Statement by H.E. Sanita Pavļuta-Deslandes at the UN Security Council Briefing on Artificial Intelligence,
23 September 2026, New York
Merci, Monsieur le Président.
Je souhaite d'abord remercier la Présidence française d'avoir convoqué cette réunion sur un sujet d'importance et d'urgence majeure pour la sécurité internationale. We thank the briefers – Professor Yoshua Bengio, Sam Altman, Dario Amodei and Clement Delangue - for their enlightening assessment and also the proposals for safe development of AI.
President,
The rapid pace of AI development is already having a profound impact across all domains, including international peace and security. Alongside the extraordinary opportunities that AI offers, we also see growing risks manifesting both in peacetime and in conflict settings. This is a moment for collective action as we hear today and as highlighted in The Call for Control of Frontier AI Models, initiated by Norway and Finland, issued on Monday by 22 world leaders, including the President of Latvia.
We believe that the Security Council has a responsibility to ensure that the implications of AI for international peace and security are fully considered, without duplicating work undertaken in other fora, of course, but today’s discussion demonstrates the Council’s ability to convene member-state, science and industry leaders to address this pressing matter.
President,
Two distinct sources of AI‑related risks for peace and security are becoming evident. Both demand our attention. First are the risks stemming from the misuse of AI by state and non‑state actors. It includes application of AI in malign cyber activities, information manipulation, and even attempts to acquire destructive capabilities, such as biological weapons.
Second, a more novel and complex challenge as outlined by the briefers and the recent reports, stems from the technology itself – such as misalignment and risk of loss of control. Such behaviour risks are source of new forms of vulnerability, including to critical infrastructure. Alarmingly, recent incidents indicate that not only can AI systems act contrary to human intentions and interests, but that they are becoming better at manipulating and deceiving humans as they do so.
These challenges are not an isolated matter, as they add to the already complex international peace and security landscape. Actions by misaligned AI may fuel further tensions and miscalculation, due to the difficulty to track, verify and attribute them. The increasing use of AI and autonomous systems in the military domain poses additional dilemmas, particularly where reliability, control and escalation risks intersect.
President,
Responsible action starts at the industry level, but also with governance, clear guardrails and capable institutions. A multi‑stakeholder approach is essential to manage risks and build trust in AI. Through transparency and accountability. Through establishment of adequate safety protocols for the development and use of AI systems. Through independent evaluation. Through connecting the government’s mandate, academic expertise, civil society and industry innovation. And all these require international cooperation. Coordination, norm-setting, exchange of best practices and capacity building is key to bridge the divide and foster interoperability. The convening of the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance and the establishment of the Independent Scientific Panel on AI are important steps.
Our further efforts should keep up with the pace of development of frontier AI technologies. As highlighted in the Call for Control of Frontier AI Models, we need an open-minded approach by the UN member states to build on current international mechanisms and explore developing new ones. The overall objective should be to ensure that technology serves people, safeguards fundamental rights and freedoms, and delivers benefits that do not come at the expense of uncontrollable risks. If there’s one thing that we should be able to agree on – AI must remain under human direction, oversight and control.
President,
Considering its role in maintaining international peace and security, this Council must remain actively engaged in assessing the implications of AI for global peace and security. With this technology becoming increasingly relevant to the Council’s work in the area of conflict prevention and resolution, proactive approach is necessary. Building on the recent Council’s Informal Interactive Dialogue on AI, that was organized by Latvia and France, and supported by Bahrain and Greece, we are committed to taking further concrete steps, for instance, the establishment of Council’s Informal Expert Group, that would enable more in‑depth Council analysis of the impact of AI‑related technologies on international peace and security, and the implementation of the Council’s mandate. Latvia will continue to work with interested partners on the Council in the coming months.
I thank you.