The transcripts are AI-generated from the UN's English audio and can contain mistakes. We are checking them against the statements the missions publish; some errors are still expected.
Say our name. Naoero. Mr. president, Naoero is an ocean state. We are not merely guardians of the ocean, but rightful participants in its future. For Naoero, the ocean represents both opportunity and responsibility. Never one without the other. Both are essential, or the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is left hollow. Today I focus on a part of it that belongs to no one, the deep seabed area beyond national jurisdiction. Mr. president, the convention established the International Seabed Authority and charged it with a clear legal obligation to put in place regulations and regulate activities in parallel with sponsoring states. Its role is not to determine whether deep seabed mining is, as a matter of public policy, a correct course of action. Naoero joined trusting in the commitment set out in the convention and the 1994 agreement. For 15 years, Naoero has invested critical resources in sponsoring the exploration of a portion of the deep seabed. Our sponsored entity, NORI or Nauru Ocean Resources, has contributed about one petabyte of data more than one third of all Clarion-Clipperton Zone data held in the authority's DeepData. We called on the authority to seek an advisory opinion on the responsibilities of sponsoring states, and we followed it. We established a national regulator with the powers and due diligence obligations that opinion requires. At every stage, our decisions have rested on the best available scientific evidence, on the convention and on that opinion. At every stage, we have called for the mining code to be finished, and when progress stalled, we looked to the 1994 agreement and invoked the two year rule. We were told then that we were rushing. That was five years ago, and today the rules remain unwritten. We are participating in the first contentious proceedings before the Seabed Disputes Chamber, because our obligations as a sponsoring state require legal clarity. For 15 years, we have done everything a member state can do, consistent with our obligations as a sponsoring state. And today we continue to wait. Mr. president, there is a general understanding within the authority's council that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that the regulations will be adopted by consensus. Achieving that is a great challenge for an institution whose members remain deeply divided on whether deep seabed mining should proceed at all, a question the convention never asked the authority to decide. Naoero welcomes every effort to ensure that seabed mineral development proceeds responsibly, and I ask this Assembly to reckon with this. A principle declared in 1970 and a bargain struck in 1994, both in this hall still wait for the rules that would give them effect. When a multilateral process cannot deliver, the world does not stand still. Those with the means to act will not wait. And every year of delay makes that more likely not less. That is why the theme of this session matters. A multilateral system that cannot deliver for a state like mine does not deliver for all. That holds here, in this assembly and in any institution we build. Naoero therefore calls upon the authority to let the waiting end.
For our part, New Zealand will continue to press for a more effective, credible, transparent and representative Security Council. As a demonstration of our continued commitment to collective security and the UN Charter, New Zealand is seeking a seat on the UN Security Council for 2039 to 40. We ask the next Secretary-General to work with us to preserve the integrity of the global disarmament framework, particularly on weapons of mass destruction. The grave dangers of deterioration of the global non-proliferation regime should alarm us all. New Zealand was deeply disappointed at the failure to reach consensus at this year's Nuclear Nonproliferation Review Conference. After three consecutive review conference failures, we must do all we can to preserve the health of the NPT and indeed strengthen it. This means tackling persistent violations and cases of non-compliance. Iran is not in compliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations. The DPRK nuclear weapons and missile programs continue to threaten its region and beyond. Halting the NPT deterioration also requires concrete action from nuclear weapon states to, at long last, chart a path towards total, verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament. We also call on you to safeguard the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the constitution for the oceans, which provides the framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out. Compliance with these universally applicable rules is essential not only for maintaining peace and security, but also for protecting prosperity and food security, given the oceans vital role in supporting trade.
Created in the aftermath of the Second World War, the immediate focus was obviously on peace and security but the UN system has evolved significantly over the decades to expand its scope and sphere of influence within the confines of its charter. However, the UN must now look to the future, building on its record of achievements as well as from lessons learned from what it could not achieve. As we look to the next 80 years, we must ask ourselves a searching question is the UN fit for the purpose for the 21st century, not the world of 1945, but the world of today and beyond? We are entering a new era of international relations defined by unprecedented technological developments, often absent from the table where the rules of tomorrow are being adopted, developing countries risk being left further behind. The same exclusion afflicts the international financial architecture, which remains skewed against the Global South. Developing nations must have a seat at the table as equal stakeholders. We all acknowledge that the three pillars of the UN charter are peace and security, development and human rights. The twin institutional pillars provided in the charter were and still are, the Security Council and ECOSOC as the apex bodies for achieving these purposes. However, over the years, optimal use has been made primarily of only one of these organs. We need to enhance and accelerate the revitalization of the General Assembly and that of ECOSOC so that they are not merely forums for debate, but engines of action. This must be done as we bring about the reform of the Security Council, the historical injustice regarding the composition of the Council was acknowledged in action 39 of the pact for the future, but the process for reform is still stalled. Mauritius fully supports the Common African Position, the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration calling for no fewer than two permanent and five non-permanent African seats on the council. Mauritius also supports the call for SIDS to have a seat on a reformed council. On the question of the veto, Mauritius aligns itself with the position of a growing number of states that, in the event the veto is retained, any new permanent member must have the same rights as the original permanent members. Mauritius also supports the Franco-Mexican initiative on the suspension of the veto in cases of mass atrocities. We support the positions of the G4 and the L69 on council reform, and we reiterate our support for India's candidature for a permanent seat commensurate with its constructive role in global affairs. Mr. president, Mauritius welcomes the increasing recourse to the International Court of Justice as a mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes and determination of issues of international law. We call upon Member States which have not yet done so, to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. We welcome the landmark unanimous advisory opinion of the ICJ on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. This was a vindication of the tireless advocacy of Vanuatu and the core group of states. Mauritius was proud to stand among them.
