A/65/PV.24 General Assembly

At the outset, I would like to join previous speakers in addressing our sincere congratulations to you, Sir, on your election as President of the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session and to assure you of the full support of our delegation. This year, the general debate is being held on the eve of the sixty-fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the United Nations Charter, which laid the foundation of our Organization. For more than six decades, the United Nations has been tested by numerous challenges and crises. Today, we can proudly state that it has proven its relevance, importance and vision for humankind. We extend our appreciation to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his tireless efforts in steering the work of this global Organization and addressing critical international issues. We commend his engagement in convening the High-level Plenary Meeting on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), during which Member States, including my own country, assessed the progress achieved and the numerous challenges we face in implementing the MDGs. The Republic of Moldova is committed to the accomplishment of the MDGs by 2015. As a member of the Economic and Social Council, Moldova presented its comprehensive national voluntary report on the MDGs during the Council’s annual ministerial review meeting in July. The inclusion of the MDGs in our national policies and their effective implementation are among my Government’s main priorities. I take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the organizations of the United Nations system for their support in reaching the Goals. The economic and financial crises that beset the international community have been exacerbated by food insufficiency and natural disasters, local and regional conflicts, terrorism and transborder criminality. The issues on the agenda of the United Nations reflect modern realities and challenges. I would like to bring to the Assembly’s attention a few areas that are of the utmost importance, namely, human rights and democracy, welfare and sustainable development, climate change, peace and security and, last but not least, the reform of the United Nations. Building a state of law lies at the heart of the overall activities of the Moldovan Government. The development of legal and institutional frameworks in the area of human rights and strengthening human rights protection mechanisms are among our Government’s main objectives. While our country is characterized by diversity and multiculturalism and intercultural and interreligious dialogue, we reiterate our commitment to fighting extremism, xenophobia and other forms of racism and discrimination. Our country became a member of the Human Rights Council for the first time in 2010. Our membership is in line with Moldova’s irreversible course towards protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. We assumed the commitment to contribute to the prevention of human rights violations through our active participation in the Council’s activities. We will present our first national report under the Universal Periodic Review mechanism in 2011. I would also like to point out that Moldova is a State party to nearly all multilateral treaties in the field of human rights within the United Nations system. Last week, we deposited with the Secretary-General our ratification document on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We will soon become a full-fledged member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), following the recent ratification by the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova of the Rome Statute of the ICC. We express our solidarity with the appeals articulated in various United Nations forums that more be invested in the advancement of women. We support the Secretary-General’s Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health. Likewise, we are confident that the new entity, UN Women, will contribute to the consolidation of international efforts to achieve the goals of equality and advancement for all women. Although the impact of the global economic crisis has had a negative effect on the economy of the Republic of Moldova, including on the achievement of MDG targets, the crisis has also constituted a turning point in starting new economic reforms, building up innovative partnerships and mobilizing all national stakeholders in order to create a sustainable economic and social system. To that end, the Government has proceeded to change the country’s development paradigm to an economy based on investments, innovations and competitiveness, creating new jobs and undertaking robust measures in the area of poverty reduction. Those goals will not be achieved unless we create a healthy and eco-friendly environment while putting in place a sound infrastructure that protects our wealth and families from natural disasters. In recent years, Moldova has confronted considerable natural calamities, from acute droughts to harsh floods, whose devastating impact and frequency have increased each year. The harm caused to the population, agricultural and food production sectors and the overall economy is immeasurable. On behalf of my Government, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to our development partners and to Governments and multilateral organizations for their prompt response and assistance in overcoming the consequences of the severe floods that affected our country last summer. I would also like to extend our particular gratitude to the United Nations Office in Moldova for its support in assessing post- disaster needs. For its part, my country has also extended a helping hand to others in need, contributing $100,000 to the people of Haiti. We believe that the adoption of a post-Kyoto treaty is more relevant and vital than ever before. We have to address the challenge of climate change with a synergy of national and integrated international responses. We look forward to a positive outcome to the forthcoming Conference in Cancún. The latest global crises have emphasized the central role the United Nations is to play in the mobilization of efforts by the international community and, more than ever, the need to increase the efficiency of the Organization. Efforts to strengthen the multilateral potential of the United Nations should be pragmatically adapted to the new realities, enhancing its influence in strict accordance with the United Nations Charter. The United Nations system therefore ought to be optimized by strengthening its main and subsidiary bodies in order to avoid duplication by different United Nations structures. In addition to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of United Nations activities, that reform will save significant resources, which can be redirected to priority areas where the Organization’s support is most needed. A major component of the United Nations revival is the reform of the Security Council. We welcome the results achieved during the intergovernmental negotiations and believe that the success of the reform requires political commitment by all Member States. We share the view that Council membership should be expanded in both categories and that one additional non-permanent seat should be allocated to the Eastern European Group. The importance of cooperation to enhance international security, promote disarmament and non-proliferation and counter international terrorism has been stressed by many speakers in the Hall. The terrorist acts occurring in different parts of the world demonstrate that terrorism continuously threatens international security, fundamental democratic values and human rights. The Republic of Moldova condemns terrorism and extremism in all its forms and expresses its entire support for the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. After many years of deadlock, significant progress in disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects was made this year. The new United States- Russia START agreement, the nuclear summit in Washington and the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons are just a few of the positive examples of increased cooperation by Member States. We welcome the entry into force, on 1 August, of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, to which Moldova made its contribution, as well as the launch of the negotiations on an arms trade treaty. The participation of the Republic of Moldova in United Nations peacekeeping operations highlights our country’s political willingness to contribute to international peace and stability and to be effectively engaged in building a strong security architecture through peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities. The enhancement of international cooperation in the field of conflict settlement, with a view to preventing future occurrences or escalation of crisis situations that jeopardize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, is of primary importance for my country as it confronts the secessionism phenomenon in its eastern districts. The Republic of Moldova continues to face significant security challenges generated by separatism in the Transnistrian region of the country. Eighteen years since the ceasefire agreement was signed, Moldova remains artificially divided. Because of that, the whole system of international commitments in the fields of democratic governance, human rights and arms control is not functioning in that part of our national territory. The local population is living in a situation of a legal vacuum, with no clear future. Foreign forces are still stationed in Moldova, despite the lack of consent of the host Government and previous decisions and commitments regarding their withdrawal. At the same time, it is absolutely obvious that there are objective considerations in resolving the Transnistrian problem. The practical steps undertaken by the Government of Moldova clearly show that the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict is one of its central priorities. We consistently advocate in favour of a policy of dialogue, openness and trust. Our efforts are concentrated on developing regular contacts between Chisinau and Tiraspol at the level of political representatives, as well as in the working groups created to build confidence in various areas. Our main goal is to provide much-needed support to the population and businesses in the region, including through international projects and programmes. International partners in the settlement process are also showing interest in increased engagement aimed at the full territorial reintegration of the Republic of Moldova. That positive trend should be strengthened. The first step in that direction would be the earliest possible unconditional resumption of official negotiations in the “5+2” format. That would allow us to start working on a formula for a viable and comprehensive settlement based on the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova. It would also offer us the necessary framework for the implementation of confidence-building and reintegration projects, as well as for the transformation of the current so-called peacekeeping operation into a multinational civilian mission based on the relevant international standards and mandate. In that context, we firmly believe that the summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to be held at the end of this year should provide a clear perspective for the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict and the withdrawal of foreign forces from Moldova, in line with commitments undertaken at the previous summit. We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate our principled position that conflict situations, whenever they appear, seriously impact peace, security and stability. They must therefore be solved on the basis of full respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. We are concerned by attempts, particularly by non-State entities, to misinterpret and restate the sense of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo. Such attempts run counter to the spirit and substance of the imperative principles of international law and endanger the international legal order and international security and stability. It is therefore of the utmost importance to make it clear that international law does not confer the right for ethnic, linguistic or religious groups to break away from the territory of a State of which they form part without that State’s consent. Like other Member States, the Republic of Moldova fully shares the view that unilateral secession cannot be an acceptable way of resolving conflict issues. When engaging in settlement efforts, we must also proceed from recognition of the fact that each and every case is unique and should not constitute a precedent for addressing and settling other conflicts of different factual context. The Republic of Moldova is determined to advance on its path towards European integration, which is a fundamental priority of our domestic and foreign policies. The achievement of that goal will enable our country to embark on a course of stability and prosperity governed by democratic values and respect for fundamental human rights, the rule of law and economic freedom. Moldova-European Union relations have intensified in the past year, given the firm commitment of our Government to improve ties with the European Union (EU) and its member States. On 12 January, we successfully launched negotiations on the Association Agreement and held three rounds of negotiations, during which there was a convergence of approaches. Moreover, we have launched three dialogues with the European Union, on human rights, visa liberalization and the creation of a broad and comprehensive free- trade area. We are confident that the constructive approach of our cooperation process will contribute to the advancement of our country on the European track. We are grateful to EU member States for their strong support and the firm shoulder they have provided for Moldova’s ambitious European agenda. Furthermore, we consider that since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, new opportunities have emerged for enhanced European Union cooperation with its international partners, including the United Nations. We express our support for the active and efficient participation of the European Union in the work of General Assembly. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the involvement of the Republic of Moldova in the work of the United Nations is one of the strategic objectives of our foreign policy. Our country remains committed to achieving the objectives of the United Nations Charter, as set by the founding fathers 65 years ago and embraced by all Member States.

I now give the floor to the chair of the delegation of the Principality of Monaco.

