Agenda item 5: discussions on substantive issues contained inparagraph 1 of General Assembly resolution 75/240 (continued) – session 7
12 Jul 2024 10:00h - 13:00h
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Debates and Deliberations at the OEWG Session on ICT Security Amidst Calls for Consensus on Annual Progress Report
The eighth substantive session of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on Security of and in the Use of ICTs for the period 2021-2025 focused on the consideration and potential adoption of the Draft Annual Progress Report (APR), referred to as Document A-AC.292-2024-CRP1. The Chair opened the session by acknowledging the late issuance of the revised document and the adjustments made to strike an overall balance, while also thanking delegates for their constructive engagement in the discussions.
During the session, various delegations expressed their views on the APR. South Africa, Malaysia, Brazil, and Fiji, among others, voiced their support for the document, highlighting the importance of consensus and the need for continued constructive engagement in the OEWG process. Malaysia specifically underscored the OEWG as a vital confidence-building measure and emphasized the role of multilateralism during heightened international tensions.
Conversely, some delegations, including the Islamic Republic of Iran and Nicaragua, along with a group of like-minded countries, expressed concerns and disappointments regarding the APR. Nicaragua, on behalf of a group of countries, lamented the absence of certain proposals in the CRP document and called for a more balanced focus on the implementation of voluntary norms and the linkage between ransomware attacks and international peace and security.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, in particular, requested continued discussion and negotiation on their proposed amendments, highlighting the need for a consensus that reflects the diverse views and priorities of all states. The Chair responded by urging flexibility and suggesting that outstanding issues could be resolved in the remaining cycle of the OEWG, emphasizing the incremental nature of the process.
The Chair also proposed the preparation of a compendium of statements of position to reflect each delegation’s views, which would be issued as an information note to complement the APR. This would serve to enhance the OEWG’s collective understanding of each other’s positions.
Despite the Chair’s appeals, the Islamic Republic of Iran reiterated the need for further discussion, expressing a willingness to engage in negotiations during the lunch period and the afternoon session. In response, the Chair decided to undertake further informal consultations over lunch and adjourned the meeting until the afternoon, indicating that the group was not yet in a position to proceed with the adoption of the APR.
The session concluded with the understanding that the OEWG would reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue Agenda Item 7, the adoption of the Third Annual Progress Report, with the hope of reaching a consensus that accommodates the concerns of all delegations.
Session transcript
Chair:
Distinguished Delegates, the eighth meeting of the eighth substantive session of the Open Landed Working Group on Security of and the Use of ICTs 2021-2025 is now called to order. The group will now continue its discussions under Agenda Item 5, which is the consideration of the Draft Annual Progress Report, which I am pleased to inform you, as you may well be aware, was issued overnight as Document A-AC.292-2024-CRP1. I would like to start by apologizing for issuing the revised Third Annual Progress Report in the form of a CRP document rather late in the evening yesterday. And in forwarding the document to you, I also explained in the cover letter that I wanted to thank all of you for your comments on the final draft of the Third Annual Progress Report. And yesterday we had a very productive, constructive, and positive exchange of views on the revised Annual Progress Report. And as I explained yesterday. It was not going to be possible to restructure the text, but it was perhaps possible to make some adjustments in order to reach an overall balance in the document. And that is precisely what I have done in the document that was circulated yesterday evening as CRP 1. The adjustments I have made are intended to fine-tune the overall balance of the text and enable each one of us to join hands, cross the finishing line, and adopt a consensus outcome. If you have read CRP 1 carefully, and I’m quite sure that you have done so, you would have noted the various adjustments and fine-tuning that have been made. I have not been able to take on board all the requested adjustments and tweaks. I have been very surgical in the adjustments that were made to CRP 1, precisely to avoid upsetting the very fragile balance that is contained in the Third Annual Progress Report revision and now in the CRP 1 document. I also want to reiterate what I said yesterday, that from the podium it is very clear to me there is a viable path to consensus. But this path is also extremely, extremely narrow. But this is the only path if we want to move forward. In this context, the CRP document represents my best effort, my best judgment, as to what is attainable at this point in time in the process in terms of an overall balance that could potentially, I say potentially, allow everyone to join consensus. I’ve carefully considered the very diverse views and priorities and competing positions and counter amendments expressed by various delegations, and I’ve done my best to address them as much as possible, but clearly I’ve not been able to take on board every request, every amendment or adjustment that was put forward yesterday. I do want to encourage all delegations to resist the temptation to make further improvements or adjustments, as I’m really concerned that opening the tax to further improvements or stensible improvements could set off a chain reaction of other amendments or counter amendments or edits that could swiftly unravel the very fragile balance that is contained in CRP 1. I explained in my letter yesterday evening that it is my intention to present the attached CRP document for formal adoption this morning. I want to underscore the utmost importance of securing the consensus adoption of this CRP document. this morning. Not only does this document represent a crystallization of our collective work over the past year, it also represents a crucial step forward in our efforts to prepare for the very important task of ensuring a seamless transition to a single-track future permanent mechanism. And I invite all delegations to keep this in mind as we prepare for the formal adoption of the document in CRP 1. The final decision on taking this collective step forward now lies in your hands. I’ve done my best as the chair to present to you a document that I think does justice to the process, that does justice to the multilateral system and the open-ended working group, and that