A/75/PV.88 General Assembly

Before proceeding, I would like to inform members that, as mentioned in the letter from the President of the General Assembly dated 24 June 2021, we will first take action on draft resolution A/75/L.105, followed by the debate on the agenda item. The Assembly will now turn to draft resolution A/75/L.105 entitled “The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy: seventh review”. In order to ensure the smooth conduct of proceedings, delegations wishing to make an explanation of position are kindly encouraged to do so in their statement to be delivered in the debate. I now give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

This oral statement is made in accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. Under the terms of paragraph 36 of draft resolution A/75/L.105, the General Assembly would call upon Member States “to take appropriate measures to address the new and emerging threats posed by the rise in terrorist attacks on the basis of xenophobia, racism and other forms of intolerance, or in the name of religion or belief, including through investigation, information exchange and cooperation; and would request the Secretary-General “in consultation with Member States, to develop a greater understanding of the motivations, objectives, organization and the threat posed by such groups within the global terrorist landscape, including new and emerging threats, and to help to build, upon request, effective counter-narratives, capacities and strategies in this regard, and to report thereon in advance of its seventy-seventh session.” Under the terms of paragraph 85, the Assembly would emphasize “the need to continue to seek appropriate funding sources for the integrated and balanced implementation of all the pillars of the Strategy across the United Nations system, in an efficient manner, and in this regard [would welcome] the continuation of voluntary contributions by Member States; and would recall “its resolution 71/291, in which it emphasized the need to ensure that the Office of Counter- Terrorism is provided with adequate capacity and other resources for the implementation of its mandated activities, and in this regard, [would] invite the Secretary-General to carefully assess the finances of the Office and to provide budgetary recommendations, if necessary and on the basis of the technical assessment, to the General Assembly in 2022.” Under the terms of paragraph 93, the Assembly would note “the proposal of the Secretary-General made in his report on options to assess the impact and progress made by the United Nations system in support of the implementation of the Strategy and [would request] the Office of Counter-Terrorism, in close cooperation with Member States and all concerned United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Coordination Compact entities, to assess, as appropriate, methodologies and tools for a results framework to ensure comprehensive, balanced and integrated implementation of the Strategy by the entities subordinate to the General Assembly, and to report in this regard as part of the report foreseen in paragraph 118.” The activities referred to in the draft resolution relate to programme 1, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council Affairs and Conference Management, and programme 2, Political Affairs, and to section 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council Affairs and Conference Management, and section 3, Political Affairs, of the proposed programme budget for 2022 as presented in document A/76/6 (Sect.2) and A/76/6 (Sect.3). Pursuant to the request contained in paragraph 36 of the draft resolution, the Office of Counter-Terrorism would require specialized expertise to organize consultations with Member States at expert and political levels and undertake the analytical work required for the production of a report in all official languages to be submitted in advance of the seventy-seventh session. Additional non-recurrent consultancy resources would be required in 2022, under section 3, Political Affairs, under the Office of Counter-Terrorism. With regard to the invitation contained in paragraph 85 of the draft resolution, the Office of Counter- Terrorism would undertake a technical assessment in the second half of 2021. Subject to the outcome of the assessment, any budgetary implications for the programme budget would be included in the 2023 proposed programme budget, which will be presented during the main part of the seventy-seventh session, in accordance with the established budgetary procedures. To implement the request contained in paragraph 93, the Office of Counter-Terrorism would require specialized expertise to undertake the analytical work required for assessing methodologies and tools for a results framework in consultation with the United Nations system. Non-recurrent consultancy resources would be required in 2022, under section 3, Political Affairs, under the Office of Counter-Terrorism. The development of detailed resource requirements for 2022 to implement the requests contained in paragraphs 36 and 93 of the draft resolution would need further consultation, including with Member States and United Nations and non-United Nations entities signatory to the United Nations Global Counter- Terrorism Coordination Compact, where required. Detailed cost estimates would be presented to the main part of the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly in a revised estimates report for 2022, in accordance with the established budgetary procedures. The report to be presented to the General Assembly pursuant to paragraph 36 would be translated in all six official languages by the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management in 2022, in advance of the General Assembly’s seventy- seventh session. The related additional non-recurrent requirements for 2022 under section 2, General Assembly and Conference Management, would be presented in the revised estimates report for 2022. The additional reporting requirement in paragraph 93 would be addressed in the biennial report of the Secretary- General on the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, scheduled to be issued during the seventy-seventh session, which is an existing recurrent report that would be expanded for the seventy-seventh session. The additional non-recurrent provision for 2023  — only for the translation of the additional word count for the biennial report — would be included in the proposed programme budget for 2023 under section 2. In conclusion, should the General Assembly adopt draft resolution A/75/L.105, the Secretariat would present a revised estimates report to the main part of the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly detailing the additional requirements under the proposed programme budget for 2022. With regard to paragraph 85 and, for the reporting aspect, paragraph 93 of the draft resolution, if adopted, any budgetary implications for the programme budget would be included in the 2023 proposed programme budget, which will be presented to the main seventy- seventh session, in accordance with the established budgetary procedures. The statement I just read out was distributed through the plenary place on the e-deleGATE portal and will be made available in The Journal of the United Nations under the e-statements link for this meeting.

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/75/L.105. Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of position before taking a decision, 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 Israel.

I would like to thank the Ambassadors of Spain and Oman and their dedicated teams and express our appreciation for their hard work and efforts in this complex endeavour. Israel wholly embraces international efforts to counter terrorism and sees itself as a full partner in those efforts. Nevertheless, we were sorely disappointed to see the inclusion of the forty-third preambular paragraph in resolution 75/291. The resolution on the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy should serve as a compass for the global fight against terrorism. Adopting a zero- excuses and zero-tolerance approach to countering terrorism is an essential element for effectively combating terrorism. The forty-third preambular paragraph does the very opposite; it serves as a vehicle to justify certain terrorist acts and the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians  — when actually those acts should be condemned outright, regardless of the context. Israel therefore disassociates itself from the forty- third preambular paragraph, just as we disassociated ourselves with regard to the thirty-third preambular paragraph of resolution 70/291 in 2016 and the thirty- sixth preambular paragraph of resolution 72/284 in 2018.

We have heard the only speaker in explanation of position before taking a decision. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/75/L.105, entitled “The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy: seventh review”. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/75/L.105? The Acting-President (spoke in Spanish): Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of position after the adoption of resolution 75/291, may I remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I am honoured to deliver the following remarks on behalf of Belarus, China, Cuba, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Nicaragua, Russia, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Our delegations wish to make an explanation of position regarding resolution 75/291, on the seventh review of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. We are convinced that the General Assembly had no choice but to adopt this important resolution by consensus and to reaffirm its unreserved dedication to the aim of countering the menace of terrorism under the auspices of the United Nations. We consider that consensus on this resolution is even more important than its content. By supporting the resolution, our group reiterated its firm commitment to the comprehensive implementation of the Strategy, as well as its adherence to the relevant obligations under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, when countering terrorism. We recognize and support the advancements this resolution should bring to multilateral efforts related to suppressing various forms of support to terrorists, bringing them to justice on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, improving prevention and mitigation measures, as well as enhancing information exchange among States Members of the United Nations. We stand in solidarity with all nations that have suffered from terrorism and continue to reiterate our readiness to support and assist our partners around the world in their efforts to counter terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. In that regard, we are guided by the necessity to further build a united front against terrorism, based on mutual respect, rejection of double standards and hidden agendas, and strict adherence to the United Nations Charter. Unfortunately, the present review process did not live up to the high ideals and expectations of all Member States to that end. Namely, this resolution fails to address some of the most pressing contemporary issues, such as the obstacles to effective multilateral cooperation in combating terrorism, as well as the necessity to improve international legal frameworks in that sphere and advance their implementation. The text was disproportionally filled with human rights provisions and caveats; however, the proponents of that language preferred to refrain from accepting their own shortcomings and, in certain instances, violations in that regard. For example, we addressed the issue of returning children from conflict zones and the protection of their rights. However, the language included in the text does not nearly reflect the seriousness of the situation on the ground. There is a stronger emphasis in this resolution on dealing with detainees humanely. Yet we continue to turn a blind eye to the well-documented instances of torturing inmates in secret prisons. The list can go on. It was even more difficult to find solutions duly reflecting the positions of all delegations and realities on the ground because of serious deficiencies in the facilitation of the review process. We are convinced that any attempts to silence certain delegations or groups, while openly promoting other national and regional priorities, are incompatible with the principle of impartiality. We must recognize that such an attitude brought the Assembly to the verge of a first vote in the history of the consideration of the Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy by the General Assembly. We are convinced that precise and systemic conclusions should be drawn in order to avoid similar situations in future. In particular, we would suggest elaborating a set of rules to guide future facilitators in this process. It should reaffirm the need to respect the principle of the sovereign equality of States and stress that the facilitation of any intergovernmental negotiations process should be conducted in a non-partisan manner.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position after the adoption of resolution 75/291. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the co-facilitators of the informal consultations — His Excellency Mr. Mohammed Al Hassan, Permanent Representative of Oman to the United Nations, and His Excellency Mr. Agustín Santos Maraver, Permanent Representative of Spain to the United Nations — who demonstrated great ability and patience in guiding the discussions and complex negotiations on the resolution. We shall now begin the debate on the item.