I would like to convey to you, Sir, the warmest congratulations of the delegation of the Principality of Monaco on your election as President of the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session. I would like to reiterate to you that, in my capacity as a member of the Bureau, I will spare no effort to contribute to the success of your mandate in the service of the Member States and the Organization. We are preparing to begin our work on an optimistic note because of the international community’s unfailing recommitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as well as of the belief, reaffirmed in the general debate now drawing to a close, that the United Nations is at the heart of global governance and remains, despite the many difficulties, our best hope for ensuring peace, development and justice. Economic growth, which is indispensable to development and therefore to peaceful international relations, cannot take off in the absence of well-defined and fair international rules and without respect for the rule of law at the national level. Our Organization has contributed tirelessly in recent years to strengthening the capacities of Member States to enable them to provide their citizens with the institutions necessary for them to flourish in their communities. The rule of law is also a guarantee that the fight against corruption is not just a vain promise, that respect for human rights is universal and that justice is independent and impartial. The benefits of economic growth must be shared and equitable. They must take into account the needs of the most deprived and contribute to social cohesion with a view to attaining the MDGs and involving the full participation of all partners. That is the thrust of Monaco’s commitment within the Global Governance Group — the 3G — whose members are convinced of the need to involve the Secretary-General of the United Nations in the work of the Group of 20 (G-20), given relevance of the General Assembly agenda to international governance. In that regard, I draw attention to the ministerial declaration of the Global Governance Group adopted on 27 September, with a view to contributing to the reflections of the working group on the development of the next G-20 summit, in Seoul in November. As His Serene Highness Prince Albert II recalled before the Assembly, the Principality is determined to act as a responsible partner in solidarity and will continue its mobilization efforts, both through its official development assistance as well as through the provision of emergency assistance to populations struck by natural disasters (see A/65/PV.4). At a moment when the presence and activities of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are increasingly needed and increasingly dangerous, the cause of refugees and displaced persons must more than ever be placed in our policies and be backed unconditionally by the international community. Here we wish to express our recognition of the devotion of the thousands of people who labour under the banner of the United Nations, at times risking their lives, both in humanitarian emergency situations and in peacekeeping operations. The role of women in driving development is now clear to all. I wish to pay tribute to the Secretary- General and the Deputy Secretary-General for having strengthened the role of women within the United Nations. Monaco welcomes the appointment of Ms. Michelle Bachelet to head up UN Women and assures her of our full support. The Principality has also endorsed the conviction that investing in the health of women and children is indispensable for building societies that are more stable, more peaceful and more productive, for reducing poverty and for stimulating economic growth. In that vein, we support the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, which represents an additional step towards the full empowerment of women. As atrocities continue to be perpetrated against civilians, especially the cowardly crimes of sexual violence, we pay tribute to the courage of Special Representative Ms. Margot Wallström and her commitment to making the international community aware of its responsibility and to ensuring the effective implementation of resolution 1325 (2000) as we approach the tenth anniversary of its adoption. With your leadership, Mr. President, and our common will, the General Assembly has the means to demonstrate its central role in the major themes for our future at a moment when we are all aware of the shameful damage caused to the planet by the overexploitation of its wealth and biodiversity. We therefore attach the greatest importance to the preparation of the Rio+20 Conference and hope that the green economy and the opportunities it affords will become a major vehicle for sustainable development. You can also count on the support of our delegation, Sir, with regard to the upcoming summit on non-communicable diseases and the consultative process on revision of the statute of the Human Rights Council and the Peacebuilding Commission, which must take into account the presidential statement adopted at the ministerial-level meeting of the Security Council on 23 September (S/PRST/2010/18). At the beginning of the twenty-first century, our deliberations must contribute to bringing together and harmonizing our actions. Only our Organization possesses both the means and the legitimacy to successfully establish effective global governance, and we must all show pragmatism and work in a constructive spirit to achieve our goals. The interdependence of the global challenges which all of us are facing requires us to define together a set of rules aimed at coordinating our policies and managing relations between Governments, the private sector and civil society. We share your belief, Mr. President, that our Organization should be at the heart of that new multilateralism, which should be founded on integration and solidarity.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Sonatane Taumoepeau- Tupou, chair of the delegation of the Kingdom of Tonga.