Today, Central Asia is becoming an example of constructive inter-state cooperation as well as economic, infrastructural and technological development. In this regard, we are ready to share the experience we have accumulated along this path. Distinguished heads of delegations. For the first time in its history, Kyrgyzstan has been elected as a member of the United Nations Security Council for the 2027 2028 term. Taking this opportunity, I would like to express my profound gratitude to all countries that supported our candidacy. The support of 142 member states not only confirms Kyrgyzstan's readiness to contribute to international affairs, but also demonstrates the growing role of the Central Asian region in international relations. This achievement is clear evidence that even small states can make a meaningful contribution to addressing global challenges. We fully understand that membership in the Security Council is not a privilege or reward. It is a great responsibility. One year ago, standing at this stage, I stated with confidence that Kyrgyzstan is among those states whose experience enables them to put forward substantive issues for consideration by the Security Council. We do not forget the promises we have made and will make every effort to implement them fully. Therefore, I would like to reiterate Kyrgyzstan firmly adheres to international law, justice and the protection of human rights and supports the multilateral system based on mutual respect, balance of interest and responsibility towards future generations. We intend to work closely with every country and remain committed to productive cooperation. Distinguished colleagues as you all may know, since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, its member states and leaders have attempted to undertake systematic reforms. Reforms have ranged from expanding the membership of the Security Council to modernizing mechanisms of governance, peacekeeping and the protection of human rights. These initiatives continue to be actively discussed at the international level. However, despite numerous efforts and years of discussion, the institutional structure of our organization continues to face various challenges. Therefore, I believe that expanding the membership of the Security Council is one of the reforms that the international community expects. I consider it fair to grant two permanent seats to the African continent, with a population of more than 1 billion people and one permanent seat to Latin America. Today, the world has changed. At the same time, a number of developed countries have also expressed their aspiration to become members of the Security Council. I believe that the request of this country should be also considered. Another issue, in my view, the weakness of effective mechanisms for ensuring the implementation of the decisions of the organization. The systematic failure to implement the organization's decisions undermines the legitimacy of multilateralism concept, creates the impression that international law is not binding and encourages disregard for international obligations. Therefore, we must expand and strengthen the authority of the United Nations. In this regard, we propose to develop the United Nations mechanism for the implementation of decisions and accountability. First, it is necessary to establish, within the framework of the General Assembly, the permanent Public registry of the implementation of resolutions and obligations by Member States. This registry could include the following information and ensure the implementation of such mechanisms as. First, systematically record and verify the level of implementation of adopted decisions. Second, establish the obligation for Member States to regularly submit report in accordance with the agreed standards. Third, provide analytical reviews on sectors and regions. Fourth, ensure transparency and equal access to information for all states. The registry could be administered by the United Nations Secretariat with the support of independent experts. If decisions of the organization are systematically not implemented, I propose the gradual response mechanisms. The first stage an official notification to the concerned state, followed by consultations with the relevant bodies of the organization. The second stage deployment of a monitoring mission to the country concerned to assess the objective obstacles, preventing the implementation of the decision and to prepare recommendations. The third stage consideration of the case right here at a plenary meeting of the General Assembly to determine the status of the concerned state in terms of its systematic implementation or non implementation of United Nations decisions. The fourth stage, the initiation of appropriate procedures under the charter of the United Nations with regard to states that fail to comply with the requirements. In particular, the matter could be referred to the United Nations Security Council for consideration of restrictive measures provided for under international law, including the first temporary restriction on participation in United Nations programs. The second, recommendations to review existing formats of cooperation and other diplomatic measures, where appropriate. Distinguished colleagues, I believe that when cases of systematic non-implementation of United Nations decisions are considered, the permanent members of the Security Council should voluntarily refrain from using the veto. If a mechanism designed to ensure the implementation of the organization's decisions is systematically blocked by permanent members through the use of the veto, such practice would no longer be consistent with the spirit of the UN charter and the principle of equal responsibility of Member States. Therefore, we should once again consider the possibility of voluntarily restraining to use the veto in matters related to the implementation of the organization's decisions. This approach could promote universality, the equality of all states, regardless of their size, the primacy of diplomacy, and avoid the double standards. In order to implement this initiative, I propose establishing to open a working group within the General Assembly with the participation of the interested Member States. The working group could conduct inter-governmental consultations and prepare a report on possible models for the proposed mechanism. Following these consultations, the General Assembly and the Security Council should consider adopting the relevant resolutions and decisions. The strategic objective of this initiative is to ensure that the decisions of the organization are treated not merely as political recommendations, but as genuine international obligations. Improvement of their implementation would strengthen the rule of international law and reinforce confidence in the United Nations. Kyrgyzstan is ready to initiate interstate discussions on the development of such a mechanism. Starting from the 1st January 2027, as a member of the United Nations Security Council, we intend to formally submit all these proposals to the relevant committee. Distinguished colleagues, I would like to address separately the issues of sanctions. As we have all observed today, sanctions are in some cases, used by individual countries as an instrument to interference to the internal affairs of sovereign states.
At this critical historical juncture for the United Nations, we look forward with great hope to the selection through the process of electing the new Secretary-General of the most capable and deserving individual to lead the organization with a bold, strategic vision, building upon the efforts of his predecessor and capable of providing practical solutions for the various regions whose peoples continue to suffer the consequences of crises, wars, instability and inequality. A vision that restores hope to future generations for a better future in which the conditions for a dignified life are available to all. Mr. president we meet during this 81st session under the theme Restoring Trust and Managing Transformation a United Nations that delivers for all. This prompts us to ask, how can we restore this trust? And before managing the desired transformation, how can we create the conditions and lay the foundations necessary for it? Our questions stem neither from doubt nor from pessimism, but from a firm conviction that restoring trust requires serious and responsible reflection on the reasons behind its decline. Tunisia's belief in multilateral action is not a product of current circumstances. Rather, it is the continuation of a journey that began before independence, when the national movement brought the cause of the Tunisian people before the United Nations and made the right to self-determination and the recovery of sovereignty, an integral part of the struggle for freedom. Following independence, Tunisia engaged fully within the United Nations to complete the foundations of its sovereignty and to build the modern state, and it succeeded in doing so. Restoring confidence in the organization and in multilateral action requires, in our view, two essential conditions a genuine commitment and a meaningful reform process. First, there must be a sincere determination and responsible commitment by all states to respect international law founded on agreement and the principle of sovereign equality among states, and to uphold the purposes and principles of the UN charter, particularly refraining from the use of force, the settlement of disputes by peaceful means and fulfilling international obligations in good faith. Second, the United Nations must embark on a comprehensive and profound reform process that responds to the transformations that have taken place in the world. This requires, in particular, reconsidering the mechanisms of decision making within the organization to ensure a more balanced and equitable geographical representation, and establishing more effective mechanisms for transparency and accountability, thus reinforcing the confidence of states and peoples in the organisation's ability to respond to the aspirations of all. Unless genuine progress is achieved on these two tracks, collective action will remain hostage to narrow geopolitical calculations, and the gap will continue to widen between the principles we agree upon and the realities we witness on the ground. We may choose either to continue meeting under the idealism of slogans, or to commit ourselves to what can truly achieve development, prosperity and peace for all. If we have the will, we have the capacity. Tunisia welcomes the efforts undertaken within the framework of the UN80 Initiative. We regard these efforts as a true opportunity on which we should build, rather than a final destination in the reform process. We support the three reform tracks proposed by the initiative, provided that they are pursued through an inclusive, consultative process that preserves the intergovernmental nature of the organization and does not undermine the negotiating mandates of member states. Tunisia also believes that addressing the liquidity crisis in the organization requires all states to meet their financial obligations in full. We stress that reform should not result in a reduction of support allocated to developing countries, or to humanitarian missions and development programmes supervised by the organization and specialized agencies. Tunisia, therefore, calls for a fair and balanced approach that safeguards both the effectiveness and credibility of the United Nations. Mr. president.
Madam president, excellencies, distinguished delegates. A compass does not change with the weather. It helps you find a way in fair weather as well as in storm. 81 years ago, the world gave itself a compass. We named it the United Nations Charter. It has helped us stay the course even when the seas have been anything but calm. It has pointed us toward a world of equal rights, self-determination of peoples and territorial integrity of all states, large and small, towards a rules based international order. The progress has been real. More than a billion people lifted out of poverty. Standards of living transformed. Colonial empires brought to an end. Independent nations emerged. Peoples gained the right to shape their own future. That progress was made possible because we kept consulting the compass, because we stayed the course. Today it seems we are losing our way. Wars and conflicts are at the highest level since World War Two. Extreme poverty is on the rise. Extreme weather and climate related disasters are hitting record highs. Mistrust, polarization and divisions are growing both among states and within societies. Even the most basic principles of international law, including international humanitarian law, are violated with impunity. To get back on track, we must turn our attention to the compass. Excellencies, respect for the charter, for Human Rights, for international law is not a courtesy we extend when convenient. These are binding obligations we all agree to. Respecting them is the precondition for international peace and security.
Nigeria stands ready to assume greater responsibility on the strength of obligations honoured and sacrifices made over decades in the service of peace. From Liberia and Sierra Leone to Darfur, Mali and The Gambia, we have committed personnel resources when international solidarity required action. Through ECOWAS, the African Union and our Gulf of Guinea partnerships, we continue to advance mediation, democratic governance, counter-terrorism and maritime security. Mr. President, our foreign policy rests on the same conviction that guides our economic reforms. Through sound macroeconomic management, stronger institutions, private sector development and strategic public investment, we seek to give practical meaning to our sustainable development commitments.
