First Committee, 2nd plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

Good morning, Excellencies, distinguished delegates.

Could you please take a seat? We'll start shortly. Good morning. The second meeting of the Disarmament and International Security Committee of the 81st session of the General Assembly is called to order. Distinguished delegates, I would like to warmly welcome all delegations to this meeting. I would like to extend a particular warm welcome to the President of the General Assembly, His Excellency Khalilul Rahman, and the Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu. In accordance with our programme of work and timetable, The committee will begin its general debate today on all determined and international security agenda items allocated to it. Before we proceed, please allow me to make a brief statement in my capacity as the chair of the First Committee for this session. President of the General Assembly, Under Secretary-General, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, we are convening at a particularly challenging time. The global security landscape has grown more complex, shaped by a number of transnational challenges. Threat of nuclear annihilation still haunts humanity. Nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation efforts remain under severe strain. Proliferation of small arms and light weapons continues to instigate and prolong armed conflicts. The rapidly advancing technologies and their military applications have brought about new threats. Geopolitical competition is intensifying. The security dilemma has sharpened, and persistent armed conflict continues to destabilize regions. Trust is eroding, and the foundation of collective security are weakening at a moment when cooperation is most needed. These challenges are interconnected. They cannot be addressed through fragmented approaches. or unilateral actions. They demand cooperation, they demand foresight, and a renewed commitment to inclusive and effective multilateralism. This is particularly true in the field of disarmament and international security, where progress depends fundamentally on dialogue, on diplomacy, on transparency, confidence building, and mutual trust. Excellencies, the First Committee remains a unique and indispensable universal platform for addressing questions of disarmament and international security. It provides a space where Member States can exchange views, identify areas of convergence, articulate differences, and ultimately seek common ground. Our deliberations should therefore be guided not only by the differences that divide us, but also by the common interest that unite us. We should strive to make this committee a forum where new challenges are considered with an open mind, where concerns are heard with respect, and where political differences do not prevent us from identifying practical areas of cooperation. Our responsibility does not end with the adoption of resolutions. Their implementation in good faith and in accordance with international law and applicable commitments is equally important. The credibility of this committee and of the multilateral system more broadly depends not only on the norms we establish, but also on the extent to which we collectively uphold them. At a time when the United Nations is confronting serious financial constraints, and as member states continue to call for a more effective and revitalized General Assembly, we should also reflect on how to make our work more efficient and more effective. Wherever possible, we should seek to build consensus. Consensus cannot and should not be an end in itself, nor should it come at the expense of principled positions. But where genuine common ground exists, we should make every effort to identify and preserve it. This helps reduce unnecessary polarizations facilitate more focused deliberations, and demonstrate that this committee can serve not merely as a reflection of our differences, but also as a platform for bridging these gaps. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, the disarmament landscape in 2026 presents us with both serious setbacks and grounds for cautious optimism. The 11th Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was once again unable to adopt a substantive outcome. The disarmament commission was stalled, reflecting persistent differences on fundamental issues. The New START Treaty expired without a successor agreement in place. Military spending continue this upward trajectory, approaching $3 trillion annually, even as the world confronts a massive financing gap for the SDGs. Meanwhile, the humanitarian consequences of conventional weapons remain severe. Technology deployments from lightning Advances in drone and missile technology to rapid integrations of autonomy and AI across military functions are raising serious security, legal, ethical, and humanitarian questions. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, even in this difficult landscape, there are regions for optimism. The Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, under the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, concluded its work with a consensus report. The Global Mechanism on ICT Security, mandated by the General Assembly pursuant to a resolution adopted by this Committee, has commenced its work with a successful plenary session. The ninth biannual meeting of the states on the Programme of Actions on Small Arms and Light Weapons also adopted an outcome document, demonstrating that progress remains possible even where consensus is difficult to achieve. A new comprehensive study on the questions of nuclear-weapon-free zones in all its aspects has been completed. and a number of other General Assembly-mandated processes are currently making progress. Last year, the Committee adopted more than 60 draft proposals tackling critical security issues that we have faced for decades, like nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The Committee has also shown its ability to respond to emerging challenges. like artificial intelligence in the military domain and lethal autonomous weapon systems. I'm confident that this year's sessions will again prove the committee's ability to respond to the challenges of the moment while continue to work on those that remain unsolved. Excellencies, in my capacity as chair, I'll do my utmost to steer the committee's work forward in an open, transparent, impartial, inclusive, and effective manner. I will work closely with each of the delegations to foster an atmosphere of trust, respect, and constructive engagement. I urge delegations to engage with openness, to listen with patience, and to negotiate with sincerity. I'm encouraged by the commitment demonstrated by Member States to advancing international peace and security, promoting disarmament and arms control, and addressing both long-standing and emerging security challenges. Let us build on that commitment. The First Committee has a vital role to play in addressing the full spectrum of disarmament