A/73/PV.101 General Assembly

Before we proceed to the items on our agenda, it is my sad duty to pay tribute to the memory of the late President of the Republic of Tunisia, His Excellency Mr. Béji Caïd Essebsi, who passed away today, 25 July. On behalf of the General Assembly, I request the representative of Tunisia to convey our condolences to the Government and the people of Tunisia and to the bereaved family of President Essebsi. May I now invite representatives to stand and observe a minute of silence in tribute to the memory of His Excellency Mr. Béji Caïd Essebsi.

A formal tribute in the General Assembly will be conducted at a later date to be announced.

I now give the floor to the representative of Argentina to introduce draft resolution A/73/L.101.

It is an honour for Argentina to introduce draft resolution A/73/L.101, entitled “International Year for the Elimination of Child Labour, 2021”. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development made the objectives of social justice and decent work for all some of its top priorities at the heart of policies in favour of sustainable and inclusive development and growth, which will not be achieved so long as different forms of exploitation, including child labour, continue to exist. The statistics have been repeated many times, but they are so alarming that they deserve to be recalled. At present, 1 child in 10 is subjected to child labour, which means that more than 150 million children are exploited in this way. Although we committed in the 2030 Agenda we to eliminating all forms of child labour, we will not, at the current rate, reach that objective, which beyond being a Sustainable Development Goal, is, above all, a moral imperative. Argentina has made decent work one of its priorities, and is working hard at the national, regional and multilateral levels to eliminate child labour. Argentina holds the vice-presidency of Alliance 8.7, and, in November 2017, we hosted the fourth Global Conference on the Sustained Eradication of Child Labour. In the Buenos Aires Declaration, we committed to encouraging the General Assembly to adopt a resolution declaring the International Year for the Elimination of Child Labour, because we understand that it is necessary to give greater visibility to the issue and to further increase and deepen the commitment of the international community to eliminating the scourge. I would like to thank all the countries that co-sponsored and supported the initiative. I would also like to thank, in particular, the International Labour Organization (ILO) for its commitment and capacity to help us demand that States increase their ambition and made progress on eliminating all forms of exploitation. This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the ILO members’ adoption of Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, and since then work on the subject has been ongoing. Beyond the fact that there remains much to be done, statistics show that when the awareness and commitment of countries increase, the results speak for themselves. According to global estimates presented by Alliance 8.7, from 2000 to 2016, there was a 50 per cent reduction in the number of children subjected to child labour, and, between 2012 and 2016, there was a steady decrease in the incidence of child labour. We hope that this initiative will be one more step to redoubling our efforts and that it will help us to move day by day towards a world in which no child is subjected to child labour or exploited in any way, and where decent work for all has become a reality.

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/73/L.101. Before giving the floor for explanations of position before adoption, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The United States joins the consensus on draft resolution A/73/L.101, entitled “International Year for the Elimination of Child Labour, 2021”. We envision a world in which all children are free from deprivation, violence and danger, regardless of religious affiliation, ethnicity, disability or any other factor. However, the United States does not share the view that the Convention on the Rights of the Child constitutes the standard for child protection. We join consensus on the draft resolution with the express understanding that it does not imply that States must become parties to instruments to which they are not a party or implement obligations under human rights instruments to which they are not a party, including, in the case of the United States, the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, to the extent that it is implied in the draft resolution, the United States does not recognize the creation of any new rights it has not previously recognized, the expansion of the content or coverage of existing rights or any other changes to its or other States’ obligations under the current state of treaty or customary international law or under the current state of domestic law that implements such treaty or customary international law.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position before adoption. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/73/L.101, entitled “International Year for the Elimination of Child Labour, 2021”. I now give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that since the submission of draft resolution A/73/L.101, and in addition to those delegations listed in the document, the following countries have become sponsors of the draft resolution: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Tunisia, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution A/73/L.101?

We will now hear statements after the adoption of the resolution.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of member States of the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries (CPLP), namely, Angola, Brazil, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Mozambique, Portugal, Sao Tome and Principe, Timor-Leste and my own country, Cabo Verde. We would like to express our gratitude to Argentina for introducing resolution 73/327, entitled “International Year for the Elimination of Child Labour, 2021”, and to commend it for holding constructive, inclusive and transparent negotiations. The CPLP is delighted that the General Assembly adopted the resolution by consensus, which highlights the importance of declaring the year 2021 the International Year for the Elimination of Child Labour. As mentioned in the resolution, the year 2016 was the CPLP Year against Child Labour, and we very much welcome this reference. Combating child labour is at the heart of the policies of the CPLP, and its member States hold improved promotion and protection of the rights and well-being of all children, especially those living in vulnerable situations, as an important policy objective. The countries of the CPLP also believe that, with the adoption of this resolution, the international community will be able to increase awareness surrounding the importance of eradicating child labour, which is an important step towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal target 8.7 and other Sustainable Development Goals. The CPLP reaffirms its strong commitment to this cause, including the adoption of strategic plans to eradicate child labour. Furthermore, CPLP member States reiterate their commitment to eliminating all forms of child labour and are therefore determined to implement the resolution we have just adopted.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 14.

I now give the floor to the representative of Bahrain to introduce draft resolution A/73/L.102.

