A/67/PV.82 General Assembly

Before proceeding to the items on our agenda, I should like, in keeping with established practice, to draw the attention of the General Assembly to document A/67/693/Add.13, in which the Secretary-General informs the President of the General Assembly that, since the issuance of his communication contained in document A/67/693/Add.12, Sierra Leone has made the payment necessary to reduce its arrears below the amount specified in Article 19 of the Charter. May I take it that the General Assembly duly takes note of the information contained in document A/66/693/Add.13?

Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 21 September 2012, the General Assembly decided to allocate agenda item 20 to the Second Committee. To enable the General Assembly to take action expeditiously on the draft resolution *1333840* 13-33840 (E) before it today, may I take it that the Assembly wishes to consider agenda item 20 directly in plenary meeting and proceed immediately to its consideration?

I now give the floor to the representative of Turkmenistan to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.65.

Let me express my gratitude to all delegations for their constructive and fruitful negotiations that resulted in such a significant and valuable draft resolution (A/67/L.65) on the reliable and stable transit of energy resources. I would like in particular to thank the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the Secretariat for their valuable contribution to the preparation of this draft resolution. Energy is a central issue in nearly every major challenge and opportunity the world faces today. Universal access to energy is essential for jobs, security, climate change and food production, as well as to increasing incomes, strengthening economies and achieving equality. Universal access to energy is one of the Millennium Development Goals, and the Secretary-General is leading a Sustainable Energy for All initiative to make it achievable. In recognition of the importance of access to energy for sustainable economic development, the High-level Group on Sustainable Energy for All and the global Energy Access Practitioner Network have been launched, bringing together stakeholders from the private sector and other partners. Beginning with initiatives in the private sector and with regional authorities and national Governments, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, along with those groups and many other stakeholders, has been working on developing a more integrated approach to universal access to energy. Theose efforts were endorsed by the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which highlighted the fact that 2.5 billion people cook using open fires and have no access to any other form of energy. It is clear that the most vulnerable communities need access to energy for their development. Universal access to energy is essential to eradicating poverty. Ensuring efficient and reliable energy transportation across countries, regions and continents is one of the main challenges in guaranteeing access to basic energy resources. Turkmenistan is one of the leading suppliers of energy resources, with the fourth-largest reserves of hydrocarbon resources in the world. We have therefore consistently called for the establishment of a stable and reliable system of international energy supplies and for the elaboration of interactive frameworks for global energy markets that take into account modern realities. Turkmenistan believes that it is essential to take consensus-based decisions that serve as a basis for cooperation on the reliable and stable transit of energy. The reality of the past few decades has shown that a complex, multifaceted geopolitical process is under way at the global level, and new factors are emerging that are no less of a threat to peace, stability and development than terrorism, extremism or armed conflict. Unpredictable and erratic jumps in energy prices are the direct result of instability in the international system of energy supply markets. The geographic location of delivery routes has become a dominant factor in sustainable development and the successful development of countries, regions and entire continents. With respect to the historical background of the draft resolution, let me point out that, in 2008, upon the initiative of the President of Turkmenistan, the General Assembly, at its sixty-third session, adopted a resolution entitled “Reliable and stable transit of energy and its role in ensuring sustainable development and international cooperation” (resolution 63/210), which was sponsored by 57 countries. Such broad support demonstrated that the international community was unified in understanding the global significance of the issue of energy supplies, which has become an important step in establishing multilateral dialogue on the issue. In April 2009, in accordance with that resolution, the capital of Turkmenistan hosted a high-level conference on the reliable and stable transit of energy and its role in ensuring sustainable development. That meeting brought together the United Nations Under- Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, the Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the heads of a number of competent international organizations, high-level governmental delegations, representatives of the major world energy companies and financial institutions, and international experts. In May 2010, in Ashgabat, the Government of Turkmenistan and the OSCE held a conference on the theme “Strengthening regional cooperation in Central Asia for promoting stable and reliable energy within Eurasia”. The meetings held on this issue produced proposals on considering the ways and means to strengthen international cooperation in order to ensure the reliable transportation of energy resources while balancing the interests of producers, transit countries and consumers and taking into account the views of concerned States, international organizations, the business community and civil society. Participants expressed the need to continue dialogue to identify the main principles of energy transport that are acceptable to all stakeholders. The next step in that direction is the Secretary- General’s timely request seeking the views of Member States and the relevant regional and international organizations on the issues relating to the reliable transit of energy and on the possible modalities for international cooperation, and to communicate those views to the General Assembly at its sixty-eighth session. Turkmenistan is proposing to hold the first international experts’ meeting in Ashgabat in the first half of 2014. The meeting will provide a forum for international experts to exchange opinions on this issue. That will make a major contribution to the preparation of the report. The Government of Turkmenistan will cover all the financial costs associated with holding the meeting of experts. The draft resolution therefore entails no budgetary implications for the United Nations. We are confident that the meeting will promote a common approach to ensuring a reliable and stable supply of energy in today’s world. That is why we propose that the General Assembly consider draft resolution A/67/L.65, which we submitted to the General Assembly with the support of all countries of the Central Asian and Caspian region, the European Union, landlocked countries and other States. The adoption of the draft resolution, entitled “Reliable and stable transit of energy and its role in ensuring sustainable development and international cooperation”, will undoubtedly be an important step on the way to resolving one of the most pressing issues of sustainable development.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/67/L.65, entitled “Reliable and stable transit of energy and its role in ensuring sustainable development and international cooperation”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution, in addition to those delegations listed in the draft document, the following countries have also become sponsors of draft resolution A/67/L.65: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, India, Japan, Jordan, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Seychelles and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/67/L.65?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 20.

Members will recall that the Assembly concluded its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 20 at its 61st plenary meeting, on 21 December 2012. In order for the Assembly to take action on the draft resolution before it today, it will be necessary to reopen the consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 20. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to reopen its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 20?

Members will further recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 21 September 2012, the General Assembly decided to allocate sub-item (b) of agenda item 20 to the Second Committee. To enable the General Assembly to take action expeditiously on the document, may I also take it that the Assembly wishes to consider sub-item (b) of agenda item 20 directly in plenary meeting and proceed immediately to its consideration?

The Assembly will now take action on draft decision A/67/L.66, entitled “Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States”. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft decision A/67/L.66?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 20.

Members will recall that the Assembly held the debate on agenda item 121 and its sub-items (a) to (w) at its 40th plenary meeting, on 19 November 2012. I now give the floor to the representative of Djibouti to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.29.

