A/75/PV.69 General Assembly

I would like, in keeping with established practice, to draw the attention of the General Assembly to document A/75/661/Add.3, in which the Secretary-General informs the President of the General Assembly that, since the issuance of his communication contained in document A/75/661/Add.2, the Congo has made the payment necessary to reduce its arrears below the amount specified in Article 19 of the Charter of the United Nations. May I take it that the General Assembly takes note of the information contained in document A/75/661/Add.3?

Members are reminded that the debate on the item will be held during the high-level meeting to be held from 8 to 10 June 2021. I now give the floor to the representative of India to introduce draft amendment A/75/L.89.

I take the floor to introduce draft amendment A/75/L.89 to draft decision A/75/L.86, entitled “Participation of non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions and the private sector in the high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS”. The amendment seeks to restore the Indian academic institution MIT World Peace University to the annex to draft decision A/75/L.86. Civil society organizations are part of the fabric of every country and play a critical role in the robust democratic polity of any nation, as is the case in India. We deeply value their contribution to our nation-building process. That is particularly true of the health sector, where such organizations help to ensure the continuity of care from health facilities to the community and provide world-class HIV prevention and treatment services, which can serve as local sources of capacity-building for addressing existing and new health concerns. Efforts made by civil society organizations have been critical for advocating and improving HIV/ AIDS programming and overcoming many of the major challenges in the HIV/AIDS response. Networks of civil society organizations have delivered and continue to deliver life-changing services to those most affected and provide support for access to treatment, prevention and other essential health services, but those achievements should not be jeopardized. The diminishing space for civil society globally and an increasingly hostile political and social landscape call for an urgent response. The name of the Indian academic institution, MIT World Peace University, which has been omitted from the list of the organizations approved to participate in the high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS, needs to be restored so that it can contribute to and enrich discussions on this pressing issue of global concern. The university is recognized by the University Grants Commission of India. With a teaching faculty of more than 300 qualified professors, the university offers high-level academic courses to more than 50,000 students on its 10 campuses and 65 institutes. The university has a school dedicated to public health, as well as a school of pharmacy, and engages in research on health and medical issues. We firmly believe that the university’s participation and intervention will contribute greater understanding to our approach towards HIV prevention and contribute to shaping our efforts in tackling AIDS as a public health threat. The right to free speech and expression is the soul of democracy. The Constitution of India guarantees the freedom of speech. That right, exercised by genuine actors of civil society and academic institutions, contributes positively to the development of society. We urge the world community, through the General Assembly, to stand with the universal right of freedom of expression and lend support to the voice of genuine civil society organizations in contributing to our discussions on global issues, as important stakeholders. We urge Member States to support the amendment and vote in favour of it, should it be put to the vote.

Before we proceed to consider draft decision A/75/L.86 and draft amendment A/75/L.89 thereto, delegations wishing to make a statement in explanation of position are invited to do so in one intervention. May I remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Civil society are our eyes and ears on the ground and give us critical information and perspectives on a number of issues and should be at the table at all United Nations meetings, including at the high-level meeting on HIV/ AIDS. Civil society participation is critical to the high- level meeting. Civil society plays a key role in HIV/ AIDS advocacy and service delivery. Without civil society, fewer services would be available to key populations, people in remote areas would have to travel greater distances for services and many of the gains made in treatment thanks to civil society and advocacy would not exist. Without those lead efforts in the fight against HIV/AIDS on the ground, we simply would not have a high-level meeting. Draft amendment A/75/L.60, which was adopted by a comfortable margin on 23 February before the adoption of resolution 75/260 on the organization of the 2021 high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS (see A/75/PV.55), re-established a long-standing practice for the high-level meeting. Asking for objections to be brought for decision by the General Assembly increases transparency and accountability and enables the entire General Assembly membership, as opposed to one or a small group of Member States, to decide on the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). We are particularly concerned about the increasing trend of Member States objecting to NGOs from another country. The fate of a reputable and credible NGO should not be determined behind closed doors by the objections of one or a few Member States. The General Assembly must consider the criteria set forth by the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations in determining eligibility for participating in a meeting and push back against politicizing the work of civil society. The organization before us today has met all of the criteria of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations. Civil society’s greatest added value is that it works across countries, regions and issues and pushes each of us to do better as Governments. The voices that disagree with Governments are as important — if not even more important — to shedding light on problems and they push all Member States to do better. We have a lot more work to do to increase civil society participation across the United Nations and we will continue those efforts for future modalities and meetings. The United States will vote in favour of draft amendment A/75/L.89, should it be put to the vote, and encourages all others to do the same.