It has become clear that, on the one hand, there is a close relationship between peace and development and that, on the other, peace cannot be sustained without a culture of peace that is entrenched in our minds and our conscience. I therefore stand before the General Assembly today to present the draft resolution contained in document A/73/L.102, which is aimed at taking further steps to promote the culture of peace, not only because the absence of war does not equal peace, but also because the human conscience remains fertile ground in which the culture of peace can flourish. The draft resolution, entitled “Promoting the Culture of Peace with Love and Conscience”, refers in its preambular paragraphs to a series of relevant General Assembly resolutions. It recognizes the role of UNESCO and the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, and declares 5 April the International Day of Conscience. The remainder of the draft underlines the role to be played by Member States, United Nations entities and civil society organizations in the promotion of the culture of peace. Let me also note that the costs of all activities arising from the implementation of the draft resolution should be met from voluntary contributions. Before I conclude, allow me to extend my deep thanks to all delegations that sponsored draft resolution A/73/L.102. We would be delighted to see any other delegation join the list of sponsors. In conclusion, allow me to stress that, as we were drafting this text, we sought to ensure that it was consistent with previous language to promote the culture of peace. We hope that the General Assembly adopts it by consensus. Allow me to also thank all delegations that participated effectively in informal negotiations on the matter.

I now give the floor to the representative of Morocco to introduce draft resolution A/73/L.100.

It is my pleasure today to introduce, on behalf of my country, the Kingdom of Morocco, draft resolution A/73/L.100, entitled “Promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance in countering hate speech”, for consideration by the General Assembly. At the outset, I wish to express the Kingdom of Morocco’s sincere thanks and deepest gratitude to all delegations that participated in a substantive and constructive manner in the negotiations that led to the text that we are considering this afternoon. My thanks in particular go to the skill of the core group that worked on the draft resolution for their tireless support throughout the process. Finally, my delegation would like to thank all delegations that co-sponsored the draft resolution. Our world today is in troubled times, characterized by the exacerbation and proliferation of hate speech, which goes against the values of peace, tolerance, coexistence and cohabitation that the United Nations, its Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are constantly seeking to defend and promote. Indeed, religious and political extremism violate the rights of people to freedom of expression and run counter to the values of coexistence, respect for others and tolerance by indulging in discourse that appeals to hatred in all of its forms. In this way, some use religion to create divisions and satisfy their reprehensible, obscurantist ideologies. Others use political discourse based on racial, ethnic and religious discrimination and xenophobia to foment exclusion, stoke divisions in societies, fuel conflict and feed terrorism and anarchy. Those forms of speech inspire violence and terrorism, costing the lives of thousands of innocent people throughout the world. The recent attacks on mosques, churches, synagogues and temples that have been carried out have been strongly condemned. They were only recently burned into our memory, having challenged our universal conscience and demanding a collective response in order to stamp out hate speech. With that in mind, Morocco has the privilege to present before the Assembly draft resolution A/73/L.100 this afternoon. Its main objective is to raise awareness among the international community about the dangers posed by discourse that incites hatred and to encourage our community to take steps to promote dialogue of tolerance, understanding and cooperation between religions and cultures. To that end, the Kingdom of Morocco carried out a series of consultations both within the interregional core group and with all Member States. Morocco aimed to achieve a consensus-based text through an open, transparent and inclusive process, while striving to avoid issues on which opinions diverged. Three rounds of negotiation were initially planned and then two more were added to accommodate all delegations and reach a consensus text, which is contained in document A/73/L.100. The draft resolution is made up 16 preambular paragraphs and 11 operative paragraphs. The first four paragraphs of the preamble reaffirm the commitment of States to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and other relevant international instruments. These paragraphs also aim to allay any concerns around human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and the right to practice one’s faith or belief. This chapeau was strengthened by the affirmation in the seventh preambular paragraph of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and its reference to article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, the text restates the obligation that Member States have to ban discrimination and violence based on religion or faith, in order to guarantee protection for all. Given the cascade of initiatives, documents and forums to promote dialogue between different religions and cultures, and in order to avoid a recitation of a long list of all of those documents, but with a view to leaving no one behind, we decided to include one generic paragraph based on agreed language. This paragraph welcomes the initiatives that have been taken at the international, regional and national levels as well as actions carried out by religious leaders to promote interreligious and cultural dialogue. The important role to be played by religious leaders in fostering understanding of common values in all of humankind is set forth in the text. Violence targeting people because of their religion, convictions or the colour of their skin is denounced, and a reference to the International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief was affirmed. The profound concern about the increase in hate speech threatening tolerance and respect for diversity is also deeply conveyed in the draft resolution, in addition to highlighting the importance of the role of Member States, organizations, civil society, the Alliance of Civilizations, UNESCO and the United Nations in promoting tolerance and intercultural dialogue. The draft resolution takes note of the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence; the Fez Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes; the Secretary-General’s plan of action on hate speech; and initiatives to develop a plan of action to safeguard religious sites. With respect to arrangements, while the importance of interreligious and intercultural dialogue for promoting social cohesion was stressed, all calls for hatred that give rise to discrimination, hostility or violence are condemned. We therefore encourage Member States to promote dialogue, tolerance, understanding and cooperation between religions and cultures. Similarly, international organizations are encouraged to raise awareness among the public on the dangers of intolerance and sectarian violence. Stemming from the draft resolution, we also take note of the Fez Plan of Action and the plan of action on hate speech, recently launched by the Secretary- General, as well as the initiative for a plan of action to protect religious sites. Lastly, Morocco hopes that the General Assembly will adopt this draft resolution by consensus, and we invite all delegations to co-sponsor it.

The Assembly will take a decision on draft resolutions A/73/L.100 and A/73/L.102, one by one. We first turn to draft resolution A/73/L.100, entitled “Promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance in countering hate speech”. I now give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of draft resolution A/73/L.100, and in addition to those delegations listed in the document, the following countries have also become sponsors of the draft resolution: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Canada, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uzbekistan, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Yemen.