In my capacity as the Chair of the group of members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in New York, I am pleased to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.29, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation”. The draft resolution is consistent with the spirit, mission and purposes of resolution 3369 (XXX), of 10 October 1975, by which the Assembly decided to invite the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to participate in the sessions and work of the General Assembly and of its subsidiary organs in the capacity of an observer. It should be recalled that this draft resolution was initially submitted in early December 2012, but was later withdrawn upon the request of a group that sought further discussions on certain provisions. In the intervening period, extensive negotiations took place that resulted in this finally agreed upon draft resolution. In its preambular paragraphs, the draft resolution reaffirms the shared common goals in preventive diplomacy, confidence-building, peacekeeping, conflict resolution and post-conflict peacebuilding, reconstruction and development. It further highlights the desire of the two organizations to continue to cooperate closely in the political, economic, social, humanitarian, cultural and scientific fields, in their common search for solutions to global problems such regional and international peace and security, disarmament, self-determination, fundamental human rights and combating international terrorism. It welcomes the initiatives for interfaith dialogue undertaken by the two organizations and notes the adoption of the Plan of Action for the Advancement of Women by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the establishment of the Department of Family Affairs at its general secretariat to deal specifically with issues concerning women and children, underscoring cooperation with relevant United Nations agencies, including the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. It also welcomes the efforts of the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to continue to strengthen cooperation within the two organizations in areas of common concern and review and explore innovative ways and means of enhancing mechanisms of such cooperation through the recently established working group. In its operative paragraphs, the draft resolution underscores, inter alia, the shared common goals of the two organizations in promoting and facilitating the Middle East peace process so that the process can reach its objective of establishing a just and comprehensive peace in the region. It welcomes the cooperation between the two organizations towards combating intolerance and the stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief, recognizes the strong need for global awareness about religious intolerance, condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and welcomes cooperation towards addressing that issue with all urgency. Before concluding, I would like to express my gratitude to all the participating delegations that have persevered over the past six months in discussions leading to the achievement of a common understanding on all the issues. I now request all Member States to adopt the draft resolution contained in document A/67/L.29 by consensus.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/67/L.29, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution, in addition to those delegations listed in document A/67/L.29, the following countries have also become sponsors of the draft resolution: Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Montenegro.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/67/L.29?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (r) of agenda item 121?

I now give the floor to the representative of Solomon Islands to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.56/Rev.1.

Under agenda item 60 and on behalf of the sponsors Nauru, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu and the additional sponsors Samoa, Vanuatu and Timor-Leste, I have the distinct honour to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.56/Rev.1, entitled “Self-determination of French Polynesia” and dated 1 March 2013. Agenda item 60 remained open at the conclusion of the 59th plenary meeting, held in December 2012. We come to this principal organ of our multilateral Organization because of our shared belief in it as the chief deliberative and most representative body of the multilateral system. More importantly, the Assembly is a body that promotes fundamental freedom for all people. Historically, French Polynesia was inscribed by the administering Power on the original United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by way of resolution 66 (I), adopted in 1946, together with New Caledonia. That was done in compliance with the obligations under Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 73 e, which required the administering Power to provide the General Assembly with information on developments towards the full measure of self- government in those territories. One year later, in 1947, the General Assembly was no longer furnished with information on French Polynesia, and the subsequent list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, published in 1963, omitted the Territory. What amounted to a de facto removal of French Polynesia and New Caledonia from United Nations oversight occurred without the concurrence of the General Assembly. It was not until 1986 that the General Assembly adopted resolution 41/41, which resumed international recognition that New Caledonia was a Non-Self- Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter, which provided appropriate international oversight for a legitimate process of self-determination. Accordingly, the General Assembly adopts a resolution on New Caledonia each year in the exercise of its review of the process of self-determination under way, pursuant to the Nouméa Accord. Two years ago, in June 2011, the Council of Ministers of the Government of French Polynesia took a decision seeking self-determination through the United Nations process. The Territory’s Assembly adopted a resolution in August 2011 to the same end. That resolution enjoys wide international support at the highest political level. Within the Pacific region, leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum have noted their support for the principle of self-determination for French Polynesia since as far back as 2004, and most recently in 2011 and 2012. Heads of Governments at the second “Engaging with the Pacific” conference in 2011 made a similar call, and the Polynesia Leaders Group has also made a pronouncement on the issue. In 2012, at the global level, the Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Heads of State and Government of NAM endorsed French Polynesia’s right to self-determination specifically in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant General Assembly resolutions, including the landmark Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Discussions on a draft resolution, including informal consultations among Member States, have been going on around the corridors of the United Nations for a while. The matter of a draft resolution on French Polynesia’s self-determination was initially taken up in 2011 at the end of the first year of consultations. This was delayed at the request of the administering Power because of its own national elections, held in May 2012. While there is no organic link between the national elections of an administering Power and the exercise by the people of a territory of their inalienable right to self-determination, in the interests of flexibility it was agreed to postpone consideration at that time, leaving open the relevant agenda item for consideration at the beginning of 2013. Accordingly, consultations continued with Member States throughout 2012, and a text of the draft resolution was published as A/67/L.56 on 7 February, followed by two informal meetings on the text with Member States. The revised text that emerged from this process was published on 1 March, taking into account substantive recommendations offered by interested delegations. The text of the revised draft resolution is now tighter and consistent with the agreed language of the 1986 resolution on New Caledonia (resolution 41/41 A). It was our wish and call to have the draft resolution introduced in March and then in April, but that did not happen. We are glad, however, that it is now before us. The spirit and purpose of the draft resolution complies with the established procedural practice of the General Assembly, which remains the ultimate authority for considering and referring the question of French Polynesia’s self-determination to the Fourth Committee, a matter that is within the scope of the Charter. Under Article 73 e of the Charter, the administering Power is required to provide information on French Polynesia. As I said before, the last report was received 66 years ago. Draft resolution A/67/L.56/Rev.1 is based on the principle that it is for the Non-Self-Governing Territory of French Polynesia to choose its future destiny in a just and fair process. It sends a simple message of peace and hope to a population that wants to determine its future. That right is also enshrined in the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which entered into force in 1976. This matter of decolonization remains unfinished business for the United Nations. The consideration of the draft resolution was based on three primary reference documents: the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. They provide a clear and solid foundation for the role and responsibility of the United Nations in efforts aimed at achieving peace and self-determination. Let me now respond to the some of the misunderstandings generated by the campaign launched by our friend and partner France. The outcome of elections on French Polynesia must not be equated with a referendum. It has no relevance to the inalienable right of the people of French Polynesia to self-determination. The draft resolution creates a process for this Non-Self- Governing Territory’s population to determine its political future, be it in sovereign independence, free association with the administering Power, maintaining the current status quo or integrating politically with the administering Power. The draft resolution outlines a peaceful process and focuses on every aspect of the long-term interests of the people of French Polynesia. We and the other sponsors call on all members to adopt it by consensus, and in so doing to support the Charter and honour the Decolonization Declaration. We believe in the decolonization process  — which many of us went through — as it is conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. As my predecessor the late Mr. Francis Saemala said in our national statement 27 years ago during the debate on New Caledonia (see A/41/PV.92), that decolonization process, through resolution 41/41 A, on self-determination, helped many of our countries, including my own, attain that status smoothly. The role of the United Nations provided the assurance that progress towards statehood and nation-building was being made under the Organization’s watchful eye. In that connection, we the sponsors believed in our multilateral system then, and we now once again call with confidence on everyone to support the principle of self-determination and adopt the draft resolution before us by consensus.

