Chair,

Allow me to congratulate you on your election. In addition to the statement delivered by the EU, I would like to make the following remarks in my national capacity. 

Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates,

We again meet at a time of profound security challenges. Combined with an international environment increasingly characterized by strategic rivalry and rapid technological developments, the international security situation has grown more unpredictable. 

These developments made that in 2025, high-intensity conflicts continued to have a global impact. Estimates amount to an alarming number of approximately 240.000 conflict-related fatalities. Moreover, conflicts and sustained violence are not confined geographically but remain active across multiple regions. The global conflict level thus remains worrying, and forms a stark reflection of current growing global tensions. 

It is against this backdrop that we convene for the 81st session of this Committee. It falls to all of us to shoulder our responsibility and to ensure that the international architecture for arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation demonstrates that it is still able to achieve results. 

It is therefore regrettable that for a third consecutive time, the States Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) were unable to achieve consensus on a final outcome document at this year’s Review Conference. Having said that: the NPT remains the cornerstone of our global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament architecture and continues to deliver every day. Yet to preserve its integrity, sustained and good-faith engagements by the international community are required. I therefore call on all delegations here today to recommit to genuine dialogue and cooperation to achieve this.

Chair, 

New and emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence are increasingly influencing our lives, including in the military domain. AI offers opportunities to strengthen our security, for example through enhanced cyber resilience and defence innovation. 
However, emerging technologies also pose significant challenges. Without a responsible approach, the implications of rapid, uncontrolled development and use of certain technologies risks blurring the responsibility and accountability of individuals and States. In a number of cases, the use of AI-assisted military targeting systems in active conflicts has resulted in tragic instances of civilian casualties. 

It is, therefore, a significant milestone that the international community has achieved a substantive outcome in the GGE on LAWS last month. While I understand some would have preferred an even more ambitious outcome, let us focus on what has been achieved: consensus among 128 High Contracting Parties on a characterization, a description of the human involvement and examples of measures to comply to IHL, as well as language on accountability and responsibility, which cannot be transferred to machines.  As Chair of the GGE LAWS, I wish to once more thank all High Contracting Parties for their constructive cooperation over the past three years. 

This positive outcome shows that progress is still possible in the field of ADN. Now it is time for a meaningful next step, in the CCW, and building on the agreed set of elements of an instrument and other measures. 

Chair,

The Netherlands is a vocal advocate for the responsible use of AI in the Military Domain. Last year, as the year before, UN Member States adopted, with overwhelming support, the resolution on Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain, submitted by the Republic of Korea and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 
Keeping with this momentum, we will, once again, table a follow-up resolution which focuses on the next step: structured dialogues centred on a focused agenda and concrete outcomes.  We encourage all delegations to participate actively, share their expertise, and help shape the international agenda on the use of AI in the military domain.

Chair,

Allow me during this General Debate to say also a few words with regard to the UN Disarmament Machinery. So far the UN80 debate has not paid much attention to it, while the machinery is far from running smoothly. Let me take for instance the Conference on Disarmament, in the last 30 years, it did not negotiate a single new agreement, treaty or convention. Instead, we hold lengthy discussions and duplicate the work of the UN Disarmament Commission and afterwards we often cannot even agree on what we actually discussed. Furthermore, its membership is not inclusive and in 2026 again a number of UN Member States, non-members of the CD, were blocked from participating as observers, yet they are paying for its non-functioning. We really have to ask ourselves, what to do with what is still advertised as the quote-unquote “single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community”?

While the Netherlands recognizes that the CD serves a purpose, we believe a critical assessment is needed to determine whether the resources collectively invested in this forum are still proportional to its outputs. We believe that UN80 provides the right framework for a step towards more efficiency within the CD and the Disarmament Machinery as a whole. Let us use the coming weeks to make meaningful steps to this end.

Chair,

Let me conclude.

In a time of growing tensions, we need a functioning disarmament architecture that addresses the urgent present and future challenges. This is our responsibility, not only to ourselves, but to future generations. Let us focus on where we can truly make a difference. As the Netherlands, we stand ready and are eager to work with all delegations in the weeks ahead.

Thank you, Chair.