Climate change must never be allowed to erase a nation's sovereignty, its statehood, or the rights of its people. Antigua and Barbuda and other vulnerable states sought clarity on the obligations of states in relationship to climate change. The International Court of Justice has spoken. Climate obligations are not acts of generosity. They are responsibilities under international law. For small states, international law is more than a moral aspiration. It is our strategic shield. For SIDs, climate justice is survival.
Mr. President, for 45 years after independence, Belize continues to pursue the peaceful settlement of its territorial disputes with Guatemala and Honduras. Belize has chosen and will always choose law over force. Belize informs this assembly of a serious breach of international law committed on the night of 23rd September 2026, when a Guatemalan military aircraft entered Belize's sovereign airspace and intentionally disabled its transponder. This act violates the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, customary norms governing state aircraft and the inviolability of territorial sovereignty protected under article 2(4) of the United Nations. This incursion is not an isolated one. It forms a part of a continuing pattern in which Guatemalan state vessels and personnel operate unlawfully in Belizean territorial waters of the Sarstoon River, which forms part of Belize's border with Guatemala in defiance of obligations binding on both parties to refrain from any action capable of aggravating or extending the dispute presently before the International Court of Justice. The case is scheduled for hearing in February 2027. Guatemala's conduct risk prejudicing the court's authority and undermines the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes enshrined in article 33 of the charter. Belize, therefore, calls upon Guatemala to immediately cease all incursions by air, land or sea to comply fully with its obligations under the UN charter, the Chicago Convention and the OAS Confidence Building Measures, and to respect the integrity of the ICJ process. Belize further requests heightened monitoring by the United Nations and the OAS to ensure that no Member State uses military force or intimidation to influence judicial proceedings.
International law has spoken with increasing clarity. Saint Kitts and Nevis welcomed the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on states' climate obligations. Clarification must now become compliance. Commitments must become conduct. And promises must become performance. States must reduce emissions, strengthen adaptation, honour climate finance responsibilities, and cooperate with countries bearing consequences vastly disproportionate to their contribution to this crisis. Mr. President, those who contributed least must not pay the greatest price. Our oceans must also move from promises to protection.
We reject these unlawful punitive measures, and we reject the accusations and justifications on which they were based. We affirm that we have fulfilled our obligations, carried out a comprehensive national reform program, and upheld our commitment to international law, to shunning violence and terrorism, and to the two state solution and to peace on the basis of resolutions of international legitimacy. We also affirm that the Palestinian people and its leadership should not be punished for demanding an end for the occupation, or for turning to the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Our choice to invoke international law and its institutions is a peaceful and civilized choice, and not an act that runs counter to peace. Denying the Palestinian delegation access to the UN headquarters is a violation of the United States obligations as the host country. Therefore, we call upon the American administration to lift these sanctions and restrictions, return to dialogue and mutual respect, and work with us and with the international community in order to implement the two state solution on the basis of international legitimacy and to establish peace, rather than punishing the side that has chosen the path of international law and political and diplomatic action in order to guarantee its rights.
This Assembly has this week addressed the threats posed by sea level rise. For Fiji the legal consequences are not abstract. Statehood, once established, continues. Maritime zones once lawfully established and deposited within the United Nations must remain notwithstanding the physical changes brought by sea level rise. No state should lose its rights, its identity, or its seat in this hall because others have altered its coastline. Fiji urges this assembly, to carry that principle from declaration into settled international law. Fiji welcomes the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change.
He has exerted considerable efforts to advance the reform process and to put forward initiatives aimed at making the United Nations more effective, influential and representative. I stand today before this distinguished Assembly, under deeply regrettable circumstances, that Sudan never wished to witness within an organization founded on the principles of sovereign equality among states, respect for international law and the guarantee of equal participation for all Member states. His Excellency General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, chairman of the Transitional Sovereign Council of the Republic of Sudan, was to stand before you today to address the General Assembly on behalf of the Sudanese people and government. However, the host country prevented this by failing to issue the visa required for His Excellency to participate in this high level segment of the General Assembly. More regrettably still, this situation persisted despite the efforts undertaken by the Secretariat and despite the Secretary General's request to the host country to issue the entry visa in accordance with its obligations under the 1947 Headquarters Agreement. Accordingly, the Republic of Sudan calls upon the Secretary General, the General Assembly and the Committee on Relations with the host country to take the necessary measures to safeguard the sanctity of the Headquarters Agreement. Sudan further requests that this incident be formally documented and examined by the relevant UN mechanisms responsible for the implementation of the Headquarters Agreement. Mr. president, the need remains urgent for comprehensive, equitable and expeditious reform of the international system in light of these changes and challenges, as well as for political administration through dialogue, respect for international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Resilience without resources is not resilience, it is merely survival. The same logic applies directly to the climate crisis. For Seychelles, climate change is not a prospective debate. It is a daily reality that strikes at the very foundations of our society. Rising seas threaten our infrastructure, our coastal livelihoods and our very territory. The science is undisputed. The targets are clear. What remains missing is political will and execution. Major emitters must display greater ambition while all nations act according to their responsibilities and capabilities. Economic growth that bankrupts the planet for future generations is not progress. Seychelles, therefore, welcomes the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change, reinforcing that climate action is rooted in international law, equity and intergenerational justice. Mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and loss and damage funding are not acts of charity. They are legal obligations.
Mr. President, 81 years ago, in the aftermath of the devastation of the Second World War, the nation that founded our organization made a solemn pledge to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. That commitment remains as vital today as it was in 1945. While the world has thus far been spared another global war, armed conflicts continue to inflict immense human suffering across many regions. Concurrently, geopolitical rivalries, climate change, widening inequalities, rapid technological transformation, and transnational threat are placing growing strain on international peace, stability and cooperation. At a time when international cooperation is more necessary than ever, trust among nations is being tested, while confidence in multilateral institutions and their capacity to respond effectively to common challenges is under increasing pressure. Our response cannot be retreat. The world needs the United Nations, not less, but more. But it is only a United Nations that commands trust, because it is principled, representative, effective, and capable of delivering the purpose and principle of its charter. Trust is not restored by declaration alone. It is earned through consistency: when commitments are honoured, international law is respected, disputes are settled by peaceful means. Sovereign equality must remain a fundamental principle of international relations. The charter does not prescribe one standard for the powerful and another for the less powerful. All member states, large or small, are equal before the charter and are bound by the obligations it establishes. Mr. president, Cambodia understands the value of trust from its own history. Our country endured decades of conflict, genocide, division, and immense human suffering.
Their tragedy reminds us that maritime security is human security. Put the face to our identity as an archipelagic and maritime nation where open and secure seas are our lifeblood. For the Philippines, the safety of ships and seafarers cannot be separated from supply chains and global commerce. Open and secure seas free from interference and coercion are vital to our security, our economy, and our people. International law must remain our guiding lighthouse with the Universal Declaration of Common and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea standing firmly as the constitution of the oceans. Next year marks the 45th anniversary of UNCLOS and the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. This year also marks a decade since the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award, an award that is final and legally binding and that demonstrates how international law provides states with peaceful means to clarify rights and resolve differences. The Philippines stands firm in its conviction that disputes must be resolved through diplomacy and law, not violence and might. International cooperation to protect maritime security must also extend to critical maritime infrastructure, the physical and digital nervous system of our shared prosperity. From undersea cables carrying 90% of global data to strategic sea lanes and ports, sustaining trade to offshore facilities fueling economies, disruption of critical maritime infrastructure can send shock waves across borders. Rather than waiting for threats and asking who should respond, states must explore a framework anchored on UNCLOS that sets out clear rules, rights and obligations governing critical maritime infrastructure. Mr. president, excellencies, all our advancements will falter if they are not anchored in universal human rights and safeguarded from the shadow of modern threats. Since joining the United Nations as a founding member, the Philippines has proudly stood with the vanguard of human rights.