May take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/73/L.100?

Before giving the floor to the speaker in explanation of position following the adoption of resolution 73/328, may I remind delegations that explanations of position are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The United States firmly supports efforts to promote interreligious and intercultural dialogue and cooperation, and we joined consensus on resolution 73/328. The United States strongly supports the freedoms of expression and religion or belief. We oppose any attempts to unduly limit the exercise of these fundamental freedoms. We strongly believe that these rights are mutually reinforcing and that the protection of freedom of expression is critical for protecting freedom of religion or belief. The freedom of religion or belief plays an important societal role and is crucial to the creation of tolerant and respectful societies in which negative stereotypes will carry little meaning. To counter intolerance the United States advocates robust protections for speech as well as the enforcement of appropriate legal regimes that deal with discriminatory acts and hate crimes. On the invocation of the term “moderation” in paragraph 5 of the resolution, we are concerned that the implementation of moderation-focused programmes and policies could undermine enjoyment of freedoms of expression and thought, conscience and religion or belief. Protecting the freedoms of religion or belief and of expression includes protecting the rights of those who hold minority viewpoints and the rights of those with whom we disagree.

We have heard the only speaker in explanation of position following the adoption of resolution 73/328. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/73/L.102 entitled “Promoting the Culture of Peace with Love and Conscience”. I now give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that since the submission of draft resolution A/73/L.102, and in addition to those delegations listed in the document, the following countries have become sponsors of the draft resolution: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Guinea, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, the Philippines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Yemen.

May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution A/73/L.102?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 15.

I now give the floor to the representative of Tajikistan to introduce draft resolution A/73/L.74.

On behalf of the members of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), I have the honour to introduce draft resolution A/73/L.74, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization”. Against the backdrop of a changing world environment and complex socioeconomic challenges, regional cooperation and economic integration have become more arduous. Within the context of institutional frameworks such as the ECO, cooperation among neighbouring countries or countries within the same region has shown its value for the economic development and prosperity of peoples. Since its establishment in 1964, the ECO has become a dynamic example of outward-looking regional organizations. It has successfully forged a variety of economic and non-economic cooperation arrangements. Home to more than 400 million people and spanning a territory of 8 million square kilometres, the ECO regions cover 10 countries in West and East Asia, as well as Central Asia and the Caucasus. The ECO has been expanding partnerships and cooperation arrangements with potential partners. The United Nations system has always been the prime target of ECO outreach policy to help to implement the global agenda in our part of the world. To this end, we believe that the United Nations-ECO relationship, as consolidated by draft resolution before us, is mutually beneficial for both sides: it helps the ECO to utilize the capacities, resources and knowledge of United Nations agencies in the interests of ECO member States and also offers the United Nations system the regional capacities, networks and platforms developed by the ECO. As we all focus on the timely implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals, it is worth mentioning that, back in 2017, the ECO adopted its Vision 2025, which is aligned with the 2030 Agenda. Vision 2025 is guided by regional needs and requirements, as well by the global development agenda. It focuses on cooperation in areas such as economic growth and productivity, trade expansion, enhanced connectivity, energy efficiency, human development and social welfare. The draft resolution before the Assembly, which is based on resolution 71/16, consists of four preambular and 37 operative paragraphs. It has been prepared through continuous engagement with and input from ECO member States. It focuses, among other things, on core matters such as trade, transport, connectivity, tourism, health, natural disasters, food security and energy, in conformity with the needs and aspirations of member States. Furthermore, the resolution emphasizes the basic development needs of landlocked countries and invites the United Nations system and other international financial institutions to assist and cooperate with ECO in order to help landlocked least developed countries to overcome their challenges. The draft resolution acknowledges the ongoing efforts of the States members of the Economic Cooperation Organization to strengthen regional cooperation to combat illicit drug trafficking and organized crime, including the establishment of a police mechanism, a regional judicial and legal cooperation mechanism and the Economic Cooperation Organization regional centre for the cooperation of anti-corruption agencies and ombudsmen. In conclusion, I wish to take this opportunity to express, on behalf of the ECO member States, our sincere thanks to all States Members of the United Nations that participated actively and constructively in the consultations on the draft resolution and showed flexibility throughout the process. It is regrettable that despite all our efforts to reach a consensual resolution, a vote has been requested, for the first time, on this text. We therefore kindly ask all Member States to lend their continued support to the draft resolution and vote in favour of it.

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/73/L.74. Before giving the floor for explanations of vote before the voting, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The United States has called for a vote on draft resolution A/73/L.74 because we have deep concerns about potential United Nations collaboration with the Economic Cooperation Organization. Iran, which chairs and hosts the Economic Cooperation Organization, has a clear track record of undermining regional security. Iran has destabilized its neighbours, in particular through its support to terrorist organizations like Hizbullah, the supply of advanced weapons to the Houthis in Yemen and its extensive military support for the Al-Assad regime’s attacks against the Syrian people. Therefore, we do not believe Iran is contributing to regional economic development. Iran must be held accountable for its destabilizing behaviour. That is why we are asking all members to vote against draft resolution A/73/L.74.

