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.
It also charged it to advance the economic and social well-being of all peoples. Peace and prosperity were never two mandates; they were one promise. Today, both sides of that promise are under strain. The crisis of multilateralism is not a shortage of commitments, institutions, or rules. It is the widening distance between the equality this system proclaims and the inequality that is inherent in its structures. That is precisely why we cannot accept its present limitations. On peace and security, the contradiction is increasingly difficult to ignore. Every nation in this hall has one vote. Every nation is sovereign and equal under the charter. Yet, on the gravest question of war and peace, five nations possess a permanent power that the other 188 do not. The equality proclaimed in this Assembly ends at the doors of the Security Council. That imbalance might have reflected the world of 1945. It does not reflect the world that we know today. Africa has 54 member states, more than a quarter of this Assembly, yet no permanent voice in the body entrusted with the primary responsibility of international peace and security. We are frequently the subject of its decisions: permanently discussed, yet permanently excluded. The problem is not that the world lacks law. It is that confidence in its consistent application is weakening. International law cannot be invoked loudly in one crisis, cautiously in another crisis, and disregarded when convenient. Every perceived double standard carries a price, and that price is trust. Trust cannot be restored by declaration.
Artificial intelligence will transform professions, industries, and the ways in which decisions are made. Energy will be governed by a new configuration and a new logic of operation. Climate change will affect economies, agriculture, cities and the movement of people. Demographic change will reshape labour markets and social protection systems. Security will no longer depend on armies and borders, but also on power grids, data centers, cables, satellites, algorithms and trust in the information we receive every day. And yet today, as we prepare for the future, millions of people are living through war or under the threat of war. More than 100 million people have been displaced by force, more than 270 million children and young people are not in the school. This is the paradox of our time. Humanity has never possessed such immense scientific and technological capabilities, and yet it has never been more evident that technological capability does not automatically produce political wisdom. That is why the real question before this assembly is not simply how we will manage the crisis of 2026. The real question is this: what kind of international order will we leave to the generation that is entering school today? For a small size country like mine, this is not an academic question. It is a question of survival. 33 years ago, since we become a part of the United Nations, the world looked very different. The Cold War had ended. There was hope that a new era was beginning, an era in which cooperation would gradually replace confrontation. Our region, however, was living through a very different reality. Yugoslavia was disintegrating in bloodshed. Wars were being fought just beyond our borders. The fear that the violence might spread was real. And yet my country chose peace. It chose stability. It was in those circumstances on our territory that the United Nations did something it had never done before. It established the first preventive peacekeeping mission in the history of the organization. That experience left a profound lesson in our national memory, a lesson to which I will return towards the end of my speech. Peace does not begin when war ends. Peace begins when politics is wise enough to prevent war from beginning. Perhaps that is why small countries sometimes see international politics differently. Great powers have room for strategic shifts that small sized states simply do not have. For a great power, a mistaken geopolitical calculation may mean a change of strategy. For a small sized country, the same mistake can mean a lost decade. That is why we cannot afford to be indifferent to the rules, nor can we afford to believe that the rules will defend themselves. The world taking shape before us is a world of sharper competition. Power is being redistributed.
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, imagine if nuclear weapons were developed by private companies. If stockpiles were located on company grounds and launch codes locked away in a safe in a CEO's office. It's a disturbing thought. When a technology has the power to fundamentally change the world, possibly even determine the fate of humanity, we need to ask who controls it? Who sets the rules? Who's accountable? Today, humankind faces another technological revolution that raises exactly this question. Engineers have developed a technology that does not need to be launched from a rocket or a submarine to change the course of history. I am, of course, talking about artificial intelligence, a technology with seemingly unlimited power. In the wrong hands, it can upend our economies and threaten our livelihoods. It has the potential to erode trust within our societies by spreading information that appears real, but is in fact fake. AI can endanger the infrastructure that keeps our societies running. And ultimately, it can influence decisions that determine global peace and security. At the same time, artificial intelligence holds extraordinary promise. It can accelerate scientific discovery improve health care and education all over the world, provide opportunities for economic development, overcome inequalities, and help us address challenges that no country can solve alone. Just imagine a world where, with the help of AI, we can prevent famine and cure cancer. This is precisely what makes AI so powerful, for better or for worse. But there is a critical tension. Only two major countries are home to the companies holding the vast majority of all global AI patents. That puts an enormous amount of influence in the hands of a very few. Such power carries responsibility not only towards customers, shareholders or governments, but also to humanity. And wherever power becomes global, responsibility must become global, too.
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, Your Excellencies, every generation believes the challenges they face are unmatched. Perhaps for us that is true. We are at a unique moment in history. The scale of knowledge and the speed of change are unprecedented. Every day brings another crisis, another tragedy, another emergency demanding our attention. One study shows that average screen attention has fallen from 2.5 minutes in 2004 to just 47 seconds today. Of course, a screen is not the world, but that says something about our world today that attention has become a scarce asset, and where we choose to direct it has never mattered more. And in this chamber, attention is more than a cognitive resource. It is a geopolitical one. It determines which conflicts receive sustained diplomacy and which fade from the agenda. Whether a cease fire holds after the cameras leave, whether humanitarian suffering remains intolerable or becomes familiar and whether the world steps up or scrolls and strolls away. History rarely catches us entirely by surprise. More often, it catches us focused elsewhere. Economic disparity, food insecurity, climate change disasters. None of these challenges emerged overnight. The warning signs have been there. The question is whether our attention lasts long enough to act, and what we neglect has a habit of shaping our future.
President of the General Assembly, Secretary-General. Your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, as we're here talking about peace, international security and cooperation, thousands of people are dying victims of war hunger, violence, disease and injustice. It's as if we've lost our sense of humanity. It's not a future tragedy. The fact is that thousands, millions of people are dying as we're here. Right now, at this very moment, there will be mothers, fathers, children, entire families breaking up and asking themselves a question that's not an abstract one, a diplomatic one, or a geopolitical one.
End of quote. This was 14 years ago, after 14 years. I note that despite the great initial support, our initiative has not been realized. And we can all say that today world is not better. It's worse. This initiative has been drowned in new crises, in the incompetence and ignorance of the individuals and institutions responsible, and in the double standards that have further marked the behavior of our United Nations. And sadly, today we are even further away from the goal we tried to achieve 14 years ago. The theme of this year's session therefore is actually very well chosen. Restoring trust. A United Nations that is here for everyone. Because trust begins with a simple question do we apply our principles consistently or only when it is politically convenient? The United Nations was founded on universal principles sovereignty, equal dignity, the rule of law, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the protection of human rights. But principles lose their meaning when they are applied selectively. So, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, let us be concrete. For decades, the United Nations has devoted significant institutional attention to the question of Palestine.
We have prospered in the peace that Europe enjoyed for decades after 1945, and we have never forgotten that the peace could not be taken for granted. It was built generation after generation by those who chose cooperation over confrontation. Today, that peace is being challenged once again. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has brought war back to our continent. It is a stark reminder that peace requires constant commitment, and that the principles on which our international order was built must be defended. The United Nations itself was born from that choice. Its charter called upon us to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and above all, to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. 81 years later, that promise is under considerable pressure, but it has not failed. Multilateralism may be imperfect, but disenchantment should lead us to reform, not to dismissal. The question is, therefore, not whether we still need multilateralism. The question is whether we have the courage to make it better.
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. I am indeed humbled and honoured to be asked to deliver this statement by the Honourable Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, the Right Honourable Gaston Browne, on behalf of the government and people of Antigua and Barbuda. Mr. president, we meet once again at a moment when history asks difficult questions of this institution. Can multilateralism still protect the weak as well as the strong? Can international law restrain power rather than merely record its consequences? Can development remain a promise for all rather than a privilege for some? For Antigua and Barbuda, these are not philosophical questions. For small island developing states, these are questions of survival. As we begin the 81st session of this General Assembly, we stand between two eras, one ending and another waiting to be shaped. At the end of this year, His Excellency Antonio Guterres will complete his tenure as secretary general of the United Nations. Antigua and Barbuda places on record our profound appreciation for his service to this organization and to the international community in general. For my country, our appreciation is deeply personal. In 2017, Hurricane Irma devastated Barbuda. The entire population had to be evacuated. Homes were destroyed, livelihoods disappeared. An island community was brought to its knees.
Your excellencies 1 in 60 of adults is now estimated to be living with the virus. Fewer than 4 in 10 know that. I say this plainly, because stigma and silence are how this epidemic grew and because of the late Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, a former head of state and UNAIDS goodwill ambassador for the Pacific, spent his last years telling us so. This is also a security question. Methamphetamine trafficked into our region by transnational criminal networks is now driving transmission through injecting drug use. Our borders are ocean. Our populations are small, and the profits at stake exceed our national budgets. A country such as Fiji of under a million people cannot interdict a global supply chain alone. So Fiji asked three things that treatment and diagnostics reach small states at prices we can pay, that the Global Fund and UNAIDS be resourced at a level that does not force a triage between regions, and that our partners treat Pacific narcotics interdiction as the shared security interest it is. These are the same loss. A nurse who emigrates is a nurse Fiji trained and will not have because they left. A Fijian who died 35 of a treatable virus is the same subtraction made permanent with the cost of care left behind. Small states are not losing workers at the margin. We are losing the capacity to staff our own future.
Technology is changing how we work, communicate, and understand the world. Climate change is reshaping economies, communities, and entire ecosystems. Conflicts are destroying lives and displacing families. Economic uncertainty is deepening inequality while progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals has stalled. These challenges are not unfolding in isolation. They are interconnected, global in scale and beyond the capacity of any one nation to address alone. They demand stronger cooperation and renewed confidence in multilateralism. Yet, excellencies, at the very moment when collective action is most urgently needed, this organization stands at a crossroads. The question before us, therefore, is whether we possess the courage, solidarity and political will to shape that change and guide our world towards peace, justice and shared prosperity. I strongly believe that most right thinking individuals would agree that the UN system has substantially delivered for all countries over the several decades of its existence. For more than 80 years, this organization has embodied humanity's highest collective aspiration that countries large and small, rich and poor can work together to prevent conflict, protect human dignity and improve the lives of their people. The United Nations provides shelter and protection to people enduring conflict, displacement, and natural disaster. It supports education healthcare, peacekeeping, elections and development in communities that might otherwise be forgotten. These achievements matter and must never be dismissed or diminished. What the United Nations does not currently do enough is deliver at the transformative level. Too often humanity and the institutions we have created to serve us have had to concentrate on managing one crisis after another, without giving enough attention to the conditions that allow them to persist. Excellencies, there is no question that managing crises is necessary. It brings relief, restores hope, and saves lives. But we cannot stop there. Our responsibility must also be to address the root causes of these problems and build systems that are fairer, stronger and better able to serve our people. The true test of this organization, therefore is not only how well we respond after people have suffered, it is also whether we can work together to prevent that suffering in the first place. This is not to dismiss what has already been achieved. It is a call for us to build on that progress, strengthen our cooperation and deliver the meaningful change that our people expect from us. A fundamental question that one must ask is, can the international system still deliver?
Mr. Secretary-General, Former Presidents of the General Assembly, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Forty years ago, I stood in this very Hall as a newly minted member of the Cabinet of the 41st President of the General Assembly, Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury. At the time, President Choudhury said, and I quote: “In recent years there appears to have been a crisis of confidence in the United Nations itself... there is a general feeling that the United Nations today needs revitalizing in a number of aspects in order to bring it into line with the priorities of a changing world.” This shows that questions about multilateralism and the effectiveness of the United Nations are not new. They have been part of this place since the first stone was laid. Yet, through it all, the United Nations has persevered. Not because it is perfect, but because it is irreplaceable, and because the alternative is simply unfathomable. The world of 1945 was in peril. The Second World War, the colossal devastation wrought by it, and the Holocaust, left humanity bankrupt, morally and fiscally. Something had to change. And this place was that change. It ushered in a long era of diplomacy, which continues: Member States coming together to work through their problems because they knew that the alternative, guns blazing and bombs dropping, simply was not an option. Perhaps the clearest evidence of its achievement is here in this very Hall. In 1945, 50 nations participated in the San Francisco Conference. Today, eight decades later, the Organization has 193 Member States. The UN has brought together humanity under one roof; this is unprecedented in human history. The core promise of this institution, its raison d’être, was and remains to prevent the unimaginable: a third world war. The fact that we have avoided such calamity is among the greatest achievements this institution could ever deliver. (BRIEF PAUSE) But survival alone cannot be our sole measure of success. Outside these walls, people are not asking whether the United Nations still exists.
We look forward to your stewardship of this assembly, and we move to restore trust and indeed to carry reforms from proposals to implementation. But reform cannot be selective. We cannot move swiftly to reorganise offices and reporting lines while allowing the most consequential questions of power and representation to remain unresolved. Transformation and development. Peacekeeping and humanitarian aid cannot succeed if member states are unwilling to fund it. Let's be very clear no organizational chart can overcome the refusal of states to respect decisions that they find inconvenient. We cannot continue to ask international organisations to do more, while failing to provide them with the resources necessary to fulfil the mandates that we ourselves have agreed. And if member states believe in the institutions that they have created, then we must also be prepared to sustain them. Barbados has consistently met that responsibility, and I give this body the assurance that we will continue to do so. Our commitment to multilateralism, to an international rules based order, must be measured not only by what we ask of these institutions, but by our willingness to support them. So yes, let us improve the machinery, but let us also reform the exercise of power. The Security Council still has 15 members, five of them permanent and armed with that veto. Africa, with 54 states has no permanent seat. And you've heard speaker after speaker after speaker come to this platform to say that this must change. Small island developing states equally confront threats that now reach squarely into the council's mandate from climate insecurity and illicit arms flows to organised crime and displacement. And yet, despite constituting one quarter of the world's states, we have no assured representation within the councils. This, to my friends, must change. And the world we know has already changed. The council has not changed with it. But reform is not only about who sits at the table, it is about how power is exercised. Barbados is therefore joining 123 other member states in supporting the Franco-Mexican initiative on the use of the veto in the cases of mass atrocities. Its principle is fundamental where populations face genocide, crimes against humanity, or large scale war crimes, the veto should not be allowed to paralyse the Security Council when action is most urgently needed. This is why people are losing trust in the United Nations and its council. Mr. President, it's not fair to the majority of member states who still believe in the promise of this body, even as we call for greater equity with the reform of the Security Council.
A cyber attack against critical infrastructure is a security issue. Sea level rise also raises fundamental questions on sovereignty, identity and security. Vanuatu joins its Pacific colleagues in affirming the continuity of statehood and the preservation of maritime zone and sovereign rights in the face of sea level rise. The rights and dignity of affected persons must remain at the centre of international response. These are realities faced by small island developing states. We therefore call for a broader understanding of international peace and security, one that reflects the realities of small island developing states, and we hope that these security concerns are well understood here at the United Nations. Mr. president, what happens here in New York does not remain here in New York. The decisions taken by major powers affect the smallest economies. A conflict thousands of kilometers away can increase the price of fuel in Vanuatu. A disruption in international shipping can increase the price of food in our islands. A change in global interest rates can increase the cost of borrowing. A crisis in international development finance can delay a school, a hospital, a road or a climate resilience project, and global economic uncertainty can affect tourism, investment, employment and government revenue. For Vanuatu, therefore, foreign policy and domestic development are inseparable. Our international diplomacy is ultimately about our people.