and international security issues. Let us make full use of its universal character, its convening power, and its mandate. The challenges before us are formidable, but they are not insurmountable. Let us forge bridges of trust rather than deepen division or distrust. This is what we need to meaningfully address our shared challenges we face. I thank you. I now invite the President of the General Assembly, His Excellency Khalilur Rahman, to address the committee. Excellency, you have the floor now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, Madam Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, it's a privilege to join you today. Allow me first to congratulate you, Mr. Chair, and the other members of the Bureau on your election. You assume these responsibilities amid an increasingly fractured international security environment, something you alluded to in your own speech. It is fair to say that the First Committee carries a unique responsibility. The United Nations was born with the stated goal to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. And the very first resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 24th of January 1946 called for the elimination of the threat of nuclear weapons. 80 years later, that founding purpose retains its full urgency. We must face reality. The world today is increasingly complex, increasingly at odds, increasingly fragmented. Today, conflicts are multiplying and trust is eroding. Nuclear risks persist, arms control arrangements are under pressure, and new technologies are transforming the character and speed of conflict. In 2025, nuclear-armed states spent nearly $17 billion more on their nuclear arsenals than the year before, an increase of nearly 20%. Global military expenditure has reached nearly $3 trillion last year, an overall record, capping 11 straight years of growth. This is the amount 10 times over that it would take to fully vaccinate every child in the world, seven times over what it would cost to close the gender equality gap in developing countries, and 31 times what it would take to end global hunger by 2030. Excellencies, in such a complex and difficult environment, the work of this committee is indispensable. It allows every Member State to voice security concerns, sustain dialogue across political divides, and seek practical convergence. As you begin your deliberations, I offer you three considerations. First, we must defend and strengthen multilateral disarmament, non-proliferation, and arms control architecture. This becomes all the more important in an increasingly complex world. We must use every available tool and forum to ensure that conflicts do not escalate further. That requires political courage, sustained diplomacy, respect for international law, and attention to the security concerns of others. No state can build lasting security on the insecurity of another. Our common objective must be undiminished security for all. Second, this committee must remain equipped to address emerging and evolving threats to peace and security. Technological innovation offers important benefits, but it also creates serious risks when applied to military systems without adequate safeguards. Artificial intelligence, autonomous weaponry system, cyber capabilities, space technologies, and advanced data tools are changing the speed, reach, and character of conflicts. They also raise urgent questions concerning human control, accountability, transparency, and compliance with international law. It was this understanding that led the General Assembly in 2024 to adopt its first resolution on artificial intelligence in the military domain and its implications for international peace and security, in resolution 79/239. Its broad support reflected the recognition that military AI requires sustained multilateral attention. The Committee should advance inclusive dialogue, drawing on scientific and technical expertise, while preserving the central role of Member States. Innovation must serve humanity, not outpace our capacity to govern it. Third, we must ensure that the Committee's methods of work are equal to its mandate. Effectiveness is not measured by the number or length of resolutions, reports or meetings. but by whether our work facilitates implementation and contributes to peace and security. At a time of acute financial pressure, better working methods are not merely administrative preferences; they are institutional necessities. The Committee should, therefore, continue to rationalize reporting requirements. Reports should be concise, timely, and focused on implementation, results, gaps, and decisions required from the Member States. Where several mandates request substantially similar information, reporting might be consolidated or aligned. Reporting cycles may reflect genuine policy needs, including biennial or triennial reporting where annual consideration adds little additional value. Resolutions containing only technical updates could be considered less frequently. Clustering has long helped the Committee organize complex subjects into coherent thematic discussions. That approach should be strengthened. Joint consideration of overlapping questions can promote coherence, avoid repetitive interventions, and free time for negotiations. This would reduce fragmentation, ease pressure on delegations and the Secretariat, and direct scarce resources toward implementation. Technology can further support this effort. A secure, accessible, and multilingual digital workspace could bring together schedules, draft texts, amendments, voting information, statements, and relevant reports in one single space. The reforms should be practical, incremental, and member state driven. Efficiency must never limit participation, weaken substantive mandates, or disadvantage delegations with fewer resources. On the contrary, well-designed reform should make participation more equitable and outcomes more meaningful. Last year, this committee stood out as one of the most efficient, adopting a wide range of revitalization recommendations, including microphone cut-offs and shorter speaking times. I ask that you build on these gains and remain focused on consensus building, effectiveness, efficiency, ambition, and relevance. Excellencies, the credibility of the United Nations and public trust in it depends not only on the principles we proclaim, but also on our capacity to deliver. A more focused and technologically enabled First Committee can devote less time to repetition and more to diplomacy and dialogue, fewer resources to process and more to results. I therefore encourage you to approach this session with ambition and pragmatism, protect what works, reform what does not, and place implementation and durable and inclusive results at the center of your efforts. The people of the world look to this committee for more than words. They look to you to reduce risks, rebuild trust, and help secure a more peaceful future. I wish you a very productive session, and I thank you for your attention. Thank you.