I would like to present Armenia’s position with regard to draft resolution A/73/L.74. We commend Tajikistan and appreciate its efforts to promote cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO). Armenia and Tajikistan enjoy excellent bilateral relations and partnership within the framework of a number of international and regional organizations. With regard to paragraph 3 of the Baku Declaration, adopted in 2012, we believe that the reference is not only redundant, as there are references to the latest meetings in the framework of the ECO in the draft resolution, and but that it also contains formulations that blatantly distort the essence and principles of a resolution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The formulations in the Declaration are in total contradiction with positions expressed by the Minsk Group co-Chairs of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the only internationally agreed mediation format mandated to deal with the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The Declaration, as well as other documents adopted by ECO and referred to in the draft resolution, contain selective references to the principles of international law in the context of conflict resolution, omitting in particular reference to the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples. The OSCE Minsk Group co-Chair countries have acknowledged, among other principles, the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples as a basis for the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Armenia stresses the imperative of addressing the resolution of conflicts within their respective agreed formats. Attempts to misuse the ECO platform to propagate one-sided conflict narratives are counterproductive. Armenia calls upon ECO to refrain from providing a platform to promote approaches that may undermine the conflict resolution process. Armenia therefore dissociates itself from paragraph 3 and other paragraphs containing references to documents whose language on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict runs counter to the documents and principles of conflict resolution adopted in the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmanship.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/73/L.74, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization”. I now 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 document, the following countries have become sponsors of draft resolution A/73/L.74: Afghanistan, Angola, Azerbaijan, Benin, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Panama, Palau and Turkey.

A recorded vote has been requested.

Before giving the floor for explanations of vote on the resolution just adopted, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I have the honour to deliver this explanation of vote on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its member States. The European Union and its member States support resolution 73/330, on cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization, and encourage further cooperation between the two organizations. However, with reference to the language contained in the resolution, notably regarding the Baku Declaration, the EU stresses that such language is without any endorsement of declarations, decisions and resolutions adopted by the Economic Cooperation Organization forums. The latter ought to be fully consistent with the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions and in full respect of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. In that regard, we wish to put on record that the provisions of the Baku Declaration related to Cyprus are not consistent with existing Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. We therefore urge the Economic Cooperation Organization to refrain from adopting positions that would undermine international law and the United Nations Charter. The EU trusts that its position will be taken into account in the future so that it can continue to support the resolution.

We have heard the only speaker in explanation of vote after the voting. We will now hear statements after the adoption of the resolution.

Turkey, a founding member of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), attaches great importance to the Organization as a platform that contributes to the development of its member States and the removal of trade barriers within the ECO region, developing interregional trade and promoting the ECO region’s integration with global markets. We also see the ECO as an important tool for strengthening cultural and historical ties among its member States, bringing Turkey together with Central Asia and South Asian countries. Turkey strongly supports enhancing cooperation between the United Nations and the ECO in order to maximize synergies between the activities of the two organizations. It was therefore regrettable that resolution 73/330, as pointed out by the Permanent Representative of Tajikistan, was voted on for the first time in its history. Turkey is expected to assume the chairmanship of the ECO at the 24th Meeting of the Council of Ministers. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Tajikistan for its excellent chairmanship and active leadership. Turkey recognizes that a huge growth potential exists in trade flows among the ECO countries in the coming decades. We believe that enhanced economic cooperation among the ECO countries is one of our shared interests. With that understanding, operationalizing the ECO Trade Agreement will be among the top priorities of our chairmanship. Other areas that we would like to prioritize will be scaling up the activities of the Economic Cooperation Organization Trade and Development Bank, enhancing the transportation network in the ECO region to develop connectivity and linking the educational, cultural and scientific institutions of the ECO. During our chairmanship we look forward to working closely with the States members of the ECO to help to achieve its founding objectives of regional cooperation and development by enhancing interregional trade and strengthening the Organization’s institutional framework. Turkey supports a settlement to the Cyprus issue, as clearly demonstrated in the most recent round of talks, which ended in failure in Crans-Montana in July 2017, as well as in the previous attempt in 2004. As in other disputes, in Cyprus only a negotiated settlement that is based on dialogue and diplomacy can be sustainable. Turkey will continue to engage with all the relevant parties in that understanding. All the relevant parties need to contribute to the efforts for the settlement of the Cyprus issue without bias or prejudice. The explanation of vote read out on behalf of the European Union (EU) and the approach that it reflects run contrary to that requirement. The EU has admitted the Greek Cypriot Administration as a full member despite the overwhelming Greek Cypriot vote against a comprehensive settlement in 2004. That has nothing to do with the facts and continues to be in contravention of the very treaties that founded the bicommunal partnership State of Cyprus in 1960. Since that time, the EU has been increasingly unable to adopt a balanced position on the Cyprus issue. As long as the EU positions exclusively reflect the interest of the Greek Cypriots and do not even acknowledge the very existence of the Turkish Cypriots, the EU will continue to disqualify itself from the role of an objective contributor to the efforts in search of a solution. We wish to see the European Union play a positive role in the efforts for the settlement of the Cyprus dispute and, accordingly, keep its promises to the Turkish Cypriots.

