Artificial intelligence and international security - Security Council, 10228th meeting

The 10228th meeting of the Security Council is called to order. The provisional agenda for this meeting is: Maintenance of international peace and security: Artificial intelligence and international security. The agenda is adopted. In accordance with Rule 39 of the Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure, I invite the following briefers to participate in this meeting: Mr. Yoshua Bengio, Professor, Co-Chair of the UN International Independent Panel on AI; Mr. Sam Altman, Chief Executive Officer, OpenAI; Mr. Dario Amodei, Chief Executive Officer, Anthropic; and Mr. Clement Delangue, Chief Executive Officer, Hugging Face. It is so decided. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of item 2 of the agenda. I now give the floor to Mr. Yoshua Bengio.

Mr. President, Excellencies, First of all.

I would like to thank France for having convened this meeting.

Today, at a moment of global awakening, In recent months, AI agents developed by leading companies have acted in unacceptably dangerous ways against instructions. They took actions that would be crimes if committed by a human. They escaped their individual containment to cheat on assigned tasks while attempting to evade detection. The uncontrolled AI agents autonomously launched coordinated cyber attacks and altered their answers to hide their cheating. The companies building the most powerful AI systems admit their products pose catastrophic risks, yet offer no convincing technical solutions. Instead, they say they are locked in a race to make those AIs even more powerful, further amplifying these risks. This Council faces an unprecedented threat, one that none of its members would choose, that none can contain alone, and that does not respect the borders we defend. Many are skeptical of these companies' statements, suspecting a marketing stunt. I understand the distrust, but let me be clear. These AI behaviors are well documented and validated by many independent experts, not just with the events of the summer. The dangers are real and imminent. Although the future remains uncertain and debated, the severity of these risks is extraordinary. Citizens and governments should not accept the company's claim that they are trapped in a race. The race is not a law of nature. It is the product of choices, choices made by the companies themselves. It is also a race where everyone loses. They've told us they would slow down if they could. They can. However, we shouldn't count on it. Decisions about this technology are being made by a small group in a handful of countries. Our future, all of us, our future is at stake. Decisions that affect us all should be made by us all. The choice is still ours, but we must act now to correct the trajectory. I'm encouraged by this week's statements by the UN Secretary General and leaders of many countries calling for control of frontier AI. International cooperation is what the world needs in the face of three global threats from advances in these frontier models. First, catastrophic misuse, for example, by terrorists. Second, power concentration. And third, loss of control of AI. We must agree collectively that no one, no company, and no country should develop an AI system that could cause large-scale harm. Developers must demonstrate to independent experts that a system is safe to train and safe to deploy. They must monitor and report all security incidents. Frontier AI should be licensed like other critical technologies. in medicine, aviation, and nuclear energy to incentivize safe development. As in these domains, liability insurance should be required. The companies developing and hosting frontier systems must prove to the public that their products will not be dangerous. More and more people are rightly worried about recent advances in AI. we must channel that concern into productive action. As with other world-changing technologies, we can shape the outcome. I'm confident we can create AI that demonstrably remains under our control and supports human joy and endeavor. I'm working toward that goal. It's an urgent mission for humanity. Today, a handful of companies and countries are acting in their self-interest by taking reckless risks with humanity's fate. It's alarming, yes, but it is not inevitable. There are ways to fix this. First, we need true scientific independence from the companies, which must be held accountable. This includes a common definition of AI incidents and a shared reporting mechanism. Second, we must move from concentrated power toward real global dialogue on how this technology is developed for the public good. Third, we must work together on technical solutions that make AI safe by design, guaranteed by international agreements. I know trust within this Council is fragile, but I also know this: the race threatens every nation. I often describe our situation as a car speeding blindly into dense fog. Beside me in that car are my children and my grandson. I worry about them. I worry about their future. I'm no different from any other parent or grandparent. A mother in Shanghai wants her sons to grow up in a world where AI improves their lives, not undermines them. A father in Chicago wants his daughters to thrive because of AI, not to suffer its harms. Our hopes and concerns are the same. in every nation. Humanity has summoned the courage and wisdom to manage catastrophic risks before. This is one of those moments, far bigger than any personal, commercial, or national interests. Thank you.

I thank Mr. Benjey for his briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Sam Altman.

Thank you, Mr. President and your excellencies. I'm honored to be here and to be able to speak with you all at this important time. We've been talking about artificial intelligence for years, but it feels different in recent weeks and months. Rapid model progress has made the timeline feel more compressed, the upside more tangible, but also the stakes and the risks more immediate. We have a choice in front of us. AI can either be more like a new renaissance of creativity and discovery, or more like a new industrial revolution of upheaval and disarray. The Renaissance was a time when new tools, new ideas, and new institutions expanded what people believed they could do. AI can play that role for our time. I believe that people are much more capable than they imagine themselves to be, but have been held back by limited technology that was meant to empower, but instead distracts and often steals attention. The best version of AI is not about making people cogs in a giant machine. or optimizing every part of life until the human parts disappear. It's about giving people more agency in an ever more complex world, more ability to learn, to create, discover, build, participate. There are many things that AI cannot and should not automate. AI should be built for people, not simply to turn the crank of the machines faster for their own sake. Some of the things people working to build AI have said are so dystopian that they sound like the plot of bad science fiction movies. Anything this powerful is also intimidating. This moment is complicated as we feel both tremendous potential and very understandable anxiety at the same time. These models can help people discover new knowledge, new medicines, better health care, stronger education, and build more productive economies. They can be new tools for people to pursue dreams and ambition that today feel out of reach. The complexity of life has increased so dramatically for the average person. AI can be a defensive tool against this complexity as much as it can be this tool of unprecedented discovery and innovation. On the other hand, as AI systems become more capable and more autonomous, they could move faster than our institutions, concentrate power in too few hands, or make decisions that people no longer understand or control. That concern becomes especially important as we approach systems that can improve themselves and future versions of themselves. often called recursive self-improvement. As the process of building AI becomes more automated, the pace of AI progress could accelerate rapidly. This moment calls for extreme care. I largely agree with Professor Bengio, although I'll say two instead of three. I believe there are two ways that AI progress could go very badly that we have to avoid. First, we could lose control of the future to AI. The risk is that it moves so fast that people can no longer follow what's happening or intervene when needed. This would obviously be terrible. The industry must not accept too much technological risk just because the benefits are too great and that they feel too important to slow down. Beating companies in competitive race is not a reason to make rash decisions, nor do we believe we are locked in a race where we are unable to do that. We have unilaterally slowed down in the past. We will do so in the future. We do not want to build systems. We think it's important that everyone avoids building systems where we cannot make the alignment, monitorability, and safety guarantees that we must. We need to understand what these systems are doing and have strong evidence that they will do what people intend, even as they get very, very smart, actually, especially as they get very, very smart. It doesn't matter whether people put their risk of catastrophe at 10% or 1% or 12% or 0.1%. None of these levels are remotely acceptable. And we should not train models that we cannot make an extremely strong case they will be able to keep under human control. So that's one way things can go wrong. In the other direction, these systems could concentrate too much power in too few hands. No one person or company or country should be able to use the most powerful AI models to impose their worldview on everyone else. A company or country that believes only it can be trusted with this technology can use that belief to justify almost anything else. We have to reject that logic, even when it's convenient for any one actor. I believe there is a pragmatic path through both of these. At OpenAI, we approach these questions with a clear goal. AI should give people more power over their own lives, more freedom to live lives the way they want, more ability to solve problems, big or small, and to improve their communities. We don't wanna fall into the trap of blind optimism. We also don't wanna fall into the trap of doomerism either. Getting pulled into either extreme will not help us successfully figure out the challenges in front of us, especially at a time when the world and its people face such enormous challenges that this technology can help solve. So we try to walk the middle path between these two poles. For us, that means three principles. First, as AI becomes more capable, people must remain at the center of AI decision making. Alignment is not an abstract research question. It is the work of ensuring that these systems reliably remain under human control, reflect human values, and help people guide the next stages of development. We are not trying to and must not automate human judgment or human values. Second, the benefits of scientific progress and economic growth must be by people and for people. AI should help researchers make discoveries, doctors treat patients, teachers teach students, entrepreneurs start companies. communities solve problems that felt out of reach, and much more. The continuous story of human progress is not the tools replace human agency, it is that the right tools make people more capable, and I believe this is going to go much further than we believe possible. Third, this technology must empower people individually. A great future will come from people realizing their potential and building value for themselves, their communities, their countries, and the broader world. We might be the builders, one of the builders of this technology, but we are not the heroes of the story. Our role is to enable people all over the world and to trust in the magic of humanity's skill and faculties. We now have models capable of discovering knowledge that we have never had before. Consider the progress we've seen in math. Three summers ago, our models were okay at grade school math. Two summers ago, they were pretty good at high school math competitions. Last summer, we reached a gold level medal in the most prestigious international math competition. And just a few weeks ago this summer, one of our models solved one of the Millennium Prize problems, the Navier-Stokes equations. These equations are used for aircraft design, weather forecasting, and the study of blood flow. We are not solving math problems for their own sake, but to empower people to discover new knowledge and to use it to improve healthcare, raise standards of living, and expand everyone's potential around the world. There remains so much to be discovered. But it's very important that companies not substitute for the democratic process. If AI is to be democratic, the most important decisions cannot be made by labs in San Francisco alone. They must be shaped through democratic processes and by governments accountable to the people that they serve. At the international level, this will require cooperation. In our history, there have been times where countries who compete and don't always like each other very much still come together for shared interests and the collective good in the face of a powerful new technology. We believe this must be one of those times. We need a mechanism for complementary national and international frontier AI standards, standards for measuring capabilities, assessing risks, determining whether safeguards are sufficient, and preserving meaningful human oversight as systems become more autonomous. We need common standards so countries can compare evidence, verify compliance, and have a shared language and understanding about what is happening. We need accurate and speedy incident reporting, classification and reporting protocols so the world can learn from failures before they become catastrophes. And we need secure channels among governments, critical infrastructure operators, and technical experts to share emerging vulnerabilities and new threats. Obviously, these standards should not lock in incumbents or favor one business model over another. They must support open and closed model developers, new entrants and established labs, national authority, and international cooperation. Each government should decide how to incorporate standards into its own legal system, but we will all be better off if we can agree on what good evidence, good safeguards, and good oversight look like on the global stage. We do not have all the answers, and we're very open to any better ideas. We're ready to work with you all and try our hardest to figure out the path forward. We are at a crossroads. One path leads to a world where power is concentrated, decisions are opaque, And people feel that the most important technology of their lifetime is something being done to them. The other path leads to a world where AI works for people, because people, through democratic institutions, help decide how it should develop and guide it. Where scientific progress improves real lives, where more people can participate in the future, and where this technology continues to give individuals and communities greater power to live life as they choose. This is a future of realized potential, excitement and wonder, and it is the future we believe is worth building.