At the outset, I would like to thank the President of the General Assembly at its seventy fifth session for the trust he placed in my colleague the Permanent Representative of Spain, Mr. Agustín Santos Maraver, and myself to oversee the seventh review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. We hope that we have succeeded in that task and accomplished it as required. However, if we have fallen short, we ask the President and all Member State delegations for their forgiveness. The consultations and negotiations were long and somewhat difficult, which is normal, but at the same time they were promising and exciting, as they showed us the ability of Member States to negotiate and reach agreements and understandings that meet everyone’s concerns. As a co-facilitator of the process, I would like, along with my colleague Ambassador Maraver — who unfortunately could not attend this meeting, but another colleague from the delegation of Spain will deliver a statement on his behalf — to thank all delegations for their valuable efforts and flexibility, which facilitated reaching what we believe is a good document that addresses everyone’s concerns and charts a path towards the future based on the cooperation of everyone to eradicate this phenomenon, wherever it exists and in all its forms and manifestations, including the new manifestations of terrorism and extremism. As co-facilitators, we endeavoured not to limit this review to countries only. We were keen to listen to various points of view and opinions, including those of our other partners from representatives of civil society, governmental and non-governmental organizations, individuals, experts and academics. We believe that method enriched the discussions and reflected the concerns of various parties. Therefore, I would like to salute them all for their sense of responsibility and for their effective contributions. We are also in agreement with what the Secretary- General said about terrorism, which is that it is one of the biggest challenges of our contemporary world and a phenomenon that is not specific to any religion, belief, country or certain peoples and not others. Terrorism is a global scourge that threatens the security and stability of all countries. Confronting terrorism and extremism requires everyone’s cooperation and a sense of responsibility — with one criterion and one voice, free from duplicity and with respect for others and for their sanctities and symbols. There is no doubt that the seventh review is not the only and final solution for dealing with terrorism and extremism. The main responsibility lies with States and Governments. We hope that all States and Governments will act as promised with a sense of responsibility and in accordance with the provisions of international law, international humanitarian law and international human rights law, while also respecting the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. We also call in particular for respect of the rights of women, children and the most vulnerable in society, including foreigners. Protecting them is the duty of all of us, and we stress very clearly that any effort to combat terrorism and extremism can bear fruit only if it is based on the principles of law and respect for human rights. I cannot fail but to extend my thanks to Secretary- General António Guterres, the Under-Secretary General of the Office of Counter-Terrorism, Mr. Vladimir Ivanovich Voronkov, and to all the staff of the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism for their efforts, assistance and facilities, which contributed to achieving the results that have been accomplished. Without them we could not have achieved those expected and desired results. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that we are all together in the war against terrorism and that cooperation and respect for the views of each party are extremely important. International efforts to eliminate terrorism should in no way detract from respect for the human rights of all peoples, all parties and all groups. We have a long way to go, but by working together we can reach good and tangible results.

I deliver this statement on behalf of the Permanent Representative of Spain, Ambassador Agustín Santos Maraver, who is in Spain today finalizing arrangements for the visit that Secretary- General António Guterres will make to my country in the coming days. Last November, the President of the General Assembly, His Excellency Mr. Volkan Bozkir, entrusted the Permanent Representative of Oman, Ambassador Al Hassan, and the Permanent Representative of Spain, Ambassador Santos Maraver, with the honour and responsibility of co-facilitating the seventh review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. I would therefore like to begin by thanking him for the confidence he placed in the co-facilitators. The purpose of the assignment was to implement the mandate of the sixth review of the Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy, which calls for a review of the extent to which the Strategy has been developed and implemented, as well as to complete the task of updating it in a year that is particularly significant, given that it marks the twentieth anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States. The fight against the scourge of terrorism continues to be a priority for our countries. Experience shows that international cooperation is indispensable in confronting that common threat. International collaboration in that regard must be further deepened and strengthened. The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy is therefore an essential instrument for providing us with a shared framework for collaboration. It is also necessary to adapt to the transformations that the terrorist phenomenon has undergone. For that reason — and taking advantage of the evolving nature of the Strategy, which is corrected, refined and advanced with each review — it is particularly important to work on progressive changes in the paradigm of the fight against terrorism. We must also approach the problem in its global dimension, adapting to the new geographic and ideological realities and consolidating a sustainable institutional architecture, while maintaining the greatest respect for international law. Amid the difficulties imposed by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on diplomatic negotiations, which had already delayed the review for a year, we began our work guided by the principles of inclusion, transparency and dialogue, which provide a solid foundation for effective multilateralism. Therefore, in the course of five months, we held more than 50 informal consultations, in addition to 45 prior meetings with Member States, regional groups and United Nations entities, as well as several seminars with specialists and academics and continuous engagement and interaction with civil society during the process of negotiations. We argued from the outset that the debate holds great intrinsic value. We have also found that, since the review is an open process, the more time devoted to reflection and debate and to learning about its application, the more mature and complex the consensus achieved will be. In short, thanks to our shared work during those five months, the seventh review of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy has been adopted today by the General Assembly (resolution 75/291). The results of that joint effort are quantifiable: 166 paragraphs in total, including more than 50 new paragraphs, to which must be added an effort to reduce and merge old paragraphs and the incorporation of numerous amendments and additions to legacy paragraphs. The review also preserves another qualitative aspect of perhaps even greater importance that has been maintained since the first review: consensus. Consensus serves as an expression of the value that the Member States attach to the review exercise, which is intended to send a clear political message — we are united against terrorism. It is of particular value on this occasion, because a significant number of new issues have been included. We hope that some of the important and innovative proposals that were put forward but could not be adopted will be accepted by all and included in future reviews. We would now like to briefly review some of the main issues addressed, including the evolution of the counter-terrorism paradigm and the constantly evolving geopolitical scenario. The threat of Da’esh and Al-Qaida persists and, although they no longer represent the threat they did in the Middle East three years ago, their affiliated organizations continue to do so, including throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. We are also concerned about new terrorist threats with various ideological and political roots, in some cases fuelled by racism and supremacism. It is especially important to confront all types of terrorism while closely monitoring their evolution. The institutional architecture of anti-terrorist action was another issue discussed in depth in the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The institutional growth of the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism has been one of the positive developments in the field of multilateralism in recent years. That growth now needs to be consolidated in order to ensure its sustainability. We also discussed the importance of economic sustainability and the monitoring and evaluation of the application of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations in the development of our common Strategy, basing that evaluation on scientific methodologies and tools. In addition, Member States wanted the Strategy to accord high priority to international law, especially international humanitarian law and international human rights law; the importance of the role and visibility of the victims of terrorism and the need to compensate them, objectives that we should work hard to implement, starting at the forthcoming first Global Victims of Terrorism Congress; the role of women and women’s organizations as an essential pillar of the fight against terrorism; and the indispensable contribution of civil society, reinforcing the essential social consensus of counter-terrorist action. Finally, we looked closely at how to deal with the use of new technologies by terrorists for their criminal uses, from the dissemination of their ideologies of hate to the defence of vulnerable targets and the financing of terrorist organizations. It is the task of the co-facilitators, Oman and Spain, to account to the President and the General Assembly for the task entrusted to them. The negotiations were not easy, as was to be expected given the complexity and political importance of what was discussed, as well as the particularly complicated circumstances in which they had to be conducted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, we believe that the efforts made by all involved have made it possible to reach a result that will be useful to us in our common efforts against terrorism in the years to come. For all those reasons, we would like to thank in particular the representatives of all Member States that participated in the negotiations for their constructive commitment, both in defence of their national positions as well as for the common good. We would like to thank the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism for its professionalism and support to the Secretariat during the negotiations, in particular its leadership, starting with Under-Secretary-General Voronkov and his entire team. We would also like to thank the Secretariat for its help in securing the material conditions for the negotiations. Lastly, we would like to extend our warmest thanks to Ambassador Al Hassan and his team for their close cooperation and dedication throughout the process. Without all of those people and their hard work, it would not have been possible to achieve our common goal. It is now up to us to implement the new resolution on the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, while trying to correct any possible errors, exploring new possibilities for progress and improvement and always keeping in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, as we look forward to a successful eighth review in two years’ time.

