept as last year. The use of automatic microphone cutoff has been retained, the lower number of sessions allocated, and retaining the initiative on information on states requiring votes. Denmark fully recognizes progress in efficiencies made over the most recent 1C sessions, but we would, however, like to have seen further tightening of the framework this year. which could have been done without compromising our deliberations, state positions, further politicizations or outcomes. As such, tightening of the framework will not increase differences between states or cause more votes. Differences between states and call for votes are expression of different political positions, which honestly is not solved by longer or more statements in this room. Chair, in line with the 1C Franco-German non-paper, which we fully support, and all Member State statements, except one, as I recall it, during the intercessional informal discussion on working methods, which we highly appreciated, we continue to see merit in shorter time for statements in the general debate, the thematic debates, and right of reply. We also see merit in a merger of some of the clusters. And as a small delegation, we would welcome such action. And actually, you're looking at the Danish delegation right now. Rights of reply should be brief, to the point and concise. They should not be a repetition or continuation of a statement already delivered, but address a specific point. And we should hear rights of reply at the end of each of the thematic debates. And an observation from our side which continues to puzzle us is to have right of reply in the thematic debates that are longer than the speaking time for the statement does not make sense. The time for right of reply should be calibrated. Progress on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation is not done primarily through the formal and pre-scripted statements or rights of reply here. That is not real, substantive dialogue, and I underline dialogue, and does not lead to outcomes in itself. Our scarce time is better spent in informal consultation on the text we have in front of us and on finding common ground and compromises in order to reach results and outcomes. Finally, we also join the call to penholders to take a careful look at resolutions before tabling them, while of course recognizing the right of states to table them. What is the purpose of the text and what is the purpose of tabling the text? Is it necessary to table a text every year or could it wait until there are substantial changes? Could it be a decision instead? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Enhancing the effectiveness of the United Nations cannot be achieved through organizational and procedural changes. It requires restoring confidence and trust in the organization through full adherence to international law. and the UN Charter, principles that have been violated, particularly over the past two years, by certain members in a grave and systematic manner and with impunity. We also believe that the primary cause of the organization's current liquidity crisis, which has led to the launch of the UN80 initiative, is the chronic late payment of assessed contributions by the largest contributor of the organization. The difficulties facing disarmament forums stem primarily from the lack of political will, the reluctance of certain states to engage in dialogue based on equality, mutual respect, and sovereign equality, and attempts to instrumentalize multilateral mechanisms for political purposes. Organizational issues should not be invoked to divert attention from these root causes. We consider that the established method of works of the first committee remain effective and don't require revision. The changes introduced last year were exceptional measures and should not establish a precedent for the committee's current and future work. Those changes have had unintended consequences, including the dilution of substantive discussions, by reducing statements to a brief and unelaborated positions and transforming meaningful exchanges into procedural formalities. The superficial consideration of complex security issues can deepen misunderstanding and mistrust, thereby diminishing the prospect for consensus. The Committee should therefore return to its established practice regarding the number of meetings, the length of statements during the general debate and the thematic discussions, and the exercise of right of reply. We support voluntary discipline in the length of statements rather than rigid time limits. The number of resolutions and decisions reflects the diversity of member states' priorities and is an essential expression of multilateralism. We support voluntary efforts by sponsors to streamline initiatives, but reject arbitrary caps or pressure that could marginalize national and regional concerns. Such efforts must remain member state driven and respect the prerogative of sponsors. Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, I request one additional minute to raise a point of order. I am obliged to draw the kind attention of you and the distinguished delegations to a serious situation concerning the continuing failure of the host country to issue visas to Iranian representatives who were scheduled to attend the meeting.

I thank the disarmament representative of Iran. Now I give the floor to the disarmament representative of Egypt.