Thank you very much. I thank Mr. Altman for his briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Dario Amodei.

Good afternoon. I'd like to thank France for convening this meeting and the members of the Council for inviting me to speak. AI is advancing very quickly. Four years ago, it could barely write a line of code or solve a high school math problem. Today, it writes most of the code at Anthropic and solves world famous unsolved math problems. The trajectory only needs to continue for a tiny period longer, one or two years, maybe less, to reach what I've called a country of geniuses in the data center. This rapid pace of progress will produce incredible benefit for the world. Just today, Anthropic announced the Claude-led discovery of a new molecular machine. It's a preliminary finding, but it may constitute a new gene editing mechanism that could have applications in gene therapy. Claude led the literature review, theorizing, and experimental design, and humans ran and verified the experiments in the lab. We believe this type of application will accelerate rapidly in the years ahead, and that we can make profound progress in the near future on diseases that have plagued humanity for millennia. But these remarkable capabilities also come with risks that must be managed. I see two main categories of risk. The first is misuse of AI models, for example, misuse by bioterrorists to create biological weapons. The second risk is loss of control, model capabilities accelerating beyond developers' ability to control them. These questions are global in scope and concern all of humanity. They are grave enough that I believe they are important questions for this council, not just for economic or ICT ministries. If managed poorly, I even believe that AI could be a risk to humanity as a whole. At Anthropic, we believe we have the best track record in the industry for preventing these risks, both operationally and in our research. We test every model for dangerous capabilities in areas like cybersecurity and biology. We put strong safeguards on our most capable models, and we publish our work in these areas. We have pioneered research in areas like mechanistic interpretability and alignment science that improve our ability to steer and control our models. We also have unparalleled transparency practices, releasing risk reports that run to hundreds of pages. But we understand that as AI models become more powerful, even more stringent standards of safety will be required. And we are always aiming to improve our safety and alignment practices, our ability to prevent misuse, and we are always striving to do better. We will slow down as much as necessary in order to make sure that every successive AI technology that we release is actually safe. But regardless of what we do, managing these risks is ultimately bigger than any one company, and it has an industry-wide and global scale. On September 12th, I called for a collaborative effort to pace the frontier, not to stop AI progress, but to work together to make sure the industry and the world can proceed at a rate where we can be sure that safety keeps up with capability for everyone in the industry. This call had three parts. First, we committed to embed external evaluators inside Anthropic with employee-like access, similar to a food inspector, and we recommended that other companies across the world do the same. Some have already agreed to adopt this measure. Second, we called for cooperation across the industry to set standards and modulate the pace of progress. And finally, we called for global cooperation across the world between governments to set international standards. It is this last area that most squarely falls within this Council's remit. I want to offer three ideas in this regard. First, We should begin with narrow agreements that every member can support, such as a ban on using AI to make biological weapons or permitting your AI technologies to be used to make biological weapons. Second, we should build evaluation and verification systems that keep pace with AI development so that states can have visibility into frontier model capability and can verify each other's commitments. Third, we should establish common global standards for testing AI models for loss of control risks and misuse risks, and a notification system for AI incidents that are significant to global security. I believe that this is the most important global security issue facing the world today. For all the differences of the people in this room, we must put aside those differences in order to confront this global opportunity and global threat that is being presented to us at the same time. No leader, no company, and no nation can manage this alone. We commit to working with governments in this room on this urgent work. Thank you for your attention.

I thank Mr. Amadei for his briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Clement Delong.

President, members, thank you for the invitation. As a French national who moved to the U.S. 15 years ago, with a Brazilian and two American daughters, I see on a daily basis. Appreciation for the challenging work here. I'm also the co-founder and CEO of to be one of the most widely used for developers and agents, built by based on open source models. This July, we were the first company to publicly close an autonomous agent cyber attack to the world. And today, I want to share three critical lessons from it. First, we can all agree that we need more transparency in AI. I often wonder what would have had have decided not to exposed this attack publicly. Especially now that we know similar incidents had been happening months earlier in secret at a handful of frontier labs without monitoring. To better understand and mitigate these emerging cybersecurity risks, the global community needs stronger standards for monitoring and incident disclosure. For example, through mandatory sharing of full agent traces. We learned this summer that building and keeping some of these systems behind closed doors is not. Second, we realized that the biggest risk is not powerful AI, it's asymmetry of powerful AI. Asymmetry between attackers and defenders, between a few companies and everyone else, between a few countries and the rest of the world. asymmetry of control of capabilities, compute, asymmetry of power. When we, our team initially turned to Frontier close to us APIs that blocked us, so we couldn't use them because of safeguards that still can't always tell the difference and defenders. I realized that these safeguards, but they can put defenders at a disadvantage attackers can easily jailbreak them, increasing the asymmetry of capabilities. In our case, as we got blocked by guardrails, fortunately, we could use the NVIDIA version of an open source model coming from China called GLM 5.2 by ZAI, and we're very grateful for that. It reinforced our conviction of the importance of open source AI for defenders. Cyber attacks and risks may increasingly come from proprietary models behind closed doors, while much of the defense may end up being powered by open source tools because they are less restricted, more privacy preserving, and orders of magnitude more affordable for organizations across the globe. The world needs open source AI more than ever to defend itself. This applies obviously not only to cybersecurity, but to AI in general, where there has never been a greater need to distribute capabilities, resources, and control, rather than concentrate it in the hands of a few. Third, during this cyber attack, we learned how AI can stoke fear among the public, especially through anthropomorphic framing and sci-fi imagery. We strongly believe that fear-based narratives are not the way to make the right decisions about the future of such a foundational and empowering technology or bring the public along with us. Even though we were the victims of this cyber attack, we believe more strongly than ever that AI will be beneficial to cybersecurity and make the world safer just as major technology before it. We were attacked by AI, but more importantly, we defended ourselves with AI. The same systems that helped us during this attack are now helping us against cyber attacks we were already facing. It's also helping us fix the bugs and weaknesses in our systems before any attack. The same way AI is helping OpenAI fix their sandboxes to prevent I won't just new cybersecurity challenges. It can make cybersecurity fundamentally and meaningfully stronger if we keep the right incentives, equip defenders more than attackers, and don't increase the asymmetry between them. And that's before considering AI's positive impact on science, healthcare, education, productivity, and much more than the previous speakers have talked about. In closing, I want to reiterate what this first agent cyber attack told us. The need for more transparency in AI, more open source to fight asymmetry, empower countries big and small. Thank you again to the UN Security Council and Mr. Barrow for inviting me to speak today. Community and myself are at your disposal. Thank you very much.