I thank the President of the General Assembly for his statement.

I understand that. The President of the General Assembly has to leave at this time due to another engagement. We thank him once again for his presence today, and we look forward.

To a great collaboration for the current sessions.

Thank you, Excellency. I now have the pleasure of inviting the Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu to make a statement.

Ms. Nakamitsu, you have the floor now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, His Excellency Ambassador Lok Bahadur Thapa, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, and dear colleagues. I warmly congratulate Ambassador Tapper and the members of the Bureau for their election. I also would like to pay tribute to Ambassador Maurizio Massari of Italy for his able steering of last year's session of the First Committee. Distinguished delegates, if one trend defined the last 10 years, in disarmament and international security, it was the erosion of trust. Trust between states, trust in international norms, trust in the institutions and agreements established to reduce risks and prevent conflict. The consequences have been profound. Military expenditure reached peak levels, increasing by shocking 41% in the last 10 years. New conflict erupted with conventional weapons wrecking havoc on lives of civilians. The very nature of those conflicts have been appended by rapid advances in drones and missiles and their wide proliferation. Withdrawals from the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention and the Convention on Cluster Munitions have decreased human security, while only contributing to the perception of national security based on outdated and inhumane military capabilities. We have witnessed a pushback against acknowledging and addressing gender considerations in disarmament and arms control. At the same time, there is persistent resistance to multi-stakeholderism. As trust erodes, technology accelerates. Integration of AI and autonomy across military functions is a new reality. In outer space, we are drifting from the long-standing goal of preventing an arms race to the need to halt one. Declining trust has made the goal of nuclear disarmament even more elusive. Dangerous nuclear rhetoric and the ongoing modernization and expansion of nuclear arsenals have heightened fears of use. And the only bilateral arms control agreement between the two largest possessors has expired. In other words, there are no caps on nuclear arsenals for the first time in 50 years. These developments or regressions over the past 10 years are sobering. But there are also some sources of optimism from the last several years. Membership of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has grown. There has been increasing emphasis on victim assistance, environmental remediation and the protection of civilians, bringing a more human-centered approach to nuclear disarmament. The political declaration on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas has agreed by states as a significant milestone for civilian protection. A new global framework on through-life management of conventional ammunition came into being. Emerging technologies reshaped the disarmament agenda, demonstrating how the disarmament machinery can adapt to new challenges. From agreed elements for an instrument on lethal autonomous weapons systems to the consensus establishment of a permanent mechanism on ICT security. These achievements demonstrate that trust may be strained, but cooperation is achievable. And they remind us that we have not lost our agency. We can exercise that agency right here in the First Committee. The First Committee has proven its enduring value over the decades. This Committee has initiated a growing number of General Assembly processes, from open-ended working groups on outer space and conventional ammunition, to informal consultations on AI in the military domain, to groups of governmental experts on topics like nuclear disarmament verification. A recent resolution of the Committee initiated the production of the first comprehensive UN study on nuclear-weapon-free zones in 50 years. Another recent resolution established the UN Independent Scientific Panel on the Effects of Nuclear War. which will deliver next summer its comprehensive, multidisciplinary study on the impact of nuclear war in today's interdependent, globalized world, updating the last independent study from 1989. And the First Committee has always been an incubator of new ideas. outlining emerging priorities like last year's proposal on possible risks of integration of artificial intelligence into command, control and communication systems of nuclear weapons. But we know that the First Committee has not been immune to declining trust levels. Increasing numbers of votes and rights of reply reflect A multilateral environment has become more divided and more contentious. But I believe this committee is able to deliver on its promise. Distinguished delegates, I have spoken already about several troubling developments in recent years. But I would like to briefly elaborate on a few key disarmament challenges and suggest ways to tackle them. First, identifying ways to rebuild trust, preserve norms and reduce risks with a view to concrete progress towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Second, addressing rising global military expenditure, given that durable security requires investment in prevention, diplomacy and development. Third and finally, responding to the technological moment by tackling military AI before it is too late. First, the risk of nuclear weapons use, whether by intent, accident, or misjudgment, is higher at any time since the Cold War. Seemingly forgotten are the lessons of that period. The arms races, nuclear testing, dangerous rhetoric, and nuclear war-fighting strategies do not benefit anyone's security. Quite the opposite. They will eventually backfire on everyone and undermine every country's security. The NPT review cycle remains a critical test of collective political will. But now three successive review conferences have failed to produce a consensus outcome. The credibility of the regime depends on demonstrable