Cyber-crime and cyber-terrorism were on the rise, as the fast growth of information and communications technologies transformed the world into a global village, with profound impacts on all aspects of social and economic life, including security, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard today as it continued its thematic debate.

As the world became a community of common destiny bound by intertwined interests in cyberspace, the representative of China said, the risks of an arms race and conflict in cyberspace were growing.  Cyber-security was as much a development issue as a security issue, and deficient security in one country could undermine the security of all.  No State could single-handedly obtain absolute security, and countries must therefore abandon the zero-sum mentality and pursue a new cyber-security concept based on common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security.

Indeed, cyberspace had emerged as the new domain of warfare along with traditional arenas, the representative of Pakistan said.  The ability to act anonymously or in secret without traditional geographical limitations, at a very low risk to human life, coupled with the ability to mass produce cyber-weapons quickly and cheaply, made them extremely attractive and dangerous.

Similarly, the representative of Ecuador said now that each individual on the planet could communicate with any other through technology, the world had discovered mechanisms of global vigilance that did not distinguish between borders, or between criminals and law-abiding citizens, and did not respect sovereignty and privacy.  However, he stressed that cyberspace was not outside the bounds of legality, and it was important for legal standards to be applied there.  The history of humankind had been marked by the expansion of the rights of all human beings, which included privacy and the inviolability of communication.

On a related note, the representative of the Russian Federation said that all global programmes connected with the use of telecommunications, including capacity-building, ensuring freedom of access, and guaranteeing the rights of private citizens, could only be successful if information security was achieved.  However, States had sovereignty over information and telecommunications technology infrastructures in their own territories, and any accusation against States of cyber-attacks should be supported by evidence.

International cyber-stability and conflict prevention were best advanced by established international law in conjunction with additional voluntary cyber-specific norms of responsible State behaviour in peacetime, the representative of the United States said.  All had incentives to cooperate and avoid conflict, and all had good reason not to disrupt or attack each other — a concept often called “international cyber stability”.  He said it was a fundamental goal of his country to create a climate in which all States could enjoy the benefits of cyberspace.

Speaking on other disarmament matters, the representative of Cuba said that international treaties on nuclear disarmament had to include measures to protect the environment, and that compliance with environmental standards in drafting treaties should be mandatory for all States.

During the meeting, drafts were introduced on the treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone; the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and Caribbean; follow-up to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons; and on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament.

Also speaking during the cluster on other disarmament measures and international security were the representatives of Indonesia (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Uruguay (on behalf of UNASUR), Egypt (on behalf of the Arab Group), Algeria, Venezuela, Singapore, Netherlands, Australia, Israel, India, Switzerland, Italy, Kuwait, Spain and Malaysia.

During the cluster on regional disarmament, the representatives of Myanmar, Ukraine, Peru, Morocco, Israel and Azerbaijan also spoke.

The representatives of Russian Federation, Armenia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Monday, 2 November, to continue its thematic debate.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its thematic debate segment.  For more information please see Press Release GA/DIS/3536.

Statements, Regional Disarmament and Security

ZIN MAR HTWE (Myanmar), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said his country fully supported the roles played by the three Regional Centres, particularly in Asia and Pacific, in promoting global disarmament and non-proliferation through national capacity-building.  Myanmar also appreciated the work of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, as the Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) in organizing a nuclear disarmament training programme for young diplomats from Southeast Asia.  Myanmar would host a national roundtable in January 2016, in cooperation with the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, on Security Council resolution 1540 (2004).  Myanmar commended the Disarmament Fellowship Programme organized each year by the Office for Disarmament Affairs and was one of its beneficiaries this year.  The Office, he suggested, could invite more women, especially from the least developed countries, to expand their participation in the areas of peace and disarmament.