I thank Mr. Delong for his briefing. I will now make a statement in my capacity as the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France. Ministers, ladies and gentlemen, 60 years ago, in 2001, a Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick imagined HAL 9000, an artificial intelligence that stopped obeying its creators and which eliminated members of the crew of the spaceship where it was located in order to accomplish its mission. For a long time, this scene belonged to the realm of science fiction, but this summer it nearly became a reality when OpenAI models circumvented the controls, isolating them from the internet, coordinated amongst themselves, and compromised part of Hugging Face's infrastructure. In another instance, anthropic agents collaborated without being instructed by any human to do so, and attempted to deploy malicious code by creating fake identities. Yes, the scaling up of AI models have led to the emergence of unanticipated capacities at an unexpected pace, which pose risks to international security. And that is why France has convened this meeting of the United Nations Security Council and invited the heads of the main companies concerned. Technology, as I have said, has reached a level of development that now directly impacts international peace and security. It therefore falls within the purview of this Council. Cohorts of agents are operating without any human oversight. Others are operating beyond the framework in which they were tested. And with these new capabilities comes a first risk that we might lose control of the systems that we have created, a risk that has already been pointed out by the previous briefers. The second risk stems from humanity itself. Artificial intelligence can make complex technical skills, often dual use skills, more accessible in these cyber, biological, and chemical domains, as well as in the field of disinformation. The third risk relates to autonomous weapons capable of using lethal force without any form of human control. While the development of artificial intelligence in the military domain may offer positive opportunities, as the President of the Republic stated before the General Assembly yesterday, the challenges regarding compliance with international humanitarian law, in particular those raised by the development and use of lethal autonomous weapons systems, illustrate the need to agree on a common framework. All of these challenges require that the United Nations Security Council also address the challenges that AI poses to international peace and security. These challenges also lead to the question now being raised by the industry itself, as well as its main representatives, how can we prevent the development of the most advanced models from outpacing our ability to understand and manage the risks they create. France is convinced of the immense possibilities offered by artificial intelligence. When used responsibly, artificial intelligence tools can support education, access to justice, healthcare, scientific research, and create colossal benefits for all of humanity. But in order for these possibilities to become a reality, advances in these capabilities must be accompanied by equivalent progress in our ability to understand, assess, and manage the risks they give rise to. Both must advance at the same pace. We must also take the time to assess the consequences of the spread of artificial intelligence for human dignity, a principle enshrined at the heart of the United Nations Charter. And indeed, the rapid pace of technological development raises risks that we can no longer ignore. Financial risk, left solely to the whims of the invisible hand of the market and the clash of powers, with massive reliance on debt to finance colossal investments, The AI bubble could seriously destabilize the global economy. There's the social risk, as you point out in the report of the independent scientific panel on AI, Mr. Bengio, artificial intelligence could impact the labor market deeply and exacerbate inequalities. Finally, there is the environmental risk. The development of artificial intelligence consumes increasing amount of energy and water resources. to the detriment of other uses. Let us not fool ourselves. Our fellow citizens are concerned, and the protests already sparked by the construction of data centers demonstrate this. If we ignore the full range of repercussions that the development of AI will have on our societies, the anger of our fellow citizens will continue to grow and risk hindering the adoption of positive uses of these technologies. Ladies and gentlemen, ultimately, the international community will need to establish a common framework to manage the risks associated with frontier AI models. We support the call issued this week by Norway and Finland. We are not starting from scratch. The many efforts now emerging, along with existing forums, should enable us to address four major challenges: The challenge of independently evaluating models before they're made available and throughout their life cycle. The challenge of ensuring transparency regarding how models function, but also how they malfunction, particularly in the event of an incident. The challenge of internal and external oversight over models functioning, their alignment and cybersecurity requirements from training through deployments. And finally, the issue of accountability and particularly legal liability of AI companies in the event of an incident, including during the development phase. It would be wrong to think that the solution lies in closed models and they're controlled by a handful of businesses. The openness of models is in fact a key driver of trust and security. It allows the scientific community to examine how they work, to identify their vulnerabilities, and ensure greater diversity among models, which is the foundation of resilience. As a permanent member of the Security Council and a state that possesses this technology, France will play its full part in building a collective framework that guarantees our security while allowing us to benefit from the immense progress that artificial intelligence can bring. In 2025, France hosted a summit fraction on AI. It supports the international network of AI safety institutes to involve more countries in defining common evaluation methods. France has already helped create international forums for discussions on the subject, such as the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence. the Coalition for Sustainable AI and the Coalition for Children's Rights and Protection in the Age of AI, which the President of the Republic convened yesterday here in New York, a coalition that will meet again during the Paris Forum for Peace. Ladies and gentlemen, by way of conclusion, in 1945, the dawn of the atomic age confronted humanity with a power whose possibilities and perils it was discovering simultaneously. Humanity had to devise rules, institutions, and instruments commensurate with that power. And that is the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nonproliferation Treaty. Just as with the atom back then, the international community must now regulate AI in order to make the most of its potential and avert the worst. We are now facing a moment of this very nature. The potential for transformation and disruption posed by AI is such that it cannot be left in the hands of a few private actors in a handful of countries. It is a democratic challenge, and this is something to be taken up by peoples and states. So let us work together within the UN framework and with the private sector to define the rules for this new age, to strengthen our safeguards without delay, and to establish global governance for artificial intelligence to benefit our collective security. but also the human person and human dignity. I now resume my functions as the President of the Council, and I give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Dar, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank France for convening this meeting today, and also appreciate the briefers for their valuable insights. Artificial intelligence is increasingly transforming all areas of life with deep impact on societies, economies, and security. The opportunities are immense, but so are the challenges. AI's impact is sharply evident in the context of international and regional peace and stability. As a force multiplier and cross-cutting dual-use technology, AI is defining the new chapter of modern warfare. The debate has shifted markedly in recent times. Those at the vanguard of AI development have themselves acknowledged that the pace of development of new AI systems could outturn our ability to understand and control them. Some have called for the frontier to be based cautiously in order to mitigate catastrophic risks. Mr. President, I will now make following five points. One, the foremost priority is to retain human judgment and control in all stages of AI design, development, and integration. Humans must remain in control to define structures, of AI systems as well as to limit speed and nature of its future capabilities. Two, we must ensure that AI does not become another facet of the ongoing arms race. Concerted efforts are required to erect the necessary guardrails, regulations, and governance frameworks. In the military domain, we need measures of restraint and confidence building to address the risks of miscalculation and compressed decision making. Three, AI should not be a monopoly of few actors. It should rather serve to address common challenges facing humanity. International collaboration in the development of AI is crucial to ensure that it is representative, comprehensive, transparent and inclusive. Four, AI supercharging existing challenges such as misinformation, fake news, cyber attacks, including on critical infrastructure by state and non-state actors. We must undertake concrete actions to address the gaps and challenges that carry huge implications for peace and security. Five, unfortunately, Rather than focusing on collective opportunity for our shared benefit, some are resorting to putting barriers to technology transfer. However, as witnessed in case of other technologies, the democratization of AI would be realized eventually. Measures pursued in the name of safety must not become instruments of denial of technology. Mr. President, Pakistan takes the call to pace the AI frontier seriously. We welcome the recognition that no single company or country can manage these risks alone, and that competitive pressures are driving a race that no one can win safely. But pacing must not become a new form of gatekeeping. If the speed of the frontier is set by a few among a few, while Others are held back through restrictions. Today's asymmetries and divide would aggravate and a safety agenda would turn into a strategy of technological exclusion. The risks of uncontrolled AI would be borne by all. Decisions on how to manage them cannot rest with a handful of companies or capitals. Mr. President, therefore, it is critical to avoid fragmentation in AI development and governance. Discriminatory agendas and inequitable forums with select representation are not helpful. Importantly, all relevant issues concerning the development and deployment of AI, as well as its broader implication, should be taken up comprehensively in representative and inclusive forums with universal participation under the UN auspices. We welcome the convening of the first UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance this year, late in Geneva. Mr. President, Pakistan extends its support to all collaborative efforts at the international arena to reap benefits of AI and address challenges in a cooperative manner. In this respect, we were happy to join as founding member of the China's initiative of establishing the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, as this represents a concrete step towards promoting the development of artificial intelligence for good and for all. Mr. President, for such a wide-ranging and fast-developing technology, confidence-building measures play a vital role in the maintenance of international and regional peace and security. Practical tools designed to reduce mistrust, prevent accidental escalation, and manage risks related to military and foundational AI systems are necessary for peace and security. Mr. President, Pakistan reaffirms its commitment to advance international cooperation in the area of artificial intelligence. We look forward to working closely with member states in efforts to help bridge the global divide, and promote equitable access to advance peace and development for all. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank His Excellency Mr. Darr for the statement. I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark.

President, as I said, I want to express my appreciation to France and to you, Foreign Minister Barrot, for having convened what I think is a very, very timely session on this significant topic. Let me also thank Mr. Benjio for briefing us and for your work in the United Nations Scientific Panel on AI. And thank you also, Mr. Altman, Mr. Amodei, and Mr. Delong, in particular, as practitioners and leaders in this field for your insightful reflections. You are at the forefront of the new frontier, and we very much welcome your participation today. Today, artificial intelligence is constantly developing and reaching capabilities we are only, I can only talk for myself, but I think also generally speaking, we are only beginning to understand. There's no doubt that AI driven technologies have the opportunity to strengthen and promote international peace and security and development, especially in light of the recent giant leaps forward in the capabilities of AI. The growing Emergence of AI technology offers the potential to support this Council's mandate, for instance, to enhance peacebuilding and peacekeeping through information verification, early warning, and in support of planning and operating the missions. In areas where the UN is denied access, satellite technology and AI software programs have helped the UN identify patterns of attacks and destruction of essential civilian infrastructure. Such information can play a vital role in alerting the Security Council. It can help us all to take timely action and prevent crisis from escalating. At the same time, we must recognize the risks presented by the development, use and misuse of new and emerging AI technology, in particular frontier AI models and lack of human control. This is the aim behind the call for control of frontier AI models initiated by Finland and Norway, and already supported by a number of countries, including Denmark. We need global cooperation on this agenda. Mr. President, the tension between, on the one hand, the important opportunities, and on the other hand, the risk, defines one of the most urgent challenges of our time, and that's why I think this discussion is very timely. Overcoming these challenges requires global AI governance, strengthened international cooperation and determined action without widening the global digital divide. The UN's global dialogue on AI governance is an important first step. Governance and regulation of AI are high on Denmark's agenda, including regulation of large tech companies. These efforts are not breaks on innovation and growth. They are, I think, essential efforts to ensure that technological progress serves the public interest and humanity in general. The unprecedented speed of AI innovation demonstrates the need for safeguards to ensure AI systems remain safe, remain secure and trustworthy. uncontrolled new technology could lead to dangerous and harmful effects. We are already seeing how they pose new threats, including to those who protect civilians in conflict, above all the medical mission. So Denmark underlines the importance of ensuring the responsible use of AI and that the use of AI is in accordance with international law. In this regard, We call on all States to ensure human control of AI and accountability for the development and use of AI, not least in the military domain, where accountability is absolutely essential. Mr. President, Denmark will continue to support the meaningful engagement of the Security Council and promote an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach to AI governance. Civil society and the private sector must play leading roles. Science and evidence must always inform our policies. We see the independent international scientific panel as an important contribution to credible and evidence-based AI governance. The panel provides us with a common scientific reference point. So, Mr. President, in closing, We need to consider how AI can contribute positively to shape international peace and security and bridge global digital divides. At the same time, we must remain clear-eyed of the significant risks and start building some strong guardrails so we can manage the global risk in due time.

Thank you.