I too offer you, Sir, my warmest congratulations upon your election to the presidency of the General Assembly at this our sixty-fifth session. Let me assure you, as always, of the cooperation and support of the Tongan delegation. I also express my gratitude to your predecessor His Excellency Mr. Ali Treki for his recently concluded term as President at our sixty-fourth session. I wish to also thank the tireless Secretary- General, Ban Ki-moon, for his resolute leadership of the Organization during these times of unprecedented and challenging global events. We also acknowledge the enduring work of the Organization’s Secretariat and its agencies, and in particular those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the furtherance of that work. A decade on, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) continue to reflect our firm global resolve to ensure a durably improved quality of life for all of our peoples — a global pursuit of happiness, if you will. It is no surprise, then, that the MDGs are now a core component of our national development planning. Tonga has recently produced its second national MDG report, which highlights positive results across the eight Goals. With regard to MDG 1, on the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, the report suggests that, while the international community acknowledges that Tonga does not suffer from extreme poverty or hunger, there are some households that do suffer hardship, and their needs are being addressed. With regard to Goal 2, the net enrolment ratio in primary education for 2008 was 93 per cent, indicating that Tonga has almost achieved universal basic education. Goal 6, as it relates to halting and reversing the incidence of non-communicable diseases by 2015, and Goal 5, as it relates to universal access to reproductive health, both remain challenges. Yet despite the continuing uncertain global economic and financial climate, Tonga remains committed, in the five years remaining until 2015, and beyond, to making further strides towards achieving the MDGs. We look forward to completing one such stride on MDG 6 next year, in 2011, with the timely convening of a high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases. The MDGs, in our view, as much as marking the advent of the twenty-first century, reflect our aspirational goals for this millennium beyond 2015. Much of any future progress for Tonga will be contingent on our determination and ability to rely on our own domestic efforts, complemented by the actions of our development partners and the international community. At the annual meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum leaders held in Port Vila last month, leaders adopted the Port Vila Declaration on Accelerating Progress on the Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, wherein they drew linkages between the attainment of the MDGs and the state of progress in the 19 focal areas of the Mauritius Strategy for Implementation. If the landmark Barbados Programme of Action placed small island developing States (SIDS) firmly on the global agenda, then the linkages between the MDGs and the Mauritius Strategy +5 Review (MSI+5) serve as an accurate compass for charting the direction that small island developing States, their development partners and the international community need to take to ensure progress. We join others in thanking the good Ambassadors of Luxembourg and Singapore for brokering the consensus outcome of the MSI+5. Like others, Tonga calls for the creation of a formal SIDS category within the United Nations system that not only improves the internal linkages and infrastructure within the system but ultimately improves its ability to better relate to and respond to the needs of SIDS. Without some measure of adjustments to the manner in which the United Nations system addresses SIDS and SIDS issues, progress will remain stilted. Climate change properly continues to dominate the majority of statements we have heard this week and last. In the end our collective ability as States could not adequately meet the burden of global expectations in Copenhagen, and many States like Tonga were left to look for what little positive outcome the Copenhagen Accord represents. Therein lies the potential for all of us to reach beyond our narrow national and regional interests in Cancún and embrace our collective responsibility and duty to each other as nation-States, particularly to those States that are most vulnerable, least responsible for this situation and least able to address the capricious whims of climate change. In taking forward the work of the Pacific SIDS on the consensus resolution entitled “Climate change and its possible security implications” (resolution 63/281), we would join others in strongly encouraging current and prospective members of the Security Council to seize the moral imperative and follow the momentum by taking positive and proactive action on the resolution. As the final arbiter of international peace and security, the Council must ensure it positions itself in an active leadership role on this issue. Tonga continues to follow the course of the ongoing exchanges among our membership on the reform of the Security Council and the limited progress that has been made to date. An organization such as ours that wishes to retain its broad relevance and global primacy in this day and age has to be open and willing to seriously reconsider those elements that give it a unique and distinctive quality. In our view, the Security Council and its composition constitute one of those elements. We maintain our support for Council reform. It is already somewhat self-evident that there should be an expansion in both categories of membership, permanent and non-permanent, with certain States — Japan, Germany, Brazil and India — being worthy of permanent membership on an enhanced Council. The permanent membership category must also take favourable account of seats for Africa. Tonga remains supportive of the substantive efforts for direct talks by President Obama and his Administration, the Quartet and regional neighbours to find a comprehensive, just and enduring peace in the Middle East. Despite the pursuit of the seemingly elusive goal of two States living side by side within secure borders and in lasting peace and genuine security, including a viable Palestinian State that can realize the true potential of its people, we encourage all parties to continue this fresh round of dialogue with a renewed sense of purpose and conviction. Tonga was one of the 13 Pacific SIDS that participated in an historic summit between Pacific leaders and the League of Arab States earlier this year in Abu Dhabi in order to share perspectives on the current and future challenges faced by our respective regions. That historic summit and its outcome represent the ever-expanding development of Tonga’s foreign policy interests to include countries and regions that had hitherto not been considered. That development comes firmly on the heels of our active engagement with the International Renewable Energy Agency and our continuing interest in the potential of renewable energy and the first-time visit to Tonga and a number of other Pacific SIDS by His Highness Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan to develop relations with our region. In that regard, we acknowledge with appreciation the Partnership in the Pacific Programme and its potential to meet the development aspirations of the peoples of the Pacific. Earlier this year, Tonga, in compliance with its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, formally presented its partial submission to the Commission on the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf. One issue of concern that arose as a result of our formal presentation to the Commission is the likely lengthy time frame for consideration of submissions such as Tonga’s. We encourage our fellow States parties to the Convention to thoughtfully consider the adjustments necessary for the Commission to fulfil its mandate with respect to all States parties in a reasonably timely manner. Tonga welcomes the successful conclusion of the 2010 review of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, particularly, the continuing acknowledgement of the concerns of SIDS over the safe transport of radioactive materials by sea and the announcement by the United States of its intention to pursue ratification of the Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga. When my Prime Minister addressed this body last year, it marked the tenth anniversary of Tonga’s admission as a State Member of the United Nations. Our admission was culmination of a journey towards statehood that began with tentative steps 135 years ago, in 1875, with the granting of Tonga’s Constitution by King George I. And after 135 years, we realize that our domestic system of governance needs to be strengthened in ways that align itself more readily with the strong and vibrant systems of democratic governance prevalent today. And so, simultaneous with my delivery of these remarks here today is the historic closure of the current session of Tonga’s Legislative Assembly, the last under the existing system of governance. Elections under the new system are scheduled to take place later this year, on 25 November. So while the modalities for improving democratic representation have been enhanced, the fundamental values and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution continue to protect and support all Tongans. As any small island developing State appreciates, a presence here in New York represents a significant sacrifice of already scarce resources, but it is made in the knowledge that despite our size, our remoteness and our geographical isolation we are not immune to the global challenges that beset us all. Therefore we have a responsibility to our Government and our people to be more than mere bystanders in the work of our Organization. As such, Tonga reaffirms the rights and responsibilities bestowed upon it by the United Nations Charter, and we pledge in our own way to continue to participate actively and constructively to give an enduring Tongan voice to the global issues of concern to us all. And while many subgroupings and variations of States such as the Group of 20 or the Group of Eight may convene from time to time for a particular purpose or timely nuance, whether it be reforming the international financial governance institutions or reinvigorating international environmental governance, the pivotal role of the United Nations as a viable institution remains constant against an ever-changing backdrop. Finally, any other 65-year-old might be contemplating retirement, but our Organization’s strength rests as much in the principles of the Charter as it does in the people it must continue to inspire and remain relevant to, especially our young people. During this, the International Year of Youth, the United Nations and all of us must ensure a legacy worth passing on to the next generation.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Camillo Gonsalves, chair of the delegation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines welcomes, Sir, your ascension to the presidency of the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session with a great deal of anticipation. As one of the primary architects of your own country’s membership in the United Nations, you have demonstrated your belief in the importance of this institution and its role in the modern international context. As you stand on the shoulders of the giants who have preceded you in this role, we are confident that you will ably apply your unique set of skills and experiences to the advancement of our complex agenda. We are also excited by the theme that you have proposed for your tenure as President of the General Assembly, namely, reaffirming the central role of the United Nations in global governance. It is a theme that resonates loudly with Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and indeed with many of the small and marginalized States that form a significant part of the 192 members of the General Assembly. We small States have emerged as some of the most jealous and zealous guardians of the United Nations Charter. This vigilance is born of principle and necessity. The Charter is the document that guarantees our place in the Assembly as the sovereign equals of every other country of the world. The United Nations remains the only venue that affords us both a seat and a voice in global affairs. To Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the United Nations must be the centre of global governance because it is our only option for global governance. There are some States that fortuitously find themselves in the inner sanctums of the Security Council — and the Group of Eight (G-8), and the Group of Twenty (G-20) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. For them, the centrality of the United Nations may vary with the political winds or the shifting sands of great power intrigue. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has no such luxury. We cannot take our ball and go home, to play on other fields and interact in other forums. The United Nations is all we have. Its centrality in global governance, for us, is therefore an essential and indisputable truth. You assume the leadership of the General Assembly, Mr. President, at a time when the centrality of the United Nations role is being challenged as never before. Various organizations and small groupings of States, with selective membership and opaque modus operandi, have coalesced to become global decision- makers and shapers of our post-Cold War existence. For our purposes, it is irrelevant whether these groupings have formed to respond to or to precipitate the declining effectiveness of the United Nations. However, the fact is that in the face of global crises of economy, climate, trade and reform, we have been tested and we have been found wanting. We face the real threat of devolving into a mere talk shop, an amalgam of unwieldy bureaucracies or a toothless rubber stamp of decisions taken elsewhere. To avoid such an ignominious fate, we must actively defend our role and legitimacy as the global centre of international governance and decision-making. Permit us the opportunity to offer a few simple suggestions to assist in achieving this goal. First, for the concept of global governance to have meaning and relevance, we must inject some measure of consistency and predictability into the rules that govern our family. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is committed to the international rule of law and the role of the institutions that advance the rule of law and adjudicate international disputes. Governance is ineffective if the rich and powerful among us can place themselves beyond the ambit of timely compliance with rules and decisions. In that regard, we cite the case of the ongoing dispute between the United States and Antigua and Barbuda on the issue of online gaming, which has already been adjudicated in Antigua and Barbuda’s favour by the World Trade Organization (WTO). We urge those two countries — both strong friends of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines — to quickly arrive at a just and equitable resolution of this matter. Our region was the unfortunate, and no doubt unintended, victim of WTO rulings that have gutted our once-thriving banana industry and threatened to stall that crucial engine of our development. The case against banana tariffs was successfully brought to the WTO by the United States, which does not grow a single bunch of bananas. We are confident that our friends will honour this relatively minor gaming ruling as we have been compelled to adapt to previous paradigm-shifting decisions. Secondly, the resolutions adopted and decisions taken by the General Assembly must have some worth beyond the paper upon which they are printed. In the dusty archives of our body are hard-fought decisions and resolutions on Palestine, on human rights and on the economic crisis. We have made annual near- unanimous calls for an end to the Cuban embargo. Then our documents are dutifully filed away to be ignored by dissenters or resuscitated in future sessions with, at best, incremental advancement. As long as General Assembly decisions and resolutions remain a buffet from which Member States can selectively pick and choose, our role in governance will continue to be hamstrung. Member States must take the sovereign decision to honour the will of the international community not because they have to but because it is the right thing to do. If we continue to champion the decisions with which we agree while disregarding all others, we are not participating with good faith in the deliberations of this body and we are doing violence to the very concept of a community of nations. Nor should States manipulate the concept of consensus to make it a virtual veto on United Nations action. Consensus must always be a central goal, but never a barrier, to decisive action by the General Assembly. Necessary, desirable and urgent action cannot be sacrificed on the altar of consensus. Democracy demands that, when consensus cannot be achieved, the recorded will of the majority should be respected. Thirdly, we must hold every nation to account for commitments that have been voluntarily taken. Much has been written and said about donor fatigue, which is shorthand for the limited attention span of multilateral and bilateral donors when confronting systemic development issues. Much less has been said about commitment fatigue: the developing world’s exasperation with oft-made but seldom-honoured commitments. But make no mistake, fatigue has set in, as we grow increasingly tired of waiting for the 0.7 per cent of gross national income promised by the developed world at the International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey in 2002, the billions pledged at the G-8 Summit in Gleneagles for the doubling of aid to Africa, the $10 billion in ironically titled fast-start funding that was to materialize this year for climate change adaptation and the $1.1 trillion promised by the G-20 in April 2009. To Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, therefore, it is puzzling how some of our friends and development partners can suffer from donor fatigue when they have yet to donate what was originally promised. It is similarly confounding when, reflective of this supposed fatigue, donors attach so many conditions and bureaucratic impediments to unlocking assistance that it becomes all but inaccessible. Small States like ours have neither the capacity nor the desire to establish entire bureaucracies dedicated solely to navigating the administrative labyrinth of irregular and unpredictable aid flows. Nor are we interested in the upkeep of armies of foreign consultants, who seem to be the primary beneficiaries of some international development efforts. Commitment fatigue morphs into anger when considered in the context of the Haitian people in the wake of the indescribably devastating earthquake of 12 January. In March this year the United Nations held an inspiring donors conference, in which over $10 billion was pledged for Haiti’s recovery from the earthquake. Today, six months after that conference, and eight months beyond the earthquake, a pathetically miniscule percentage of those pledges has actually been delivered. While less than 20,000 temporary shelters have been built to date, over 1.5 million Haitians are still living in tents. A few days ago, we learned that women and children living in tent cities were killed when heavy rains and winds struck Haiti. No one can claim that this result was unexpected, as we in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) have been sounding alarms for months about the dangers inherent in the imminent rainy season. To survive a catastrophic earthquake only to be killed by rain is an unfathomable tragedy. The entirely avoidable deaths of those women and children will remain a stain on the collective conscience of this body and on our membership. Talk is cheap, even when it is the heady talk of billions of dollars. Commitments made must be commitments kept. We must hold to account those who repeatedly make empty promises. Fourthly, we must cede no ground to the creeping encroachment of non-inclusive, non-transparent and non-representative groupings. We have no doubt that, for example, the G-20 has a useful and even essential role to play in the global economy. There is an undeniable logic to a small group of the world’s largest economies, almost all of which are our close friends, meeting informally to thrash out matters that affect only their large economies. However, the logic fades somewhat in the face of a crisis that has spread rapidly and comprehensively to every corner of the globe. That is why Saint Vincent and the Grenadines noted with concern the G-20 statement from Pittsburgh a year ago, which proclaimed, “We designated the G-20 to be the premier forum for our international economic cooperation”. Our esteemed friend and brother, President Obama of the United States, repeated these sentiments from this podium a few days ago when he stated, “we made the Group of 20 the focal point for international coordination” (A/65/PV.11). Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was not included among the “we” who established this role for the G-20 in Pittsburg. Indeed, we, like 172 other Member States, were not admitted to the meeting, we saw no agenda and we read no minutes of the decisions that were taken. As dedicated champions of the Charter of the United Nations, we also note that Articles 1 and 55 of that document designate the United Nations as the forum for international economic cooperation and solutions. Indeed, our caution towards the G-20 can be found in President Obama’s very endorsement of it. I shall quote again from his statement of a few days ago. He said, “because in a world where prosperity is more diffuse, we must broaden our circle of cooperation to include emerging economies — economies from every corner of the globe” (ibid.). We could not agree more. In the wake of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, 172 economies should not be locked out of economic discussions, waiting anxiously on the doorstep of the G-20 for signals and policy shifts that affect our continued survival. We in the Caribbean have been disproportionately and devastatingly affected by the crisis, which we played no role in creating. Yet we have been forced to rely on friendly nations as interlocutors on our behalf. We remain convinced that the deliberations and past decisions of the G-20, from its misunderstanding of the precarious vulnerabilities of small, highly-indebted, middle- income countries to its draconian outlook on offshore financial services — would have benefited from our perspective. We therefore call on the United Nations membership to give meaning to the words of our Charter and to re-establish our body as a forum for meaningful solutions and cooperation on economic matters. We must reinvigorate the work of the Economic and Social Council. We must renew the mandate of the ad hoc working group to decisively follow up on the issues contained in the Outcome of the Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development (see resolution 63/303, annex). Good global governance must therefore be premised on global inclusiveness. This is our fifth point: no corner of the world should be excluded from participation in our global family. In that regard, we once again highlight the case of our friends in Taiwan. The United Nations and its specialized agencies must find ways to ensure the meaningful participation of the 23 million people of Taiwan. Just as their economic strength has merited inclusion in the WTO and the universality of global health challenges have logically compelled their participation in the World Health Assembly, so too should the global reach of climate change merit the meaningful participation of Taiwan in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The interconnectedness of global air travel, and our shared safety concerns, similarly mandate the participation of Taiwan in the International Civil Aviation Authority. This is not the case of a tiny non-governmental organization, to be allowed or denied meaningful participation on some bureaucratic whim. This is a legitimate and vibrant expression of the ancient and noble Chinese culture, with a population 200 times greater than that of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The Government and people of Taiwan have advanced a reasonable and responsible policy of engagement to usher in a new era in cross-Strait relations, and have an enviable record of development cooperation and assistance around the world. The international community can and should encourage and reward this responsible global citizenship with meaningful participation in the relevant specialized agencies. Similarly, urgent and more inclusive reform in the membership of the Security Council is the litmus test of our verbal commitments to governance, reform and revitalization. There is simply no justification for the continued exclusion of the entire African continent or other significant and influential emerging powers from permanent membership in the Security Council. The defenders of the status quo may soon find that they are protecting an increasingly irrelevant and illegitimate institution. However, we feel that the Council is too important to be allowed to whither into obsolescence. Reform and expansion of the permanent and non-permanent membership of the Security Council, including the provision of dedicated non-permanent membership for small island developing States, is an imperative that is long past due. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is proud to have announced its candidacy for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for the 2020-2021 term. If successful, we would be the smallest country ever, by population, to occupy such a position, and only the fourth of CARICOM’s 14 United Nations Member States to assume such a responsibility. Our bid is premised on the historical exclusion of CARICOM States and small island developing States from this critical body, and the value that we believe our presence and perspective will bring to the Council’s deliberations. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines makes miniscule monetary and military contributions to the United Nations. But our contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security is measured in our historical aversion to wars, our culture of tolerance, peace and plurality and the perspective of a small State that understands that peace is not always best achieved with millions of dollars or armed enforcers, but often with dialogue and small but meaningful peacebuilding actions. Our contribution is succinctly captured in our national motto, which, translated from Latin, reads simply “Peace and Justice”. Sixthly, and most important, we must never be shy to use this institution to operationalize our commonly held ambitions for a better world and to tackle the global issues of our day. Too often, we spend time lowering, rather than rising to meet, the expectations of a world that is clamouring for our collective leadership. Our continued failures to achieve a binding solution on climate change mitigation and adaptation is a case in point. In the months since the painful lessons of the so-called Copenhagen Accord, devastating floods in Pakistan and heatwaves and fires in Russia have shown us once again that no nation is immune from the reach and impact of climate change. But the vulnerability of large nations to ruinous hurricanes, floods and fires does not approach the very unique and specific existential vulnerabilities of small island developing States. For, while all States are vulnerable to natural disasters, only small island developing States are threatened with being wiped off the map entirely and ceasing to exist. As such, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is not interested in the lowering of expectations as we head to Cancún. The need for a binding and meaningful agreement on climate change cannot be deferred indefinitely. We view with disgust the transparent attempts to measure the financial or political cost of doing what must be done to save our planet. We are threatening to destroy our own world, as we shamelessly squabble over dollars and degrees. If we fail in this endeavour, history will look most unfavourably on the narrow, short-term interests that we placed ahead of our own survival. In a similar vein, and in the interest of time, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines echoes and adopts as our own the proposals enunciated by our CARICOM sister States for prompt action on the global challenges of non-communicable diseases, small arms, narcotics and transnational crime, the decade-old Doha Development Round of trade negotiations, international cooperation in tax matters and concessional assistance and debt relief for middle-income island States. We cannot allow narrow ideological agendas to distract us or detract from the accomplishment of these tasks, upon which there is broad agreement. Finally, a crucial component of the overarching principle of sovereign equality is that of sovereignty itself. We believe wholeheartedly that, in the words of the great Caribbean singer and poet Bob Marley, “every man has a right to decide his own destiny”. We therefore reject, with equal fervour, any foreign or outside interference in the democratic processes of independent States. This is a principle upon which we are unyielding. In many of our small countries, it takes only a few minor mercenaries, or ideologically misguided or misinformed millionaires, to fundamentally threaten the fabric of our fragile democracies. Unfortunately, those interlopers are often aided and abetted by those unpatriotic opportunists who see sovereignty as a fungible commodity, to be bartered and traded to the highest nefarious bidder for short-term political gain. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is populated by a proud and noble people, with a history of fierce struggle for freedom and independence. There is a steel in the psyche of our Caribbean civilization and its Vincentian component; a steel forged in the fires of slavery and genocide and beaten on the anvil of colonialism, exploitation and resistance. Our small size belies our indomitable spirit. We possess an independence that undergirds Cuba’s heroic resistance to an unjust and internationally condemned blockade. We have a strength that informs the nobility of the Haitian people’s response to unimaginable tragedy. We lay claim to a resilience that is etched in our collective history, and reverberates in the names of our region’s national heroes, such as Nanny, Garvey, Bussa, Martí, and Chatoyer, to name but a few. Our democracies can be neither bought, sold nor intimidated. And our commitment to the democratic inclusiveness of the United Nations and the supremacy of its Charter is similarly unshakeable. It is against that backdrop, Mr. President, that you will find Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to be a strong ally in your efforts to re-establish the central role of this body in matters of global governance.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Jorge Valero Briceño, head of the delegation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