Botswana comes to this podium with a power and weight of genuine conviction. When Botswana gained independence in 1966, we carried a founding belief that our security and prosperity would come from disciplined integration into a community of nations governed by rules that all had agreed to honor. We honored our treaty obligations and opened our economy in accordance with the norms of this organization. We regarded compliance with international law as one of Botswana's strongest protections. That is the tradition I bring to this podium, representing a nation staking its existence on the promise that shared rules faithfully observed remain humanity's best instrument for peace and prosperity. That tradition tests whether trust between nations, large and small, can be restored. Mr. President, restoring trust must begin with restoring respect: respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and equal dignity of every nation, regardless of its size, wealth, or military power. For smaller states such as Botswana, a rule-based international order is an essential safeguard.
We will continue to protect our borders, to implement our migratory laws, and strengthen and equip our armed forces in exercise of sovereign equality that the United Nations recognizes for each state, and all of this fully respecting the international obligations that we freely assumed.
It starts at home. And Indonesia has long understood this for decades. In the 1960s, Indonesia developed the concept of national resilience to safeguard our identity, to protect our sovereignty and unity, and to sustain our development in the face of challenges and obstacles. At the heart of our resilience are our people. A nation is resilient when families can provide for their households, when farmers can produce, when workers can find decent jobs, and when children can learn, grow and dream about their future. For Indonesia, this means building greater self-sufficiency in food and strengthening our energy security. Most importantly, it also means investing in the future of our people, ensuring our children receive quality education and ensuring our people have access to essential health care. At the same time, we are building an economy that can withstand shocks and create opportunities more jobs, stronger industries, and greater productive capacity. Central to our resilience is our ability to manage differences and preserve our unity. As a nation of more than 280 million people, Indonesia has learned that diversity is not something to overcome. It is something to manage, respect and turn into strength through democratic participation, dialogue, and respect for differences. We preserve our unity from Aceh to Papua, from Miangas to Rote. Indonesia is one people. Indonesia is one nation. We also continue to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights through our national mechanisms and our commitment to international human rights obligations. This goes hand in hand with building our national resilience, because human rights are not only the absence of violence. They are also about ensuring that people have food, education and healthcare. To our neighbors, friends and partners, let there be no doubt Indonesia stands strong today, grounded firmly in democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. And when nations are resilient at home, they have greater capacity to contribute beyond their borders. A food secure Indonesia can contribute more to regional and global food security. A more energy resilient Indonesia can contribute more to the global energy transition. A stronger economy opens greater opportunities for cooperation and shared prosperity. This is how national resilience becomes collective resilience.
Additionally, our energy transition efforts take Thailand closer to meeting climate obligations and through our solar rooftop policy, we are also creating greater economic opportunities for households by allowing them to sell excess electricity back to the grid. However, this responsibility goes beyond development. Thailand's humanitarian tradition demonstrates this conviction.
In the context of the developments in Iran, the security of global maritime routes, especially the route that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, have highlighted the global dimensions of this issue. As we underscored publicly several times in international fora, Bulgaria firmly supports the freedom and security of international maritime transport and calls for strict adherence with applicable international law and to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Security requires us to limit the risks posed by weapons of mass destruction and by their proliferation. Bulgaria remains determined to strengthen international non-proliferation, disarmament, and arms control architecture, as well as the three pillars of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We support the goal of a world without these weapons, which ought to be pursued via pragmatic measures: greater transparency, verifiable control, and limits placed upon arsenals. Global conflicts have introduced new threats hitherto unknown, jeopardizing nuclear safety through irresponsible attacks on nuclear sites. On the other hand, compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty is key for Iran, which ought first and foremost to adhere strictly to its international obligations and reach a long-term nuclear agreement overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Today's security requires that we act in a timely fashion.
For my country, for Cyprus, this is not an abstract principle; it is a painful existential reality. Fifty-two years have passed since the illegal Turkish invasion of Cyprus, an act of aggression violating the core principles of the UN Charter, an ongoing, flagrant violation of international law, with more than a third of the territory of Cyprus remaining under Turkish occupation. For fifty-two years, the tens of thousands of displaced and their descendants are prevented from returning to their homes. For fifty-two years, Varosha remains sealed off, with Turkey still in defiance of its clear and very specific obligations set out in the relevant UN resolutions. For fifty-two years, we are experiencing violations of fundamental human rights, the destruction of religious and cultural heritage, and the organized transfer of settlers amounting to demographic change. Pain and immense suffering are the daily reality of the relatives of the missing persons that, to this day, are demanding answers as to the fate of their loved ones. And for fifty-two years, the principles at stake have remained the same: respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity are not rhetorical vehicles, nor are they to be applied selectively depending on who the perpetrator is. These principles do not become less important with the passage of time, nor do the resolutions of this organization. UN resolutions cannot be upheld in one case and disregarded, fully disregarded in another. And the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state cannot depend on its size, its power, or the passage of the time. And this is not only a question for Cyprus. It goes to the credibility of the international system itself. If we ask states to believe in multilateralism, if we expect them to be active contributors, then they must be able to trust that the principles and decisions of our institutions will be upheld without exception. Ladies and gentlemen, I listened very carefully to the speech of President Erdogan yesterday: references to international law, to the respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, to illegal occupation, to the drama of refugees. Yet, in relation to my country, in relation to Cyprus, Turkey is doing exactly the opposite: hypocrisy of the highest form. President Erdogan yesterday also quoted extensively from the UN Charter. But politicians are judged not by their words, but by their deeds. And if Mr. Erdogan wants to quote from the Charter, he must first apply the Charter. The UN Security Council has established the framework for the solution of the Cyprus problem. That framework of a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality remains the only basis on which a comprehensive settlement must be reached. And I remain fully committed to achieving a factional and viable solution. I'm ready. I'm ready to resume negotiations from where they left off, building on the substantial work already achieved. The common ground is there: the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, international law, and the law, values, and principles of the European Union. What is now required is political will by all parties and genuine willingness to return to meaningful negotiations, to engage seriously, to build on the body of work already achieved, and to reach a settlement that reunifies our country and our people. A settlement that allows Greek and Turkish Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians, and Latins to live together in peace, security, and prosperity. On my side, let me repeat it, I'm fully committed. Because, ladies and gentlemen, division will not be accepted. This cannot and will not be the future for my country and my people, ever. Our determination to reunify our island is firm. I therefore call on my Turkish Cypriot compatriots to perceive our future together as the opportunity for prosperity. And of course, I call on President Erdogan to give the green light for substantive negotiations within the UN agreed framework. Excellencies, I mentioned several times how change is inevitable. But the choices we make in response to change are ours. For countries like Cyprus, the answer must be cooperation with purpose.
