First Committee, 28th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session
General Assembly
Date: 2 November 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/ga/c1/81/28
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

1st Committee · Chair [0:02]:

Good morning, Excellencies, distinguished delegates. The 28th meeting of the Disarmament and International Security Committee of the eighty-first session of the General Assembly is called to order. Distinguished delegates, this morning the Committee will continue to take action on all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under agenda item 92/2109. We will begin by listening to delegations requesting the floor for explanations of vote after the vote on proposals under cluster 5, other disarmament measures. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina, to be followed by Brazil, Colombia.


Argentina [0:59]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Argentina recalls the position it outlined regarding Agenda 2030 and the Pact for the Future. These are referred to in draft L/15/PP.05. We voted against those two paragraphs. Elsewhere, regarding reference to gender in draft L15, L30, L34, Argentina interprets the term gender in accordance with Article 123 of the Rome Statute that refers to man and woman in the context of society. More specifically, it's appropriate that we provide clarification on L15. Here, the position of Argentina is not in line with a negative perspective regarding the role of women in disarmament. We do not have a negative perception of her role, but we are against what we believe to be an instrumentalization of the resolution for other purposes. The Argentine Republic reaffirms its commitment to the real equality of opportunities between men and women, in accordance with the provisions of our national constitution and the international treaties to which we are party. We believe that gender parity does not guarantee in and of itself structural changes necessary to achieve that equality. The promotion of equality must involve looking at merit, capacities, and the contributions that people make to social life, avoiding approaches which might ultimately lead to merely formal solutions or lead to the reproduction of stereotypes. Consequently, Argentina is of the view that policies in this field must be guided towards ensuring the real equality of opportunities and treatment in accordance with our constitutional framework and the framework provided by the treaties to which we are a party. Regarding references to gender mainstreaming, a gender perspective or gender mainstreaming, here, this concept, in our view, does not reflect the diversity of context on a local and regional level. This approach might be appropriate for some countries. In other countries, such as in Argentina, the participation of women is relatively equitable in nature. Consequently, to treat equally two things that are different could give rise to new inequalities. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [3:27]:

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


Brazil [3:35]:

Thank you, Chair. My delegation will provide its explanation of vote on L.17, compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements and commitments. Brazil remains firmly committed to the full implementation of international obligations in the field of disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation. Compliance with international agreements and commitments is essential to maintaining international peace, security and stability. Brazil voted in favor of Resolution 76/33, adopted in 2021, which served as the basis for draft resolution L-17. We regret, however, that the current text introduces significant change to the balance achieved in that resolution. While the previous resolution combined with compliance and accountability with international cooperation, confidence building, and multilateral approaches, The present draft places considerably greater emphasis on verification, enforcement, and accountability in a broad and unspecified manner. Brazil fully recognized the importance of accountability in cases of non-compliance. Accountability is, in fact, an indispensable element of any credible disarmament, non-proliferation, and arms control regime. However, accountability cannot be disassociated from the legal and institutional frameworks established by the international community for addressing compliance concerns. Questions of non-compliance must be addressed in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, applicable international law, and where relevant, the procedures, mechanisms, and bodies established under the agreements concerned. It is precisely these frameworks that confer legitimacy, objectivity, and impartiality on responses to non-compliance. We are just particularly concerned by their formulations, the reformulation of operative paragraph seven, which removes reference to concerned actions and bilateral and multilateral efforts to promote compliance. By emphasizing accountability while omitting reference to the framework through which it should be pursued, The tax risks creating ambiguity regarding the processes and institutions that should guide response to noncompliance. The issue is not whether states should be held accountable for violations of their obligations. They should. The question is whether such accountability should be pursued through agreed multilateral mechanisms and established legal processes. Brazil remains convinced that durable compliance is best promoted through approaches grounded in international law, institutional legitimacy, and international cooperation. In this vein, we also regret the deletion of important provisions concerning international cooperation, the role of the United Nations, and the full, equal, and meaningful participation of women in disarmament efforts. Mr. Chair, Brazil continues to support the objectives of this initiative. However, we believe that promoting compliance and ensuring accountability must remain firmly grounded in multilateralism and international cooperation. For these reasons, Brazil abstained on resolution L/17. I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [6:48]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Colombia.


Colombia [6:58]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colombia voted in favor of draft resolution L/34 on artificial intelligence in the military domain because we believe that the governance of AI should be based on a multilateral and inclusive approach. We underscore in this regard the role of the United Nations in building normative and technical frameworks, and we emphasize the need to narrow technological divides through international cooperation, capacity transfer, and the equitable participation of developing countries in AI governance processes. Colombia, moreover, recognizes the challenges and risks involved in the use of advanced and frontier technologies in the development and research of weapons of mass destruction. As such, we will continue to support multilateral discussions on this issue, with a view to fostering common understandings on issues such as progression chains and convergence between quantum technologies and AI for military uses. Finally, Colombia hails international efforts that have contributed to consolidating the global mechanism on progress in ITCs established in 2025 through resolution 80/16 and in line with our support for draft resolution L8. We urge States to maintain a constructive approach liable to forge consensus and avoid impasse in the design and deployment of the mechanism. Our only intention is to make diligent progress towards a discussion on common threats and challenges which might affect international peace and security. The quick progress with ITCs, as well as the risks they pose, mean that we must act quickly. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [8:55]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Colombia. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malaysia, to be followed by El Salvador, United States, Algeria, and Australia.


Malaysia [9:07]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Malaysia attaches great importance to the full and effective implementation of non-proliferation, arms limitation, and disarmament agreements and commitments. We firmly believe that compliance with international obligations is essential to maintaining international peace, security, and stability. Malaysia voted in favour of the draft resolution L/17 as a whole, reflecting our continued support for its broader objectives and our long-standing commitment to strengthening compliance and accountability under international disarmament and non-proliferation instruments. Nevertheless, Malaysia wishes to underline that efforts to hold States accountable must be pursued in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Any determination of non-compliance should be based on credible and verified findings, established through relevant and appropriate mechanisms to ensure objectivity, fairness, and transparency. Malaysia further emphasizes that measures taken to address non-compliance must fully respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States. Allegations of non-compliance must not be used as a pretext for actions that contravene international law or the UN Charter. We therefore underscore the importance of addressing compliance concerns through established international mechanisms, dialogue, and peaceful means. In conclusion, Malaysia reiterates that accountability and respect for international law must go hand in hand. We remain committed to working constructively with all Member States to strengthen compliance with international obligations while upholding the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [11:00]:

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


El Salvador [11:12]:

El Salvador reaffirms its commitment to the promotion of the full, equal and effective participation of women in multilateral processes related to disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control. We recognize the important contribution women make to preventing armed violence, as well as to peacebuilding and to strengthening international mechanisms for disarmament and security. Moreover, we reiterate the importance of tackling the humanitarian consequences of the illicit trafficking of weapons, particularly the effects they have on women and children. Regarding resolution, women, disarmament, non-proliferation, and arms control, El Salvador wishes to place on record that references contained in its text will be interpreted and applied in accordance with our internal legal order, as well as in accordance with the international obligations the State has entered into and national positions on this issue, taking into account the priorities and specific features and needs of my country. Here, we reaffirm our commitment to continuing to strengthen public policies designed to promote, protect, and guarantee the rights of women and girls in accordance with our national legal order and international obligations arising from the instruments to which El Salvador is a state party, including international human rights treaties and the Arms Trade Treaty, as well as in line with commitments previously agreed upon within relevant multilateral mechanisms, taking into account our reality and national priorities. El Salvador will continue to constructively participate in multilateral efforts to strengthen disarmament, non-proliferation, and arms control. We will also do that in order to promote the effective participation of women in these processes. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [13:10]:

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


United States of America [13:18]:

Chair, we would like to provide brief explanations for some of the U.S. votes in Cluster V on other disarmament measures and international security. The United States cannot support L.30, United Nations Disarmament Fellowship, Training, and Advisory Services, because this program’s selection of fellows from certain countries with track records of noncompliance with disarmament and nonproliferation obligations demonstrates this program is not being prudently implemented. On L57, the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament, the United States voted no because the drafter has not committed to shifting to a biennial or triennial schedule, even though this resolution only has technical updates year after year. We continue to urge that resolutions considered by UNGA with minimal or no substantive changes be tabled on a more periodic basis. It is a shared responsibility of us all to make the global disarmament machinery more effective and efficient. Also on the subject of efficiency, we note with frustration the large number of paragraph votes called by one country on L15 for no clear reason, aside from slowing down the proceedings. We voted no on this resolution and its paragraphs because they lack core relevance to advancing the issues of disarmament, arms control, and nonproliferation. Chair, on L/34, we reiterate that the UN is not the appropriate forum for discussions on SI in the military domain. These debates would inevitably lead to fragmentation and divergent approaches that undermine national sovereignty and restrict innovation. We refer you to the joint statement delivered by the United Kingdom on behalf of the UK, France, and the United States that discusses our other resolutions in this cluster. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [15:03]:

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


Algeria [15:10]:

Chair, Algeria voted abstention on draft resolution L/17, titled Compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation, and disarmament agreements and commitments. However, we voted in favor of this resolution in 2021. The text has undergone substantial changes that we believe moved it in the wrong direction. It shifted from a relative balanced approach, combining compliance with confidence building, cooperation, capacity building, and the broader framework of international law towards a more accountability centered approach without sufficient clarity on how non-compliance is to be determined and addressed. OP 8 of the previous resolution situated accountability within a broader framework of concerted action through bilateral and multilateral means to encourage compliance. The 2026 text removes this cooperative framework, while repeatedly emphasizing accountability in PP 5, PP 6, and PP 7, in addition to the already existing OP 4. We are particularly concerned that the draft does not clarify the procedures for determining non-compliance before calling for accountability. OP 4 calls for compliance questions to be resolved consistently with the relevant agreements and applicable international law, while OP 7 refers to international law and the UN Charter. Meanwhile, without clear treaty-based procedures and appropriate verification mechanisms, There is a risk that assessments of non-compliance could be driven by unilateral declarations or political considerations, rather than objective and dependent technical findings. We welcome the retention of OP5 on assistance and the inclusion of OP6 on strengthening capacities. Yet these provisions are not adequately balanced against the emphasis on accountability. Many developing countries face technical and institutional capacity constraints. Sustained technical assistance, capacity building, and constructive dialogue must therefore remain integral to efforts to achieve compliance. We also regret the deletion of the 2021 reference in PP2 to other sources of international law, which situated States' rights and obligations within the broader legal framework. The text adopted also removed OP 3 of the past resolution, which encouraged cooperation to build confidence and reduce the possibility of misinterpretation and misunderstanding, and OP 7, which recognized the continuing role of the UN in maintaining the integrity of certain agreements. In addition, the deletion of language linking compliance to preventing the proliferation of WMD and denying non-state actors access to such capabilities removes an important articulation of the wider security objectives served by compliance. Compliance must be viewed holistically as an integral tool for advancing disarmament and non-proliferation, rather than being narrowed down into a punitive enforcement instrument that risks being weaponized. Algeria remains firmly committed to the full implementation of relevant international agreements. Our concern is not with accountability as such, but with an unbalanced approach that reinforces accountability language while diminishing cooperation, confidence building, technical assistance, and established multilateral processes. We couldn't support a text that risks encouraging selective approaches to compliance. We encourage the main sponsor in the 84th session to restore a more balanced approach that gives due weight to accountability, treaty-based verification, capacity building, technical cooperation, constructive dialogue, all within the broader framework of international law. Such an approach would better serve the shared objective of universal and effective compliance. I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [19:23]:

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


Australia [19:32]:

Thank you, Chair. Australia is pleased to join consensus on resolution L/8 on the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs, tabled by El Salvador in its capacity as chair of the mechanism. Last year, member states reached consensus on the establishment of the Global Mechanism on ICTs. creating a permanent, single-track, inclusive and consensus-based process for UN cyber discussions. As the Chair noted in introducing this resolution on Friday, this was a significant achievement, reflecting years of collective effort, and is one in which all member states should be proud. Australia has long supported the establishment of a permanent, single-track process for UN cyber discussions at the UN. The global mechanism represents the culmination of that work. Australia therefore strongly supports the Chair’s resolution, which reinforces the global mechanism as the central, inclusive and consensus-based forum for advancing UN cyber discussions. This resolution maintains momentum on cyber discussions and, importantly, gives the mechanism the opportunity to deliver practical outcomes through its agreed structures. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [20:43]:

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


Mexico [20:51]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will now explain Mexico's vote in favor of draft resolution L/17, entitled "Compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements and commitments". My country voted in favor of this text because we agree that all provisions, obligations and commitments arising from all agreements, treaties and resolutions must be implemented in full, and without exceptions, by all parties. Mexico also recognizes that the draft adopted by UNGA 81 is more concise and that it was the subject of a number of consultations in Geneva and at Headquarters here. However, we regret some changes that the current draft contains. These could be interpreted as a justification for unilateral coercive measures or for the use of force. These are concepts that Mexico cannot endorse because they run counter to the principles of our foreign policy, our domestic legislation, to international law, and to the United Nations Charter. In light of the above, Mexico disassociates from paragraphs PP 5, PP 6 and OP 7. Finally, Mexico reiterates that all States must comply with our obligations and commitments in the sphere of disarmament and non-proliferation. Indeed, the sustainability of international peace and security depends on us doing just that. For that reason, we once again urge all nuclear-weapon States to expedite compliance with their obligations and commitments in the field of nuclear disarmament, both within the NPT and other agreements. I will now explain Mexico’s abstention in the vote on draft L.19 entitled “Promoting international cooperation on peaceful uses in the context of international security”. Mexico reiterates the importance of promoting international cooperation for peaceful uses of science and technology, as well as the right of all States to use this science and technology in a beneficial fashion to further sustainable development. However, it is vital to recall that the right to peaceful uses and international obligations in the field of non-proliferation are complementary and equally indispensable. International cooperation must be conducted in accordance with commitments under undertaken in relevant international legal instruments, including treaties on weapons of mass destruction and obligations established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1540. Against that backdrop, Mexico underscores the importance of multilateral export control regimes, which complement international non-proliferation obligations and contribute to preventing the diversion of sensitive goods, materials, and technologies towards unauthorized ends. Mexico participates in three of these regimes. These have contributed to strengthening national control, oversight, and accountability capacities, as well as to ensuring the effective compliance with our international obligations in the field of non-proliferation. With this in mind, we regret the fact that the draft resolution does not adequately recognize this complementarity, and we regret the fact that neither does it refer to obligations arising from resolution 1540. These obligations are an essential component of international efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. For these reasons, and in spite of the fact that we do endorse the legitimate goals of promoting international cooperation for peaceful uses, that Mexico abstained from the vote on this draft resolution. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [25:07]:

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


New Zealand [25:18]:

Thank you, Chair.

I take to the floor to explain New Zealand’s vote on two resolutions. New Zealand, like many Member States, invested heavily in five years of OEWG negotiations to secure a single, permanent and inclusive framework to discuss cybersecurity in the context of international peace and security, and advance responsible State behaviour. That agreement provides all States with a forum to shape priorities, consider proposals, and advance practical cooperation. States will continue to advance new ideas and priorities, and this is welcome. Such proposals should be considered within the consensus-based framework that all states endorsed. Introducing proposals through separate resolutions risks creating division. For small delegations in particular, parallel discussions outside of the agreed process places significant pressure on limited resources. Chair, we welcome resolution L.8 on the global mechanism. We thank El Salvador for its efforts and reaffirm our support for its role as chair. We are pleased to join consensus. The success of the mechanism will depend on our collective willingness to work through the framework we have established. On L.17, compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation, and disarmament agreements and commitments. New Zealand understands that the resolution does not establish an independent basis for States to determine non-compliance by other States or to take responsive measures. Any assessment of compliance and any action taken in response should be undertaken through the procedures, institutions, and mechanisms provided for under the relevant international agreement and in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations. On this understanding, New Zealand voted in favour of the resolution. On L/69, promoting international cooperation on peaceful uses in the context of international security, New Zealand has supported an EOV delivered by Ireland, which details our maintained position on this resolution. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [27:16]:

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


Switzerland [27:32]:

Mr. Chair, Switzerland voted in favor of draft resolution L/41. It's entitled "Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium." We did so while recognizing that there's uncertainty that still exists about their long-term effects on the environment, in particular as concerns the contamination of subterranean and water. as well as the affected communities. We also have some reservations about certain provisions in the resolution. These reservations were laid out in our explanation of vote during the session of the First Committee in 2024. Switzerland voted against draft resolution L/69. That's entitled Promoting International Cooperation on Peaceful Uses in the Context of International Security. Switzerland constructively partook in the consultations, and we submitted proposals. They aimed to meet the main concerns about certain elements of the text. We support scientific and technological cooperation at the international level. We also support the right to peacefully use nuclear, chemical, and biological technology, as reflected in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and in the Chemical Weapons Convention, and in the Biological Weapons Convention. However, we want to emphasize that in order to carry out nonproliferation commitments, States Parties to these instruments need to have national export control systems, this to guarantee that material equipment and dual-use technologies are transferred in responsible fashion and are not diverted to prohibited uses. Switzerland underscores that export control mechanisms need to be perfectly implemented in accordance with international law. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [29:42]:

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


Russian Federation [29:52]:

Mr. Chairman, we would like to explain Russia's position, specifically on the document L/17 that's titled "Compliance with Non-Proliferation, Arms Limitation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments." The American draft resolution is based on the same logic as the State Department's annual report about implementation of commitments and implementations of agreements and commitments in arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation. UN, from one year to the next, this report circulates fake, baseless accusations against certain countries saying they violated their commitments under various international agreements. The claims are not backed up by expert analysis. Rather, as a rule, they're based on conjecture and unsupported by any evidence. But the US puts itself forward as a steadfast paragon in terms of dedication to international legal commitments. This approach is underpinned by a myth, the myth that the U.S. has the right to make assessments and issue verdicts about other countries' implementation of their international agreements. There's an incontrovertible fact, the fact that commitments on international treaties are subject to good faith implementation in accordance with universally recognized principles and norms of international law, and they're completely ignoring that fact. Attempts to replace treaty provisions agreed upon by parties and replace them with unilaterally politicized assessments, this has nothing in common with a genuine desire to strengthen international security and strategic stability. It is clear that such initiatives are attempts to divert the attention of the international community, to divert it from the actual state of affairs in the area of disarmament, nonproliferation, and arms control. And it's also an attempt to shift responsibility for the crisis in existing mechanisms in this area onto other countries, and at the same time, to try to create a favorable political environment to further their own unilateral military strategic advantage. Ultimately, we're talking about a policy that consistently undermines and dismantles the existing international security machinery for their own global domination. The Russian Federation has been steadfast in carrying out its commitments. with all states in good faith, but we flatly reject approaches like this, such as the ones enshrined in this resolution and in the actions of the United States. What we consider unacceptable is the use of multilateral mechanisms as a tool for political pressure and for the selective interpretation of norms of international law, and we oppose the foisting on the international community unilateral interpretations of treaty obligations. The U.S., the United Nations, rather, should serve as a platform for dialogue on equal footing, collective decision-making, and strengthening international peace and security. It shouldn't be a tool for political score settling or for legitimating unilateral claims to exceptionalism. The sustainability of the system of agreements in arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation can be ensured only based on the universality of approaches, the principle of indivisible security, respect for the sovereign equality of states, and stringent compliance with international law. Given the foregoing principled considerations, we voted against this draft resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


1st Committee · Chair [33:41]:

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


India [33:51]:

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, distinguished colleagues. Chair, I'll explain India's vote on two draft resolutions under this cluster, which are L34 and L69. India has voted in favor of the resolution L34 on AI in the military domain and its implications for international peace and security. Nevertheless, while voting in favor of convening structured dialogues, India wishes to recall that the UN Disarmament Commission, the specialized deliberative body with universal membership in the UN disarmament machinery, and which has adopted a number of guidelines and recommendations, should be fully leveraged for discussing multilaterally the implications of AI in the military domain. We hope that future work will build on existing platforms in the UN disarmament machinery and avoid duplication, consistent with the call for complementarity in the resolution. On PP2 and OP1, we wish to clarify that the conduct of hostilities, including through the use of AI in the military domain, is strictly governed by the international humanitarian law. Therefore, we were constrained to abstain on these two paragraphs. Chair, on the draft resolution L69, India acknowledges the critical role of international cooperation in advancing S&T for peaceful purposes, which contributes significantly to the economic and social development, particularly for countries from the Global South. At the same time, we recall the provisions of various international treaties, multilateral mechanisms, and mandatory obligations relating to non-proliferation, including those addressing non-state actors, requiring states to regulate relevant transfers. The member states, including the sponsors of this resolution, already implement such export controls at their national level. Given these established frameworks and their objectives, it is essential to approach any revisions to them in a careful manner to avoid altering the existing balance. This year's text also introduces new language, some of which is non-consensual and unrelated to the subject matter. These additions risk unduly scrutinizing as well as undermining existing non-proliferation obligations and understandings, as well as the work of relevant arrangements. India has therefore abstained on the resolution L69. I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [35:52]:

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


Netherlands (Kingdom of the) · Norway and the Netherlands [36:04]:

Chair, I would like to deliver this explanation of vote on behalf of Norway and my own country, the Kingdom of the Netherlands. We voted in favor of resolution L41 on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium, in which the Secretary-General is requested to submit an updated report on the subject and to again seek the views of Member States and relevant international organizations. Norway and the Netherlands recognize the need for additional research on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium, and appreciate that this issue is discussed at the United Nations. However, the resolution's reference to the "potential harmful effects of the use of depleted uranium munitions on human health and the environment" can so far not be substantiated. The most important aspect emerging from the scientific literature, including reports by the international organizations, such as the World Health Organization, of the last 20 years is the disagreement among the different studies carried out on depleted uranium characterized by strong contrasting results. The armed forces of Norway and the Netherlands do not use munitions containing depleted uranium. In the context of multinational missions, however, it's not impossible that service personnel of Norway and the Netherlands may operate in areas in which munitions containing depleted uranium are being used or have been used by allies. The health and well-being of our soldiers deployed on international missions remains under the continuous scrutiny of the governments of Norway and the Netherlands. Exposure to hazardous materials must be avoided to the greatest possible extent. I thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.