progress on agreed obligations across all three of its pillars. But I say without hesitation, progress on nuclear disarmament commitments is too slow. At the same time, Proliferation drivers are accelerating in regions dangerously linked to other states possessing weapons or threatening to set off proliferation cascades. And access to peaceful uses of nuclear technology is an essential component of the NPT bargain and a practical demonstration of how nuclear technology can contribute to the collective good. This must be not simply preached, but practiced. So where do we go from here? The central challenge before us is to rebuild trust, preserve norms, and reduce risks. We must find ways to translate shared recognition of risks into practical, measurable steps to reduce them. Action to reduce dangers, rebuild confidence and strengthen the rules and institutions on which collective security depends is urgent. Turning to my second point. Last year, I raised concerns over rising global military spending. This was in the wake of the launch of the Secretary-General's report on the topic in which he noted that while global military spending soars, progress on the Sustainable Development Goals is faltering. One year closer to the 2030 SDG deadline, the same message rings true. World military expenditure rose last year in 2025 to $2.887 trillion. This is the highest level in recorded history. While arguments persist that real security necessitates sky-high military budgets, we should ask ourselves whether this type of spending actually makes us safer and what kind of security we are really building. Durable security does not come from military defense alone, but also from addressing the underlining political, economic, social and environmental drivers of instability, both within and across borders. Practically, we must find ways of bringing military expenditure to the forefront of disarmament discussions. and improving linkages between arms control and development, finding the right balance between military security and diplomatic efforts for prevention of seemingly inevitable wars and conflicts. Third and finally, the security landscape is increasingly defined by emerging technologies, none more so than artificial intelligence. The Sector General has called giving power to AI systems without human oversight one of the greatest power tests of our times. There is still time to make choices about how AI is governed, deployed, and constrained. This is especially important when it comes to the military domain. Militaries around the world are increasingly incorporating AI applications into daily operations. Human control and judgment, particularly in decisions involving the use of force, are essential. But human control alone will not address all of the risks we face. As military AI applications expand, we must also seek greater trust and predictability between states. The informal exchanges on AI in the military context of international security mandated by this committee were critical start to bringing states together, irrespective of their level of technological development. The next step is to turn dialogue into practical measures that build confidence, reduce risks, and improve states' mutual understanding of intentions and behavior. And because much of the technology is developed outside government, we must leverage the expertise that resides in the private sector, civil society, and academia. Moving forward, we require a dedicated multilateral forum to facilitate this work, and I believe the United Nations provides the right platform for this. Distinguished delegates, I would like to conclude with a few words about trust and the need to build it. We are being tested from threats posed by advancing technologies to capability challenges to respond to the misuse and illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons, among others. To pass these tests, We must continue to invest in multilateralism, especially here at the United Nations. But effective multilateralism rests on trust. This is why we need to find very concrete ways of building trust and confidence, practical actions aimed at information sharing and communication, transparency, verification, and even constraints. Transparency and confidence building measures, TCBM for short, are especially valuable in times of tension. There is a long history of states utilizing TCBMs as part of the disarmament toolbox. TCBMs have been developed in various international security contexts, including to prevent nuclear war, for conventional arms, ICT security, outer space activities, and to support the Biological Weapons Convention. UN entities, regional and sub-regional organizations have played a role in adapting these measures to specific contexts and supporting their implementation. But how can TCBMs be further leveraged to help close the trust deficit? I encourage States to consider whether new TCBMs are needed and to accelerate implementation of those already agreed. In relation to AI, new TCBM proposals are taking shape, such as sharing non-sensitive information on evaluation or risk management practices amongst governments and industry. And in the context of technologies like ICTs and AI, we know that governments and the private sector can collaborate on TCBM implementation. Public-private partnerships can support these efforts. We also need the engagement of young people. Including youth voices in discussions on trust and confidence building is key. Their voices bring diverse perspectives, often new and creative, and help ensure that our efforts are effective in today's dramatically changed world defined by technology. We must win their trust to remain relevant into the future. My message to you all as you begin your work is this: consider how this committee can advance trust and confidence and what role TCBMs can play in bridging divide, reducing tensions and alleviating risks. Let us actively choose building trust over being caught in division. Finally, I would like to thank you sincerely for the support you have given to me as High Representative for Disarmament Affairs in the past almost 10 years. I thank you very much for your attention, and I wish you a successful session. Thank you.