I also hope does justice to each of your positions by recognizing your positions, but by also preserving your options in a process that is going to continue in an incremental, step-by-step manner. And therefore, knowing that one never is able to attain everything in an instant, but this is a process where collectively we can achieve our own interests but also our collective interests. I’m really gratified that the The Working Group now has before it a document that is rich and substantive and concrete and action-oriented. And looking at the CRP document, it is very clear that we have travelled a great distance since we began our work last December for the third cycle, and of course we have travelled a great distance since we began this process in June 2021. I am also very gratified that the CRP is the product of a really transparent and open-ended process and as Chair of this Working Group, I have always been open, transparent and inclusive because I believe strongly that it is important to hear the voices of everyone, listen to everyone and give everyone an opportunity to shape this process so that there is a sense of ownership. Finally, I am also gratified most of all by your active participation, your personal commitment, your energetic engagement, your really positive approach to the work in this process. So if we are really all to build on what we have achieved over the last 12 months of the third cycle, it is important that we collectively now adopt the document contained in CRP 1. Now before we move to the formal adoption. I’d like to ask if any delegation wishes to take the floor at this stage before we proceed to the formal adoption, and I also want to make it very clear that it is my intention not to reopen the text as contained in Document CRP-1. I appeal to you to not reopen the text because, as I said in my letter of yesterday evening, I fear that reopening the text will risk upsetting the balance, will open the door to other adjustments or requests for amendments, and this is something that we will not be able to handle as a process in the remaining time we have this week. So I strongly appeal to all delegations to refrain from requesting edits, amendments and changes, and it’s my intention not to reopen the text. And before we proceed to adoption, I’d like to ask if any delegation wishes to take the floor by way of reaction to my comments or by way of reaction to the document that is before you. I see Nicaragua has asked for the floor.
Nicaragua:
Thank you, Chair. These are the joint comments by Belarus, Burundi, China, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, Russia, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe on the CRP document of the draft APR of the OEWG on security of and in the use of ICT. 2021-2025. We thank you and your team for the hard work. We admit that a number of improvements has been made in the CRP or the OEWG APR. At the same time, we regret to note that some proposals by the LMG countries have not been reflected in the CRP document. We are disappointed with the absence of recommendations to the chair to elaborate a paper with proposals by states on new norms proposed by the LMG with a view to balancing the excessive focus on the implementation of voluntary rules of responsible behavior. It is unclear what kind of other available resources are being referred to in terms of assistance states in the implementation. We also see no linkage between the issue of ransomware attacks and international peace and security. There is a lack of focus on strengthening the security and capacity of states in face of threats in the ICT realm with regard to the objectives of a capacity building fund. On the language regarding the functions of the future mechanism, Annex C, Part IX, we want to state clearly that our countries interpret the mandate as containing elaboration of legally binding obligations in the field of international information security as a legitimate track of work of the new body. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Nicaragua. I take note of the statement that you have delivered on behalf of the group. Kuwait to be followed by Brazil.
Kuwait:
In the name of God, the gracious, the merciful, Mr. Chairman, my delegation would like to, first of all, thank you and your team for the tireless efforts that you have been making to prepare this draft APR, but also for the thematic discussions during which we heard all of the proposals presented by delegations. This allows us to better understand States’ stances on the subjects relating to cyber security. Mr. Chairman, the General Assembly resolution focusing on the creation of this working group and which covers the creation of a safe and secure technological environment, given the norms, rules and principles on responsible State behaviour in the use of ICTs adopted by the General Assembly and the recommendations from the second APR on results from the exchange of views among countries when it comes to those norms, and given the capacity building measures that refer to the creation of a global cooperation portal on cyber security as proposed by India, and on the basis of our conviction that it is important that we support this proposal, because that portal would be able to facilitate the work of the future mechanism under the auspices of the United Nations, and the delegation of my country would like to announce the creation of a platform of voluntary non-binding norms for responsible behaviour to help States facilitate the implementation and follow-up of those norms, because we are convinced of the important role that this working group plays in guaranteeing cyber security. This is in our common interests and it allows us to clearly define what each country needs, which allows countries to help one another and share their experiences. Despite the fact that some countries oppose the creation of this portal, we should recall that this platform is a flexible, adjustable and adaptable platform, depending on the mechanism that will be agreed upon in the future by states. This platform would be managed entirely by the United Nations, in accordance with the mechanisms that will be elaborated. This is a platform which could help us to develop non-binding norms that have already been adopted by the United Nations. This is a platform that would also help facilitate the work of a future mechanism to be convened by states. We stand ready to make a presentation on this platform, which can be improved based on the proposals of various states. By way of conclusion, international cooperation has always been a source of prosperity for the world, and it has allowed us to combat threats and challenges that we face today, particularly when it comes to ICT security. For that reason, my country stresses the need to continue this cooperation in order to find a solid basis upon which we can build to find common solutions that allow us to combat ICT threats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Kuwait. Your statement is well noted. Brazil, to be followed by South Africa.