A few months ago, you were faced by a major setback to our disarmament machinery, which is the third consecutive failure to reach an outcome document for our NPT Review Conference. This is both a clear depiction of the weakened state of our machinery a wake-up call that reform is needed. Coming from a developing country, we do not like trickle-down approaches. We favor more bottom-up reforms. Practically, this means that we need to start with the grassroots, which is our working methods. For Egypt, tackling working methods shall be done with the understanding that cutting down the duration of our statements is is not because we don't want to work. It's rather because time is precious. It has an opportunity cost, which is doing the real work that matters. In brief, this means the following. We need more informants and less statements. Second, through fewer and clustered rights of replies, we're recalibrating the balance of our committee to the technical and practical aspects rather than the political rhetoric. Third, changing the periodicity of the resolutions to being biennial and triennial shall open the door for newer resolutions to be presented, resolutions that tackle the core reasons for why our disarmament machinery is lagging behind. We should seek options to practically implement the NPT in a balanced manner, to bring discussions of emerging technologies, ICT, AI, military domain under the umbrella of the UN, among other things. Simply, Chair, Reforming our working methods is the first step to an agile and effective First Committee. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Chair. Let me begin by congratulating you and members of the Bureau on your election. My delegation is confident that under your leadership, we'll bring our work to a successful conclusion. I wish to make two points on the working methods of our committee. First, we have to make a serious effort at this session to further streamline our work and improve our working methods. The First Committee adopts more resolutions by vote than any other main committee. This imposes a heavy burden, especially on small delegations. The UN80 reform exercise gives us an additional reason to improve our working methods. We would strongly recommend to all delegations to make a start by reducing the length of resolutions and also by introducing review clauses for new resolutions where appropriate. Additionally, we would also support the biennializing and triennializing of annual resolutions. As we improve our working methods, it is equally important that we adopt an approach that is even-handed and that is applied across the board. Second, we must continue to enhance transparency in the work of our Committee. In this regard, delegations will recall that Singapore and South Africa had jointly introduced decision 79/516, entitled Information on Requests for Votes, at the 79th session in 2024. The objective of this resolution was simple, to improve transparency and facilitate the flow of information among member states. We believe that enhancing transparency in our work is essential to build confidence, encourage meaningful dialogue, and strengthen the credibility of our work. My delegation calls on you, the Chair, Excellency, to continue with the implementation of this resolution at this session. This year, pursuant to the decision 79/516, Singapore, together with South Africa and also a group of Member States, we intend to submit a formal request calling on the Chair to continue the practice of providing information on the identity of the Member States that requested a vote on draft resolution or decisions tabled for action in this Committee or their specific paragraphs. In conclusion, I wish to underline that working methods is not just a question of time management and reducing the number of resolutions. Ultimately, working methods are a means to build trust, enhance transparency, and strengthen mutual understanding. And most importantly, by improving our working methods, we can deliver meaningful and much-needed results. Singapore stands ready to work constructively with all Member States in this regard. And we also take this opportunity, Mr. Chair, to extend to you our support to your program of work and to your efforts to find a pragmatic solution on this issue so that we can proceed very efficiently with the rest of our work. Thank you very much.

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

Thank you, Chair, and courtesies on behalf of the Czech delegation.

Distinguished delegates, colleagues, friends, allow me to voice our strong support for the programme of.

Work as proposed by the Bureau and for the revitalisation efforts clearly reflected in this draft. We, however, believe that the potential of these efforts has not been fully utilised. The Czech Republic echoes views expressed by many delegations that revitalization should not be about cutting just for the sake of cutting, but about minimalizing duplications, avoiding overlaps, and ensuring a more streamlined and focused program of work. Effectiveness is not simply characterized by the number of meeting days, but rather how we fill them. By cutting unnecessary statements, reducing the length and frequency of rights of replies, minimizing technical rollover resolutions, and promoting thereby or triannualization in accordance with the UN80 initiative, we can promote increasingly focused debates. A more effective first committee is not only a matter of efficiency. At a time when the international community expects this committee to respond to real and growing challenges, streamlining and revitalizing our work is a simple matter of credibility. Chair, we do not share the view of some delegations that in the reaction to revitalization of work of the First Committee, our mutual distrust increased, while the number of consensual resolutions decreased. There are other long-standing causes for such an unfortunate trend. Similarly, politization of our debates cannot be blamed on UN80. We indeed agree that in the current geopolitical situation, collective efforts based on dialogue and diplomacy remain the most significant tool for maintaining regional and international security. They must be, however, approached honestly, collaboratively, and without malicious intent. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Turkey. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Tajikistan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, allow me on behalf of the Tajikistan, uh, the delegation of Tajikistan to congratulate you, uh, and the members of the Bureau on your election. You can count on Tajikistan's full support for your work and for your efforts. in guiding the First Committee during the 81st session of the GA. Mr. Chair, Tajikistan attaches great importance to the effective work of the First Committee. At the same time, we believe that improving its work's methods should preserve the key principles guiding the General Assembly. In this regard, my delegation welcomes the opportunity to discuss practical ways to make the work of the committee more effective. We believe that timely distribution of documents is very important. Early circulation of draft resolutions and other relevant documents gives all delegations enough time to study them and to hold consultations. We also support efforts to reduce unnecessary duplication in the work of the committee. Where possible, better coordination of relevant agenda items and thematic clusters could help us use our time more effectively. At the same time, such measures should not reduce the substance of our discussions or limit the ability of Member States to raise issues that are important to their national and regional priorities. Tajikistan also attaches great importance to having enough time for informal consultation. consultations. Mr. Chair, we are aware of the financial and resource challenges facing the UN. At the same time, we believe that improving efficiency should not affect the ability of the organization to carry out the mandates given to it by member states. In this regard, Tajikistan supports a balanced, gradual, and consensus-based approach to improving the working methods of the First Committee. Mr. Chair, the First Committee remains one of the main structures of the UN dealing with disarmament and international security. In today's increasingly complex international environment, our common goal should be to make its work more effective while keeping it an inclusive platform for dialogue and discussion. Tajikistan stands ready to work constructively with all delegations and the Bureau in this regard. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

The United States welcomes this opportunity to address the working methods of the first committee. Over the past year, this committee has seen clear evidence that it can work more efficiently, more deliberately, and at lower cost without sacrificing substance or participation. Even with a shorter schedule and tighter speaking limits, participation remained strong, interventions remained robust, and the committee fulfilled its mandate. No delegation was denied the opportunity to be heard, and no convincing case has been made that the committee was unable to do its work. That matters because this discussion is not about procedure for its own sake. It is about whether the committee is willing to match its practices to its actual workload, respect the time and resources of member states, and contribute to a more effective and accountable United Nations. We believe the committee should continue moving towards shorter, more disciplined sessions, more reasonable speaking limits, and a more focused use of conference time. Every additional day, every unnecessary intervention, and every avoidable resolution carries a cost. If the work can be done in less time, then it should be. That same principle applies to rights of reply. They serve a legitimate function, but they should not become a vehicle for extending debate indefinitely or for restating national positions at greater length than the original statements themselves. If this committee is serious about discipline, then rights of reply should be limited accordingly. The same principle applies to resolutions. Too many return year after year with little or no substantive change. We welcome those delegations that have responded constructively to calls for longer periodicity, not a word you use very often, but others have not. Annual consideration of resolutions that do not require annual action wastes time and resources. The committee should focus its attention on new proposals and texts that require genuine negotiation, rather than repeatedly spending the same effort on texts with technical updates or minimal changes. The United States recognizes that not every delegation supports reform with the same urgency. And man, we see this all over the UN. But the evidence is clear and the need for change is no longer in doubt. This committee can work more efficiently and it should. We remain committed to working constructively to advance practical reforms, but we also expect this process to deliver more than discussion. I thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. Algeria aligns itself with the statement delivered by Namibia on behalf of the African Group. Three points. First, on transparency, we wish to express once again our sincere appreciation and support to Singapore and South Africa for the decision 79/516, which marked a significant step forward in enhancing the transparency and predictability of our work. To illustrate why this decision is important, allow me to share a concrete national experience. Algeria submits annually a draft resolution entitled Strengthening Security and Cooperation in the Mediterranean. Historically, this text was adopted by consensus. However, in 2018, despite the resolution undergoing limited changes, a delegation suddenly requested a recorded vote, without prior notice, without raising any explicit or implicit substantive concerns, and without any direct relation to the text itself. What followed was a frustrating struggle simply to identify which delegation had called for the vote. Colleagues, When consensus is broken anonymously on a technically updated text, it creates unnecessary ambiguity and undermines trust. Knowing we request a recorded vote is not about assigning blame. It is about procedural fairness, transparency, and dialogue. Second point, regarding speaking time limits, further reducing allocated time risk diminishing the quality and substance of our deliberations. The Algerian delegation has usually quite short statements. But we respect the right of everyone to articulate orally and fully their positions. To address this, we could urge delegations to keep their remarks within a set timeframe without pressuring them to condense their points beyond what is practical from their perspective. Third and last point regarding the resolution's periodicity. This should be considered on a case-by-case basis and by consensus. Technical updates should not be the criteria, or at least not the only criteria to make such decision. Thank you, Chair, and I give 38 seconds to the following delegations.