I thank the High Representative for her statement. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, Before proceeding further, I invite the Committee to resume.

Its considerations of its programme of work as contained in document A/C.1/81/CRP.1.

Members would recall that at the meeting yesterday, there was a lack of.

Consensus on the speaking times for the general debate and thematic discussions.

I'm pleased to inform that following consultations with interested parties, I believe that we are close to a way forward.

As I continue those consultations in the interest of the work of the committee, I'm taking into account my.

Function as the chair as defined by the rule 106 of the General Assembly's rule of procedure. I firmly believe that the committee should begin its general debate today in accordance with the chair's proposal that I said yesterday for an oral decisions entitled general debate of the first committee in the 81st sessions of the General Assembly.

That proposal reads as follows, and I quote, "The first committee decides to convene its general debate from Tuesday 6 October to Thursday 15 October 2026 and delegations are encouraged to limit their statements for the debate to a maximum of seven minutes statements on behalf of a group of countries shall not.

Exceed 10 minutes end of quote may I take it that?

It is the wish of the committee to adopt these decisions and in so doing, support my ruling.

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

Can you hear me? Thank you, Mr. President. We listened to the introductory statements very carefully during the session, and we noted their in-depth and content -- in-depth content and the very many ideas they contained. We also note that none of these statements met the very strict criteria regarding the time limits that you that were proposed by by the Member States of the United Nations. The Russian Federation confirms its interest in finding a mutually acceptable solution on the programme of work of the First Committee and starting a substantive discussion here. At the same time, we think it's important to ensure the proper conditions for the effective functioning of the First Committee in very complex geopolitical realities. Achieving these results would help us achieve results in forum on a mutually acceptable basis, taking into account the interests of all member states. The Russian position regarding the timeliness and the effectiveness of the program of work of the methods of work of the first committee is unchanged. We don't think that they should be changed. However, we're ready to show flexibility and accept the proposals you propose, Mr. President, but only on the understanding that statements during the thematic discussion will be limited to five minutes for national statements and seven minutes for group statements. Specifically, your language should be supplemented with the following text. I'll read it in English.

The First Committee also decides to convene its thematic discussions from Friday 16 October to Monday 26th October 2026 and delegations are encouraged to limit their statements for the thematic discussion to a maximum of 5 minutes statements on behalf of a group of countries shall not exceed 7 minutes Mr.

President, such a decision would introduce some clarity in the organization of all segments of the work of the First Committee and quickly move to discussion of substantive issues and ensure predictability of the future work of this forum. At the same time, it would apply only to this session, would not create a precedent for the future. We hope for the flexibility of other delegations when we move towards the general debate. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Russian Federation. Distinguished delegates, while I commit to continue consultations on CRP1, given that all proposals should be circulated at least one day before actions, We will examine the new language of Russian petitions during those consultations. With this, may I take it that, again, I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Russian Petitions?

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to just say that your proposal was not circulated a day before today's meeting. It was circulated just last night, just a few hours before the start of our discussion today. So let's not get bogged down in formalities. You held informal consultations yesterday and the proposal that was made in this room by you just a few minutes ago is purely your proposal. And so we think that it should be completed, complemented rather. We can submit the language in writing to you right away, or we can read it slowly so that everyone has a chance to write it down. And then then we can adopt a comprehensive decision that ensures sustainability of the work of the first committee during all its phases of work. Thank you.