The statement made by the representative of the United States leaves my delegation with no choice but to briefly touch on his nonsensical comment. We deeply regret the fact that this forum has been used as an opportunity to make reference to my country through fallacies that come from the pathological tendency of the United States to distort the realities when it comes to the States that do not submit or follow its contradictory policies. We reject such desperate efforts to take advantage of this body and resort to any issue for political ends. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the efforts and competence of the delegation of Tajikistan as the facilitator of negotiations on resolution 73/330, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization”. We also welcome the tremendous and continued support that the resolution has received in the form of such an overwhelming number of votes. The resolution was tabled after continuous engagement and the receipt of input from States members of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) and all interested parties. Despite the facilitator’s effort to accommodate all stakeholders by addressing their interests and concerns, regretfully, the United States, in line with its pathological obsession against Iran, opted to break the consensus for its narrow, bilateral, nonsensical political ends. Despite the fact that regional cooperation is now a prevailing paradigm and a phenomenon of interest in international relations, such actions have taken place, while cooperation among neighbouring and regional countries within the context of international frameworks such as the ECO have proved its value to the economic development and prosperity of the people of the region and beyond. The ECO has become a dynamic, outwardlooking regional organization and has been successful in forging a range of economic and non-economic cooperation arrangements. In that way, we hope that the ECO continues its efforts on two tracks, namely, as a regional cooperation framework to complement the individual development efforts of its member States and as a platform to translate the global agenda into actions at the regional level. In accomplishing those two functions, the ECO should further expand its partnership and cooperation arrangements with potential partners. As has been the case, the United Nations system should always be the prime objective of the ECO outreach policy in order to help implement the global agenda in all parts of the world. We are of the view that the United Nations-ECO relationship not only helps the ECO to utilize the capacities, resources and knowledge of the relevant United Nations agencies in the interests of ECO member States, but also offers the United Nations system the regional capacities, networks and platforms developed by the ECO over the course of the past three decades. In conclusion, I wish to take this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to all States Members of the United Nations that have participated actively and constructively in realizing the ECO targets and played, throughout the process, a productive and non-politicized role, without which no steps could have been taken.

Before responding on the points of substance raised by the representative of Turkey here today, I would like to call once again on the Turkish delegation to respect the names of its fellow Member States. First, I would like to welcome Turkey’s expression of readiness to support finding a settlement to the Cyprus problem, and we look forward to tangible proof in this regard, particularly as to guarantees it has made and the withdrawal of its troops from Cyprus. Secondly, we have repeatedly heard the claim that the European Union (EU) is biased against Turkey because Cyprus became a Member State prior to the island’s reunification. Let me be clear: the EU has demonstrated that not only is it not biased — including by being instrumental in the settlement of the Cyprus problem — but it has also provided financial support to the Turkish Cypriot community, indeed more than €500 million since 2006, which is possibly the highest per capita amount of technical assistance and support the EU has ever given. Let me also clarify that, at the individual level, all Cypriot citizens enjoy the benefits of Cyprus’s membership in the EU despite the persistent division of the island and the fact that the EU acquis remains suspended in part of our country because of the occupation. Thirdly, with respect to the problems with the Baku Declaration, which is mentioned in paragraph 3 of resolution 73/330, just adopted, I wish simply to recall that the Security Council spoke definitively on the Cyprus question in its resolution 541 (1983), affirming the sovereignty of Cyprus and the fact that this sovereignty extends over the whole of Cyprus, deploring the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus, pronouncing legally invalid the Declaration that proposed to create an independent State in northern Cyprus, calling upon all States to respect the sovereignty, the independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus, and making an appeal to all States not to recognize any separate State on the island other than the Republic of Cyprus. Lastly, I wish to stress that no one wants immediate reunification as much as we do. However, the way to achieve this end is not the subordination of Cyprus to Turkey, which is something that the 2004 plan mentioned here today would have amounted to. Cyprus should not be victimized twice  — once by being occupied and then by being held hostage to this occupation. We look forward to the earliest possible reunification of Cyprus within the United European space of values, rights and freedoms, working in peace with all our neighbours on an equal footing, based on the established principles of international law, including sovereign equality.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote after the voting. Some delegations have asked to speak in exercise of the right of reply. I would like to remind members that statements in exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first statement and five minutes for the second and should be made by delegations from their seats.

It was not the intention of my delegation to take the floor on this agenda item, but the comments just made by the representative of Armenia have compelled me to do so. The Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), as was eloquently stated by our colleague from Turkey, is an organization that seeks to increase and enhance trade, economic cooperation and development in the ECO region. Therefore, the organization does not deal with the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan nor with the process of its resolution. Moreover, resolution 73/330 just adopted does not contain any reference to Armenia’s aggression against Azerbaijan. That is why the comments just made by the representative of Armenia were completely irrelevant and redundant. They are, indeed, nothing other than yet another sign of Armenia’s narrow political agenda and an attempt to deflect the international community’s attention and spread false facts. Nevertheless, I would like to clarify some of the issues raised in the Armenian statement with respect to self-determination. Armenian’s claims have nothing in common with the principle of self-determination as it is understood under the Charter of the United Nations, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, and other international documents. The actions that the Armenian representative describes as the exercise of the right to self-determination have been unequivocally characterized by the Security Council and other authoritative international organizations as the unlawful use of force tantamount to the commission of other serious crimes. In reality, it is the people of Azerbaijan’s right to self-determination that is being grossly violated as a result of Armenian policies of aggression, occupation and ethnic cleansing. With respect to resolving the conflict, the only factor undermining a settlement is the presence of the Armenian armed forces on Azerbaijani territory, which will never bring about the result Armenia desires.

I also regret having to take the floor again. The Turkish Cypriot-Greek Cypriot partnership State, the 1960 Republic of Cyprus, was converted into a purely Greek Cypriot Administration by force of arms in 1963, and since then there has not been a single Government representing both peoples on the island. Rather, there exist two independent selfgoverning States, each exercising sovereignty within and jurisdiction over their respective territories. The Greek Cypriot Administration’s insistent denial of the rights of Turkish Cypriots to their existence in the northern part of the island only undermines the prospects of finding a sustainable negotiated settlement in Cypress. In 1974, Turkey intervened as a guarantor Power following the infamous 15 July coup d’état carried out by the joint Greek-Greek Cypriot front, which aimed to annihilate the Turkish Cypriot people and annex the island to Greece. The only occupation on the island is therefore the 56-year-long occupation of the seat of the Government of Cyprus by the Greek Cypriot Administration. I wish to remind the Greek Cypriot Administration that its counterpart is not Turkey, but the Turkish Cypriot side, which is unfairly absent from this Hall as a result of the illegal occupation of their place at the table, as just described.