On behalf of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, I wish the new President of this session of the General Assembly the greatest success during his term. The Bolivarian revolution plans to contribute to the structure and agenda of the United Nations, which currently reflect the unjust power relationships that exist in the world. As it is today, this forum helps to perpetuate the unjust relations inherited from the Second World War, relations that become more exclusive and authoritarian as neoliberal globalization advances. The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez Frías, said on 15 September 2005, in his speech during the general debate at the sixtieth session of the United Nations General Assembly that “the United Nations has outgrown its model. It is not just a question of simple reform. The twenty-first century requires profound changes that will be possible only if the Organization is truly recast.” (A/60/PV.6, p.17) There are two poignant examples that illustrate this unfair and irrational world power architecture. For the past 19 years, the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world have come before the General Assembly to demand an end to the economic and commercial blockade imposed on the heroic Cuban people. But what has the Organization done to ensure that the United States Government abides by the will of the General Assembly? The answer is well known: nothing. Dozens of resolutions have been adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly on the question of Palestine, but the Israeli military and political elite refuse to comply. The occupying Power acts with total impunity and with the complicity of its main ally. What has the Security Council done to get the occupying Power to respect the principles of international law, including international humanitarian law, and particularly the four Geneva Conventions of 1949? The answer is well known: nothing. The rebuilding of the United Nations hinges on strengthening the General Assembly and its handling of matters relating to international peace and security. Venezuela challenges the fact that a small group of countries impose their conditions in these areas, while the opinion of the majority is not taken into account. A strategy aimed at weakening the General Assembly and excluding it from the most relevant world decisions is being implemented in the United Nations, while the Security Council progressively increases its power and influence over the United Nations agenda and takes over topics beyond the purview granted to it by the Charter of the Organization. The Secretary-General, according to the Charter of the United Nations, is an administrative officer of the Organization responsible for answering to the interests of all Member States, and not the policies of a few Powers that seek to drive the global agenda. For almost 20 years we have been discussing the reform of the Security Council and the strengthening of the General Assembly, yet so far almost nothing has been achieved. The call from President Chavez to recast the United Nations remains fully valid. To that end, Venezuela proposes to eliminate the right of veto enjoyed by only five Members of the United Nations. This remnant of the Second World War is incompatible with the principle of the sovereign equality of States. Venezuela also proposes an increase in the Security Council’s membership in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. Why are developing countries deprived of the right to participate in that forum? Venezuela therefore urges all States to propose candidates for the post of Secretary-General, with the aim of democratizing elections to this senior post. We believe that resolution 11 (I), adopted on 24 January 1946, regarding the terms of election of the Secretary- General, in no way restricts the ability of Member States to discuss and vote in this election. In line with democratic principles and transparency, Member States must participate in both the nomination and the appointment of this senior official. States would therefore be free to choose among several alternatives. Rebuilding the United Nations also requires that the General Assembly fully exercise its responsibilities in matters of international peace and security, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Climate change negotiations are unfolding in a complex context that makes it difficult to arrive at consensus on the majority of topics. Developed countries reject international commitments that are fully in force, specifically the Kyoto Protocol. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela hopes that, at the next Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to be held in Cancún at the end of this year, a legally binding agreement is reached that is ambitious and respects the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. Venezuela is fighting for the creation of a development model based on a new paradigm that substitutes the prevailing models of production and consumption. Developing countries and the most vulnerable sectors of developed countries suffer the impact of the economic and financial crises of capitalism. It is therefore essential and necessary to consider a transformation of this inhumane model that, with its new crisis, has generated more hunger, poverty, unemployment and inequality. The crisis of capitalism has not ended. Its structural nature reproduces itself ad infinitum. Privileged groups, the financial economy, speculators, monopolies and oligopolies and the Bretton Woods institutions will continue to try to have the crisis paid for by developing countries and the world’s poor and most vulnerable. Neoliberal policies, which are applied as a result of the global crisis of capitalism, propose the totalitarianism of the financial markets, deepening the gap between the rich and the poor within those countries and widening the inequalities between the North and the South. It is also important to underscore that the efforts of the developed countries in the context of official development assistance (ODA) have not been sustained, as large donors have repeatedly not fulfilled their pledges when it comes to the agreed goal of allocating 0.7 per cent of their gross domestic product to ODA. Faced with this crisis, developing countries should strengthen South-South cooperation and create alternative sovereign mechanisms to avoid the credit monopoly maintained by the Bretton Woods institutions. To that end, Venezuela aims to create and strengthen regional financial institutions such as the Bank of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America — Peoples’ Trade Agreement (ALBA-TCP) and the Bank of the South. We welcome the initiatives in that regard that are being undertaken in Africa and Asia. South-South cooperation is a top priority for Venezuela. In Latin America and the Caribbean there are already successful experiences such as that of Petrocaribe, which fosters supportive cooperation in the energy sector, and that of ALBA-TCP, which is producing successful results in overcoming poverty and inequality. These novel forms of solidarity and supportive cooperation contribute to the development of our peoples and to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. I take great satisfaction in pointing out that, despite the problematic international economic and financial environment, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has met almost all of the Millennium Development Goals, in particular in the areas of poverty, health, nutrition, education, child mortality and sanitation, among others. We would like to underscore that Venezuela assumed the presidency of the Latin American and Caribbean Summit on Integration and Development in February 2010. The third Summit will be held in our country on 5 July 2011, within the framework of the historic bicentennial anniversary of our signing of our Declaration of Independence. Venezuela attaches particular importance to the process of union and integration in Latin America and the Caribbean. Progress to that end will lead to the full operation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, thereby achieving the dream of our liberators as reflected in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The union of our peoples — the peoples of the South fighting for independence, freedom, sovereignty and self- determination — is a priority of our Simon Bolivar national project, as enshrined in our first socialist plan for the period 2007 to 2013. In the face of recurrent attempts to erode the sovereignty of countries and in the face of a savage capitalist and neoliberal offensive, the Bolivarian Government calls for the relaunching of the Group of 77 and China and the Non-Aligned Movement so that developing countries can more forcefully defend the interests of their peoples. We wish to avail ourselves of this opportunity at the rostrum to express our appreciation for the compliments sent to President Hugo Chávez Frías by numerous Governments and social and popular movements from around the world on the occasion of the victory in the Venezuelan parliamentary elections last Sunday, 26 September. That victory is a clear testament to the majority support of the people for the humanistic policies promoted by the Bolivarian Government. This electoral victory will also enable our Bolivarian Government to strengthen its solidarity with developing countries. Defenders of peace, justice, freedom and solidarity in the world can continue to rely on the support of the Bolivarian revolution.

I now give the floor to Her Excellency Mrs. Tine Morch Smith, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Norway.