I thank this representative of Russian Federation. May I kindly remind the delegations that the rule 120 said that the proposals and amendments shall normally be submitted in writing to the Secretary-General, who shall circulate copies of the delegation. As a general rule, no proposals shall be discussed or put to the vote at any meeting of the Committee unless copies of it have been circulated to all delegations not later than the day preceding the meeting. The Chair may, however, permit the discussion and consideration of the amendments or of motions as to the procedures, even though such amendments and motions have not been circulated or have not only been circulated same day. And this is... So should I give the floor again?

Yeah, the same petition, yeah.

Thank you, Mr. President. We're not introducing any proposals. We're examining your proposal. We're not introducing any amendments. So the references you've just made, they, in this case, are completely kind of irrelevant. We're examining your proposal, which you voiced in this room in your capacity as the chair of the first committee. And so we're helping you to duly streamline and improve it to create the best possible conditions for the work of the first committee. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think this will represent the approach and petitions. If the representative of the Russian Federation wishes to formally challenge under Rule 113 of the Rules of the Procedure the ruling which I have just made, that representative must clearly inform the committee that it is his intention to do so. Now I give the floor to the to the distinguished representative of Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We, I think, clearly stated that we consider your proposal, which you stated just a few minutes ago, is unacceptable and requiring further streamlining or improvement. And we are offering our good offices to you, Mr. Chairman, so that you can bring the language of this proposal to the proper state. We hope that that is the way you will act. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Russian Federation. As you know, that last evening, from yesterday, we had quite comprehensive consultations with a number of the member states and delegations. And in that, I think, based on that consultations, I said that I commit to continue consultations on the CRP1. And in order to proceed today for the general debate, I propose that the proposal, chair proposals, and circulated in the evening yesterday. And so based on that, I believe, and then we can proceed to that. And then again, okay, now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Denmark.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have our full support. I just want to ask a procedural question. As I know it, the Chair's proposal for the setting of the general debate was already distributed on September 14th in CRP 1. So we don't see it as a new proposal. It is a confirmation of the information already in CRP 1 of September 14th, the Chair's proposal as we're hearing it now. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we very clearly remember that yesterday, during consultations under your leadership, very different ideas were voiced, but nevertheless, they were not reflected in the language that you voiced just a few minutes ago. The proposal that you have made raised some questions and problems from the very beginning, and we informed you of that upon completion of the consultations. And there's nothing surprising that we have consistently -- and we're consistently putting forward our view, our opinion, which consists of the notion that the proposal you made does not create the necessary conditions for the work of the first committee. Now, as far as document CRP1, our position on this was very comprehensively conveyed yesterday, and we believe that in in the form that it is presented now, it cannot be adopted and requires further work. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. Good morning to everyone. I just wanted to say that my delegation has no objection to the Russian proposal. My delegation will stick to the three minutes, but if others wish to go to five minutes, that's fine. And if we majority, let's say, respect the three minutes, we will still stick to the program as scheduled. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria. Distinguished delegates, we need to proceed without work. We either take our decisions on the proposal Our delegations are invited to challenge my ruling. Is there any delegation challenging my decisions or may I propose against and that it is the wish of the committee to adopt the decisions and in so doing support my ruling I just said. Now again the Russian Federation.

Was I'm a good point Mr. chairman as far as we understand it you are trying to step outside your authority or remit because the Rules of Procedure do not provide for you introducing any kind of evaluation or judgment here the only option that we have is to continue to discuss your proposal, which obviously does not have a consensus on it. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Russia, and now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ghana.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Excellencies. Mr. Chair, it looks like the back and forth is not helping us. We've done the last 20 minutes going back and forth. So probably the Russian Federation, the distinguished rep from Russia could call for a vote, or you can call for a vote, or else we'll spend the whole day here going back and forth. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, colleagues. If my understanding is correct of this morning's proceedings, Mr. Chair, you are not inviting us to take a decision on CRP1. You aren't inviting us to take a decision based on the oral decision you presented this morning. You did so under rule 106 of the rules of procedure, which affords you, Inter alia, complete control of the proceedings. You clearly stated a second ago that you were putting forward a ruling that we should proceed on the basis of your oral decision this morning, and Russia has challenged that ruling. I consider, therefore, that we are operating under rule 113 of the rules of procedure and that we should proceed to a vote. Thank you, Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have the rules of procedure here before me, and rereading them, I confirm that this it's outside of your remit to to issue a ruling on so-called ruling on this matter this matter is is under the authority of member states and I just want to read rule 107 of the rules of procedure where in fulfilling his functions the chair of the committee is submits to the decisions of the committee thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Latin 50s and now I give the floor to the district representative of Netherlands.