Mr. president. Economic and climate vulnerabilities are having an impact on stability and security in Africa. These are coupled with ongoing security challenges and can fuel tensions and conflict. This is why development questions, questions of peace and security must be tackled in a complementary and interlinked fashion. Lasting security cannot be boiled down just to its military dimension. It requires us to act on factors causing vulnerability, and it requires us to promote dialogue prevention and mediation. Along these lines, the president of the Council, His Excellency Faure Essozimna Gnassingbé, has striven to promote dialogue, to bring people's positions closer and to contribute to find political solutions to crises that affect regions in West Africa and in the Sahel, for example. Our country is working hard to encourage exchanges and to contribute to the emergence of lasting political responses in the Great Lakes region. Togo as part of African mediation, is also making its contribution to de-escalation, to restoring trust, and to the quest for lasting responses to disputes. These initiatives reflect a conviction: in the face of crises, we need to maintain spaces for dialogue. We need to foster political and diplomatic means. Mediation is not a weakness. It is an expression of responsibility. Togo has made dialogue and preventive diplomacy the pillars of its foreign policy. In our West African subregion and the African level, Togo is working unfailingly to promote mediation, stability and the peaceful settlement of disputes. We are convinced that no lasting solution can be imposed from the outside without actively listening to local and sovereign realities and what's going on on the ground. Africa is not asking for others to act in its place. It is asking for its efforts to be recognized, assisted and supported.
Mr. President of the General Assembly, Your Majesties, Excellencies, Heads of State and Government, Mr. Secretary-General, ladies and gentlemen. It is with profound humility and great privilege that I address this 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We congratulate the President of the 81st Session on assuming this office and embracing a theme that is both timely and imperative: restoring trust, managing transformation, a United Nations that delivers for all. This theme speaks directly to two of the most pressing questions facing the international community today. Firstly, can we restore trust in our collective systems? And secondly, can we manage the great transformations of our time in a way that leaves no country, no person behind?
And I thought it's a good idea to share with you my thoughts. Gunpowder changed the battlefield. Nuclear fission changed the meaning of human survival. Artificial intelligence is changing something even more intimate: who can enter the minds of a citizen, imitate a trusted voice, manufacture a reality calibrated to one person's fears, and do so millions and millions of times at once. Albania is not a developer of frontier models, but we are a nation that has already lived the future others are still debating, and I think a simple message is what we owe to all of you. The greatest immediate danger is not that artificial intelligence will stop obeying humanity. The greatest danger is that it will obey the wrong human beings perfectly. The challenge comes in three layers. What artificial intelligence does instead of us, what it does to us. And who gains the power to reach us? First, what it does instead of us. The public debate imagines machines that awaken, acquire ambitions and turn against their creators. But the systems confronting us today do not wake up with hatred in their hearts. They multiply ours. They have no ambition of their own. They serve the ambition of others. They carry no flag. But they can be deployed by a state. They tell no lie for their own benefit. But they can tell a billion lies on others behalf. The machine has no conscience. But it can borrow the reach of a government, the precision of a weapon and the intimacy of a friend. At the same time, the economic incentives surrounding artificial intelligence increasingly reward the replacement of human effort, rather than the enlargement of human capacity. Write the code so that I do not have to understand it. Draft the report so that I do not have to think through it. Make the judgment so that I do not have to assume responsibility for it. When success is measured only by how much work the machine removes from the human being, we may create more efficient institutions, but will have less capable people. A civilization that outsources effort may eventually outsource knowledge. A civilization that outsources knowledge may eventually outsource judgment, and the civilization that outsources judgment may discover that it also outsources responsibility. This is not inevitable. It is a choice. We can build artificial intelligence that teaches rather than merely answers, guides rather than commands, and strengthens the human being instead of making the human being dependent upon it. The question cannot be only how quickly did the machine complete the task? We must also ask, what did the human being learn? Who understood the decision? Who can challenge the decision and who answers for the decision when it is wrong? Albania became the first country to bring an artificial intelligence instrument into the architecture of government through Diella, our worldwide known artificial intelligence minister. We did not do this to transfer sovereignty from people to a machine. We did it to make public services more accessible, procedures more transparent, and the state more accountable. No machine possesses democratic legitimacy. No algorithm inherits constitutional responsibility. Behind every consequential public decision, there must remain a legal mandate, a human institution, and a name that can be called to give answers. The second layer is what artificial intelligence can do to us. Artificial intelligence inside an accountable state can reduce the distance between citizens and public services. Artificial intelligence outside accountability can eliminate the distance between a lie and the human mind. Albania experienced this directly. I am sure you must have followed or just known the so-called Flamingo Revolution, a fabricated narrative of an Israeli invasion of the Albanian coast, an invasion that never occurred, was manufactured, was personalized and delivered through voices, pages and channels citizens already trusted. One citizen received a story of national betrayal. Another received a story of religious provocation. Another received a conspiracy of foreign occupation. Different fabrications entered different emotional worlds, all serving the same strategic lie. The consequences were real. Citizens had their own reasons to protest. Don't take me wrong. But suddenly they started to protest also against a phantom enemy. Antisemitic tropes entered our public discourse for the first time ever. Don't forget, Albania is the only country in Europe that ended World War Two with more Jews than it started it. Fear became anger. Anger became mobilization and fabrication became political reality. And this is not and was not a laboratory experiment. I'm not talking to you about a science fiction movie. It was a Tuesday in Tirana, our capital city. The algorithm did not invent the objective. A human actor did.
It has held back conflict where it could and named it where it could not. It has given the powerless a language of rights. It has built one instrument at a time, the body of international law, on which every state in this hall, large or small, now depends. It has survived a Cold War, as it has division and doubt, because each generation that comes through its doors understood the same simple truth. No nation, however powerful, can secure peace, prosperity, or a habitable nation on its own. That was true in 1945. It is truer today. The Charter is hope. It speaks to our common humanity. It speaks to the rule of law, to the dignity of every person, to the sovereign equality of states, and to our duty to keep the peace. These are not the words of one region or one era. They belong to all of us. They bind all of us. Few in this hall would question that mission. But let us be honest with one another.
I also commend the tireless efforts of Secretary General Antonio Guterres. Since he assumed the leadership of our organization amid the major divisions the world has experienced over the past decade, he has emerged as a voice of wisdom, consensus and pragmatism, defending tirelessly and courageously the United Nations system and international law as the two fundamental pillars for the maintenance of international peace and security. Mr. Guterres has remained a symbol of multilateral diplomacy and of international cooperation in overcoming the turmoil and obstacles facing our world today. Mr. president, the most apt description of our international reality is the one expressed by His Majesty King Mohammed the Sixth, may God assist him, when His Majesty said, and I quote, the world is changing at an unprecedented pace and certainties are steadily receding. This has led to a blurring of standards and concepts. Alliances have become open to question. International law is frequently violated. And its capacity to regulate international relations faces numerous challenges. End of quote from His Majesty the King. We are therefore facing a world whose fundamental features are the following. First, the escalation of acute and diverse international crises military, economic, energy related and environmental. Second, the spread of confrontational tendencies as a key determinant of relations between states. Third, the difficulty of predicting the outcome of crises. We know when they begin but not when they will end. Fourth, the diminishing capacity of existing regulatory structures to play the role in preventing and managing crises in this complex international context. Mr. president, I wish to focus on three areas to which the international community must accord priority. First, confronting non-state armed groups as a threat to international security and stability.
And it is precisely because I recognize the value of that cooperation that today I want to speak frankly about the UN. I've been critical about this, of this organization. I was critical of it before I became president, and it would be inconsistent to address this Assembly today and conceal my attempt to seal my convictions. This criticism isn't born out of whim or hostility towards the United Nations. It's based in political, institutional, doctrinal considerations. I believe in the UN as an organization, and it is precisely for that reason that I believe it's legitimate to ask whether the institutions that we've been building are effectively responding to the problems that it was created to address. The charter itself is very clear here. This organization was born to maintain international peace and security, to foster friendly relations among nations, and to promote cooperation in resolving the major common problems. Eight decades on, the question cannot be whether those purposes remain valid. Of course they do. The questions have completely changed, though. Is the UN fulfilling those purposes with the effectiveness demanded by today's world? Are there bureaucratic structures that have become excessively cumbersome? Are we dedicating too many resources, too much energy to administering procedures or too little to resolving problems? Are we measuring our results rigorously enough? Another matter that I wish to address is human rights. Colombia defends human rights and will continue to do so.
He stood firm in defending our organization against attempts to undermine its foundations. He worked tirelessly to strengthen its role whenever efforts were made to diminish it, he devoted himself to keeping the voice of multilateral action strong whenever attempts were made to silence it. Today we meet at a crossroads. In many parts of the world, tensions are rising, conflicts are expanding, and crises are deepening. Meanwhile, trust among nations is declining. Isolationism and polarization are intensifying. Whereas selfishness and exclusion are prevailing at the expense of cooperation. Unilateral coercive measures are increasingly being imposed, and the logic of power is once again reasserting itself, eclipsing the virtues of dialogue and disregarding the benefits of consensus and understanding. In such a turbulent international context, the danger lies not only in the outbreak of wars, but also in the normalization and acceptance of war itself. It lies in the transformation of the exception into the rule, to a situation where the rules of international law become applicable at times and suspended at others, subject only to the dictates of power balances. What sort of international order can function properly when principles are selected according to the identity of those who violate them? What confidence can remain in international law when the aggressor is granted the right to self-defense, while the victim is required to justify even the right to survive? And what future await humanity if imposing fait accompli and once again becomes a tool for managing conflict or determining their outcome. This matter is not simply a temporary crisis facing the international system. Rather, it is a profound review of our collective conscience and our capacity to preserve and develop the order we established after two world wars, so that future generations would not suffer the scourge of war. Because we fail to learn the lessons of a not so distant history, and because we did not heed these lessons, and we did not transform them into measures that would protect us from the catastrophes of the past finally and in full. And because we built a system of international relations whose central purpose was to reject war. And to safeguard a lasting peace, but without providing the system with the means and instruments necessary to achieve an ambition of this size. For this reason, the theme that was chosen by the president of our General Assembly for this session, namely restoring trust and managing transformation: a United Nations delivering results for all, this theme not only reflects the challenges of our time, but also presents us with a fundamental question how do we restore confidence in an international system whose rules and institutions have lost credibility? Algeria believes that the starting point must be from the place where the will of the international community must be embodied, namely the United Nations itself, this very place and this very hall. Particularly reforming the United Nations system is no longer an institutional luxury, nor is it a choice that can be postponed indefinitely. It has become a necessity imposed by the profound transformations the world has undergone. It is imposed by the need for a more just international order, an international order that is more representative and more equitable. We cannot ask peoples to trust in multilateralism if its institutions continue to reflect the balances of a bygone era. We cannot speak of international justice without addressing the historical imbalances that still mar the structure of international decision making. Nor can we advocate for international peace and security while the system of international relations continues to favor war as a means of resolving dispute. Accordingly, Algeria calls for strengthening the role and the authority of the General Assembly. We call for a profound reform of the Security Council that would make it more representative, more equitable and more effective, and that would put an end to selectivity and double standards in the application of international law. In this regard, Algeria reaffirms its steadfast support for the common African position. We stress that correcting the historical injustice suffered by Africa requires permanent and fair African representation in the Security Council with full powers. If restoring trust begins with institutional reform, then it cannot be complete without doing justice to the peoples aspiring to self-determination and the realization of their national projects.
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.
Thank you so much for your hard work for the United Nations Organization and for the Republic of Poland. Distinguished Excellencies, distinguished guests, the 81st Session of the UN General Assembly begins at one of the most difficult, in my view, moments since the organization's founding. Poland was, in fact, a founding member of the United Nations. From the very beginning of the UN's existence, we have been faced with a question about the foundations of the international order that we are shaping within our organization. Despite many achievements, we must not forget that at the very root of its creation lies a fundamental flaw, an original flaw, that continues to undermine the system's credibility to this day. The UN was established in response to the greatest tragedy in human history, World War II, but it was not founded on a simple and fundamental principle: that every wrongdoing must be met with accountability, and sometimes with just punishment. For Poland, this is not an abstract issue. At the very moment the foundations of the UN were being laid, my nation, a victim of two totalitarian regimes, was under the domination of one of them, Soviet Russia, and, after several years of devastating occupation, of the other, Germany. Thousands of Polish heroes who fought for the freedom of Europe and the entire world were, at that time, imprisoned, tortured, and sentenced to death. The UN already existed at that time. At the same time, the state responsible for those crimes had a say in shaping the postwar order, as a permanent member of the Security Council. Poland has never received redress for that period and those wrongs. The failure to hold anyone accountable for these crimes was not merely historical oversight; it sent a signal that violations of international law, aggression, and imperialist policies could go unpunished in reality. It is precisely this lack of justice, this sort of original sin of the postwar order, that creates space for the return of old aggressive ambitions and methods of operation. The aggressive policies of certain states today are, therefore, not a phenomenon detached from history. These policies are a direct consequence of it. A state that has not been held accountable for its actions is more likely to resort to the same tools again. That is why it is so important that today, as the international community, we restore the full meaning of the principle of accountability. Without it, there will not be a lasting peace, and international law will remain nothing more than a declaration devoid of real power. Ladies and gentlemen, today we must show courage while remembering that sometimes courage alone is not enough, that without prudence, courage can lead to disaster.
Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen, The faultlines in our world are widening. Cracks have become canyons. Over the last decade, wars erupted with devastating consequences and dragged on with despicable cruelty. Civilians were targeted. Human rights trampled. Hunger weaponized. Humanitarians killed. International law cast aside. Geopolitical divides have deepened. Inequalities have intensified. Trust has frayed. The climate crisis went from distant warning to daily reality. And artificial intelligence moved at a speed that has blindsided even those who created it. These are not separate crises. They are chapters of the same story. The story of power. Who has it. Who is denied it. How it is used. And how it is changing. Excellencies, Power is being reshaped in three fundamental ways. First, among States. New centres of economic, political and technological influence have emerged. Second, we are witnessing an extraordinary transfer of power away from governments to a handful of private corporations and individuals. Their reach now extends across politics, economies, information flows, technological development, and the civic space on which societies depend. And, third, humans are increasingly handing over power to machines – with Artificial Intelligence agents going rogue, and lethal autonomous weapons going from science fiction to military reality. Yet our institutions and systems of global governance continue to reflect the power realities and interests of a largely bygone age. That is the defining challenge before us. At the very moment when humanity faces an unprecedented convergence of threats, our mechanisms for collective action are under growing strain. Excellencies, We are clearly moving towards a multipolar world. And that movement is irreversible. But there are different ways that multipolarity can take shape. One possibility is a world of fragmentation and transactionalism. A world of rising tensions and deepening mistrust. Of fractured markets and weakened institutions. Of shrinking cooperation and zero-sum calculations. In many respects, that is the trajectory we are on today. But there is another path. A path towards networked multipolarity. A world built on interdependence – and sustained by a dense web of economic, political, social and technological connections. A world in which multiple centres of influence coexist within a common framework of international law and shared rules. Such a world can help us avoid hegemonic tendencies and what I have called the Great Fracture: The division of the world into two rival blocs with separate economic, technological and security systems. A networked world recognizes that no power can solve today’s challenges alone. Of course, competition will remain a permanent feature of international relations. But competition does not have to mean confrontation. Healthy competition can drive innovation, strengthen resilience, and expand opportunity. But only when it operates within frameworks that preserve stability and enable cooperation where cooperation is indispensable. Building a networked future begins with a recognition, especially by superpowers: That their power isn’t so super. That their power has limits. The events of recent years have made that unmistakably clear. Military power alone cannot secure peace. Economic power alone cannot command stability. And technological power alone cannot guarantee security. A networked multipolar world can create the conditions for more balanced and representative global problem-solving. But it requires a multilateral system centred in the UN that is balanced and representative. Strong, effective institutions that reflect the realities and the progressively changing relative weight of countries and economies in today’s world – not the power arrangements of 80 years ago. Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. We already have a binding foundation: The Charter of the United Nations. And the principles that give it life. The primacy of international law. Upholding human dignity. And the pursuit of justice in all its dimensions. These are the backbone for the effective, legitimate and responsible exercise of power in the 21st century. Excellencies, It comes down to this: Will we act to ensure that power is governed by law or by force? By cooperation or coercion? By responsibility to young people and future generations or indifference to their fate? Because the defining challenges of our age are not separate from the question of power. They are expressions of it. And they will determine whether we drift deeper into division and instability – or move toward cooperation, justice and collective security. Looking ahead, our future will be shaped by how we address four great tests of power: The power over war and peace. The power that concentrates wealth and drives inequality.