Brazil:
Thank you very much, Chair. My delegation would like once again to thank you, your team, the Secretariat, for your hard work in getting us this final version of the document. We particularly appreciate the fine balance that you have struck of the different views across the room in order to get this latest version. As with any truly balanced outcome, we are not, of course, 100% satisfied with all elements of the text, but that is in no way a criticism to you or to your team, but rather a regret that all delegations couldn’t yet find consensus on some issues that are key. from my delegation’s view. We won’t get into detail on those issues at this moment, but once again, while there are certainly issues that, from our national perspective, could have been better reflected in the document, we are well aware that this was the possible solution for us to reach consensus, and we are very happy to support it. And thank you very much once again, and your team, for all the efforts that you have made throughout this entire process. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Brazil, for your comments and for your support for the document. South Africa to be followed by Malaysia.
South Africa:
Thank you, Chairperson. Thank you, Chairperson. South Africa supports the document that you tabled last night. We believe it is a finely tuned document, and we are ready to adopt it today. I thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, South Africa, for that very brief statement, but very powerful expression of support. Thank you very much. Malaysia to be followed by Pakistan.
Malaysia:
Mr Chair, Malaysia appreciates your continued efforts on the latest draft of the third APR. On the whole, Malaysia would like to express support for the adoption of the latest draft. Although we feel there is scope for improvement in certain areas, we note your statement that the draft represents a delicate balance. It is vital for us to ensure the adoption of this report. We should carefully consider the implication for all Member States in the event we cannot secure the adoptions of the APR, and we share your view, Chair, that the adoptions of this draft would represent a crucial step forward for our efforts on the vital task. of achieving a seamless transition to a single-track future permanent mechanism. Delegations have repeatedly affirmed that the OEWG itself is a vital confidence-building measure. The OEWG has demonstrated the salience of multilateralism in a field of critical importance, particularly in a time of heightened international tension. It would not inspire confidence if we cannot collectively adopt an APR to ensure sustained progress in our work. We hope all delegations will continue to engage constructively in this final phase of our present session to enable the adoption of the third APR by consensus. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Malaysia, for your statement. It is also very well noted. Pakistan, to be followed by Fiji.
Pakistan:
Chair, firstly, let me commend the efforts and patience of you and your team to steer the work of the OEWG in a steady and balanced manner. Pakistan believes that this could be the most suitable and balanced outcome document in the given circumstances. Chair, however, we are disappointed to see that the amendments proposed by Pakistan concerning the disinformation and fake news were not incorporated. The inclusion of the same language was also proposed by the distinguished delegates from Bangladesh and Papua New Guinea. However, at the same time, we are mindful of the fact that it is the annual progress report for the third year. Therefore, Pakistan looks forward to the addition of this language in the final report of the group next year. Keeping this in mind, Chair, we extend our full support to the conference room paper. We believe that this consensus adoption of the APR this year shall instill the much-needed positivity to discuss and agree on the scope, structure, and mandate of the future mechanism. Taking this opportunity, I would once again like to renew Pakistan’s consistent support to this intergovernmental process and look forward to the adoption of the document today. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Pakistan, for your statement and for your expression of support. It’s well-noted. Fiji.
Fiji:
Iyanra Vinaka, Mbula Vinaka, Chair, distinguished colleagues, and dear friends, Chair, we thank you and your team for the great work in striking the needed balance in the CPR. In your remarks this week, you gave an analogy of the Jenga game, and we also hear your call for restraints. And just like in the Jenga game, which I also love to play, this is a crucial time where the stability of the Jenga tower that we are building is being tested. One block being moved even slightly may result in the whole Jenga tower collapsing. Chair, yesterday in our intervention, Fiji stated that the securing of consensus for our annual progress report today is in itself a confidence-building measure, and we need to continue to build on that. In that light, Chair, Fiji is ready to adopt this CPR as a third APR by consensus and urges other delegations to do the same. Thank you, and Vinaka.
Chair:
Thank you so much, Fiji, for your statement and also for your support for the document. Mr. Delegate, I see no further requests for the floor, and it’s my intention now to move to Agenda Item 7. My apologies. I think there’s one more request for the floor. Islamic Republic of Iran.