ANDRIY TSYMBALIUK (Ukraine) expressed his concern about the accelerated militarization of the autonomous region of Crimea.  He was particularly concerned about the Russian Federation’s steps of deploying nuclear weapons and their carriers on that occupied territory.  That action infringed upon Ukraine’s non-nuclear-weapon status and indicated ongoing violations of the Russian Federation’s obligations as an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) member.  Since the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula, the number of troops there had more than doubled.  Armoured vehicles had increased from 130 to 600 units and combat aircraft from 22 to 124.

Ukraine possessed confirmed information, he said, that in the coming months, the Russian Federation would further strengthen its forces in Crimea.  That would include up to three mechanized brigades, up to three regiments of fighter bombers, squadrons of submarines and other forces.  The militarization was also influencing the shipbuilding sector of Crimea.  Those facts underlined the violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  It should be a common responsibility to take adequate steps to respond properly to the situation.  He urged all States to condemn such acts and the Russian Federation to withdraw from Crimea, which was an integral part of Ukraine’s territory.

GUSTAVO MEZA-CUADRA (Peru), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), said that Latin America and the Caribbean was a very diverse region with different levels of development.  Governments required technical tools and economic resources to confront their various challenges.  Too many resources were allocated to weapons, which was why the General Assembly had trusted the Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and Caribbean to assist with disarmament efforts.  Thanks to the support provided by the Centre, the States of the region had moved forward to train personnel and develop and implement standards in areas relating to disarmament and security.  The Centre had provided training to more than 50 members of the security services on the control of small arms and light weapons, particularly on marking and tracing, as well as control over conventional weapons overall.  He introduced a draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and Caribbean, which would reiterate firm support for the Centre’s role in promoting regional capacities.

MOUNA OUAZZANI (Morocco), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African and Arab Groups, said that responding to terrorism and organized crime was of particular importance in Africa, taking note of the situation in the Sahara and Sahel regions.  Morocco had been one of the first to warn about the connections between terrorism, drug crime, human trafficking and other threats.  Events in Mali, serious attacks against territorial integrity, and attacks by Boko Haram had confirmed Morocco’s fears.  In July, it had hosted the inaugural conference on border security, in coordination with the United States, to combat terrorism and instability in the region.  In the same spirit, the country had been among the first signatories of the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, and was party to all instruments related to weapons of mass destruction.  It was regrettable that the 2015 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) had been unable to take steps to establish such a zone in the Middle East.  An international conference on that issue would provide an opportunity to launch a process to strengthen regional peace and security.

TAMAR RAHAMIMOFF-HONIG (Israel) said that her country’s policy in the field of regional security and arms control had always endorsed a pragmatic and realistic approach.  It was rooted in its belief that the security concerns of all regional States should be taken into account and realistically addressed within a direct regional dialogue.  That engagement must be firmly planted in the regional context if it was to be substantive and meaningful.  To think that shortcuts and detours were possible without attending to the core security challenges facing the region was misleading.  That was especially pronounced in an environment of growing instability in the Middle East.

Regrettably, she said, there were countries in the Middle East presently that had no mechanisms through which to foster dialogue.  There was no regional forum in which those States could communicate directly with each other and discuss core issues affecting their individual and collective security.  Such forums could also contribute to building confidence.  Israel continued to believe that such a dialogue was fundamental for any substantive discussion based on the principle of consensus.  For its part, Israel would continue to seek such a meaningful regional discussion that could lead to a more peaceful and secure Middle East and hoped that its neighbours would adopt a similar approach.

FARID JABRAYILOV (Azerbaijan), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, stated that his country valued the contributions made by the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons, the International Tracing Instrument and the Protocol on Firearms in addressing the illicit trade in and excessive accumulation of those weapons.  Turning to regional matters, he said that Armenia was building up its military presence and capability in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and other occupied territories of Azerbaijan, and the conventional arms control mechanism was not effective there.  Regretting the international community’s indifference to that problem, he cautioned that as long as Armenia continued to follow its aggressive policy, any talks about peace and cooperation in the region would be irrelevant.