The Assembly will now proceed to consider draft resolution A/67/L.56/Rev.1, entitled “Self-determination of French Polynesia”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

In connection with draft resolution A/67/L.56/Rev.1, entitled “Self- determination of French Polynesia”, I wish to put on record the following statement of financial implications on behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. In paragraph 2 of the draft resolution, the Assembly requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to consider the question of French Polynesia at its next session and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its sixty-eighth session. In anticipation that the request for documentation contained in that paragraph would constitute an addition to the documentation workload of the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management for one document to be issued in all six languages annually, beginning with 2014, this would entail additional requirements for $101,800 for documentation services in the biennium 2014-2015. No provision has been included under the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015 for that activity and, as such, an additional allocation of funds would be required. Accordingly, should the General Assembly adopt draft resolution A/67/L.56/Rev.1, additional resources in the amount of $101,800 would be required under the programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015 under section II, “General Assembly and Economic and Social Affairs and Conference Management”. That would require additional appropriations of $101,800 to be included in the programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/67/L.56/Rev.1. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce, that since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed in that document, the following countries have also become sponsors of draft resolution A/67/L.56/Rev.1: Samoa, Timor-Leste and Vanuatu.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/67/L.56/Rev.1?

Before giving the floor to the speakers in explanation of position, may I remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The United Kingdom disassociates itself from consensus on resolution 67/265. The United Kingdom’s position on the United Nations decolonization process is well known. We regret that the Special Committee on Decolonization continues with its outdated approach. In addition, on this particular resolution, the United Kingdom believes that it is not for the General Assembly to determine in any particular case that an obligation exists for a State to submit information under Article 73 (e) of the Charter of the United Nations.

We regret that the Kingdom of the Netherlands must disassociate itself from the consensus on resolution 67/265, entitled “Self- determination of French Polynesia”. The Kingdom of the Netherlands does support the inalienable rights of the people of Non-Self-Governing Territories to self- determination. However, the General Assembly must adhere to the views expressed through democratic processes by the people of such non-self-governing territories, including French Polynesia.

I want to state that in the light of the letter from President- elect Gaston Flosse to the President of the General Assembly and the resolution adopted yesterday by the French Polynesian Assembly disapproving of the resolution before the General Assembly, Germany is of the opinion that the General Assembly should not have continued its consideration of resolution 67/265. Germany therefore disassociates itself from consensus and requests that the Secretariat reflect this position in the record of this meeting.

The United States strongly affirms the principle of self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations as one of the fundamental values of the Organization. The facts in this case are clear. The people of French Polynesia, through their democratically elected representatives, have made clear that they do not support resolution 67/265. The newly elected Government, which takes office today, has notified the General Assembly that this resolution “ignores our autonomy and the will of our people”. We are surprised that the sponsors have continued with General Assembly action on this resolution, given the will of the people it purportedly benefits. For these reasons, the United States disassociates itself from consensus on this resolution.

Mexico recognizes the inalienable right to self-determination of people. It is one of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, enshrined specifically in paragraph 2 of Article 1. It was also reaffirmed by the General Assembly in resolution 2625 (XXV). The principle is also recognized in article 1 of the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights. This right is enshrined in the Constitution of Mexico as a guiding principle of our foreign policy. It is precisely because of our strict respect for that principle that Mexico believes that, in the case we are considering today, we must guarantee the rights of all of the parties involved to freely exercise that right. This is part of the equitable procedure between parties, which the Assembly must guarantee. Mexico would therefore have preferred to have seen a positive response given to the request by the new authorities of French Polynesia, which were elected by a democratic process and assumed office this very day, to postpone the consideration of this matter to allow for the establishment of official dialogue with the authors of this initiative and the General Assembly. For those reasons, the delegation of Mexico wishes to put on record its reservations with regard to the manner in which resolution 67/265 was adopted.

Argentina joined the consensus in favour of resolution 67/265 out of respect for the right to self-determination of the people of French Polynesia, in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV) and other relevant resolutions of the General Assembly on decolonization. The resolution just adopted is clearly in the spirit of resolution 1514 (XV) and other relevant resolutions of the General Assembly on decolonization. At the same time, Argentina believes that the Special Committee on Decolonization is the appropriate forum for tackling the question addressed in this resolution. We have full confidence in the work carried out Special Committee and believe that the Polynesian people will be able to convey its position regarding the status that that is aspires to attain in that forum. We are convinced that decolonization is a process that must be supervised by the United Nations, in which the administering Powers fully shoulder the responsibilities they bear in order to attain the objectives set out in resolution in 1514 (XV). The return of French Polynesia among the territories under the consideration of the Special Committee on Decolonization will undoubtedly contribute to moving forward the work remaining to be done with regard to that territory, in keeping with the principles established by the United Nations for such cases. This principled position is based on Argentina’s firm commitment to the self-determination of all peoples in all cases recognized by the United Nations, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly.

I wish to take the floor to briefly explain the position of Indonesia on resolution 67/265, which the Assembly has just adopted. The Charter of the United Nations declares that one of the purposes of the Organization is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The right of self-determination is also one of the principles stipulated in Indonesia’s national Constitution. It is reflected in our foreign policy, with the caveat that it cannot be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action that would dismember or impair totally or in part the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign or independent States. Indonesia is of the view that the consideration of the question of French Polynesia during the next session of the Special Committee on Decolonization is solely based on a specific historical context and shall not set a precedent for those territories that used to be on the agenda of the Special Committee but the status of which has already changed. Moving forward, we encourage the Government of France and the French Polynesians to continue to engage in constructive dialogue that would best serve the fundamental interests of the people of French Polynesia.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position. I now give the floor to the representative of Solomon Islands.

On behalf of the sponsors of resolution 67/265, let me thank all those who joined the consensus on the resolution. We also note those who had other positions. We thank them all and we look forward to working with them. We look forward to once again seeing the administrating Power, France, and the Non-Self-Governing Territory, French Polynesia, continue their cooperation within the appropriate body.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 60?

I now give the floor to the representative of Uruguay to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.64.

As a representative of the country that has held the presidency of the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic since January, when the seventh ministerial meeting of States members of the zone was held in Montevideo, I have the honour to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.64, to which a small amendment was just made, eliminating the phrase “with appreciation” in paragraph 2. This is a text that, with the relevant technical updates, is based on the two previous resolutions on this subject (resolutions 65/121 and 61/294), which were adopted by consensus by the General Assembly in December 2010 and September 2007, respectively. We have added a reference to one of the most important commitments made at the Montevideo ministerial meeting concerning the process of revitalizing the Zone, in order to encourage more regular and in-depth meetings of leaders and experts from the countries of the two South Atlantic coastlines. The draft resolution takes note of the recent report of the Secretary-General (A/67/802) and the adoption of the Montevideo Declaration and Plan of Action, the two substantive documents adopted by members of the zone at the most recent ministerial meeting. We hope the outcome of that meeting will be an important milestone on the road towards achieving the objectives of the zone and in the process of revitalizing it. In addition, the draft resolution reaffirms the role of the zone of peace and cooperation as a forum for greater interaction and support among member States. In that respect, we welcome the interest expressed by several countries to provide and benefit from opportunities for cooperation in different areas of work identified in the Action Plan, such as mapping and exploration of the seabed, the protection and preservation of the marine environment and its resources, air and sea transport, the fight against organized crime, peacekeeping and trade facilitation, among others. On behalf of the member States of the zone, I urge the various organizations, agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations, as well as other institutions and bilateral actors, to support the efforts that countries of the zone are undertaking to implement its objectives, in particular the Montevideo Plan of Action. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the delegation of Angola, outgoing President of the zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic, for its hard work. Uruguay is committed to the revitalization of the zone and hopes to hand over the presidency to Cape Verde in 2015 with a consolidated agenda and concrete results to show for our efforts. The delegation of Uruguay welcomes the support of all delegations to this draft resolution, especially its sponsors.