Own country · at 4 min · 2 mentions in this passage
It's not about territories. It's about the existence of a Jewish state at any boundaries. And yet at the time, right at that time, we were threatened with annihilation by three Arab armies that were about to invade us. You know what Israelis were doing at the time? They were digging mass graves in preparation for the thousands and thousands of casualties in preparation to bury our dead. At the time, I was an Israeli high school student in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, five days before the war broke out. I flew back to Israel. I found a country in total blackout. Israel braced for impact. I flew back to see my brother, Jonathan. Yonatan. Yoni. He was a 21 year old paratroop officer and like the rest of the army, his unit was already mobilized. I went to find him. I was told the paratroops are encamped in the orchards, the orange groves around Ramla. So I went there and I asked some soldiers, do you know where Yoni Netanyahu is? Nope, nope. Then one guy said, oh, you mean the young guy? Yeah, he's in the next grove. So I went there and suddenly at the end of a long row of trees, I saw my brother. He was absolutely shocked to see me. Bibi said, Bibi, what are you doing here? We ran, we hugged each other and over a cup of makeshift military coffee, I asked him the question that was on my mind. The question that was on everybody's mind. So I said. What's going to happen? He paused, and then he said something I'll never forget. We're going to win, he said. We have no other choice.
It must be acknowledged, however, that in certain circumstances, the expectations that people have placed in it have not always been met with a response commensurate with their aspirations. This reality should not lead us to question the foundations of the multilateral system, but rather to strengthen the effectiveness representativeness and capacity for action of international institutions. It is incumbent upon Member States to renew their commitment to multilateralism that is more effective, more inclusive and more responsive to the aspirations of peoples. We also consider it urgent to reform the architecture of global governance, so that it reflects the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. It is essential that Africa have more adequate and effective representation in the international institutions that play a central role in shaping responses to the challenges of peace, security and development. The reform of United Nations Security Council must reflect the legitimate aspirations of the African continent and ensure fairer, permanent and effective representation. In keeping with the principle of a more inclusive, equitable and representative international order, Guinea-Bissau welcomes the efforts of the United Nations to achieve a lasting political solution to the question of Western Sahara. We welcome the adoption of Security Council Resolution 2797 of 2025 and view favourably the Autonomy Initiative presented by the Kingdom of Morocco as a basis for resolving this dispute. Ladies and gentlemen, on November 26th, 2025, during the electoral process, the constitutional order in Guinea-Bissau was interrupted and transitional bodies were established.
Uzbekistan, under the leadership of President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, has made its choice: that is openness, good relations with neighbors, the dialogue with the world. Openness doesn't translate into weakness; on the contrary, striving for peace means taking responsibility for the future. Ladies and gentlemen, we see countries are posed with the question: which side do you choose? Uzbekistan's response is clear: our choice is human dignity. We choose young people who are determined to pursue education, acquire a profession, and define their own future, because we do not measure the true strength of a statehood by its military or economic capacity. The country's might is determined first and foremost by the extent to which it can protect human dignity, rights, and interests. Therefore, we view peace, development, and human dignity not as three separate goals, but as a single, unified task. Esteemed delegates, today no nation, however powerful, can address all global problems alone.
Development means transforming knowledge into opportunity, and opportunity into dignity. Excellencies, for Cabo Verde and other small island states, the climate crisis is not a distant threat; it is a present reality. Climate crisis is here. The droughts, the desertification, water scarcity, ocean acidification, and the rising sea levels. Just look at what is happening currently on the island of Sal, where only two days ago rising sea waters flooded the avenue in front of the hotels. It is also a question of justice, because those who have contributed the least to this crisis cannot continue to bear some of its most serious consequences. Science has shown us the way forward. We must translate this valuable knowledge into decisions and actions, and Cabo Verde has tried to do its part.
I also wish to express my sincere appreciation to your predecessor, Her Excellency Ms. Annalena Baerbock, for her leadership during our 80th Session. Mr. President, we assemble at a historic moment for humanity. Sixty-three years ago, in 1963, Emperor Haile Selassie famously cautioned this global community by stating:" Lasting peace can be achieved only when nations recognize that their true strength lies not in the domination of others, but in cooperation anchored upon genuine equality." As a founding member of the United Nations, Ethiopia bears both the scars of historical betrayal and the unyielding conviction of a survivor. When the League of Nations abandoned our appeal against Fascist aggression in the 1930s, we did not surrender to despair and desolation. We resolutely stood firm as champions of collective security, helping the birth of the very organization in which we stand for. Today, we call upon the Community of Nations to summon that same foundational courage to actively reinforce the very ideals that help prevent global conflict and the scourge of war. The question, therefore, is: how much longer shall we wait before the pillars of collective security fractured beyond repair? This is exactly what drives the significance of multilateralism, not as a diplomatic convenience, but as a living shield rooted in sovereign equality to address the shifting tides of power politics. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Secretary-General for placing before us the defining imperatives of our era, namely artificial intelligence, the climate crisis, and deepening global inequalities. These are not only policy choices; they are the pivots upon which human destiny is determined. The United Nations has achieved remarkable victories against extreme poverty, but it has never been enough.
But today a new source of power have emerged. A handful of private actors now control how billions of people communicate, work, transact and consume information. Artificial intelligence is changing how economies operate, how societies function, and how governments make decisions. The opportunities are enormous, but so are the risks. We must therefore ask a simple question who governs the transformation? Technology must serve humanity, never the reverse. And the answer cannot be that small number of companies or countries decide the rules for everyone else. The United Nations must continue to empower global South countries who are likely to be more greatly affected by inequitable AI development, to participate in global discussions on AI. The global South cannot simply become a destination for data centers while decisions about AI are made elsewhere. We must be partners in innovation, not merely customers and markets, and not merely destinations for investment partners involved in the decisions that will shape our future. Equitable decision making and equitable development. That means managing the enormous demands that tech infrastructure places on water, energy, land and other resources, so that the benefits of AI can be shared more broadly across the borders. Mr. president, in our hyperconnected world today, indeed, very few things stay where they begin. Technologies are rapidly shared, and they can just as rapidly disrupt. Similarly, war can also travel beyond borders. Across West Asia, escalating conflict threatens some of the world's most important routes for energy and trade, including the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb.
We have heard that this also requires United Nations Security Council able and willing to discharge the responsibility entrusted to it. As I said at the opening of this debate, in the eyes of the world, when the Security Council works, the United Nations works. Excellencies. Development, another pillar of the United Nations, featured prominently throughout the debate, but the message was clear time is running out and promises remain unfulfilled. We heard that only a few of the Sustainable Development Goals are on track. We heard that progress has stalled, and we heard the question that should trouble us all. Should we have done much more? The answer must be a resounding yes. The burden is not shared equally. Those speaking most urgently about development were often the countries facing the heaviest debt burdens, the narrowest fiscal space, the greatest climate vulnerability, and the least voice in the institutions that shape the global economy. Debt was spoken of more forcefully by those who bear it not by those with the greatest ability to resolve it. We have heard that we must honor the Sevilla Commitment to reform the international financial architecture, provide affordable and accessible finance, expand fiscal space, strengthen productive capacities, and invest in people. And we must deliver on the promise of Paris. Climate disasters are erasing hard earned development gains and deepening inequality. For small island developing states, low lying coastal countries, least developed countries and climate vulnerable nations, adaptation and resilience are not optional expenditures.
Mr. president, the pursuit of restorative justice gained new momentum with the adoption of the Resolution on Slavery and Transatlantic Trafficking of Enslaved Africans in this hall in March of this year. This development is relevant for Suriname and equally important for the countries of the Caribbean region. The discussion is no longer about whether slavery and colonialism have caused lasting consequences, negative consequences. We know we are living them. We increasingly must focus on how to overcome these effects. And on the question of what form reparations should take to achieve that. How countries that have benefited from slavery and colonialism will compensate the affected. That is the important issue now. It is therefore, that the CARICOM ten-point plan for restorative justice is now of eminent importance. Mr. president, Suriname occupies a unique position. We are carbon negative and remain the world's most forested country with over 90% forest coverage. High Forested and Low Deforestation countries like Suriname should not first have to lose forests before climate finance institutions recognize the value of protecting them. Conservation costs cannot be borne only by the countries protecting ecosystems whose benefits are shared globally. So I will continue my plea for just and effective climate finance, because our forests are under even more pressure than when I addressed this meeting last year. I stated that the forests faced competition of rich natural resources like gold, diamonds and other precious minerals. We are now confronted, however, with a new threat of people who also want to clear parts of our rainforests for large scale agriculture. We will need to prevent that, and we can use every assistance. At this very moment, my government is introducing legal and institutional measures to better protect our forests and the immediate living environment of indigenous people and tribal communities. Their knowledge and participation are important at all stages of development.
These values have long underpinned our domestic and foreign policies. As Iran continues its occupation of the three Emirati islands Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa, which we reject, the United Arab Emirates has consistently called for a peaceful settlement of this conflict, whether through direct negotiations or by recourse to the International Court of Justice. Amid growing threats to navigation in our region and beyond, my country has continued to emphasize the principles of freedom of navigation and the right of transit passage. We stress the need to secure and protect the safe flow of supply chains, trade and energy in accordance with international law, including the law of the sea and the principle of state sovereignty, recognizing these as pillars of food security, development, and prosperity of nations. We have continued to support every sincere effort to achieve peace, particularly in Yemen, Libya, the Sahel, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Haiti and elsewhere. We have also supported efforts to reach a sustainable political solution to the question of the Moroccan Sahara, based on the Moroccan Autonomy Initiative, while affirming the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Morocco over the Sahara. Furthermore, we have advocated for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine in accordance with international law and the principles of the UN charter, including respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. We have remained steadfast in our role as a trusted international mediator, successfully conducting 26 mediations that facilitated the exchange of nearly 8000 prisoners between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, ensuring their return to their homelands and families. The UAE has also stood ready to support nations undergoing positive transformations, such as Syria and Lebanon, as they move towards a secure and stable future. Regarding Sudan, my country has underscored the need to end the humanitarian catastrophe, securing a permanent and unconditional ceasefire that would bring an end to the civil war. This includes launching a comprehensive and credible political process led by civilians, which would culminate in the formation of a civil government independent of both parties to the conflict and from extremist groups. It is crucial to ensure that neither side of the conflict has a role in the new civilian government. The future of Sudan must be decided solely by the Sudanese people, and the international community must press the leaders of Port Sudan authorities and those of the Rapid Support Forces as parties to the conflict to engage seriously with international initiatives. As for Gaza, the UAE was among the first to support the framework established by the international community to end the horrific war. We have stressed the need to fully implement the comprehensive plan of President Trump to end the conflict in Gaza and the associated roadmap, including the withdrawal of Israel from the Gaza Strip, the disarmament of Hamas, and the advancement of a serious political horizon, leading to a just and lasting settlement of the Palestinian question based on the two state solution. This entails the establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. We also underscore the importance of ensuring the unification of Gaza and the West Bank under a Palestinian Authority that, once reformed, will be capable to fulfill its responsibilities and ensure that arms remain solely under its control. We further underscore the urgent need to halt Israel's dangerous escalation in the West Bank and its settlement activities, accompanied by the rise of settler violence, terrorism and the siege of Palestinian village, as well as the ongoing violations in East Jerusalem and at the holy sites and the attempts to impose a new historical and legal status quo on the ground. My country strongly condemns all these actions.
Managing transformation requires institutions capable of adapting to a rapidly changing world, and delivering for all requires us to move beyond declarations toward tangible improvements in the lives and livelihoods of our peoples. Ultimately, our declarations, communiqués, and resolutions must travel the difficult road from this assembly hall to the daily lives of the peoples we represent. Persistent conflicts, geopolitical tensions, and growing divisions have tested trust between nations. Concurrently, our world is undergoing transformation driven by technology, climate change, demographic shifts, and changing patterns of economic power. The pertinent question is how we strengthen multilateralism so that the United Nations can deliver meaningful results for all member states. Humanity has traveled far enough to know that, on the great challenges of our age, none of us can go it alone. Whether a nation of a billion people or, like Botswana with just over 2.5 million people, we share one fragile planet and one imperfect but irreplaceable United Nations. The choices we make will determine whether multilateralism restores trust, manages transformation, and delivers for all, or becomes a cautionary tale of promises made and forgotten.
Ours is a concerning financial situation. It's affecting the UN's operational capacity, and that is prompting questions about how effective the UN really is. Indeed, these questions are being asked about peace operations, just as they are about the SDGs. The implementation of these is lagging behind and significantly so. In view of this reality, it is true that some might be tempted to view multilateralism as a relic and might be tempted to move outside of multilateralism to take action in isolation. Senegal does not espouse that view. On the contrary, it is precisely because the world is beset by a whole host of unprecedented crises that we need a UN that is stronger, more representative and more effective. We will not settle crises by allowing the multilateral system to become ever more piecemeal. We will not achieve peace if we simply stage power struggles. We will not guarantee a just international order if we see right being replaced by might, doing all of that would imperil the very raison d'etre of our organisation that is dialogue, conflict prevention, the peaceful resolution of disputes, cooperation and respect for international law. In this vein, and with this in mind, the UN80 Initiative provides us with a historic opportunity to usher in the structural and normative transformations that we need to see. However, reforming the United Nations must not stymie its ambitions. On the contrary, it must make it less bureaucratic in how it functions. It must remove red tape, make it more agile, and make it more effective in its expenditure. And there must be better synergies between headquarters and the field, so we can better serve the people we represent. Senegal supports that very dynamic. That was the rationale behind our contribution to efforts to strengthen the UN system. We've used our own resources to build a UN house some 30km away from Dakar. This is a cutting edge institution and the site will house all UN system entities in the region, and that will foster greater coherence and effectiveness in the UN's work. However, a stronger organization and ensuring it is stronger also involves member states upholding their financial contribution pledges and making good on their assessed contributions. President, the years are ticking by, but our efforts to reform governance have yet to produce a significant impact. The status quo when it comes to reforming the Security Council bears witness to that fact. We all agree that the composition of the Security Council is out of step with the realities of our time. We agree that the expansion of the Council should not lead to further inertia, but given the fact the Council is lacking legitimacy and that is indeed the hallmark of the Council's current structure, we cannot simply issue observations. We are at a juncture where there is an urgent need for action. It's a matter of justice, credibility and balance across the international system, and this is indeed the rationale which underpins the Ezulwini Consensus, which outlines the African position in connection with the so necessary reform of the UN Security Council. In that vein, Senegal is presenting its candidacy to a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for 2032–2033. However, beyond reform, the organisation also needs experienced leadership to steer its work in these times of crisis and uncertainty. The UN needs a secretary general able to speak to one and all, able to listen and to build bridges between member states. That is the vision embraced and espoused by Macky Sall, former president of the Republic of Senegal. Here I wish once again to express my support for his candidacy. I wish to reiterate Senegal's request that you, as Member states, support his candidacy. Ladies and gentlemen at a time when our organisation is seeking to rebuild trust, Senegal continues to believe in the vision of a world based on peace, justice, the dignity of each and every human being and human brotherhood. The world does not need unilateral posturing. It needs a fairer, more inclusive and more effective multilateralism. Addressing our challenges requires bridges and not walls, dialogue and not confrontation. Cooperation and not isolation and not might. That is the very spirit in which Senegal will host the Youth Olympic Games in Dakar 2026.