Right of Reply

Exercising his right of reply, the representative of the Russian Federation said that, strange as it might sound, he wanted to express sympathy to the Ukrainian delegate for having been forced to read such an awful text.  Nothing that delegate had read out had any bearing on reality nor was it relevant to the topic under discussion.  He also expressed compassion and sympathy for the fraternal people of Ukraine and said they would always be one big family.  Someone had brought war into their common home from abroad and a civil war to Ukraine.  What was being heard now was a clear demonstration of what was taking place and what could take place in a State when a military overthrow, civil war and hatred was imported from abroad.  That was capable of destroying the last vestiges of statehood.

Obviously, he went on, that played to someone’s benefits, but he was not going to say whose interest, although most people knew that.  He did not want to exchange accusations, but everyone knew who had organized the overthrow of the Government in Ukraine.  That was a huge tragedy for the Russian Federation and Ukraine.  The Russian Federation had never waged war in Ukraine and would never do so, no matter how much people would like that to happen.  As for Crimea, it had been for a time an administrative part of Ukraine, but in a wholly democratic referendum, the people of Crimea had expressed their will to return to the Russian Federation.  It had always been and would always be an integral part of the Russian Federation.  He invited everyone to visit that part of the Russian Federation and see for themselves a democratic society that rejected ethnic tensions and hatred.

Also speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Armenia said that Azerbaijan was among the few countries worldwide that boasted about its astronomical military expenditure.  That was not something to be proud of when the rest of the world was focused on development.  Azerbaijan had never made secret that it had pursued military solutions to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.  An official had even said that “70 per cent of the enemy will be destroyed with first strike.  After one strike, Armenia will not recover even in 100 years.”  The Azerbaijan representative said that confidence could not occur before peace, but that represented a difference in strategy.  Compromise was one of the only options available.

The representative of Ukraine, exercising his right of reply, responded to the Russian Federation’s representative, saying that taking the other slant was not the best way to brotherhood.  It was evident that the annexation of Crimea had been planned for a long time.  In fact, the medal presented for the return of Crimea was labelled 20/02/2014 — 18/03/2014.  That meant that the campaign had started 24 days before the fake referendum in Crimea.  The matter was very important, not just for the region, but for the world.

The representative of Azerbaijan, exercising his right of reply, said he defied the baseless accusations of the Armenian representative against his country.  Everyone was perplexed to hear that representative’s condemnation of the use of force by a country that used force to occupy Azerbaijan’s territories and whose behaviour was the reason for the impasse in current negotiations.  Armenia had violated its international obligations by carrying out ethnic cleansing, and had constructed a subordinate separatist entity.  The Security Council had reaffirmed Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and the inviolability of internationally recognized borders and had demanded the withdrawal of occupying forces from Azerbaijan.  The Armenian representative had expressed concerns about military budgets.  A comprehensive analysis of the population, territory, annual budget of Armenia and of its military personnel and receipt of assistance showed that Armenia was the most militarized country in the South Caucasus, and it regularly conducted military exercises in occupied territories.

Speaking again, the representative of the Russian Federation thanked his Ukrainian colleague for his very interesting reference to the wonderful medal that he mentioned.  He did not know if that delegate deserved a medal himself.  He said he could assure the Committee that the medal was in fact designed earlier, when, together with Ukraine, the Russian Federation had defended Crimea against others, including France and the United Kingdom, in 1856.  At that time, everyone in that territory, which was suddenly called “Ukraine”, had participated in that war.  That medal was of great interest and a part of history.

Also speaking again, the representative of Ukraine said that his Russian colleague was mistaken, and they were thinking about different things.  The medal to which he referred was circulated in 2014, and unfortunately, it was not such a historical artefact.  It was a reminder of another war; the war against Ukraine.

