Statement by First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy at a UNSC Briefing on Artificial Intelligence and International Peace and Security
Mr.President,
We are grateful to Secretary-General, António Guterres, and the briefers for contributing to our discussion.
Today, artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer merely a trending topic of widespread debate; it is, above all, a cornerstone of successful technological advancement, economic and social progress, and a critical element of security for any state. AI technologies are being applied across political, social, economic, and defense spheres. However, these technologies also pose significant risks and are becoming a new factor that could affect stability of the entire system of international relations. AI-based tools have the potential to sway public opinion and election results by spreading news, publications, and fakes on social media, and can also disrupt the critical infrastructure of other states. In all this, let us honestly admit that no one in the world fully understands all the risks associated with AI, and we cannot ignore this fact.
I will start with the positive. AI undoubtedly holds immense potential to foster economic development. According to some estimates, with current growth trends maintained, the AI industry could contribute up to $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030. Furthermore, AI can help advance the Sustainable Development Goals, with relevant applications already being developed and implemented to address challenges having to do to climate change and healthcare.
One of the key features of AI is its impact on employment. International Monetary Fund projections suggest that AI could “swallow up” nearly 40% of jobs worldwide, either replacing human labor or enhancing it. As a result, advanced economies will be better positioned to capitalize on AI’s benefits compared to emerging markets and developing countries, which would widen the digital divide and deepen existing disparities in global development and foment social tensions and new conflicts.
The benefits of AI and its most advanced forms are universally recognized. However, the “AI race” – the ambition to outpace geopolitical rivals by rapidly developing a technology that is not fully understood or controlled, without sufficient AI safety measures for all stakeholders – could, much like an “arms race,” endanger humanity’s very existence.
This is not the only potential threat associated with AI development. Therefore, it is not surprising that those who view AI primarily as a source of new opportunities are matched in number by those who view it as a source of potential threats. I would venture to say that virtually no one today is indifferent to this issue, which is predictably becoming a topic of discussion at various political and expert forums.
The UN Security Council is no exception. However, we are convinced that there are evident reservations about discussing this topic within this key UN body, which is mandated to address issues of international peace and security. First, it is unclear how the overarching theme of AI relates to the mandate of Security Council, as clearly defined in the UN Charter, to maintain international peace and security. Second, and equally important, the Security Council consists of 15 member states, with an evident and disproportionate overrepresentation of Western countries. This creates a real risk that these states, who are eager to maintain and strengthen their technological dominance, may seek to impose a narrow, self-serving approach on the global community, sidelining the prerogatives of inclusive, specialized forums dedicated to practical efforts in this area.
Thus, discussions on computer attacks facilitated by AI would be more appropriately held within the Global Mechanism, established to succeed the UN Open-Ended Working Group on International Information Security (IIS). This negotiating platform is mandated to address key issues of security in the field of information and communication technologies, including AI. Unlike the Security Council, this new body will enable all countries to participate on an equal footing in shaping decisions on these matters.
As regards military aspects of AI application, there are also multilateral and inclusive specialized platforms to discuss this issue – primarily, the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (GGE on LAWS), which operates within the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), as well as the United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC). Incidentally, these platforms have yet to develop a common understanding on the most basic issues, even on terminology. I think we all understand that given all this, it is premature, to say the least, to transfer discussions on such sensitive issues to other formats, especially to the UN Security Council, not to mention addressing the impact of AI technologies on other non-proliferation and disarmament aspects.
Mr. President,
Please do not project our position regarding the role of Security Council vis-à-vis AI onto the entire United Nations. We believe that the UN can and should play a coordinating role in AI development, counterbalancing various non-inclusive and temporary formats that advance a politicized agenda. At the same time, it is crucial for us to reach universal agreements, with states playing the leading role therein and engaging in equal dialogue among themselves, and with due regard, of course, to all legitimate interests of the participants in the negotiation process.
Unfortunately, the countries I mentioned are not only seeking, as I said, to increase their technological lead over the countries of the Global South in the field of AI, but also organizing non-inclusive summits “on Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain,” which are destructive in nature. I am referring, in particular, to the 2024 Seoul AI Summit, a closed-door event with a limited number of participants, to which most developing countries were not invited. The conferences in Bletchley in 2023 and Paris in 2025 are quite similar. These events and their resulting documents do not allow for the opinions of all stakeholders and cannot lay the groundwork for further action that would reflect a common understanding of the matter.
The noble goal to proactively design “responsible” AI governance appears to be noble only in words. In practice, it turns out that the peddled regulatory system is dangerous and harmful, as it suggests that AI applications may be either ‘good’ or “bad.” This is precisely where the main question lies: Who is to determine what is “responsible” and what is not when it comes to the use of AI? It seems like the decision will be taken by a very narrow group of countries while the overwhelming majority of UN member states will left out of the process.
Attempts to steamroll certain rules and guidelines of individual states at the Security Council level, as well to replace international legal instruments with them, inter alia through promoting non-inclusive formats and coalitions, are unlikely to bring us closer to developing common approaches to addressing the issue of AI, including its “military” aspects. Ultimately, this could play a cruel joke on the international community and have a destructive impact on the maintenance of international peace and security. We would like to caution our colleagues against such ill-considered steps.
Our position remains unchanged. We advocate for the UN to play a coordinating role vis-à-vis AI. We welcome the creation of AI governance mechanisms within the UN, namely the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence and the Global Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence Governance. We look forward to fruitful discussions within these formats, based on the principles of respect for state sovereignty and compliance with national legislation by AI manufacturers.
I do hope that everyone in this chamber stands convinced that we cannot allow for AI to take precedence over human beings and human values. For our part, we stand ready to continue substantive, equal, and mutually respectful work on all aspects of AI at any specialized inclusive platforms so as to find mutually agreeable solutions and maximize benefits from AI implementation for all countries of the world.
Thank you.