1st Committee · Chair [37:47]:

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


Cuba [37:58]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our delegation abstained on draft resolution L/17, compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements and commitments, because we're of the view that the United States has no moral ground whatsoever to lead a text such as this within the First Committee. The course that the United States has chosen to follow in the international arena has historically undermined the disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and arms control architecture The United States, the only country to have used a nuclear weapon, spends much more than anyone else on weapons and imposes an arms race for the purposes of global domination. It has the highest number of nuclear weapons ready to be used. Its aggressive military and nuclear doctrine provides for the possibility of being the first to use these weapons. At the same time, it has an ambiguous and narrow threshold for the consideration of the use of these weapons. Despite the fact that the US proclaims itself to be a defender of the NPT, in practice it violates the letter and spirit of this instrument. It also violates commitments achieved in the review conferences thereof. At the same time, the United States continues to play for time when it comes to its ratification of the CTBT. It also holds the woeful world record in terms of the conduct of these tests. It was also the United States, the country that prevented, in 2001, the adoption of a legally binding protocol to strengthen the Convention on Biological Weapons, and the United States is the country which stymies the full, effective, and non-discriminatory implementation of its Article 10 on international cooperation for peaceful purposes. The United States is the very same country that limits the implementation of Article 11 of the Convention on Chemical Weapons regarding the technological and economic development of states. The United States promotes conflicts and non-conventional wars in all regions across the globe. It urges people to commit acts of terrorism and imposes unilateral coercive measures with absolute flagrant disregard for international law. Its policy of belligerence undermines everyone's peace and security. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [40:11]:

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


Indonesia [40:19]:

Chair, Indonesia voted in favor of draft resolution L/17. We wish to place on record the following understanding behind our support. First, compliance must be pursued comprehensively, consistently, and without selectivity across all relevant obligations and commitments. This applies equally to disarmament and nonproliferation obligations, including nuclear disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT and the TPNW, two complementary treaties, as well as obligations to prevent both vertical and horizontal proliferation. All states must fulfill their respective obligations without double standards. Equally important, compliance must uphold the right of all state parties to the peaceful uses of technology without discrimination and in accordance with relevant treaties. Compliance must not be reduced to punitive measures targeting select nonproliferation obligations while neglecting disarmament commitments or undermining legitimate peaceful uses. Second, effective compliance must be grounded by credible, objective, impartial, and nondiscriminatory verification mechanisms consistent with relevant agreements and their established procedures. Such verification is essential to both achieving full implementation of relevant agreements and building the trust and confidence between parties. The principles of transparency, verifiability, and irreversibility must also guide the implementation of nuclear disarmament obligations. Third, with regard to OP.7, Indonesia underscores that accountability for non-compliance must be firmly grounded in the UN Charter, international law, and relevant treaty frameworks, with full respect for the rights and obligations of States. Assessments of non-compliance must be based on evidence, follow established procedures, and respect the mandates of competent international bodies. Outstanding compliance issues must also be addressed through peaceful means. Indonesia understands that OP 7 neither authorizes unilateral coercive measures inconsistent with international law, nor creates new obligations or enforcement mechanisms beyond those agreed by States. Finally, compliance should be strengthened through dialogue, cooperation and capacity building, including efforts to enhance verification capabilities of States. Such an approach is important to strengthening the integrity of the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [42:37]:

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


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [42:46]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have taken the floor to explain the position of my delegation on draft resolution L57 entitled Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament, and draft resolution L34 on artificial intelligence in military domain. We recognize that international transfers of dual-use and high-technology products, services, and know-how for peaceful purposes are vital for the socio-economic development of all societies, particularly in developing countries. At the same time, we share the view that certain military applications of scientific and technological developments may contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, while facilitating and ensuring the fullest possible international exchange of dual-use and high-technology products, services, and know-how for peaceful purposes remain essential, there is also a need to regulate transfers where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they could be used for developing WMDs. This calls for striking a delicate balance between On the one hand, upholding the inherent right of all States to participate in the broadest possible exchange of dual-use and high-technology materials for peaceful purposes, and on the other hand, preventing the misuse for the development of WMDs. In regulating such transfers, the concerns and legitimate defence requirements of all States must be duly taken into account. This can only be achieved through an inclusive and transparent multilateral process leading to the development of universally applicable, non-discriminatory guidelines negotiated with the participation of all States. From this perspective, Iran shares the concern of developing countries regarding the growing proliferation of ad hoc and exclusive export control regimes for dual-use goods and technologies. which undermine the inherent rights of developing countries and impede their socio-economic progress. While some improvements have been made to the draft in recent years, it remains evident that further adjustments are needed to restore its balance and original intent. Turning to draft resolution L/34 on artificial intelligence in military domain, our position is as follows. First, despite ongoing discussions, our understanding of the implications of artificial intelligence for international peace and security remains limited. It would be premature to claim that international law, international humanitarian law, and human rights law are fully applicable to AI. A comprehensive and inclusive study must precede any determination on whether further legal development is needed. In this regard, we recall that even after 25 years of deliberation within the OEWG on ICT security, significant divergences among States persist concerning the application of international law. Second, we reaffirm the inalienable right of all States to develop and use emerging technologies and stress that such technologies must not be monopolized by a few countries. Third, we are concerned about the ambiguous notion of responsible application, which reflects selective and restrictive tendencies. Accordingly, we voted against paragraphs in both preamble and operative sections containing this terminology. Fourth, my delegation condemns the use of AI by the US and the Israeli regime in their aggression against Iran. It is regrettable that one of the sponsors of this resolution, in response to our concerns over the weaponization of artificial intelligence, dismissed these concerns by stating that AI has already been militarized. Fifth, in light of these explanations, my delegation abstained on the draft resolution as a whole and on some of its paragraphs, and voted against PP3, PP10, OP9, and OP10. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [47:10]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran. We have just heard from the last speaker for the explanation of vote after the vote on cluster 5 for the disarmament measures. Distinguished delegates, the Committee will now take up the draft resolutions and decisions under cluster 6 as contained in informal paper 2/REP/7. Now I shall give the floor to the delegations wishing to make either a general statement or to introduce new or revised drafts under cluster 6, that is, regional disarmament and security. Statements are limited to five minutes. With this, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of European Union, to be followed by Pakistan.


EU · EU [48:05]:

Thank you, Chair. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, and Bosnia and Herzegovina align themselves with this statement. With regard to draft resolution L10 on strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region, the EU would like to state the following. The resolution calls upon all countries of the Mediterranean region to adhere to relevant multilaterally negotiated legal instruments related to the field of disarmament and non-proliferation. thus creating the conditions necessary for strengthening peace and cooperation in the region. We would like to underline that the reference to relevant legal instruments includes, in our view, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, which regrettably has not yet entered into force. Thirty years ago, 71 countries made a pledge to ban all nuclear weapons testing. Today, the CTBT is one of the most universally accepted treaties, signed by 188 states and ratified by 179. It established a powerful norm against nuclear testing and is making an invaluable contribution to international peace and security for the good of humanity. Promoting the universalization and early entry into force of the CTBT are among the EU's top priorities. All 27 EU member states have ratified the treaty and remain strongly committed to pursuing the achievement of its objectives. The EU also continues to provide significant financial support for the activities of the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO in order to strengthen its monitoring and verification capabilities. Confirming the EU and member states' continued active engagement, the EU fully supports action four of the UN Secretary General's agenda for disarmament on bringing the CTBT into force. As outlined in the UN Disarmament Agenda and reaffirmed by Action 25 of the Pact for the Future, the CTBT acts as a vital break on the arms race and a normative barrier against nuclear proliferation. Chair, in a period where multilateral cooperation is under heavy strain, the risk of a return to nuclear weapons testing has never been greater. DPRK has carried out six nuclear tests in the last two decades, Russia has revoked its ratification of the CTBT, And the EU calls on Russia to reverse this unprecedented decision and, in the meantime, respect the treaty's object and purpose. The EU reiterates its call on all states who have not yet done so to sign and ratify the CTBT without any preconditions or delay. In particular, we address this call to the nine remaining Annex II states whose ratification is essential for the treaty's entry into force. We welcome the latest ratification by Tonga. increasing the number of ratifications to 179. Pending the CTBT's entry into force, the EU calls on all states to abide by the existing moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosion, and to refrain from any action contrary to the objective and purpose of the treaty. Any explosive nuclear weapon test by any state would be harmful and destabilizing for global nonproliferation efforts and for international peace and security. It is important that all state signatories adhere to the objectives of the treaty. The absence of the CTBT's entry into force prevents the use of on-site inspections, an important verification tool. Only the entry into force of the treaty will outlaw nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions in a verifiable way. We will therefore continue to use every opportunity to advocate the treaty's ratification and universalization also during this first committee session. Chair, the EU also supports the universalization of the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation that aims at curbing the proliferation of ballistic missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction and contains confidence-building measures to reduce the risks of miscalculation posed by the flight tests of ballistic missiles and space launches. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [52:04]:

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


Pakistan [52:11]:

Thank you, Chair. I wish to introduce Pakistan's two resolutions presented under this cluster. The importance of regional approaches to regulating arms, fostering confidence, and securing peace have long been recognized. Drawing lessons from several regions of the world, Pakistan has for decades led initiatives in the UN to advance regional disarmament, conventional arms control, and CBMs. These resolutions reaffirm the complementarity between regional and global approaches to arms control, disarmament, and confidence building as essential to international peace and stability. Draft resolution L5 links CBMs to regional concerns, emphasizing peaceful dispute resolution and disarmament for development. It calls for dialogue, compliance with arms control agreements, and UN consultation with states in regions of tension to advance CBM efforts. Draft resolution L6 recognizes the crucial role of conventional arms control in promoting regional and international peace and security, and notes that balance in the preservation of defense capabilities of states at the lower level of armaments contributes to peace and stability, and should be a prime objective of conventional arms control. It also notes with interest initiatives taken in various parts of the world. Chair, to contribute to efficiency and streamlining drive at the General Assembly, Pakistan has decided to biannualize its two resolutions in the regional disarmament cluster. Accordingly, draft resolutions entitled Confidence-building Measures in the Regional and Sub-regional Context and Regional Disarmament will be presented in alternate years. Our commitment to their objectives remains undiminished. Taking this opportunity, we wish to thank delegations for their strong support to these resolutions in previous years. and we look forward to their continued broad support. I thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [54:37]:

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


Algeria [54:46]:

Chair, it is my honour to introduce draft resolution L/10, titled “Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region”, following a technical update. Historically, this resolution was adopted by consensus. However, a vote was first requested in 2018, even though the text that year, much like today's draft, reflected technical updates to the previous year's resolution. Since 2018, it has been put to a vote annually. It remains difficult to address underlying concerns when specific textual proposals have never been presented. Colleagues, we may introduce substantial revisions next year. Interested delegations may share what they think would be consensual proposals with us, or with the co-sponsors, as we intend to consult them first. Chair, the Mediterranean region, one of the cradles of the most ancient civilizations, has always served as a bridge connecting Africa, Asia, and Europe. Throughout history, it has witnessed both periods of conflicts and eras of peace, trade, and vibrant cultural exchange. Our collective task today and tomorrow is to secure lasting peace across the Mediterranean, despite the significant challenges that remain. Although Mediterranean countries contribute immensely to the work of our organization, this text remains the sole regular UN resolution dedicated to this region. We sit at the intersection of the G77, NAM, the African and Arab groups, WEOC, EEG, the EU, and NATO. From small islands to landlocked countries, our basin includes states that are parties to an established nuclear-weapon-free zone. and states that actively work to establish new ones. All of this proves that peace and security in the Mediterranean directly shape global stability. This text represents our shared commitment to transforming the Mediterranean basin into an enduring space of dialogue, stability, and prosperity. Facing persistent and multifaceted security challenges, from terrorism and international crime to illicit arms transfers and drug trafficking, our region requires comprehensive, coordinated, and multidimensional responses. To that end, the draft resolution continues to rest on three key pillars. First, the security pillar, strengthening regional and international cooperation to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. international crime, and illicit arms transfers, while promoting confidence-building measures, transparency, and adherence to relevant disarmament and non-proliferation instruments. Second, the political and legal pillar: fostering constructive political dialogue to resolve long-standing conflicts peacefully. in full conformity with the UN Charter and international law. Yes, the UN Charter first, though it's part of international law, because we are under the roof of the UN. All of this based on respect for sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, non-interference, and the rights of peoples to self-determination. Third, and last, the socio-economic, cultural, and environmental pillar. addressing economic and social disparities, fostering mutual understanding, and strengthening socio-economic cooperation across the region. Chair, our appreciation to the Secretary-General for his report under this item. As Mr. António Guterres approaches the end of his tenure, Algeria wishes to express its sincere gratitude for his efforts to advance peace in the region. Finally, we express our sincere gratitude to all co-sponsors. from the region and beyond. We count on the traditional overwhelming support of delegations to adopt this text. Last year, this resolution received 164 votes in this committee. We hope to do even better this year and today. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [59:14]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria. Distinguished delegates, before the Committee proceeds to take action on the draft resolutions and decision in cluster 6. We will hear from the delegation wishing to explain their positions on those drafts. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of India.