Supply chains built up over decades of interdependence are being reorganized or fragmented as a result of geopolitical tensions. The multilateral trading system has been weakened, and the WTO can no longer fully carry out some of its essential functions. Yet what is at stake here is not merely a technical issue of trade policy. The question is whether relations between states will continue to be governed by common rules, or if they will increasingly depend on the weight and power of each individual state. For Switzerland, this is a fundamental issue. That is because my country is an open economy with few natural resources. A large part of its prosperity, therefore depends on trade, but also on the stability and predictability of the rules that make such trade possible. Economic resilience requires us to diversify relationships, forge new partnerships, and keep trade between different regions of the world as open as possible. This is particularly important for economies with fewer resources or limited market access. Access to markets knowledge and technology can create opportunities that would not otherwise exist. These abstract concepts encompass quite concrete realities a business that can take on an apprentice, a family that can secure a more stable income, a producer who can trade beyond their local market. Young people for whom the range of possibilities suddenly widens. That is also what we mean when we talk about a global economy. Trust is built when the rules offer everyone a genuine opportunity to participate.
And I'm here not to sell you a product or a policy, or yet another declaration. I am here to sell you an idea. An idea conceived and spearheaded by His Majesty King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, an idea embraced by the people of Bhutan. An idea already being built. That idea is Gelephu Mindfulness City, GMC. And my sales pitch is simple. Come and build it with us. Now, the world has built new cities before financial centers, freeports, technology hubs, special economic zones. But GMC is different. You see, Gelephu Mindfulness City is a special administrative region, an SAR. Under its Royal Charter, GMC exercises full autonomy in governance, legislation and the judiciary. Think one country, two systems. Think of the agility of a microstate. But GMC was not inherited from history. It was not created to manage a transfer of sovereignty. It is being deliberately created by Bhutan within Bhutan on sovereign Bhutanese territory for the future. GMC covers more than 4000km². That is more than five times the size of Singapore. But its greatest opportunity is not its size. Its greatest opportunity is an institutional blank slate. GMC was given something extraordinarily rare the freedom to design an entire city and its operating systems from first principles. So we asked if you could begin again. How would you govern? What laws would you write? How would we regulate business? How would we guarantee an independent judiciary? How would we attract the best talent? How would we use technology and especially artificial intelligence? How would we create wealth while protecting nature? And ultimately, what would all that prosperity be for? These were not theoretical questions. We answered them. And we are making full use of that institutional blank slate. If Singapore has legal principles that work, we learn from Singapore. If Abu Dhabi has financial regulations that work we learn from Abu Dhabi. If leading jurists from the United Kingdom can help us build an independent judiciary, we learn from them. And if international experts can strengthen our institutions, we learn from them. The principle is simple. Search the world for what works. Take the best, adapt it, and make it work for GMC. The result is a core operating system that is now in place, designed to give investors clarity, familiarity, and predictability. But GMC's operating system was designed around a deeper conviction that prosperity and values should reinforce one another. That means rejecting the assumption that we must choose between enterprise and well-being, between technology and humanity between development and nature. At GMC, we believe a balanced approach can deliver substantial profits while protecting the values that make prosperity worthwhile. Balance is not the enemy of profit. It is the foundation of lasting profit. And at GMC, balance is not a slogan. It is built into the operating system. And this matters deeply to Bhutan. You see, Bhutan is peaceful and stable. Our forests are intact. Our culture is alive. Our people are educated. But our economy is small. It cannot yet create enough opportunities for our young people. So too many of them leave home to find opportunity elsewhere. For a country as small as ours, this is not only an economic challenge, it is an existential one. We cannot simply tell them to stay. We must give them a reason to stay and a reason to return. Jobs. Opportunities. Enterprise, a future. So Bhutan must transform. But we refuse to believe that transformation requires us to become somebody else. We want economic growth. We want investment. We want technology. We want successful companies. We want our people to become wealthier. But we also want to protect what makes Bhutan Bhutan. That is the driving force behind His Majesty's vision for GMC. And that is why His Majesty is personally spearheading its development. GMC is not a project on the margins of Bhutan. It is at the heart of our national transformation. Our people have embraced GMC as a people's project and investment in our children, our economy and our shared future. Bhutan is not waiting to see whether the world believes in GMC before committing to it.
Nevertheless, this protection is today under assault. Rearmament is accelerating throughout the world. We are seeing the use of force once again as being another political tool for some. Trade is breaking down and we are seeing a race to capture critical resources. The private sector is also part of these power relations. We are now in the era of the geo economy, and this is fertile ground for disinformation, which undermines people's trust in their institutions and leads them to question verifiable facts. Our belief has never been tried to such an extent since 1945 in Ukraine, the Middle East, Sudan, the Sahel in many other places out of the media spotlight. Civilians are paying the price for conflicts which have discarded the most basic rules of humanity. And never, since 1945 has the very legitimacy of states and multilateral bodies such as the UN, been called into question to such an extent. Given this danger, let us recall our mission. In the words of Dag Hammarskjöld, the second Secretary-General of the UN: The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell. That is the exact scope of our task, and that is why we do not have the right to give up. First in Ukraine for almost five years, a permanent member of the Security Council has been waging a war of aggression against a sovereign state in flagrant violation of the charter. From the very outset, Monaco condemned this aggression unambiguously and unreservedly. We voted in favour of all of the General Assembly's resolutions calling and demanding for Russian forces to withdraw. We took all restrictive measures aligned with EU measures, and we also provided our humanitarian support to the Ukrainian people and hosted people displaced by the war. Our support is unwavering and it will remain so. Monaco will never recognize any annexation of territory obtained through force. Allowing this for one state would be tantamount to allowing it for all. The principality welcomes the ongoing diplomatic efforts and hopes that they will lead to fair, comprehensive, lasting peace, respecting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Next to the Middle East, Monaco was greatly relieved by the cease fire, which entered into force in Gaza, and the fact that the hostages were freed. Nothing can ever justify the acts of terror of the 7th of October, but nor can anything justify the price paid by the civilians in Gaza. The principality calls on all parties to strengthen the fragile ceasefire and to respect every stage of it, ensuring full, safe, unhindered humanitarian access. We support efforts to rebuild Gaza, and we are concerned about the ongoing violence in the West Bank, in the occupied territories which ride roughshod over human rights and dishonor democratic values. Our belief remains the same. The only viable option is the two state solution Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, within safe and recognized borders. Any policy that makes that scenario less likely through settlement building, or sowing terror makes peace less likely too. In Lebanon, too, Monaco supports de-escalation efforts and calls on all parties to fulfil their commitments, first and foremost Security Council Resolution 1701. The people of Lebanon have the right to a fully sovereign state in peace throughout its territory. In the Persian Gulf, finally, tensions around Iran remain a source of deep concern. Monaco pays tribute to all the civilian victims of the conflict and reiterates its solidarity with the countries of the Gulf who have been affected by the attacks. Here again, only negotiations can lead to a global agreement on the Iranian nuclear program and will prevent further escalation. Above and beyond these crises, Monaco will continue to contribute to international cooperation focused on the least developed countries through its support to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Programme, through development aid geared towards the health, education and empowerment of women and girls. Restoring trust also means changing the organisation itself.
Friends, the United Nations is entering its ninth decade at a moment of great uncertainty and challenge for the global community. Conflicts are having devastating effects on the most vulnerable. The impacts of the climate crisis are felt in every corner of our world. Hard won rights are being rolled back. Narrow self-interest is breaking the bonds of solidarity, which have so often lifted us to meaningful progress. The international legal order is under tremendous strain. New and emerging technologies that offer unlimited potential could also, without human intervention, create unprecedented dangers. In such moments of uncertainty, it can be easy to question our foundations, to retreat, to turn inward, to say that international cooperation is too difficult, that multilateralism does not work, that the problems of others are not our problems. But that would be the wrong conclusion, because the answer to a world under strain is not less international cooperation. It is more. The answer to the weakening of principles is not to abandon them. It is to defend them. And if our multilateral system is not working effectively, the answer is not to walk away from it. It is to make it stronger, fairer and fit for the world we live in. That is Ireland's position, and that is what all of us, as members of the United Nations need to deliver on. We should also remember what our collective commitment to the United Nations has achieved. The multilateral system anchored in the United Nations Charter has been the foundation of many of humanity's greatest achievements. It has driven advances in poverty alleviation health care, education, social protection, and food and nutrition security. It has championed human rights and dignity and insisted that accountability matters. It has given voice to the marginalised. Mr. President, the people of Ireland understand that we live in an interdependent world, that the challenges we face are interconnected, cross borders and require collective solutions. Ireland currently holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union. Our stewardship of the European Union's agenda is deeply rooted in the principle of strength with unity, and this principle is at the heart of our vision for the United Nations, as well as our unwavering commitment to the pillars which guide its work. Peace and security. Human rights and development. These pillars equally bear the weight of our shared ambition for a better, fairer and peaceful world. Collectively, however, we are not delivering on their ambition. We are not staying the course. At a time when global needs are increasing and becoming more complex, our responsibility to act does not diminish.
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.
We also express sincere appreciation to your predecessor for her stewardship over the past year. I rise before this Assembly at a time when the world is not short of promises, declarations, or commitments. What we need is proof that our institutions can respond to the realities people face. For small island developing states like ours, the question is immediate. Saint Kitts and Nevis therefore comes with a clear proposition: trust will be restored not by what we promise, but by what we deliver.
The UN is suffering because of it. But it is also true that the United Nations requires profound reforms to be able to tackle the challenges of the 21st century. As such, the question really is: do we let the United Nations, together with its aims and founding principles, just slowly fall apart? Or do we start facing these challenges with a sense of common responsibility and genuinely try to reform the UN and start to use the only global framework we have in a responsible and sensible way? The stakes are high. The choice is ours. For Estonia, and I believe for the great majority of UN member states, upholding the principles of the UN Charter is of vital interest. But we are also conscious that in order for those principles to remain valid and respected, we need to invest in them as much with our words as with our actions.
Mr. president, one year ago I stood at this very podium and reminded this Assembly that if the United Nations is to remain humanity's surest hope for a just and peaceful world, it must have the courage to confront aggression and the will to engage fully with the defining question of our age. I also argued that we must be bold enough to undertake the institutional reforms necessary to strengthen the organisation, enhance its credibility and enable it to meet the challenges of a changing world. Indeed, I am pleased that the theme of this year's assembly, and I quote, Restoring Trust, Managing transformation, a United Nations that delivers for all, end of quote, acknowledges the need for this organisation to be fit for purpose, to respond to the challenges, and to seize the possibilities of our time. Today, we confront a climate catastrophe, an energy crisis, food insecurity, biodiversity loss, armed conflicts, and geopolitical tensions, the horror of genocide, a spiralling cost of living crisis, a mounting debt crisis, widening inequalities within and among nations, and, perhaps most troubling of all, a weakening of multilateralism itself. Yet if history has taught us anything, it is that even when the world seemed to stand at the precipice, humanity has never been entirely without the means to draw it back from the brink. We have ended wars that seem without end. We have confronted economic calamities that threaten the foundations of societies. We have overcome dangers that presented existential threats. Time and again, it has been our inventiveness, our courage, and above all, our willingness to act together that have opened a path where none seemed to exist. This is why I do not wish to linger or lament further upon the difficulties before us. I wish instead to turn our gaze toward the possibilities that lie beyond them. For within every crisis lies a summons to solutions, within every disruption an opportunity for renewal, and within every uncertainty, the possibility of shaping a better future.
Ladies and gentlemen. We meet today as the world undergoes a profound transformation, not only in the balance of power but in the very concept of power, and the ethics of its use. This transformation is reshaping the meaning of security, the nature of alliances, and the capacity of the international order to uphold the foundations and principles upon which and for which it was established. At the heart of these transformations lies a question that transcends the borders of states and continents: how can we build an international order in which the rule of law is an equal right, not a privilege of the most powerful?
The NATO action in Libya significantly worsened the security, political, humanitarian and human rights situation in our region through in particular, the spread of terrorism and violent extremism. Now, faced with this reality, it is legitimate to question the effectiveness of the tools available to our organization. It is for this reason that we welcome the Strategic review of the United Nations Regional Office for West Africa and the Sahel, which should lead to an approach better aligned with the realities and concerns of the people impacted. The government of Mali reiterates its strong condemnation of international terrorism and its foreign state sponsors, who finance arm, provide logistical support and intelligence to this organized transnational crime. Following Ukraine's initial statement in 2024, in which it acknowledged support for terrorist groups operating in the Sahel, that country publicly reiterated the highest level of state interference in Africa. And beyond our states, other independent sources also corroborate these unacceptable actions by Ukraine. Here we have a country which claims to be protecting its territorial integrity, where, as in Africa, in the Sahel, it provides clear support to terrorist groups and other harmful groups which undermine the territorial integrity of our countries. Given our history, the international community in particular Africa, cannot just remain silent in the face of what it was being done by Ukraine. It has enormous consequences for African countries, and it goes beyond that. We understand very well that Ukraine is just a visible part of the iceberg, which is trying to destabilize our country, to break our determination to throw off the colonial yoke. Terrorism, which is nurtured and supported from outside, does it in three ways. First, in the armed way. We know that it's attacking civilian populations. It's a security crisis in the economic way, which impacts our countries and through the media notably through us, organized and systematic disinformation campaigns and certain media outlets nostalgic for colonial past play a role in these. The coordinated attacks of 25th April and 4th of July 2026, and several locations in Mali caused numerous casualties, and they demonstrate the existence of the dangerous connection that we're becoming increasingly aware of. So the scenario we witnessed in 2012 is repeating itself now with terrorist groups and so-called separatist armed groups now forming openly terrorist coalition against Mali institutions and populations. Regional and international responses, including the deployment of international forces, have failed to halt these complex security crises and massacres affecting Sahelian populations.