A lesson that fair advocacy and earnest desire for compliance with the law and order alone can hardly defend anything. Like in other parts of the world, a serious landscape of confrontation between justice and injustice, and between hegemonic forces and independent forces is being witnessed in Northeast Asia this year. The Korean Peninsula and its vicinity in particular, are faced with extreme instability and further aggravated tension on a level different from that of last year due to the persistent hostility towards the DPRK and ever increasing military confrontation of the U.S. and its followers. The US Japan ROK military alliance, unmistakably aimed at DPRK, is being evolved by the United States into a more offensive and aggressive military bloc with nuclear element. The US is conspiring with its allies to systematically amend and update the anti-DPRK nuclear war scenarios, and to steadily cultivate and master their performance capability through provocative war rehearsals of all hues and military buildup. This year alone, the US staged a series of bilateral and multilateral military exercises including Freedom Shield and Freedom Edge, simulating a real war scenario. It didn't even bother to cover up its dangerous attempt at military confrontation against the DPRK. The USA has approved and encouraging Seoul's ambition to possess nuclear powered submarines while relocating and deploying different military hardware, including the latest missiles and drones on the Korean Peninsula and its vicinity. The current military inclination is further aggravating the already vulnerable security landscape in the region. On the other hand, Japan, an A-Class war criminal that inflicted untold sufferings and disasters upon mankind in the last century, is taking advantage of the present international turbulence. It accelerates its attempts at rearmament with an unprecedented commitment, including the revision of the peace constitution, abandonment of exclusive defense, reformation of the military structure and arms buildup. Such actions are casting war clouds over the entire region. Under the signboard of a counterattack capability, Japan has buckled down to the development and possession of a long range attack, weapons that put neighboring countries within striking range. Its ambition runs counter to its obligations as a defeated nation. They are in shameless disregard of the UN charter and pose a grave challenge to global peace. The global military and political context is worsening day by day, and the unlimited abuse of power has become a commonplace. Under such circumstances, the risky military threat of the U.S., Japan and the ROK go beyond precedent and continue to break the worst records in their scale, intensity, nature and dangers, creating security instability on the Korean Peninsula on a level different from previous years. Nevertheless, no physical conflict has occurred on and around the Korean Peninsula, a hot spot of the world, and the security index is being maintained at a higher level than any other part of the globe. We owe it to the fact that the DPRK has a war deterrent in place, powerful enough to break anyone's will to start a war of aggression against the DPRK, and that we are thoroughly containing and managing the hostile forces intention to use force. Thus, the regional balance of power maintained by the DPRK's self-defensive capabilities effectively curbs the risk of an armed conflict. No one can deny such an obvious fact. It further highlighted the immutable truth that just power means national sovereignty and prestige, and fundamental guarantee of peace and stability.
Disputes must be settled by peaceful means. Human rights must be protected. International humanitarian law must be observed in all circumstances, and international obligations must be fulfilled. The law loses its ability to protect us when we accept its selective application. National and international institutions lose legitimacy when they depart from their mandates in response to pressure, calculations or particular interests. Their authority rests on independence impartiality, transparency and respect for the law. There can be no there cannot be one rule for the powerful and another for the weak. Nor can there be victims whose suffering outrages us and others whose suffering we choose to ignore. For countries such as Guatemala international law does not constrain our sovereignty. It is one of its principal safeguards. Guatemala believes in the peaceful settlement of disputes. We place our trust in dialogue, negotiation and the mechanisms provided for under international law.
President, Liechtenstein joined the United Nations 36 years ago as its 160th member. We did so driven by the conviction that we, as one of the smallest members of the international community, should be part of the most important conversation on global governance, with the participation of all states, big or small, in developing international norms and standards, and also in upholding respect for them. Sovereignty was a key theme of our domestic discussions, resulting in our UN membership. We joined out of enlightened self-interest the belief that we need the UN to secure respect for our sovereignty through upholding international law as the basis for our security and prosperity. To this end, we also decided to make our own contribution to make best use of the opportunity offered to us as a small state, to be an active part of the biggest peace project in the history of humankind. President, our belief in the United Nations remains steadfast. This is the place where we can make our voice heard, where we can put ideas forward, and where we can gather to try to solve the issues that affect us all. We have greatly benefited from our membership, and the UN has consistently been a key platform for our foreign policy. Our membership has consistently enjoyed high levels of support in our population. But today we also find ourselves in a moment where instability and uncertainty dominate the conversation. Our organization no longer seems able to deliver on the key promises of the UN Charter to save future generations from the scourge of war. It can no longer count on the unconditional support of its most powerful members for the guiding rules of international law. It is increasingly ignored or sidelined in efforts to address both the traditional and new challenges, such as the regulation of artificial intelligence. It is permanently squeezed financially. Legal obligations to pay are turned into tools to exercise political leverage. As a result the United Nations has moved down the foreign policy agenda, even of states who have a strong history of supporting it. We can no longer take it for granted that our people will continue their strongly positive views of our organization. President. This is the difficult moment in which we find ourselves. But rather than engaging in doomsday scenarios, we have to find the opportunities hidden in the challenge. The overwhelming majority of the states present in this room believe in the United Nations. They want to see positive change for the UN to emerge stronger, more effective, more relevant. But we all have to be prepared to be part of the change that we want to see. Resisting the temptation of collective inertia and of waiting for positive change to happen on its own, will require our active political investment. We are grateful to Secretary-General Guterres for his service to the organization, and for his proposals to adapt the organization to the needs of today. On the basis of his ideas, our delegations here have done good work that will show positive results over time. This is important. It shows that we can come together also during times of deep political division. It is also not enough. The steps we have taken are just the beginning of what we need, a political agreement that combines significant structural change with a reliable financial commitment and firm support for the UN Charter from all. This is also the vision we are looking for in the person that will be appointed as the next Secretary-General. We hope that this decision will come very soon, in order to give the new Secretary-General the time she needs to prepare for this most unique of jobs. And we remain convinced that having a woman at the helm of the United Nations is long overdue for an organization that prides itself on its role in gender equality. President. At its core, the United Nations is a peace organization.
Read around it:
SL
No. 26
Sierra Leone09/22 · first at about 13 min1 mention
Who benefits? Who decides and who pays? In Shenge, on Sierra Leone's southern coast, families watch the sea take their land, fishing grounds and the graves of their ancestors. For them, climate change is the disappearance of home in the present. Those who contributed least to the climate crisis are bearing some of its greatest costs. Accessible and predictable climate finance, support for adaptation and effective arrangement for loss and damage are obligations of justice. They are also investment in global stability. Fairness in transformation depends on the institutions that govern it. Sierra Leone therefore supports the UN80 initiative and wider reforms that make this organization more effective, accountable and responsive.
We must peak as low as possible and return below 1.5°C as quickly as possible. Every fraction of a degree matters. The Pacific loses an estimated of $500 million every year due to natural disasters such as cyclones, flooding. Early warning systems give communities time to prepare and reduce these losses. That may be a modest sum in global terms but for Pacific nations it is a heavy toll on our countries and our people. And yet the financing to prevent such losses still falls short. The Pacific Resilience Facility, our own financing mechanism for building community resilience, needs a further $328 million in pledges to reach its initial capitalisation target of $500 million. Weather Ready Pacific, designed to reduce the human and economic costs of severe weather events, needs a further 160 million to reach its target. Tonga's Climate Trust Fund, a direct community fund which disbursed its first round of grants this year, also requires significant funding support. We call on all our partners to invest in these Pacific designed and Pacific owned solutions. Tonga stands behind 2026 Pacific Island Forum leaders, the Belau Declaration, and calls on all our major emitters to act urgently. Climate action is a legal obligation, but meeting those obligations will require difficult decisions rooted in science. Climate leadership is not a popularity contest. Seven of the nine planetary boundaries have been breached by human activity. Climate inaction is not an option. Tonga is accelerating its transition away from fossil fuels and expanding renewable energy, and we encourage the shift to electric vehicles. For us, decarbonising also means greater energy security and protection from global fuel price shocks. We must phase out the explicit fossil fuel subsidies estimated by the IMF at $725 billion. International financial institutions and multilateral development banks must recognise the Multidimensional Vulnerability Index, the MVI, which ensures that it informs eligibility and allocations. By any credible index, Tonga is amongst the world's most vulnerable countries. However, we call on all nations, especially the world's largest emitters, to attend the Pre-COP31 meetings in Fiji and Tuvalu in October this year. Come to the Pacific and confront what 1.5 degrees means for our water, our people our food, our homes, and our security. We welcome the General Assembly's declaration on sea level rise, a significant achievement for the preservation of sovereignty. It marks the first time all member states have agreed on a single common text on sea level rise.