India [59:43]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me take this opportunity to present India’s pre-voting explanation of vote on resolution L/6. Consistent with our past position, India will vote against resolution L6 as well as its preamble of paragraph 7 and its operative paragraph 2. Our position does not require reiteration, but I will nevertheless explain our vote. The operative paragraph 2 of the resolution asks the UN Disarmament Commission to consider formulating principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control. We read this request with a certain degree of curiosity. Consider this: in 1993, the Commission adopted by consensus guidelines and recommendations on regional disarmament. In 1999, it adopted again by consensus guidelines on conventional arms control and disarmament, with particular emphasis on the consolidation of peace. In 2017, it adopted once more by consensus recommendations on practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons. That makes three consensus outcomes on this very subject in the very body now being asked to start from the scratch. We fail to understand why a subject, already deliberated at length, needs another round of deliberation unless the aim is to keep the UN disarmament machinery busy. We are also invited to accept through this resolution that a balance in defense capabilities can or should be preserved within a region or a subregion. This assumes that the security concerns of states politely stop at their regional borders; they do not. Those concerns, as everyone understands, for well-known reasons, extend beyond narrowly defined regions and subregions. More importantly, the notion of preserving balance in a region or a subregion appears unrealistic. Conventional arms control is a global issue, and we are not fully convinced that it should be pursued primarily in regional and subregional contexts. For that reason, India will also vote against preamble paragraph 7. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:01:35]:

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


Israel [1:01:42]:

Thank you, Chair.

Israel would like to give explanation of vote on resolution L10, titled Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region. Chair, peace in the Mediterranean is an ultimate goal of the State of Israel. Yet this one-dimensional resolution is misleading and does not reflect the regional reality. As emphasized throughout the deliberation in this Committee, certain States in the Middle East chronically violate and disregard their obligations. This is not addressed in this resolution whatsoever, and therefore makes it detached from reality. Just as an example, this resolution makes no reference to the ongoing missile proliferation by Iran, nor to its ongoing support to terror groups throughout the region. Furthermore, there is no reference to the various brutal radical groups and non-state actors that are terrorizing the whole region, including through the Mediterranean. Any progress with regard to the security architecture in the Middle East depends on addressing the alarming trend of non-compliance. Without addressing this issue and taking real action, we will get nowhere. Resolution L10 is another case of such doomed-to-be futile attempts. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:03:10]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Israel. Distinguished delegates, the Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution L/5 entitled “Confidence-building measures in the regional and sub-regional context”. Now I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:03:33]:

Draft resolution L/5 was submitted by the representative of Pakistan on 2 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L/5. The present oral statement is made in the context of rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. The present statement was also distributed to Member States. Under the terms of operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would request the Secretary-General to submit a report to the General Assembly at its 83rd session containing the views of Member States on confidence-building measures in the regional and subregional context. The request contained in operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution, entailing a change in periodicity of a recurrent report from an annual to a biennial, every two years basis, would constitute a reduction to the workload for the Secretariat in 2027 and every two years thereafter, and would likely entail adjustments to resource requirements accordingly. In this regard, a holistic and detailed assessment would be required to quantify the financial implications resulting from this operative paragraph and other mandates changing the periodicity of reports. Accordingly, should the General Assembly adopt draft resolution A/C/1/81/L.5, there would be no programme budget implications for 2027, as proposed by the Secretariat. Any reduced resource requirements in 2027 will be reflected in the financial performance report for the year. With regard to the reduced requirements for 2029 and subsequent odd-numbered years, related adjustments in resource requirements will be reflected in the proposed programme budgets in the relevant years for the consideration of the General Assembly. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the Committee for draft resolution L5 are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L5? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded? There are no additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L5 at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:06:10]:

I thank the Secretary. The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft resolution L.5 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/6, entitled "Conventional arms control at the regional and sub-regional levels". I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:06:57]:

Draft resolution L/6 was submitted by the representative of Pakistan on 2 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L/6. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Is there any delegation not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/6? If yes, may I kindly request that delegation to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded? There are no additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L/6 at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:07:36]:

I thank the Secretary. Separate votes have been requested on the seventh preamble paragraph and operative paragraphs number two of the draft resolutions A/C1/81/L6. We shall now begin the voting process. I shall put those paragraphs to the vote first, one by one. Those in favour of the seventh preamble paragraph Please signify those against and abstention.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:08:09]:

The committee is now voting on the seventh preamble paragraph of draft resolution L6. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [1:08:45]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 162 in favour, 1 against, and 3 abstentions. The seventh preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of the operative paragraph 2, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:09:11]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution L/6. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [1:09:49]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 113 in favour, 3 against, and 47 abstain. Operative paragraph 2 is retained. The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution A/C/81/L.6 as a whole. Those in favour of the draft resolution A/C/81/L.6, Please signify those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:10:20]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.6, entitled "Conventional arms control at regional and subregional levels". The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [1:10:59]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 180 in favour, 2 against, and 0 abstentions. Draft resolution L.6 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/10, entitled “Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region”. I now give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:11:28]:

Draft resolution L/10 was submitted by the representative of Algeria on 2 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C/1/81/L/10. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Is there any delegation not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/10? If yes, may I kindly request that delegation to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded? There are no additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L/10. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:12:07]:

A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of the draft resolution A/C/81/L.10, please signify; those against; and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:12:24]:

The committee is now voting on draft resolution L.10, entitled “Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region.” The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [1:13:01]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 169 in favour, 5 abstentions, against and three abstained. Draft resolution L.10 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft decision L.24, entitled “Regional disarmament”. I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:13:28]:

Draft decision L/24 was submitted by a representative of Pakistan on 3 October. The sponsor of the draft decision is contained in document A/C1/81/L/24. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:13:42]:

I thank the Secretary. The sponsor of the draft decision has expressed the wish that the draft decision be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft decision L.24 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft decision L.55, entitled "Maintenance of international security, good neighborliness, stability, and development in South-Eastern Europe. I now give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:14:30]:

Draft decision L/55 was submitted by the representative of North Macedonia on 14 October. The sponsor of the draft decision is contained in document A/C1/81/L.55. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:14:47]:

The sponsor of the draft decision has expressed the wish that the decision be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objections, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft decision L/55 is adopted. Distinguished delegates, I now call on the delegations wishing to explain their positions after the vote. I didn't see any request for the floor. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Iran.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:16:00]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have taken the floor to explain the position of my delegation on draft resolution L/10 entitled “Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region”. My delegation did not participate in the action on this draft resolution as a whole, as this draft resolution has not factually reflected the realities in the region, among them the situation in the occupied territories, including the continued killing of innocent Palestinians in the occupied territories of Palestine, and the imposition by the Israeli regime of the most severe genocidal war in Gaza Strip, as well as its aggressions against Lebanon and Iran in 2025 and 2026. However, Iran supports operative paragraph 2 of this draft resolution, which calls for the elimination of all causes of tensions in the region, along with the promotion of just and lasting solutions to its persistent problems. More importantly, our support for this paragraph is based on its call to ensure the withdrawal of foreign forces of occupation. while respecting the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of all countries of the region, as well as the right of people to self-determination, including full adherence to the principles of non-use or threat of use of force and the inadmissibility of the occupation of territory by force. These are the basic principles of international law and enjoy our strong support. My delegation also supports operative paragraph 5 of this draft resolution, as it highlights the importance of adherence to all of the multilaterally negotiated legal instrument on disarmament and non-proliferation. Israeli regime is the only case in point. Therefore, this is in line with the repeated calls by successive NPT review conferences on Israel to accede without any delay or precondition as a non-nuclear weapon party to the NPT. Should these calls be heard and implemented accordingly, a main source of regional and global insecurity caused by the clandestine WMD program of the Israeli regime and its nuclear threat against others will be eliminated. It is important to emphasize that the negative impact of this regime in the region extends beyond the nuclear threat it poses. Recent concerns have also brought to light the potential use of chemical weapons by the Israeli army against defenseless Palestinian populations. Addressing this issue urgently is imperative, and every effort should be made to prevent this regime from using them. There are strong reasons to stop this regime's secret biological weapons program as well. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:18:56]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran. Distinguished delegates, the committee will now take up the draft resolutions and decisions under cluster 7 as contained in informal paper 2/Rev.7. Now I shall give the floor to the delegations wishing to make either a general statement or to introduce new or revised drafts under cluster 7, disarmament machinery. Statements are limited to five minutes. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belarus.


Belarus [1:19:37]:

Mr. Chairman, thank you. The Republic of Belarus has submitted to the First Committee a draft resolution. It’s L/4. It’s entitled “Prohibition of the development and manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons: Report of the Conference on Disarmament.” The resolution is adopted every three years. The document preserves its content, and it hasn't changed as regards the previous similar resolution, which was adopted in 2023. The draft reaffirms the key role played by the Conference on Disarmament in the context of discussion and supporting brought attention on the issue of new types of weapons of mass destruction. The document seeks to strengthen internationally recognized procedures that track the situation surrounding the possible development of new types of WMD. These procedures must foster the development of concrete recommendations seeking to consolidate international cooperation in this realm. The document is preventive in nature. Belarus believes that preventive steps are the best means of combating potential threats to international peace and security. We propose that the resolution is a barrier in the path of those actors which might wish to devise new types of weapons of mass destruction. In a certain sense, Our project is supplementing Resolution 1540 of the UN Security Council, which seeks to combat the spread of WMDs and seeks to prevent them from falling into the hands of unscrupulous actors. I’d also like to note that in terms of the development of new types of weapons, If there's no information about it, that doesn't mean that this issue should be ignored. We call upon all States to support draft resolution L/4, and I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:21:54]:

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


Nepal [1:22:02]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nepal has the honour to introduce draft resolution A/C/1. 81 entitled “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific” under agenda item 102 (e). Since its inception, the Regional Centre, headquartered in Kathmandu, has continued to play an important role in promoting dialogue, confidence-building, and cooperation on peace, disarmament, and non-proliferation across the Asia and Pacific region. The Centre provides substantive support, upon request, to initiatives and activities mutually agreed upon by Member States of the region, contributing to regional peace, stability and disarmament process. The draft resolution recognized the Centre's contribution over the past year, including its activities relating to the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, nuclear non-proliferation, small arms and light weapons control, space security, disarmament education and capacity building, among others. It also welcomes the Centre's efforts to advance SDG 5 and 16, promote the full, equal, and meaningful representation of women, and extend on youth engagement and partnership in disarmament initiatives. Mr. Chair, the draft resolution encouraged the Centre to further explore programmes addressing new and emerging technologies, including outer space, information and communication technologies, in the context of international peace and security, and the military applications of artificial intelligence. As emerging technologies increasingly reshape the international security landscape, the Centre’s role in facilitating dialogue, sharing knowledge, and strengthening national capacities becomes even more relevant. The draft resolution also underlines the importance of the Kathmandu Process in developing the practice of region-wide security and disarmament dialogues. Nepal believes that sustained regional dialogue and cooperation can help bridge differences, reduce mistrust, and reinforce global disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. As the host country, Nepal remains firmly committed to supporting the effective functioning of the Regional Centre, including through diplomatic and financial support for its operations. We encourage Member States, particularly those in the Asia-Pacific region, international organizations, and other partners, to enhance their voluntary contributions, which remain the Centre's sole source of resources for its programme activities. Predictable and sustained voluntary support is essential to strengthening the Centre's programmes and enabling it to respond effectively to evolving regional priorities. Nepal expresses its profound appreciation to the Secretary-General, the Office for Disarmament Affairs, and Member States of the region for their steadfast solidarity and support. We are particularly grateful to all delegations who have already co-sponsored this draft resolution. We also extend our appreciation to the Director, Dipayan Basu Ray, for his leadership and to his team for their valuable contributions. Mr. Chair, at a time when global disarmament efforts face growing challenges, regional dialogue and cooperation remain indispensable building blocks of international peace and security. It is in this spirit that Nepal once again urges all Member States to extend their valuable co-sponsorship and support to this draft resolution. We look forward to its adoption by consensus. today, reflecting our shared commitments to strengthening regional peace, security, and disarmament. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:25:23]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Nepal. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Denmark.