Today’s meeting of the General Assembly clearly demonstrates what we warned about in February (see A/75/PV.55). Through distorted reasoning and misleading and patently false arguments, the established practice of the General Assembly was flouted  — a practice that was adopted by consensus to ensure the participation of non-governmental organizations not enjoying consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, subject to the rules of procedure of the General Assembly and the intergovernmental nature of its work, and one that has worked successfully for many years. Consequently, the delegations that initiated an unseemly manoeuvre under specious pretexts in February got what they wanted today. Specifically, they caused the General Assembly to consider an issue that does not fall within its purview. They have undermined the prerogatives of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations and the effective division of labour within the United Nations system. They have unnecessarily politicized the debate. They have divided Member States in the General Assembly instead of helping to resolve differences and helping interested delegations to resolve contentious issues through bilateral dialogue. That is all the more regrettable given that restrictions related to the coronavirus disease pandemic have limited the number of observers in the Hall and access to online broadcasting, which would allow everyone to follow the meeting. It is also disappointing that such steps were imposed on the General Assembly under the shining banner of transparency. Where was such transparency in the selection process of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for their participation in multilateral hearings in preparation for the high-level meeting on HIV/ AIDS? Who selected the NGOs and on what criteria was their selection based? Why are the findings of a group of organizations established in that manner being presented as the views of civil society at large? I would also like to ask the Secretariat, which is responsible for verifying NGO applications, the following questions. How did the list come to include organizations that advocate the legalization of the use of drugs, which contravenes United Nations legal policy? How did organizations that promote the legalization of prostitution get on the list? How does that square with the zero-tolerance policy of the Organization on that issue? What is the purpose of such a list? Is it to give a voice to civil society to express its views or to provide drug and crime syndicates with a pulpit at the General Assembly? We are glad that a number of organizations that are actually working to help people living with HIV and to prevent the spread of the disease were included in the list of NGOs. They maintain a constructive if not always easy dialogue with national Governments. We are pleased that Russian NGOs also count among them. We appreciate the contribution of such organizations to our work in the context of relevant authorized procedures. At the same time, it is impossible to talk about any sort of balance among the NGOs on the list with divergent views. The list disproportionately represents organizations that bring together proponents of a lifestyle that is replete with risks with regard to HIV/ AIDS and advocate for the entrenchment of that lifestyle as a social norm. Unfortunately, the direction that the discussion has taken in that context is not conducive to promoting healthy lifestyles and traditional family values as a way to prevent HIV/AIDS. We once again call on our colleagues in the General Assembly to reflect on how we collectively decide to take action. For our part, we advocate strict adherence to the practices established in the General Assembly, which have been reaffirmed by years of consensus. We believe that it is important to respect the intergovernmental nature of the Assembly’s work. Every organ and subsidiary body of the United Nations system has its own functions and rules. Failure to keep them separate will affect the effectiveness of our work, as we have seen in practice.

China attaches great importance to the 2021 high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS and we will continue to work with other Member States towards ensuring a positive outcome, thereby injecting fresh political impetus into international cooperation on the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. China has been a consistent supporter of the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations and others in the work of the United Nations. At the same time, we must emphasize that the United Nations is an intergovernmental organization. Therefore, any decision concerning the participation of any NGO at United Nations events must be based on the absence of any objection from Member States. That is an important principle on which the United Nations operates and the inalienable right of all Member States. China has serious concerns about draft amendment A/75/L.89. The organization listed therein is engaged in political activities that, while they have nothing to do with HIV/AIDS prevention or treatment, are directed against Member States and challenge their sovereignty and territorial integrity. China unequivocally objects to the participation of that organization at the high-level meeting and is opposed to the draft amendment.