Islamic Republic of Iran:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we appreciate your effort in providing us the CRP document, and we recognize the progress made by you and your team in order to present this document. We commend your dedication, however we firmly believe that in the importance of multilateralism, and the OEWG is no exception. Our goal here is to reach a consensus and we must utilize all the time available to us to achieve this. The strength of multilateralism lies in the opportunity to provide to states to negotiate with each other and if we do not engage in discussion with each other using this opportunity available within the OEGW unresolved issues will appear at the end of the process and potentially may prevent us from reaching a final outcome. Therefore, my delegation presented several proposals to you in this meeting and we would like just to request you, to humbly request you that we continue discussing these proposals which all are in line with improving the text, which are not controversial, or help that we engage into some sort of discussion and understanding with each other. We cannot defer everything to the end of this process, the next substantive session, and as you rightly mentioned that in the other day that we cannot defer everything to the next mechanism or to the next sessions and we have to solve some of the issues here. So we presented the proposal on a disclaimer which was pretty normal and we just wanted to use that. We would like to see that the reference which was in your report, several times you mentioned that at least in three parts of the document you mentioned that the proposal with varying level of support from the state that may be further elaborated upon and supplemented at forthcoming OEWG session. So it is a good disclaimer that we would like to see that in your report and still we have time, we have this afternoon, and we have to use this one. The other issues which we would like to see that, on paragraph 27, so after listening carefully to your point and we didn’t want to change it drastically, we came with a very minor and technical proposal and I would like to read that in order to have a very exact reflection of the current legal, international legal order. And since you refer to the aggregate language and I fully agree with you that we have to, as far as we can, stick to the aggregate language. But sometimes, because we are so engaged in discussion and we may make a mistake and I think the wise man always just make the mistakes and then correct its mistakes. Paragraph 27, so we would like to have a very small amendment to that and I read that. States recall that any use of ICTs by a state in a manner inconsistent with their obligation under international law and, so we bring the international law from the third line to the second line, under the international law and the voluntary framework of responsible state behavior in the use of ICT which includes voluntary norms and CBMs undermines international peace and security, trust and stability between the states. That is one issue. Other issue was paragraph 33. In the paragraph 33, I think my delegation from the very beginning mentioned that the checklist needs to be discussed later on and we appreciate your effort in order to postpone that to the next substantive meeting. While my delegation believes that the right place to discuss the checklist would be the next mechanism. However, we can go along with you on paragraph 33. territory, but yesterday a proposal for the imposing an artificial deadline was proposed and unfortunately we see that it has been reappeared in this paragraph. And there is another technical problem with that paragraph territory when you mentioned about the updating the checklist. And I read that one. It states to continue efforts to implement norms and to discuss and update. So something which has not been adopted technically speaking is not going to be updated. So we need to be adopted first and then to be updated. So therefore we would like to amend this paragraph and the amendment reads like this. It states to continue efforts to implement, add voluntary before the norms. It states to continue efforts to implement voluntary norms and to discuss, delete and update the voluntary checklist of practical actions, annex one, delete, which is a living document in order to come to this conclusion that is a living agreement. So we need to adopt it first and then based on our conclusion we consider it living document. Without adoption of that one, that qualification is not a correct qualification. And delete the checklist with a view toward reaching a consensus recommendation on a voluntary checklist and have a full stop on that. Delete it by July 2025. On paragraph 9, paragraph 9 of the annex C, so it is important that we don’t want to see that the two layer or two categories of function. So now we have a function and we notice that you delete based on the proposal by my delegation the word main function. But the whole structure of the document is still based on the two layer issues. First the function and then some issue. And as I mentioned always that from the very beginning, the mandate is so important for any future structure. Therefore, we would like to delete in the paragraph 9, the line 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 from the line 7 and guide it and delete the tree line and guide it by the functions listed above the open-ended action-oriented permanent mechanism which will address through facilities discussion of an integrated policy-oriented and cross-cutting nature the following. Delete this one and add to address. And so the issue of the international cooperation and assistance, we would like to be added to that paragraph. And I think every delegation see that the capacity building and international cooperation are to end and we cannot just delink it together. And paragraph 11, paragraph 11D, you mentioned that, in the paragraph mentioned that the modalities for the stakeholders to be discussed and to be adopted by the July 25th. But when I just get back to the report adopted in the 2022, yes, these modalities have been adopted already. And so my question is that why a modality which was adopted, and I can read that, for the working group by the silent procedure on April 22 and formally adopted these modalities as mentioned in that document. I can see the symbol A77 slash 2075 on the report of the open-ended working group on OEWG. 21 to 25. So that modality has been adopted and that’s a question to my delegation, why something which was not adopted again is going to be reopened and to be discussed, which was delegated even near one year it was discussed until adoption of that one. So that is a question in paragraph 11D. And then in paragraph 17, a very, very short technical changes in the second line based on the consultation with the states. I think the correct wording would be based on the consultation among the states. And I hope this proposal to be taken up by you and I presented this to the rooms in order to engage in discussion and negotiation using the remaining time available to us in order to, and the intention is that not to stuck in the next substantive meetings of the OEWG. And if we can possibly solve some of this issue in this meeting, we have to use every minute that is available to us. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Islamic Republic of Iran, for your statement. I take note of your statement and I just want to make two broad points of a general nature. First, it remains my assessment that if we were to reopen this text and consider some very, very reasonably articulated proposals, then I think we will be very soon be in a situation where we will not be able to complete our work today. That will therefore risk, put at risk the adoption of an outcome document that all of you have been patiently working to shape and sharpen over the last 12 months. That remains my judgment. I am asking as your friend, of each one of you, as the chair of this process, where the view from the podium is sometimes slightly different from when one is seated, as I have also done in my own capacity as the head of my own delegation. But from the podium, I tell each one of you as a friend, as a brother and as a sister, that the search for perfection may not necessarily always produce an outcome in the time that one has. But the search for perfection continues. The UN is a search for perfection. After 75 years, we’re still trying to avoid the scourge of war, as is said in the preamble to the charter. So that’s my first point, that it’s my judgment that reopening the text will not allow us to reach an outcome today. Second, I also want to say that it’s not my intention to reopen the text. And I seek the understanding of the Islamic Republic of Iran. and everyone else in the room. Because there will be many reasonable arguments, positions, and edits that will come forward. And my view is that this is precisely why we have to look at this as an incremental step-by-step process. In this working group, we have another cycle left. One year of the OEWG process is left. And so we can use that time as we approach the final report of this working group to resolve some of the issues identified by the Islamic Republic of Iran. I also want to address my good friend from the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Shakarian, with a question on modalities, on stakeholders. The modalities we adopted in 2022 were for this working group. And the modalities section of Annex C relates to the future permanent mechanism. This working group has its mandate, modalities for stakeholder engagement, program of work, and agenda. But the permanent mechanism of the future must design its own agenda, must establish its own modalities for stakeholder participation. Of course, you can decide that the agenda, modalities of the future mechanism will be identical to what is here. But that is precisely the issue that we are discussing. So that is in response to the question from Islamic. Republic of Iran. With regard to the other amendments, I once again would urge the Islamic Republic of Iran to raise these issues in the context of our work that remains in the working group. And I seek the understanding of the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Friends, the speaker’s list continues, but it’s not my intention to encourage a general debate, but at the same time, I’ve always believed in giving every delegation the opportunity to speak what they wish to say. So I will continue with the speaker’s list, but I would invite each one of you to be brief and succinct.
Vanuatu:
Mr. Chair, dear colleagues in the room, as you are aware, I traveled two days to be here, so I’m not leaving without a consensus document. We are grateful for your work and we are happy to support the text. This is multilateralism. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Vanuatu, for your brief comments. Nigeria, to be followed by Switzerland.
Nigeria:
Chair, Nigeria wishes to commend efforts put in by the Chair and his team to ensure a certain balance was reached to have a consensus outcome document. Though we believe there is room for improvement, since the discussion is still ongoing, nonetheless, my delegation wishes to state its support for the adoption of the two annual reports. I thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Nigeria. Switzerland, followed by Mauritius.
Switzerland:
Mr. Chair, we thank you for the conference room document of the annual progress report and for all the hard work and effort that you and your team have put. into it in the weeks leading up to this session and during this week. We are aware that it is not an easy task to produce such a document based on all the proposals and positions of the various delegations which this group shared should adopt by consensus. The progress report contains important elements and progress that we have achieved in this OEWG since last summer. However, it is disappointing that we could not reflect the same progress in the chapter of international law. This is particularly true with regard to international humanitarian law but also human rights and due diligence. It is regrettable that the discussion on minimum standards for humanity are not even mentioned in the year in which we are commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. The situation is absurd, as the German delegation rightly said yesterday. But, and this is important, in the spirit of compromise, Switzerland is ready to adopt this APR as it stands. I thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Switzerland. Your statement is well noted. Mauritius to be followed by Albania.
Mauritius:
Thank you very much for giving me the floor, Chair. Good morning. Mauritius would like to thank you and your team for spending the whole of yesterday’s evening in producing this balanced and action-oriented CRP document. I will be very succinct in my statement. We appreciate the retention of essential services and quantum computing in the threat section. Coming to rules, norms and principles of responsible state behavior, we welcome the inclusion of efforts to implement the norms. On confidence-building measures in relation to the Global Cyber Security Cooperation Portal, We strongly believe that this portal would expedite the work of the future permanent mechanism. Before ending, I would like to ensure you of my delegation’s full support and dedication in this process. We welcome the adoption of the third APR. I thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Mauritius, for your statement, and it’s well noted. Albania, to be followed by Indonesia.
Albania:
Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. I join all the states which have acknowledged the great work on which you and your team have worked on putting together this document. As majority of the states in this room, Albania has been fully engaged to contribute to a good and balanced outcome of the week. By this statement, I express the full support for the final document as presented last night. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Albania, for your statement and support. Indonesia, to be followed by Colombia.
Indonesia:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation wishes to once again convey our appreciation to you and your team for the hard work in preparing with the CRP. We all have seen your tireless efforts to hear the position of each delegation and find the balance to converge the diverse positions. In our point of view, the CRP that we have before us strikes the balance that we all seek to achieve with this process given the circumstances. What we all must strive for is to ensure that this document is adapted to carry forward the momentum for us to sustain this process. We understand that there are still concerns expressed by some delegations. with regards to the Currency RP1 document. However, we also take note of the chair views of the risk of reopening the tax, and we believe that it would be the best way forward for us to adopt this year’s APR by consensus, as this is pivotal for our final report in 2025. If we are to reap the benefits of the platform that has contributed positively to developing countries, we must look at how this document could bring us closer to the horizons. In this regard, we are ready to join the consensus to support the consensus adoption of the CRP1, and we do hope other delegations will extend the same support as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Indonesia, for your statement. Colombia, which is the last speaker on my list.