Denmark · Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Thailand, and Denmark [1:25:32]:

Thank you, Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, North Macedonia, the Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, the Republic of Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Thailand, and my own country, Denmark, who all traditionally applied to become observer states, and some of which have also applied for membership of the Conference on Disarmament. We would first like to thank the Pakistani presidency for the consultation process on this resolution and its efforts to find a text that could attract the broadest possible consensus. At the same time, we note with concern that the draft resolution and the report of the CD do not accurately recognize the challenges to maintain inclusivity at the CD and are therefore unbalanced and unjust. We regret that once again, it was not possible for the CD to take a stance on the continued exclusionary practices against request by interested states to participate as observers to the CD. This year, 15 states with a keen and legitimate interest in shaping the matters of international security within the CD were once again prevented from participating as observers, while others were accepted. Similarly, in 2025, 24, and 23, the request of significant number of states to participate as a service in the CD was rejected. The CD is in a gridlock and continue to fail on delivering on its mandate. We believe that the CD must regain its efficiency to ensure that it is capable of addressing the current challenges in the field of disarmament. Chair, may I kindly ask the chair to recognize Thailand, which will deliver the second part of the statement? Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:27:29]:

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Thailand.


Thailand · Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Thailand, and Denmark [1:27:38]:

Thank you, Chair. The CD, the Denuceme Committee, was recognized in 1978 at the 10th Special Session on Disarmament of the UN General Assembly as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. If the CD is to retain that role and status, it needs to be open to all interested states. A forum that negotiates and agrees on global agreements cannot be non-global. In addition, since the CD's last expansion in the 1990s, 28 states from different regions have submitted applications for membership, wishing to contribute constructively to global peace and security process, and to the work that the current 65 member states have been unable to accomplish. Ensuring inclusivity in the CD's work through both observership and membership is urgent for the CD to preserve its efficiency, effectiveness, and relevance in today's global security landscape. It is also imperative for upholding principle of multilateralism in the process of disarmament, as endorsed by the SSOD1. Limiting participation undermines not only the credibility, but also the transparency and accountability of the Conference on Disarmament. as well as the role it could play as a single multilateral disarmament negotiating body. I thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:29:03]:

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


Pakistan [1:29:10]:

Thank you, Chair. I have the honour to introduce, on behalf of the President of the Conference on Disarmament, the draft resolution entitled “Report of the Conference on Disarmament”. contained in document L/66. As is customary, the draft is presented by the last President of the annual session of the Conference, which this year is Pakistan. The Conference adopted its annual report by consensus on 9 September 2026. The report is before this Committee in document A/81/27. And the draft resolution is the means by which the General Assembly takes it up. Chair, the Presidency approached this text with one objective: to restore consensus on a resolution that was traditionally adopted without a vote, but was put to a vote last year. To that end, we consulted widely and transparently. Two rounds of informal, open-ended consultations were held. in Geneva on 22 September and in New York on 9 October. These were complemented by small group meetings and extensive bilateral engagement with delegations across the spectrum of views. We treated the text in two parts. Outside the three paragraphs on which recorded words were requested last year, we updated the text to reflect the facts of the 2026 session. using only previously agreed language. As the Conference did not establish subsidiary bodies this year, we drew on the language this Committee adopted by consensus in 2023 in comparable circumstances. The draft therefore notes with renewed concern that the Conference did not agree on a programme of work or commence negotiations, while acknowledging the thematic discussions it held on its agenda items. The OP 4 on intersessional consultations reflects language the Conference itself adopted by consensus in its report. The remaining changes are technical. On the three outstanding paragraphs, preambular paragraph 11 and operative paragraphs 3 and 7, the Presidency tested a number of compromise formulations aimed at restoring balance while keeping the text factual. We thank all delegations that engage constructively in that effort. Regrettably, positions remain far apart, particularly on the participation of States not members of the Conference, where some delegations sought stronger language and others returned to earlier formulations. In the absence of convergence and consistent with our approach throughout, the Presidency has not introduced any language in these paragraphs. They are retained as adopted by this Assembly in resolution 80/65. We recognize that this outcome will not fully satisfy all delegations. It reflects, however, an impartial effort to remain within what has already been agreed. Chair, allow me a brief word in our national capacity. Pakistan's position on the reference in OP 3 to the decision on the program of work of 29 May 2009 is well known and remains unchanged. That decision was specific to the 2009 session and its circumstances, and it cannot serve as a template for any future program of work. As CD President, we have not altered this paragraph, as there was no consensus on new revisions. This is without prejudice to our national position on this paragraph. Whatever our differences on how the Conference should work, we share a common stake in its future. The Presidency hopes that the Committee will adopt this draft resolution with the broadest possible support. We remain available to all delegations and will continue intersessional consultations with the incoming President of the 2027 session. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:33:26]:

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


Burundi · ECCAS [1:33:32]:

MAXIME SHOROPKAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the delegation of Burundi has the honor to take the floor on behalf of the member states of the Economic Commission of Central African States. We’re talking about measures, regional confidence-building measures, activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa. In our capacity as delegation tasked with coordination and presentation of this draft resolution, we wish to thank all of the Member States for their constructive cooperation, and we’d like to thank all of the delegations that accompanied this process. This draft that we've submitted reflects the security concerns at present in our subregion, but also the progress made towards strengthening cooperation, preventive diplomacy, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. It contains the conclusions of the ministerial meeting that was held in Bujumbura, as well as regional initiatives against terrorism, and against the illicit trafficking of weapons, cross-border crime, and maritime insecurity in the Gulf of Guinea. It also emphasizes the importance of dialogue and respect for international law, in particular through cooperative efforts between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea under the auspices of the African Union. Mr. Chair, this draft resolution shows the willingness of Central African States to take on their responsibility in the building of peace and security, while strengthening their partnerships with the United Nations and the international community. On behalf of the Member States of our Organization, we call upon all States to support this draft resolution and to allow for its adoption by consensus without being put to a vote. I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:35:50]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Burundi. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Peru.


Peru · GRULAC [1:35:59]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Peru has the honor of presenting on behalf of the Member States of GRULAC the draft resolution L/50 on the Regional Centre of United Nations for peace, disarmament and development in Latin America and the Caribbean. The illicit trafficking of munitions, arms and explosives fuels transnational organized crime and threatens the security of our communities. Combating this phenomenon requires robust national institutions and international cooperation able to respond to threats that cross borders. a direct contribution to this endeavour. At the request of States, it strengthens capacities to prevent the diversion of weapons, to improve the security of arsenals and to combat illicit trafficking. Its work demonstrates how disarmament can translate into protection for peoples and how it can improve conditions for peace and development. Draft L.50 recognises its results and supports new regional priorities. It underscores the implementation of Caribbean and Latin American roadmaps and the roadmaps of the Dominican Republic, as well as the establishment of the roadmap for the Andean Community roadmap, it points to assistance to Haiti to bolster arms control and to reduce violence. It also covers progress with the training of specialists on the participation of women and young people. These initiatives reflect an agenda built by countries of the region in accordance with their needs. form of technical support that the UN can provide. We support rationalizing the work of this committee in the case of UNRAC. Annual consideration of this resolution is in line with a specific goal. It allows us to assess results, incorporate substantive progress, and provide political guidance to in the face of security challenges that are rapidly involving. UNREC also contributes to accountability, as does this resolution, and keeps the members attention on regional priorities. As a headquarter country, we are reaffirm our commitment to UNRITC. We are grateful to delegations that participated in consultations and to all GRULAC members for their co-sponsorship. We are grateful to the countries whose voluntary contributions make this cooperation possible. This resolution on UNRITC has historically been adopted by consensus. This support has expressed the will of the international community to support Latin America and the Caribbean in their efforts to improve peace and security. We would have wished to preserve this consensus in view of the vote requested, we ask all delegations to vote in favor of draft resolution L50. Your vote will support a shared priority, one shared by our whole region. It will support cooperation which builds capacity of all states to combat the illicit trafficking of weapons, to tackle organized crime, and to protect our communities. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:38:47]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Peru. Distinguished delegates, before the Committee proceeds to take actions on the draft resolutions and decisions in cluster 7, we will hear from delegations wishing to explain their positions on those drafts. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of France, to be followed by Sweden and Russian Federation.


France [1:39:17]:

Monsieur le Président.

Mr. Chair, I wish to give an explanation of vote on draft resolution L/66, entitled Report of the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament is a vital forum for negotiating disarmament instruments. It has made a significant contribution to international peace and security. Despite the deadlock in the conference, France wishes to preserve this forum and do everything possible to improve its functioning and make progress towards holding negotiations in accordance with its mandate. This is why we will support resolution L/66 tabled by Pakistan. However, The report set out in this resolution is incomplete, particularly with regard to the representativeness of the Conference on Disarmament as addressed in its preamble, paragraph 11, and operative paragraph 7. France supports an inclusive Conference on Disarmament that better reflects the reality of the international strategic landscape and the balance of power. Expanding its membership remains a priority for France. at a time when the challenges of disarmament require the broadest possible mobilization. Unfortunately, once again this year, 15 states, the majority of which are European, have been prevented from participating in the Conference’s work due to persistent obstruction, in particular on the part of Russia. This situation is neither in keeping with the spirit of multilateralism nor conducive to constructive dialogue. France reaffirms its full support for the States concerned, which, I would remind you, contribute financially to the operation of the CD without being able to become members or even participate as observers. Opening up the conference to more observer States as well as to civil society and young people, through specific events or dedicated sessions, is an objective we must collectively set ourselves. The inclusivity of the Conference on Disarmament is not a secondary objective, but an essential condition for the proper functioning of this multilateral forum. We wish to realize our forum’s full potential. so that when the conditions are right, we can make effective and substantial progress, particularly on the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty. Mr. Chair, I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:42:15]:

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


Sweden · Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden [1:42:23]:

I have the honor to deliver an explanation of vote on the decision entitled Report of the Conference on Disarmament, document number L66, on behalf of Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldavia, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and my own country, Sweden. We acknowledge Pakistan for its hard work as the final President of the CD this year. We continue to believe that the CD has an important role to play in arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation negotiations. However, we consider that the situation within the CD continues to be misrepresented in the 2026 Annual CD Report and the CD resolution. For over 30 years, the advancement of the negotiation mandate of the CD has been blocked largely by a lack of political will and procedural issues, including by an abuse of the consensus rule that governs the CD's work as a de facto veto. This year was no exception. The annual 2026 CD report fails to provide a clear and factual description of this situation, the decision the CD took throughout the years, as well as, more peremptorily, that work the CD could not undertake under its mandate. The following, in our view, are among the key concerns that the annual 2026 CD report and the CD resolution fail to describe. Firstly, the CD has not negotiated any legally or non-legally binding disarmament instrument. One of the reasons for this is the misuse of the consensus rule when it comes to establishing a program of work. Secondly, the membership of the CD, currently 65 states, has not been expanded in almost 30 years, perpetuating a lack of representation. Thirdly, states unable to become members have periodically requested to participate as observers, generally successfully. However, for the past four consecutive years, the acceptance of all observers on the single list or a significant number of requests has been blocked mostly by one single CD member. Therefore, the following 15 states could yet again not become observers: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Portugal, and Slovenia. Both states approved as observers, and states that were not have in previous years expressed regret over this through a joint statement, unfortunately with no effect. We all need to remind ourselves that these states financially contribute to the CDS operations as UN member states. yet are denied both membership and participation as observers, despite an overwhelmingly majority of the CD states in favor of their acceptance. None of these decisions or issues are reported in a clear or factual manner in either the CD report or in the CD resolution, even though a clearly majority of the CD and non-CD members have repeatedly requested this in various consultations. That is why we, together with a growing number of UN Member States, have decided to abstain or vote no on this resolution. All of us value the mandate of the CD and the crucial role it plays and could play once again if it was enabled to fulfill its mandate and become a more inclusively body. Until we can achieve these objectives, we must be clear and able to factually


1st Committee · Chair [1:47:25]:

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

of the Russian Federation.


Russian Federation [1:47:35]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would like to speak an explanation of vote on OP 3 of draft resolution L/29, United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa. Here, we're going to be compelled to vote against it. The Russian Federation wholeheartedly supports the African countries as they combat international terrorism and extremism. At the same time, we oppose any concepts that allow for meddling in the internal affairs of other states under the pretext of combating terrorism or in preventing violent actions, such as preventing violent extremism. as well as manipulating aspects of terrorism. And one of these contexts is violent extremism, which is based on a dangerous misconception that extremism is only dangerous when it takes on violent forms. Today, it's the age of new information technologies, and the spread of extremist ideologies is a part of incitement to commit serious crimes. This can lead to violence, including terrorism. In this regard, we think it is very important to give due attention to countering extremism in all of its manifestations and not only its violent forms. In this context, what requires attention is the experience of the SCO on preventing extremism. This lays a solid legal foundation for establishing interstate cooperation in this area. This convention is designed not only to fight uncompromisingly any manifestations of terrorism and extremism, but it's aimed at preventing them as well. is the first of its kind, a treaty that is open for all interested states to join. The Russian Federation supports resolution L/29 as a whole, however, and we intend to vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I also want to voice our position about draft resolution L/43, convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. At the outset, we don't associate ourselves with the Pact for the Future. It is not a balanced document, and it contains non-consensus-based elements, nor is it appropriate to serve as a guideline for international efforts to strengthen international institutions and agreements in the area of arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation. As regards the content of PP9, which is taken from the Pact for the Future, we have some principled objections. It proposes starting the preparation of convening a new special session on disarmament as if this was already a foregone conclusion. But from the very beginning, what was talked about was only preparatory work, including discussing the necessity of such an event and its possible content as well. Russia is convinced that convening a fourth special session for disarmament in the current conditions would be premature and counterproductive. This event would merely deepen divisions among UN member states on the agenda with regard to disarmament, and it would undermine the work of the appropriate international fora. We believe that the existing structures on disarmament in the UN on the whole are optimal, and they meet current requirements. The inability of the international community to produce substantive results, to bridge deep divides and develop a new international instrument in this area is not because there aren't disarmament forums. It's because a number of states, Western states, are not prepared to engage in mutual in respectful dialogue. So we're going to be abstaining on PP9. Although given the general thrust of the document and the fact that the rest of its provisions are balanced, the Russian Federation intends to vote in favor of this draft. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:52:15]:

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


Türkiye [1:52:25]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We take the floor to clarify our position regarding PP11 and OP7 of the draft resolution L/66. entitled "Report of the Conference on Disarmament". First, we express our appreciation to Pakistan for its efforts and hard work. We would like to reaffirm the value of the Conference on Disarmament as the single multilateral disarmament negotiation forum, where the cornerstone instruments of disarmament and non-proliferation, such as the BWC, CWC, and CTBT were negotiated and finalized. International community should prioritize efforts to enable the Conference to fulfill its core negotiating mandate. Regarding the resolution, we would like to underscore that resolution 79/71 had already been strengthened and its language represented a delicate compromise, one that we also showed great flexibility to facilitate the consensus. While the situation regarding observers has remained the same over the past several years, language altered the compromise was introduced in PP11 and OP7 in 2025, which was neither balanced nor reasonable. We have consistently expressed our opposition to these changes during the consultations. Given these considerations, we will abstain on those paragraphs. Mr. Chair, Looking ahead and in order to enhance CD’s credibility, legitimacy, and transparency, we should direct our efforts towards substantive issues that require our collective attention, particularly the need to enable the CD to fulfil its core mandate of negotiating legally binding instruments as a single multilateral forum on disarmament that enhances transparency, builds trust, and lays the foundations for lasting peace and stability. We will continue to be constructively engaged in the work ahead in this spirit. I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [1:54:32]:

I thank this distinguished representative of Turkey. Distinguished delegates, the Committee will now proceed to take actions on the draft resolution L4, entitled Prohibitions of the development and manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction. and new system of such weapons, report of the Conference on the Disarmament. I give the floor to the Secretary first.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:55:02]:

Draft resolution L/4 was submitted by the representative of Belarus on 2 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L/4. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L/4? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and the duly recorded. There are no additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L/4 at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:55:45]:

A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C/81/L4, please signify; those against; and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:56:01]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L/4, entitled “Prohibition of the development and manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons: Report of the Conference on Disarmament”. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [1:56:43]:

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 177, one against, and four abstained. Draft resolution L/4 is adopted. The committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/16, entitled Report of the disarmament commission. Now I give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:57:11]:

Draft resolution L/16 was submitted by the representatives of Senegal, Austria, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Dominican Republic on 6 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L/16. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:57:35]:

A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of draft resolution A/C/1/81/L.16, please signify; those against and abstentions?


1st Committee · Secretary [1:57:50]:

The committee is now voting on draft resolution L.16, entitled “Report of the Disarmament Commission”. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [1:58:29]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 176 in favour, 1 against, and 2 abstentions. Draft resolution L/16 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution L.26, entitled “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific”. I now give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:58:59]:

Draft resolution L.26 was submitted by the representative of Nepal on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L.26. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.26? If yes, I can request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. There are no additional co-sponsors of draft proposal 26. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [1:59:39]:

I thank the Secretary. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of the draft resolution A/C/81/L.26, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [1:59:56]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L/26, entitled “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific”. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:00:33]:

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour 177, against 1, abstentions 0. Draft resolution L.26 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution L/29, entitled United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa. I give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:01:03]:

Draft resolution L/29 was submitted by the representative of Nigeria on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Group of African States on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L.29. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. Is there any delegation not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.29? If yes, I kindly request that delegation to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. The additional co-sponsors of draft proposal 29 are as follows: Comoros, Somalia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:01:53]:

I thank the Secretary. A separate vote has been requested on operative paragraph three of draft resolution A/C/1/81/L.29. I shall now put that paragraph to the vote first. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of operative paragraph 3, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:02:20]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 3 of draft resolution L/29. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:02:58]:

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour, 161; against, 2; abstentions, 0. Operative paragraph 3 is retained. The committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution L/29 as a whole. Those in favour of the draft resolutions A/C/1/81/L.29, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:03:28]:

The committee is now voting on draft resolution L.29, entitled “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa”. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:04:04]:

The result of the voting is as follows: In favour 176, against 1, abstentions 0. Draft resolution L/29 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution L/32 entitled "Regional confidence-building measures: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions". in Central Africa. I now give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:04:42]:

Draft resolution L/32 was submitted by the representative of Burundi on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Economic Community of Central African States on 13 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L.32. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the Committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L.32? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded? There are no additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L.32. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:05:31]:

A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of the draft resolution A/C/1/81/L.32, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:05:46]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L.32, entitled “Regional confidence-building measures: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa”. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:06:24]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 177 in favour, against 2, abstentions 0. Draft resolution L.32 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution L/39, entitled “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament”. I now give the floor to the Secretary.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:06:53]:

Draft resolution L/39 was submitted by the representative of Indonesia on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L.39.


1st Committee · Chair [2:07:15]:

I thank the Secretary. The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I will take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. It is so decided. Draft resolution L/39 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/43, entitled "Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament." I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:08:02]:

Draft resolution L/43 was submitted by the representative of Indonesia on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/81/L.43.


1st Committee · Chair [2:08:24]:

A separate vote has been requested on the ninth preamble paragraph of the draft resolutions A/C1/80/L43. We shall now begin the voting process. I will put this paragraph to the vote first. Those in favour of the ninth preamble paragraph, please signify; those against and abstention.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:08:48]:

The Committee is now voting on the ninth preamble paragraph of draft resolution L/43. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:09:24]:

Voting result is as follows: 164 in favour, 2 against and 2 abstain. The ninth preamble paragraph is retained. The committee will now proceed to take actions on the draft resolutions L-43 as a whole. Those in favour of the draft resolutions A/C1/81/L-43, please signify; those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:09:55]:

The committee is now voting on draft resolution L/43, entitled “Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament”. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:10:27]:

The result of the voting is as follows: in favour, 178; against, 2; abstentions, 0. Draft resolution L/43 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/50, entitled “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean”. I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:11:02]:

Draft resolution L/50 was submitted by the representative of Peru on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States on 13 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C1/81/L.50. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:11:25]:

I thank the Secretary. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of the draft resolution A/C1/81/L.50, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:11:42]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution L/50, entitled United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that your votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:12:18]:

The result of the voting is as follows: in favor, 177; against, 1; abstentions, 0. Draft resolution L.50 is adopted. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution L/66, entitled “Report of the Conference on Disarmament”. I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:12:47]:

Draft resolution L/66 was submitted by the representative of Pakistan on 15 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are contained in document A/C.1/81/L.66. The additional co-sponsors in the e-delegate portal of the committee are currently reflected on the screen. Are there any delegations not reflected on the screen who wish to co-sponsor draft resolution L-66? If yes, may I kindly request those delegations to indicate by pressing the speaker button in order to be added to the list of sponsors and be duly recorded. There are no additional co-sponsors of draft proposal L-66 at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:13:33]:

Separate votes have been requested on the 11th preamble paragraph and operative paragraphs 3 and 7 of the draft resolution A/C/1/81/LC.66. We shall now begin the voting process. I shall put these paragraphs to the vote one by one. First, those in favour of the 11th preamble paragraph, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:14:03]:

The Committee is now voting on the eleventh preamble paragraph of draft resolution L/66. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:14:43]:

Voting result is as follows: ninety-three in favour, five against and fifty-three against. The eleventh preamble paragraph is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 3, please signify; those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:15:04]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 3 of draft resolution L/66. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:15:40]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 131 in favour, 1 against, and 18 abstain. Operative paragraph 3 is retained. Those in favour of operative paragraph 7, please signify; those against, and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:16:00]:

The Committee is now voting on operative paragraph 7 of draft resolution L/66. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:16:38]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 93 in favour, 5 against, 51 abstentions. Operative paragraph 7 is retained. The committee will now proceed to take actions on the draft resolutions L-66 et al. Those in favour of the draft resolutions A/C1, Please signify those against and abstentions.