I am honoured to deliver these remarks on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its member States on the occasion of the seventh review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The candidate countries the Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania; the country of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina; the European Free Trade Association country Liechtenstein; as well as Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, and Georgia, align themselves with this statement. Let me start by welcoming the adoption by consensus of the resolution on the seventh review of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (resolution 75/291) and by thanking the co-facilitators, the Permanent Representatives of Spain and Oman, for their tireless efforts in advancing the process and ensuring that the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy is reviewed and updated to reflect the threats and challenges we face today. Counter-terrorism remains at the top of the EU’s agenda. In the light of the constantly evolving nature of the threat posed by terrorism and violent extremism, we must continue to work together to build upon progress achieved, while better prioritizing our activities. We must adapt and improve the tools required to address the threat, in particular at a time when we are all working on the global response to the coronavirus disease pandemic. The biennial review of the Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy that has been adopted gives us the opportunity to refocus our attention in that regard. As requested and in the interest of time, we refrained from delivering an additional explanation of position after the adoption of the resolution. We therefore want to emphasize that this statement includes an explanation of the position of the EU and its member States on certain provisions of the resolution and should be understood as such. In the face of terrorist attacks, we, the European Union and its member States uphold the common values that underpin our pluralist societies and continue to pursue efforts to defend them with determination. Respect for human rights and the rule of law, including due process and fair trial guarantees, must be the bedrock of the fight against terrorism. Respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counter-terrorism measures and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort. Efforts to combat terrorism must never serve as a pretext for human rights violations. It must go without saying that nothing can justify human rights violations by States. We want to specifically mention the new language included in the eighth preambular paragraph, which might be interpreted by some as seeking to reverse responsibilities in the counter-terrorism versus human rights debate. We continue to insist that Member States must ensure that any measures taken to counter terrorism comply with the rule of law and all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law. We therefore interpret the reference to the right to life, liberty and security in the eighth preambular paragraph as implying the duty of States to refrain from engaging in activities that might result in the arbitrary deprivation of life, torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. States must also exercise due diligence to protect the lives of individuals against deprivations caused by persons or entities whose conduct is not attributable to the State. The EU takes this opportunity to reaffirm the importance of redoubling efforts to pay equal attention to each of the four pillars. In order to achieve that, we must strengthen in particular the fourth pillar, which concerns human rights and the rule of law. While the resolution we just adopted represents a hard-won consensus and we very much welcome the advances in the language regarding those issues, we must acknowledge the persistent differences between Member States on the role that civil society plays in countering and preventing terrorism and violent extremism. That includes a lack of recognition of the problems we encounter as a result of a continued shrinking of the civic space, as well as the importance of paying due attention to the gender dimension. In our collective efforts to implement the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy over the coming biennium, we must seek to bridge those divides. In that respect, the EU looks to the leadership of Under-Secretary-General Voronkov and the United Nations Office of Counter- Terrorism, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN-Women and other Global Counter- Terrorism Coordination Compact entities. We continue to express concern that counter- terrorism is invoked and that counter-terrorism measures are being misused by some Governments in order to repress perceived dissent and silence human rights defenders. That includes instances of reprisal for engagement with the United Nations. We emphasize that efforts to combat terrorism must not compromise human rights under any circumstance. The EU and its member States fully support a whole-of-society approach to implementing the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and calls for strengthened collaboration and cooperation between Governments and civil society. Only by embracing human rights and the rule of law can Governments create an enabling environment for local authorities and civil society to help counter radicalization and violent extremism. We therefore welcome the language in that regard contained in the Strategy review we just adopted. In addition, we cannot insist enough on the importance of the full, equal and meaningful participation and leadership of women in efforts to prevent and counter terrorism and violent extremism. We also need to provide a voice and support to victims of terrorism. The fight against terrorism requires putting victims at the centre and ensuring that their rights are protected and promoted. Those elements must be substantially integrated in all programmes and counter-terrorism measures and we strongly welcome new the language in the resolution in that regard. In addition, we cannot insist enough that the humanitarian space must be protected. Countering terrorism and providing humanitarian assistance are mutually inclusive objectives. We must implement robust counter-terrorism measures and at the same time ensure the protection of humanitarian space. We have heard ample evidence of the unintended impact of counter-terrorism measures on humanitarian actors. We must work harder to ensure that counter-terrorism measures do not impede humanitarian action. We continue to regret that not all delegations are yet ready to ensure that humanitarian assistance is prioritized but we very much welcome the improved language in the resolution. Given that our enemies have demonstrated a formidable capacity for adaptation, we must strengthen our response to terrorist organizations and their acts. We must step up our efforts to isolate terrorists by drying up all their sources of financing. That requires financial and non-financial oversight mechanisms, while following the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force  — an important element that we regret has not been included in the resolution. We need to develop guidance, share best practices and facilitate networks to protect public spaces, critical infrastructure and aviation from terrorist threats. We must address all forms of violent extremism, including politically motivated violent extremism and terrorism, as well as the threat from the far right and far left. We regret that there was such strong opposition to the inclusion of that phenomenon in the resolution. By leaving it out, we failed to address one of the most significant emerging threats in many countries, as well as to accept terminology that describes the full spectrum of the terrorist threat and that is widely used and well understood. We must tackle the misuse of information and communication technologies through a multi-stakeholder approach, including by working with civil society and in close cooperation with the private sector, as successfully emphasized by the Christchurch Call to Action, in the strategic appeals of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and through the removal of terrorist content online, while providing alternative narratives. We therefore firmly welcome the new language contained in the resolution in that regard. The resolution also introduces new paragraphs on hard security measures, namely weapons, new technologies, criminalization, punishment. Those elements move the strategy away from the prevention agenda. We continue to believe that it is only through prevention that we can be successful in fighting the scourge of terrorism in the long term. In that regard, we welcome the improved language contained in the resolution that seeks to enhance the exchange of best practices on assessing and addressing radicalization that leads to violent extremism in prisons and support prevention projects that seek to establish tools to detect and combat such radicalization. We need to tackle the root causes of extremism and radicalization. We need to build inclusive societies, in which civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights are guaranteed. It is fundamental to address socioeconomic inequalities, gender inequalities and other forms of discrimination. It is crucial to invest in education, foster intercultural and interfaith dialogue, build well-integrated societies and develop programmes aimed at preventing radicalization. The text, however, introduces language that risks undermining the universality of our endeavours by focusing on specific forms of discrimination. Our fight against terrorism is global and the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy needs to continue to reflect that. Let me turn now to the institutional perspective. The EU and its member States strive to ensure that space for human rights checks and balances within the United Nations counter-terrorism institutional structures are well in place and that engagement with civil society is strengthened at all levels while ensuring a gender-responsive approach. We appreciate that the resolution calls for better mainstreaming of human rights and gender as cross-cutting issues across the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, as well as for all counter-terrorism activities. However, there is still a lack of credible and independent oversight within the system, in particular within the United Nations Office on Counter-Terrorism. We therefore call on the Secretary-General, when conducting the assessment he has been tasked with, to do so in meaningful cooperation with all relevant Global Compact entities, especially the Global Compact Working Group on Promoting and Protecting Human Rights, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Freedoms and Supporting the Victims of Terrorism. We would also like to refer to the important discussions that have taken place on the future financial balance of the United Nations counter- terrorism architecture. We think it is a crucial question, with implications that are not merely financial, but also political and institutional. We therefore welcome the discussion on this topic and think that it must continue if we are to achieve greater clarity and transparency on the issue. By strengthening due process, we foster positive narratives and address such underlying conditions as political, economic, social and other grievances. The Ombudsperson of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011) and 2253 (2015) concerning ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities is a primary example in this regard, and we very much regret that consensus could not be reached to welcome the indispensable work of the Office, to call for improving the conditions of the functioning of the Office and to stress the need to extend efforts aimed at ensuring that procedures are fair and clear for all sanctions regimes. We also wish to insist that it is crucial that the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism and the Global Compact enhance their coordination and coherence in the field through consultative interagency efforts. They should integrate their field-level engagement, including among resident coordinators and within United Nations country teams, in order to support such broader United Nations peace and security and development agendas as the Secretary-General’s reforms and his prevention agenda. We continue to call for developing a meaningful monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the overall impact and comprehensive, integrated implementation of the Strategy. Monitoring and evaluation standards are a widely recognized concept for quality assurance, and we should strive to implement them in United Nations counter-terrorism efforts. A lack of appropriate monitoring and evaluation can make it difficult for donors to consider making voluntary contributions to the UNOCT and other entities. The EU and its member States remain committed to multilateralism and support global efforts to fight terrorism and violent extremism in support of the United Nations, including through the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF). We welcome the ongoing efforts aimed at further strengthening the cooperation between the GCTF and the United Nations in implementing the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. As strong evidence of our commitment to effectively countering the threat of global terrorism, we devote considerable financial resources to counter- terrorism capacity-building partnerships that underpin the implementation of the United Nations Strategy. With respect to the EU alone, its funding for specific engagements outside the EU in terms of countering terrorism and preventing violent extremism has increased to approximately €500 million at the end of 2020 and is ongoing. In conclusion, the EU and its member States welcome the adoption of resolution 75/291 and commend the facilitators for their strong and successful leadership in ensuring that, at the end of this important commemoration, we have a renewed strategy that seeks to respond to today’s challenges. We also want to recognize the facilitators’ proactive engagement with civil society, which should serve as a model for future reviews. For our part, the EU and its member States would like to thank civil society for their constructive partnership and cooperation throughout this process. We will continue our steadfast support for and collaboration with the United Nations, the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism and all the Compact entities, as well as the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, with a view to achieving the full implementation of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Countering terrorism is a priority we all share. Together we — the United Nations, the European Union, the Member States — have been tirelessly committed to mitigating this scourge. Only together can we put a stop to terrorists and their backers.