Madam President, excellencies, our world is undergoing a profound disruption characterised by great-power contestation, the wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, Africa. We're witnessing the rise of trade barriers, supply chain disruptions, worsening climate change, and a new industrial revolution driven by digital technologies, biotechnology and renewable energy. This means we face both great peril and great promise. Yet we are in a more polarised and fractured world, and one that may be unable to protect the global commons at precisely the moment that we need that protection. Our inter-state relations are increasingly dictated by raw power, where the outcomes are determined on the basis of size, leverage and coercion. And this poses obviously, a clear and present danger for smaller states like Singapore. But the point I wanted to make is that even the more powerful states would ultimately pay a price, because hard power on its own cannot secure supply chains, protect populations from pandemics, or stabilise a warming planet. Even big powers need partners to secure their long term national interests. The bilateral and regional arrangements can complement global frameworks, but on their own, they cannot replace shared rules that apply universally. A system built on individual coercive bargains would inherently be more volatile and more unstable. And therefore, our thesis today is that multilateralism offers a different bargain, one that is, in every state's enlightened national interest. These shared rules and norms provide predictability. They constrain the capricious exercise of power, and they maximize autonomy even when power is unequally distributed. Actually the multilateral system today still works more often than the headlines would suggest. A few examples. The World Food Programme feeds over 100 million people a year. The common ICAO standards enable 100,000 flights to operate safely every day. With the ITU, our telecommunications networks and the internet continues to operate safely, smoothly on a planetary scale. The question is, therefore not whether we need multilateralism, but how to make it fit for purpose. And I suggest three priorities. First, we all have to consistently comply with international law and the norms of multilateralism. Second, we need to reform existing institutions where needed. And third, we need to collectively formulate new rules and create new institutions for new technologies.
I repeat: the Malvinas for us are a national cause. They are also a test of the gulf that can exist between the words of international institutions and the reality upon which they purport to act. Fifty years ago, this very Assembly adopted Resolution 31/49, which calls on parties to refrain from introducing unilateral modifications while the dispute remains unresolved. Fifty years on, the situation has not changed, yet unilateral modifications continue. Today, the Sea Lion Project is moving toward oil extraction on the Argentine continental shelf in the North Malvinas Basin, under British licenses that Argentina rejects as illegal and illegitimate. Any such activity not authorized by the Argentine Republic in this regard constitutes an unlawful act under both international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and Argentine domestic law. That is why I wish to ask a question: what use is a resolution if, for decades, the other party can act in direct contravention of it, while that resolution remains intact in the archives but powerless in the face of reality? There's no shortage of words or resolutions. What is lacking is consequences. Because an institution that cannot ensure that its words carry weight in the real world loses the most important thing of all: its authority. In these circumstances, those who follow the rules receive no reward for doing so, while those who break them suffer no repercussions whatsoever. That's why the Malvinas are not merely an issue between Argentina and the United Kingdom. They also raise a question regarding the ability of this organization to enforce its own resolutions. Argentina has taken note of that reality, and in the face of the unauthorized exploitation of our resources in the disputed area, we've acted. We've submitted formal notes of protest. We've availed ourselves of the legal remedies at our disposal. We've imposed sanctions on the companies involved and their suppliers. And we've submitted a national sovereignty defense bill to Congress. For far too long, Argentine governments opted for a rhetorical defense. We have chosen a peaceful, practical, and effective defense. I repeat: we have chosen a peaceful, practical, and effective defense. I also wish to reiterate our position regarding the population of the islands. As this very Assembly has determined in numerous resolutions, the principle of self-determination does not apply in this case, since the population was implanted by the occupying power on a territory whose sovereignty is in dispute. That principle exists to liberate colonized people, not to legitimize situations arising from colonization. If the United Kingdom maintains a selective interpretation of the principle of self-determination with regard to the Malvinas Islands, it must also explain how it reconciles that position with the debates on self-determination taking place within its own territory. Once again, we call on the United Kingdom to resume negotiations with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute, as required by international law. We also reiterate our invitation to proceed without delay to an exchange of views with a view to resolving the issue concerning the aforementioned dispute over the exploitation of our natural resources. And I want to say something more to the global energy sector. Vaca Muerta represents a historic opportunity, with the potential to become one of the major players in the energy sector in the decades ahead. Come, invest, develop it with us. But there's a limit to this invitation. We will not remain indifferent to those who exploit resources under illegal foreign occupation.
12 people find themselves in a forest on an island. The guide who led them there is sitting among them, is dead, but they don't know it yet. They are waiting for him to return. They hear the wind, the sea, the voices around them. They know they are not alone, yet they can barely tell where the others are. At one point, one of the characters says, years and years we have been together and we have never seen each other. That line comes back to me when I look at our world. We too are together. We meet constantly. We exchange statements, messages and positions. At times we spend hours around the same tables and yet being in the same room doesn't mean that we understand one another. Do we still take the time to hear what others are telling us, to understand what they fear, what they need, and what the world looks like from where they stand? That, to me, is where diplomacy begins. Not when we agree, but when we no longer do. Diplomacy is not erasing disagreements, nor about abandoning our principles to secure consensus at any cost. It is about continuing to speak continuing to listen and finding ways to manage our differences without allowing them to lead to a breakdown in relations or to confrontation. In the play, one of the characters says something very simple let us try to draw a little closer. Maeterlinck wrote those words more than a century ago, yet they feel entirely relevant today. Drawing closer doesn't mean thinking alike. It means refusing to let distance turn into indifference, then mistrust, until eventually we stop speaking altogether. That risk is real today. It is one of the paradoxes of our time. We have never been more connected, yet we do not necessarily understand one another any better. Our economies, societies and technologies have become deeply interdependent, even as the temptation to turn inward returns with force. In other words, we depend on one another more than ever at the very moment when we are sometimes tempted to believe that we can do without one another. The more interdependent we become, the more we need common rules not to erase our differences, not to impose a single vision of the world, but to ensure that we can manage our disagreements without allowing the law of the strongest to become the only law that matters. In the play The Blind, the characters have lost the person who was meant to show them the way. We are not in the same position. No one will come and decide for us which direction to take, but that doesn't mean we can move forward without bearings. Faced with wars, humanitarian crisis, climate disruption, pandemics and technological upheaval, the question is ultimately quite simple do we still have a common compass? For Belgium, the answer is yes. That compass is the charter of the United Nations. It is international law, but the rule has value only if it continues to apply when respecting it becomes difficult. It is precisely when the law runs counter to a state's immediate interest that we discover whether it really matters. When a signature loses its value the moment it becomes binding, when a treaty holds only for as long as it suits the party that signed it, it is not merely a legal text that is weakened. It is trust in a promise made, and with it the security of all those who believed they could rely on that promise. That is why Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine concerns far more than two states.
As he prepares to turn this important page of his life, I wish him, on my own behalf and on behalf of the entire Burundian people, every success in his new endeavors, as well as good health and a future filled with serenity and prosperity. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the theme of this 81st Session: restoring trust, managing transformation, a United Nations that delivers for all, comes at a time when our world faces multiple crises: aggression against states, internal armed conflict fueled from outside, and expansionist conflicts that are breeding mistrust among states and rendering the international community unable to resolve these crises through peaceful means. In this context, a fundamental question arises: how can we restore trust in multilateralism and ensure that international institutions truly meet the expectations of all peoples? Our answer is clear: we must strengthen multilateralism, reform global governance, and place human dignity at the heart of our collective action.
Dear friends. Since this morning, we've heard a number of speeches from this rostrum about the state of the world, and I fear I will not be very original in my description. Every speaker has described the return of imperialism, of arrogance, the return of unrestrained force which knows no rules, a world in which we see power concentrated in the hands of the few, a world in which some believe that they can undermine the international order so as to push their borders outwards. Those that believe that people's sovereignty can be toppled over that they could use that sovereignty. People who believe that they can decide the fate of the planet, whether that be as regards the climate or AI. The question we must answer is very simple. The question is, do we want to live under this state of affairs with a return to the law of the jungle? Or do we want to live in a civilised international society? Our duty today, more than ever, is to hold firm here at the United Nations in order to make decisions to further our common interests so that people can choose their fate freely, their development model choose their future. To refuse their sovereignty being taken hostage by unjust forces, by fear. Therefore, the very raison d'etre of this organisation is to bring together free people on an equal footing. It is our charter that prevents the power wielded by some from making decisions for others. This is what compels us to work together to demonstrate our commitment and our capacity to act, and usefully so. You know just how committed France is to the United Nations and its ability to shoulder the responsibilities conferred upon it by the charter. I wish to reassert our commitment to take action hand in hand with each and every one of you, so as to revive multilateralism and to demonstrate that we are stronger, more effective, more capable of tackling common challenges if we do this together. Today's challenges, future challenges, ones we do not know about yet, challenges we haven't yet tackled. I talked about the climate. It also applies to war and peace, new technologies and development. Across all of these areas, wherever might is right is being imposed, we must defend justice and our common interests, and it is in the interests of each and every one of us as well, because our charter affords us the protection, the right to live together. Given the sorry state of the world, given what we're seeing today, and that is a growing number of wars we haven't solved, multiplying myriad crises and contemporary challenges which are weighing on new generations in new ways, I believe we are duty bound not to yield. And at the end of the day, the message I wish to convey to you today, as I've been doing over the last nine years, is a message of determination. Optimism through action. What I'm trying to tell you is that we will not yield to fatalism, to defeatism, which is very much in vogue according to this rhetoric. There's not much point coming here to deliver speeches. They say might is right. We can impose a different kind of peace. That is what they say.
An international system that gives all countries a fair opportunity to determine their own development pathways must be central to the UN80 reform process. The question before this Assembly is not whether multilateralism remains relevant. It is whether our institutions are prepared to adapt to the challenges of our century and to deliver results that matter. We welcome this session's emphasis on restoring trust through prevention, inclusion, and reform, and we stand ready to work with all member states toward that end.
On this auspicious occasion, each year, the crucial questions that crop to mind and that we ponder about are the crucial and novel messages that we should focus on. Should our annual interventions be confined to sheer and rather routine accounts or balance sheet of developments that had transpired during the particular year? Should the forum be seen as essentially and solely a congenial public relations platform for eloquent speeches and discourses? Does the annual forum consist of structured agendas that have continuity and coherence? What is the context? What is the overarching mission? And how do we judge progress, etc.? In previous summits, I have dwelt on the historical backdrop of the establishment of the United Nations, the popular aspirations of humanity for peace, growth and prosperity that underpins the creation of the United Nations, the economic injustices that prompted those aspirations in the first place, the innate mission of the United Nations, as well as its structure and operational modality, as elaborated in the foundational precepts elaborated below.
Mr. President. Mr. Secretary General. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, dear friends of Georgia, it's a privilege to stand before this assembly on behalf of Georgia, a nation shaped by centuries of history, resilience and engagement with the changing world. We meet at a time of considerable change in the international environment. Developments in different parts of the world are challenging existing arrangements and raising questions about the future of the international order. In this context, maintaining peace and strengthening international cooperation remain key priorities.
Many citizens see a gulf between what we agree on here and what people experience on a daily basis. Closing this gap is the task of our organization. A lot of citizens realize that this is the task that our generation must take up. And as a founding country, Ecuador believes in the United Nations, and it's precisely for this reason that we want an organization that's able to respond to the challenges of the world today, not of 1945. Supporting the organization, the United Nations, also needs to involve a willingness to transform the United Nations. And that's why we support the UN80 initiative and pose an essential question: what United Nations of the world needs today? We need an organization that's more efficient, with the ability to prevent conflicts, resolve crises, and support states to challenges that didn't exist when the organization was created. An organization whose legitimacy depends not only on the decision that we adopt, but the way that they adopt. And we need the Charter and international law to remain our common language. More than 80 years ago, countries understood that peace didn't depend on everyone's power, but rather is something that we built organizations to cooperate to achieve. This remains our main strength. The citizens of the world will not judge this organization by its declarations; they will judge it by its ability to turn commitments into peace and security, into respect for human rights, into real opportunities for development, and how many lives we really save. President, the criminal gangs already coordinate with each other. Now we need to do better. Ecuador has come to this Assembly to defend collective solutions, because no country can build a safe, prosperous, and sustainable future alone. And because when international cooperation works, we are all stronger for it.
Without it, treaties risk becoming little more than words. Institutions become arenas for accusation, and countries increasingly feel compelled to rely only on themselves. At a time of profound transformation, rebuilding confidence among nations lets us confront change and uncertainty together. Today we not only see declining confidence between countries, but also a growing crisis of faith in the rules meant to bind us together. When nations begin to believe that rules are applied differently depending on power or circumstance, the instinct is to turn inward and act alone. That weakens us all. Dialogue becomes harder. Multilateral institutions lose authority, and the international order becomes more fragile, leaving smaller and more vulnerable states particularly exposed. For Brunei Darussalam, multilateralism is not an intellectual concept. It is assurance that sovereignty and territorial integrity will be respected, that every nation, irrespective of size, has a voice, and that international law protects the weak as surely as it restrains the strong. The charter of the United Nations must therefore remain our common foundation. It cannot mean one thing in one crisis and something different in another. Its principles must be upheld consistently if this organization is to retain its legitimacy and credibility. Few issues demonstrate this more painfully than the question of Palestine.
Recent tension and conflict have seriously eroded trust and confidence between Cambodia and Thailand. Beyond putting a strain on relations, this conflict has left deeper and more enduring scars, including damage to cultural heritage and lingering threat posed by unexploded ordnance, among others. Yet geography binds us together. As permanent neighbors, our two countries will always live side by side and peace, stability and prosperity of our peoples are closely interconnected. Rebuilding trust is therefore not merely desirable. It is essential to the future of our bilateral relations and to a shared interest in lasting peace and good neighbourly relations. For Cambodia, restoring trust must be grounded in concrete commitment. It requires the full and effective implementation in good faith of the agreement reached between our two countries. These include the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration, the Fuxian Consensus, and in particular, the joint statement of 27th December 2025, under which both sides committed to the renunciation of the threat or use of force, respect for international boundaries and to concrete measures to de-escalate tensions, rebuild trust and advance the normalisation of bilateral relations. Among those measures the prompt resumption of the survey and demarcation work of the Joint Boundary Commission would contribute significantly to addressing outstanding boundary related claims and establishing a clear and mutually recognized boundary in accordance with international law and the existing treaty and agreement between the two countries. Equally important, and with direct humanitarian implications, is enabling the more than 20,000 Cambodian civilians who remain unable to return to their home due to the continued military occupation and obstruction. In the words of the UN special rapporteur who visited the border last July, they need and deserve to go home. Likewise, the cessation of activities in occupied territories that could create or consolidate a fait accompli would provide a tangible demonstration of goodwill and respect for international law. This same commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes is reflected in our approach to the maritime dispute between Cambodia and Thailand. Last May Thailand decided to unilaterally terminate the MOU 2001, the only existing legal framework between our two countries specifically established to address our maritime disputes, despite our repeated call not to do so. Cambodia was thus forced to place its trust in institutions that uphold the principle of international law by initiating compulsory conciliation proceedings under UNCLOS. As our Prime Minister, Samdech Moha Borvor Thipadei Hun Manet, stated in his special address last June, we have taken this step to protect Cambodia's sovereignty and maritime rights in accordance with international law. Cambodia has always sought to resolve disputes with our neighbour peacefully. We continue to seek a relation with Thailand based on peace, cooperation and mutual respect. Both Cambodia and Thailand stand to gain from a fair and lasting settlement agreed with the guidance of international expert conciliator and in accordance with international law. In this connection, Cambodia is grateful to the Conciliation Commission for demonstrating its strong willingness to assist the parties in resolving this dispute peacefully, during the first meeting in Singapore earlier this month. The value of conciliation should be approached as a meaningful opportunity to bridging differences, rebuild trust and lay a stronger foundation for peaceful and constructive relations between our two countries. Mr. president, the question is no longer whether our world is changing, but whether we can shape that change together and turn transformation into opportunities rather than division and insecurity.