Argentina is proud to be a sponsor of the draft resolution just introduced by the representative of Uruguay. We became a sponsor on the basis of the conviction that the zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic is extremely important. This is an initiative that was taken in 1986 by Brazil with the support of my country, Argentina. As the Government of Argentina had the chance to highlight at the most recent ministerial meeting of the zone, held in Montevideo in January, not only have the issues of importance to the countries of both regions with coastlines on the South Atlantic not declined in their urgency, but there has been an increase in those countries’ responsibility, willingness and determination to overcome the difficulties that must still be dealt with. That is necessary in order to implement the shared ideal of cooperation against the backdrop of decades of international relations characterized more by the North/ South dichotomy and the legacy of the Cold War than by the potential for cooperation between developing countries. We thank the Government of Uruguay for hosting the very fruitful Montevideo meeting. At that meeting, we were able to adopt substantial documents and concrete proposals to give new impetus to and revitalize the zone. A fundamental characteristic of the zone is that it is a strategic relationship between peers. This initiative makes it possible to connect the two sides of the South Atlantic and take advantage of the opportunities for cooperation between the two regions, which still have great potential in terms of coordinating and further promoting their relations. The shared interests of the countries of the region are amply reflected in the relative ease with which they were able to reach common positions on issues on the international agenda. In the Montevideo Declaration, we see a convergence of visions on issues that remain extremely sensitive, such as the need to continue fighting to put a rapid and unconditional end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations. We expressed our continued concern with situations that have a negative impact on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of certain member States of the region, and we supported their efforts to promote the principles of a peaceful resolution of conflicts and to find negotiated solutions to territorial conflicts that affect them. Furthermore, on issues such as sustainable development and climate change, or the importance of oceanic and marine resources, among others, the convergence of views of the countries of the region is a reality. Of fundamental importance is the status of the zone as a zone not only of peace and cooperation, but also free from nuclear weapons. This effort is part and parcel of the principles of peace and security that led to the birth of the United Nations, as well as various regional and subregional organizations to which the States of the region belong. That is why Argentina considers it appropriate that even those countries that are not located in the zone should maintain a responsible and respectful posture with regard to the aims of peace and security and the eradication of weapons of mass destruction established by the zone. Moreover, the possible use of South Atlantic routes for drug trafficking, piracy and terrorism are challenges that have been identified by countries in the region. We need to find a solution to those challenges that recognizes the differences among the countries of the region without external interference in order to be able to appropriately address those issues in a way that reflects their multidisciplinary and multidimensional nature. The Montevideo Plan of Action once again translated political determination into concrete measures of cooperation and recognized the variety of sectors where the potential for South-South cooperation was identified. I underscore the cooperation planned in the area of mapping and exploration of the seabed, the protection and conservation of the marine environment and living marine resources, marine science, air and maritime transportation, port security, maritime safety and security, defence, public security and combating transnational organized crime, among other issues. Believing it essential to work on concrete cooperation projects among countries of the zone, Argentina identified a number of concrete proposals and offers that were included in the Montevideo Plan of Action in order to meet the needs identified during the exchanges that led to its adoption. In that regard, Argentina has made cooperation programmes available to the other members of the zone, as reflected in the latest report of the Secretary-General (A/67/802). I refer to cooperative initiatives in the areas of science and innovation, industry, agricultural development, defence and security, as well as cooperation in determining the external limits of the continental shelf, among other issues. In conclusion, we thank Member States for their support for this regional initiative, which embodies the active commitment of both coasts of the South Atlantic to social and economic development, strict respect for human rights, international law, peace and international security.

Twenty-seven years ago, Brazil proudly participated in the establishment of the zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic by the General Assembly. The initiative at that time constituted an innovative commitment between African and South American countries towards the creation of a South Atlantic identity. For my country, it is clear that the founding principles of the zone remain as important now as they were in 1986. The consolidation of the South Atlantic region as a zone of peace, free from nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, embraces the promotion of sustainable development and South-South cooperation. It is a contribution to the recognition of the central role that developing countries play in the world today. The convening of the seventh ministerial meeting of States members of the zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic in Montevideo on 15 and 16 January enabled us to pursue our efforts aimed at the revitalization of the zone and at deepening cooperation among members. In that regard, it is my pleasure to congratulate the Government of Uruguay on having successfully organized and hosted that meeting, and to thank it and the Uruguayan people for their kind hospitality. As South America and Africa’s participation in world dynamics grows, the South Atlantic will gain relevance not only as a busy commercial route or as a reservoir of valuable natural and mineral resources, but also as the expression of our commitment to the pursuit of economic and social development within the bounds of the sustainability of our countries. The members of the zone would like to count on the international community to strengthen the zone in all its aspects. Our endeavours are guided by social justice, cooperation and long-lasting peace. Brazil strongly believes that a permanent dialogue can prevent conflict, and that is the very meaning of the term “zone of peace”. To achieve the goals of peace and cooperation, social and economic inclusivity must be at the core of our actions. Cooperation among the members of the zone should therefore be intense and wide-ranging, including in areas such as the rational use of energy resources, the sustainable and rational use of marine resources, the facilitation of trade and investment, the sustainable management of coastal areas, the exchange of experts in marine scientific research and education. The zone is a promising area of economic growth and prosperity, with fast-growing economies that can contribute to a future of development and increasing trade among its members. African and South American States members of the zone are bound by a common cultural heritage and by strong historical ties, yet we are determined to deepen our mutual knowledge and to better work together towards our established goals. During the seventh ministerial meeting of the States members of the zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic, our Ministers reinforced their commitment to pushing for increased cooperation among the Member States, building on undertakings agreed at the ministerial meeting held in Luanda in 2007, and at the round table held in Brasilia in 2010. The Montevideo Declaration and Plan of Action, adopted at the Montevideo meeting, will serve as valuable guidelines for our future cooperation initiatives. In the Ministerial Declaration issued at the Montevideo meeting, member States renewed their commitments and exchanged views on multiple important issues, such as global governance, development, economic and financial issues, disarmament, peace and security, defence, sustainable development and climate change, oceans and marine resources, and international crime. The Montevideo Plan of Action contains provisions for a number of themes for cooperation among Member States of the zone, including cooperation on mapping and exploration of the seabed, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research, air and maritime transportation, maritime safety and security, public security and transnational organized crime and capacity-building. We count on the international community to help us to reach those goals.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this agenda item. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/67/L.64, entitled “Zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic”, as orally revised. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution, in addition to those delegations listed in document A/67/L.64, the following countries have also become sponsors of the draft resolution: Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Montenegro, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Spain, Togo and Turkey.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to adopt draft resolution A/67/L.64, as orally revised?