I give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia who will speak on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the States members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on the adoption of resolution 75/291, on the seventh review of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. This review offers an important opportunity to renew our collective and unwavering resolve to combat the scourge of terrorism and promote international peace and security. The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its regular by biennial reviews provide an important opportunity to reflect on the role of multilateralism. Since the Strategy was first adopted in 2006 by consensus in resolution 60/288, all reviews have been conducted preserving this practice, which delivers the strong and necessary message that the Strategy and its four pillars embody a unified global approach to countering terrorism. The OIC would like to congratulate and thank the facilitators of the seventh Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review, Ambassador Mohamed Al Hassan of the Sultanate of Oman and Ambassador Agustín Santos Maraver of the Kingdom of Spain, for their valuable contributions throughout the negotiations. This review was challenging from the beginning. This was the case since the decision to postpone the negotiations to the seventy-fifth session of the General Assembly, owing to the restrictions occasioned by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. In addition, it was very challenging to Member States to take on the extensive new language that was introduced in the zero draft. The OIC expressed the concern at the start of negotiations that the edits and new language in the zero draft could complicate the negotiations and disrupt the delicate balance among the four pillars of the Strategy. Nevertheless, throughout the negotiations, the OIC demonstrated extreme flexibility, despite its reservations and concerns, and was careful not to disrupt the consensus procedure, even at times when the draft review resolution was on the brink of not reaching consensus. We think that the lessons learned from this process could guide future facilitators, with the aim of enhancing the concept of multilateralism and preserving the consensual character of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in future reviews. The OIC worked during the negotiations with a firm belief that it was necessary to have an updated strategy that reflects the new elements that are significantly different from what existed in 2018. We are pleased that some of these updates were reflected in the review resolution, including the reference to the COVID-19 pandemic, recognizing the pivotal role of national State institutions, including law- enforcement institutions, in countering terrorism, and several new and emerging threats. The rise of hate speech, xenophobia, racism and Islamophobia as well as the increase in terrorist attacks on cultural property and religious sites were incorporated in the review resolution alongside references to the challenges of the misuse of new technology by terrorists and the importance of enhancing the human rights approach in countering terrorism, including ensuring that counter- terrorism measures are not misused to deprive people of their nationalities. Furthermore, the OIC has always stated that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group. In this regard, the OIC notes with satisfaction the omission of the term “Islamic” from the name of a terrorist organization that is covered in the review resolution. The organization in question is neither Islamic nor does it represent a State. Although symbolic in nature, such correction was very much overdue. We call upon all United Nations entities and Global Compact entities, particularly the Office of Counter-Terrorism and the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate, to mainstream the name “Da’esh” when referring to this terrorist organization, as is already done by many Governments, and to refrain from using any other terminology when referring to that organization. Finally, the OIC wishes to congratulate all Member States on the General Assembly’s adoption of resolution 75/291 on the seventh review of the Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy. OIC members will continue to remain involved in the endeavour of combating terrorism as a matter of priority, including at the highest political level.

Today I have the honour of speaking on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand (CANZ) at this general debate on the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Terrorism remains an urgent threat that can best be addressed through collective action. However, the nature of that threat is changing, and it is incumbent on us to adapt. New technologies and our growing online social networks can be exploited for terrorist purposes. Grievances and intolerance continue to drive terrorist threats, motivated by a range of hateful ideologies, including racism, xenophobia, misogyny and religious intolerance. The coronavirus disease pandemic has also further deepened inequalities and isolation, opening new avenues for terrorists to radicalize to violence. For CANZ, we believe that this moment demands a collective response. However, our response to terrorism cannot be isolated from other priorities or driven only by hard security measures. We believe that the best defence against terrorism is a resilient, inclusive society where individuals feel safe and violent extremist ideologies of any sort cannot take hold. Counter-terrorism measures that fail to protect the fabric of society can also inflict significant damage by narrowing the scope of human rights protections, minimizing diversity in our communities and failing to balance security with our fundamental freedoms. All delegations have spent months negotiating the seventh review of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. On behalf of CANZ, I would like to express our deepest thanks to the co-facilitators and our colleagues, the Permanent Representatives of Oman and Spain. We would like to particularly thank them for creating space for dialogue with civil society and other United Nations entities throughout the process. The commitment of the Ambassadors and their experts to a productive negotiating process was much appreciated by our missions. Overall, CANZ believes that there have been some important updates to the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Those include more nuanced language on the importance of protecting human rights in all counter- terrorism measures, while acknowledging that counter- terrorism measures can also inflict harm. We are pleased to see the Strategy better reflect the reality that gender-based analysis is an important element of effective counter-terrorism responses. With the multifaceted threats from terrorists today, engagement with all stakeholders as real partners in this effort, including civil society, the private sector and religious groups, remains essential, and we believe that this is better reflected in the Strategy. While we have made some good progress, we have some real work ahead of us. While it began in 2006 with three operative paragraphs, the Strategy has now ballooned to well over 100 operative paragraphs. We are in great danger of losing the coherence of the Strategy. The difficulties of the negotiations also reflect the divergent approaches to counter-terrorism efforts. Unfortunately, that risks undermining the work of the United Nations to respond to counter-terrorism. We note that some of the greatest debates in the negotiations were over the work of the United Nations on counter-terrorism. As donors to extrabudgetary requests, we remain deeply concerned at the resistance to including language to enhance transparency and improve the monitoring and evaluation of the United Nations counter-terrorism efforts. We strongly encourage all United Nations Global Compact entities to prioritize a results framework that integrates human rights and gender considerations into monitoring and evaluation. We also believe that independent human rights oversight of counter- terrorism efforts is essential to ensuring that the United Nations efforts are consistent with all United Nations values. We encourage the Secretary-General to consider a full range of views and to seek independent advice when assessing options for fully integrating cross- cutting elements and for the potential grant-making function of the Office of Counter-Terrorism. Finally, CANZ considers that there is still much to learn to improve our counter-terrorism capacity- building measures. We will continue to advocate for an improved One UN approach to counter-terrorism following the adoption of this Strategy (resolution 75/291).