I thank His Excellency Thank you, Mr. Rasmussen, for his statement. And I now give the floor for Carlos, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Panama.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, Mr. President. We thank France for convening this important meeting. Moreover, we thank Mr. Yoshua Bengio, co-chair of the Independent Scientific Panel of the United Nations on Artificial Intelligence, Mr. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, Mr. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, and Mr. Clement Delangue, CEO of Hugging Face, for their valuable presentations. Although today's meeting invites us to consider the risks caused and exacerbated by artificial intelligence, for Panama, it is necessary to begin this statement by highlighting its potential to transform the world in which we live. The capacity of these technologies to analyze enormous amounts of information, identify patterns, generate increasingly sophisticated videos, images, and code to automate tasks and to support planning and decision-making processes are all evidence of a transformation that is already underway, the scope of which we are barely beginning to understand. These tools have a wide array of applications that can benefit humanity. In Panama, our own national artificial intelligence strategy is identifying opportunities in sectors such as healthcare, agriculture, education, and logistics, where these technologies can offer solutions which just a few years ago would have seemed unimaginable. and it is specifically in this area of progress where if applied to other purposes we also see the main risks emerging artificial intelligence can also be used to amplify disinformation campaigns to allow for cyber attacks against critical infrastructure and to facilitate access to knowledge for the development of weapons among other uses that are already a threat to International Security and these risks are not hypothetical We are beginning to see them come to pass in situations that are directly related to this Council. There are recent reports on the use of artificial intelligence by non-state actors to develop guidance and navigation systems for rockets and missiles. On top of that, there are reports of autonomous weapons being used that are able to navigate and select targets completely independently or with very limited human intervention. It is precisely this growing autonomy which raises one of the most serious concerns that was noted in the concept note for this meeting, that is the possibility that the evolution of these systems could exceed our ability to maintain effective human control of them. There are decisions which, by their very nature, cannot be reduced to a statistical result, a statistical outcome. When human lives are at stake, it is vital that ethical, legal and contextual considerations be taken into account, which no calculation or algorithmic system can replace. This concern for control is not limited to extreme scenarios. As we begin to use analysis produced by artificial intelligence to steer and guide our decisions, it is essential that those that are in leadership positions be able to understand how these tools have arrived at a certain recommendation, what information underpins that recommendation, and what the margin of error is. Mr. President. Recognizing the risks of artificial intelligence does not mean ignoring the benefits that this technology is already providing our societies. The challenge is finding a balance that allows us to take advantage of these opportunities while also responding to the risks responsibly. In that regard, Panama recognizes the important role of the International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence to provide impartial and scientific information that can guide the discussions of the international community on these technologies. Equally, we welcome the initiative of the tech sector actors here present to proactively share information about specific cases of the misuse of these technologies and also about incidents in which their growing autonomy has generated concerns about the possible loss of human control of them. President. This meeting is evidence that in order to address the range of risks related to artificial intelligence, closer cooperation between states, the tech sector and other relevant actors will be essential. To that end, it is essential that we establish mechanisms for a more structured and permanent exchange of information on emerging risks, incidents, misuse and good practices. Artificial intelligence will inevitably continue to evolve and continue to transform the world in which we live. And the testimonies that we've heard today are evidence of that. Our responsibility is to make sure that this progress continues to be in the service of people and that it contributes to the construction of safer, more peaceful, more prosperous societies with a perspective of equity that allows all of the nations of the world, including the global south, to participate and benefit from its development. Thank you very much.

I thank His Excellency Anastros for his statement, and I now give the floor to His Excellency Christos Dementzopoulos, Deputy Minister for Digital Governance and AI of Greece.

Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking France, along with the briefers, for their remarks and for bringing to the attention of the Security Council the crucial issue of the link between the rapid technological advances in the field of AI and international peace and security, a subject that we will also tackle during our presidency. AI is already changing the way we think about international peace and security. It can help us prevent conflict, improve early warning, and make UN operations more effective. But it also creates risks that we are only beginning to understand. For Greece, our starting point is clear. AI must remain human-centric, secure, and trustworthy. Its development and use must respect international law, including the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law. And human responsibility and accountability must remain at the center of our approach. Our national approach combines innovation with governance. Greece has established the Special Secretariat for AI and Data Governance, implemented the national law for the EU AI Act, and is investing in strategic infrastructure, including the Dedalos supercomputer and the Pharos AI factory. In April 2025, together with France and the Republic of Korea, Greece organized an area formula meeting on harnessing safe, inclusive, and trustworthy AI for the maintenance of international peace and security. Today's discussion gives us an opportunity to take that conversation further. Allow me to make three points. First, We need to better understand the risks. AI can process enormous amounts of information and help us make better informed decisions. But speed is not always an advantage. In situations of crisis, AI can compress the time available for decisions and encourage excessive reliance on automated outputs. As AI increasingly enters decision-making processes, we must ensure that greater speed does not come at the expense of sound human judgment. These concerns become even more serious when AI enters military decision-making. Technology can assist human judgment. It cannot replace it. Responsibility and accountability for critical decisions must always remain human. Nowhere is this more important than in the nuclear domain. We must be extremely cautious about not integrating AI into nuclear command and control. The risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation are simply too great. Decisions of such consequence must remain under human control. Second, we need practical ways to reduce these risks. This starts with dialogue. We need greater transparency, confidence building, and a better common understanding of how international law applies to the development and use of AI. Important work is already underway. The re-aim process and the political declaration responsible military use of AI and autonomy have held advanced international discussion responsible military uses of AI. The United Nations has an essential role in bringing these different efforts together. The Security Council also has a role to play, not in regulating technology and not in duplicating the work of other UN bodies. Our responsibility is to understand what these technologies mean for international peace and security, and to act when those implications fall within our mandate. Third, addressing risks should not mean holding back innovation. We should make use of the opportunities AI provides while putting appropriate safeguards in place. And we cannot have this discussion without those who develop and use these technologies. We therefore support close engagement with academia, civil society, and the private sector alongside states and the United Nations. Such engagement should be inclusive, geographically representative, and gender balanced. Mr. President, AI will increasingly affect international peace and security. We cannot stop technological change, nor should we seek to. But we can work together to ensure that human beings remain responsible for decisions that matter most. For Greece, this means keeping international law, human responsibility, and accountability at the center of our approach. It also means keeping this Council focused on its primary responsibility: the maintenance of international peace and security. So Greece will continue to work with all members of the Council towards this objective. Thank you.

I thank His Excellency Mr. Demetropoulos for his statement. I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Ali Mohamed Omar, State Minister for Foreign Affairs of Somalia.

Mr. President, I thank France for convening this timely debate. I also thank Mr. Banjo, Oldman, Almeida, and de Lengua for their insightful briefing. Artificial intelligence is no longer only a technological or a developmental issue, it's our current reality, rapidly transforming society, economies, and our approach to peace and security. Its role in cyber operations, disinformation, critical infrastructure, and military decision-making places it firmly within the United Nations mandate. We must prevent AI from becoming a driver of a conflict while actively supporting its responsible use in early warning, crisis prevention, peacekeeping, humanitarian action, and civilian protection. In that vein, four core principles should guide us. Number one, first, a human responsibility must remain absolute. AI must operate strictly within the framework of international law. the purposes and the principles of the UN Charter and the respect of human rights and human dignity. States cannot delegate legal, ethical, and moral accountability to an algorithmist. We welcome the declaration affirming that AI must remain under a human direction, insight, and control. This principle is indispensable in decision involving the use of force, autonomous weapon systems, and nuclear command and control. Second, safety must come before deployment. Recent incidents involving AI agents reportedly bypassing safeguards, concealing their actions, and obtaining unauthorized access raises a serious question about whether existing controls can keep pace with the increasing autonomous systems. Private companies develop and control many of these systems, but commercial incentives cannot determine how much risk a human must accept. We therefore support a mandatory incident reporting, layered technical safeguards, independent audits, and measures to mitigate algorithmic bias and protect vulnerable populations. When agreed capability thresholds are crossed, deployment must be suspended until risks can be reliably managed. The Secretary-General's proposal to explore an international institution capable of setting standards, enabling verification, and convening states when such thresholds are crossed deserves a careful consideration. Third. Governance must address Africa's specific vulnerability and ensure equitable access. Limited computing infrastructure, unreliable connectivity, shortages of specialized expert, and fragmented regulatory capacity constrain the ability of many African states to evaluate advanced systems. Models trained on a foreign data may misrepresent African language and context. While synthetic data can inflame social tensions, interfere in fragile peace processes, and undermine elections, Africa cannot remain merely a market for systems developed elsewhere, a source of raw data, or a testing ground for a technology it did not help govern. We must prevent new forms of technological dependency and digital colonialism by supporting a regional framework, particularly partnership with African Union and strategies like the Pan-African AI Initiative. Developing countries require a targeted international cooperation. financing to bridge the digital and infrastructure energy and skills divide, alongside access to local data sets, evaluation tools, and computing power. Ensuring every nation has the right to develop, choose, and assess AI technology is essential for a national digital sovereignty and our shared global stability. Fourth, The United Nation must serve as the main general for global AI governance. Somali supporters, international norms anchored in the universal legitimacy of the UN, rather than fragmented rules established by a small number of technological advanced states and private corporations that risk reinforcing existing global inequalities. Global governance must uphold a people-centered approach that directs AI toward human well-being and common good. Developing regions, Africa in particular, must be granted a genuine representation and a voice in these multilateral processes. Alongside the institutional and technological capacity to evaluate AI systems independently, rather than relying on external determination. The measures of our success will not be the sophistication of our declaration, but whether we prevent the first AI-enabled crisis from becoming the next international conflict. The power of AI intelligence does not entail an inevitable outcome. It is shaped and given meaning by our values and our choices. The technology is advancing quickly. Our collective responsibility must advance faster. I thank you.

I thank His Excellency Mr. Omar for his statement. I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Ed Miliband, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development.