Last week we reaffirmed our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). We agreed to accelerate our efforts. Developing countries themselves have the main responsibility for achieving the MDGs, and the international community has the responsibility to assist by means of development and debt relief where appropriate. Norway is and will continue to be a solid and reliable partner in development. We will keep our development aid at its present substantial level, including our significant support to United Nations funds and programmes. This year in particular, we are heartened to see strong support for improving maternal health and reducing child mortality, the Goals on which we are lagging behind the most. Norway will work with the Secretary-General to ensure that his Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health is transformed into action on the ground. The many successful and inspiring meetings last week also illustrate that the challenges facing the world, which are increasingly global in character, require inclusive global forums to address them. That means engaging in dialogue with others, often with those who have different views. The United Nations is not designed to comfort different leaders in their own convictions; it is the place to confront and surpass differences. It is therefore highly inappropriate when this rostrum is abused to promote extreme views or unfounded claims. The challenges before us are too great to allow us to be derailed by attempts to incite conflict. We must never forget that we are a global community by virtue of the shared risks that stand before us, the shared threats that challenge us and the shared values that bind us together. Climate change threatens all our social and economic aspirations. Let me point to two important and dynamic processes that are among the most promising as we look for potential results in Cancún: limiting emissions from deforestation, and financing. The Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, which the Prime Minister of Norway chairs together with the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, is working hard to identify sources that can enable us to raise the funds we committed to in Copenhagen. We need to define workable and acceptable sources, both private and public, and help pave the way for a new international climate agreement. We urge all Members to study the report we will receive this fall with an open mind and to build on this important work taking place at the initiative of the Secretary-General, as we prepare for Cancún and the period beyond. Norway is leading support schemes for reducing emissions from deforestation. In Bali in 2007, Norway pledged to provide up to $500 million on an annual basis to halt deforestation. We are working with key partners such as Brazil, Indonesia and Guyana to develop concrete methods to do this in practice. Such measures are effective as a means of mitigation and provide strong leverage for new and additional financing for developing countries. They take effect immediately. I call on other countries to join in this great endeavour. Ten years ago, we reaffirmed the connection between the three pillars of the United Nations: development, security and human rights. Human rights are an integral part of the United Nations vision and Charter, and should be mainstreamed in the work of the United Nations in all areas, as previously called for by this Assembly. Norway will continue to be active in the Human Rights Council and promote a human rights- based approach in United Nations development work. We will continue to work with partner countries from the North and South to this end, as we successfully did last week at the Trygve Lie Symposium on Fundamental Freedoms, focused on business and human rights. This year also marks the 10-year anniversary of another major United Nations building block — Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) on women and peace and security. Women’s empowerment is a crucial factor not only in sustainable development, but also in sustainable peace. It is time to make good on the commitments made and follow through on promises that will enable women to take an active role in situations that are a matter of life and death, not only for them, but for their families, communities and even nations. When we do take stock in October, we should focus on action taken, and above all on action that needs to be taken. Norway would like to echo the vision and hope voiced by President Obama in this Assembly that we may in the near future have an agreement that will lead to the entry of a new Member into the United Nations — an independent, sovereign State of Palestine. The Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, which is chaired by Norway, has called for assistance to the Palestinian Authority in implementing the Programme for the Thirteenth Government for completing the task of building a Palestinian State, with regard to institution- building and the development of a sustainable Palestinian economy. The donors have been encouraged by recent reports that the implementation of the reform agenda accelerated significantly in the first half of 2010. The World Bank stated that if the Palestinian Authority were to maintain its current performance, it is well positioned for the establishment of a State at any point in the future. It is crucial that this progress be mirrored by progress in the peace negotiations. Norway welcomes the relaunching earlier this month of direct bilateral negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We regret that Israel’s settlement moratorium was not extended. Norway reaffirms its strong commitment to the two-State solution and to supporting the negotiations by ensuring full compliance with Road Map obligations and maintaining their assistance to the Palestinian State-building effort. Allow me to underline another process with enormous importance for regional peace, security and development. Supporting the parties in the full and timely implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for the Sudan must be on our agenda. We cannot afford to end up in a situation where we all regret that we let peace slip in the Sudan. For over 60 years, the United Nations system, including the Bretton Woods institutions, has been the global intergovernmental framework for cooperation on joint challenges. Current trends in global cooperation may point towards a looser, more fragmented structure of global governance. There is a fine line between such strategic alliances as complementary to traditional multilateralism, and as alternatives for global multilateralism with the direct or indirect representation of all States. This is why Norway attaches great importance to the ongoing discussion on how to best facilitate constructive cooperation between the Group of 20 and the United Nations. United Nations reform has been a topic of many statements during this debate. In order to remain relevant, the United Nations must continuously reform and adapt to a changing environment and new challenges. As Member States, we have the responsibility to ensure that the Organization is equipped to respond to the task it is given. Therefore we must continue to push for United Nations reform, but with a view to improving and strengthening the United Nations. We must build on what is already in progress and seems to be yielding results. Delivering as one is showing progress at the country level. It now needs to be followed up at Headquarters. The establishment of UN Women is a system-wide coherence success story. We congratulate Ms. Bachelet and pledge to support her in delivering on the promises made to UN Women. Beyond new panels and processes, we now need to finalize work on proposals that are already on the table. For Norway, commitment to the United Nations also means commitment to reform — to strive for a United Nations that is efficient and able to live up to the expectations that we, the Member States, place on it. We owe it to each other and to future generations to maintain and strengthen the United Nations as a unique, inclusive and global meeting place where we, the peoples of this world, come together to solve the global challenges of our time. This is our common responsibility.

I now call on His Excellency Mr. Witold Sobków, chairman of the delegation of Poland.

I wish you success during your presidency, Sir. This year began with a tragic earthquake in Haiti that took the lives of more than 200,000 people, including United Nations staff and peacekeepers. Unfortunately, several months later, Pakistan was affected by floods with catastrophic effects. I would like to pay tribute to those women and men who lost their lives while working for the United Nations. I would also like to salute those who provided assistance to the victims. Those dramatic and very painful events highlighted the essential role that the United Nations is capable of playing in our lives and the extraordinary performance of an Organization that many seem to take for granted. The universal character of the United Nations enables Member States to carry out activities and achieve agreed goals, regardless of their form of Government or culture. One cannot underestimate the contribution of the United Nations to peacekeeping and peacebuilding, its role in the promotion of the rule of law and human rights, or its contribution to the codification of international law. Poland has always been a firm and reliable supporter of the United Nations. Effective multilateralism is an objective reflected in the policies of my Government and a guiding principle of the European Union (EU). We note both the heightened expectations and the criticism with respect to the United Nations and other international organizations. We are therefore raising the issue of reform, as we want the United Nations to be more efficient and better adapted to the new global environment. If it fails to meet the hopes and expectations of its Members, it will suffer marginalization, which might negatively affect multilateralism, as well as certainty and predictability in international relations. Poland has been participating in the ongoing process of reflection on the accommodation of the United Nations to contemporary and foreseeable risks and challenges. In our opinion, the United Nations should improve its ability to cooperate with other institutions and organizations, particularly on a regional basis. Poland supports efforts aimed at reforming the Security Council, an organ tasked with preserving peace and security. We need to take into account changes in the international system brought about after the end of the cold war and, at the same time, preserve the Council’s cohesion and the feasibility of its decision-making process. We favour an additional non-permanent seat for the Eastern European group. We also find interesting and worth discussing the idea of EU representation. In general, we attach much importance to the role of the EU in the United Nations system. That is why we would encourage non-EU Member States to support our efforts to ensure a proper place for the EU, an observer in the General Assembly, in the form of a resolution. We attach great importance to the enhancement of the credibility of United Nations action in the field of democracy and human rights. Let me remind the Assembly of the successful meeting of the Community of Democracies in Krakow in July 2010. Poland is convinced that promoting universal respect for human rights throughout the world contributes to security and to social and economic progress. In this respect, we applaud the establishment of the new consolidated gender entity of the United Nations, UN Women. We also believe that the review and reform of the Human Rights Council, of which we are a member, will strengthen the effectiveness of that body. Our planet is exposed to an increasing number of existential threats. Experience shows that no country can solve the world’s problems alone. A global response is therefore necessary to meeting global challenges. The United Nations has the capacity to justify and, in many instances, generate such a response. We expect excellence as a standard feature of the United Nations. In the final analysis, it is only with the consent and support of its Member States that the United Nations can deliver such excellence. The latest world economic crisis demonstrated the need for globally coordinated economic and financial policies. These are currently being debated by the General Assembly’s Second Committee and by the specialized agencies and United Nations-related organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Poland expects the United Nations to be the key forum for multilateral debate on the issues pertaining to the crisis. We hope that the current crisis will not hinder United Nations Member States from achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Various political, economic, social and environmental problems are making States increasingly open to deepened cooperation. The complicated nature of new challenges demands sophisticated expertise and the integration of efforts. The United Nations safeguards both. Poland deems the United Nations to be an appropriate body to address the global issues of security and economy. Peace and security are a fundamental issue. Our goal is a world without nuclear weapons and other arms of mass destruction; a world without terrorism; and a world capable of diffusing the threats of war and conflict. The United Nations should strengthen its involvement in meeting these objectives, anticipate and prevent conflicts, where possible, and develop the capacity to resolve them effectively once they break out. The engagement of the United Nations in peacekeeping operations continues to produce visible and desirable effects, especially in its political and humanitarian dimensions. The experience we have gained from the increased engagement of recent years allows us to better understand its complexity and limitations and the challenges ahead. We believe that peacekeeping reform must continue. We support efforts that will bring new quality to peacekeeping, and in this regard we are committed to working towards achieving a wider consensus on its strategic aspects through a renewed partnership among all stakeholders. This year will, we hope, be associated with major progress in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation. The success of the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) proved that a consensus is possible in this specific area of international cooperation. Efficient and practical implementation of the outcome of the NPT Review Conference remains a crucial task. We are convinced that the initiative launched recently by Australia and Japan, which involves the participation of Poland and 10 other countries, will contribute to this goal. We perceive the NPT Review Conference, the New START treaty and the Nuclear Security Summit as significant steps forward, but regard the implementation of their decisions as a challenge. Among issues related to nuclear disarmament, there is one that clearly stands out: the status of sub-strategic nuclear weapons, the reduction and elimination of which have not yet been covered by any legally binding international instrument. A world without nuclear weapons cannot be achieved if this challenge is not dealt with. The Conference on Disarmament requires our special attention. We applaud the efforts of the Secretary-General, who convened a few days ago a special summit devoted to disarmament. Poland attaches considerable importance to that body and calls on all States to redouble their efforts to invigorate the Conference as a platform for multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation negotiations. The impact of the economic and financial crises continues to affect most countries. The scarcity of high-quality jobs has become an issue of primary importance. Efforts are necessary to mobilize resources and provide opportunities for the benefit of the most vulnerable segments of society. Satisfying basic needs is once again at the forefront of global concerns. The energy sector has become an area of major attention. Costs, security of supplies and reducing pollution are some of the sensitive issues. We face the challenge of making clean energy not only a social preference but also a market choice. We need a shift in our thinking about the North- South dichotomy in order to allow the international community to move effectively forward. Allowing ourselves to be defined by our differences is a recipe for disaster. It is therefore important to focus on common elements and on the diversity of conditions and situations of States and to move away from a claims mentality. The pace of market globalization exceeds the capacity of many Governments to ensure global economic stability. The growing interdependence of national economies increases the risk of the transmission of destabilizing shocks between countries. Economic activities within the United Nations are today scattered among many institutions. This often leads to overlapping powers between them. The role of the United Nations might be to coordinate the objectives and ensure coherence between the activities of major international organizations, to provide the necessary political leadership and long-term strategic policy framework, and to promote stable and sustainable development. The High-level Plenary Meeting on the MDGs that ended on 22 September reconfirmed the importance of development cooperation and restated the commitment of the international community to attaining the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The Meeting recognized the crucial role of the United Nations and the United Nations system in the field of development cooperation and commended their continued engagement and efforts. Poland reiterates its support for implementing the MDGs. They constitute a primary point of reference for our programme of foreign assistance. We are also bound by the provisions of the Paris Declaration and the principle of aid effectiveness expressed therein. We strongly support coordination among all development partners. Our official development assistance is oriented to serve the pro-growth policies of our partners. The mobilization of domestic resources, foreign direct investment and good economic policy are the basic drivers of development. Development policies should therefore be implemented in accordance with the principles of sustainable development and good governance. We welcome the progress on the MDGs, which is largely a result of continued efforts by developing countries. With regard to development assistance, it is extremely important that the principles of national ownership and leadership, as well as of mutual accountability, be strengthened and fully respected. Poland is actively involved in promoting global development cooperation. We are committed to United Nations activities in the field of poverty reduction and the promotion of sustainable development. We note with satisfaction the positive results of the One United Nations reform and the increased efficiency of assistance provided by the United Nations. We support the activities conducted by the agencies of the United Nations agencies, in both the development and the humanitarian fields. Poland expects an ambitious, forward-looking and action-oriented outcome of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012. We look forward to attaining all the principal aims of the Conference, which should also bridge the trust gap between developed and developing countries evident in the climate change negotiations. Its outcome should be a focused political document, universal in nature, aimed at identifying concrete actions for all countries. It should be linked to the MDGs, taking into account the specific needs of developing countries. We call for a redoubling of the efforts to ensure that institutions involved in implementing the sustainable development agenda become more effective and efficient through improved synergies and the provision of adequate resources. Poland, which played host to the fourteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the fourth meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, will continue its efforts aimed at building international consensus on a comprehensive global post-2012 agreement. The role of the United Nations system is essential to maintaining an effective and efficient response to challenges posed by climate change. In this regard, we would like to thank the Secretary-General for putting climate change at the top of the agenda of the United Nations system and for his numerous efforts to address the negative impact of such change. Climate change is a global challenge that can be addressed effectively only through a global effort within the UNFCCC framework. Poland believes that the international community should continue to focus its attention on improved and enhanced implementation and monitoring of the three Rio Conventions, developing synergies among them, and on increasing the efficiency and coherence of the United Nations system. The consultative process inaugurated at the eleventh special session of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on the reform of the international environmental governance system was an important contribution to the debate on environmental governance in the context of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. While being realistic and pragmatic, we should also be ambitious. In conclusion, I wish to say a few words about solidarity. It is necessary to understand the relevance of international solidarity, working closely together, building new coalitions and bridging old divides to arrive at common objectives. Our common future is at stake. There is no guarantee of success, but surely we risk failure if we do not take action. New partnerships, building confidence in policy objectives, and positive engagement among partners are the necessary elements.