Before giving the floor to the speaker in explanation of position, I would remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. I now give the floor to the representative of the United Kingdom. Sir Mark Lyall Grant (United Kingdom): The United Kingdom welcomes the continuing cooperation between States in the zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic. But the United Kingdom would like to place on record that it strongly disagrees with certain elements of the Montevideo Declaration, including the false claim that the United Kingdom is violating resolution 31/49 through the development of so-called illegitimate hydrocarbon exploration activities in the Falkland Islands, South Georgia Islands, South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, and the reinforcement of its military assets in the South Atlantic. In that context, the United Kingdom notes that paragraph 2 of the resolution just adopted takes note of the adoption of the Montevideo Declaration and that it does not therefore express the General Assembly’s approval of the content of the Declaration. The United Kingdom would like to take this opportunity to reiterate its well-known position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands or South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas of those territories. The principle of self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations underlies the position of the United Kingdom on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination and the right to develop their economy, including developing their natural resources for their own economic benefit. The United Kingdom unequivocally supports that right. The Falkland Islanders have made their views clear in the recent referendum when they voted overwhelmingly in support of retaining their constitutional links with the United Kingdom.

We have heard the only speaker in explanation of position. Before giving the floor to speakers in exercise of the right of reply, I would remind delegations that statements made 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.

In response to the views expressed by the delegation of the United Kingdom on the question of the Malvinas Islands, the delegation of Argentina categorically reiterates the statements made by the President of Argentina before the Special Political and Decolonization Committee on 14 June 2012 and before the General Assembly on 25 September 2012 (see A/67/PV.7). The Government of Argentina recalls that the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas are an integral part of Argentina’s national territory and that they are being illegally occupied by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are the subject of a sovereignty dispute between our two countries, which is recognized by various international organizations. The illegal occupation exercised by the United Kingdom led the General Assembly to adopt resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 — all of which recognize the existence of the sovereignty dispute on the issue of the Malvinas Islands and urges the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and lasting solution to the dispute. For its part, the Special Political and Decolonization Committee has repeatedly made statements to the same end, most recently through the resolution adopted on 14 June 2012. Similarly, on 5 June 2012, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted a new declaration on the issue in similar terms. Argentina regrets the fact that the Government of the United Kingdom is attempting to distort historical facts with the obvious purpose of concealing the act of usurpation committed in 1833, which, since the British invasion, has been the subject of constant and repeated protests by Argentina. That distortion also underscores the clear lack of certainty of the United Kingdom with regard to what it considers to be its rights over the Malvinas Islands. Argentina reiterates that the principle of the self- determination of peoples, which is only basis upon which the United Kingdom is asserting its alleged rights and which is referred to by the United Kingdom exclusively with regard to the Malvinas Islands, is totally and clearly inadmissible and inapplicable to the dispute between the two countries as to sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands. The Argentine Republic regrets that the United Kingdom continues to irresponsibly generate expectations among the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands through its comment on the illegal vote, which has not changed, nor will it change, the underlying issue of the Malvinas. Its results have not, nor will they, put an end to the sovereignty dispute nor to the unquestionable rights of Argentina. Similarly, the Argentine Republic rejects the illegitimate unilateral actions taken by the United Kingdom in the disputed area, which include the development of hydrocarbon, fishing and even military activities, in clear contravention of what has been established by the international community in resolution 31/49. The Argentine Republic reaffirms its legitimate rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, which are an integral part of Argentina’s national territory. Sir Mark Lyall Grant (United Kingdom): In response to the last comment from the representative of Argentina, I would like to make it clear that the United Kingdom defends the Falkland Islanders’ right to decide their own future, the right to self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is a fundamental human right for all peoples. There are three parties to this debate, not just two as Argentina likes to pretend. The islanders cannot simply be written out of history. As such, there can be no negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless, and until, the islanders so wish. The Argentine Government’s public comments denying the Falkland Islanders’ existence and declining to meet them face to face, while at the same time calling for discussions, are hypocritical and out of step with the twenty-first century. The United Kingdom has administered the Falkland Islands peacefully and effectively for nearly 180 years. Some of the people on the islands can trace their Falklands ancestry back through nine generations, longer than many South Americans can trace back their own family roots in their countries. We want to have a full and friendly relationship with Argentina, as neighbours in the South Atlantic and as responsible fellow members of the Group of 20. But we will not negotiate away the human and political rights of the people of the Falkland Islands against their will or behind their backs.

With regard to what the representative of the United Kingdom said about the Malvinas Islands, the Argentine delegation would like to reiterate everything that was just said in our previous statement, as well as the statement by the President of Argentina to the Special Committee on Decolonization on 14 June 2012, along with her speech to the General Assembly on 25 September 2012 (see A/67/PV.7). Argentina regrets that the British Government is trying to distort historical facts with the aim of covering up the act of usurpation that occurred in 1833. As a country committed to human rights, we emphasize that Argentina respects the right to free self- determination. However, the solution to the sovereignty dispute is not dependent upon the result of a vote through which the subjects of the British Crown express their views on their wish to remain British. To allow the British inhabitants of the territory to be the arbiters of a dispute to which their own country is a party distorts the right of peoples to self-determination, because there is no such thing as a people of the Malvinas subject to subjugation, domination or exploitation by a colonial Power. Argentina would like to recall that the United Nations has clearly set out the way to settle a dispute about sovereignty, which is through renewed negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom while duly taking into account the interests of the inhabitants of the islands and excluding the principle of self-determination in the case of the Malvinas. The Argentine Republic therefore reaffirms its legitimate right of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, which are an integral part of Argentina’s national territory.

May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 35?

I now give the floor to the representative of Guatemala to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.60.

Once again, we meet to consider the recent evolution of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala. It will be recalled that the Commission was established in September 2007, as an innovative effort whereby the State of Guatemala and the United Nations joined forces to fight impunity in my country. Over the years, it has resulted in three General Assembly resolutions, namely, resolutions 63/19, 64/7 and 65/181. The Commission was set up through Guatemalan legislation, which granted the authority to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to designate a Commissioner. Its activities are financed through Government contributions and the international donor community. Its role has been to strengthen national institutions in the justice and security sectors through the provision of technical assistance and by giving a subsidiary role to the Guatemalan entities involved in criminal prosecution. The Commission is conceived as an interim arrangement, and its functions will be fully absorbed by Guatemala’s institutions at the end of its mandate. In 2010 the Commission’s mandate was extended to September of this year. Although important progress has been made in transferring capacity to national institutions, especially the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and there has also been progress in introducing legal and institutional reforms aimed at strengthening Guatemalan institutions in the justice and security areas, the Government concluded that in order to consolidate those gains it was important to extend the mandate one last time, until September 2015. Accordingly, in a letter dated 30 November 2012, President Otto Pérez Molina proposed an additional two-year extension to the Secretary-General, who agreed to the proposal in his letter of 15 January. The Secretary-General reports on this extension in his report of 27 March (A/67/814), which is now before the Assembly. As pointed out in the report, the presence of the Commission has had an important qualitative impact on the institutions of the Guatemalan State involved in strengthening the system of justice and the rule of law. A powerful example of that impact was the Court decision of last week condemning an ex-Head of State on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in 1982. Although the sentence could still be appealed, the point to underscore is the freedom, independence and autonomy with which judicial institutions have carried out their work in recent times. In particular, I highlight the fruitful working relationship between the Commission and the Prosecutor’s Office, its main national interlocutor. Both the Government and the United Nations Secretariat have regularly briefed Member States on the progress that has been achieved. The last such meeting took place in New York on 6 September 2012, where my Government’s high-level representation included the Vice-President and representatives at the highest level of the other branches of the State, as well as the Commissioner himself, Mr. Francisco Dall’Anese Ruiz. The next update meeting will be held in New York in the coming weeks. Before concluding, I reiterate the profound gratitude of the Government of Guatemala to the great number of countries among the donor community that have contributed to the maintenance of the Commission through financial and in-kind support. Their solidarity with the Commission has been both generous and persistent. In conclusion, draft resolution A/67/L.60 which I am introducing to the plenary today, with the support of over 80 sponsors, whom I also wish to thank, seeks to carry forward resolution 65/181 and takes note of the report that the Secretary-General has presented to us. We value the creative partnership established between Guatemala, the United Nations and the donor community, and trust that, at the end of the new extension in the life of the Commission, the institutions of the Guatemalan State will emerge strengthened and ready to assume the responsibilities of our sovereign and democratic nation.