Mr. President and good morning, excellencies and dear colleagues. Like my UK colleague, I cannot come to a different conclusion than you put forward an oralization. You gave a ruling. And then the Russian Federation gave their views. But so far I have heard no challenge from the Russian Federation. So in fact, there is no need for a vote. We can simply proceed. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman, clearly, obviously, no decisions were made on the proposal that you voiced, and so there's no possibility of organizing our work based on that proposal. But the fact that the chair can take on the responsibility, this responsibility and declare on how he intends to structure the work of the committee. Well, obviously this will diverge from the rules of procedure and specifically the rule 107, which I just quoted. And so obviously we would protest against such actions. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Distinguished delegates, in the absence of a challenge to my ruling, may I take?

It that it is the wish of the committee to adopt this decision to support my ruling. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Mr. Chairman, what you're proposing is not a ruling. And we think it's essential to ensure the work of the first committee in line with its rules and procedures. We cannot We cannot engage in these kinds of manipulations. No decision on your proposal can be made until it reaches a condition where it can be endorsed by everyone. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. The representative has appealed against the ruling of the chair, which falls under the rule 113 of the rules of the procedures of the General Assembly. Rule 113 states During the discussions of any matter, a representative may rise to a point of order, which shall be immediately decided by the President in accordance with the rules of procedure. But now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation before I proceed to further.

Mr. Chairman. We want to once again point out that you're trying to interpret events instead of explaining to member states what is actually behind your actions. Rule 113 is completely irrelevant here. Yesterday, during informal consultations, you spoke about and then circulated the Chair's proposal for action. And the committee has not yet taken a decision on whether we're going to move forward based on this kind of scenario, this kind of proposal. So in that connection, we cannot accept your interpretation of what is taking place here. And what is taking place here is that you're not making any rulings here. There are no aspects here that are linked to the so-called point of order. In this connection, there is no alternative option other than to continue to discuss and try to understand your proposal.

I thank the disciplinary representative of Russian Federation. Now I give the floor to the Secretary to clarify on the rule of procedures of 106 and 7.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, everyone. The question of the authority of the Chair to make a ruling has been posed, and as the secretariat, we'd like to draw the attention of the committee to rule 106, which states, and I quote, "The chair shall declare the opening and closing of each meeting of the committee, direct its discussions, ensure observance of these rules, accord the right to speak, put questions, and announce decisions." It also states that a chair may, in the course of the discussion of an item, propose to the committee the limitation of the time to be allowed to speakers, the limitation of the number of times each representative may speak, the closure of the list of speakers, or the closure of the debate. Yesterday, the chair circulated a decision that addresses those concerns as mentioned in rule 106. Taking into account what has been said about rule 107, which reads, and I quote, "The chair in the exercise of her or his functions remains under the authority of the committee." The chair in putting forward the draft decision on his ruling has clearly indicated that the committee can adopt this decision and in so doing support his ruling which he has presented on the rule 106 I hope this clarifies the two rules um and the the process thank you Mr. chair.

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

Thank you, Chairman. We are very grateful to the Secretariat for that clarification. However, everything would be perfect if we were already in the course of our work, of our and we had debate underway, then Rule 06 would be fully applicable. But in fact, the committee has not really started its work yet because CRP 1 has not yet been adopted. Consequently, We are not in the position of where the first committee is, where its work is underway, but rather we're still considering the proposal of the chair on how to launch the work of the committee. The committee itself is not in session yet. There were some statements made, but the committee in fact is not in session yet. The process has not begun. This is why. We believe it's necessary to further streamline and discuss the proposal of the Chair so that, based on those grounds, the Committee can begin its work. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. We carefully listened to the explanation made by our distinguished colleague from Russia and explanation made by you and the Secretariat. We also believe that Rules 106 and 113 are not applied to the current discussion that we have about the program of work because Rule 106 is about the list of speakers and 113 is about the point of order. We don't believe that what the proposal made by Russian colleague is a point of order. So in that ground, we believe that the proposal made by Russian colleague is not a new proposal. It is a suggestion to improve and complement your proposal. So we support our Russian colleague proposal. And once again, we don't believe that these two rules 106 and 113 applies to the current, uh, discussion. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran. Distinguished delegates, even yesterday and today I clarified that I will be at the hand of the delegations, right? And there was no consensus at all yesterday, and that was the reasons why I you know, brought that proposals to to proceed to the general debate. But the again, the, you know, let's find the way. Either we have to move forward to the general debate and for that, if the, the, the delegation is going to challenge the ruling again, and we have to proceed. And so on that, I would like to listen from the other delegates as well how to proceed. And so now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Antigua and Barbuda now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and greetings, delegates. Mr. Chair, a few minutes ago, our colleague from Ghana pointed out how much time has elapsed in the back and forth between yourself particularly and the representative or delegate of Russia, of the Russian Federation. I think we ought to be in this discussion matured. And I would propose, Mr. Chair, that you and the delegate of the Russian Federation, that we pause the meeting for 20 to 30 minutes, and you and the delegate meet and with advice from legal affairs, because the matter appears to be both procedural and elements brought in through the various rules on the legal structures of procedure. So that with an independent arbiter and yourself and Russia meet and agree that whatever position is reached, with the independent legal representative, we move forward, or else we can spend the next day and lose a day in this very, very important work of this Committee. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Antigua and Barbuda. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Netherlands.