Both are priorities during our membership in the Security Council. No discussion of development today is complete without addressing the technology that is reshaping that development. From this podium two years ago, His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and Prime Minister called for the adoption of an international treaty governing the development of artificial intelligence. It would ensure that this technology contributes to peace rather than exacerbating conflict. Since then, the General Assembly has taken positive steps. However, dialogue can bring positions closer, but it is not a step that creates obligations. The aim is not to halt a technology that no one has the power to halt, but to ensure that its growth is surrounded by safeguards, just as the international community surrounded nuclear energy with safeguards that preserved its benefits without preventing it. This technology knows no borders. A safeguard adopted by a single state is not a safeguard, just as a rule that applies in a single strait is not a rule. Therefore, we renew our call for a binding international framework to ensure that this technology becomes a driver of innovation rather than division. And this, in our view, is what it means to manage the transformation that you chose as a theme of this session.
Therefore, Egypt reaffirms its commitment to a balanced system of disarmament and non-proliferation, free from double standards and its commitment to the goal of establishing a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction. Collective security is not achieved through the accumulation of instruments of destruction. Rather, it is achieved through equal rules, obligations applicable to all and a political will that prioritises the prevention of escalation rather than having a delayed reaction after crises occur. Mr. president, as Egypt presents this vision, it is not merely calling for a reform of the international system.
The possibilities before us are immense. We have the possibility of silencing the guns through dialogue and diplomacy. The world does not need more sophisticated instruments of destruction. It needs a more sophisticated capacity for peace. In this regard, I reiterate Guyana's call for a just and lasting solution to the crisis in the Middle East, one that brings an end to the suffering of innocent civilians and recognises the Palestinian people's legitimate right to self-determination and to secure a homeland of their own. Reiterate our support for a two state solution. We call as well for an end to the Russia-Ukraine war and the war in Sudan, and for peaceful resolution of all conflicts that continue to consume lives, uproot families and extinguish the hopes of millions in other parts of our world. We reiterate our call for a viable solution for Cuba, one that is peaceful, people centred, development focused and allows for a full aspiration of the Cuban people to be realized. Guyana reiterates CARICOM's offer to play a meaningful role in achieving this objective. In Haiti, resolving the multidimensional challenges remains central to achieving democracy, stability, peace and prosperity for the Haitian people. The sustained support of the international community through the provision of key financial and material resources, is critical to realising these objectives. Ultimately, the future of Haiti must be Haitian led and Haitian owned. Mr. president, turning to my own country, Guyana has always advanced the peaceful settlement of the controversy in relation to our border with Venezuela. Despite the historical truth clearly outlined in the Arbitral Award of 1899 that determined the full, perfect and final settlement of our border with Venezuela, we endured long and repeated provocations and aggression. The matter was referred to the International Court of Justice by the Secretary General, acting pursuant to the Geneva Agreement, and the court twice pronounced on its jurisdiction to hear the matter. Recourse to the ICJ came after decades of efforts to resolve the controversy bilaterally, including through a mixed commission and the good offices of the UN Secretary General. In full respect for international law, Guyana participated and encouraged Venezuela to participate in the proceedings of the ICJ. Now that we have both participated in the hearings, which were completed in May 2026, we urge Venezuela to abide by the forthcoming ruling in accordance with their obligations under the UN Charter, as Guyana will do. We look forward to a new era of neighborly relations in the interests of our peoples, the development of our countries and the stability and prosperity of our region.
Madam president, with regard to the North African region, thanks to the momentum initiated by His Majesty King Mohammed VI, may God assist him, the question of the Moroccan Sahara reached a historic turning point with the adoption by Security Council of Resolution 2797 last October. Since then, this regional dispute has embarked on an irreversible course, breaking with the past and looking to the future with a view to its final settlement. This track rests on principles and parameters that admit no interpretation, nor any reading between the lines or in the margins, as some are vainly attempting deluding themselves in flagrant denial of reality and total disregard for established truth. These principles, as set forth in the Security Council resolution, are as follows. First, there is no solution outside the framework of the autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty. Second, there is no approach or mechanism other than the political negotiation process under the auspices of the United Nations and on a sole basis, namely the Autonomy Initiative presented by the Kingdom of Morocco. Third, there can be no discussion or dispute regarding the responsibility and obligations of the four parties clearly identified by Security Council resolution 2797. Fourth, there will be no maintaining of the status quo preferred by the other parties. The train of political solution has already departed. Fifth, there is no credibility for interlocutors who violate the ceasefire and refuse to respect Security Council resolutions. Sixth and last, there can be no tolerance for the continued holding of the population of the camps as hostages for half a century, in flagrant violation of international law and international humanitarian law. Alongside with its firm commitment to the final settlement of this regional dispute, artificial regional dispute, the Kingdom of Morocco steadfastly continues to drive social and economic development in its southern provinces, particularly in the areas of infrastructure, university, education, health sector and airports, among others.
We must acknowledge that progress is uneven. The world cannot continue to adopt ambitious commitments while developing countries struggle to finance their implementation. For Zambia, the SDGs must translate into tangible improvements in the lives of our people. A child receiving quality education, a mother accessing safe healthcare, a farmer having reliable water and markets, a young person finding decent employment and a family having access to electricity. A community having accessible roads, access to clean water and sanitation. A small business gaining access to finance. That is what development means to us as Zambians. Mr. president, regarding sustainable development, finance and reform of the global financial architecture, it is widely accepted that sustainable development cannot be achieved without addressing persistent financing gaps facing developing countries. High borrowing costs, limited fiscal space and heavy debt servicing obligations continue to constrain our country's ability to invest in climate action, health, education, infrastructure and development priorities. Zambia, therefore, calls for greater access to affordable and long term development finance, increased climate finance, particularly for adaptation and resilience, and innovative finance mechanisms to mobilise private investment for sustainable development. Mr. president, I turn to multilateralism, geopolitics and peace and security.
And very often the countries with the least economic room to maneuver bear the greatest burden in proportionate terms. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea confers rights, but it also imposes obligations. The safety of navigation, the protection of the marine environment, and respect for the rights of coastal states. A smaller navy doesn't mean fewer rights, nor does a larger one confer the right to impose its will. No country should have to surrender the rights the law gives simply because another can send more ships. That is why maritime disputes must be settled by law, not by intimidation. And that is why freedom of navigation depends on common rules, so that every country can exercise its rights while respecting those of others, but keeping our sea routes open also means keeping them safe all the way into our ports. The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, the famous ISPS code offers a very concrete example of what multilateralism can achieve when it works. Piracy, terrorism and crime are scourges that we must fight together, and that code must be strengthened. Belgium understands its importance. Freedom and security are not opposing ideas. Security is a condition of freedom. I dwell on freedom of navigation because it illustrates something larger. Sovereignty doesn't require isolation. We can defend our interests while accepting that others have rights too. And when rules are clear and predictable enough, a space of competition can still remain a space of cooperation. The ocean, moreover, are far more than the highways of our trades. They feed populations, regulate our climates, and absorb much of the excess heat caused by global warming. For many small island states, rising sea levels affect the land on which the citizens live, in some cases, the culture and the very ability to remain where the families have lived for generations. The freedom to use the ocean, therefore, comes with a responsibility to preserve it. And on this point, allow me to be optimistic. The BBNJ Agreement entered into force this year after almost 20 years of negotiations, almost 20 years. Measured against a political cycle, this is close to an eternity. Measured against the building of international law, it is sometimes the time needed to reach a compromise strong enough to last. The agreement proves that even today, we continue to build international law rather than dismantle it, and Belgium has invested greatly in this process. It helped launch the Blue Leaders, a coalition of countries working to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030 and secure an ambitious high sea treaty. The agreement now gives us an essential tool to advance toward that protection goal. But 20 years of negotiations must not be followed by years of waiting. It is in that spirit that Belgium is offering to host the treaty's future secretariat in Brussels. We are ready to enable it to work from day one. It will be able to draw on our scientific expertise and on a community that brings together international organizations, embassies and civil society so that we have agreed together becomes real protection at sea. Beneath those same oceans run other vital routes: the cables that connect the continents and carry much of our digital communications and energy. Here too, our interdependence is plain to see. A break, an act of sabotage or an attack can have consequences thousands of kilometers away. Protecting those connections is essential, but our responsibility in the digital world doesn't end with infrastructure.