I now give the floor to the observer of the European Union.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member States. The acceding country Croatia; the candidate countries Turkey, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Iceland and Serbia; the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina; the European Free Trade Area country Norway, member of the European Economic Area; and the Republic of Moldova align themselves with this statement. At the outset, let me express our appreciation for the important role played by the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). I wish to thank Commissioner Francisco Dall’Anese Ruiz and his team for their tireless dedication in carrying out the mandate of the Commission. The Commission remains today a positive force in the fight against impunity in Guatemala. Through its highly professional work, the Commission has been able to address the particular challenges facing by the Guatemalan justice system. The aim of the Commission is to support the Guatemalan State institutions in the investigation and prosecution of certain crimes. It is therefore of the utmost importance that all public institutions, as well as society at all levels, fully support the work of the Commission and continue to provide the necessary cooperation. We have a proven record as a committed and lasting partner in working to consolidate the rule of law in Guatemala. The European Union has provided continuous support to the structural reform processes in the justice and security sectors in Guatemala. The fight against impunity has, of course, always been a priority in those processes. The European Union and its member States have therefore played a crucial role in providing support to CICIG since it began its work, both politically and financially. In financial terms, approximately €11 million have so far been allocated from the European Union budget. In order to follow up on the recent extension of the Commission’s mandate and with the specific aim of supporting both its existing strategy and the effective and sustainable transfer of its capacities to Guatemalan institutions, the European Union is currently in the final stages of approving a final contribution of €4 million. I wish to reaffirm our support for draft resolution A/67/L.60, before the General Assembly today, which takes note of the progress achieved in various areas of the Commission’s mandate and calls on the Government of Guatemala to step up its efforts in combating impunity. While we are fully aware of the need to extend the Commission’s mandate until September 2015 — which it is hoped will be the final such period — we remain concerned about the continuing violence and cases of impunity in Guatemala. Finally, we wish to underscore the important need to provide further assistance to Guatemala in building its State institutions so as to ensure that it has sufficient resources and capacities to take on the tasks that have been performed in recent years by CICIG.

As the current Chair of the Central American Integration System (SICA), I have the honour to address the Assembly on behalf of its member States: Belize, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Costa Rica. With this statement, we wish to place on record our support for draft resolution A/67/L.60, introduced by the representative of Guatemala, and to express our solidarity with Guatemala’s efforts to strengthen the rule of law and the fight against impunity, and to recognize once again the work carried out by the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). We thank the Secretary-General for his letter dated 20 May 2013 (A/67/814) addressed to the President of the General Assembly, in which, in accordance with resolution 65/181, he reports on the work of CICIG and on the implementation of that resolution. The letter identifies the significant progress achieved in implementing the mandate of the Commission and on pending issues that require further attention. The mission of CICIG is directly linked to the situation in Guatemala. However, for States members of SICA its contribution extends beyond Guatemala and has an impact on the entire region. The success it has already achieved, its potential effect in combating transnational organized crime and impunity, and the development of the institutional capacities necessary to shore up its contributions will be critical to the future not just of Guatemala but of the entire Central American region. The decision to establish CICIG, which was taken by agreement between Guatemala and United Nations on 12 December 2006 and endorsed by the Guatemalan Congress in August 2007, was a visionary decision of both parties. CICIG is an institutional mechanism without precedent in our hemisphere, through which Guatemala, without ceding its sovereign authority, receives strategic and operational support from the international community in strengthening its judicial system and promoting the work of the Commission created to that end. The work of CICIG has been key to the investigation and prosecution of several criminal cases and thus in the direct administration of justice. Even more important is its role in the development of far-reaching judiciary and institutional reforms, in strengthening law-enforcement institutions, attorney generals’ offices and tribunals, and in fostering a culture of transparency and accountability in several sectors of Guatemalan society. Moreover, we underscore the commitment of authorities from Guatemala’s executive, legislative and judicial branches to the work of the Commission. Their support was made evident on 6 September 2012, when the Vice-President of the Republic, the President of Congress and the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, together with the Attorney General, the Commissioner of CICIG and the Deputy Minister, appeared before that organization to give an account of its work and request an extension of the CICIG mandate for two more years. The States members of SICA welcome the decision of the Secretary-General to extend that mandate until 3 September 2015. In so doing, we urge the international community to continue to support CICIG and Guatemala, and we reiterate our solidarity with Guatemala’s efforts to strengthen the rule of law and combat impunity.

Argentina would like to reiterate and explain its support for the important work carried out by the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). By “important” work, we mean substantive work, transformational work and emancipatory work, because when a Government or an entire society decides to combat impunity, it is opting for freedom, fundamental rights and full respect for human rights. There is no doubt that, through that choice, our brothers and sisters in Guatemala were expressing their desire to create that institution as an essential instrument for cooperative efforts in the strengthening of the rule of law, the justice system and policies that support respect for the human rights of every single individual in their society. That desire expressed is enshrined in draft resolution A/67/L.60, which we here to support today. We welcome the fact that a country of our region has set an example by deciding to reject all forms of violence, to eradicate all forms of the corrosive force of corruption, to seek out justice and due process and to combat impunity. We believe that the task carried out by the Commission in support of the institutions of the rule of law, which includes investigating acts, activities and criminal groups that have violated and prevented the people of Guatemala from exercising their fundamental rights, is a movement that cannot be stopped. Truly, this is the time to say “never again!” Argentina itself, on the basis of its own history in the fight to uphold human rights and combat impunity, offers its support to Guatemala whenever necessary on the path of bringing the past to light, in all truth and justice, because those are the only pillars and principles that can heal the pain and humiliation of victims who have had their rights denied by violent, corrupt and cruel powers. The role of CICIG is twofold. It both participates in prompt and sensitive judicial proceedings and creates institutions based on the ethical principles of the rule of law  — life, liberty and dignity  — as irrevocable, inalienable and unavoidable principles. Argentina therefore commends the efforts of the Government of Guatemala in shoring up its achievements and overcoming the challenges facing it while being committed to the Commission’s goals and working alongside it. We underscore that we will continue to cooperate by providing staff from our country’s national police force to protect those seeking true justice — the new face of justice that can be seen in the streets and hopes of the Guatemalan people. We would also like to say that 3 September 2015 will represent not only the extension of the mandate, but also a reiteration, on behalf of Latin America and the Carribean — and on behalf of Guatemala  — of our solidarity and our commitment to combating impunity. Of course, Argentina, which is honoured to sponsor draft resolution A/67/L.60, will also lend it its full support, because it is not merely an administrative document. It is an ethical commitment based on a belief in the importance of the rule of law and a decision that reiterates that democracy is possible only when human rights and international humanitarian law become everyday realities for everyone, without exception or omission.