We resolutely dismiss the unfounded allegations made by the representative of Azerbaijan by which she tries to disguise her country’s destructive approach to the process of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The conflict is the result of Azerbaijan’s failure to engage in dialogue with the people of Nagorno-Karabakh as well as its policy of forcefully resolving the issue by committing mass atrocities and completely exterminating the population of Nagorno-Karabakh. The denial of the human rights of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, the failure to reject the use of force as a means of conflict resolution and the State-led promotion of anti-Armenian hatred are undermining the efforts of international mediators to achieve a peaceful and long-lasting resolution to the conflict. With regard to the Baku Declaration referred to in paragraph 3 of resolution 73/330 and the description of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the fourth preambular paragraph of the Declaration itself (A/67/581, annex), I would like to recall that numerous documents of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the joint statements of the Heads of Delegation of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Countries, refer to it, as do Armenia and Azerbaijan, as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I would like to repeat once again that the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chair countries have acknowledged, among other principles, the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples as a basis for the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

I too regret having to take the floor again and promise to be very brief. I would just like to reject in toto the historical revisionism that was attempted by my Turkish colleague. I would like to reiterate that the international community has no doubts about the fact that the Republic of Cyprus alone is recognized as a subject of international law and its Government is the sole legitimate Government that represents Cyprus on the international stage.

I apologize for taking the floor again, but I would like to briefly respond to the comments made by the representative of Armenia. Armenia’s policies and practices, which are based on exclusion and discrimination on ethnic grounds, are now aimed at consolidating the results of its unlawful use of force and ethnic cleansing. The war that was waged against my country claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people, ruined cities, towns and villages, and resulted in the forcible expulsion of more than 1 million Azerbaijanis from their homes and properties, while thousands more went missing in connection with the conflict. In that context, Armenian speculation about human rights, democracy and so-called Armenophobia or hate propaganda are responsible and beneath all criticism, to say the least. With regard to the language used by the co-Chairs of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Minsk Group, they should be more careful to refer not only to one principle, but also to the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, which Armenia completely disregards.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (i) of agenda item 128?

I now give the floor to the representative of Kyrgyzstan to introduce draft resolution A/73/L.103.

In its capacity as Chair of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), I have the honour, on behalf of its six members, to introduce, under sub-item (t) of agenda item 128, the draft resolution contained in document A/73/L.103, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Collective Security Treaty Organization”. When discussing issues related to cooperation between the CSTO and the United Nations, it should be borne in mind that one of the fundamental principles of foreign policy common to all State members of the organization is their recognition of the indispensable central role played by the United Nations in the modern system of international relations. In the process related to the functioning of the United Nations, the coordination of positions and unification of the efforts of CSTO member States take place in mutual support of foreign policy initiatives on international and regional security issues. Approaches to issues are also harmonized and submitted for discussion during General Assembly sessions and joint statements are adopted at the traditional meetings of the Foreign Ministers of the CSTO member States during General Assembly sessions. In other words, in essence, the United Nations has become one of the main places where CSTO partners make joint statements. The United Nations and the Collective Security Treaty Organization cooperate through regular information exchange, the organization of visits and participation in conferences and training events. In May 2017 and January 2018, the secretariat of the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs held consultations to discuss issues related to conflict prevention and conflict resolution and opportunities for strengthening cooperation. In June 2018, the CSTO Deputy Secretary- General took part in a high-level interactive dialogue with regional and other organizations, initiated by Secretary-General Guterres. We welcome the progress in strengthening practical cooperation based on the memorandum of understanding between the CSTO secretariat and the United Nations Department of Peace Operations of 20 September 2012 on peacekeeping operations, including the contributions of CSTO member States to United Nations peacekeeping, as well as the participation of United Nations representatives in CSTO peacekeeping training exercises. It should be noted that the CSTO secretariat has developed and is implementing the road map to create the conditions for utilizing CSTO peacekeeping potential in the interest of United Nations international peacekeeping activities. An important practical step taken by the Collective Security Treaty Organization in implementing the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy was the signing, on 9 November 2018, of a memorandum of understanding on cooperation and collaboration between the CSTO secretariat and the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism. Also if importance is cooperation between the CSTO and the United Nations in context of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team pursuant to Security Council resolutions 1526 (2004) and 2253 (2015) concerning Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and the Taliban, which began in February 2016, allowing a regular exchange of relevant information and opinions on pressing security issues. Moreover, the CSTO cooperates with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime within the Networking the Networks initiative to promote operational cooperation between regional and international law enforcement organizations to facilitate the exchange of criminal intelligence and support multilateral operations targeting all forms of organized crime including drug trafficking. We welcome the Secretary-General’s report entitled, “Cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations” (A/73/328), which describes the interaction of the United Nations and the CSTO in the framework of regular information exchange, the organization of visits and participation in conferences and training events. The agenda of CSTO cooperation with the United Nations is diverse and relevant for conducting its duties, and has achieved a level of mutual understanding that ensures the effectiveness of interaction. That makes it possible to consider it a benchmark for relations between the CSTO and international organizations in general. The draft resolution, based on consensus resolution 71/12, adopted by the General Assembly on 21 November 2016, was discussed in informal consultations in an open and transparent manner. It contains updates, as well as new provisions reflecting the events that have occurred since the adoption of the previous resolution. It also notes the significant practical contribution and efforts of the CSTO to strengthen its peacekeeping potential and the system of regional security and stability. These include countering terrorism and organized crime, fighting illegal trafficking in drugs and weapons, irregular migration and human trafficking, and the elimination of the consequences of natural and humanmade disasters, which contribute to the United Nations goals and principles. It welcomes the efforts of the Secretariat and the CSTO to strengthen coordination and cooperation between them. In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all delegations of the States members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization for their support to the Kyrgyz chairmanship, and to thank all other delegations for their active and constructive participation in discussions on the draft resolution, which we hope will be adopted by consensus, as in previous years.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/73/L.103 entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Collective security Treaty Organization”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that since the submission of draft resolution, and in addition to those delegations listed in document A/73/L.103, China has also become a sponsor.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/73/L.103?