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nigeria.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nigeria aligns itself with the statement delivered by Namibia on behalf of the African Group and wishes to have a few brief remarks. My delegation congratulates you, Mr. Chair, and other members of the Bureau on your election and assure you of Nigeria's full support and cooperation. We also appreciate the Bureau effort to ensure an orderly, balanced, efficient program of work for the committee. Nigeria support practical measures aimed at improving efficiency of the first committee. However, efficiency should not be pursued at the expense of substantive engagement, inclusiveness, or the ability of member states to participate meaningfully in the committee work. In particular, Nigeria attach importance to preserving adequate time for the general debate and thematic cluster debates. This segment provide an essential opportunity for delegation to set national priority, respond to evolving security challenges, and contribute substantively across the broad range of disarmament and international security issues before the Committee. This is especially important for developing countries and delegations with limited personnel, which most often cover several thematic areas simultaneously. Working method reform should therefore take into consideration the differing capacity of delegation and should not inadvertently narrow the space available for effective participation. Nigeria also of a view that it's important to maintain appropriate balance between substantive deliberations and procedural intervention. Right of reply, explanation of vote, and other procedural mechanism remain legitimate and necessary, but their use should not unduly displace the time available for substantive consideration of committee agenda. Nigeria further emphasizes that any significant adjustment to established working methods should be transparent, consultative, and broadly supported by member states. Predictability and inclusiveness remain essential to preserving confidence in the committee procedures. Finally, Mr. Chair, Nigeria will continue to engage constructively with you, the Bureau, and all delegation in support of a first committee that is efficient in its method, inclusive in its participation, and substantive in its outcome. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. Let me first congratulate you on your election as chair. Please be assured of the support and cooperation of the delegation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to work with you, the bureau, the secretariats, and all delegations. Mr. Chair, the Netherlands firmly stands for the important work that we do here. The First Committee is and remains at the heart of multilateral work on matters of international peace and security. With regard to the programme of work and timetable, as well as the working methods, the Netherlands commend you, the Bureau and the Secretariat for the work done. I'd like to confirm our support for what you have presented to us as a proposal that emerged after lengthy discussions. In our view, the efficiencies you present are fitting of where the UN finds itself. In the year following the start of the UN80 initiative, it is only logical that the First Committee too is subject to a discussion and proposals on streamlining. Mr. Chair, as other delegations have pointed out, revitalizing the disarmament machinery is not only about the practice of imposing time limits on the First Committee for the sake of cutting time. Rather, we believe it is important to also critically examine the ways in which we work, on the frequency of annual resolutions, the number of meetings, and the way we organize the right of reply. Such examinations and actions should go beyond the First Committee. We look with concern at what is happening, or I should say what is not happening, in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, as an example. As we mark our 30th year in that forum without substantive negotiations, it is important that we improve its functioning. Until we are able to do so, we would prefer to organise that work in a way that is more proportionate to its outcome. Mr. Chair, looking ahead, we stand ready to work on the basis of your proposal this year, but believe there are further steps to be taken in revitalizing the disarmament machinery. We look forward to discuss these steps this year and in the year to come. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, at the onset, allow me to extend my delegation's warm congratulations to you on your election, as well as the other members of your Bureau, and assure you of Ghana's full support and constructive cooperation. Ghana aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Group of African States and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, and wish to make the following remarks in its national capacity. Against the backdrop of the 81st session's theme, restoring trust, managing transformation, global military expenditure has surged to an unprecedented 2.9 trillion US dollars. This staggering allocation highlights a critical security paradox, massive investment of arms have not fortified collective stability, but rather intensified geopolitical friction while starving sustainable development. For Ghana, disarmament is not an abstract ideal, but a practical imperative for the protection of human life, To translate this imperative to action, my delegation will focus on three core priorities: restoring trust in the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime, protecting people from weapons that cause daily loss of life, and managing the security implications of emerging technologies. As a party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Ghana was honored to host the regional conference on its universalization in Accra in January this year. Ghana considered the TPNW to complement and reinforce the NPT, and we look forward to a successful first review conference of the treaty in December. My delegation also reaffirms its steadfast commitment to the African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty of PIDB. We also continue to support the establishment of a free zone nuclear weapons of all other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Mr. Chairman, in West Africa, the immediate human security acutely threatened by illicit proliferation of small arms and light weapons and improvised explosive devices driven by terrorists, criminal networks to counter insecurity spreading from the Sahel to the coastal states. Ghana proactively through the initiative of the National Commission on Small Arms and Light Weapons at the national level, a Ghana amnesty program from the 1st of December 2025 to the 30th of January 2026.