The Government of Germany firmly supports the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). We believe that it is a vital mechanism to combat the history of corruption and impunity that has caused so much damage to Guatemalan society. The energy and involvement of the CICIG staff have made an important contribution to combating impunity for crimes committed in Guatemala. Until very recently, 98 per cent of denunciations went unpunished. That situation has changed radically thanks to the joint efforts of CICIG and the Government of Guatemala. However, we also recognize that the work of the Commission would not be possible without the decisive support of the authorities and society of Guatemala, in particular Attorney General Claudia Paz y Paz Bailey. One of the main tasks of CICIG is to investigate crimes in cooperation with the authorities. That has led to successful results, including clarification of the murders of seven inmates of the Pavon prison farm, which had shocked the entire country. CICIG has also helped Guatemalan institutions in their legislative work and in improving their judicial renderings. Both tasks are key to strengthening the rule of law, and we trust that Guatemala will pursue those efforts, in particular in professionalizing its police force and its judicial system. Last week’s historic condemnation of the crimes of genocide and war crimes of the former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt, to which Ambassador Rosenthal referred earlier, highlights the fact that the judges and prosecutors of that Central American country will no longer tolerate such deficiencies in the judicial system. That notwithstanding, the great work of CICIG have not yet come to an end. Combating impunity in all sectors remains a challenge to the establishment of the rule of law. For that reason, its mandate must again be extended, and my Government supports that decision. Germany has supported CICIG with some $2.6 million, and provided the advice of German experts who have worked together with the Commission staff. We believe that the strenuous efforts of Guatemalans to combat impunity, violence and the violation of human rights in their own country deserve the decisive support of the international community. We trust that CICIG can continue its work with the support of the Guatemalan Government and the international community in order to benefit the people of Guatemala and its institutions.

The United States is pleased to support the extension of the mandate of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). This support reflects our deep commitment to help strengthen the rule of law. The United States remains a firm supporter of CICIG efforts to work with Guatemalan authorities to combat impunity. We welcome the progress that has been made to investigate and prosecute individuals engaged in criminal activities. Just as important have been CICIG’s programmes to transfer capacity to the Guatemalan Government. As we look to the final two years of the CICIG mandate, we encourage continued emphasis on enhancing the Guatemalan Government’s capacity to reduce the incidence of impunity, reassert State presence in the face of criminality, implement strategies to prevent the reappearance of clandestine organizations operating within State institutions, and disseminate information about the impact of impunity on a democratic society. In that regard, we welcome steps taken to strengthen institutions in support of the rule of law and the defence of human rights in Guatemala and encourage continued focus in that area to include providing security to judges, prosecutors and witnesses. We also welcome recommendations from CICIG and Guatemalan authorities on steps that will be needed to support a sustainable process after the CICIG mandate ends. Moving forward, we look to CICIG and to Guatemalan authorities to ensure that its work plan focuses on the final phase of the programme. In addition, the development of benchmarks by CICIG and Guatemala will provide measurable targets on CICIG efforts to transfer its capacity to the Government. These benchmarks and the semi-annual reporting on the benchmarks will enhance the joint work of the Government of Guatemala and CICIG towards the transition of functions and promote a successful conclusion to the CICIG mandate. Continued collaboration between Guatemala and CICIG authorities is critical for a smooth transfer of capacity and sustainable progress in the combat against impunity in Guatemala. The United States looks forward to continuing its engagement with Guatemala, CICIG and other donors in support of the endeavour.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item. The Assembly will now take action on draft resolution A/67/L.60 entitled “International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed on the document, the following countries have also become sponsors of A/67/L.60: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Croatia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iceland, Iraq, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Montenegro, Romania, Saint Lucia, Serbia, Tunisia and the United States of America.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/67/L.60?

May it take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 42?

Members will recall that the Assembly considered agenda item 118 (a) in a joint debate in the fifty-seventh plenary meeting on 17 December 2012.

In a world transformed by globalization, the agenda of all our countries includes global challenges, particularly in international economic relations, that cannot be adequately addressed without actions agreed and implemented by the entire international community. In order to meet that challenge, during the past two sessions of the General Assembly, Chile has had the honour to submit, on behalf of a great number of sponsor countries, resolutions 65/94 and 66/256, both entitled “The United Nations in global governance”, for adoption by consensus. The document “We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the twenty-first century”, prepared by the Secretary-General for the Millennium Summit in 2000, notes that the United Nations was intended to introduce new principles into international relations with “the avowed purpose of transforming relations among [S]tates, and the methods by which the world’s affairs are managed” (A/54/2000, para. 9). It is true that the world’s affairs were transformed by the universal and democratic multilateralism that the Charter introduced into international relations. The inclusive multilateralism promoted and practiced in the United Nations system allows all States, large and small, to make themselves heard by giving voice to their interests before decisions are taken on items on the global agenda. The aforementioned resolutions, with their broad general objective of addressing the topic of the role of the United Nations in global governance, decided that the matter should be taken up with a more specific focus on one particular area in different years. That is why it was decided to focus on the area of global economic governance and development. In that sphere, the United Nations has had a very large role to play, encompassing, together with the agendas of its specialized agencies, funds and programmes, a very broad spectrum of economic, social and humanitarian issues that would be difficult for others to cover in terms of coordination and collaboration for collective international action. As we all know, in the midst of the global economic crisis, the Group of 20 (G-20), at the level of Heads of State, tried to coordinate actions to respond to the crisis. It was a praiseworthy and, at the time, welcome reaction. However, we must face the fact that the activities of the G-20 are also a source of concern because its membership consists of a small number of States. We believe that that is a legitimate concern as a matter of principle, but we also acknowledge that the G-20, composed of a group of countries that are Members of the Organization, has repeatedly stated that it does not wish to ignore the role of the United Nations system and has invited the Secretary-General and some non-member States to its meetings. In addition, the President of the General Assembly has adopted the practice of inviting a representative of the presidency of the G-20 to informal meetings with ministers of members of the General Assembly both before and after its summit meetings. The Secretary-General has provided a report for today’s debate entitled “Global economic governance and development” (A/67/769). In addition, the President of the General Assembly has made an important contribution to the consideration of the topic with useful targeted discussions, for which we are grateful. We would also underscore and express appreciation for the important informal debate organized by the President of the Economic and Social Council on the topic, both debates taking place in the context of the General Assembly agenda item on the central role of the United Nations system in global governance, established by the resolution entitled “The United Nations in global governance”. We also thank the Financing for Development Office for its work in supporting consideration of this agenda item. The Office is familiar with the issue because the systemic aspects of financing for development are an essential issue on the agenda of the Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development. In that context, global economic governance is considered from the viewpoint of development and of the role to be played by the United Nations. We welcome the fact that the report starts by seeking to clarify the relevance of the smooth functioning of the international financial, monetary and commercial systems to development processes. That is important if we are to focus on specific actions to improve global economic governance from the development perspective. As a general rule, in the United Nations we should recognize the complexity and diversity of the existing architecture for global economic governance, and we should address the phenomenon of complex multilateralism with various players and capacities at various levels, seeking to safeguard the primacy and centrality of the inclusive multilateralism of the United Nations in all matters related to general guidelines and the setting of standards and systems of universal validity. The United Nations, particularly the General Assembly, stands out as a political forum for discussion of the major topics on the global economic agenda and as factor for integrating the various viewpoints on sustainable development in their economic, social and environmental dimensions. It also ensures their linkage with issues of international security and peace and human rights. We also appreciate the report’s overview of the way in which the world is structured — its institutions, mechanisms and stakeholders in global economic governance, including consideration of new players, such the G-20. In that context, the report refers to the G-20 and its relations with the United Nations and stresses progress in the complementarity of efforts and the need for such groups as the G-20 to respect the decision-making structures of the organizations and mechanisms of the United Nations system. We naturally approve and support those recommendations that are in line with those promoted by the Global Governance Group. We trust that important alignments will emerge from this discussion leading to substantial consensus on this year’s draft resolution. We underscore the central role of the United Nations system in addressing global challenges and in global economic governance. We reaffirm United Nations leadership in cooperation for development and in promoting, from the United Nations, a political impetus for the topics of governance of the global commercial and financial system; general approaches that facilitate coordination and complementarity among the various players and mechanisms for global economic governance, including regional and subregional mechanisms; suggestions for improving United Nations coordination with the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization, among other important stakeholders in the global economy; the design of mechanisms to formalize the progress made in relations between the United Nations and informal groupings of countries that adopt decisions of global scope and effect, including the G-20, recognizing the informal arrangements for interaction made by the President of the General Assembly; and the promotion of the participation of developing countries in the decision-making and norm-setting mechanisms of the global economy. My delegation will work to achieve agreement on a new draft resolution on this subject. As in previous years, we will work on the basis of a preliminary text that reflects the main concerns expressed today and in earlier debates on the subject. We hope that, following open-ended consultations, we will be able to arrive at a consensus on a new draft resolution, with a clear vision of our goals and how to achieve them.