I have the distinct pleasure to deliver the following remarks on behalf of the countries of the MIKTA group, namely, Mexico, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Australia and Turkey, on the occasion of the seventh review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. At the outset, we would like to affirm our hope regarding the consensual adoption of the review of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (resolution 75/291). It is a product that reflects the will and determination of the peoples of the United Nations to prevent and counter terrorism and to address that common threat. It is not an easy task to strive for consensus among 193 Member States that have different geographies, political, social and economic backgrounds and diverging security concerns and sensitivities. We would like to express our appreciation to the co-facilitators, Ambassador Agustín Santos Maraver of Spain and Ambassador Mohamed Al Hassan of Oman, for their tireless efforts throughout the process. We also thank all delegations for their active and constructive engagement. Our group, MIKTA, consists of countries with different geographical, cultural, historical and religious backgrounds. Yet shared values and willingness to identify common interests enable us not only to overcome the possible challenges that such differences could create, but also to actually make use of that diversity for the common good and try to develop and determine courses to address the many challenges that the international community faces today. Despite the positive developments that have occurred since the last review in 2018 (see A/72/ PV.101), terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism still persist and pose a significant threat to our collective security. Despite all our efforts, the threat of terrorism unfortunately continues. No country or region is immune to that constantly evolving menace, which encompasses mutually inclusive new and old trends. With the emergence of the coronavirus disease pandemic, terrorist organizations accelerated their efforts to disseminate their offline and online propaganda and to radicalize young people and other segments of society. As outlined and referred to in the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy itself and Security Council resolution 2341 (2017), as well as resolutions 2178 (2014) and 2396 (2017) and the Secretary-General’s relevant reports, such criminal organizations exploit new technologies to recruit new members, stage attacks and finance their activities. The international community must act with determination and ingenuity and work more closely to address this threat as it becomes even more complex. Counter-terrorism and security are one of the MIKTA group’s core areas of collaboration and, as such, preventing and fighting terrorism is at the top of our agenda. The Foreign Ministers of the MIKTA group of countries have time and again reiterated their strong condemnation of terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and emphasized the importance of effective international cooperation to counter terrorism. We would once again like to stress the necessity of adopting a comprehensive approach that would embrace not only essential security-based counter-terrorism measures, but also systematic preventive measures, as well as those oriented towards ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law. Furthermore, terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism cannot, and should not, be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group. We want to once again underscore the conviction of the MIKTA group of countries that it is only through concerted action at the global and regional levels and the fulfilment of our obligations under international law that we can effectively address terrorism. The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, developed by Member States since its first adoption in 2006 (resolution 60/288), has been essential guidance for the international community to prevent and counter terrorism based on its four pillars, the balanced implementation of which is of the utmost importance. We hope that the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy will be updated to include references to new challenges and threats that have arisen and ways to comprehensively address them; to further elaborate on the threats that have already been identified, such as foreign terrorist fighters, countering the financing of terrorism, countering terrorist narratives and the exploitation of information and communications technologies for terrorist purposes; and to reflect the realities with regard to humanitarian action, vulnerable targets and the gender dimensions of terrorism. We particularly welcome the additional language regarding the victims of terrorism. We believe in the necessity of both whole-of- Government and whole-of-society approaches. We are of the view that the addition of further references to the important role that civil society, young people, local actors and other stakeholders play in this matter would be positive. Allow me to reiterate our commitment to fully respecting and promoting human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law in our overall approaches to countering terrorism. We believe that such principles are complementary and mutually reinforcing to effective counter-terrorism measures and are an essential part of any successful response in addressing this challenge. The MIKTA countries share the firm conviction that a United Nations system that functions effectively is essential to addressing the threat of terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism globally. We hope that the additional reference in the updated Strategy to the Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) and the United Nations Global Compact entities will enhance the strategic coordination and coherence of United Nations counter-terrorism activities, both within the United Nations system and with the relevant external actors, in order to create synergies and avoid duplication. The benefit and importance of the timely, adequate and effective delivery and facilitation by the United Nations of counter-terrorism capacity-building assistance to Member States upon their request cannot be overemphasized. Taking this opportunity, we would like to commend Under-Secretary-General Voronkov and his team at UNOCT for their dedication and relentless efforts towards the implementation of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and the invaluable assistance that they provide to Member States to that end. Finally, we look forward to the second United Nations High-level Conference of Heads of Counter- Terrorism Agencies of Member States, to be convened next week. We once again thank the Secretary-General for placing countering and preventing terrorism at the top of the agenda of the United Nations.

The Philippines welcomes the adoption, by consensus, of resolution 75/291, on the seventh review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. We extend our appreciation to the co-facilitators, the Permanent Representatives of Spain and Oman, for their valuable efforts in facilitating this resolution. We also thank the Secretary-General for his report (A/75/729 and A/75/729/Corr.1) on this topic. A consensual and truly Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, reflecting balance among the diverse interests of Member States, as well as among the four pillars of the Strategy, is critical to States confronted with terrorism. The world has changed since 2018, when we last adopted the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (resolution 72/284). The coronavirus disease pandemic has altered the global security landscape. With the ensuing border restrictions, terrorists have shifted operations into cyberspace, where they spew narratives for a captive online audience. Only four years ago, a Da’esh-inspired terrorist organization laid siege to Marawi in the southern Philippines. A network analysis later established that the group had ties to international terrorist groups that facilitated the flow of funds, foreign terrorist fighters and material support. The Philippines acted swiftly. We adopted a national strategy based on the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, partnering with communities, countering terrorist financing, enhancing border control, including through joint maritime border patrols, ramping up law enforcement, optimizing international cooperation and revamping our counter-terrorism legislation. Last year, we passed the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. While Member States have the primary responsibility for countering terrorism, the Marawi incident, with its transnational elements, demonstrates the need for a global strategy. In order to stay relevant, the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy must remain a living document, evolving with the times and the shifting paradigms of terrorism but realistic and responsive to the needs of Member States. The Philippines therefore welcomes the substantive updates in this seventh iteration of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and the retention of key principles. In that regard, we support ensuring adequate capacity and resources for the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT), headed by Under-Secretary-General Voronkov, for the implementation of its mandated activities. We look forward to the convening of the first United Nations Global Congress of Victims of Terrorism and support raising awareness regarding victims of terrorism and the promotion and protection of their rights. We affirm the importance of human rights and international humanitarian law in countering and fighting terrorism. We remain committed to the idea that counter-terrorism efforts should be based on respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and unity of all States, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Under the seventh iteration of the Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy, we look forward to working with UNOCT, the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate and United Nations entities with the relevant mandates, as well as other partners, for the integrated and balanced implementation of the Strategy across the United Nations system, and to pursuing our counter-terrorism efforts consistent with respect for national ownership and national priorities.

Poland aligns itself with the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union, which underscores the need to keep the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy under review so that it reflects the current realities and goals. We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the co-facilitators from Spain and Oman for their dedication to laying the groundwork for the review of the Strategy, and we congratulate them on the task accomplished. Let me add a few additional remarks in my national capacity. The United Nations remain a major actor on counter- terrorism issues. Its Office of Counter-Terrorism and the relevant Security Council Committees play a crucial role in efforts to prevent and counter terrorism. We commend the Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee and its Executive Directorate on their outstanding work in monitoring the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. We recognize also the work of the Office of Counter-Terrorism as well as that of the Security Council Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) 1989 (2011) and 2253 (2015) concerning the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities; the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1988 (2011); and the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004), as well as the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team and Group of Experts. We encourage a further enhancement of coordination and coherence in the work of the United Nations system and beyond on preventing and countering terrorism and the underlying spread of violent extremism through the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Coordination Compact. The useful role of the United Nations system in counter-terrorism efforts was confirmed during the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate’s visit to Poland on behalf of the Counter-Terrorism Committee in December 2019. The open and constructive exchange of information at that time was remarkably fruitful and mutually beneficial. What seems crucial about the conclusions from that visit and is equally important in the context of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy review is the necessity of maintaining a multidisciplinary, multi-agency, integrated approach to tackling crime, including terrorism, while ensuring that any measures taken respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Poland’s commitment to preventing and fighting terrorism remains unwavering. We will continue to work to that end with the United Nations, the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Global Coalition against Daesh and other partners whose cooperation brings added value in countering terrorism. I take this opportunity and am pleased to convey that countering terrorism will be among Poland’s priorities during its upcoming chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Let me now focus on several issues that are relevant to today’s debate. First, we need to foster and expand international cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism while ensuring that the measures taken by Member States fully comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law. Second, we need to look closely at the problem of the misuse of information and communication technologies, in particular the Internet and social media, by terrorist groups to radicalize and recruit and to prepare attacks. We should also focus on their misuse of other technologies, including artificial intelligence, 3D printing, cryptocurrencies and drones, and ways of tackling it. Third, we should consider in particular ways of stopping the recruitment and use of children to perpetrate terrorist attacks and the violations and abuses committed by terrorist groups against children. Fourth, we should promote international solidarity in support of the victims of terrorism, in particular in terms of their access to justice and promoting resilience. In that context, we welcome the initiative of the Secretary-General to convene the first United Nations Global Congress of Victims of Terrorism. Fifth, we need to not only prevent the targeting of religious minorities by terrorists but also to promote — especially through education and awareness programmes — mutual respect and understanding among various groups living together to prevent any violations of their freedom of religion or belief. In order to draw attention to the widespread violence based on grounds of religion or belief and the need to prevent it, Poland initiated at the United Nations the International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief. We hope for wide participation therein. Sixth, we need to further develop inter-agency cooperation and the exchange of information with foreign counterparts to stop terrorism financing. Our efforts should focus on creating legal, operational and financial norms so that terrorists cannot use existing gaps or loopholes. We need to step up our efforts to deny terrorist groups safe havens, freedom of operation, movement and recruitment, as well as financial support. Seventh, we should continue international cooperation to safeguard civil aviation against terrorist attacks, in accordance with Security Council resolution 2309 (2016). To that end, we should promote the implementation of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Global Aviation Security Plan. We welcome the consensual adoption of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy review resolution (resolution 75/291) calling for the enhancing of national, regional and international efforts to prevent and counter terrorism. We stand ready to cooperate with the United Nations and its Members in the implementation of all pillars of the strategy. We call on all States to take the same stance.