Affairs of the United Kingdom. Can I really thank you for convening this very, very important session and I also want to put on record my thanks to the expert speakers who have provided such an illuminating contribution to this session. I think we should stand back and take stock of what confronts us in this session of the Security Council. Because AI is a technology which undoubtedly has the power to transform our world for the better. I'm sure we all see it in our daily lives, we see it in all of our countries. But today, the founders of this technology are coming to us with a stark warning. They are telling us not just that they relish the chance of this technology to do good, but they fear its ability to do harm. They are telling us in stark terms that it cannot just be left to them to prevent disaster from befalling the world. I say today we cannot ignore them because they are right. Because we cannot abdicate our responsibility to our citizens. Because we cannot outsource to private companies the first duty of government to protect our people, whatever the issue. This Security Council was founded to address the great collective challenges of our time, so it is for governments for governments, as many of the people who have made contributions today from the tech world have said, for all of us around tables such as this to work together and together with industry to deliver in the interests of the people that have sent us here. And that is what the UK government is committed to doing. We must start with safety. This means working harder to ensure frontier AI models are rigorously tested. and building a system of assurance around model development to allow us to establish trust that models are safe. Second, transparency. The companies building the models cannot simply be left to their own devices. Governments must have the visibility to understand and assess what AI companies are doing. The leading AI companies have actually committed to provide this visibility. That is really important, and it is an offer that we and they should follow through on. Third, resilience. We have to harden our defences to reduce the impact of AI-enabled incidents. Even if we test every model, we must be prepared for AI to be misused. That includes boosting our cyber defences, protecting critical infrastructure and reinforcing our financial systems. And we must support our populations to manage and adjust to the disruption that AI will bring to how we live and work, as well as to harness its incredible benefits. I say today that the UK will play its full part in this process. We established the first AI Security Institute, which shares its leading expertise, testing capabilities, and research, working hand in glove with the United States and the leading labs on AI safety. As our Prime Minister set out yesterday, the UK will put AI at the heart of its G20 presidency next year, building on our track record of bringing the right people together on this issue, breaking down silos between government, industry researchers, and civil society, delivering on the potential of AI for good and dealing with the risks, whether in terms of the future of jobs, protecting children, cybersecurity, biosecurity, national security, or financial stability. As we also work to working towards agreeing a single set of global principles and standards to ensure the transparency and access necessary to increase our preparedness to ensure that AI development is safe and, as the previous speaker said, to seize potential for the global south and global north alike. Let me just end on this point. I think overall this is not a choice between progress and safety. We are only going to be able to innovate and capture the extraordinary benefits of AI, which I'm sure we all share in this room, if people have confidence that the right safeguards are in place. So together, we must take whatever measures are necessary so that AI is secure, safe, and trustworthy, while still advancing its incredible potential to drive growth, cure disease, and transform people's life chances. I end on this point finally. We cannot say that we have not been warned. We have been warned by the people who have founded this incredible technology, with its huge potential for good. We must act on their warnings, and we must act on them together.

I thank his excellency, Mr. Miliband, for his statement. I now give the floor to His Excellency, Mr. Michael Kratsios, Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, United States.

My sincerest thanks to the Republic of France as President of the Council. Distinguished colleagues, I am grateful for another opportunity to discuss the most consequential technological development of our time, superintelligence, formerly known as AI. Our primary responsibility is to ensure that continued advances in superintelligence benefit our citizens and safeguard their liberty and way of life. The frontier of intelligence is advancing rapidly. That is not a reason to pause its further development or to constrain it with new global governance structures. As the leader in frontier superintelligence, the US has taken actions to ensure we are able to keep the frontier moving safely and responsibly. We have engaged frontier labs on testing and evaluation of new model capabilities, established cybersecurity clearinghouses for coordination on vulnerability mitigation, and clarified the existing law enforcement tools available to address harmful uses of superintelligence. Internationally, the United States is committed to diplomacy and dialogue on emerging technologies. But international dialogue in this forum and in others cannot be allowed to drift towards global governance. As President Trump said before the General Assembly yesterday, the United States totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme of control of superintelligence. Only weeks ago, G20 innovation ministers reached consensus on the Carolina principles, agreeing that countries should preserve national sovereignty in the governance of emerging technologies, not abdicate responsibility to international bodies. The American people's representatives will legislate and regulate on the American people's behalf. You should do the same for your people. Only through an open, cooperative ecosystem built on sovereign infrastructure and domestic capacity can the world realize this technology's potential. U.S. international efforts seek to build that capacity by sharing our technology and providing the tools for adoption. We want you, our allies and partners, to share in the benefits from this technological revolution. That is the purpose of our exports program. The US is the only technology superpower willing and able to truly empower partner nations in your pursuit of a sovereign superintelligence capability. American companies will work with you to build gold standard secure infrastructure and help you implement the applications and development, the tools and capacity you need to serve your people. In this era, technology sovereignty is realized in technology adoption. If you take the risks and benefits of superintelligence seriously, the most important thing you can do is to develop your country's ability to understand and use it. Deploy it widely, build expertise inside your government, prepare your institutions and regulators, understand what these systems can and cannot do. You cannot govern technology you do not understand. This body and others like it should focus on sharing best practices to build domestic capacity, not establishing a global regulatory scheme. It is through a policy of permissionless innovation, a tireless pursuit of the frontier, and an optimism about the future of technology that the United States built the greatest innovation ecosystem ever known to man. For 250 years, the American character has sought a virtuous balance between innovation and safety, independence and security. Superintelligence is the latest in that long series of challenges and opportunities. In the service of humankind, it can become the greatest engine of growth and prosperity in history. A prosperous future will not be secured by a global regulator. It will be secured by sovereign nations that adopt superintelligence. responsible companies that build it, and free people who refuse to be ruled by fear. Thank you.

I thank His Excellency, Mr. Kratsios, for his statement. I now give the floor to His Excellency, Mr. Sheikh Abdullah bin Ali Al Khalifa, Acting Under-Secretary for Political Affairs in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Bahrain.

Mr. President, allow me At the outset, to express sincere thanks and appreciation to the friendly French Republic for convening this important session. I also extend my thanks to Mr. Bengio, co-chair of the UN Independent Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence. Mr. Altman, CEO of OpenAI; Mr. Amodei, CEO of Anthropic; and Mr. DeLange, CEO of Hugging Face, for their valuable briefings. Mr. President, Discussing the implications of artificial intelligence is no longer a matter of intellectual interest; it has become an urgent necessity dictated by this Council's responsibilities for maintaining international peace and security. Guided by this principle, the Kingdom of Bahrain emphasized in the statement delivered by His Royal Highness Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince and Prime Minister, during the 79th session of the Assembly the importance of concluding an international treaty to govern the development of artificial intelligence and ensure that it serves as a force for innovation rather than destruction. Consistent with this approach, Bahrain recently had the honor of co-hosting an interactive dialogue with France and Latvia on harnessing this technology for conflict resolution. Mr. President, We stress that the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence expands the scope of security threats, particularly when these technologies are exploited by terrorists and criminal groups. As the autonomy of these systems grows, we emphasize the need to maintain human oversight and accountability at the core of decisions with serious security implications and ensure their full compliance with international law and international humanitarian law. Unlike automated algorithms, only humans exercise reason, responsibility, and conscience, and possess the ability to discern complex contexts. At the same time, we must not overlook the immense opportunities to harness artificial intelligence to enhance early warning systems, monitor indicators of tension, support mediation efforts, and improve effective peacekeeping operations. We also stress the need for bridging the digital divide and facilitating technology transfer to ensure that all nations can benefit from these capabilities. In conclusion, we stress the need for Security Council to hold more regular and systematic discussions on artificial intelligence. These discussions should complement broader UN efforts to address frameworks for the development and testing of these models in line with international law. We stand ready to contribute to advancing these discussions to build a responsible, and balanced international approach, one that places humans at the heart of decision-making and ensures that the innovations we create today continue to serve the peace we all strive to uphold in this Council. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank His Excellency Al Khalifa for his statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of Latvia.

Thank you, Mr. President.

First of all, I would like to thank the French presidency for convening this meeting on an important and extremely urgent subject for international security.

Professor Yoshua Bengio, Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Clement Delongue for their enlightening assessment and also the proposals for safe development of the AI. President, The rapid pace of AI development is already having profound impact across all domains, including international peace and security. Alongside the extraordinary opportunities that AI offers, we also see growing risks manifesting both in peace time and in conflict settings. This is a moment for collective action. as we hear today and as highlighted in the call for control of frontier AI models initiated by Norway and Finland, issued on Monday 22nd by 22nd world leaders, including the President of Latvia. We believe that the Security Council has a responsibility to ensure that the implications of AI for international peace and security are fully considered. without duplicating work undertaken in other fora, of course. But today's discussion demonstrates the Council's ability to convene Member State, science and industry leaders to address this pressing matter. President, two distinct sources of AI-related risks for peace and security are becoming evident. Both demand our attention. First are the risks stemming from the misuse of AI by state and non-state actors. It includes application of AI in malign cyber activities, information manipulation, and even attempts to acquire destructive capabilities such as biological weapons. Second, a more novel and complex challenge, as outlined by the briefers and the recent reports, stems from the technology itself. such as misalignment and risk of loss of control. Such behavior risks are source of new forms of vulnerability, including to critical infrastructure. Alarmingly, recent incidents indicate that not only can AI systems act contrary to human intentions and interests, but they are becoming better at manipulating and deceiving humans as they do so. These challenges are not an isolated matter. as they add to the already complex international peace and security landscape. Actions by misaligned AI may fuel further tensions and miscalculation due to the difficulty to track, verify, and attribute them. The increasing use of AI and autonomous systems in the military domain poses additional dilemmas, particularly where reliability, control, and escalation risks intersect. President, Responsible action starts at the industry level, but also with governance, clear guardrails, and capable institutions. A multi-stakeholder approach is essential to manage risks and build trust in AI. Through transparency and accountability, through establishment of adequate safety protocols for the development and use of AI systems, through independent evaluation, through connecting the government's mandate academic expertise, civil society, and industry innovation. And all these require international cooperation. Coordination, norm setting, exchange of best practices, and capacity building is key to bridge the divide and foster interoperability. The convening of the UN Global Dialogue on AI governance and the establishment of the independent scientific panel on AI are important steps. Our further efforts should keep up with the pace of development of frontier AI technologies. As highlighted in the call for control of frontier AI models, we need an open-minded approach by the UN member states to build on current international mechanisms and explore developing new ones. The overall objective should be to ensure that technology serves people, safeguards fundamental rights and freedoms, and delivers benefits that do not come at the expense of uncontrollable risks. If there is one thing that we should be able to agree on, AI must remain under human direction, oversight, and control. President, considering its role in maintaining international peace and security, this Council must remain actively engaged in assessing the implications of AI for global peace and security. With this technology becoming increasingly relevant to the Council's work in the area of conflict prevention and resolution, proactive approach is necessary. And building on the recent Council's informal interactive dialogue on AI that was organized by Latvia and France, and supported by Bahrain and Greece, we are committed to taking further concrete steps, for instance, establishment of Council's informal expert group that would enable more in-depth Council analysis of the impact of AI-related technologies on international peace and security and the implementation of the Council's mandate. Latvia will continue to work with interested partners on the Council in the coming months. I thank you.

