Session 8-8 Transcript
(OEWG 2021-25)

Distinguished Delegates, the 8th meeting of the 8th substantive session of the OEWG 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’d like to start by apologizing for issuing the revised 3rd annual progress report in the form of a CRP document rather late in the evening yesterday. 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 3rd 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 CRP1. 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 CRP1 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 CRP1, precisely to avoid upsetting the very fragile balance that is contained in the 3rd annual progress report revision and now in the CRP1 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 CRP1 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 have carefully considered the very diverse views and priorities and competing positions and counter amendments expressed by various delegations, and I have done my best to address them as much as possible. But clearly, I have 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 am really concerned that opening the text to further improvements or ostensible 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 CRP1. 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. 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 CRP1. 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 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 traveled a great distance since we began our work last December for the third cycle, and of course we have traveled a great distance since we began this process in June 2021. I’m 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’ve 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’m 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 CRP1. 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. 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 CRP1. 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.

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 ICTs 2021-2025. We thank you and your team for the hard work. We admit that a number of improvements have been made in the CRP of 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 assisting 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 the 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.

Thank you very much, Nicaragua. I take note of the statement that we have delivered on behalf of a group. Kuwait, to be followed by Brazil.

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 behavior 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 my delegation, the delegation of my country, would like to announce the creation of a platform of voluntary non-binding norms for responsible behavior 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, cyber space, 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 aims to – 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.

Thank you very much, Kuwait. Your statement is well noted. Brazil, to be followed by South Africa.

Thank you very much, Chair. My delegation would like once again to thank you, your team, and 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 of you or your team, but rather a regret that we couldn’t find, 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. Thank you very much once again to you and your team for all the efforts that you have made throughout this entire process. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Brazil, for your comments and for your support for the document. South Africa, to be followed by Malaysia.

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.

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.

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 implications for all Member States in the event we cannot secure the adoption of the APR, and we share your view, Chair, that the adoption 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.

Thank you very much, Malaysia, for your statement. It is also very well noted. Pakistan to be followed by Fiji.

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 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’s 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.

Thank you very much, Pakistan, for your statement and for your expression of support. It’s well noted. Fiji.

Bula 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 restraint. 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.

Thank you so much, Fiji, for your statement and also for your support for the document. Distinguished delegates, I see no further requests for the floor, and it’s my intention now to move to agenda item seven. My apologies, I think there’s one more request for the floor from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we appreciate your effort in providing us this 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 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 it provides to states to negotiate with each other, and if we do not engage in discussion with each other, using this opportunity available within the OEWG, 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 to humbly request that we continue discussing these proposals, which are all in line with improving the text, are not controversial, or help us engage in 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 the other day, 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 as this entry part of the document mentioned that the proposal with varying levels of support from the state that may be further elaborated upon and supplemented at forthcoming OEWG sessions. So it is a good disclaimer that we would like to see in your report, and still we have time, we have this afternoon, and we have to use this one. The other issue we would like to address is paragraph 27. After listening carefully to your point, and not wanting to change it drastically, we came up 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 international legal order. Since you referred to the agreed language, and I fully agree with you that we have to, as far as we can, stick to the agreed language. But sometimes, because we are so engaged in discussion, we may make a mistake, and I think the wise man always just makes mistakes and then corrects his mistakes. So, paragraph 27, 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 international law and the voluntary framework of responsible state behavior in the use of ICTs, which includes voluntary norms and CBMs, undermines international peace and security, trust, and stability between the states. That is one issue. Another issue is paragraph 33. In paragraph 33, I think my delegation from the very beginning mentioned that the checklist needs to be discussed later on. We appreciate your effort in postponing that to the next substantive meeting. While my delegation believes that the right place to discuss the checklist would be the next mechanism, we can go along with you on paragraph 33. But yesterday, a proposal for imposing an artificial deadline was proposed, and unfortunately, we see that it has reappeared in this paragraph. There is another technical problem with paragraph 33 when you mentioned updating the checklist, and I read that one. States should 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 adopt it first and then update it. Therefore, we would like to amend this paragraph, and the amendment reads like this: States should continue efforts to implement voluntary norms and to discuss, delete and update the voluntary checklist of practical actions. And this one, delete, which is a living document. In order to come to the conclusion that it is a living agreement, we need to adopt it first, and then based on our conclusion, we consider it a 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 Annex C, it is important that we don’t want to see the two layers or two categories of functions. Now we have a function, and we notice that you deleted, 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. As I mentioned always from the very beginning, the mandate is so important for any future structure. Therefore, we would like to delete in paragraph 9, line 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, from line 7, and guide it and delete the three lines and guide it by the functions listed above the open-ended action-oriented permanent mechanism will address through facilitating discussion of an integrated policy-oriented and cross-cutting nature the following. Delete this one and add to address. The issue of international cooperation and assistance, we would like to be added to that paragraph. I think every delegation sees that capacity building and international cooperation are two wings, and we cannot just delink them. Paragraph 11, paragraph 11D, you mentioned that the modalities for the stakeholders to be discussed and to be adopted by July 2025, but when I just get back to the report adopted in 2022, yes, these modalities have been adopted already. So my question is 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, the document symbol A77-2075 on the report of the open-ended working group on OEWG 2021-25. So that modality has been adopted, and that’s a question to my delegation, why something which was adopted again is going to be reopened and discussed, which was delegated even near one year it wasn’t discussed to the adoption of that one. So that is a question in paragraph 11D. And then in paragraph 17, a very, very short technical change 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. I hope this proposal will be taken up by you. I presented this to the rooms in order to engage in discussion and negotiation using the remaining time available to us. The intention is not to get stuck in the next substantive meetings of the OEWG. If we can possibly solve some of these issues in this meeting, we have to use every minute that is available to us. Thank you, Mr. 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 very soon be in a situation where we will not be able to complete our work today. That will therefore 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 as your friend. 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 want to 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. 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 you 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 a good friend from the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Shakarian, who had 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 and 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 the 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 to be followed by Nigeria.