Colombia:
Thank you, Chair. We trust that the adoption of the third APR, together with the annexes, especially the document on the permanent action-oriented mechanism, will be a contribution to international peace and security. It will also be a major contribution under the current circumstances that require joint efforts and action that will help us to reduce the risk of misunderstanding and support to peaceful coexistence between states. We have considered many of the proposals made this week in the last version, and we welcome the following references. connectedness of the future mechanism under potential threats, the reference to the neutrality of technology, AI and quantum computing, and also the new inclusion of security by design in the section on regular institutional dialogue, the inclusion of 7166 and the relationship between the OEWG and the future mechanism, which will guarantee its continuity. And in relation to the section on CBMs, we welcome your efforts and thank you for finding an action-oriented and balanced wording, and we can move towards new CBMs, including CERT CERT Corporation. Despite the important discussions that were held in this working group and the documents presented by inter-regional groups, we regret that substantive references to international humanitarian law has not been made. Any reference to IHL and international law should have been included. Similarly, with the scenario-based exercises, to have a way of conclusion, we are aware that we stand before an opportunity to contribute where we need to show a commitment and flexibility and political will to move towards consensus, and this is the conclusion of the session, and we wish to reiterate the commitment of Colombia to adopting this document by consensus. I thank you.
Chair:
to speak, but I’m also conscious that we are approaching the afternoon cut-off time. So I would invite delegations to be succinct and concise. Argentina to be followed by Chile.
Argentina :
Thank you, Chair. First of all, we wish to reiterate to you, to your team, to the Secretary, our thanks for the tireless efforts towards producing this new and final version of the APR. We feel that this is improved on the previous version. We are also gratified to note there are still references to capacity-building measures, and we welcome and thank the Chair for replacing the term demand driven by need based on this topic. We hope that this expression more accurately reflects the goals of this pillar on new threats and the replacement of international aid by humanitarian organisation. We thank you for the reference in paragraph 22 on technologies being neutral and AI expanding the opportunities for development without the caveat, however, we are also grateful for similar changes in paragraph 23 as regards the application of international law. We regret the removal of the reference to tabletop scenario-based exercises and also the references to international humanitarian law. On the point of capacity-building and 50A, we regret to see the inclusion of the caveat on mutually agreed terms following capacity-building being adapted to the needs of the state. Two, on cooperation for cyber security, we consider that removal of the expression cooperation is a step backwards in the operations of this tool. On the session on the future permanent mechanism, Annex C, we think that the new wording for Paragraphs 8 and 9 is more balanced, as they do not subordinate any of the five pillars that are of equal importance for our delegation, and we thank you for the new wording which our delegation accepts. Finally, we wish to reiterate our suggestions, the view to them being considered in future sessions that the future framework have a sponsorship program to enable participation by developing countries in sessions. Even though it is not a document that reflects all of our concerns, my delegation is in a position to support the document as it is. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Argentina, for your statement, which is well noted. Chile, to be followed by Bangladesh.
Chile:
Thank you very much, Chair. Today we will be closing our negotiations. We hope that this will take place soon. Allow me to express to you our thanks for your impeccable leadership, together with the well-deserved thanks to your team and the Secretariat for the excellent work. I would like to say that this is a balancing exercise to achieve consensus, and it’s never easy. The text leaves us with a number of concerns, and like everybody here, we would have liked to see a different wording under some… But in order to achieve consensus, we must show flexibility and look to the vision of our future work. And so we would like to thank you for your careful consideration of the views of developing countries as regards the importance of capacity building and incorporating this in a cross-cutting way in the APR. Also, Chair, we want to say that we regret that there is no explicit reference to IHL as part of international law and its relevance to the application of the work of this group. I wanted also to respond to your call to be collaborative and constructive, and there have been two broad groups representing various regions have spoken on this, and the omission of this is a major concession from the perspective of my delegation. At the same time, we note the lack of a reference to scenario-based exercises on international law. Please be assured that we will continue to be proactive in the work of this group. Finally, in Annex C, as you noted, in the work to be done on modalities, the participation of interested parties, we would have liked to see enhancing. We see that our efforts are aimed at progressively building on and improving what we do. We, together with other countries, stand ready to contribute. Chair, you have our friendship, as do all of those present, and as I said initially, we began this week with a constructive spirit focused on consensus, and we will honour with this commitment that we will conform. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Chile, for your statement. Bangladesh, please, which is the last speaker.