We have heard the last speaker in the general debate. Several representatives have requested to speak in exercise of the right of reply. May I remind members that statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to 5 minutes for the second intervention, and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I am taking the floor in exercise of the right of reply in connection with the statement made by His Excellency the Foreign Minister of Ethiopia this morning. Clearly, the Foreign Minister was trying to divert the attention of this body from his country’s refusal to withdraw its troops from southern Eritrean territories and his Government’s military misadventures in Somalia. Eritrea rejects all unfounded allegations, and I do not wish to dignify all of those made this morning by trying to address them at this late hour. In the interests of time, I will briefly respond to the main issue at hand. Eritrea does not have problems with its neighbours, and if it has had in the past, it has been able to resolve them successfully, peacefully and legally, with the exception of its issues with Ethiopia. Ethiopia cannot hide behind the Security Council resolution mentioned by the Foreign Minister. Its attempt to find comfort in a resolution and to use Eritrea as a scapegoat for the problems of Somalia is misplaced criticism, and when no evidence was found to substantiate Eritrea’s alleged support to the insurgents in Somalia, all eyes turned to Ethiopia. Even some members of the Transitional Federal Government admit that Ethiopia is using the Security Council resolution to pursue its own hidden agenda. More and more voices are being raised to critically examine Ethiopia’s self-serving policies and actions in Somalia. Some sources are certain that Ethiopia, with a standing army of about 800,000 — the largest in sub-Saharan Africa — receives about $2 billion worth of military support per annum, which is used to supply Somalia and in turn feeds insurgencies. The Government in Addis must be held accountable for its destabilizing policies and actions, and it must be able to separate itself from the political affairs of Somalia. Unless it does so, the problems in Somalia and in the subregion will continue. I wish to underscore the fact that Ethiopia has been the only constant factor throughout the political crisis in Somalia. Furthermore, that regime has been a cancer in the Horn of Africa. It is a very well-known fact that Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia in 2006 contributed to the rise of the Al-Shabaab group. Ethiopia’s occupation of Somalia not only created the greatest humanitarian crisis in Africa, but also significantly contributed to the destabilization of the country. Approximately 1.5 million Somalis were displaced and over 20,000 lives lost through its genocidal acts, which deserve thorough investigation by the relevant international bodies. The withdrawal of Ethiopian troops from Somalia was a face-saving measure for the Government in Ethiopia. Yet, refusing to learn from its military misadventures in Somalia, the Government of Ethiopia has again sent troops to central Somalia to continue its military and political interference in the affairs of that country. These acts should not be tolerated by any standard, and in particular not by the Security Council. The special treatment of Ethiopia is glaringly obvious and becoming a source of problems for the peace and stability of the subregion. Let all countries be subject to the same standards and set of rules, especially the Charter of the United Nations, which forbids military intervention unless it is authorized by the Security Council. While I have the floor, let me clarify Eritrea’s views on Somalia. Eritrea supports an inclusive peace process that allows all Somalis in the Government and outside the Government to come to the negotiating table. The peace process should be Somali-owned and Somali-driven, and Eritrea will continue to work constructively with all Somalis and the United Nations to achieve those objectives. Let me conclude by pointing out that Ethiopia has become part of the problem in Somalia, and that must be stopped if a Somali-owned and Somali-driven inclusive peace process is to take root in Somalia. Let me also urge the international community to call on Ethiopia to end its occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories in order to ensure a stable and secure subregion in Africa.

I am taking the floor in the exercise of the right of reply with regard to allegations directed at my Government by the Permanent Representative of Eritrea to the United Nations. Eritrea has been and is destabilizing the Horn of Africa, and that is a fact. Its sponsorship of various terrorist groups in the region has a long history, and that is another well-known truth. Nonetheless, despite its destructive role in the Horn, the international community has failed to take tangible measures commensurate with its bellicose nature. Late last year, the Security Council at last, after a long delay, imposed targeted sanctions on the Eritrean regime. Resolution 1907 (2009) was specifically aimed at trying to persuade Eritrea to mend its ways and to behave in a civilized and peaceful manner. Sanctions also underlined the message that international relations are governed by international law, which must be applied to its fullest extent. Eritrea cannot use its own excuses, real or imagined, to justify aggression against its neighbours, the blatant acts of destabilization it has been undertaking throughout the region, or the role it continues to play by supporting extremist elements in Somalia. Although evidence has never been in short supply, addressing the root cause of problems has never been Eritrea’s leaders’ strong point. That is why, ever since the imposition of the sanctions, the regime in Asmara has been waging a feverish campaign — as it has been doing this afternoon — to deflect attention from itself and to appear to be the underdog. Part of that campaign are Eritrea’s attempts at a make-believe fairy tale concerning the so-called occupied sovereign territories. I believe that my delegation responded adequately to this Eritrean mantra at yesterday’s meeting (see A/65/PV.22), and I will therefore not test the indulgence of members by repeating the same again today. What I would rather focus on this afternoon is the need to stay the course. The sanctions imposed by the Security Council in resolution 1907 (2009) have already had some impact. What is needed now is to firmly implement the sanctions policy, to exert more pressure on Eritrea and not to allow any backsliding on the issue just because of certain fictitious good behaviour that seems to have nearly seduced some quarters within the international community. The time is therefore long overdue for the Security Council to take resolute action and see to it that its decisions are complied with fully. With regard to the Ethiopian-Eritrean issue raised by the representative of Eritrea this afternoon, let me reiterate that Ethiopia agrees with the constantly affirmed view of the Security Council that the primary responsibility for the resolution of the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea rests entirely upon themselves. Eritrea should realize that the solution on boundary or any other differences can be found only by the two parties in a peaceful manner. Dialogue is the only way forward. Eritrea must understand that the option of violence is a complete non-starter.

I am exercising the right of reply in response to some incorrect assertions made by the Minister for External Affairs of India in his statement delivered today in the general debate (see A/65/PV.23). The Indian Minister for External Affairs once again made the self-serving claim that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. Nothing could be further from reality and the truth. Jammu and Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory that is still on the United Nations agenda. The United Nations has adopted more than a dozen resolutions calling for the settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute through a free and fair plebiscite under United Nations auspices. Numerous undertakings and statements made solemnly by the first Prime Minister of India are on record testifying to that fact. In his statement, the Indian Minister for External Affairs reaffirmed the resolve of his Government and the more than 1 billion people of India to stand by the commitments made by their first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. We welcome that reaffirmation. I would like to draw his attention to Prime Minister Nehru’s commitments on Kashmir. On 2 January 1952, in Calcutta, Prime Minister Nehru said, “Kashmir is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.” It is amazing that a country that continues to violate several United Nations resolutions, including those of the Security Council, and fails to fulfil the commitments made by its leaders both to the international community and to the people of Indian- occupied Kashmir, not only has the audacity to claim democratic and pluralistic credentials, but also aspires to become a permanent member of the Security Council. As regards human rights violations, Pakistan has only echoed what has been said and reported both by international and Indian human rights non-governmental organizations and media about the ongoing situation, resulting in brutal violations of the human rights of Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir. If it pains India to listen to the truth from Pakistan, I can quote a number of statements made by members of the international community as well as well- reputed international and Indian non-governmental organizations that have expressed similar serious concerns. On 21 September 2010, the Secretary-General expressed regret for the loss of lives in Indian-occupied Kashmir and called for an immediate end to violence. Amnesty International, on 17 September, commenting on the increasing death toll in peaceful protests in Kashmir, called on the Indian authorities to take urgent steps to ensure respect for the right to life and to investigate killings of demonstrators by police. Human Rights Watch on the same day pronounced that Kashmiris had repeatedly been left without any justice. It called on the Indian authorities to abide by and implement the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. Despite the use of brute force by Indian security forces, the recent widespread indigenous, peaceful and unarmed movement by the people in Indian-occupied Kashmir has once again proved the fact that Kashmiris despise the Indian occupation of their land and persist in their demand for the right to self-determination in accordance with Security Council resolutions. India has a tendency to malign Pakistan on the issue of terrorism in order to conceal the State terrorism it uses to stifle Kashmiri voices demanding the right to self-determination. Pakistan’s role in fighting terrorism has been well acknowledged by the international community. Although we are a victim of terrorism, our resolve to fight that menace has not wavered. The security forces of Pakistan continue to shed their blood in the fight against terrorism in order to make this world safer. On the other hand, there are countries that continue to provide unlimited supplies of weapons and money to those enemies of humanity who want to play havoc with our civilized societies. We need no exhortations on that account from anyone. The Indian Government is well advised to take careful stock of its own policies and conduct, which include supporting terrorist elements in neighbouring countries that contribute to the problems facing South Asia. It was also India that conceived, created and nurtured the most lethal terrorist organization to introduce suicide bombings to our region. Yet, India still has the nerve to give lectures on morality to others. The legitimate struggle of peoples for the right to self-determination cannot be equated with terrorism. The only real foreign hand involved in terrorist activities, resulting in dramatic and massive abuses of the human rights of the Kashmiri people, is that of Indian State terrorism let loose by occupation forces under draconian laws that provide the licence to kill and maim innocent Kashmiris. It is a known fact that more than 700,000 Indian security personnel are deployed in Indian-occupied Kashmir — the largest concentration of troops anywhere in the world. One wonders how such a huge concentration of armed forces, backed by the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, can give Kashmiris lessons on pluralism and democracy. Pakistan remains committed to the peaceful resolution of all issues with India through a comprehensive and sustained dialogue. A peaceful and comprehensive resolution of the Kashmir dispute, in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the Kashmiri people, will bring lasting peace not only between Pakistan and India, but to the South Asia region and beyond. Addressing the human rights concerns and ensuring the fundamental freedoms of the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir are the first step in that direction. I hope that this well-meaning advice will find receptive ears in the Indian establishment.