Read around it: ·
BF
No. 34
Burkina Faso09/28 · first at about 12 min1 mention
Confidence will not be reborn in an organisation where some actors tolerate arbitrary behaviour. And the promotion and protection of fundamental rights for our states has an absolute responsibility. And we are engaging in this in a context of extreme violence imposed against our populations by terrorists. And when our state adopts exceptional measures as strictly contained by our national legislation and our international obligations, the idea is to protect the populations, to preserve public order and guarantee national security. The most important human right is the right to life, the right of a people to not live under terror. We see that these measures are often subject to selective, biased lectures from others without sufficient consideration for the realities on the ground. The Confederation reaffirms its commitment to impartial, objective and non-selective treatment of human rights. We call for dialogue based on mutual respect, good faith, and factual rigor. We accept impartial and objective reviews but we do reject political processes and being tried in the court of political appeal. Yes, to respect the law, but we reject its instrumentalisation. This is precisely due to these grave shortfalls, persistent selectivity and manifest politicization that our states made a sovereign decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court and formally notified our withdrawal from the Rome Statute. International justice, yes. However variable justice, no. The Confederation remains committed to multilateral, independent institutions that are impartial and credible.
Mr. president, the stakes are perhaps greatest in international peace and security, one of the foremost purposes for which this organization was created. If diplomacy can bring countries together to find common ground on difficult questions on global development, then surely we can summon the same political courage to prevent conflicts, resolve wars, and build lasting peace. The Gambia speaks on this not merely from principle, but from experience. In 2017, our country stood at a moment of acute constitutional uncertainty. The democratic choice of the Gambian people faced a grave challenge. At that critical moment, the preventive diplomacy of the United Nations working in partnership with African Union and ECOWAS, helped uphold the will of the Gambian people and support a peaceful democratic transition. We have not forgotten that solidarity. It taught us that preventive diplomacy is not an abstract concept. It is a practical instrument for preventing confrontation, creating space for dialogue and protecting institutions. Sometimes it can change the course of a nation. That experience also gives us an obligation. If the international community could stand with The Gambia at a moment of fragility, then countries facing similar moments should be able to count on the same solidarity. Across the world, however, conflicts continue to destroy lives, displaced populations and reverse decades of development. Civilians bear the greatest costs, while humanitarian workers operate under increasingly dangerous conditions, and the resources available to respond to crisis remain far below what is required. The protection of civilians, respect for international humanitarian law and humanitarian access are not political conveniences. They are legal obligations and expressions of a shared humanity. We need stronger early warning systems that enable us to act before crises escalate, timely mediation before positions become entrenched, and peace building that addresses the conditions that allow conflict to take root. The question before us must therefore not only be how to end the ongoing wars, but how to prevent the next war from beginning. Prevention should not have to wait for a crisis to become sufficiently destructive to attract international attention. It is infinitely less costly in human political and financial terms to prevent conflict than to manage its consequences after violence has begun. We therefore welcome the Secretary-General's continued good offices and preventive diplomacy and call for these efforts to be matched with predictable and sustained resources. Mr. president, peace must be built and nurtured through institutions that command public confidence, societies in which trust can be restored and justice pursued, and a future in which women and young people have a meaningful voice and economic opportunity is within reach. The Gambia has experienced the value of peace building firsthand. Since our democratic transition, the Peace Building Commission and the Secretary-General's Peace Building Fund have been steadfast partners in our nationally led efforts to strengthen institutions, advance transitional justice and consolidate peace. We therefore support a stronger and more responsive Peace Building Commission, adequately resourced to support countries emerging from conflict or navigating delicate political transitions. The implementation of the outcomes of the Peacebuilding Architecture review must translate into stronger prevention, greater national ownership and closer coordination across the United Nations system. We also reaffirm our support for United Nations peacekeeping operations, and pay tribute to the men and women who serve under the UN flag, including Gambian military and police personnel who have contributed with distinction, international peace and security. Their safety and security must remain a priority, alongside performance, accountability and strict adherence to international law. Partnerships between the United Nations and regional organisations, particularly the African Union, must also be deepened with sustained and predictable funding. Mr. president, the ongoing conflict in Sudan remains a matter of profound concern to The Gambia. Together with continued instability across part of the Sahel, it reminds us that peace cannot be separated from development and governance. The suffering of civilians in the affected conflict zones globally demands sustained international attention and renewed diplomatic efforts towards de-escalation, dialogue and a durable political settlement. In the Sahel and other conflict zones, our response must be comprehensive and holistic. Security measures are necessary but they must be accompanied by increased support for democratic governance, institution building, education job creation, development and climate resilience. Mr. president, for millions of people around the world, poverty, lack of human rights, democratic governance, etc. continue to pose greater insecurity.
That transformation should be financed using foreign and domestic resources. And that is what we intend to do, including the more than $4 trillion in domestic capital across pension funds, insurance assets, sovereign wealth funds, banks, and other institutions in Africa. The task is to mobilize more of that capital for productive investment while building the safeguards, credible projects, and financial instruments that long-term investors require. The imbalance is not only about money. It is also about voice. Africa's 54 nations are home to nearly one in every five people on Earth. Yet, our influence on the institutions that govern global finance remains disproportionately small. We cannot carry substantial obligations under a system while remaining marginal in shaping its rules. If Africa has a stake in the burden of debt, Africa must have a share in the decisions on how that debt is acquired. This is not a plea for special treatment. It is a proposition for shared prosperity. A more industrialized Africa expands global demand. A more food-secure Africa strengthens global stability. A better-connected Africa diversifies global supply chains. And an Africa able to finance more of its own development becomes a stronger partner for the world. Excellencies, this brings us back to the central question before this assembly.
Niger is not pursuing confrontation with any country. It opens its arms to all partners that wish to build a new relationship based on equality, reciprocity and mutual interest, and shared interest. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, for more than half a century, uranium, this miraculous substance, Niger's uranium, has lit the cities of Europe, while our cities have remained in darkness. That injustice is now over. It is at an end. In June 2025, the state of Niger recovered control of SOMAÏR, the Société des mines de l'Aïr. Our resources will now be managed by us and for us and Niger intends to sell its uranium on the international market in full transparency and in strict compliance with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations. You will have heard at some point in the past, Air France say that Niger was intending to use this uranium. When they left our country, they sabotaged all of the material. And Niger has invested some 30 billion of our francs to continue that production. Totally making use of Nigerien workers and experts. Not a single foreigner was involved in that. The current stock belongs to our country. It does not belong to anyone and we will sell it to all those who wish to buy in total transparency, as I have just said. Similarly, in 2024, our country became an exporter of crude oil thanks to the oil pipeline linking Agadem to the Atlantic coast along the African continent, the longest one in the African continent, making Niger one of the continent's fastest growing economies in 2025. That revenue is going into our own security to agriculture, electrification, water and sanitation, education, health, the health of our fellow citizens. And the Solidarity Fund for the safeguarding of the homeland, which is made up of the voluntary contributions of millions of Nigeriens, tells you everything you need to know about a people that has understood that sovereignty has a price and that it is willing to pay it. Ladies and gentlemen, three years after breaking with the old order, progress on the ground is remarkable. Our economy has seen 7% growth in 2026. In 2025, excuse me. Driven above all by oil and agriculture. Inflation, which reached 9.1% in 2024, has fallen to -4.7% thanks to exceptional agricultural production and a targeted reduction of fuel and cement prices. All of the country's riches will be redistributed to benefit our population.