Bangladesh:
Mr. Chair and distinguished colleagues, good afternoon. My delegation joins others in expressing our sincere appreciation to the Chair and his team for presenting the final version of the APR, which required a lot of hard work and dedication. Chair, we are pleased to see that our proposal to include the financial sector as critical infrastructure and critical information infrastructure has been included in paragraph 14. We also appreciate the retention of the reference to the dark web in paragraph 21. We, however, are disappointed to see that the reference of misinformation and disinformation driven by cutting-edge technologies such as deepfakes has not been included in the APR. Chair, deepfakes are a stark reality. Even Warren Buffett himself admitted that when he saw a deepfake video of himself talking to Fox News to promote Bitcoin, he was impressed and terrified by its impeccable quality. He acknowledged that while he was not sure how the deepfake was created, he believed it could become the growth industry of all time. This underscores how alarming this technology could be in the near future. Despite support for our proposal from several countries, including Pakistan and Papua New Guinea, we did not encounter any opposition to this inclusion in the APR during our discussion over the past four days. Therefore, we find it difficult to understand as to why this crucial element was not incorporated. Chair, while my delegation is not entirely happy with the final paper, we do believe that the APR before us attempts to navigate a delicate balance of diverse views. priorities, and competing positions. We fully understand the challenge of the chair to strike that balance. Bangladesh firmly believes that unity and cooperation are the cornerstones of progress, guided by the principles of mutual respect, openness, and flexibility to achieve the common good and the interests of all states. My delegation will support the APR as it stands now, with the expectation that next year’s final APR will incorporate our delegation’s concerns. My delegation expects that every delegation would rise above the differences and join hands in adopting the final annual progress report by consensus. I thank you.
Chair:
Thank you so much, Bangladesh. I have no further requests for the floor, and before we move to the next agenda item, which is the adoption of the CRP document, I wanted to make two general comments. First, I want to thank all of you who have made statements today, expressions of support, expressions to some extent of disappointment, as well as some suggestions and proposals and edits that were put forward. I’m deeply, deeply grateful for all of you, because these issues are so important to each of your delegations that you have taken the floor to express your point of view. And that, I think, is very important in a multilateral process. Second, I can sense the disappointment and feel the disappointment when proposals that are dear to your delegation is not incorporated. I had to do my duty as chair to find the balance that was necessary to bring everyone across the finish line. But, to those who are a little disappointed about your proposals or specific suggestions that were not incorporated, my message to you is, please stay engaged in the process. We need you. We need your ideas. We need your engagement. We need your constructive participation in this process. As we go to the finish next year. And I will do my best to facilitate the work such that we can have as many ideas incorporated as possible. Ultimately, this is a consensus process. And therefore, everyone needs to listen to each other, understand each other, and be open-minded to proposals coming from wherever they might come. Because that will strengthen this process. The more ideas we adopt, the more proposals we adopt, it will strengthen our process collectively. And it’s my determination to continue trying my best to do that as your chair in the remaining phase of the working group. So once again, my gratitude to all of you who have spoken this morning. One general comment I wanted to make is that, as in the previous annual progress reports that we adopted two years before, or rather on two previous years, there is the option of a preparation of a compendium of statements of position. And this is a compendium of statements of position made by delegations with regard to the annual progress report that were previously adopted and that is going to be adopted this morning. So if you feel that it is important for your delegation to put across your views and statements of position. Please send it to the Secretariat. All such statements will be issued as an information note of the working group, and this information note will complement the annual progress report, and it will also enhance the open-ended working group’s collective understanding of each other’s position and your particular position on the different issues. This document, in line with past practice, would be in the language, submitted without translation, and the document would be issued as A-AC.292-2024-INF-4. We have now concluded Agenda Item 5, Discussion on Substantive Issues Contained in Paragraph 1 of General Assembly Resolution 75-240. We will begin now to consider Agenda Item 7, which is Adoption of Annual Progress Reports to Consider the Draft Annual Progress Report, which was issued last night as A-AC.292-2024-CRP-1. May I take it that it is the wish of the working group to adopt the draft annual progress report of the open-ended working group as contained in Document A-AC.292-2024-CRP-1. Islamic Republic of Iran.
Islamic Republic of Iran:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to repeat what you mentioned in your last comment, which was eloquently mentioned how consensus is important in multilateralism. By consensus, we strengthen the process, not only the process, but also the outcomes. We cannot move forward until every delegation feels that it is associated with the outcomes in order to let us to move further steps. So in that case, that’s why this consensus process may look like torturous, but at the end would be very productive for our next steps. That’s why I think that my delegation, at this point of time, we cannot join consensus since we think that still there are time till the afternoon working with you, working with the most interested delegation in order to be more flexible, more innovative, always. So I have been in this business for a long, long time, and so I have been in many meetings that the consensus was out of hand, but with the innovative and flexibility of interested delegation, so during the remaining time, some solution was within the reach. In that case, my humble request is to you that let us continue this discussion till the afternoon during the time my delegation is available to working with you and with the other interested delegation to see that how we can find innovative way to adopt this text. We would like to assure that we are here to consensus. However, at the same time, we have to highlight that if we think that some of our very basic fundamental positions, which is at the same time very important to the international law, international legal order, and for the next future mechanism, So we would like to continue our discussion and our cooperation till the very last moment in order to reach to a consensus. But at the same time, we cannot ignore this opportunity that it’s better to continue the working. I don’t want to highlight that, whether my delegation would join the consensus or not, but for the time being, what is important for my delegation is to continue this endeavor and we have to fully attach to reaching the consensus. And since I have the floor, in your last comment you mentioned one point which was fully right about the modalities of the stakeholders which was adopted in 2022 for the OEWG and you rightly mentioned that that was for that, for the OEWG, not for the next mechanism. I fully agree with you. You are absolutely right. But at the same time, we have to think that the essence of that modality doesn’t differ from the OEWG to the next mechanism. Or at least we were expected that in the paragraph D of the, in sub-paragraph D of the paragraph 11, it was very wise to have the reference that taking into account the modalities which was adopted for the OEWG as a model for the next mechanism. And I would like again to come back to you and we are in your hand how to proceed. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Islamic Republic of Iran. We are now under agenda item 5, which is the adoption of the report. And I take note of the comments that you have made, Islamic Republic of Iran. I would like to renew my appeal to you. as to whether, in taking note of your statement, which we would circulate as part of the compendium of statements to reflect the understanding of the Islamic, of the Republic of Iran, whether your delegation would be able to join consensus. And I, on behalf of members of the working group, would also appeal to you, Iran, to join us in allowing us to proceed, because I’m hopeful and confident that for the issues that you have raised, we can find solutions in the working group as we begin our work next year. The issues that you have identified are important, but it will require discussions of a nature that I think will not allow us to complete our work this week. That is the reality that I see from the podium, and I’d like to appeal to the Islamic Republic of Iran to show its flexibility on the understanding that the statements you have made just, as well as previously, on the previous agenda item, be noted and reflected in the compendium of statements. Thank you very much, Iran. Yes, you have asked for the floor, please.