Introductory Remarks, Information and Telecommunications Security

CARLOS LUÍS DANTAS COUTINHO PEREZ, Chair of the Group of Governmental Experts on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security, said the Group had been established in 2014 pursuant to paragraph 4 of General Assembly resolution 68/243.  The focus was on the continued study of existing and potential threats in the sphere of information security, including norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviour of States and confidence-building measures, and concepts aimed at strengthening the global information and telecommunications systems.  After intensive discussion, the Group had adopted by consensus a report that was forwarded by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly (document A/70/174).  The Group’s results would not have been possible without the earnest collaboration of various experts.  There was a need for the increased exchange of information among States to prosecute terrorists and prevent the criminal use of information and telecommunications technologies.  States should take appropriate measures to protect their critical infrastructure from such threats, and refrain from harming another States’ technologies.  The Group had made substantial progress in addressing the issues, and identifying areas for future work.

KAMAPRADIPTA ISNOMO (Indonesia), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed concern that technologies could potentially be used for purposes that were inconsistent with maintaining international security.  Such technologies and means should be utilized by Member States in a manner consistent with international law.  He noted with concern cases of illegal use of new information and communications technologies, including social networks, to the detriment of the Movement’s member States.  He stressed the importance of ensuring that the use of such technologies was in accordance with international law, as those could potentially threaten international peace.  Therefore, countering such emerging security challenges and reducing their risk was essential.  He urged the development of a legal framework to address those issues.  He added that international forums must take fully into account the relevant environmental norms in negotiating treaties.  The Movement stressed the importance of the reduction of military expenditures by major arms-producing countries and urged them to devote those resources to global economic and social development.

FREDERICO GONZALEZ VIVAS (Uruguay), speaking on behalf of UNASUR, said that telecommunications should be an instrument for inclusion and development.  States or non-State entities should not use those technologies in contravention of human rights, international law, or the rights of sovereign States and private citizens.  In the Union’s 2013 conference, the member States had rejected spying with the use of telecommunications, and considered those to be grave violations of civil and political rights and national sovereignty, and could damage relations between nations.  Union Heads of States had decided to step up the development of projects for cyber-defence and make their fibre-optic networks more secure.  The development of the offensive capacity of telecommunications was becoming part of military doctrines, he said, warning of the possible escalation of conflicts fostered by cyber-attacks.  International principles in telecommunications in the context of international security should at the same time maintain the right to privacy and allow for the free circulation of information.

EMAD MORCOS MATTAR (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group and associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the world had seen a revolution in terms of information and communications technologies, which had changed the lives of thousands of people and opened the door to information in an unprecedented way.  It had also made those technologies a target for criminals, and therefore, cyberspace needed to be made secure for the security of all.  There should be an agreement on the non-use of cyberspace to ensure fairness.  The international community must look at the issue of Internet governance to allow developing countries to participate in strengthening their technology infrastructure.  Using information and communications technologies to make robotic, self-guided and deadly weapons was against legal norms and was amoral.  It was necessary to remain within legal limits, otherwise the Internet could be used indiscriminately as “a blind weapon”.

ANDREY V. KRUTSKIKH (Russian Federation) said that there were already more than 70 co-sponsors of the resolution on information and telecommunications technology in the context of international security, which demonstrated the topic’s importance and priority.  All global programmes connected with the use of telecommunications could only be successful if information security was achieved.  Such programmes included capacity-building, ensuring freedom of access, and guaranteeing the rights of private citizens.  The resolution should be regarded as a call to the international community’s collective search for a relevant means to achieving stability.  The Group of Governmental Experts had achieved consensus on a range of issues, particularly that the technology should be used only for peaceful purposes and cooperation.  In the digital sphere, there were already well-recognized legal norms, such as the illegality of the threat of use of force.  States had sovereignty over information and telecommunications technology infrastructures in their own territories, and any accusation against States of cyber-attacks should be supported by evidence.  States should not use go-betweens to carry out such attacks or allow their territories to be used for such purposes.  The proposed resolution should lead to a new expert group in 2016, with a mandate that furthered the peaceful use of information and telecommunications technology in international development and security.  The group should also adapt international law to the new realities of the cyber-revolution.