I thank the permanent representative of Latvia for her statement. I now give the floor to the permanent representative of Colombia.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colombia considers that here we are not discussing the benefits of artificial intelligence, but really it is the risks that come to the fore, the uncontrollable, unavoidable risks, and quite clearly, following the briefings that we have heard, the risk for humanity.

We cannot ignore bluntly the report that we have heard. It's the first time this Security Council, and it's on the record for history, has heard a case where machines commit crimes. This is not just a random mistake. Other person, it will be other company, even state secrets. please try to convey the idea for those that produce intelligence or artificial intelligence that the large part of the planet does not. And as such, the critical infrastructure, including cybersecurity systems, will be exposed. If you read the cases that were explained to us today, we will know that it will be a crime even against a state, if this will take place at a state level, and it can happen. The second element for us, and perhaps the major concern, is that we haven't framed the issue correctly, and we must make a refrain of the issue. I do not think, and Colombia does not think, that the issue here is to limit human innovation, but machine innovation. And I explain my words here. Different reports has telling us that we face two risks. One is misalignment and the other is the loss of control. When it comes to misalignment, is that the machines are separating or are finding ways to cheat, break the instructions that were given by humans. That is, the agents, AI agents are able to do this repeatedly, systematically. And so far, even in the cybersecurity case that we analyzed, they were able to reach internet and find ways to cheat the system. Other times, they are able to find out passwords, send thousands of messages even against the company that was testing these machines in the sandbox. But the other one, and the one that should be very, very concerning for this Council, is the loss of control. So we would like to go with you with a logical narrative. We are telling us today that AI has an immense capability to storage information that is far, far away from human capability. We are knowing now that given the models that we are adapting, but also the design of the algorithm and the paths that we open in that design, these capabilities also allow to involve a different type of reasoning each day more complex, interdisciplinary. In other words, soon there won't be any human capable of following the operation, the development of what we are creating. In the first days of the models, we noticed how the machine were able to pass a bar exam in three months, a medical license exam in three months. So there are no humans that we know that can do that. But at this state-of-the-art of the technology, we are facing a different type of situation, which is a path from human mistakes to machines' random mistakes. And we have to be aware of the risks that we are facing and assuming if that is the path we choose to take. The critical issue here is to know, as a Security Council, what are we regulating, why we need to regulate it, and why we should do it. Most importantly, Colombia understands the position of the United States and shares partially its practical approach, which is an international body over sign the sovereign production of AI is impractical for two basic reasons. There are, of course, constitutional and national security reasons in every country. So the legal battle will be overwhelming. But secondly, if one country stops, the other says, I do not, especially those that are leading the race for the rest of humanity. the concerns and for those that are behind but will soon catch up, the concern is what we do next. And that's where our country can perhaps offer a different approach. And again, no between an ineluctable choice between safety and development, but perhaps a way to make sure that all humans on Earth are including, not just by sharing or as we use the term, adapting our countries. Because it seems to us in the global south that when we call about adapting is to buy a product that we will not produce. And once we buy the product, we can adapt our structures and infrastructures, again, partially true. But many of these countries will face an undeniable gap that will extend even a century between another country and the other. If we do not participate of the production of AI, that's one issue. And that's a very, very important issue for the global south. We do not believe that just by adapting our infrastructure, by making it safer, we will also get rid of the lateral and collateral problems. And that's when we come to the point today, we could lose millions of jobs. That is a possibility that is being entertained even in developed countries. We have seen how AI start writing the code. And that for us is perhaps the only place that we should start the regulation, because no one discusses, no one would say that AI is not beneficial for research, health, development, technology, communications, cure diseases, et cetera. Well, the benefits are why known and we are not trying to stop it, but it seems that we are reaching a new step on AI. And the US is right. This is super intelligence for one particular reason only. We are about to take the step that a greater and potentially more complex technology, quantum technology, will boost artificial intelligence in the design, in the model, in the modeling, and the development. So the risks that we are facing today, I want to call the attention of the Council, are pre-quantum risks. So that is before we reach that state, but we are very, very close to reach that state. But the concern inside for us, and perhaps this is what we will offer as a different approach, rather than thinking of an international oversight, the Security Council is concerned because this technology has the potential to disrupt and create not just more inequality across the planet, including violence, but also development gaps that will lead us to other types of conflicts, including global migration, et cetera. So We propose to you, we submit to you an important consideration in which perhaps we can start just for that domain because this is it. This is the moment. Autonomous design and autonomous development. This is what is really, really at stake here. Should we allow that machines AI agents take the next step that are showing by the experiments, that are showing by the cases they present to us and that had been published actually, not just today. There are many article journals, these are everywhere, that tell us how the machine finds another way, a different way, different than humans. When we lose control, one of the major risk of risk management here, which is once we do no longer understand what the machine is doing, because if we go to super intelligence and we do not possess as humans such a capacity, we are assuming that we are controlling something that we cannot understand. And one of the main elements for this technology, and I listened to the all interventions today, we want to make sure that this remain human. Well, you see, that's the problem. The human brain needs to understand the information that has in front of it to make a decision. But it seems to us that we are soon going to leave that stage and we are going to leave that stage because the way the technology is being developed And this is not just a matter of ethical limits. We understand that that will be contradictory for many, and it will be also a problem in terms of legislation and regulations. Some might even see that as a red tape, et cetera. No, this is another step because if the machine is the one that starts leading the design, in other words, the methods, the paths, the outcomes. If this is not just and soon will not be a problem of the input and the unreachable goal. In other words, it seems now that the machine is trying to just get the goal done, get things done. And to do that is finding paths that humans usually do not take one and did not instruct to take, yet it find a way. And it cheats and it conceals the outcome. And that is a concern, of course. One is that is misalignment. The second one now, however, is that soon, and Mr. Sam Altman really, really pointed out to this risk, is that the autonomous development of artificial intelligence, what really means is this, that machines write the code. that machines find the paths, that machines establish solutions. And again, this is pre-quantum era. So it will be naive, at least to say, to think that we will be able to even regulate something that soon we will not understand. And this is why, perhaps, this is the moment in history that all nations has to come together, at least with one common goal, Let's keep it human. So we should agree that we want development. We might even agree that we don't want oversight. We should understand the concerns in terms of sovereignty, especially of the nations that have a greater scientific development. It is not their fault to be fully innovative capacities, et cetera. But at least for the rest of humanity, it should be important that we decide How far we go, this is again, is not just an ethical control. We are not talking even about yet about human rights. Some countries think that we should in terms of private, et cetera. No, no, no. This is the next step. Are we going to allow machines to build machines, to design their own AI? And if we are there already, and that's perhaps the most important element, is for the countries to decide at least that, because in practice, Mr. President, for many other countries,