Islamic Republic of Iran:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I don’t want to disappoint you. However, as I mentioned, we have shown utmost flexibility from the very beginning of this discussion. We entered into this room with hope and with the assurance that we would like to join the consensus. However, we don’t want to be pushed by some sort of artificial deadline. Still, we have time. I don’t know why there is some push that let us adopt this one. My question is that whether we have this afternoon or not. If we have this afternoon in order to work with each other, let us try it. Why we would like to just wrap this important discussion now in the morning, we have this afternoon, and based on that one, we better not to give up our hope and our chance. And there is always, I believe, an extra mile theory. Let us move during the lunch hour, and we can work with you and with interested delegation to see how we can address that one. Definitely, at any point of time, we can just express our point to the compendium. But let us be realistic. What is in the compendium, it’s totally, from the legal point of view, different what comes to the report. And that’s why, from the very beginning, we agreed to come to the consensus in order to achieve a more strength outcome, as you rightly mentioned that for it. Therefore, we would like to seek your indulgence to continue our efforts during the lunchtime and the afternoon in order to see how we can address some of the concerns made by my delegation. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Islamic Republic of Iran. I’ve taken note of your comments. Please give me five minutes as I consult with my team. The meeting is adjourned for five minutes. Please do not move from your seats. Please stay where you are. Just for five minutes. Distinguished Delegates, We are not yet in a position to proceed to the adoption of the Third Annual Progress Report. We are now on Agenda Item 7, but as you have heard the views of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is my sense that I need to undertake further informal consultations over the lunch period, and I therefore propose that we return to Agenda Item 7, the adoption of the Third Annual Progress Report, this afternoon at 3 p.m. sharp. So the meeting is adjourned, and I wish you a pleasant lunch. Thank you.
Speakers
A
Albania
Speech speed
163 words per minute
Speech length
79 words
Speech time
29 secs
A
Argentina
Speech speed
125 words per minute
Speech length
357 words
Speech time
171 secs
B
Bangladesh
Speech speed
148 words per minute
Speech length
386 words
Speech time
157 secs
B
Brazil
Speech speed
155 words per minute
Speech length
205 words
Speech time
79 secs
C
Chair
Speech speed
123 words per minute
Speech length
3304 words
Speech time
1617 secs
C
Chile
Speech speed
131 words per minute
Speech length
373 words
Speech time
170 secs
C
Colombia
Speech speed
108 words per minute
Speech length
307 words
Speech time
171 secs
F
Fiji
Speech speed
154 words per minute
Speech length
171 words
Speech time
67 secs
I
Indonesia
Speech speed
145 words per minute
Speech length
253 words
Speech time
105 secs
IR
Islamic Republic of Iran
Speech speed
143 words per minute
Speech length
2246 words
Speech time
941 secs
K
Kuwait
Speech speed
136 words per minute
Speech length
506 words
Speech time
224 secs
M
Malaysia
Speech speed
131 words per minute
Speech length
222 words
Speech time
102 secs
M
Mauritius
Speech speed
147 words per minute
Speech length
149 words
Speech time
61 secs
N
Nicaragua
Speech speed
145 words per minute
Speech length
280 words
Speech time
116 secs
N
Nigeria
Speech speed
159 words per minute
Speech length
65 words
Speech time
25 secs
P
Pakistan
Speech speed
182 words per minute
Speech length
214 words
Speech time
70 secs
SA
South Africa
Speech speed
127 words per minute
Speech length
38 words
Speech time
18 secs
S
Switzerland
Speech speed
169 words per minute
Speech length
214 words
Speech time
76 secs
V
Vanuatu
Speech speed
104 words per minute
Speech length
51 words
Speech time
29 secs
Related event