Thank you, Mr. President, for giving me the floor. And it was not my intention to take the floor, because my intention was when I flew in from Geneva that we would have a general debate here. But that seems not to be possible. And it's clearly not your fault. You have indeed done your utmost already in informal consultations to hear the different opinions. And in order to prevent us from wasting our time today, you came up with your oral decision in the form of a ruling. And so far, I must conclude that this has not been officially challenged. So we have your oral decision, we have the ruling, and we can now start the general debate. Or one delegation should indeed object to that, challenge your ruling, and we have a vote. But now, with all due respect to the distinguished colleague, who just made a proposal with regarding to have informal discussions during our session now that will not help because we know everybody in this room knows that there will not be a solution coming out of that meeting we will come back again and we start with the same issue on the table as we having now so please I would recommend continue the meeting or we have a vote thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. I listened very closely, as I always do, to the Russian delegation during the course of yesterday's several hours of debate. They repeatedly reinforced the need to ensure that we create space and time for delegations in the room to debate the vital matters of international security that are under the purview of the committee. It is therefore a matter of deep regret that that same delegation has taken up more than 30 minutes of our time this morning with these procedural games. My understanding, Chair, is that, under rule 120 of the rules of procedure, I can bring forward a motion of procedure, and we do not necessarily have to provide 24 hours in order to do so. It is under your discretion to allow that motion to be discussed and decided upon. My motion to proceed would be for us to proceed as a committee on the basis of the decision that you presented at the beginning of this meeting today. I am in your hands as to how you wish to receive that motion and proceed, but my understanding is it is within your prerogative to accept that motion to proceed and that we then consider that as a committee. Thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The delegation from Ghana supports the position of Antigua and Barbuda. If you can step this meeting down, for a while because it looks like the more this discussion goes on, the more divided we have become. And so if you can step it down for some further consultation, I want to believe that we might make some way forward. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. I know what I'm going to say won't be appreciated by many in the room, but I do support the Guyanese delegation and Antigua and Barbuda. We may lose some time, yes, for sure, but it's still better than starting out work on more divisions to the divisions. And I would have to say that if we have just accepted the proposal by Russia, the time we have spent now, the minutes, they would have been added to their statements, and we would have finished on time, our schedule. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Antigua and Barbuda.

Chair, thank you for giving me the floor again. It certainly was not my intention to be even speaking at this meeting, but I think this is so important. Mr. Chair, I've listened carefully. I've heard references to rule six, rule seven, rule 13, and I think my colleague, our colleague from the UK said rule 120. This is obviously a legal matter that is now gone right. So again, I propose that you seek independent arbitrator with you and the Russian Federation to move us forward. So we do not just ignore or nor do we just move forward without without the direction of the legal affairs and that it is agreed upon that whatever is given, whatever agreement is reached in that discussion, that we move forward or else we will continue to waste time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the district representative of Antigua and Barbuda and other informations we had also very extensive discussion yesterday. But the I yeah I accept the the some of the proposals and you have met to just So I would suspend the meeting for 15 minutes.

Can I, excuse me?

After 15 minutes, probably we will be coming to put on the board to my proposals.

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, the formal meeting is resumed. A recorded vote has been requested on CRP1. In the meantime, I will continue consultations on the text, and since we We don't have the time. Tomorrow, I think we will resume the meetings tomorrow, and the meeting is adjourned.