With this in mind, I propose that we take the following four steps. First, we should safeguard the postwar international order and foster lasting peace based on common security. The world wants peace not war. The international system centered on the UN and the international order, underpinned by international law that emerged after World War Two must be upheld. We should turn into action the vision of common, comprehensive cooperative and sustainable security and reject the Cold War mindset and block confrontation. We should settle differences and disputes through dialogue and consultation, and oppose unilateral military actions that violate the UN Charter and circumvent Security Council authorization. Major countries shoulder special responsibilities for safeguarding international peace and security, and they should take the lead in complying with the rules, upholding the rule of law and doing what's right. China holds that the sovereignty and security of countries in the Middle East, including the Gulf should be respected. International industrial and supply chains should be kept stable and unimpeded, and global trade should be safeguarded. China calls for advancing the governance of the West Bank and the post-conflict reconstruction of Gaza, in accordance with the principle of the Palestinians governing Palestine. It also calls for bringing the Palestinian question back onto the right track of the two state solution at an early date. On Ukraine, President Xi Jinping has put forward four points on what must be done, which are the fundamental guidance for China in playing a continued constructive role in its own way for achieving a political settlement of the crisis. China urges the relevant country to immediately stop using threat of force against Cuba, and immediately and completely lift the blockade and sanctions against Cuba. Second, we should address the global development predicament and promote prosperity for all through openness and cooperation.
Mr. president. Our world continues to confront severe multi faceted tensions, geopolitical crisis and tension macroeconomic instability, supply chain disruption and accelerating climate emergencies. These headwinds place immense strain on the most vulnerable economies, where rising energy and food prices jeopardize the livelihood of millions of people in countries in special situations. The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East demonstrate how rapidly confrontation can destabilize global stability. Sustainable peace cannot be forged through force or unilateral action. It requires diplomacy, respect for sovereign equality and territorial integrity, and strict adherence to international law. The question of Palestine remains an enduring test of multilateral credibility. We remain deeply concerned by humanitarian catastrophe and immense reconstruction requirements in Gaza, as well as the mounting challenges in the West Bank. To prevent the two state solution from slipping beyond reach, the international community must secure a just, comprehensive and lasting peace, and one that fulfils the legitimate rights to the Palestinian people to self-determination through an independent state of Palestine with full membership in the United Nations.
And the same is true for every country represented in this hall. When one state believes it can redraw the borders of another by force, every border, on every continent, becomes negotiable. These principles now are being tested in Ukraine. Russia's war against Ukraine strikes at the very heart of the United Nations Charter. Borders changed by force. Territory seized by force. Children taken by force. Ukrainian civilians targeted by Russia. Schools, hospitals, homes, markets, energy infrastructure. Russia's attacks reach far beyond the battlefield. They are directed against the people of Ukraine and their foundations of daily lives. Drones are used to hunt civilians. Human lives are treated like targets in a safari. These are not policy disagreements. These are grave violations of international law. And where crimes are committed, there must be accountability. Let us not look away. Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council. With that comes a special responsibility for international peace and security. Instead, Russia is violating the very principles it is entrusted to uphold. Russia started this brutal war. Russia can end it. It can stop its attacks. It can withdraw its forces. It can leave Ukraine's sovereign territory. Latvia continues to call for an immediate and full ceasefire. Ukraine deserves just peace. Members of the United Nations, not every attack on the international order looks like war. Drones carrying explosives at airports. Drones crashing into homes. Airspace violated. Critical infrastructure damaged. Power stations suddenly in flames. Cyber attacks. We sometimes call them hybrid threats. But it sounds as innocent as hybrid cars. In reality, those threats to international peace and security are as dangerous as conventional wars. Guarding the eastern border of NATO and the European Union, Latvia faces these threats every day. Illegal migrants are deliberately exploited and pushed toward our border with Belarus. Cyber attacks target our critical networks. Acts of sabotage seek to create fear and instability in our societies. Russia's shadow fleet exploits legal gray zones and puts our security and environment at risk. Even in this very building, at the Security Council table, we have heard Russia spread blatant lies and make threats against Latvia and other free and democratic countries. Distinguished delegates, that brings us back to a fundamental question: what is the United Nations' role if its members are threatened and if its principles are violated?
But let's ask ourselves a simple question: what if we, as world leaders, would start again following the UN Charter? Would reform even matter if we finally did our best for global peace? Too many conflicts are still driven by the belief that political problems can be solved by force, by changing borders, violating sovereignty, and ignoring international rules. We need to reject this logic. Leadership is not shown by the willingness to escalate. It requires the courage to de-escalate. International rules may sound abstract in this hall, but on the ground, they are very real. They can mean the difference between life and death. When these rules are ignored, civilians suffer. Communities are destroyed. Millions are displaced. Supply chains are disrupted. Prosperity is lost. And there is even a deeper danger: if violence becomes normal for the next generation, diplomacy itself will become harder. What is difficult to solve today may become impossible tomorrow. That is why our most urgent task must be clear: stop the violence, keep diplomacy alive, and prevent today's conflicts from becoming tomorrow's normal. The war in Ukraine, now in its fifth year, continues to bring destruction close to Slovakia's borders. Attacks on civilian areas and critical infrastructure remain unacceptable. A ceasefire is still distant, and lasting peace even further away. We should support every serious diplomatic effort that can help end Russia's war against Ukraine and build a safe future for our neighbor. Our commitment to international law and human dignity cannot stop at Europe's borders. The same basic principles must guide us in the Middle East. International humanitarian law must be respected. Civilians must be protected. Humanitarian aid must reach those who need it, including in Gaza. There can be no justification for terrorism, antisemitism, anti-Muslim hatred, or calls to violence. Israelis and Palestinians both deserve to live in security and dignity. And Slovakia continues to support a negotiated two-state solution, with Israel and an independent Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security. Other conflicts that are currently out of the spotlight must not escape our attention and our efforts to solve them. Take, for example, the civil war in Sudan that has triggered the world's largest humanitarian crisis. Excellencies, the first words of our Charter are: We the peoples of the United Nations. Today we need that sense of shared responsibility again. Armed conflicts have reached levels we have not seen since the Second World War. Civilians continue to pay an unacceptable price. We already have institutions. We already have rules.
193 states that have signed up to the UN charter that have signed up to one essential principle that relations between states are not governed by sheer power, but by rules. Today, this commitment is being tested by conflicts, by shifts in power, by new technologies. And our global institutions are struggling to keep pace. So let me ask you a simple question that I believe sits underneath everything we are discussing this week. Who decides? Who decides whether a border is a line to be respected or a target to be crossed? Who decides whether a human being or a machine pulls a trigger? Who decides who gets heard and who is left waiting outside the room? For more than 80 years, this organization has stood for one answer. Power must be bound by rules agreed together. That answer secured Austria's sovereignty and our prosperity. It still does. We are a nation of 9 million people, an open, liberal democracy, and we are proud of it. Alone we cannot. We cannot keep trade routes open, stabilize energy markets, or prevent wars. Like most countries in this hall, we depend on a world in which borders are respected, agreements are kept, and strength is bound by law. When that order weakens, the gravest price is paid by those least able to bear it, by countries already in crisis, by populations heavily dependent on food imports and by people caught in conflict.
Restoring trust, mutual respect and equality before the law is our collective responsibility during this 81st session. Mr. President, distinguished participants, a year ago, we called in this very hall for peace to be the foundation of development and human rights. 12 months later, we must acknowledge that the gap between our commitments and reality remains evident. Everywhere around the world, from the Middle East to the Sahel, through the Great Lakes region, in Eastern Europe and Latin America, civilian populations continue to pay the high price of conflict, driven by interests that are often hidden. The devastating war in the Middle East, marked by massive civilian losses and destruction of critical infrastructure, has spread to Syria and Lebanon as a result of Israeli military operations and has had major global economic consequences. In addition to its worldwide impact, the conflict threatens the food and energy security of vulnerable countries, such as the Union of the Comoros, which remain highly dependent on imports and whose population face declining purchasing power And this demands greater international solidarity. Given this shared insecurity. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen allowing the conflict in the Middle East to continue directly weakens the United Nations by calling into question its ability to maintain world peace and by undermining its credibility amongst the peoples we represent. The theme of this 81st session acknowledges that something is broken, and that is why confidence must be restored through concrete actions that uphold the rule of law and collective security.
Ladies and gentlemen, renewing peacekeeping operations, without a shadow of a doubt, is our most urgent task. Today, transnational criminal networks control territories, they traffic arms and people, and they recruit children. Haiti, our neighbor, is the clearest example of this. Since 2021, the Dominican Republic has warned in each and every forum that this crisis is a threat to the peace and security of the region, and particularly for my country. A year ago, from this same rostrum, I called upon the council to act without delay. Six days later, the council adopted Resolution 2793 that authorized a Gang Suppression Force with a strong mandate and with the support of a United Nations support office. I thank the United States and Panama for their leadership, as well as Canada and other donors for their support, Kenya for their commitment, and the commitment of all of the countries who today have their men and women serving in Haiti. However, the reality does not allow us to wait. One month ago, in the Haitian community of Kenscoff, in just one night, gangs murdered no less than 47 people, including 5 children. Close to a million and a half of Haitians have been displaced from their homes. Half of them are children. This assembly cannot resign to seeing massacres become the norm for the long-suffering Haitian people. What the council approved now requires the means to implement it. First, the deployment of the force that today is only funded up to a fifth of and only has up to a fifth, rather, of the troops authorized. Second, fulfilling the arms embargo and sanctioning those who are financing and protecting gangs. And thirdly, strengthening the police, the armed forces, and the Haitian justice system so that the security can be sustained. The mandate of the force expires on the 30th of September. It's for the council now to renew it and for the international community to contribute troops and the resources that are required. Renewing it without completing it would be prolonging a promise that's not fulfilled. None of this requires a new decision. The Dominican Republic has played its role. We will not practice a diplomacy of mere declarations, but rather a diplomacy of solutions. We will contribute to building the consensus that made a resolution possible, and we are committing our financial contributions that's proportional for the trust fund of the force and facilitating from our country transit, logistics, and a UN support office. We are cooperating with the sanctions regime and supporting the personnel of the mission in our hospitals. We are doing this because this is, above all, a question of national security for our country, and we must repeat this as clearly as possible: there is no Dominican solution to the Haitian crisis, and no state or organization can impose on our country to do it in their place.
The technologies shaping humanity's future must not create another divide between those countries that can afford to innovate, and those that cannot. And access alone will not be enough. As artificial intelligence become increasingly embedded in our economies and societies, we must develop credible AI governance frameworks that encourage innovation while protecting people, privacy, security, democratic values, and public trust. Technology must remain a tool for human development, not a replacement for human responsibility. We must prepare young people not only to use new technologies, but to question them, govern them and deploy them ethically.
These directions bode ill for the aims and objectives of the United Nations. A persistent threat to peace has been the scourge of terrorism. That this could be state sponsored with cross border purpose makes it a direct affront to the global order. Governments indulging in such practices must be held accountable. There must be no dilution in our zero tolerance approach towards terrorism. Its financial aspects in particular should be exposed and should be countered. Mr. President, yesterday a serious practitioner of terrorism misrepresented facts. Before this assembly, arguments were invoked to normalise terrorism and claim immunity from its consequences. That will not stand. Our right to defend ourselves against terrorism will be exercised. Mr. President, friendship and goodwill cannot coexist with terrorism, and understandings premised on that will naturally be called into question. It is for the perpetrator of terrorism to mend its ways.
Sovereignty must be respected and colonialism must be brought to an end. This is where Palestine remains one of the clearest tests of these principles, and the test of our conscience. The clear violation of international law in Gaza and the West Bank are reminiscent of our world pre 1945, a world pre the UN charter pre the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and pre the 1949 Geneva Conventions, a world where a certain race was almost annihilated. Indonesia knows what it means to struggle against colonialism, to struggle in a world where international law was weak and might was right. Our nation's journey to independence has shaped our consistent support for the Palestinian people and their right to determine their own future. Indonesia will continue to stand with the Palestinian people until their right to self-determination is fulfilled, and until an independent and sovereign state of Palestine is realised based on the two state solution, in accordance with international law and internationally agreed parameters. Palestine is not only a question for one region, it is a test of whether multilateral system can uphold the very principles it was created to defend, and whether it can deliver when it matters most. Mr. President, an effective multilateral system also requires effective leadership. Indonesia's leadership philosophy, passed down through generations, teaches us that leaders must possess the capability to lead by example from the front, build confidence while standing among the people, and empower from behind. Leadership is not simply about commanding.
Therefore, the question of Palestine remains central to any discussion of stability in the region. There will be no room for security in the Middle East without a just solution for this issue, and without establishing the right of the Palestinian people to their land. To self-determination and to establishing their sovereign state. We stress here the paramount importance of facilitating humanitarian access and the protection of civilians.
The Indian Ocean must remain peaceful. It must remain as a region where trade can flow and where States can prosper. Regional competition among major powers must not limit the choices of smaller States. Conflict does not have to reach our shores to affect us. In today’s interconnected world, a crisis far away can quickly become a crisis at home. Interruption to maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz raises fuel prices. It affects food supplies and air travel. The consequences of this are felt across tourism and public finances in the Maldives. The Maldives, therefore, condemns the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait must remain open and safe. The Maldives further condemns the attacks on Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Jordan. The Maldives appreciates the diplomatic efforts of Oman, Pakistan and Qatar to de-escalate the crisis and bring the parties to dialogue. The right to a sovereign future must belong to all. And nowhere is that right more brutally denied than in Palestine. Israel's genocide and war crimes against Palestinians continue. And their actions are not confined to Gaza. Its military attacks across the region have violated the sovereignty of other States. Security cannot be built by exporting insecurity. Nor can any country demand respect for its sovereignty while violating the sovereignty of others. No State should be shielded from accountability by its power or political alliances. But condemnation alone is not enough. Every Member State must ask: what have we done to end this violence? The United Nations must ask itself the same question. The problem is not a lack of law. The rules are clear. What is absent is equal application. International law cannot bind the weak and bend for the powerful. The same rules. The same standard. No exceptions. Israel’s genocide in Gaza must end. Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and other Arab lands must end. Illegal settlements must end. Humanitarian assistance must reach Palestinians safely, rapidly and at scale. And the decisions of international courts and the resolutions of this Organization must be respected and implemented. For the Palestinian people, a sovereign future means freedom, dignity, self-determination, and the right to live with security in their own State. The Maldives will always stand with the Palestinian people and their undeniable right for that future. That is why I reiterate our call for the recognition of an independent and sovereign State of Palestine, based on the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. And if this Organisation is to restore trust and deliver for all, Palestine must become a full Member of the United Nations.
