EU Statement – UN Global Mechanism on ICTs in international security: First Substantive Session Key EU messages for Agenda item on General and stakeholders

Chair, colleagues, it is my honour during the first substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism to deliver this statement on behalf of the EU and its Member States.

The Candidate Countries North Macedonia, Montenegro*, Serbia*, Albania*, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina* and Georgia, and the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, as well as San Marino align themselves with this statement.

Let me start by expressing my gratitude to you Chair and your team, for your efforts, commitment and guidance in operationalizing the UN Global Mechanism.

We are encouraged by the progress made and look forward to engaging this week in substantive discussions on how to advance the implementation of the UN framework of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, giving also guidance to the DTGs.

[We [welcome] the solution you have provided for the Plenary agenda and look forward to – in addition to our substantive discussions – engage on the organisation of work for the DTGs, building on the careful balance we achieved as consensus outcome of the OEWG.]

We furthermore welcome your timely appointment of the cofacilitators, who will serve as part of your team in their personal capacity, to help give shape and further operationalize the DTGs in the coming two years.

We believe that the paper you have circulated on the work of the DTGs sets out a clear way forward on how the DTGs should work and gives us further elements on how they can become an effective tool for the international community to practically implement the UN framework.

As said before, the agendas of the Plenary, DTGs and Global Roundtable on cyber capacity building are complementary to one another. This week is about discussing the pillars, and in guiding the DTGs in their discussions for December. Next year we will be able to benefit from the guidance provided this week, by discussing actionable recommendations coming from the December DTGs during our Plenary session next year, 2027.

We encourage you and the co-facilitators, in consultation with Member States, to develop Programmes of Work for the DTGs that are in line with the guidance you will receive this week, and the continued engagement we envisage in the run up to the DTG meetings. We also encourage you in the preparation of the DTG meetings to develop guiding questions, to allow States to prepare their contributions.

The work of the DTGs should provide for focused and topic-based discussions, drawing on relevant expertise through expert briefings, followed by States' interventions, exchanging best practices and developing practical knowhow for the implementation of the UN framework. To this end, the selection of topics for both DTG1 and DTG2 should ideally be synchronised to allow for complementary, coherent discussions.

As the DTGs are informal meetings, we encourage you to also take prior practice as example in the organisation of work of the DTGs, including on the engagement of the multi-stakeholder community.

Expert briefings as outlined in your paper by a pool of nominated experts will enrich our exchanges with technical and operational insights. Experts should also be given the opportunity to answer to potential questions addressed to them by States.

To bring in the appropriate expertise and have a whole-of-government approach and inspire further work and tangible outcomes on the ground, we are glad that the informal nature of the DTGs also provides for hybrid participation, which will allow also smaller delegations to meaningfully participate.

As for your proposal on the reporting modalities, the DTG co-facilitators could update the Plenary in a verbal transmittal on the discussions in DTGs, in addition to the potential, where needed, transmission of written outcomes to the plenary session, in the case where they are agreed upon by States within the DTGs in the spirit of consensus.

We believe that clarity on reporting mechanisms will be vital for delegations to ensure substantive progress on the practical implementation of the UN framework.

Another vital element is the participation by stakeholders, notably in the DTGs, but let me also make a remark about the participation of stakeholders beyond the DTGs.

We reiterate our strong regret that the recent outcomes of the accreditation process have led to the objection of 43 stakeholders, which is a majority of the 70 entities that applied within the procedure.

These objections demonstrate a concerning lack of transparency, predictability and consistency with the OEWG report consensus, where States agreed that “Member States of the Global Mechanism are committed to engaging with stakeholders in a systematic, sustained, and substantive manner” and moreover that “Member States should utilize the non-objection mechanism judiciously”.

We also regret the lack of transparency why these entities have been objected to, as the entities objected have significant relevance to our work and would add value to our objectives under the Global Mechanism.

For example,

 The EU Institute for Security Studies, with whom many around the table have worked over recent years, and who have contributed significantly to the discussions by organising side-events, publishing papers and hosting training and capacity building activities, have been objected to.

Stakeholder [MS example]

Stakeholder [MS example]

Therefore, we count on you Chair, as well as on the co-facilitators, to bring the relevant stakeholders into the discussion, to support states in their effort to understand the cyber threat landscape and implement the UN framework to address it appropriately.

We are looking forward to taking this next step with you, in advancing a global, open, free, stable and secure cyberspace. It is essential that we use the Global Mechanism as the vehicle to make progress on substance.

The EU and its Member States stand ready to contribute to this – whether through sharing best practices, funding capacity building projects, or hosting simulation exercises – to ensure the Mechanism delivers tangible results for global cybersecurity.