Allow me to begin by thanking the co-facilitators for their work on draft resolution A/75/L.86. We look forward to supporting the high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS. We are grateful that the newly agreed modalities allow us to see the rationale for objections to the participation of non-governmental agencies (NGOs). Such transparency is essential for ensuring that the high-level meeting will introduce voices from a various range of experts in the field of HIV/AIDS and we are grateful that the modalities have returned the decision-making power to the Assembly. However, the non-objection basis does not have to be the norm in the General Assembly and we regret that Member States continue to use the non-objection basis to attempt to block NGOs from other countries. We know that the high-level meeting has a long history of civil society participation dating back to 2001. Each and every participant has brought a valuable perspective to our conversation here in New York. We know that civil society plays a central role in the front line of the fight against HIV/AIDS, working diligently to improve access to antiretroviral treatments and tackle the stigma that HIV/AIDS patients face. We continue to have much work to do in combating HIV/AIDS. Therefore, it is crucial that civil society organizations be granted wide participation in the high-level meeting. Their input to that important topic is incomparable. Since civil society organizations often serve as resources and service providers, it would be a disservice not to take advantage of all the tools we have. That includes partnerships with civil society. We call on those who wish to contribute to the fight against HIV/AIDS to join us in supporting draft amendment A/75/L.89. The United Kingdom will continue to champion the inclusion of civil society voices at the United Nations at various high-level meetings, conferences and summits through accreditation by the Economic and Social Council and the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations.

My delegation would like to support the statements made by the representatives of China and Russia. We believe in constructive engagement and dialogue and my delegation fully supports the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). They have contributed to enriching the discussions at the United Nations and contributing diverse perspectives to different meetings. We greatly value the participation of civil society organizations in the upcoming HIV/AIDS high-level meeting. However, new norm-setting and bringing in new precedents should not allow us to polarize the work of the General Assembly. We should adhere to rules and procedures and the existing guidelines. There are parameters for the participation of NGOs and for that purpose we have the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, which grants accreditation to a number of NGOs. Currently the number stands at more than 5,000. Their participation is greatly valued. However, the participation of a particular NGO pitching against the interests of one State or another and polarizing the work of the General Assembly is highly regrettable.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position. We will now take action on draft decision A/75/L.86 and draft amendment A/75/L.89 thereto. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I would like to announce that, since the submission of draft amendment A/75/L.89 and in addition to those delegations listed in the document, the following countries have also become sponsors of draft amendment A/75/L.89: Belgium, Bhutan, the Comoros, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, the Niger, Poland, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Sweden.

Before we proceed to take a decision on draft decision A/75/L.86, in accordance with rule 90 of the rules of procedure, the Assembly shall first take a decision on draft amendment A/75/L.89. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft amendment A/75/L.89?

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft decision A/75/L.86, entitled “Participation of non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions and the private sector in the high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS”, as amended. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft decision A/75/L.86, as amended?

Before giving the floor to those who wish to speak in explanation of position on the draft decision just adopted, may I remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I would like to reiterate that China opposes the participation of the Maharashtra Institute of Technology World Peace University in the 2021 high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS and therefore dissociates itself from the amendment to decision 75/566.