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ghana. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Equatorial Guinea.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Allow me at the outset to congratulate you on your election. I also wish to congratulate the other members of the Bureau. Chair, Equatorial Guinea aligns itself with the statement made by Namibia on behalf of the African Group. My delegation is of the view that improving the working methods of the First Committee must be done in such a way as to strike a balance between effectiveness and the right of delegations to adequately express their views. With this in mind, we are of the view that it is important to retain reasonable time limits for oral statements. Written statements published on the portal are a useful tool, but they should not substitute a verbal exchange of views between delegations. If speaking times cease to be relevant, it could be reduced to one minute, or we could simply hold debates by mail. We're here precisely in order to express our positions, to listen to each other, and to engage in dialogue. We should also underscore the importance here of multilingualism. This issue is not solely one that pertains to or affects formal meetings. In several consultations, in informal consultations, the lack of interpretation can stymie the ability of some delegations whose working language is not English to participate fully. or to make proposals or to react to proposals on an equal footing with their counterparts, the quest for effectiveness should not ultimately and involuntarily translate into an advantage for some delegations over others on linguistic grounds. Multilingualism is also an issue of effective and inclusive participation. For this reason, any improvement made to our working methods should preserve the quality of our discussions, as well as reasonable speaking times and, insofar as possible, linguistic conditions which allow the effective participation of all delegations. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Equatorial Guinea. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of India.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, colleagues. India congratulates the friendly and neighborly country of Nepal, and you in particular, Mr. Chair, and all the members of the Bureau on your election. Mr. Chair, trust, the core currency of the multilateral system, is becoming scarcer with each passing day. We must be clear that to build trust, a UN that delivers for all, requires substantive, not procedural, reforms. These reforms should begin where the need is the greatest, crucially, the Security Council, whose reform has remained in abeyance for far too long. Strengthening its inclusivity is essential to the credibility and legitimacy of the UN as a whole, including the First Committee. Mr. Chair, the UN comprises many bodies, each with working methods suited to its role. This is equally true of the disarmament machinery, where the Conference on Disarmament, the Disarmament Commission, and this Committee reflect distinct mandates. As one of the GS' oldest standing bodies, this Committee has developed working methods that enable all States, regardless of size or influence, to engage as equals on international peace and security matters. Mr. Chair, India has long supported improving working methods across the multilateral system, including here. We have noted the various suggestions, many of which merit careful and balanced consideration. On the debate on working methods, my delegation has the following three points to make. First, while we support streamlining working methods and ensuring that time allotted to this committee is corresponding to its allocated work, statements should remain a meaningful exchange, not merely a procedural exercise. Resolutions play an important role in shaping and clarifying opinio juris and state practice, and thereby contribute to the development of international law. In this context, the implications of reducing the frequency deserve careful attention. Third, on de-anonymizing votes, my delegation notes that while greater disclosure may promote openness, however, it could make it harder for smaller delegations to express divergent views, risk further politicization, and shift attention from substance to procedure. Mr. Chair, India's view is that this committee's current working methods have served it well and remain relevant. We also share the objective of strengthening and reforming them and believe that a pragmatic, measured, and inclusive approach would best achieve it. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of India. We have just heard the last speaker in the debate on agenda items 124 and 139. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, in accordance with our program of work and timetable, the committee will meet again tomorrow, Tuesday, 6 October, at 10:00 a.m. sharp in this conference room to begin its substantive work, namely the general debate. The President of the General Assembly will address the committee at that meeting. After opening statement and prior to the general debate, the committee will resume its considerations of its program of work. It's contained in document S/C1/81/CRP1. I intend to hold consultations on this document 15 PM this afternoon in conference room 12 and all interested delegations are invited to attend. I look forward to working closely with you, all of you, in the coming weeks. The meeting is adjourned.