South Africa would like to thank Secretary-General António Guterres and Under-Secretary-General Vladimir Voronkov for having convened the second High-level Conference of Heads of Counter-Terrorism Agencies of Member States. We are also grateful to the facilitators of the review process, through whose unstinting efforts we have once again been able to adopt the resolution unanimously. As we commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of the adoption of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, it is clear that this is an evolving threat that requires a long-term commitment and an ability to adapt and course-correct in dealing with it. The discussions that we have had over the last few days illustrate the varying levels of the threat and its impact on various sectors of society, including women and youth. The negotiation process to adopt the resolution on the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (resolution 75/291) was complex and in parts difficult. The fact that we are once again able to enjoy consensus is testament to the value of cooperation and the spirit of compromise in response to a threat that shows no sign of abating and which continues to dominate the global security agenda. Only through cooperation, constant assessment and reassessment of the threat and the sharing of information and good practices can we begin to make progress in countering that threat. South Africa stresses that a multilateral framework anchored in the United Nations remains critical to preventing and countering the diverse and evolving aspects of that threat. With near-universal membership, the United Nations is best placed to foster cooperation across the globe as well as in supporting Member States and regions in the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy across its four pillars. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has not deterred terrorist groups but has allowed them to exploit and misuse new technologies aimed at providing benefits to Member States to radicalize, train, facilitate attacks and raise funds, as well as posing new threats to critical infrastructure. The concerns raised over the past few days over the possible resurgence of terrorist activities once COVID-19 pandemic restrictions have been lifted have been noted, and Member States need to be vigilant. While South Africa supports the revised strategy, it is important that the new focus on extremism remain focused on violent extremism conducive to terrorism. Not doing so could lead to the exploitation of the term for political agendas and to violations of fundamental rights and freedoms. Continued terrorist attacks across the world have shown us that no nation or region is immune and that there is no short-term solution to countering the threat of terrorism and its devastating consequences. If we are to triumph over that scourge, we need, in addition to our national efforts, to strengthen international, regional and subregional cooperation and coordination efforts. Regional organizations remain key partners of the United Nations in that important task. South Africa has consistently prioritized an enhanced strategic partnership between the United Nations and regional and subregional organizations, not only in countering terrorism but also, more broadly, in conflict prevention and resolution. Different regions of the world experience the threat posed by terrorist groups and/or the return or relocation of foreign terrorist fighters differently. We encourage the development of partnerships with regional organizations, given their appreciation of local and regional dynamics and their understanding of what would be required. In that regard, the international community must find ways to support efforts by regional organizations aimed at fighting terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism, including through the sharing of experiences and good practices and the provision of technical assistance and adequate resources for capacity-building. For its part, the African Union has been proactive in dealing with the threat of terrorism, as evidenced by its normative frameworks developed since 1999, primarily the Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism and its related Protocol of 2004, as well as its counter-terrorism strategy adopted in 2015. Likewise, at the subregional level, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) also adopted its counter-terrorism framework and strategy in 2015. The emerging threat of terrorism in the southern African region is an area of growing concern. In that regard, South Africa has supported and cooperated on regional initiatives in addressing the threat in the region. That includes the establishment of a SADC regional counter-terrorism centre and domestic centres; ongoing cooperation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime through a series of workshops; and continued cooperation with the African Union’s Centre for Study and Research on Terrorism, including to address training and legal needs in the region. South Africa is fully supportive of the SADC initiatives to bring about peace and stability in the region. In that regard, the efforts of the United Nations and the international community in the region should dovetail with those of SADC. South Africa will continue to work with all Members of the United Nations, the African Union, the SADC community and other relevant parties in addressing the scourge of terrorism and all its attendant manifestations at the regional and international levels. As a member of the BRICS group, which consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, my country also supported the adoption of the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Strategy in 2020, which is reflective of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and further strengthens cooperation among the members of that configuration. We wish to take this opportunity to once again reiterate South Africa’s commitment to fighting terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. We adopted our national counter-terrorism strategy in 2013 along with its accompanying action plan. That strategy is currently being reviewed to be aligned with the evolving terror landscape and new challenges that require additional or changed countermeasures. This is an opportune time to also reflect on the country’s response to the exploitation of new technologies by terrorist groups. We have also recently concluded the review of our counter-terrorism legislation, which came into force in 2004, to adapt to new international trends and developments. South Africa remains committed to continued cooperation with all United Nations structures, regional organizations and Member States to counter that threat. We must stress that as we counter the threat of terrorism, the importance of adherence to international obligations and commitments, in particular human rights law, international humanitarian law and international refugee law, remains key. South Africa believes that owing to the very nature of terrorism, it is difficult to defeat it militarily or solely through the use of coercive measures. We will therefore remain supportive of counter-terrorism initiatives that focus on prevention measures, on addressing the conditions that give rise to terrorism, and on promoting dialogue, tolerance, diversity and understanding among peoples, cultures and religions.