1st Committee · Secretary [2:17:07]:

The Committee is now voting on draft resolution 66, entitled “Report of the Conference on Disarmament”. The voting machine is unlocked. Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes on the board. Will all delegations kindly confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the board? The voting has been completed. The machine is locked.


1st Committee · Chair [2:17:46]:

The result of the voting is as follows: 135 in favour, 5 against and 36 abstentions. Draft resolution L/66 is adopted. Distinguished delegates, I now call on delegations wishing to explain their positions after the vote. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.


South Africa [2:18:30]:

Chairperson, South Africa takes the floor to explain its vote on draft resolution L66 on the report of the Conference on Disarmament. South Africa wishes to reiterate that the mandate of the Conference on Disarmament is clear and straightforward: to serve as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. Regrettably, for nearly three decades, the Conference has been unable to fulfill this mandate. Despite efforts undertaken during the 2026 session, the Conference once again failed to agree on a programme of work or to commence substantive negotiations. While taking note of the thematic discussions held, South Africa underscores that such discussions cannot substitute for the Conference’s core negotiating function. The continued failure to commence negotiations or produce substantive outcomes, coupled with the erosion of the Conference’s negotiating role in favour of a more deliberative approach, remains a matter of serious concern. The international community expects negotiated outcomes and tangible progress. South Africa therefore supported this resolution, not as an endorsement of the conference's prolonged paralysis, but as an expression of support for renewed efforts to restore the conference to its negotiating mandate and resume substantive work. Chairperson, we welcome the emphasis on flexibility inclusivity, and intensified consultations as essential elements in overcoming the current impasse. In this regard, South Africa reaffirms its principal support for the participation of all interested UN member and observer states in the work of the conference, recognizing that disarmament and international security issues have universal implications and affect the legitimate security interests of all states. South Africa further underscores that concerns relating to participation must be addressed in a consistent, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. Such concerns should not be raised selectively on the basis of geographical or political considerations, but should be applied impartially and uniformly, including when they affect developing countries. Selective approaches risk undermining the principles of inclusivity, sovereign equality, and multilateralism that underpin the work of this conference and the wider UN system. Chairperson, ultimately, all members of the Conference share a collective responsibility to overcome the persistent lack of political will that has prevented progress for far too long. The prolonged paralysis of the Conference is neither sustainable nor acceptable. We therefore call on all members to demonstrate the flexibility, political will, and commitment necessary to restore the Conference to its intended role as the world’s sole multilateral Disarmament Negotiating Forum and to deliver meaningful outcomes that advance international peace and security. I thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [2:22:00]:

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina, to be followed by New Zealand, United States, Italy, and Mexico.


Argentina [2:22:13]:

Thank you, Chair. The Argentine Republic disassociates from the content on Agenda 2030, the Sustainable Development Agenda, in L.26, preambular paragraphs 4 and 6; L.29, PP.7; L.32, OP.32; and L.50, PP.3 and 5. The Argentine Republic recalls that Agenda 2030 was committed to in good faith, it comprises legally non-binding aspirations, that every State in the exercise of its sovereignty has the right to interpret and pursue in full freedom. Elsewhere, regarding references to the gender issue in drafts L/47, L/14/9, L/62, Argentina wishes to place on record that these terms are or this term is understood pursuant to international treaty law. The term gender refers to two sexes, masculine and feminine, in the context of society. The term gender has no other interpretation than that listed in accordance with the Statute of Rome, article 7.3. Finally, as regards the regional centers for disarmament of the United Nations, We express the fact that within the framework of the UN80 initiative, Argentina is open to participating in discussions for these drafts to be presented more frequently with the goal of supporting efforts to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in our work. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [2:23:57]:

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


New Zealand [2:24:07]:

Thank you, Chair. I take the floor to explain New Zealand's vote on resolution L/66, report of the Conference on Disarmament. New Zealand abstained on this resolution. As we are often reminded, the Conference on Disarmament is supposed to be the international community's primary multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. Yet its working methods, particularly the application of strict consensus, including on procedural matters, have created a situation in which the Conference has persistently failed for decades to do what it was established to do. The continued abuse of consensus in the Conference has extended to blocking observer participation in the work of the Conference. New Zealand strongly disapproves of such actions. We are also of the view that Conference membership should be open to all States wishing to join. Chair, New Zealand supports substantive discussion within the Conference, including through subsidiary bodies. However, discussion cannot substitute indefinitely for negotiations and tangible outcomes. Our abstention reflects our concern that the Conference is not fulfilling the role entrusted to it by the international community. At a time of increasing geopolitical tension, growing military competition and rising nuclear risks, its continued deadlock is increasingly difficult to understand, let alone justify. Members must demonstrate the political will and flexibility needed to overcome that deadlock, including by addressing the working methods that have allowed it to persist. I thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:25:41]:

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


United States of America [2:25:51]:

Thank you, Chair. The United States fully supports the UN80 calls for bold reform of UN institutions. Our votes in cluster 7 reflect that commitment to make the UN disarmament machinery more effective, efficient, and responsive to the current international security environment. The United States voted no on L/16, Report of the Disarmament Commission, because the commission is a costly and inefficient institution that remains stuck in a state of paralysis, unable to deliver on its mandate. The United States will continue to work to achieve the goals of the UNDC, but will also continue to forcefully advocate for change. To begin to reverse the paralysis of the past decades, the UNDC should significantly shorten its session and focus solely on its most pressing agenda item, namely making recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States will scrutinize the Commission's 2027 sessions agenda and act accordingly if these modest reforms are not implemented. Chair, while we voted yes on L/66, report on the Conference on Disarmament, we are convinced that the CD must re-evaluate the so-called balanced and comprehensive approach advocated by some if it hopes to achieve any meaningful progress. Rather, the CD should focus most of its yearly session on one or two high-priority nuclear issues. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. The United States will continue to press for these changes during next year's session. Both resolutions refer to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. The United States disassociates itself from the UNIDIR references, given that its outputs are not always helpful to advancing disarmament and nonproliferation objectives. Concerning L/43, convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, the United States voted no because this annual resolution is not needed to have consultations on the issue. Further, convening an SSOD IV would be both ineffective and costly. Additional expensive meetings without the likelihood of clear, tangible results are not what is needed to advance disarmament goals. Chair, the United States voted against L/26, L/27, and L/50 because the drafters have not committed to shifting to a biennial or triennial schedule. While we fully support the mission of the United Nations Regional Centers for Peace and Development, we urge the drafters to change their periodicity or restructure the region-specific resolutions with L/39, the omnibus resolution for regional centers. We continue to urge that resolutions be brought forth on a more periodic basis. It is a shared responsibility of us all to make the global disarmament machinery more efficient and effective. I thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:29:15]:

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


Italy [2:29:22]:

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Italy voted in favour the draft resolution L-66 on the report of the Conference on Disarmament, reaffirming its strong commitment to the CD. Our support, however, should not be interpreted as satisfaction with the report and the current functioning of the Conference. We deeply regret that once again this year, several States, including EU Member States and candidate States, were prevented from participating as observers due in particular to objections raised by the Russian Federation. Such practices undermine the inclusive and multilateral character of the Conference, as well as its credibility and effectiveness. We reiterate our solidarity with the countries concerned and firmly believe that broader participation, including through a long-overdue expansion of the Conference membership, is essential. At a time of growing international tensions, we need more dialogue, not less. It is precisely because we believe in the importance of the Conference that we supported this resolution, while continuing to advocate for a more inclusive and effective forum capable of fulfilling its negotiating mandate. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:30:48]:

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


Mexico [2:30:58]:

Thank you very much, Chair. Mexico abstained on the votes on draft resolutions L/16, entitled “Report of the Disarmament Commission”, and L/66, “Report of the Conference on Disarmament”. both as a whole and on the paragraph votes. That is an expression of our vehement dissatisfaction with the paralysis that prevails in both organs and at the growing normalisation of the failure to fulfil their mandates. Regarding draft resolution L/16, we regret that the 2026 session of the Disarmament Commission amounted once again to a mere performance of substantive work. We cannot continue to equate the holding of meetings with the discharge of a mandate, nor can we accept a situation whereby deliberations become an end in themselves, this without the production of substantive recommendations that it is incumbent upon this body, pursuant to its mandate, to formulate. This situation is particularly unjustifiable in a context of growing international challenges and severe budgetary constraints. At this time, the Organization is demanding greater efficiency and effectiveness in the use of its resources. Regarding draft resolution L/66, Mexico regrets the fact that, while controversy surrounding the participation of observers deserves attention and criticism, we regret the fact that it is once again this issue that has triggered a vote in the General Assembly, rather than the underlying crisis besetting the Conference on Disarmament. This year marks three decades since the Conference last succeeded in adopting a programme of work that allowed it to effectively discharge its negotiating mandate. Instead, it has resorted to deliberative arrangements that not only perpetuate its paralysis, but that ultimately serve to protect the interests of a small number of States, this to the detriment of the collective interest in advancing the cause of disarmament. This practice undermines and besmirches the multilateral architecture established by the First Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (SSOD I). The Conference on Disarmament was established to negotiate international instruments, and not to replace negotiations with deliberations. That is a function that falls within the mandate of the Disarmament Commission. Mexico cannot, furthermore, accept that the fulfilment of its mandate be indefinitely subjugated to the existence of a supposedly conducive environment. It is paradoxical that both bodies have settled for simply deliberating, while neither has been able to discharge the specific function entrusted to it. Even more concerning is that this situation continues to repeat itself year after year, without sufficient consequences for members or without members asking sufficient questions. Mexico calls upon delegations to cease tolerating and normalizing this institutional paralysis. The multilateral disarmament machinery cannot continue to justify its assistance solely by holding meetings and submitting reports. It is imperative that we undertake the reforms necessary to restore its effectiveness, legitimacy, and its ability to deliver substantive results. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [2:34:44]:

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


Austria [2:34:53]:

Mr. Chair, thank you. I am taking the floor to deliver an EOB on resolution L-66, report of the Conference on Disarmament. The continued stalemate of the Conference on Disarmament for more than two decades is a matter of grave concern for Austria. Many efforts have been made in recent years to bring the CD closer to its mandate to negotiate multilateral disarmament agreements. Chair, we are extremely concerned about tendencies that challenge the disarmament regime and the use of procedural maneuvers to delay, undermine, or even prevent substantive exchanges and productive work, or, as we see in the CD, to exclude observers or the broader UN membership from discussions that concern us all. When it comes to the CD, Austria has a clear track record to support all proposals and ideas proposed to facilitate consensus and to improve the working methods of the CD. Attempts to limit the participation of observers and regional organizations are clearly politically motivated with the aim of silencing critical voices. How are we supposed to reach agreements if we refuse to engage and exclude divergent viewpoints? We are particularly concerned about infringement on the sovereign rights of states to decide who speaks on their behalf. Austria also has a track record as a strong supporter of an inclusive CD open to membership of all interested states with the full, effective and meaningful participation of women as well as participation of civil society. The report of the CD of 2026 lacks substance and fails to reflect the facts and what actually took place with regards to the observers. While we regret that a consensual adoption of resolution L-66 was again not possible this year for the reasons we just outlined, Austria abstained on L-66. We urge the UN membership to reflect on what can be done to reinvigorate the CD as a negotiating body. We will do our utmost to contribute to these efforts. Unlike the CD, the world has not stood still for almost 30 years. If we want the CD to remain relevant, it cannot be held hostage by consensus that is interpreted as a veto. It needs to immediately commence actual work, that is, and we all know, concrete negotiations. We urge all States to demonstrate political will. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [2:37:37]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Austria. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Australia, to be followed by Ireland, Russian Federation, Iran and Netherlands.