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.

Thank you very much, Vanuatu, for your brief comments. Nigeria, to be followed by Switzerland.

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 Toa Danoa report. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Nigeria. Switzerland, followed by Mauritius.

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 on 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 is 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.

Thank you very much, Switzerland. Your statement is well noted. Mauritius, to be followed by Albania.

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 evening 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 Cybersecurity Cooperation Portal, we strongly believe that this portal would expedite the work of the future permanent mechanism. Before ending, I would like to assure you of my delegation’s full support and dedication in this process. We welcome the adoption of the third APR. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Mauritius, for your statement, and it’s well noted. Albania, to be followed by Indonesia.

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 the 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 full support for the final document as presented last night. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Albania, for your statement and support. Indonesia, to be followed by Colombia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation wishes to, once again, convey our appreciation to you and your team for the hard work in preparing 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 CRP-1 document. However, we also take note of the Chair’s views of the risk of reopening the text, 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 CRP-1, and we do hope other delegations will extend the same support as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Indonesia, for your statement. Colombia, which is the last speaker on my list.

Thank you, Chair. We trust that the adoption of the Senate 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 effort and action that will help us to reduce the risk of misunderstanding and support a peaceful coexistence between States. We have considered many of the proposals made this week in the last version, and we welcome the following references in the general section: the Interconnectedness of 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 will guarantee its continuity. 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 CSIRT cooperation. 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 have 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, flexibility, and political will to move towards consensus, and this is the conclusion of the session. We wish to reiterate the commitment of Colombia to adopting this document by consensus. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Colombia, for your statement. Distinguished delegates, I have three more delegations. I intend to give them the opportunity 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.

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 think that this expression more accurately reflects the goals of this pillar on new threats and the replacement of international aid by humanitarian organizations. We thank the Chair for the reference in paragraph 22 of technologies being neutral and AI expanding the opportunities for development without the caveat. However, we are also grateful for some of the 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. For paragraphs 50C and 52 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 with 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.

Thank you very much, Argentina, for your statement, which is well noted. Chile, to be followed by Bangladesh.

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 different wording under some issues. 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 there is no explicit reference to IHL as part of international law and its relevance to the obligation 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 that 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 for 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 this commitment that we will inform. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chile, for your statement. Bangladesh, please, which is the last speaker.

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 to 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 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 interest 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. Thank you so much, Bangladesh. With no further requests for the floor, and before we move to the next agenda item, which is the adoption of the CRP1 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 are 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. The second general comment I wanted to make is that, as in the previous annual progress reports that we adopted two years before, or rather in the 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 was 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/CRP1. 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/CRP1? 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 move further steps. So, in that case, that’s why this consensus process may look torturous, but in the end, it would be very productive for our next steps. That’s why I think that my delegation, at this point in time, cannot join consensus, since we think that there is still time until the afternoon to work with you and the most interested delegations, in order to be more flexible and more innovative. I have been in this business for a long, long time. I have been in many meetings where consensus was out of hand, but with the innovation and flexibility of interested delegations, during the remaining time, some solution was within reach. In that case, my humble request to you is to let us continue this discussion until the afternoon. During this time, my delegation is available to work with you and with the other interested delegations to see how we can find an innovative way to adopt this text. We would like to assure you that we are here for consensus. However, at the same time, we have to highlight that if we think that some of our very basic fundamental positions, which are very important to international law, the international legal order, and future mechanisms, are not met, we cannot join the consensus. We would like to continue our discussion and our cooperation until the very last moment in order to reach consensus. But at the same time, we cannot ignore this opportunity; it’s better to continue working. I don’t want to highlight 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 commit to reaching consensus. Since I have the floor, in your last comment, you mentioned one point which was fully right about the modalities of the stakeholders, which were adopted in 2022 for the OEWG, and you rightly mentioned that that was 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 expected that in subparagraph D of paragraph 11, it would be very wise to have a reference that takes into account the modalities which were adopted for the OEWG as a model for the next mechanism. I would like again to come back to you, and we are in your hands on how to proceed. Thank you.

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’d 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 Republic of Iran, 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 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, would be noted and reflected in the compendium of statements. Thank you very much, Iran. Yes, you’ve asked for the floor, please.

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 to let us adopt this one. My question is whether we have this afternoon or not. If we have this afternoon in order to work with each other, let us try it. Why would we like to just wrap this important discussion now in the morning? We have this afternoon, and based on that, we’d better not give up our hope and our chance. 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 delegations to see how we can address that. Definitely, at any point in time, we can just express our point to the compendium, but let us be realistic. What is in the compendium is totally, from the legal point of view, different from 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 strengthened outcome, as you rightly mentioned. Therefore, we would like to seek your indulgence to continue our efforts during the lunch time and the afternoon in order to see how we can address some of the concerns made by my delegation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

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. So 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.