Jamaica welcomes the convening of the seventh review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. We especially want to thank the co-facilitators, the Ambassadors of Oman and Spain, for their tireless efforts and skilful guidance in steering this process over these past months, culminating in resolution 75/291, on the seventh review of the Global Counter Terrorism Strategy, on which my delegation joined consensus today. We wish also to thank the Secretary-General for his report on this issue (A/75/729). Jamaica is acutely aware of the fact that terrorism remains a real and present danger — a transnational threat that requires global cooperation at the governmental and non-governmental levels. Operating in our new normal has made fighting this issue even more challenging for my country. However, we remain resolute in our efforts to counter terrorism and violent extremism. Over the past year, we have recognized that the restrictions on travel and stay at home/work from home orders have made it even more difficult to monitor the activities of persons of interest, as they have become even more sophisticated in their actions. We have had to become as ingenious as those who seek to carry out such acts of terror. Although the threat of terrorism is considered low in Jamaica, terrorist activities have become more intertwined with organized crime. Fighting against that activity requires collaboration with international and regional partners to bolster national efforts to observe early-warning systems, build resilience and counter radicalization to violent extremism and mobilization. We in the Caribbean region are threatened with the ripple effect of international terrorism as terrorists seek to penetrate other territorial boundaries. Therefore, trends such as the recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters and lone wolves, the accessibility of terrorist group propaganda online, self-radicalized home-grown extremists, the development of clandestine cells and the proliferation of transnational organized criminality have had to be prioritized by our Governments. Our region is also faced with the return of nationals from conflict zones that may have exposed them to violent jihadist ideologies and who, on their return, may seek to recruit and radicalize other individuals and facilitate their commission of terrorist acts. Unfortunately, Jamaica has had its challenges with its own nationals being charged for, among other things, incitement and facilitation of foreign terrorist fighters’ travel. Given the cross-border nature of the threat, that reality reinforces the need to share information and intelligence in order to enable the easy detection of foreign terrorist fighters in the event that they travel through our region. Therefore, the dynamics of the foreign terrorist fighter phenomenon as well as the human rights implications of related cases has highlighted the need for Jamaica and other Governments in the region to have an informed position. Notwithstanding emerging developments and advancements in efforts to prevent, pursue and respond to acts of terror, to be truly effective the Government of Jamaica’s counter-terrorism response has to rely on strong and cooperative relationships, not only between and among local Government actors but also with foreign State actors, as well as regional and international collaboration. We therefore applaud the partnerships and cooperation that we have had at the bilateral, regional and multilateral levels. So important is the issue to Jamaica that we have put in place a national coordination mechanism to ensure the response to and the prevention, investigation and management of consequences of terrorism and its financing. That mechanism shares real-time information and intelligence on emerging threats and trends, and it also evaluates and monitors the country’s and the region’s progress in countering terrorism and violent extremism. Jamaica continues to improve its national counter- terrorism and counter-violent-extremism measures through regulatory enhancements and the strengthening of the country’s legislative framework. Among the initiatives pursued are ensuring that the country meets its international obligations and achieving compliance with the Financial Action Task Force requirements in relation to money-laundering and counter-financing of terrorism. In this regard, several advancements were made in relation to our counter-terrorism financing and anti-money-laundering initiatives, particularly through requirements imposed on regulated entities to report to the Financial Investigations Division under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Terrorism Prevention Act and the United Nations Security Council Resolutions Implementation Act. Under the Terrorism Prevention (Designated Reporting Entity) Order, lawyers are required to disclose information that could link their clients to terrorism. This is to ensure that Jamaica complies with the asset guidelines and monitoring regime that govern anti-money-laundering and counter-financing of terrorism regimes within the financial system. Jamaica has also developed a good understanding of its money- laundering, terrorism and financing risk and introduced effective mitigating strategies and proceeds. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2019 allows for the investigation, identification and recovery of the proceeds of crime. Our immigration legislation is currently being amended to strengthen provisions addressing the advance passenger information and inform the introduction of the passenger name record. This will increase the country’s ability to conduct robust risk assessments and prevent high-risk passengers from boarding vessels and/or entering our borders. In 2016, the Government of Jamaica established a cyberincident response team to assist in the protection of Jamaica’s information and communications technology infrastructure. In this regard, the capacity and capability of local law-enforcement personnel and policymakers have been enhanced to counter traditional and non-traditional forms of terrorism and prevent violent extremism, radicalization and mobilization to violence. We take this opportunity to recognize our bilateral and multilateral partners for their support in enhancing the capacity of individuals who are directly and indirectly responsible for countering terrorism and violent extremism. Efforts are also well advanced to finalize Jamaica’s integrated counter-terrorism response-readiness plan, which relies on a strong and cooperative relationship between the Government, the private sector and civil society. The plan will provide procedures, structures and coordination arrangements to ensure the prevention response, investigation and management of the consequences of a terror incident in the pre-incident, incident and post-incident stages. At the regional level, the Counter-Terrorism Strategy of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), adopted in February 2018, is aimed at reducing the risk of terrorism and associated violent extremism and at building resilience to extreme ideology with a view to ensuring a safer and freer CARICOM. The Government of Jamaica will continue to accord great importance and urgency to developing measures designed to mitigate threats of terrorism and organized crime. We wish to reaffirm our stance in countering violent extremism and terrorism through maintaining collaborative partnerships, facilitating capacity- building, sharing information, intelligence and best practices among local, regional and international partners. We must therefore stand united to prevent, protect from, prepare for and respond to any act of terror.

I thank the President for convening today’s General Assembly meeting on the biennial review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. We also thank Ambassadors Agustín Santos Maraver of Spain and Mohamed Al Hassan of Oman for co-facilitating this difficult but important negotiation process. When the Strategy was adopted in 2006 through resolution 60/288, the international community came together to coordinate a unified global framework to counter the evolving threat of terrorism. At the heart of our collective counter-terrorism effort is the imperative to protect lives. Unfortunately, we have not always succeeded, and the resulting victims of terrorism are an eternal reminder of our collective responsibility to prevent acts of terrorism everywhere in the world and to hold terrorists accountable. We must stand in solidarity with victims of terrorism and support the immediate, short- and long- term relief and rehabilitation of victims and their families. That we have managed to adopt the Global Strategy by consensus once again, through resolution 75/291, despite the entrenched and divergent views of Member States, is a notable achievement. My statement today serves as both our statement of debate and our explanation of position. Both will be posted on our website following today’s meeting. Although few of us would consider the Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy as set forth in resolution 75/291 a perfect resolution, it does address many critical issues for which there is international consensus. For example, the United States welcomes the inclusion of language promoting national sentencing policies, practices and guidelines for terrorism crimes, which are proportionate and reflect the gravity of the offences in question, while respecting human rights and upholding international law. The United States also welcomes new language on terrorism and violent extremism based on racism, although we regret that we could not come to consensus on language that encompasses both race and ethnicity as potential motivating factors. The United States also welcomes references to the important topic of repatriation but regrets that these references are not commensurate with the gravity of the issue, which Under-Secretary-General Voronkov called one of the most pressing issues in the world today. Foreign terrorist fighters in inadequate detention facilities and their associated family members living in overburdened camps in Syria and Iraq pose a serious security threat and represent a dire humanitarian crisis that raises human rights concerns. Unfortunately, many of the States that push for adding human rights language throughout the Strategy refused to address the inhumane conditions faced by their own citizens who are languishing in Syria and Iraq. We believe that repatriation of all Member States’ citizens and the rehabilitation, reintegration and prosecution, as appropriate, of foreign terrorist fighters is the best way to prevent a resurgence of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant in Iraq and Syria and the uncontrolled return of these fighters to their countries of origin in future. Similarly, the best way to support the short- and long-term relief and rehabilitation of associated family members, particularly the thousands of children who remain in such displaced persons camps as Al-Hol, is to return and reintegrate them into their local communities. As the United States said in 2018, the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy review resolution should guide global efforts to counter terrorism and prevent violent extremism, not be yet another vehicle to unjustly criticize Israel at the United Nations (see A/72/PV.101). The United States cannot accept the divisive reference to foreign occupation in the forty-third preambular paragraph, which attempts to justify terrorist acts that are categorically unacceptable under any circumstance and to undermine Member States’ legitimate right to self-defence. Accordingly, the United States disassociates itself from consensus on forty-third preambular paragraph of the resolution: all forms and manifestations of terrorism are criminal or unjustifiable. The United States supports increasing humanitarian assistance and access for those in need, consistent with both counter-terrorism and humanitarian imperatives. We endorsed the language in operative paragraph 60, drawn from Security Council resolution 2642 (2019), which urges Member States to take into account when designing and applying counter- terrorism measures the potential effect of those measures on exclusively humanitarian activities, including medical activities that are carried out by impartial humanitarian actors in a manner consistent with international humanitarian law. The United States rejects the efforts by some to read language included in operative paragraph 109 to mean that all Member States, including non-parties to the relevant armed conflict, have obligations under international humanitarian law any time it applies to ensure that counter-terrorism legislation does not impede humanitarian aid even if terrorists benefit from such aid. While we support the critical role humanitarian actors play, there is no obligation under international law for there to be completely unrestricted delivery of humanitarian or other assistance to terrorist groups or individual terrorists at all times. We emphasize that paragraph 109 has no impact upon the binding obligation for Member States to criminalize the financing of terrorism and prohibit their nationals or those within their territories from providing funds or other economic resources, directly or indirectly, to terrorist organizations or individual terrorists for any purpose, even in the absence of a link to a specific terrorist act. The United States also remains concerned about the references to the so-called principle to extradite or prosecute in operative paragraphs 26 and 29 of the Strategy, which is a misstatement of international law. Extradition and prosecution are vital elements of the law-enforcement response to terrorism, but we remind the Assembly that the obligation to extradite or prosecute arises under specific multilateral treaties. It is incorrect to suggest that it exists as a freestanding principle of law that applies and has independent meaning outside the specific relevant provisions of those treaties. In the twenty-third preambular paragraph, we note that the right to education is to be progressively realized, as is the case with all economic, social and cultural rights. In that same paragraph, we read “all feasible measures” to encompass existing obligations under international humanitarian law. Resolution 75/281 does not expand on the obligations of parties to an armed conflict vis-à-vis schools. In operative paragraph 68, we read the term “nuclear, chemical and biological materials” to include only materials with the potential for weapons-of-mass- destruction applications, and not, for instance, bona fide medical supplies. We also reiterate that successful counter-terrorism and prevention-of-violent-extremism efforts must respect human rights, including freedom of expression and the rule of law. As such, we read resolution 75/291 in the light of our Constitution and international obligations. One of the founding purposes of the United Nations was the promise of collective measures to prevent and counter threats to international peace and security. For almost 20 years, since the 11 September attacks, Member States and United Nations entities have fulfilled this purpose. The United Nations has created collective mechanisms to identify strategic counter-terrorism priorities and strengthen the capacity of Member States to prevent and counter terrorism while highlighting the value of whole-of- Government and whole-of-society approaches and the importance of respecting human rights and the rule of law. Over the next two years, the United States looks forward to building on this work and to collaborating with the United Nations and other multilateral organizations, Member States and civil society to implement the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in a balanced approach across all four of its pillars.