I would like to exercise the right of reply to the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia on 21 September in the general debate of the General Assembly (see A/65/PV.6). The statement of the Armenian Foreign Minister was yet another solid piece of evidence of that country’s outrageous racist ideology, as well as of its annexationist intentions and unwillingness to settle the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict in accordance with international law, by political means and in a constructive manner. There can be no doubt that the issue that Yerevan purports to advocate denotes a culture of impunity and the promotion of dangerous ideas of superiority and expansionism, based on the open ethnic and religious prejudices prevailing in Armenia’s policy and practice. The documentary evidence — and there is a mountain of it — proves that Armenia unleashed the war, attacked Azerbaijan, occupied its ancestral territories, including the Nagorny Karabakh region and several adjacent districts, carried out ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, and established a subordinate separatist entity on captured Azerbaijani territory along ethnic lines. The war led to the death and wounding of thousands of Azerbaijanis, the majority of them women, the elderly and children. It is essential to note that what the Armenian side considers to be the exercise of the right to self- determination by the Armenian minority group in Azerbaijan has been unambiguously qualified by the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as by other authoritative international organizations, as the illegal use of force against the sovereign and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Consequently, the claims of Armenia — which resorted to the unlawful use of force to occupy the territory of Azerbaijan and committed the most serious international crimes, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and even genocide — are contrary to and unsustainable under international law. Thus, the destructive political agenda of Armenia, aimed at dismembering multi-ethnic societies and legalizing a product of aggression and an outrageous manifestation of ethnic differentiation, is fated never to be realized. Armenia must finally realize that, for the purposes of lasting peace and stability, there is no alternative but to put a prompt end to its illegal occupation of Azerbaijani territory, renounce its policy of ethnic hatred towards and territorial claims on neighbouring nations, and establish civilized relations with all regional countries.

I apologize for asking for the floor, but it is really impossible to remain silent after what has just been said by the representative of Azerbaijan. The reference to the so-called military expansionism of Armenia made by the representative was totally misleading. Armenia has never started any aggression whatsoever. Moreover, it was Azerbaijan that started a full-scale war against the peaceful population of Nagorny Karabakh, forcing them to take up arms in order to protect their lives and homes. The current situation in the region is the consequence of Azerbaijan’s own decision to use military force to suppress the legitimate, just and peaceful quest of the people of Nagorny Karabakh to exercise their right to self-determination, which is guaranteed by international law and the United Nations Charter. Indeed, it is Azerbaijan that is in violation not only of the resolutions of the Security Council, which in fact urge the concerned parties to pursue negotiations within the framework of the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as direct contact between them. Azerbaijan’s refusal to engage in direct negotiations with the elected representatives of the Nagorny Karabakh Republic and its hostile stance towards anything Armenian are the main impediments to the solution of the Nagorny Karabakh issue. Meanwhile, what Azerbaijani representatives continuously fail to acknowledge is that Armenia has done exactly what the Security Council resolutions have called on it to do — to use its good offices with the leadership of Nagorny Karabakh to help find a peaceful solution to the conflict. A ceasefire has been in place since 1994, and now it is high time to find a comprehensive peaceful solution to the issue so that the people throughout our region can live in peace, prosperity and harmony.

I would like to exercise the right of reply in response to the statement delivered by the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea this morning (see A/65/PV.23). First, regarding the tragic sinking of the Republic of Korea’s naval ship Cheonan, the findings of the joint investigation group on the sinking of the Cheonan naval vessel were the result of a thorough, objective and scientific investigation, with the participation of five nations: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Sweden. Those findings were endorsed by the international community in the presidential statement adopted by the Security Council on 9 July 2010. In that regard, I would like to reiterate that the Security Council presidential statement stipulates that: “The Security Council underscores the importance of preventing further such attacks or hostilities against the Republic of Korea or in the region” (S/PRST/2010/13, p. 2). The unprovoked attack constituted a grave violation of the Armistice Agreement and the principles of the United Nations Charter. In that context, allow me to clarify the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s proposal to send its inspection team. My delegation wants to emphasize that there already exists an established mechanism for military talks. General officer-level talks between the United Nations Command (UNC) and the North Korean People’s Army (KPA) have been the designated forum for any Armistice-related issues, in accordance with the agreement reached between the UNC and the KPA in 1998. Since then, the UNC-KPA general officer-level talks have dealt with other cases of violation of the Armistice Agreement. In addition, my delegation is compelled to refute the arguments expressed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in claiming that it is a nuclear-weapon State. In that regard, my delegation wishes to draw attention to the final document of the eighth NPT Review Conference adopted last May, which clearly reaffirmed that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon State in accordance with the NPT.

Several delegations have asked to speak in exercise of their second right of reply. I remind them that statements in exercise of the second right of reply should be limited to five minutes.

I wish to remind the representative of Ethiopia once again that the key to resolving the problem between Eritrea and Ethiopia is the withdrawal of Ethiopian soldiers and institutions from Eritrean sovereign territories. With regard to the border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission has delimited and demarcated the border. What now remains is the withdrawal of Ethiopian soldiers from Eritrean sovereign territories. Ethiopia must respect the rule of law. Ethiopia’s dishonouring of its agreement is an irresponsible and shameful act. This issue cannot be swept under the carpet through diversionary tactics and the presentation of unfounded allegations. Ethiopia must face up to its treaty obligations, if it is interested in the security and stability of the region. On the question of Somalia, I wish to bring to the attention of this body the fact that Ethiopia continues to be the only constant factor throughout the political crisis in Somalia. This is very revealing of Ethiopia’s hidden agenda in Somalia. Ethiopia’s continued meddling in the affairs of Somalia is dangerous to Somalis and to the rest of the region. The international community must revisit and assess the situation and seek a better solution that empowers the Somalis to take charge of their destiny through an inclusive political process.

I am taking the floor in exercise of the right of reply to the statement just made by the representative of Pakistan. Predictably, my distinguished colleague from Pakistan has once again addressed the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and made baseless and false allegations against India that are far from fact. Such unsolicited and untenable remarks will not and indeed cannot divert attention from the multiple problems Pakistan must tackle for the common good of its people and indeed of the entire region. Rather than making unsolicited remarks about the internal affairs of others, Pakistan should seriously concentrate on addressing the enormous challenges confronting it — terrorism, extremism and sectarianism, to name a few — and on dismantling the terrorist infrastructure that exists on territories under its control. Violence in Jammu and Kashmir has been fuelled over the past decades by external forces that do not desire peace and progress in our region. The Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental rights of all of our people, including our brethren in Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of India. Free and fair elections in Jammu and Kashmir have been regularly held, and people have regularly exercised their right to franchise in order to elect their representatives.

I apologize for having requested the floor again in exercise of my right of reply to the remarks made by the Armenian delegation. We proceed from the strong understanding that the United Nations should be resorted to by Member States in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Organization and not misused for the political advantage of those who gravely violate international law, advocate the culture of impunity and promote dangerous ideas of racial, ethnic and religious superiority. Armenia’s stance proves that its thinking is far from United Nations vision on engaging in a sobre and efficient search for peace. We consider the provocative and irresponsible behaviour of Armenia an open challenge to the conflict settlement process and a serious threat to international and regional peace and security. We expect that Member States will work to persuade Armenia to cease its destructive policies, respect the generally accepted norms and principles of international law and negotiate in good faith with a view to achieving a durable solution to the conflict.

It is indeed regrettable and heartbreaking that my delegation has had to respond to the South Korean delegation concerning their number one issue, namely, the so-called sinking of the South Korean ship Cheonan. South Korean delegates have once again brought to the attention of this body an issue on which not even the United Nations Security Council has prepared an appropriate judgement or conclusion. My delegation would like once again to make its position clear, namely, that we, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, had nothing to do with the sinking of the ship Cheonan. Particular mention should be made of the paragraph of the Security Council’s presidential statement, I quote, “The Security Council takes note of the responses from other relevant parties, including from the DPRK, which has stated that it had nothing to do with the incident.” (S/PRST/2010/13, para. 6) The South Korean delegate mentioned the so- called scientific investigations and the results of the investigation of that sinking incident. The conclusive evidence presented by South Korea offers nothing more than conclusive doubts, and the results of the investigation by the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group present a mosaic-like scenario that is not scientifically based and is unilateral and not objective. This is why the DPRK straightaway rejected the unilateral investigative results of South Korea and proposed to dispatch its own inspection group from the National Defence Commission to the site of the sinking, in order to verify the investigation results objectively and scientifically. However, South Korea has refused to receive our inspection group, instead insisting that the international community should only accept its unilateral investigation results. If the South Korean authorities have nothing to hide, then there is no reason for them not to accept our inspection group to verify their investigation results. As long as the South Korean authorities refuse to accept our inspection group, suspicion will continue to grow in relation to this case. But it is not too late for them to make a decision to accept our inspection group. South Korea mentioned that they would not recognize the nuclear status of my country. We do not ask South Korea, or any country, to recognize or accept our status as a nuclear State. As we have clarified on many occasions, our nuclear weapons are not a means for attacking or frightening others but a deterrent in self-defence to counter aggression and attacks from outside. The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula will surely come, if a super-Power abandons its hostile policy towards my country and proves that by its actions. We will make real efforts to denuclearize the peninsula in the context of building a world free of nuclear weapons and free of the United States nuclear policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the future too, as we have done in the past.

