EU Statement – UN Open-Ended Working Group on Cybersecurity: Regular Institutional Dialogue

Thank you Chair for convening a dedicated intersessional meeting on this topic last week, we hope to continue these exchanges in more depth. You mentioned in your opening remarks, the importance of both ambition and balance when we are determining our path forward, both in relation to the establishment of our future institutional dialogue, but also in relation to the work of this OEWG to guide that establishment. We can only agree. We should ensure that we take the time in our discussions to set the right parameters for the future regular institutional dialogue (RID).  

We would also like to thank you and those of your team for all the efforts put into this revised paper on draft elements for future regular institutional dialogue. The EU welcomes the clarified timeline and modalities, and the degree of convergence. We seem to be moving forward on how the mechanism could function in practice. Through successive annual progress reports, the OEWG and resolutions of the General assembly, states have reached a significant degree of alignment on elements of the future permanent mechanism or Programme of Action (PoA), but there's still work to be done.

We are of the view that at this stage the main focus of the future permanent mechanism should be on implementation of the existing framework, including by strengthening capacities. In a virtuous cyclical approach, strong implementation efforts will in turn allow to identify possible gaps in the framework that could be addressed through the future permanent mechanism or PoA at its review conferences.

Therefore, with regard to paragraph 9, we would like to strongly support the proposal made by the Netherlands during the intersessional to use consensus language from the first and second APR with regard to the possible new legally binding obligations. The language on the development of new norms or legally binding obligations (also paragraph 14 (a)) does not reflect the limited support there is for such endeavour at this moment in time. Again, our urgent need is to implement before we launch a discussion on potential new obligations. It is through implementation of the current framework that we will know if such measures are necessary.

In addition, to reflect the priority towards implementation, we would prefer changing the order of the sub-paragraphs contained in paragraph 9.

In order to concretely enhance our collective resilience, the EU is looking forward to an action-oriented mechanism, meeting the needs of the global community. The EU assesses that while the discussions we are having in the current OEWG are valuable, more is needed to provide States with the relevant capacities to implement the UN framework and to ensure peace and stability, in operational terms and at national, regional and global levels. This has been the focus of the PoA proposal since its introduction into our debates for the past 3 years in this OEWG.

Let me highlight one feature that reflects how we can integrate such value added in the future mechanism or PoA: the establishment of cross cutting dedicated thematic groups.

Taking an issue-based approach such as on the protection of critical infrastructure would act as a means to build confidence and to set out best practices which would enable states to identify capacity building priorities. In order to ensure that the themes match the long-term needs of the global community, we should strive for setting a limited number of foundational dedicated thematic groups, while giving the option to the plenary of the future mechanism or PoA to create additional groups if needed.

We also note with appreciation the recognition of the important role of regional and sub-regional organizations (paragraph 7), as well as policy oriented and cross cutting approach to discussions.

With regards to the multi-stakeholder community, while we welcome the proposal to hold dedicated stakeholder consultations prior to each plenary session, it is important to clarify that future modalities will enable participation by stakeholders in future substantive meetings of the mechanism, rather than only via a separate consultation session. Stakeholders must be included in the future mechanism, enabling them to provide meaningful support and to allow States to benefit from their expertise and input to our discussions, as was the case in the May intersessional meeting. The EU would like to reaffirm that such participation should be based on the principle of a voice but not a vote.

It is essential that the future mechanism or PoA is established in a way that ensures meaningful contributions from stakeholders with modalities that do not allow a single state to have the final say in whether a stakeholder can participate. The elements paper should clarify this and as others, we think the modalities of the AHC on cybercrime is a model that we could follow.

Turning to decision making, we strongly support the clear language on consensus decision making regarding substance but think that more specific tasks, as for example the role of the Chair, could be something to be discussed over the course of the next year rather than rushing into it now. It could therefore be useful to also mention, under paragraph 19 that these modalities are to be decided at the organizational meeting.

Mr. Chair, reaching consensus on the annex on Regular Institutional Dialogue remains a highly desirable goal. In addition, we consider it can be useful to continue the approach we took in previous APRs of incrementally building common ground on the key purposes and objectives of future regular institutional dialogue. We therefore strongly support the proposal by France to, as previous years, cover a set of common elements in this year’s APR.