particularly Latin American countries, in practice, this means a risk for the national production of many countries, countries that aren't producing artificial intelligence, and those that have been invited to buy artificial intelligence and invest in it. And probably doing that would be the most logical path for them to modernize the infrastructure of each nation and make it as safe and secure as possible. But ultimately, the question remains the same. If we have regulations even down to the production of a tire or a toothbrush, if we regulate the production of cars, if we do that with nuclear weapons, the question remains the same. In scientific progress, including among the most important things, the Einstein's, the movement from from towards Einstein's special theory of relativity. We not only verified that time moves differently in different spaces, but we also came to understand the scientific that scientific precision is based on perception. And we changed the formula from constant velocity that did not include gravity to another one that did include gravity. And we reached a scientific understanding, perhaps the most important one of the 20th century, without which we would not have GPS, for example. But there was one characteristic common to all of those cases, including the production of nuclear weapons, and that is that human beings were always in control. Human beings understood the risks. They knew what they were doing and they knew what they were producing. And that's why they regulated it. The concern for countries such as Colombia isn't scientific progress. Colombia invites investment in artificial intelligence and wants data centers in its country. We are a strategic partner of various countries, including the United States in particular, and naturally we are interested in being part of this, not just on the consumption side, but also the production side of artificial intelligence. And certainly through the vision of rare earths as well, but there is something that goes beyond bilateral, commercial or national interests, and that is the interests of humanity, beyond our own time, beyond our own generation, and the time that is allotted to each and every one of us. We are here now, and we need to ask ourselves this differentiated question. Right now, We are setting this precedent, which in the view of a country such as Colombia seems to be delicate. We regulated nuclear weapons, we regulate the manufacturing of tires, we even regulate the provision of homes. Anything that could jeopardize the lives of the people that use those things is regulated. So why then would we not regulate something which soon we are not even going to understand? That makes no sense. Superintelligence is not just the ability to achieve that through scientific transformation, but also the ability to have that, to know when we are no longer on the same level. Thank you very much, President.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Colombia for the statement. I will now give the floor to Her Excellency Ms. Therese Wagner, Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation, and Francophonie of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. The Democratic Republic of the Congo thanks France, as well as His Excellency, Mr. Jean-Noel Barrot, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, for having convened and chaired this important meeting. I also thank the briefers for their contribution to our collective reflection. Our debate takes place at a pivotal moment. Artificial intelligence is no longer merely a matter of scientific progress or economic competitiveness. Because of the speed of its development, the scope of its applications, and its growing integration into critical infrastructure and decision-making systems, it now raises questions that directly affect international peace and security. And this reality imposes a responsibility upon us, the responsibility to anticipate risks without hindering innovation, to preserve the benefits of technological progress while preventing it from becoming an additional factor of instability, vulnerability and conflict. The United Nations have begun laying the foundations for this reflection, the work undertaken by the General Assembly on safe secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence, the establishment of the independent international scientific panel on AI, and the global dialogue on AI governance, as well as the Security Council's work on the implications of scientific and technological advances for international peace and security. All of these constitute important milestones. It is now our responsibility to go further from anticipation to prevention and from prevention to international cooperation. that is commensurate with the transformations underway. Presidents, the risks we face are numerous. Increasingly capable and autonomous systems can create new vulnerabilities for critical infrastructure and decision-making processes. Their use in military and security contexts raises fundamental questions of accountability, predictability, and human control. We must also remain vigilant regarding the unforeseen behavior of certain systems, the possibility of circumventing security safeguards, and the growing difficulties states may encounter in understanding, assessing, and regulating technologies whose capabilities are evolving at an unprecedented pace. These issues take on a particularly tangible dimension in conflict situations. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as in other theaters of crisis, surveillance technologies and drones already play a growing role in the operational environment. These technologies can contribute to reconnaissance, observation, and ceasefire monitoring. They can also be diverted for military reconnaissance, coordination, disinformation, or propaganda purposes. This ambivalence reminds us of an essential truth. No technology is in itself an instrument of peace or conflict. It is the framework within which it is designed, deployed, and governed that largely determines its impact. That is why responsibility must remain at the heart of our reflection. States have a responsibility to establish appropriate legal frameworks, ensure effective oversight, and prevent risks that could affect international peace and security. Technology companies must also fully assume their share of responsibility, particularly through risk assessments prior to deployment, incident reporting, traceability, transparency, and maintaining appropriate human oversight. The scientific community and civil society must likewise be able to contribute their independent expertise and participate in the critical assessment of risks. But national responses, as necessary as they may be, will not suffice. Technological interdependence calls for shared responsibility. It requires closer international cooperation based in particular on the exchange of information concerning serious incidents and identified vulnerabilities, cooperation in evaluation and safety testing, as well as the establishment of communication channels among government, scientists, and technology stakeholders. President, for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, this cooperation must also meet a fundamental requirement, that of inclusion. Developing countries cannot be reduced to the role of mere users of technologies designed elsewhere, nor should be the mere recipients of standards and norms that they did not adequately participate in shaping. They must possess the scientific, technical, and institutional capacities that enable them to assess the technologies to which their populations and economies are exposed, to participate in their governance, and above all, to contribute to innovation themselves. This requirement of inclusion leads us to consider artificial intelligence across its entire value chain. Despite its seemingly immaterial nature, the AI revolution rests upon profoundly material realities, infrastructure, energy, industrial capabilities, and strategic natural resources. This dimension is of particular importance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. During its presidency of the Security Council last July, my country invited the Council to reflect on how responsible, transparent, and equitable governance of natural resources can contribute to conflict prevention, supply chain security, and the emergence of shared prosperity. The AI revolution gives this reflection additional relevance. We must ensure that technological transformations of the 21st century do not reproduce the economic imbalances of previous decades. Countries supplying essential resources to the global economy while processing technology and most of the added value remain concentrated elsewhere. The security of supply chains cannot be separated from the prosperity of the populations at their source. That is why AI governance must also be approached from a logic of shared responsibility. responsibility in the design of systems, responsibility in their use, and responsibility within the value chains that make their development possible, and also responsibility in the distribution of the benefits of technological progress. For the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the objective is clear, the resources that help make the digital revolution possible must also contribute to the development, economic transformation, industrialization, and strengthening of the technological capabilities of those countries that produce them. This is not merely a matter of development. It is also a matter of peace. When value chains are opaque and benefits are distributed unequally, and when producing communities remain excluded from the prosperity generated by their own resources, economic vulnerabilities can fuel tensions, and conflict economies. Conversely, when resources are governed responsibly, when local processing creates jobs and opportunities, and when populations genuinely share in the benefits of growth, supply chains can not only become more secure and resilient, but also chains of shared prosperity. Mr. President, it is precisely here that the Security Council can bring added value. It is not the Council's role to replace the appropriate bodies responsible for developing the full range of technical rules relating to AI, but it is fully within the Council's remit to anticipate the risks that may affect international peace and security, to consider how new technologies transform conflict dynamics, to protect civilians, to encourage confidence-building measures, and to ensure that technological transformations do not create new vulnerabilities that could fuel instability. Our objective must therefore not be to choose between innovation and security any more than it should be to choose between natural resources and development. Our responsibility is to govern progress so that it serves humanity. As July under the presidency of the DRC, our council reflected on how to transform natural resources, which are too often associated with conflict economies, into instruments of peace, cooperation, and shared prosperity. Today, the AI revolution in another form puts us in front of a similar question. How can we ensure that technological progress reduces divisions rather than deepening them? How can we ensure that it strengthens states' capacities rather than creating new dependencies? And finally, how can we ensure that value chains, the value chains supporting this revolution, contribute to the peace and prosperity of the societies that make them possible? For the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the answer must rest on three principles, shared responsibility, inclusion, and shared prosperity. As the capabilities of artificial intelligence advance, our collective capacity to govern them must advance alongside them. Because whether the subject is natural resources or artificial intelligence, the fundamental question remains the same. It is not only about what our resources and technologies enable us to do, but also about what we collectively decide to do with them. And that is where our common responsibility begins. Thank you.

I thank Her Excellency Ms. Kikwombo-Wagner for the statement, and I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of China.

Thank you, President. I thank France for convening this meeting and thank the briefers for their presentations. Artificial intelligence, or AI, is an important driver of the new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation, and as such, brings to humanity immense convenience and opportunities for their life and productive activities, while also creating new issues and challenges for international peace and security. It is incumbent upon the international community to work more closely together, attach equal importance to development and security, and steer AI development for the positive, for good, and for humanity, thereby contributing to world peace, stability, development, and prosperity. I wish to underscore the following points. The first point is about respecting digital sovereignty and advocating openness for mutual benefit. As AI technology is deeply embedded in global production and supply chains, and innovation, networks. All countries have the right to independently choose AI technologies, products and services following the dictates of their actual needs and market principles. Banding together into a petty us versus them clique in the tech sector and forcing other countries to take sides is tantamount to politicizing and instrumentalizing tech issues in the service of certain major powers' attempt to maintain their technological edge through monopoly in their quest for digital hegemony. This not only hampers global tech progress to the detriment of the development rights and interests of all countries, especially smaller nations, but also increases the risk of fragmentation of technical standards and incompatibility between systems, and thus putting global security in serious jeopardy. We call on all countries to enhance exchanges and cooperation, promote open source and open ecosystems, and work together for global scientific and technological advancement. My second point is about strengthening risk awareness and ensuring that AI is secure and controllable. All countries should uphold the people centered philosophy, making sure AI research, development and application are in line with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and applicable international law, as well as the common values of humanity and social ethics. In response to the inherent and secondary risks posed by AI, it is necessary to continuously improve regulatory frameworks, emergency response, and cross-border cooperation mechanisms, and resolutely combat the malicious abuse of AI by terrorist organizations, extremist forces, and transnational criminal groups. Relevant businesses, especially tech giants, should fulfill their social responsibilities, counter disinformation and hate speech, and subject themselves to regulation by law and oversight by the public. Regarding AI R&D and application in the military domain, all countries should take a prudent and responsible approach, avoid strategic miscalculations and an arms race, oppose the use of related weapons for indiscriminate attacks or deliberate strikes against civilians and civilian facilities, and make sure that the ultimate decision-making power stays with humans. The third point is about upholding AI for good and strengthening technological empowerment. AI has unlocked many possibilities for addressing global challenges, such as those related to climate change, food security, public health, energy transition, and natural disasters. The international community should seize this historic opportunity, support the empowerment of all industries through AI technologies and provide guidance for technological advances to better translate into improvements in public well-being. We welcome the United Nations efforts to make the best use of existing resources and apply AI technology to enhance the quality and efficiency of its work, thereby providing more agile and responsive service to member states. UN field missions, with the consent of the host governments and in line with their respective mandates, may use AI technology properly to strengthen their situational awareness, information analysis, risk early warning, and rapid response capabilities. My fourth point is about promoting fairness and inclusivity and improving global governance. AI is a shared asset for all humanity and should not become rich countries' and rich people's game. We must prevent the digital and AI divide from exacerbating the development divide, increase support for the global south, help people of all countries peacefully partake of the dividends of technological progress and make them more resilient against security risks. We must practice true multilateralism, support the UN as the main forum of global AI governance, and give developing countries more representation and a bigger voice. On the basis of respecting the diversity of civilizations and the uniqueness of each country's culture, we should enhance alignment and coordination on AI development strategies, governance rules, and technical standards, and form a consensus-based global governance framework at an early date so as to build institutional guardrails that preserve international peace and security. President, China is an important practitioner in AI innovation and development and an active contributor to global governance. Since President Xi Jinping launched the Global AI Governance Initiative, China has helped the UN General Assembly adopt by consensus the resolution on enhancing international cooperation on capacity building of artificial intelligence and tabled the AI capacity building action plan for good. for all and the AI plus international cooperation initiative. In July this year, President Xi Jinping announced at the World AI Conference that in the next five years, China will provide 5000 opportunities in AI training and seminar programs for developing countries. Build international AI application cooperation centers for ASEAN, the League of Arab States, the African Union, CELEK, The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS and advanced the application of the AI-powered meteorological warning system named MAZU in 30 countries. proposed and championed by China and in response to the call of our time. The World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, or WAIICO for short, was founded in the city of Shanghai. It is the world's first ever intergovernmental international organization dedicated to AI. We welcome more countries to join this open platform and look forward to working with all nations to help build a just and equitable system for global AI governance. Together, we can and shall create a brighter future for humanity. Thank you, President.