Excellencies, this brings me to a larger question: what kind of international order do you want? The United Nations was born from humanity's experience of the horrific World War. Its promise was that sovereignty would matter, international law would matter, the dignity of every human being would matter, and the weak would not simply have to accept whatever the powerful decide. Today, that international system is under strain. Too often, military and economic power determine whose voice is heard. Nepal believes we need a much fairer global economic order. In 1994, UNDP's Human Development Report conceptualized the notion of human insecurity. It equated security with people rather than territories, and with development rather than arms.
Repetition does not make violation acceptable. And because these are not abstract questions for Moldovans watching at home, allow me to speak to them directly for a moment. My fellow Moldovans, I know many of you are anxiously following the news about the war next door and the growing threat from Russian drones, and are already thinking about the winter ahead. Yes, a difficult winter awaits us. Our duty as a government is to prepare and to help those who need it most. That is what we are working on, and that is what we are discussing with our partners here. But I want to ask something important of you. Let us stick together. In difficult times, this is what has always helped us through being there for one another, helping our neighbours, our parents and those struggling the most. We may hold different views, we may vote differently. That is natural in a country where people think freely, but caring for those around us must unite us. We are a small country. That makes it all the more important to know that we are not alone and that we can count on one another. That solidarity at home must go hand in hand with clarity about the danger around us. This is not a tragedy without an author.
It opens extraordinary opportunities for scientific progress, medicine, education, and the fight against climate change. Yet it also compels us to ask a question that no previous generation has had to face with such urgency: how can we ensure that technological progress remains human progress? This is the debate that truly lies before us. It is not a debate about machines; it is a debate about ourselves. We must ensure that artificial intelligence expands opportunities rather than inequalities, that it protects human rights rather than putting them at risk, that it strengthens our democracies rather than weakening them, and that it preserves the cultural and linguistic diversity that is one of humanity's most valuable heritages. For a country such as Andorra, this last aspect is particularly relevant. The digital revolution must not lead to cultural homogenization that condemns languages with fewer speakers to invisibility. That is why we advocate for a global digital governance that fully incorporates respect for multilingualism, cultural diversity, and equal access to knowledge.
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.
The control of these powerful tools must not remain in the hands of a select few. They must serve humanity, not the other way around. In particular, the development of lethal autonomous weapon system raises profound moral questions. In this critical domain, Pope Leo provides clear criteria for discernment. The first concerns personal responsibility. The second pertains to the moral time frame for making judgments. The third is the protection of civilians. These criteria give rise to certain non-negotiable requirements. First of all, systems used in war setting must guarantee the possibility of retracing and reconstructing decision making processes so that accountability and blame are not collapsed into the machine. Second, the decision to use lethal force cannot be delegated to opaque or automated processes, but must remain under effective, self-aware, and responsible human control. Finally, it is imperative to establish a shared framework also at the international level in order to curb the technological arms race and ensure robust protection for civilians and the infrastructures necessary for their survival. For some years now, the world has spiraled into violence that has progressively spread and intensified, continually opening up new theatres of war. The Holy See strongly emphasized the urgent need for an immediate and total cessation of hostility as a prerequisite for any serious engagement in restoring and building the future.
International law and the charter of the United Nations must be upheld, and diplomacy must remain our first and most persistent instrument for resolving disputes. Respect for international law, including due regard for the decisions of the International Court of Justice, is indispensable to the peaceful international order on which small states depend. Mr. president, Jamaica believes that Reparatory justice is at its heart about truth, acknowledgment, justice, repair compensation, development and reconciliation. Jamaica not only supported the General Assembly resolution put forward by Ghana on March 25th of this year, but we also delivered to Buckingham Palace a petition framing critical questions on the matter of reparations.
Mr. President. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. We must acknowledge that the challenges that we have faced for decades, namely food insecurity, disease armed conflict, or natural disasters are still with us. Thus for Madagascar, as for many other nations, the new emerging challenges must not overshadow the priorities that still require our attention. The theme of this 81st session calls upon us to assume our shared responsibility for our destiny, and for that of future generations, with clear vision placing collective action, the common good, and the welfare of humanity at the center of our responses to the profound transformations shaping our world. In light of these intersecting transformations and challenges, the question of trust in our collective action arises with renewed urgency. Indeed, we must admit, taking into account all the hopes and expectations that we, the peoples of the United Nations, have placed in our organization, that trust has gradually eroded over time. The most vulnerable populations affected repeatedly or continuously by health crises, food insecurity and hunger, the impacts of climate change and conflicts exacerbated by current geopolitical tensions sometimes come to feel a certain skepticism regarding our collective capacity within the United Nations system to respond to the scourges of our age. Mr. President.
Mr. President. The expanded theatre of conflicts and the escalating humanitarian cost of such conflicts requires greater protection of civilians, while ensuring the peaceful settlement of such disputes for the sake and benefit of communities. The systematic destruction witnessed in the Palestinian territory and the ensuing fall of victims and displacement are of the responsibility of the international community, especially the United Nations. We have to protect the Palestinian people and end their suffering. In this vein, we renew our support for a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian cause based on the peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the UN resolutions. To establish the state of Palestine that is independent, viable. Along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital. We appreciate the mediation effort undertaken by the United States of America, Egypt, Qatar to Turkey or Turkey, and we stress the need to implement the Security Council Resolution 2803 issued on the 17th of November 2025 on the peace plan in Gaza. This will bring about peace and ensure reconstruction in the Gaza Strip. We would like to recall the historic step. Taken by a number of European countries over the past year, when they recognised the state of Palestine. We do welcome and commend the recent measures undertaken by a number of European countries to impose sanctions on Israeli settlers who have been implicated in violent acts against the Palestinian people. However, even though they are important. But such initiatives should not be isolated. Instead, they should be a driver for more firm international action to put an end to the settlement activity. While opening the horizon for the two state solution. Paradoxically. That we have denied the Palestinian people from participating in this international forum at a time when the Palestinian question is at the forefront of our agenda. At a time when the Palestinian cause comes at the forefront of the international agenda. They were not able to attend. This contravenes the spirit of dialogue and pluralism that the United Nations is underpinned upon in this domain. We stress that the State of Palestine has gained the recognition of most of the Member States of the United Nations. This reflects a wide range, international support of the Palestinian people and their establishment of an independent statehood. Therefore, we call for the participation of the Palestinians in the UN forums so that they can achieve their aspirations and defend their just cause before the international community. We renew our support to the people of Lebanon in the face of the violations that they have endured. We have to end their suffering and ensure their sovereignty. We are also standing in solidarity with Sudan. We are committed to Sudan's unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. We call for an immediate end to this war, giving priority to dialogue while protecting civilians and ending their suffering. Turning to Libya, we support the UN efforts and the African Union's effort to reach a permanent settlement that would maintain the country's unity and sovereignty, while ensuring peace and stability to the people of Libya. We renew our support. To the efforts made. Um in the. Al-Arabiya in Yemen and the initiatives taken by the Arab, uh, countries, as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to support that country. We stress our principled position on the conflict of the Western Sahara and hope to reach a just and sustainable solution that will be accepted to all parties. We express our deep concern towards the military escalation in the Middle East and the resulting threat to the entire region and its stability. The repercussions of which would also reach the Strait of Hormuz and the regional and international navigation in this important waterway. We support the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the State of Qatar and the Kingdom of Bahrain and Kuwait, as well as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the face of the attacks against their stability and security. We have to preserve states, territories and call upon all countries to de-escalate and ensure self-restraint, ensure dialogue, and save the region and its peoples from more crises and sufferings. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen. The world today faces an important moment that goes beyond political challenges.
A United Nations that delivers for all must be inclusive. I reaffirm Namibia's unwavering solidarity with the people denied their right to self-determination. This position is firmly rooted in Namibia's historical experience of the brutality of colonialism, apartheid, and occupation. This is not a position born out of antagonism, but rather one grounded in Namibia's long-standing commitment to justice, solidarity, and the rights of the peoples to determine their own destiny in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 of 1960. The United Nations has a responsibility to advance a just and lasting resolution of the question of Western Sahara, consistent with the charter of the United Nations and the relevant resolution on decolonization and self-determination. We support MINURSO's mandate and the holding of a UN-backed referendum in Western Sahara for the Sahrawi people to finally exercise their right to self-determination. We therefore call upon the full implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2797 of October 2025, which reaffirms the need for a mutual, agreeable, lasting political solution between the Polisario and the Kingdom of Morocco. Namibia calls for the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, freedom, and statehood.
And it's a conviction that is widely shared, as illustrated by the fact that more and more countries are finding their way to the ICJ. So let us all continue to stand up for what we have built and strengthen it further as we go forward. Ladies and gentlemen, cooperation is the cornerstone of our history, and cooperation is what the world expects of us now and in the future. Take the question of how we handle AI.
I am appearing once again before this assembly on behalf of the Republic of Panama, a nation whose own geography defined its destiny. It's the bridge of the world and connects continents, cultures, and markets. At a time in history in which geopolitical fractures threaten to polarize us in a dangerous manner, Panama reaffirms its historic vocation to bring people together and seek common understandings. I must say that polarization is coupled with a large mass of people who feel that international organizations have forgotten the values and priorities of the majority of citizens. I'm referring to those who wish to progress in peace, to be able to work and return home safely. Also, those who defend the institution of the family that has its own credo and a culture forged throughout the centuries that today is being called into question. The majority feel under pressure due to the actions of progressive multiculturalism, that a large part of society is not prepared to accept, almost under coercion. I'm a president that comes from a great nation, a crucible of different cultural heritages that forged a society that's open to the world, with a strong belief in peace. This was all achieved over many years without any imposition, so this means that it happened naturally. I'm convinced that the United Nations has immense potential in a world with so much volatility and such strong asymmetries. But it needs to take up, again, its leadership in order to engage in preventive actions and corrective actions. I am a person who believes in and defends multilateralism, and I am convinced that peace and prosperity of nations must be grounded in international law as a guiding principle of relationships between nations. And these theoretical arguments must also be expressed with palpable results. We must recognize now that citizens do not believe that these types of meetings are that beneficial for them. And herein lies one of the reasons why we must restore trust. I want to give you a concrete example just to illustrate what I'm saying.
We commend and thank him for his sincere and positive leadership of this organization. In the same vein, Saint Lucia wishes to express its endorsement of the candidate of the Republic of Guyana, Ms. Caroline Rodrigues-Birkett, for the post of Secretary General. Her distinguished record of public and international service speaks directly to the kind of leadership this moment demands. On 25th March 2026, the General Assembly approved one of its most historic and consequential resolutions that declared the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialised chattel enslavement of Africans as the greatest crime against humanity. This resolution, and the subsequent establishment of the High level Global Advisory Council on Reparatory justice is a very significant step in the search for reparations for the transatlantic slave trade and the enslavement of Africans in the Americas and the Caribbean. I want to thank the President of Ghana for spearheading and championing this resolution. Saint Lucia congratulates the Government of Jamaica on its successful petition to the British monarch for him to refer three questions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council over the legality of the enslavement of Africans in Jamaica. Mr. president, reparations are not about vengeance. They are about truth, acknowledgement, repair and transformation. Reparations are not about seeking charity or revisiting history for its own sake. History is not behind us when its consequences remain embedded in wealth, power, institutions, and opportunity. Reparations are about addressing the continuing effects of slavery and colonial exploitation, restoring dignity, advancing development, and building more equitable
Read around it: ·
SL
No. 80
Sierra Leone09/22 · first at about 12 min1 mention
Artificial intelligence can improve, of course, education, health, agriculture, and public administration. It can also widen the inequality if infrastructure, knowledge and rule making remains concentrated in a few countries. Developing nations must help shape the standards that will govern technologies affecting their people. Climate change presents the same moral question in harsher form.
Nine months into my service as Prime Minister, I stand here mindful that Pacific leaders have come before me, raising the same warnings, making the same appeals. Today I'm compelled to make them again. The question before us is not whether the world has heard our message, but why has it still not acted? We live in a world more connected than ever, but greater connection has not brought greater unity. We meet amid deepening division, geopolitical conflict and competition. For Tonga, navigating such stormy currents is not new. As descendants of voyagers, we have been in the survival business much longer than most have appreciated.
We come from a country that is diverse in its opinions, but one that is deeply committed to the possibility of building a common future. And we believe that this combination diversity of ideas and cohesion around the future can also serve as our contribution to the international community. Today, we are living through a particularly difficult period. Extreme inequality remains one of the great threats to coexistence. Poverty continues to deprive millions of people of basic opportunities, and wars continue to destroy lives, communities, and hopes. While we discuss growth, technology, artificial intelligence, the energy transition, or new forms of production, there are millions of people who continue to ask themselves far more basic questions how will I feed my children? How can I find housing? How can I find a job? Or how can I face tomorrow without fear? We mustn't lose sight of that reality. Development makes sense when it improves people's lives. Economies make sense when they serve society. Technology makes sense when it expands our freedoms and opportunities. And politics makes sense when it is able to transform reality, to bring happiness to our people. We are speaking from the experience of a small country removed from the great centers of power.
Its role has instead boiled down to managing concerns, making appeals to those who have already suffered. And that is, of course, leading to further escalation. The leadership of the European Union is particularly worrying. They have an unbridled desire to preserve their slipping hegemony, and they are attempting to undermine global stability and the maintenance of peace. And to achieve this, they are prepared to sacrifice even the well-being of their own citizens. Do the peoples of the United Europe really crave some sort of revenge against Russia, especially at the cost of their own impoverishment? Of course they don't. Do they want to be cannon fodder in a war that allegedly European politicians are preparing for by 2030? Of course not. And we know this. But in Brussels, someone is very eager to play toy soldiers and to cement their greatness in history. This has happened before, more than once, and we know how it ended. Nevertheless, in the West, they are already beginning to ask questions about their meaning.
However, nor has humanity ever been so acutely aware of the need to make collective decisions about how these means should be used to serve the common good. This is why the theme of this 81st session, Restoring Trust, Managing transformation: A UN that delivers for all, resonates so strongly. The true challenge of our time is not just managing a succession of crises, but it is restoring our collective capacity to anticipate, to make decisions, to act before these crises become irreversible. Mr. President, Benin believes in multilateralism. We believe not because we harbour nostalgia for the world of 1945, but because in 2026, the world more than ever needs a forum where states can talk to one another, listen to one another and act in concert. Defending multilateralism also means taking a lucid look at the United Nations organization. Trust, indeed, is not something you can order. It takes shape when our organization can respond to the expectations of our people, the people it serves, when the organization can deliver concrete results. It is in this spirit that Benin supports the efforts undertaken within the framework of the UN80 Initiative. We need to achieve greater efficiency, coherence, transparency and responsibility. Nonetheless, we should remain cognizant of a key requirement. Reforming the UN doesn't simply mean cutting costs. What it should mean is boosting the organization's impact. A more effective United Nations should be better positioned to prevent conflicts, to respond to humanitarian crises, to shore up development, and anticipate the transformations which are already shaping our future. It should also remain true to the principles which underpin its legitimacy, universality, the sovereign equality of states, solidarity and respect for the UN charter. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, there is one reform without which all the others will remain incomplete. The reform of the stewardship of international peace and security. The Security Council, for the most part, reflects a balance of forces in a world which is no longer today's world. Africa does not have a permanent seat. This situation raises issues of justice, equity and the legitimacy. It calls into question the very legitimacy of the entire multilateral system. Benin would like to reaffirm its unswerving support for the common African position set forth in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. We are not demanding a privilege. We are demanding for the stewardship of international peace and security, for that stewardship to be in keeping with the world we claim to serve.