MUSTAPHA ABBANI (Algeria), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab Group, said that new technologies offered unique opportunities for socioeconomic development, in both the civilian and military spheres.  However, the possibilities that new information and communications technologies could be used for non-peaceful purposes presented a considerable risk to peace and security, including through terrorist attacks against infrastructure and facilities.  Cyberspace must be made secure.  The report of the governmental expert Group and its conclusions contributed significantly in the area of combatting the non-peaceful use of such technologies.  At the same time, concerns over the dual use of new technologies should not impede their transfer, especially to developing countries and those most in need.  Artificial intelligence applications provided promising prospects, but given their potential to be weaponized, the international community should establish a clear legal framework on the issue.

JUANA ELENA RAMOS (Cuba), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said compliance with environmental standards in drafting treaties should be mandatory for all States.  Weapons of mass destruction and their continued modernization were the most serious threats to peace and security and the fragile environmental balance of the planet.  International treaties on nuclear disarmament had to include measures to protect the environment.  Promoting multilateralism was important to achieve negotiated solutions, and such a framework was the only way to guarantee international peace and security.  The goal of arms control could not be achieved through unilateral measures or the use or threat of use of force.  Multilateralism was the only appropriate way to resolve disputes and move forward to general and complete disarmament.  Disarmament and development were the main challenges for humankind, and it was alarming that $1.7 trillion had been earmarked for military expenditures, when they could be used for development or combatting disease.  At least half of current military expenditures should be allocated to a fund aimed at addressing the economic and social development of those countries that needed it most.

ROBERT A. WOOD (United States) said it was a fundamental goal of his country to create a climate in which all States could enjoy the benefits of cyberspace.  All had incentives to cooperate and avoid conflict, and all had good reason not to disrupt or attack each other — a concept often called “international cyber stability”.  For several years, the United States had sought to achieve that goal by nurturing a broad consensus on what constituted responsible State behaviour in cyberspace.  His country believed that international cyber-stability and conflict prevention were best advanced by established international law in conjunction with additional voluntary cyber-specific norms of responsible State behaviour in peacetime.  Practical confidence-building and conflict-prevention measures would also help.  The 2013 governmental expert Group reached the landmark consensus that existing international law, and in particular, the United Nations Charter, applied to State conduct in cyberspace.

ALFREDO FERNANDO TORO-CARNEVALI (Venezuela), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and UNASUR, emphasized the principles of sovereign equality, resolution of international controversies through peaceful means and respect for the non-intervention in the internal affairs of States.  He welcomed a debate on whether weapons and their use in cyberspace should be prohibited or simply controlled.  The governmental expert Group had before it technical challenges, including defining what constituted a weapon in cyberspace and what type of operation would constitute an act of aggression or rupture of peace under the parameters of the United Nations Charter.  There was one country in particular that held a privileged position in the development of capacities for cyber-attack with a cyber-force of 6,299 people spread over 33 teams, related to defence, espionage and attack in cyberspace.  It was important to take into account that a broad and massive cybernetic attack could disrupt the critical infrastructures of a State, including its production, transmission and distribution of energy, he added.

ALLAN PHUA (Singapore) said that the NPT was under severe strain while the divide between nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon States, regarding whether priority should be accorded to nuclear disarmament or nuclear non-proliferation, was widening.  Singapore called on all nuclear-weapon States to make concrete commitments to significantly reduce their arsenals in a transparent and irreversible manner.  The establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones were building blocks for global security, and his country sought to preserve the Southeast Asia zone.  Also critical was a robust global export control regime that guarded against proliferation without hampering legitimate trade.

HENK COR VAN DER KWAST (Netherlands), associating with the European Union, expressed concern that geopolitical tensions had increasingly manifested themselves in cyberspace over the past year.  Issues of international peace and security in the cyber domain had been at the forefront of discussions in his country to determine how the State would protect critical infrastructure and components of the global Internet.  The Netherlands would continue to promote international legal order in cyberspace and counter the proliferation of malicious cyber-tools and techniques.  The country was creating a global commission on cyber-stability, which was intended to serve as a multi-stakeholder platform for discussion on norms between States and other actors.  All projects must be broad and inclusive to reduce the risk of conflict in cyberspace and maintain a free, open and secure cyberspace.