I now give the floor to the observer of the European Union.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its member States. The acceding country Croatia; the candidate countries the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Iceland and Serbia; the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina; as well as the Republic of Moldova, Armenia, Georgia and Ukraine, align themselves with this statement. The European Union and its member States are staunch promoters of effective multilateralism and firm believers in the fundamental role of the United Nations system in global governance. Indeed, the European Union is a prime example of effective multilateralism, and in an increasingly interdependent world there continues to be increasing recognition that no country can solve its own challenges alone. As José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, said at the United Nations last month, today no nation or group of nations can prosper on the wreckage of another. In a globalized, interconnected world we are all neighbours, and no country is big enough to be immune to what happens next door. For that reason, we welcome the inclusion of this item on the General Assembly’s agenda as a result of the adoption of resolution 66/256, and we thank the Secretary-General for his report on global economic governance and development (A/67/769). We believe that it provides an opportunity to deepen reflections within the General Assembly on the ways that the United Nations can play an effective and key role in managing global challenges as a main forum for international cooperation with other relevant international institutions, forums and processes. The European Union and its member States are strong supporters of effective multilateralism, with the United Nations at its core. Strengthening the United Nations, based on effective and sustainable funding in line with real capacity to pay, and increasing the efficiency of its functioning — on which there is scope to do more — are our top priorities. Global economic governance is definitely a topical subject, considering today’s very current issues relating to globalized trade and financial markets and the effects of globalization and the economic and financial crisis. We agree that global economic governance is an essential element in achieving the purposes of the United Nations itself, especially those set out in paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Charter and other major United Nations documents, such as the Millennium Declaration (resolution 55/2), and we remain ready to contribute actively to a debate on that subject. One of the main purposes of this reflection, which is highlighted in the Secretary-General’s report as a challenge of the highest priority, would be the implementation of the recommendations contained in the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (resolution 66/288), and the strengthening of the institutional framework for sustainable development. We should remain ready to identify ways to enhance the central role of the United Nations in achieving its broad development agenda, which encompasses every aspect of sustainable development, as well as human rights and the relationship between development, security, conflict and country fragility. Those principles must also apply to the United Nations system itself, including in the framework of the delivering as one initiative, so that it delivers aid more coherently and effectively in support of national plans and priorities at the country level, building on the commitment of Member States, underlined in last year’s quadrennial comprehensive policy review, to enhancing the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and credibility of the United Nations system as a shared goal and interest. In recent years, in a process actively supported by the EU and its member States, the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in global economic governance has been strengthened. We will keep working with a view to continuing the dynamic process aimed at enhancing the voice and representation of emerging markets and developing countries, including least-developed countries, in international institutions. The global economic and financial crisis demonstrated that working collectively through multilateral institutions and international forums is crucial to addressing the challenges of an increasingly interdependent world. Gathering almost every country in the world together, the United Nations is unquestionably the most universal global forum. However, other multilateral institutions and intergovernmental forums, such as the World Bank, the IMF, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Trade Organization and the Group of 20 (G-20), as well as civil society and the private sector, play important complementary roles. In our view, what is required in order to increase United Nations effectiveness in global economic governance is more coherence and cooperation, as well as making the best possible use of the competitive advantages of existing institutions and forums and their complementarity. Coherence must be ensured across various United Nations intergovernmental processes, including those related to sustainable development, the post-2015 development agenda and financing for development. That is one of the main conclusions of the Secretary-General’s report, and we would support more work in that regard. The global financial crisis was a watershed in global economic governance. The European Union was one of the first key actors to recognize that it required a globally coordinated response, and therefore proposed meetings of the G-20 at the level of leaders. A new forum was needed to bring together advanced economies and emerging markets. As President Barroso highlighted in the statement I referred to earlier, the importance of the G-20 in the response to the global and economic crisis of 2008 is clear. The G-20 has proved to be a very effective forum for coordinating a global response and thus avoiding the mistakes that were made in the economic crisis of the 1930s. We welcome the need for consistent engagement between the G-20 and the United Nations, an issue that is also fully recognized in the Secretary-General’s report. In that regard, we welcome the outreach efforts to the United Nations and its membership that successive G-20 hosts have made, and hope to see the practice continue, including by finding ways to bring the United Nations system’s technical expertise to bear on its work. In our view, the key issue for global economic governance is to strike the right balance between legitimacy and effectiveness. With that principle in mind, we should continue to strive for better coherence. Let me conclude by reiterating that the European Union and its member States are looking forward to contributing actively to the upcoming deliberations of the General Assembly on global economic governance and development, and the way in which the United Nations can play an effective and key role in meeting global challenges.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 118. Before adjourning, I wish to announce that this will be the last meeting of the General Assembly for Ms. Sahar Wanly, Senior Conference Officer, Department for General Assembly Affairs and Conference Management. Ms. Wanly has been with the United Nations for 31 years, a majority of which have been associated with the work of the plenary of the General Assembly. Her contribution to the smooth running of our meetings has been truly significant, and I would like the Assembly to give her a round of applause in appreciation. We wish her all the best.