We have both — Ethiopia and Eritrea — expressed our views on issues that are real and on those that are not so real or true. We have been throwing accusations and allegations at each other for almost a decade, to no avail. For the purposes of saving time, it is my belief, with regard to Somalia, that it would be useful if the Members of the Assembly could refer to the records of the outcome of the mini-Summit on Somalia convened by Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon last Thursday, calling on the spoilers of the peace process in Somalia to desist from their actions. Sanctions were not imposed on Ethiopia. They were imposed on the spoilers — that is, Eritrea. Sanctions were not handed down on Ethiopia, not because Ethiopia has been the favourite child of the international community, but because that was the choice of the African Union (AU). It would be really surprising if the AU and the international community had got it all wrong and Eritrea had got it right. With regard to demarcation, I do not have anything more to add, and, as I said earlier, the only way forward is through dialogue.

Repetition reflects a weakness of argument, so I will not indulge in that. My Indian colleague is trying to take help from the arguments that have been squarely rejected, by the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir as well as by the international community. Pakistan does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Jammu and Kashmir is, however, not an internal Indian matter. Being a principal stakeholder in the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, we retain the right to raise this issue in all international forums and will continue to extend moral, political and diplomatic support to the just struggle of the Kashmiri people to exercise their right to self-determination. The Indian reference to elections in Jammu and Kashmir that seek to justify its occupation has been rejected not only by the people of Kashmir but also by the Security Council. The International Commission of Jurists, in its report after visiting Jammu and Kashmir in 1995, concluded that the people of Jammu and Kashmir had acquired the right to self-determination at the time of the partition of India. That right has neither been exercised nor abandoned, and therefore remains capable of exercise. The ongoing indigenous peaceful, unarmed, non-violent and widespread movement for azadi, that is, freedom in Indian-occupied Kashmir, has once again proved that, despite facing decades of repression and some of the worst forms of human rights violations at the hands of Indian security forces, Kashmiris refuse to accept any solution other than the exercise of their just right to self-determination. Pakistan regrets the uncalled-for remarks on its internal matters by the Indian delegate. We are aware who the supporters and perpetrators of these situations are, who otherwise take cover behind democracy and stand on high moral ground. Pakistan is capable of frustrating, and determined to frustrate, all their nefarious designs in those areas. Indian interests would be better served, if that country would utilize its so- called ancient wisdom to deal with innumerable issues at home, while avoiding interference in others’ internal matters. The Jammu and Kashmir issue should not be used as a tool of State politics. It is about the destiny of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and about sustainable peace in our region. Pakistan remains committed to a peaceful resolution of all outstanding issues with India, including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir, through a sustained and comprehensive dialogue process. That process must yield concrete results and move from conflict management to conflict resolution.

I sincerely apologize to the Assembly and my colleagues for having to take the floor for a second time. The statement made earlier by the head of the Armenian delegation was intended to sincerely address the burning issues of the people of our region, regardless of their place of residence or the political status of their homeland. This should also be fully attributed to every single nationality, including Armenians, Russians, Jews, Greeks, Assyrians, Kurds, Yazidis, Arabs and Azeris, and representatives of every religion living today in the territory of the Nagorno- Karabakh Republic. Unfortunately, I regret to state that whatever was mentioned a few minutes ago by the representative of Azerbaijan was politically motivated and destructive, and in no way serves the noble goals of the Assembly, which are aimed at uniting our nations.

Regrettably, the Pakistani representative has once again taken the floor. We reject all the untenable and unsolicited remarks from the delegate of Pakistan.

We have heard the last speaker in exercise of the right of reply. I will therefore now share with you my concluding remarks, which I have entitled “Let us move forward towards a genuine global partnership”. Statement by the President The President (spoke in French): We have arrived at the end of our general debate of the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly. I would like to thank all speakers for their contributions. I am pleased that virtually everyone has had an opportunity to speak and for the quality of the debate. I hope that everyone who spoke has been heard. Now is the time to take stock so that we can make greater progress, together, on the issues of critical importance for our common well-being. I have been struck by the convergence of concerns expressed not only from this rostrum but also during the many bilateral meetings that I had the honour to host on the sidelines of this debate. If our concerns are shared, why then have so many tragic situations lasted for so long? Have we really taken the time to speak to one another, to search for solutions and to achieve reconciliation? Or have we merely been content to repeat the same things year after year? Let us put aside electoral cycles and purely national interests, so that we can forge consensus-based solutions that will enable us to move forward. The need to consolidate the still fragile global economic situation, the need to improve the reduction of poverty and the need to redouble efforts for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals were emphasized in many statements. In this regard, a strong and very welcome message was conveyed by the Summit on the Millennium Development Goals: we reaffirmed our determination to keep the promise made in the year 2000 and we have a plan of action. What we need now is for our words to be followed by actions. Too often in the past, those words have gone unheeded. We cannot afford to disappoint the expectations of the millions of men, women and children living in poverty. We will need to closely monitor the fulfilment of our commitments. The General Assembly must — and will — contribute towards this. The importance of UN Women for gender equality and the empowerment of women was highlighted. The establishment of that entity, which combines resources and mandates for a greater impact, is an example that could be followed in other areas. The crucial role of the United Nations in promoting human rights and combating human trafficking was also recalled. Many delegations spoke about issues of peace and security, the peaceful settlement of regional conflicts, migration and efforts to combat terrorism and organized crime. The importance of disarmament in the promotion of peace and development was highlighted. The essential role of United Nations peacekeeping operations was repeatedly acknowledged. We should never forget that peace and security are our primary calling. Nevertheless, the international community still has much to do to ensure that the United Nations fulfils its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. The situation in the Middle East, Sudan, the Balkans and too many other regions of the world remind us of this on a daily basis. Will we be brave enough to move beyond deadlock and oft-repeated positions of principle and be sincere in our efforts to begin the reconciliation that our citizens so desire? There was also praise for the work of the United Nations and its specialized agencies in the wake of the natural disasters in Haiti and Pakistan. Speaker after speaker dwelt on dangers connected with nature — including climate change, the loss of biodiversity and scarcity of resources — and reiterated the need for worldwide efforts to address those risks. The same appeal was made at our high-level meetings on biodiversity and the implementation of the Mauritius Strategy. The issue of sustainable development was mentioned in this connection. During this session of the General Assembly, I intend to step up discussion of this subject, and particularly of the green economy, in order to contribute to preparing for the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012. Time does not permit me to list every subject mentioned on this podium, but all of them are essential to the common good and all require a worldwide response. Many delegations raised the matter of global governance, the theme chosen for the general debate. The fact that the number of heads of State and Government in New York is higher than usual testifies to the considerable importance that most Members attach to reinforcing such governance. I am pleased that the theme of the debate was such a successful choice. The Group of 20 (G-20) is an unavoidable reality, and many delegations have pointed out its importance. However, as one of the G-20 members indicated, there needs to be open and ongoing dialogue with the Member States of the General Assembly in order for the G-20 to retain its relevance and legitimacy. We need to find the ideal combination of legitimacy and effectiveness. We must improve the machinery of information, consultation and cooperation between the United Nations and other players connected with global governance. As a first practical step, I intend to launch an informal debate with the Secretary-General and the G-20 host country to take place before and after the G-20 summits. There is also the possibility of an informal debate in the second half of my term to explore in a more general way paths towards a system of global governance that would be more representative, inclusive and open, and would encompass civil society and the private sector as important players in the system. We believe in the value of the United Nations. Many leaders have said that the Organization is the centrepiece of the global system of governance. It is universal and enjoys a unique legitimacy. But the lack of leadership and the need for major reform are also topics of frequent comment. While we agree on the importance of the tool that is the United Nations, are we making the best use of that tool? Are we doing what is needed to help us use it better? Are we ready to strengthen the Organization today? Are we not in the process of recreating the United Nations outside the United Nations by multiplying discussion forums and decision-making bodies? Would it not be better for us to act resolutely to adapt the Organization rapidly to current realities? Essential reforms are under way, especially with regard to the revitalization of the General Assembly and the reform of the Security Council, but also regarding the review of the Human Rights Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. We must move those reforms and reviews forward. We must also reassert the value of the economic organizations of the United Nations and allow them fully to perform the functions for which they were created. It is clearly up to you, the Member States, to make of the United Nations a strong tool that can play a central role in facing these global challenges and work for the common good. Allow me to end this general debate on a more personal note. In following our debates over the past few days, I have been struck by the generosity and determination unanimously expressed in favour of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. This sends a strong message about the capacity of the international community to act in solidarity. I have been impressed as well by the many statements to the effect that the world and our Organization currently find themselves at a turning point. However, I have also asked myself if, in addition to making such statements, we are putting the same energy into ensuring the proper functioning of global governance and the fulfilment of our primary mandates, which are peace and security. I sometimes have the feeling that we content ourselves with repeating worn-out sketches of ideas, looking for short-lived victories or simply accepting the status quo. To make true breakthroughs on the major projects related to global governance, the protection of human rights and the preservation of the planet, that is, to make progress on our grand plans to create a world of peace, well-being and friendship, we will need a great deal of creativity and a great deal of generosity. Let us not fear our own courage. I have just received another request for the exercise of the right to reply. I therefore give the floor to the representative of Viet Nam.

Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing us to speak very briefly. And let me apologize to all the other representatives for requesting to speak at this late hour. We want to speak in response to the statement made by Sweden about the so-called jailing and harassment of journalists in Viet Nam. We believe that no country is perfect and Viet Nam is no exception. Therefore, we have established and constantly improved the legal system of a State governed by laws after many decades of ravaging and destructive wars. At the same time, we are open to all comments as far as my country is concerned, provided that such comments are constructive and well-informed. We have engaged in dialogue with many interested countries, including, for example, the United States of America, Australia and Canada, to name a few, as well as the European Union. In that context, we regret that Sweden has made uninformed, misinformed and ungrounded comments about the so-called jailing and harassment of journalists in some countries, including Viet Nam, which are contrary to the tradition of friendship between the two countries on the basis of mutual respect and respect for international law, and has allowed itself the right to judge the situation in other countries without any basis or grounds.

I have no further requests for the exercise of the right of reply. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 8? Programme of work The President (spoke in French): I would like to draw the attention of the General Assembly to document A/INF/65/3, which has been distributed to all delegations desk to desk. It contains the programme of work of the Assembly and the tentative schedule of plenary meetings for the period from October to December 2010. I would also like to inform members that the lists of speakers for items listed in document A/INF/65/3 are now open. I should like to close this series of meetings by thanking all the representatives for their hard work.