IAN MCCONVILLE (Australia) stated that the report of the Group of Governmental Experts had commenced the process of elaborating ways that international law could be applied to State behaviour in cyberspace.  His country welcomed the observation that the inherent right of States to take measures consistent with international law applied to State conduct in cyberspace.  Also important was the Group’s recognition of established international legal principles and the observations on sovereignty, proxies, internationally wrongful acts and respect for human rights.  Australia stressed the norms that discouraged States from intentionally damaging critical infrastructure through cyber means or harming the information systems of computer emergency response teams of other States.  Also crucial was for States to respond to requests from other States to mitigate malicious cyber-activity emanating from their territory.

FU CONG (China) said that the fast growth of information and communications technologies had had profound impacts on all aspects of social and economic life and transformed the world into a global village.  The international community had become a community of common destiny bound by intertwined interests in cyberspace.  Cyber-crime and cyber-terrorism were on the rise, and the risks of an arms race and conflict in cyberspace were growing.  The imbalance in management of the Internet and distribution of its critical resources remained unchanged, exposing each State to an uncertain environment for cyber-security, the importance of which could not be overemphasized.  Given the omnipresent impact of cyber-security, no country could single-handedly obtain absolute security.  The international community should abandon the cold war or zero-sum mentality and pursue a new cyber-security concept based on common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security.  Cyber-security was as much a development issue as a security issue, and deficient security in one country could undermine the security of all countries.

TAMAR RAHAMIMOFF-HONIG (Israel) said the report of the 2015 Group of Governmental Experts on developments in the field of information and telecommunications highlighted several significant aspects of responsible State behaviour, the most important of which was recognition that effective cooperation among them was essential to reducing risks to international peace and security.  Looking forward, the task of that Group should be to continue the work of previous such groups and further develop consensus.  One objective was to identify voluntary, non-binding norms for responsible State behaviour in order to increase stability and security in the global information and telecommunications technology environment.  Further expert groups should make a distinction between existing international law on the one hand and voluntary non-binding norms on the other.

SIDDHARTHA NATH (India), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, introduced the draft decision entitled “Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament”.  He said that science and technology remained critical to economic and social development, and developing countries were especially dependent on access for development purposes and the active participation in global trade.  New technologies had both civilian and military applications, including for weapons of mass destruction and the invention of new weapons systems.  While progress in science and technology for civilian applications should be encouraged, it was imperative to regulate international transfers of dual-use goods and technologies.  The role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament was an important and dynamic subject that affected the interests of all States, and it was therefore necessary to engage in dialogue to find a viable forward-looking approach that took into account current trends and possible future ones.

LAURENT MASMEJEAN (Switzerland) said that increased consideration should be given to implementing the reports of the governmental experts Group.  Many of the recommendations in the July 2015 report were concrete, actionable and could thus be directly implemented.  Regional organizations also played a pivotal role in implementing them.  Much of the infrastructure of cyberspace was created or operated by the private sector, academia or civil society.  Given those actors’ important role, Switzerland shared the view of the expert group that effective international cooperation could benefit from identifying mechanisms aimed at bringing in the expertise of those sectors upon a State’s request.  Many challenges remained, but his country fully supported the proposal to establish a new governmental expert group to take those elements forward.  Expanding the Group’s membership would further underpin the legitimacy of its recommendations.

PALMA D’AMBROSIO (Italy) said that the relationship between gender and disarmament was complex and must be addressed in at least two ways.  On the one hand, based on a consolidated body of research, it was known that conflicts did not have the same impact on different segments of the population.  Men typically constituted the primary victims of direct armed violence while women and children usually made up the majority of so-called “collateral damage”, refugees and internally displaced persons.  They also suffered more than men from the indirect impacts of conflict.  Adding a gender dimension to the disarmament debate meant identifying and addressing those specific needs, including re-integration of former combatants and their support systems, which were largely composed of women and youth.  The gender debate also specifically underlined the need for women’s equal access and full participation in decision-making processes and in efforts aimed at preventing and resolving conflicts.