Before giving the floor for explanations of position on the resolution just adopted, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote or position are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

As the General Assembly has just adopted resolution 73/331 entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Collective Security Treaty Organization”, I would like to make the following statement. Ukraine supports cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. Such cooperation is an important tool for the effective settlement of conflicts and the promotion of peace and security. Unfortunately, we must admit that, in today’s world, the roles of regional organizations in maintaining peace and security are rather different. Some of them are committed to their charters and work to prevent, manage and resolve conflicts and crises. In that regard, we welcome positive examples of such cooperation between the United Nations and the European Union, the African Union, the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and many others. These organizations have proven to be capable of taking the lead in promoting peace, security and stability. Others, on the contrary, tend to abstain from such actions and politicize their activities due to the destructive actions of their members. In our opinion, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is one such organization. To our disappointment, the CSTO has demonstrated its complete failure not only to take appropriate measures to respond to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, but even to make a relevant assessment of the actions of its founding member. Furthermore, the majority of CSTO members, being under the influence of the Russian Federation, keep voting against any General Assembly resolution or decision aimed at countering Russian aggression. Nowadays, the CSTO has become one of the Russian Federation’s visible forays down the path of regional hegemony and a vehicle for gaining influence among its neighbours. The CSTO is merely one of the Russian policy tools employed in the post-Soviet space. Unfortunately, due to the position of the CSTO and its biased approach to the issues related to the Russian- Ukrainian conflict, Ukraine cannot support the provisions of the resolution related to the peacekeeping capabilities of the CSTO, as well as its role in providing “an adequate response to a wide range of threats and challenges” (resolution 73/331, seventh preambular para.). We therefore dissociate ourselves from the consensus on these paragraphs. I take this opportunity to encourage CSTO members, specifically the Russian Federation, to implement the eighth preambular paragraph of the resolution and “to attain objectives consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations”.

At the outset, we would like to thank the delegation of Kyrgyzstan for its skilful efforts and leadership in facilitating the negotiations on resolution 73/331, which we have just adopted. The delegation of Azerbaijan actively participated in the negotiation process. We note with satisfaction that some of the proposals we put forward in the course of informal consultations have been accommodated in the text of the resolution. Cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations is essential to the promotion of the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Regional organizations cannot be misused by those who gravely violate international law and advocate the culture of impunity. The charter of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) commits its members to act in strict accordance with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and the decisions of the Security Council and to be guided by the universally recognized principles of international law. According to the charter of the CSTO, the purposes of the organization are to strengthen peace and international and regional security and stability and to promote a just and democratic world order, based on the universally recognized principles of international law. We recall those obligations with a particular purpose. As is well known, the Republic of Armenia, one of the members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, used military force to seize a part of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, namely, the Nagorno Karabakh region, the seven adjacent districts and some exclaves in order to ethnically cleanse the captured areas of all non-Armenians and set up a subordinate racist minority regime there. In its resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993), the Security Council condemned the use of force against Azerbaijan and the occupation of its territories, reaffirmed respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, the inviolability of national borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory, and demanded the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces from all occupied territories. None of the Security Council resolutions has been implemented by Armenia, which continues to take purposeful measures to consolidate the gains of the use of force and ethnic cleansing and to challenge ongoing political efforts towards a resolution of the conflict. It is important to emphasize, in that connection, that the fulfilment in good faith of the obligations based on full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and the inviolability of international borders is a necessary prerequisite for the maintenance of international and regional peace and security and at the core of economic cooperation and sustainable development. There is no alternative for common language rules and their universal application, including in particular with regard to the resolution of conflicts, whatever their distinct root causes and characteristics. Consistency should be maintained in identifying ways and means of providing international responses to various crises and conflicts. The implementation of resolutions adopted by the principal organs of the United Nations and accountability must be part and parcel of collective efforts to that end. In that regard, we note that resolution 73/331, which the General Assembly just adopted, refers, inter alia, to the articles of the Charter of the United Nations relating to regional cooperation and encouraged the efforts of States members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization to attain objectives consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. We look forward to such efforts and their reflection in the future reports of the Secretary- General on the cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations.