Australia [2:37:49]:

Thank you, Chair. We acknowledge Pakistan for its work as the final President of the CD this year. Australia voted in favour of the resolution L66, entitled Report of the Conference on Disarmament. We wish to make clear that Australia shares many of the concerns expressed by others regarding the direction and functioning of the Conference on Disarmament. Australia continues to attach importance to the Conference as the international community's single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. But our support for this resolution should not be interpreted as satisfaction with the status quo. We remain deeply concerned that the Conference has been unable to fulfil its core negotiating mandate. Once again in 2026, despite substantive thematic discussions, the Conference was unable to agree a programme of work or commence substantive negotiations. We are also concerned by the continued lack of progress on the expansion of the Conference's membership and by difficulties surrounding the participation of non-member States as observers. These issues affect the inclusivity and representativeness of the Conference and deserve serious attention. Australia believes it is important that the Conference does not come to regard deliberation as a substitute for negotiation. We therefore welcome this resolution acknowledges the Conference’s ongoing impasse and calls for renewed efforts to overcome its deadlock and resume substantive work, including negotiations. We also welcome its recognition of the importance of continued consultations on membership expansion and further efforts to ensure participation by non-Member States. Our vote in favour is not set in stone. It reflects our continuing support for the Conference and for its mandate, while recognizing that significant concerns remain about its current direction and effectiveness, which need to be addressed. Australia encourages all members of the Conference to demonstrate the political will and flexibility necessary to enable it once again to fulfill its negotiating mandate. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:40:00]:

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


Ireland [2:40:08]:

Thank you, Chair. I wish to explain Ireland’s vote on resolution L-66, report of the Conference on Disarmament, sponsored this year by Pakistan. Ireland thanks Pakistan for its stewardship of the sixth and final presidency of the Conference on Disarmament this year, and likewise for its work in producing the Conference’s final report and the associated resolution. This is no easy task. The problems with the Conference on Disarmament and its associated report and resolution are long-standing. Chair, Ireland abstained in this resolution in 2022 and in 2025. We have done so again this year for three reasons. First, the repeated prevention of States from observing the work of the Conference, primarily at the hands of one delegation, remains of significant concern. Unfortunately, this resolution does not adequately reflect this problem. Second, the ongoing failure to expand the Conference's membership, which is out of sync with present-day realities. Ireland joined the body during its last expansion in 1999. We did not think the CD’s membership would remain static thereafter. Third, the absence of progress on the substantive work of the Conference, a situation now extending over three decades. The Conference on Disarmament’s inability to conduct negotiations and fulfil its mandate should be a matter of concern to us all. Chair, in 2024, 17 states that are non-members of the Conference were prevented from participating in its work. That number was 16 in 2025. During this latest session, 15 states were similarly blocked. It is not clear from the text of this version of the resolution who applied to be an observer, who was accepted, and who was ultimately prevented from observing. This detail is a significant omission, And it is for that reason that we have abstained both on PP11 and OP7, as these paragraphs do not accurately reflect recent events, nor the longstanding unacceptable situation regarding the conference's lack of inclusivity. Chair, Ireland supports the involvement of observers at the conference as a matter of principle. This approach is in line with the fundamental tenets of multilateralism. Ireland supported and could have accepted all observer requests put forward this year and in preceding years. Ireland’s approach on inclusivity and transparency in the Conference on Disarmament is long-standing and on the record. Our interest is not confined to the participation of a single region or set of States. Madam Chair, for many years, the reports of the Conference on Disarmament have taken a procedural rather than a substantive form. Subsidiary bodies in 2024 and 2025 offered the prospect of some limited progress, but unfortunately came to naught. This year, thematic and informal discussions have been convened once more under the presidencies of the Conference on Disarmament, but they do not substitute for substantive work and negotiation of disarmament instruments. Ireland believes the annual resolution on the Conference on Disarmament should reflect the reality of the challenges facing the body. Such an approach would enable the General Assembly to take informed decisions regarding the Conference’s work, something that is even more pressing in the context of UN80 and legitimate questions over the body’s efficiency and resources. Ireland looks forward to engaging with all States in good faith to invigorate the Conference on Disarmament and to enable it to deliver once more on its important mandate. Thank you, Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:43:34]:

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


Russian Federation [2:43:45]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would like to explain the position of the Russian Federation on document L/66. Report of the Conference on Disarmament. We deeply regret the fact that, for two years running, the draft has been unable to be adopted by consensus. There are some Western countries, all throughout the preparation of the resolution, that inserted into the document language they knew would be unacceptable. They gave pride of place to political and narrow group considerations rather than a desire to foster dialogue and find mutually acceptable solutions to extract the CDE from its crisis. The Russian Federation is fully devoted to multilateralism, and in the conference, but Western delegations are attempting to try to ensure the participation of their closest allies and partners in the EU in order to additionally use the CD as a venue for political statements, hollow accusations, and insinuations against full-fledged member states of the conference, and also as an opportunity to settle political scores. This is confirmed by how these states have been working at this organization in recent years. It's symptomatic that the issue of observers for Western countries is the most important issue in the work of the CD. It's more important than launching substantive work of the forum. For the sake of observers, last year they broke the consensus in the First Committee of the UN, and this year they continued their efforts to so further division around the conference. This is all the more absurd at a time when approaches of countries allegedly barred from entry on arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation in international security are already regularly being voiced in the CD by their allies in NATO and partners in the European Union. But the double standards here are glaringly obvious. In recent years, Palestine applied to participate in the CD, and the US and Israel blocked that. The Western states didn't think that was undermining multilateralism and inclusivity. Obviously, with the It’s not a matter of principle for them; it’s simply a matter of political preference. The Russian Federation voted in favor of the draft resolution. This is because we support the activities of the conference, and we are committed to continuing to do what is necessary in order to ensure a swift resumption of the substantive negotiations. The text of the resolution largely repeats the overwhelming majority of provisions in previous consensus-based language and neutrally reflects the results of the work of the 2026 session of the CD. That also applies to OP 7, which contains a call upon the Conference to take further substantive efforts to ensure multilateralism and inclusivity of the work of the CD through participation of States in the session and stringent compliance with the Rules of Procedure. When voting on PP/11, we abstained. This is because we see no need to insert into the document a footnote with language from the report of the Conference. This language was proposed last year in order to preserve the consensus on the resolution, but the document was put to a vote by Western countries anyway. The resolution has been put to a vote this year as well, so we propose adopting OP 3 separately. On the other hand, the reference to the previous decisions of the Conference, including the programme of work of 2009, could be useful in the context of efforts to extricate the CD from its deadlock situation, we support the provisions of the document of 2009, which mentions that any negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty must proceed based on document CD/1299 and the mandate it contains. On the other hand, we are convinced that the document of 2009 is outdated. This is primarily the case as regards preventing an arms race in outer space. As we see it, when it comes to this issue, one must provide for immediately launching negotiations at the conference so as to draw up an international legally binding instrument on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. That instrument should contain a ban on deployment of any type of weapons in outer space, as well as the use or threat of force. In this regard, Russia abstained from voting on OP 3. Thank you.


1st Committee · Chair [2:48:37]:

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


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:48:47]:

Mr. Chair, I have taken the floor to explain the position of my delegation on draft resolution L/66, entitled “Report of the Conference on Disarmament”. Iran attaches great importance to the central role of the Conference on Disarmament as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. In this spirit, my delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution as a whole. At the same time, Iran abstained on PP/11 and OP/3. With regard to PP/11, while supporting inclusivity and transparency in the work of the Conference on Disarmament, Iran underscores that all decisions of the Conference must be taken in strict conformity with its Rules of Procedure and on the basis of consensus, which remains the cornerstone of its work. Iran’s abstention is intended to make clear that this paragraph cannot be interpreted as qualifying, diluting, or calling into question the fundamental principle of consensus governing the work of the Conference. Concerning OP.3, Iran continues to support the adoption of a balanced and comprehensive programme of work that addresses on an equal footing all core items on the agenda of the Conference, namely nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, the prevention of an arms race in outer space, and a treaty dealing with fissile material. However, Iran’s abstention reflects its reservation regarding the reference to the 2009 Programme of Work, which should not be interpreted as agreement to commence negotiations on a fissile material treaty limited only to the future production and excluding existing stockpiles. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


1st Committee · Chair [2:50:43]:

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


Netherlands (Kingdom of the) [2:50:54]:

Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. In addition to the explanation of vote before the vote, as read out by the Swedish distinguished delegate, I will add our national perspective on our no vote on the resolution on the report of the Conference on Disarmament, as well as with regard to the functioning of the Conference more in general. I also take this opportunity to react to the right of reply exercised by the Russian Federation during thematic debate on cluster seven. in which the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation asked a question to my delegation on the relationship between insisting on inclusivity on the one hand and cutting the number of meetings on the other hand. Responding to the Russian Federation's question, what does the Kingdom of the Netherlands want regarding the CD, I would say to spend our time and resources in a useful and productive manner in accordance with its mandate. This mandate, as indicated in paragraph 120 of the final document of SSOD I, as well as in Rule 1 of the CD's own rules of procedure, stipulates that the forum is to negotiate disarmament agreements. We have been unable to fulfil this negotiating mandate for 30 years now. Yet, we still have the resources, including rooms blocked for meetings and interpreters and translators available for up to 24 weeks per year for the CD. Last year, the UN started the UN80 process on the reform of the entire UN system. These reforms imply streamlining, cost-saving measures, and more across the UN system. We see no reason why the disarmament machinery, and in particular the CD and the UN Disarmament Commission, should be exempted from this, especially when the machinery is not delivering on its mandate. Let me remind delegations that the financial resources of the CD come from the UN budget. This budget is derived from assessed contributions, in other words, from resources paid by all UN Member States. By that logic, it's only fair to allow non-members of the CD to observe the work of a conference they ultimately also pay for, so they can judge themselves whether the money is spent wisely. Chair, this is not to say that we are seeking to abolish the CD, or that limiting the number of meetings is a goal by itself. Rather, in the absence of the prospect for any negotiations, we feel everyone's time and budget would be spent better if we could cut the number of meetings, as some presidencies already did this year. instead of making the CD a kind of daycare for diplomats with panels and thematic discussions on topics already dealt with elsewhere, which is what we tend to end up doing in the CD already for years. Furthermore, it has become impossible to reflect even the most general descriptions of these discussions transparently in the report and the resolution. For this, We oppose keeping things as they are and simply hoping for better times, for hope is not a strategy, it is delayed disappointment. Chair, the Netherlands stands ready for transparency and accountability for the CD. upon the membership to allow eligible observers, regardless of their political views, into the meetings of the CD, and to rationalize the amount of time and financial resources we spent on the CD at the same time, and to revisit such a decision once the CD has resumed its function as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. I thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.


1st Committee · Chair [2:55:13]:

We have just heard from the last speaker for the explanations of the Board after the Board on cluster 7, disarmament machinery. The Committee has thus concluded its action on all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under the agenda items allocated to it. Distinguished delegates, We have also exhausted the time available to us this morning. The committee will reconvene tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM in this conference room, when we will adopt the draft provisional programme of the work and timetable of the first committee for 2027. It's contained in document A/C1/81/CRP4. The meeting is adjourned.