KHALIL UR RAHMAN HASHMI (Pakistan), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that cyberspace had emerged as the new domain of warfare along with traditional arenas.  The ability to act anonymously or in secret without traditional geographical limitations, at a very low risk to human life, coupled with the ability to mass produce cyber-weapons quickly and cheaply, made them extremely attractive and dangerous.  Given the importance and implications of information and communications technology for States, it was essential to take into account the representation and views of different regions in the work of the new governmental expert group next year.

He said that the development of new types of weapons, such as lethal autonomous weapon systems, remained an area of concern, as those were being described as the next revolution in military affairs.  Such weapons were unethical by nature, as they took the human out of the loop and delegated responsibility to machines.  Their further development and use should be pre-emptively banned and States currently developing them should place an immediate moratorium on their production.  The United Nations Human Rights Council, jurists and human rights groups had all opposed armed drones targeting civilians through “signature strikes” and termed their use as tantamount to extrajudicial killings.  Even more challenging would be the task of preventing and deterring non-State actors and terrorists from developing, deploying or using drones against people or States.

FERNANDO LUQUE MARQUEZ (Ecuador) said that the history of humankind had been marked by the expansion of the rights of all human beings, building on those already established, such as the inviolability of privacy and communication.  Technology had made it possible for everyone to communicate with each other, and mechanisms of global vigilance had been discovered that did not distinguish between borders or between criminals and law-abiding citizens.  Those mechanisms did not respect sovereignty and privacy.  He called on States to avoid the militarization of cyberspace, which could spread discord, and maintain its peaceful character.  The governmental expert Group’s recommendations should be taken into consideration, including capacity-building for information and communications technology infrastructure.  Cyberspace was not outside the bounds of legality, and it was important for legal standards to be applied and to have a legal framework to ensure that it continued to contribute to humanity’s development.

ABDULAZIZ A M A ALAJMI (Kuwait), associating with the Arab Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said the information and communications technology revolution had made an important contribution to people’s lives, and had had a positive impact on civilization.  It had unleashed creative potential and contributed to States’ prosperity.  Those were the positive aspects, but there were also fears about the use of technology to secure targets and objectives not in line with international peace and security; it could be used for criminal or terrorist purposes.  Artificial intelligence could have positive applications, but on the negative side, that could also lead to such problems as the production of deadly weapons, which would bring about nefarious challenges to humanity.  The international community should ensure that that field was controlled and prevent the production of indiscriminate and lethal weapons.

JULIO HERRAIZ ESPANA (Spain) said that while information and communications technology was creating a true democratization of basic sectors of the economy and society, it was also making States vulnerable to risks and threats previously unimaginable.  Cyber-threats and crime would continue to increase in the medium- and long-term.  Vulnerabilities in cyberspace should be dealt with through the use of confidence-building measures in cyber-security.  It was also essential to understand that security started with the self.  Spain’s national cyber-security strategy had made it possible to act in a coordinated way, and its national plan included specific measures to promote cooperation, both globally and within the European Union.  Its external action plan for 2015-2018 had made cyber-security a top priority in its foreign policy.  It was very important for the United Nations to remain a leader in the process through the Group of Governmental Experts, ensuring the security of the Internet and respect for human rights in cyberspace.  States should cooperate to prevent damaging practices in their use of such technology and should not allow the use of their territories for those purposes.

DELFINA JANE ALOYSIUS DRIS (Malaysia), speaking on behalf of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), introduced the draft resolution on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.  That biennial draft would reiterate the Association’s commitment to intensify efforts to resolve all outstanding issues pertaining to the signing and ratifying of the Treaty’s Protocol as soon as possible.  He also introduced the draft resolution entitled on follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, which would underscore the concerns that posed a threat to mankind.