Bolivia wants to enter partnerships, to compete, to learn, and it is also open to contributing. This historic moment has seen a discussion that we can no longer postpone the transition to energy diversification. It's not so much a transition in and of itself, but rather diversifying our energy. The world needs cleaner energy sources, but it also needs minerals lithium, copper, other critical minerals. It needs new supply chains. And it needs to do that in a responsible way. And Bolivia wants to be a part of that conversation. But we would like to raise a question. Can energy, the global energy diversification, really be just if the countries that possess strategic resources continue to primarily export them as raw materials? No. That is why we want to enter into partnerships and open ourselves up to the world. But as a society, as partners, and not just as a source of raw materials. The energy transition also needs to represent productive diversification. It should create opportunities for producing countries. It should generate local capacities, respect the environment, it should incorporate and include communities, and it should allow our young people to be actors in those new industries. That is why we are proposing a new international relationship around strategic resources, a relationship that is based on investment knowledge, technology and added value. The United Nations.
This aggression is being accompanied by a brutal media and cognitive warfare aimed not just against the Cuban people, but also against the citizens of the United States and the internal and international public opinion. It is characterized by its gross and brazen attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of Cuba, which is also another international crime. We are often asked, well, what is the U.S. pursuing with such aggressive behavior? And the question usually surprises us, because the representatives of this government have outrightly declared their purpose to take Cuba to control the country and to dominate its economy. In other words, to nullify through aggression or economic suffocation, the national sovereignty which several generations of Cubans have struggled for since the 19th century, first to achieve it and later on, after conquering full freedom in 1959 to tenaciously defend it against the biggest risks, including that of a Holocaust. The U.S. behavior relies on the fallacy proclaimed early on this year that Cuba is an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and the foreign policy of the United States. A nonsense shamelessly repeated by that government. In a futile attempt to substantiate such an assertion, the U.S. government then inundates its huge communication platforms with false claims, using the spokespersons and publications it hires, taking advantage of the increasing control exercised by its government over them. The U.S. president himself repeated this lie a few days ago in this chamber. Any minimally informed observer would understand the unrealistic and barbarous intention to portray a relatively small and developing nation such as Cuba, with a modest economic performance as a threat to the biggest nuclear military, technological and economic power on the planet. This organization and its member states have abundant evidence of the fact that we are a peace loving country of the efforts of Cuba in favor of international cooperation, understanding and the peaceful settlement of disputes, as well as the active role that we have always played in support of the United Nations. Cuba is not a threat. What is is the blockade. Cuba is not a threat. The blockade, yes, is a threat.
Our mountains, our rivers, our forests, and the Adriatic Sea are not simply natural resources. They are part of our national identity and of the legacy we will leave to our future generations. But climate change is also a question of global fairness, because those who have contributed the least to this crisis are too often the first and hardest hit by its consequences. And no country can solve this challenge alone. This is one of the clearest reasons why effective multilateralism remains indispensable. Excellencies, to conclude, 20 years ago, Montenegro entered this very hall at the beginning of a new chapter in our history.
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.
Somalia stands firmly with Palestinian people and their legitimate right to self-determination and statehood. We reaffirm our support for a just and lasting peace based on two state solution with an independent and viable Palestinian state, along with the 1967 borders. A just resolution of the Palestinian question remains essential to the lasting peace and stability in the Middle East and beyond. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, UN political reform must be accompanied by institutional, administrative and operational renewal. For nearly two decades we have discussed the need to make United Nations operations more agile, coordinated, cost effective and capable of delivering measurable results.
Today, however, these ideas are not only being called into question; they are being attacked by political actors and governments that want to take us back to a dark past. And I don't need to point them out; we all know who they are and what their modus operandi is. They start by questioning the rules, then they break them, knowing full well that nobody will dare to hold them accountable. They cut their contributions to multilateral bodies like this one. They point to their leaders and officials. They obstruct these organizations' ability to act, to then write them off as useless entities that we can do without. What they're doing, nevertheless, is a planned and coordinated demolition attempt that is presented as something that we can't stop and that's necessary. However, the reality is that it runs counter to the structural currents of history and is based on three misguided pillars. The first of these pillars is selfishness, the absurd belief that the world is a zero-sum game, where some winning must imply that others losing. The second pillar is ignorance, disregarding scientific evidence and assuming that there are countries that are so powerful that they can abuse all of the others and they don't need anyone else to prosper. And the third pillar, the worst in my opinion, is cruelty. Cruelty that isn't even moved when it sees the ribs of a starving child or a hospital reduced to rubble. Over these 8 years, I've seen these selfish, ignorant, and cruel forces grow. I've seen how they took off their masks and seized power in many places. And then I saw them start illegal wars, massacre innocent civilians. I've seen them treat millions of human beings like livestock and take away aid from those suffering the most, from poverty and disease. I've seen them pollute the atmosphere and also the ocean as if it's their own property, and conspire to destroy this organization and everything it represents. I'm saying this because bearing witness to these things has changed the way that I understand the world. However, it hasn't led me to lose hope. Because also, over these 8 years, I've seen wonderful things that allow me to still have confidence in humanity. For example, I've seen millions of people mobilized to defend nature, peace, and civil rights. I've seen thousands of activists and public servants confront these reactionary powers, knowing full well that they're putting their professional careers and even their own lives at risk. I've seen scientists make progress that we thought was impossible. And I've seen many governments do things right, opting for cooperation, social justice, and environmental sustainability. All of this has taught me something that I want to share with all of you, and that is that humanity is not intrinsically good or bad. Humanity can actually be both. And every day, every year, and in each and every crisis, we must decide how to act. The United Nations is one of these spaces where these decisions are made at the highest level. And the UN doesn't always do it well. Of course, I myself, on several occasions, have called out the contradictions and lackings of this body. However, with the same belief, I must call out the fact that the majority of the voices that today insist on criticizing the United Nations are not describing its failure; what they're doing is trying to cause its failure. And I must also say that multilateralism is the best tool that humanity has to manage its diversity and its interdependence, especially in a globalized and multipolar world like the world we're living in today. And this is why what we need to do is ramp up our trust in this organization. We must renew it and strengthen it so that this century it can play the same key role that it played last century. And doing this will not be easy. However, the good news is that all of the guidance we need is right here, in the United Nations Charter. In this charter, they wrote the best chapters. Our forefathers wrote it, the men and women who saw the world burn, and even then, they dared to imagine a better future. These men and women laid down their wisdom and their hope in this charter. And they didn't ask us to keep it in a glass case. They asked us to fulfill it. They asked us to defend it, and for us to turn back to it in times of uncertainty and extraordinary difficulty. And today is one of those times. And therefore, it's our duty to rise to the courage and the ambition present in this text, in the United Nations Charter. And this is why, ladies and gentlemen, we need to reform the Security Council so that all of the regions in the world have fair representation, and so that we can do away with the right of veto of the permanent members. Because as the UN Charter sets out, no country should be judged in its own case, no matter how powerful they are. We therefore need to strengthen all of the other main bodies and reorganize the agencies, funds and programs, and provide them with more resources and more executive capacity so that they can have a more decisive impact on the great challenges that beset humanity. We must strengthen bodies like the International Criminal Court so that they can investigate, prosecute, and punish those that break the rules. It took humanity centuries to replace might is right with the rule of law. And we must not be the generation that backtracks on this. It's for this very reason that we must rebuild the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament architecture to avoid a poorly designed security policy that brings us back to another global conflict. And we must impose strict regulations on the tech oligarchs who control the functioning of social networks and the development of artificial intelligence. Because at the end of the day, the future of our children is more important than the pockets of these tech oligarchs. And of course, doing all of these things will require compromise, time, strong leadership, being able to build agreements, to listen, to look beyond our known reality, and imagine a better alternative. And what I'm advocating for, for this leadership, is very clear. Nine men have served as Secretary-General of this organization in its 80 years of existence.
Zambia continues to salute His Excellency Antonio Guterres for reminding us that the answer to a more divided and multipolar world is not less multilateralism, but a stronger fairer and more representative United Nations. The theme of this session Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation, a United Nations that delivers for all is both timely and necessary. Trust is the foundation on which international cooperation is built upon. Yet today, trust in institutions, trust amongst nations, and most importantly, trust between the institutions that serve the people is under strain. Trust means that the founding principles of the United Nations Charter must be respected. For Zambia, trust begins with keeping promises. Trust means that international agreements must be honoured. Trust means that development commitments must be financed. Trust means that the voices of developing countries matter in word and in deed. Trust means the global system must not protect the interests of the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. And trust means that when the world agrees on a goal, we must have the commitment to implement it. The world is undergoing profound transformation. Technology is changing economies and societies. Climate change is reshaping livelihoods. Geopolitical competition is altering global trade and investment patterns. Conflicts are causing massive displacements and humanitarian suffering. And yet developing countries continue to confront a financing system that does not adequately reflect and respond to their development needs. The question before us is therefore not whether transformation will happen, but it is rather how we manage transformation, who benefits from it, and whether our multilateral institutions are capable of delivering meaningful results for ordinary people. For Zambia, the answer is clear we must restore trust by achieving results, and we must manage transformation by ensuring that no country and no one is left behind. Zambia's democratic journey and the 2026 elections. Mr. president,
Read around it: ·
BF
No. 92
Burkina Faso09/28 · first at about 25 min1 mention
On a security level, Burkina Faso, in coordination with the countries of our confederation, is pursuing efforts to re-establish peace, lasting peace, security, social cohesion, and all of these across our country. More than 74% of our national territory is now under our control. Our defence and security forces, as well as the volunteers for the defence of the homeland, are continuing their operations against terrorist groups and criminal gangs. These changes are being delivered specifically by winning back several villages and areas, the progressive return of thousands of people to their places of residence, the reopening of tens of schools as well as returning to normal activity in healthcare centres and progressive re-installation of the government. This progress continues to consolidate, and it's the result of efforts and sacrifices made by our people, as well as the commitment of all actors to re-establish peace and security. Mr. president, in the Middle East, we remain particularly concerned over the situation faced by the Palestinian people and the suffering endured by the civilian population in Gaza. In the face of this tragedy, Burkina Faso reaffirms its commitment to a lasting political solution based on coexistence between two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, in line with international law and relevant resolutions of the United Nations. Burkina Faso also remains concerned by the consequence of unilateral coercive measures imposed against certain states like Cuba and Nicaragua, and the repercussions of these have a terrible effect on the populations. We call, therefore for prioritising dialogue, cooperation and mutual respect between these states. On the question of Western Sahara, Burkina Faso, true to the principles enshrined in the UN charter, reaffirms its commitment to the political process led under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary General and based on the autonomy plan proposed by the Kingdom of Morocco. We encourage the continuation of efforts to reach a negotiated political solution between the parties, pursuant to relevant resolutions of the Security Council. We furthermore reaffirm our commitment to the one-China principle. President.
That is the only way that we will manage to find paths to progress on the all too many, all true, all too intractable conflicts blighting our world today. In Malta, the smallest member state of the European Union, we have always been a bridge between Europe and the Middle East. So allow me to focus on two of those conflicts on our doorstep. Firstly, Ukraine. It is all too easy and all too great a mistake for us to fall in the trap that repelling the invasion of Ukraine becomes another never ending conflict, a grinding tragedy on the corner of our continent about which we can do nothing. Malta will never accept that despair. Europe must never accept that despair. The world must never turn its head away in despair. Malta remains as adamant in our condemnation of that invasion today as we were on day one in February 2022. And Malta is equally as adamant that a just and lasting peace must guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty within its internationally recognised borders. That will only come about through a diplomatic process that the Ukrainian people can have full trust in. They will only have such trust if the process follows a full and unconditional cease fire and the full participation of Ukraine and its people in the subsequent peace talks. Rightly the Ukrainian people will never have trust in any search for a settlement which involves their government being frogmarched to the table, one arm tied behind its back, whilst the guns still blaze. The issue of trust is clearly also central to the very worrying situation in Gaza. The people of Israel need to have trust that Hamas will be disarmed, and that they will play no future role in the governance or security structures of Gaza. But the people of Gaza need to have trust that there is a path to a just peace. It is impossible to build that trust with a humanitarian situation as acute as that being experienced in Gaza right now. Malta's voice remains unwaveringly with the global calls for safe, sustained and unhindered humanitarian access throughout Gaza in accordance with international law. We firmly believe that the Gaza peace plan provides the best path towards ending the conflict and advancing credible political progress. To achieve that progress, all parties and I emphasize all parties must fully respect and implement the objectives and commitments set out in the plan. And naturally, no progress can be made. If there is any question of the forced displacement of any of the Palestinian population. Indeed, it is incumbent on each and every one of us in the international community to rebuild the trust needed to underpin the conditions where genuine progress can be made towards a negotiated and lasting two state solution. That is the only solution. Nobody, however, is under any illusion how out of reach, unfortunately, that seems at the moment. But nor is this the moment to shy away or run away from the only goal that will guarantee the people of Israel and Palestine living side by side with the peace, prosperity and stability that they both deserve. Sadly, any progress towards a long term solution is being endangered by the situation in the West Bank settlement expansion, running directly counter to the resolutions of this General Assembly and designed to undermine the Palestinian territorial integrity, must stop and stop now. So too, must the violent settler attacks on Palestinian communities increasing at an alarming rate. Behold, they must be halted. These are all essential preconditions to a just and lasting peace, as is a credible and reformed Palestinian Authority that can demonstrate to citizens of both Palestine and Israel that it has the transparency, the accountability, the institutional effectiveness, and, above all, the democratic legitimacy to be a truly effective partner for peace. Malta stands ready to play its part in building the capacity of both a renewed Democratic Palestinian Authority and the robust civil society that must underpin it, not just in Ukraine, Gaza and Israel, but across the world. Be it the conflict in Sudan, the ongoing violence in Myanmar or the instability across the Sahel. It is evident that diminished trust means diminished chances of finding solutions. You could put it as starkly as no trust equals no peace. Of course, no matter the conflict, each with its own individual and particular circumstances, there is no easy way of building trust. But equally, there is no easy way of avoiding the need to build trust. We all know from our lives as much as from the experiences of our own countries, just how hard it is to rebuild trust when it has evaporated. Yet we also know the consequences if we give up trying, and the rewards that can come if, however slowly and however tentatively, we can start. If it is hard enough to build trust human to human face to face, it can be, of course, infinitely harder to build trust.
We must anticipate the consequences of a world in which force is once again being presented ever more openly as the most reliable instrument of policy, in which military budgets are growing, conflicts are multiplying, arms control mechanisms are weakening, and channels of communication are disappearing precisely when they are needed most. We must, therefore, ask the essential question: Where is the United Nations in such a world? The Security Council is often blocked precisely in the crises in which it should be most active. Other parts of the UN system face financial pressures, overlapping mandates, bureaucratization, and the justified demand of member states to see more concrete results.
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.