Belarus wishes to reaffirm its interest in convening an effective high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS. The Republic of Belarus joined the consensus on decision 75/566, however we do not support the procedure that was used to compose the list of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) participating in the high-level meeting, namely taking a separate decision subject to a possible vote. We insist on preserving established procedures for the consideration of the participation of NGOS on a non-objection basis and we underscore the inarguable and inalienable right of States in that connection. Moreover, going forward, we call for compliance with the deadlines for submitting amendments in order to ensure that delegations have enough time to consult and agree their positions with their capitals.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position on the decision just adopted. I give the floor to the observer of the European Union, who wishes to make a statement after the adoption of the decision.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its 27 member States. The candidate countries of the Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania; the country of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina; and European Free Trade Association country Liechtenstein, member of the European Economic Area; as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova; align themselves with this statement. We highly welcome today’s session of the General Assembly  — and of course its outcome  — dedicated to taking a final decision on the list of civil society organizations that will participate in and contribute their experiences and support to the important fight against HIV/AIDS. This meeting provides the necessary transparency and restores the power of decision-making on the participation of civil society organizations in the work of the Assembly. We must nevertheless admit that we were surprised by the interpretation and implementation of the paragraph in the modalities resolution concerning the participation of civil society organizations (resolution 75/260, para. 11). Given that the modalities define that the list will include proposed as well as final names, we would have expected to be presented with a complete list comprising all proposed stakeholders for our consideration today, or at least transparency with regard to changes made to the list submitted for adoption. HIV/AIDS claims lives on a daily basis and shatters families and communities. Every case that can be prevented saves lives and spares grievances and life-long treatment, as well as economic resources. Approximately 2 million people became newly infected with HIV in 2019, about 40 million are currently living with it and an estimated 7 million are not even aware of their status and might spread it further. The activities of civil society organizations have been crucial for decades and merit a huge claim of the success and progress made to date. The work of civil society organizations to promote knowledge of prevention and treatment and fight against stigmatization is highly commendable. Their valuable outreach and mobilization capabilities have been acknowledged and taken into consideration since the beginning. Given the challenges ahead, we cannot afford to have experiences unheard to lack the support of any stakeholder in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Civil society participation in the high-level meeting is a high priority for the European Union, which is why we supported the amendment to reinstate the participation of civil society organizations to the full list. We support all voices being heard so that broad experience-sharing can take place. As we did not hear any convincing arguments as to why a particular civil society organization should not be relevant in the context of HIV/AIDS, we are happy to see that the final list now includes all civil society organizations that were contained in the initially proposed list. The fight against HIV/AIDS is not over. It is a long-term fight and much still needs to be done. In that regard, we are looking forward to an inclusive and successful high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS.

We have heard the last speaker on this item. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 10.

I give the floor to the representative of Sweden to introduce draft resolution A/75/L.88.

I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of Kenya and my own country, Sweden, draft resolution A/75/L.88, entitled “International meeting entitled “Stockholm+50: a healthy planet for the prosperity of all  — our responsibility, our opportunity”. Allow me at the outset to thank delegations for their active engagement during the informal consultations. Next year will mark 50 years since the pioneering United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm in 1972, a conference that greatly contributed to the emergence of a global environmental agenda through its various outcomes, including the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Over the past five decades, Member States have agreed and committed to action, notably through landmark conferences held in Rio de Janeiro and Johannesburg, as well as through the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. While significant progress has been made in meeting many sustainable development challenges, the science is clear: environmental changes are undermining hard- won development gains. The implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals is lagging and the pandemic has caused further severe setbacks. We need to do more, faster and together. Tackling biodiversity loss and pollution, climate change and the transition towards a 1.5°C world will require different responses from each of us. However, no country will be able to resolve the challenge alone. The coming decade is crucial. A multilateral approach is necessary. The title of the Stockholm+50 meeting calls attention to the fact that our challenges are interconnected: a healthy planet for the prosperity of all is essential to achieving sustainable development and to ensure the well-being of this and future generations. It also highlights that it is our responsibility to leverage that opportunity. Stockholm+50 should be a platform to promote collective action for strengthened cooperation and the accelerated implementation of sustainable development, including its environmental dimension, with a focus on cross-cutting actions that are designed to reduce inequalities and particularly benefit poor and vulnerable groups. Stockholm+50 will also contribute to advancing a sustainable recovery from the coronavirus disease pandemic. Success will require a whole-of-United-Nations- system approach. The draft resolution requests UNEP to serve as the focal point for providing support to the organization of Stockholm+50. In that capacity, UNEP will be well positioned to support preparations and discussions, allowing for co-creation across United Nations system entities and ensuring coherence and consistency between Stockholm+50 and UNEP@50. The United Nations Environmental Assembly of UNEP and other relevant United Nations bodies are invited to provide input to the meeting, as appropriate. The Stockholm+50 international meeting will be convened in Stockholm on 2 and 3 June 2022. Sweden will assume financial responsibility for the costs of the meeting. By adopting this enabling draft resolution, a first important step towards Stockholm+50 will be taken. We are looking forward to the constructive engagement of Member States and a speedy process for considering and agreeing on the modalities for Stockholm+50 before the end of the seventy-fifth session of the General Assembly. Once again, I would like to thank all delegations for their active engagement in the process so far.