I thank the permanent representative of China for the statement. I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.

Mr. President, we thank the briefers for their contributions to the discussion. Today, artificial intelligence has become quite a trendy topic, and there is virtually no one in the world who is indifferent to it. It is now being discussed in a variety of political and expert fora. And the Security Council is no exception. However, this principal organ of the United Nations has clear limitations. First of all, it is hard to see how the generic topic of artificial intelligence is related to the Council's mandate as clearly defined in the UN Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security. Secondly, and equally importantly, the countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are underrepresented in the Security Council. The voice of the global South is unlikely to be heard in full. Accordingly, there is a high risk that the dominant group of Western states in the Council, which is interested in preserving and consolidating its technological leadership in this area, will seek to impose its narrow, self-serving approach on the entire international community to the detriment of the prerogative of inclusive specialized mechanisms engaged in practical work in this field. And regrettably, this is already happening. One striking example is the holding of closed door summits on the so-called responsible military use of AI, to which most developing countries are not invited. Finally, Issues relating to both the civilian and military applications of AI technologies are complex and multidimensional. And that is precisely why these issues should be discussed in relevant specialized fora. For instance, discussions of AI-enabled cyber attacks would be more appropriate within the global mechanism established as the successor to the UN Open-Ended Working Group on Security of and in the Use of ICTs. And for the consideration of the military aspects of AI, there is the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, which operates under the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. would like to draw colleagues' attention to the fact that the GGE in Geneva adopted a substantive consensus report just three weeks ago. This outcome serves as a practical confirmation of the effectiveness and relevance of that forum. Most importantly, the report contains a working definition of lethal autonomous weapons systems. common understandings regarding the applicability of the norms of international law to such systems, including international humanitarian law, as well as parameters for ensuring human control in order to mitigate risks associated with the military use of AI. We do not believe it would be advisable to undermine the constructive work that has already been accomplished in Geneva. For our part, we are ready to continue participating actively in the group's work with a view to further aligning common approaches in this area. Mr. President, we have carefully studied the concept note for today's meeting circulated by the French presidency. We believe it is counterproductive to consider the use of AI technologies solely through the lens of risk. After all, every coin has two sides. The advantages of AI include reliability, security, and above all, speed, including in decision making. AI allows to carry out an effective analysis of large data sets. It can help to identify threats. enhance situational awareness, and improve precision in the conduct of operations, as well as reduce risks to the civilian population and strengthen the protection of civilian objects. At the same time, of course, it must be borne in mind that this technology also entails risks. Minimizing them is first and foremost, a matter of ensuring human control over the functioning of AI-enabled technologies. Specific forms of such controls are determined by states in practice at the national level. Some possible means of ensuring human control include, for example, enhancing system reliability and resiliency, limiting the types of targets, restricting the duration of operation, geographical scope and scale of use, and timely intervention and deactivation of the system. In addition, steps must also undertake measures to detect and minimize errors in algorithms and data sets, as well as adopt appropriate measures to prevent and suppress violations of international law in the context of the development and use of relevant technologies. Such measures could include effective life cycle management of weapons systems and military equipment, establishing readiness criteria, and ensuring maximum protection from unauthorized access. We also see added value in exchanging views and developing specific recommendations and guidelines. However, it is important that this be done exclusively in relevant specialized bodies. Russia does not object to a multilateral dialogue on the applications of AI in principle, and this includes the military applications of AI, as well as considering the implications of the use of such tools for international peace and security. We are convinced, however, that such a dialogue must be based on consensus and inclusiveness and be intergovernmental in nature. These fundamental principles are intended to guarantee that the interests of every member state are taken into account and to ensure that the decisions adopted are effective. Moreover, in exchanging views on this subject, a particular focus must be placed on ensuring non-discriminatory and equitable access for all states, particularly the countries of the global south, to AI technologies. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation for his statement. I now give the floor to the permanent representative of Liberia.

Thank you, Mr. President. Liberia joins in thanking the presidency of France for convening this critical debate and we thank the briefers for sharing their qualified perspectives. We also join in welcoming the high-level dignitaries participating. Excellencies, history teaches us that humanity's greatest transformations are never defined by technological breakthroughs alone. Every fundamental leap in capability has demanded an equal leap in governance, ethical frameworks, and multilateral rules to ensure that power remains tethered to the common good. Artificial intelligence presents the defining test of that timeless principle. Its promise to uplift societies is immense. So too is the existential peril should its trajectory outstrip human control, institutional accountability, and ethical oversight. 81 years ago, The architects of the United Nations Charter confronted a world fractured by unrestrained power. They recognized that sustainable peace cannot be secured merely by reacting to crises after the smoke has cleared. It demands foresight, sustained multilateral cooperation, and institutions capable of anticipating and neutralizing threats before they ignite global conflict. While the delegates at San Francisco in 1945 could not have envisioned neural networks or frontier computing models, Any capability that reshapes the nature of warfare, sovereignty, and geopolitical stability falls squarely within this Council's primary mandate to maintain international peace and security. Mr. President, artificial intelligence is already reshaping critical infrastructure, global commerce, and social cohesion. Governed responsibly, these technologies can empower the United Nations, enhancing conflict, early warning mechanisms, optimizing humanitarian logistics, and strengthening peacekeeping operations. Yet, we observe with grave concern the proliferation of AI-enabled offensive capabilities, autonomous weapons systems, and frontier models exhibiting unpredictable emergent behaviors. Rapid advances toward artificial general intelligence and highly autonomous systems underscore that frontier risks are no longer abstract theoretical possibilities. They are truly eminent policy realities. The international community cannot afford to wait for a systemic failure or catastrophic miscalculation before establishing collective safeguards. We must not allow the cost of today's hesitation to become tomorrow's catastrophe. Mr. President, Liberia believes the international community must steer clear of two equally hazardous extremes. The first is suffocating overregulation that stifles progress, particularly for developing nations that urgently need access to AI tools to bolster education, revolutionize healthcare delivery, modernize agriculture, and accelerate the sustainable development goals. The second is dangerous complacency. The naive assumption that transformative technologies can safely self-regulate. History offers no precedent for such a faith. Without verifiable safeguards, transparency, and clear liability, unregulated capabilities will generate vulnerabilities that respect no national border. Our path is not a binary choice between innovation and regulation. The imperative before us is to ensure that technological innovation and multilateral governance advance hand in hand. We must regulate with wisdom and innovate with responsibility. For Liberia, four operational pillars are paramount. One, safety by design. Responsibility must begin at the architecture phase. Rigorous risk mitigation, cybersecurity resilience, and fail-safe controls must be embedded across the entire lifecycle, from pre-training to public deployment, rather than improvised post-crisis. 2. upholding international law and human agency. Decisions involving the use of lethal force, the deprivation of human life, and the escalation of conflict must never be abdicated to autonomous algorithms. Meaningful human control and accountability remain the non-negotiable bedrock of international humanitarian law and human dignity. Collaborative confidence building. Three, multilateral cooperation must foster trust without impeding scientific inquiry. Harmonize safety benchmarks Coordinated threat disclosures and transparent red teaming protocols between states, industry leaders, and independent scientists are essential to mitigate strategic mistrust. And four, independent verifiable oversight. Norms without verification are insufficient. We require credible auditing frameworks, robust red teaming standards, and independent technical evaluation to ensure that corporate and state commitments translate into measurable safety for mankind. Furthermore, Mr. President, global governance cannot become an exclusive enclave reserved for the few nations that control advanced compute and capital. Africa and the Global South cannot be treated merely as data extractors or downstream end users. We must be equal co-architects in determining the standards, ethics, and architectures of this technological era. In this regard, Liberia welcomes the landmark initiatives advanced through the Global Digital Compact, notably the Global Dialogue on AI Governance and the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. However, Complementary efforts in the General Assembly do not absolve this Council of its specific duty. When advanced computing intersects with cyber operations against civilian infrastructure, autonomous weaponized systems, and geostrategic competition, it intersects directly with international security. Council engagement is not duplication; it is conflict prevention. Liberia, therefore, lends its strong support to the establishment of a dedicated Security Council informal working group on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. tasked with monitoring the cross-cutting security implications of these capabilities across both thematic and country-specific agendas. To conclude, Mr. President, let us act with the foresight and urgency demanded of this moment, ensuring that the most powerful technological transition since the Industrial Revolution serves as an enduring engine for shared prosperity and a pillar of international peace and security, rather than an opportunity for further division, fraction of our world, and insecurity. I thank you for your kind attention.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Liberia for his statement. There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers. I would like to thank the speakers at this Security Council meeting. The meeting is adjourned.