No nation is so small that its people should be forgotten when decisions affecting humanity are made. Military strength of a nation does not make the rights of another nation less important. The size of an economy does not make the dignity of a poorer person less important. Technological advancement does not diminish our obligations to protect human freedom. The size of a religious majority does not reduce the rights of a minority. Power in all forms must be exercised with responsibility and care. Mr. president, in PNG we have many tribes. We have many languages. We have many churches. We have many cultures. But we are one nation. Perhaps this lesson can be taught to everyone. Papua New Guinea puts this to the assembly. You do not have to believe what I believe in for you to defend human rights of another person. Let governments govern for people. Let churches preach and preach love to each other. Let mosque pray faithfully. Let temples welcome the worshippers. Let people search their own conscience.
In addition, for four and a half years now, I have been listening to lectures on how many in the West remain last beacon of democracy in the world, the protectors not of Ukraine's but of the rules and principles of international law. And when they raise their voices thinking that they are being highly moral and that their positions are the only right ones, we simply smile and ask ourselves: And how did you treat Kosovo and Metohija and the territorial integrity of Serbia, which is guaranteed by the UN Charter and the resolution of the UNSC 1244? To that, either there is no answer, or they supposedly give us some well-intentioned advice and tell us not to look to the past, but to the future. When we ask them, do you also say to Ukraine that the territories they are fighting for are not important?, we end the pointless conversation and move on to another subject. And I want to warn all of you, all of you here who belong to the Global South, pay the utmost attention while signing all the agreements with great powers. That is how we signed the famous Brussels Agreement in 2013, wishing to resolve problems between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija by compromise. All the obligations that were to be met by Serbia have been met, and the only one that was to be met by Albanians, the one about the establishment of the community of Serb municipalities, has not been met to this day. It is interesting that the agreement was accepted not only in the presence of the EU, but it was also confirmed with the signature of the EU, but it meant actually nothing. As the President of Serbia, for ten years I have been facing all possible tricks and pressures to give up on full implementation of what was signed. It is a lesson to us Serbs, but also to all others in the world who want to protect their country. In spite of everything, Serbia will defend its country, its territorial integrity, the UN Charter, the UN Security Council resolution 1244. I wish to thank individually every 107 countries, states that have not recognized the unilaterally declared independence of the so-called Kosovo. We know that many of you, that many of those states, have been subjected to pressure, and we know that maintaining a principled position is sometimes far more difficult than it appears from the outside. Thank you for being consistent in not recognizing the independence of a part of Serbia's territory. Excellencies, Serbia is on its European path, and it will have to do many more things in order to become a full-fledged member of the EU.
Solomon Islands therefore recognises the need for an inclusive and transparent international governance framework on AI. Mr. president, year after year, Pacific leaders have stood at this podium and urged the world to act on climate change. And yet, global action continues to fall short of what the science demands. For every passing COP, the impacts grow more severe. Our islands are being lost to the sea. Disasters are more frequent and more devastating. Food and water security is under threat and communities are being forced from their ancestral lands. Solomon Islands knows this reality firsthand. This year, Tropical Cyclone Maila, a category five storm, tore through our communities, destroying homes, schools, infrastructure and livelihoods. My government has just approved US$9.38 million for shelter recovery. That is money our essential services urgently need now diverted to deal with the impacts of this climate extreme. Like many Pacific Island countries, we are trapped in a relentless cycle of response, recovery and rebuilding. This is not sustainable, nor is it just. My people did the least to cause this crisis, yet they pay its earliest and heaviest price. That is the moral ledger that lies before this assembly. Last year, the International Court of Justice confirmed in its landmark advisory opinion that states have legal obligations to protect the climate system. Major emitters must make deep emission cuts and transition away from fossil fuels. Climate finance, including support for loss and damage, must be grant based and channelled through our national budget systems. Project based financing of climate action is unsustainable and out of step with the scale of a crisis we did the least to cause. Vulnerable countries should not have to choose between climate action and educating our children, caring for the sick or securing food and water. Yet that is the choice we face with every dollar we spend. We therefore call for the full capitalisation of the Pacific Resilience Facility, and an ambitious and timely third replenishment of the Green Climate Fund. Our region has long led on climate action, and we will continue to lead. The Pre-COP31 meeting, to be hosted in the Pacific by Australia in partnership with Fiji and Tuvalu, will bring the reality of climate change directly into the heart of the global process. I call on all parties and partners to come to that meeting and to COP31 with stronger commitments and concrete action. The communities on the frontline of the climate crisis deserve nothing less. Mr. president, Solomon Islands welcomes the convening of the second high level meeting on sea level rise and the adoption of the first political declaration on sea level rise. Every day our people are defending their coastlines, strengthening their resilience, protecting their food and water security and their cultural heritage, and, where there is no other choice, relocating. But we cannot do this alone. I call on this assembly to match the courage of our Pacific communities with collective international resolve to scale up adaptation and resilience finance, and to support communities facing climate mobility needs.
Quote. We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties can be maintained. To live together in peace with one another as good neighbors. And to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, end quote, they declared at a time. But although it's been 81 years since the signing of the treaty, humanity is still eagerly waiting for the day for the strong determination of that time to actually come to life.
That partnership must include predictable and accessible finance for adaptation and for addressing loss and damage. Access to such finance must be made easier for the small island developing island state, and must respond to the needs of our communities. We invite partners to support our Pacific Resilience Facility in bringing the necessary resources to support resilience efforts in the Pacific. At the same time, keeping 1.5°C is vital for Pacific. In light of the international court's advisory opinion, we urge all members to give effect on their legal obligations through stronger climate actions and international cooperation. Mr. president, we are also deeply concerned by the developing strong El Nino event in the Pacific, which threatens to bring more extreme heat, disrupted rainfall, drought and flooding across the region. For Pacific Island countries, these are not simply meteorological events. They affect food and water security, agriculture, fisheries, health, livelihoods and the resilience of already vulnerable communities. The international community must act before disaster strikes. We call for stronger regional early warning system, pre-positioned humanitarian assistance, rapid access to climate and disaster financing, and greater investment in resilient infrastructure and food and water security. The Pacific does not ask the world to prevent El Nino.
We cannot simply accept this new order of impunity which some are trying to erect. This is why at the Security Council, France supports reforms aimed at bolstering its effectiveness. We must open up to new members, new regions, first and foremost Africa. But in terms of the substance, the Security Council must be able to take action in the face of mass violations of international law. Who can accept a procedural deadlock when we see barbaric acts being committed? The Franco-Mexican initiative on regulating the veto in the case of mass atrocities being committed is needed more than ever, and I'm delighted that it now has the support of 128 member states. The campaign will continue and we are seeking to secure the commitment of each and every permanent member of the Security Council for this initiative. But it's not enough invoking the law, invoking our values in order to uphold the obligations we all signed up to when we joined the United Nations.