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/75/L.88. (spoke in French) Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of vote before the voting, may I 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 Russian Federation.

The Russian Federation welcomes draft resolution A/75/L.88, on holding the international meeting entitled “Stockholm+50”. We would like to express our gratitude to the delegations of Sweden and Kenya for the initiative and for the readiness to provide Member States with the opportunity to jointly commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in the city where it was held, Stockholm. We note the constructive and pragmatic approach of the delegations to the work on the draft text. We particularly thank the representatives of the Group of 77, the European Union and the United Kingdom for their flexibility, constructive approach and creative proposals and for cooperating in the true United Nations spirit of multilateralism. By Sweden and Kenya taking the views of all delegations into account, it was possible to achieve a clear and balanced draft text, providing a sound basis for agreeing the remaining details for the event. It is important that the draft resolution that I hope we are about to adopt should reflect the history of the process of sustainable development from the Stockholm Conference and the subsequent development of the Rio principles through the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. During the international meeting next year, we will discuss ways to accelerate progress given the impact of the coronavirus disease pandemic, which has caused serious global economic damage. As is known, developing States find themselves in a very difficult situation. In that context, it is important that our discussion take into due account not only the environmental, but also the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development and that the proposed measures help to bridge the gap between developed and developing countries, while decreasing the anthropogenic impact on the environment. For our part, we are also ready to work constructively in the same manner on the modalities of the event in order to ensure that a comprehensive discussion that takes the interests of all States into account.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/75/L.88, “International meeting entitled ‘Stockholm+50: a healthy planet for the prosperity of all — our responsibility, our opportunity’”. 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 document A/75/L.88, the following countries have also become sponsors of the draft resolution: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, the Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, the Marshall Islands, Mauritius, the Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/75/L.88?

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

I have the honour to deliver this statement in explanation of position on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. We thank the co-facilitators, Sweden and Kenya, for their efforts in the negotiation process to achieve consensus on the adoption of resolution 75/280 “International meeting entitled ‘Stockholm+50: a healthy planet for the prosperity of all  — our responsibility, our opportunity’”. We also welcome the generous offer of Sweden to host and to assume the costs of the international meeting, with the support of Kenya. As reflected in paragraph 1 of the resolution, the decision to convene this international meeting is to commemorate the 50 years since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and its outcome documents. This meeting will take place as a contribution to the environmental dimension of sustainable development to accelerate the implementation of commitments in the context of the decade of action and delivery for sustainable development, including a sustainable recovery from the coronavirus disease pandemic. In that regard, the Group understands that there will be no expectation to redefine, renegotiate or mandate new mechanisms or new commitments or to go beyond the provisions of multilateral environmental agreements. We also note that the international meeting will result in a summary of discussions as its outcome document, as indicated in paragraph 5. The Group highlights the decisions that the international meeting should be mutually reinforcing with the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), avoiding overlap and duplication, and the role of UNEP in the preparations of the meeting, as well as the invitation to the United Nations Environment Assembly of UNEP and the Committee of Permanent Representatives to UNEP in order to provide input leading up to Stockholm+50. We look forward to those contributions to the preparatory process and the international meeting. We note that the decision of holding this event as an international meeting has followed the precedent of resolution 57/262. Therefore, we look forward to a modalities resolution that takes such a text as its reference, follows a similar format, is concise and is adopted by consensus in a short time frame.

The United States firmly supports efforts to promote an international meeting dedicated to environmental protection and sustainable development for all, and we are pleased to join the consensus on resolution 75/280. We thank Sweden and Kenya for their leadership on this text and for their work to ensure that the text reflects the views of all United Nations delegations.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote after the voting. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 19.

The positions of delegations regarding the recommendation of the Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. Therefore, if there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the report of the Committee that is before the Assembly today.

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. May I remind Member States that, under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401, the General Assembly agreed that “When the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, that is, either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation’s vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee.” May I further remind delegations that, also in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Before we begin to take action on the recommendation contained in the report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), I should like to advise representatives that we are going to proceed to take decisions in the same manner as was done in the Committee, unless notified otherwise in advance. The General Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) in paragraph 6 of its report. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 54?