Mexico is taking the floor to explain its position on resolution 73/331 following its adoption. We value the cooperation between the United Nations and the various regional organizations. We are convinced that such cooperation is most effective when there is full alignment with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. In order to be consistent with the resolutions presented at this General Assembly, it is important to make sure that the language referring to international crimes is perfectly aligned with the legal instruments that codify them. In this regard, Mexico wishes to highlight the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and two of its three complementary Protocols  — the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, and the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air. Conferring the same treatment — the use of the verb “combat” — on both irregular migration and the illegal trafficking of drugs, arms and human trafficking, is not consistent with either the additional Protocols or the recently agreed international commitments on the matter. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that the smuggling of migrants is not the same as trafficking in persons. They are two distinct crimes, and therefore have their own protocols. Let me repeat this: it is important to emphasize that migrant smuggling is not the same as human trafficking. They are distinct crimes, and therefore have their own protocols that require differentiated responses. Furthermore, not all irregular migration derives from the smuggling of migrants, which is why Mexico expresses its disagreement with the formulation in paragraph 2 of resolution 73/331 in which irregular migration is misrepresented as illicit trafficking in migrants, and puts the phenomenon of irregular migration on the same list of threats to international peace and security as terrorism and illicit trafficking in weapons. On the other hand, with regard to the references to the world drug problem contained in the text, we underline that the agreements emanating from the 2016 special session of the Assembly include examining the problem from the perspective of health and the full respect for human rights. Mexico will continue to support international cooperation efforts with regional organizations and advocate strict adherence to international law.

Georgia fully supports United Nations cooperation with regional organizations that aim to contribute to international peace and security and the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the United Nations. We believe the efforts of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) do not serve this goal. To the contrary, in August 2008, the CSTO failed to take adequate steps to respond to Russia’s full-scale aggression against Georgia and the subsequent and ongoing occupation, militarization and factual annexation of Georgia’s Abkhazia and Tskhinvali/South Ossetia regions. Further, the CSTO contributes to Russia’s aggressive policy towards its neighbours. Accordingly, my delegation cannot support a resolution recognizing CSTO’s peacekeeping capabilities, its adequate response to threats and challenges, and its contributions to the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the United Nations. We therefore wish to disassociate ourselves from the consensus on resolution 73/331.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position. Several delegations have asked to exercise 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 five minutes for the second intervention and should be made by delegations from their seats.

As a State member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Russian Federation notes with satisfaction that, as in previous years, the resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the CSTO was adopted by the General Assembly without a vote (resolution 73/331). We thank the Permanent Representative of Kyrgyzstan, as the Chair of the organization, and his team for their capable leadership of the negotiation process and the result that was achieved. We express genuine thanks to those delegations that have provided support for their active and constructive participation in the discussions on the draft resolution. At the same time, we are disappointed that, in today’s meeting of the General Assembly, some delegations have unfortunately sought to make use of agenda item 128, on cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations, in this forum to air disagreements that arise in bilateral relations or to push their views of certain events, which are different from what actually took place in reality. We are against this kind of politicized approach.

My delegation has requested the floor to remind the delegation of Azerbaijan that the topic of the agenda item under consideration is cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations. We resolutely reject Azerbaijan’s unfounded and baseless allegations and condemn its attempt to misuse this body to promote its narrow perception of conflict. On many occasions, we have presented our position with respect to the relevant Security Council resolutions on the matter (resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993)). I will therefore confine myself to only certain points. The Security Council has not considered the issue of political settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict nor has it set limitations on the exercise of the right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to self-determination. All four resolutions of the Security Council were adopted during the period of active hostilities, in 1993. Their main objective was to bring about an immediate cessation of all military actions and hostile acts. Unfortunately, despite significant reductions in tensions, a complete cessation of hostilities and a consolidated ceasefire continue to be a challenge today owing to Azerbaijan’s destabilizing military build-up and acquisition of offensive weaponry, in violation of legally binding obligations on conventional arms control, and other hostile acts. Furthermore, by referring to elected authorities of Nagorno Karabakh as a racist regime, Azerbaijan is trying to conceal its official policy of promoting anti-Armenian hatred and official glorification of perpetrators of hate crimes and mass atrocities against Armenians. Such Azerbaijani policies are further deepening the gap between conflict-affected societies and counters the efforts being made to establish an environment conducive to peace.

I take the floor to respond to the comments made by the delegation of Armenia. I can only describe them as hypocritical, because the comments that were made on cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization contradict what that representative has said previously. As for the contents of the comments made by that representative, I would like to state once again that the resolutions adopted by the Security Council in 1993 are still relevant and that the situation on the ground has not changed. What has been referred to as the elected regime is illegal, as it has not been recognized by anyone in this Hall. The Nagorno Karabakh region has always been and will remain an integral part of Azerbaijan. Armenia has resorted to force, violence and terrorist activities in an attempt to realize its groundless and unlawful territorial claims. Since the very first day of the conflict, combat operations have been conducted exclusively inside the territory of Azerbaijan, almost in the middle of my country, affecting its civilian population and infrastructure. Armenia continues to occupy the Nagorno Karabakh region and the surrounding seven districts of Azerbaijan, in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the relevant Security Council resolutions. Regardless of what Armenia is trying to represent, this does not reflect the situation on the ground, the numerous violations of the ceasefire or the people who are dying there. It just means that what Armenia is trying to do is misuse this platform to spread false information and present its position. As for the communities in question, the Armenian representative refers to the Armenian community but completely forgets about the Azerbaijani community, which was been forcibly displaced from those territories. Those people cannot exercise their right of return or their right to their property. I advise Armenia not to dismiss those people, because their rights have been grossly violated by that country. Armenia has consistently obstructed the conflict-settlement process while refusing to engage reasonably and constructively in results-oriented negotiations, regularly resorting to various provocations and escalating the situation on the ground. The achievement of peace, security and stability will be possible first and foremost only if the consequences of the Armenian occupation are eliminated, thereby ensuring that its armed forces are immediately, unconditionally and completely withdrawn from the territories of Azerbaijan, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country are restored and the right of internally displaced Azerbaijanis to return to their homes and properties in dignity and safety is guaranteed and implemented.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (t) of agenda item 128?