Let me start by expressing my gratitude to the President of the General Assembly for convening today’s plenary meeting on the seventh Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GCTS) review. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to Ambassadors Agustín Santos Maraver and Mohamed Al Hassan for their leadership and to the Permanent Missions of Spain and Oman for their dedication throughout the process that led to the adoption by consensus of the resolution on the GCTS review (resolution 75/291). During consultations in this Hall, back in March, I introduced Japan’s four priority areas for this review: cyberspace, maritime security, institution-building and root causes. It was our strong view that adding or reinforcing these elements would bring greater value to the GCTS reviews that we have undertaken since 2006. I feel encouraged that these areas have garnered due attention from the membership and are reflected in the resolution just adopted. I also welcome the reference to the Kyoto Declaration, adopted by consensus at the fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, also in March this year. I would like to take this opportunity to further elaborate on Japan’s perspective on two important domains in the context of counter-terrorism, namely, cyberspace and maritime security. First, with regard to cyberspace, our growing dependence on information and communications technologies during the pandemic invigorated the online activities of terrorists and propelled terrorist narratives. Two years ago, in June 2019, the leaders of the Group of 20 (G-20) gathered in Osaka and issued the G-20 Osaka Leaders Statement on Preventing Exploitation of the Internet for Terrorism and Violent Extremism Conducive to Terrorism. Japan will remain at the forefront of international efforts to promote multi-stakeholder approaches to confront this serious challenge. Furthermore, in the areas of counter-terrorism investigations and terrorist financing through the dark web and crypto-assets, Japan sees great need for enhancing Member States’ capacities to leverage artificial intelligence and open-source information. In this regard, we have supported a global programme led by the Office of Counter-Terrorism designed to provide capacity-building support to countries in South- East and South Asia. Japan strongly hopes that this initiative, including the recently launched report on the use of artificial intelligence in online counter-terrorism efforts, will assist many Member States in navigating this emerging field, in full compliance with human rights and the rule of law. Secondly, with respect to maritime security, as an island nation, Japan can never stress enough the importance of peace and stability at sea for the entire world. In this spirit, Japan welcomes the addition of operative paragraph 64 to resolution 75/291 and appreciates the wide support among Member States for this paragraph. Japan has contributed approximately $13 million to the Global Maritime Crime Programme under the auspices of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to enhance the capacity of maritime law enforcement in Asia and Africa, including counter- terrorism measures. Japan would like to encourage other Member States to make similar efforts for maritime safety and security. Only by steadily implementing the Global Strategy, can we prove the strength of our determination and solidarity to fight terrorism. Japan remains committed in this global effort, together with the United Nations, Member States and other stakeholders.

I congratulate the President on the convening of today’s important meeting of the General Assembly. It is my duty to begin by stating that the Government of Colombia strongly condemns the attack against the President of the Republic of Colombia and high-ranking officials of the national Government on 25 June, which had no fatalities, and the terrorist attack against the Thirtieth Brigade of the National Army that took place on 15 June. Our society as a whole suffers from that kind of action, which threatens the rule of law, democratic institutions, sustainable development and my nation’s ability to live in peace and security. Such terrorist acts often attest to the link among the actions of terrorist organizations, illegal armed groups, transnational crime and financing through drug trafficking and other crimes, such as kidnapping, illegal mining, arms trafficking and smuggling. The consequences are cross-cutting, and the response must be comprehensive. Based on its principled position with regard to such behaviour, the Government of Colombia rejects and condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. All acts of terrorism are illegal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, location, context or perpetrators. I thank the Ambassadors of Spain and Oman for facilitating the negotiation process on resolution 75/291, on the seventh review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The Government of Colombia values that process as a model for renewing the international community’s commitments in this area and for addressing new aspects of the international counter-terrorism agenda. In that regard, I want to emphasize the unwavering commitment of the members of the international community to combat this scourge by denying terrorists safe haven, freedom to act and of movement and the ability to recruit. We regard as imperative the commitment of States to refrain from supporting actions that jeopardize peace and security, such as allowing terrorist organizations to use their territory and the organization, instigation, facilitation and financing of terrorist activities. Colombia underscores the importance of international cooperation and multilateralism in that struggle. It is extremely important to note that cooperation must take place with a view to building and strengthening local capacities commensurate with States’ needs, in line with their national policies. In that regard, my country calls on the international community to strengthen counter-terrorism activities in the following areas: first, breaking the link connecting terrorism with drug trafficking and transnational organized crime, pursuant to Security Council resolution 2195 (2014) and its precursors, such as Security Council resolution 1373 (2001); secondly, combating the financing of terrorism by strengthening information-sharing and financial intelligence measures; thirdly, stepping up operational and legal cooperation; fourthly, implementing the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy within a framework that upholds human rights, prioritizes the rights of women and children and includes the participation of civil society; lastly, countering the dissemination of extremist narratives on the Internet. In conclusion, it is my hope that the discussions and the different views that arose from the negotiation process on resolution 75/291  — an important resolution — will be the basis for new understandings that will lead us towards a future free of terrorism.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item at this meeting. We will hear the remaining speakers on Tuesday, 6 July, at 3 p.m. in this Hall. Reports of the Fifth Committee

The General Assembly will now consider the reports of the Fifth Committee on agenda items 138, 139, 141, 146, 154 to 156, 158, 159, 163, 165, 166 (a) and (b) and 167 to 170. I request the Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee, Mr. Tsu Tang Terrence Teo of Singapore, to introduce the reports of the Committee in one intervention. Mr. Teo (Singapore), Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee: I have the honour to present to the General Assembly the reports of the Fifth Committee containing recommendations on the issues considered during the second part of the resumed seventy-fifth session. The Fifth Committee met between 3 May and the early hours of 29 June, holding four plenary meetings and numerous online rounds of informal and informal consultations, some of them running late into the night and into the early hours of the morning and on weekends. In accordance with resolution 49/233 A, of 23 December 1994, the second part of the resumed session of the Fifth Committee was devoted primarily to the consideration of the administrative and budgetary aspect of United Nations peacekeeping operations and associated issues. The Committee considered the financing of 16 peacekeeping operations and the report of the Board of Auditors on peacekeeping operations, as well as other items related to administrative and budgetary aspects of the financing of peacekeeping operations. In addition, the Committee considered a number of reports pertaining to human resources management and the programme budget for 2021. The Committee’s initial report on agenda item 169, entitled “Financing of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur” (A/75/681/Add.1), was already considered by the General Assembly at its sixty-sixth plenary meeting, on 18 May (see A/75/PV.66). Let me now present the reports of the Fifth Committee containing recommendations on issues that require action by the General Assembly. Under agenda item 138, entitled “Financial reports and audited financial statements, and reports of the Board of Auditors”, in paragraph 6 of its report contained in document A/75/665/Add.1, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of one draft resolution, which was adopted in the Committee without a vote. On agenda item 141, entitled “Programme budget for 2021”, in paragraph 6 of its report contained in document A/75/682/Add.2, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of one draft resolution, which was adopted by the Committee without a vote. On agenda 146, entitled “Human resources management”, in paragraph 6 of it is report contained in document A/75/935, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of one draft resolution, which was adopted by the Committee without a vote. Under agenda item 154, entitled “Administrative and budgetary aspects of the financing of the United Nations peacekeeping operations”, in paragraph 15 of its report contained in document A/75/936, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the following four draft resolutions: draft resolution I, entitled “Support account for peacekeeping operations”; draft resolution II, entitled “Financing of the Regional Service Centre in Entebbe, Uganda”; draft resolution III, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Logistics Base at Brindisi, Italy”; and draft resolution IV, entitled “Closed peacekeeping missions”, all of which were adopted by the Committee without a vote. With regard to the draft resolutions on the financing of peacekeeping operations, I should like to inform the General Assembly that the following draft resolutions were adopted by the Committee without a vote. The reports of the Fifth Committee are presented under the following agenda items: agenda item 155, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei”, as contained in document A/75/937; agenda item 156, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic”, as contained in document A/75/938; agenda item 158, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus”, as contained in document A/75/939; agenda item 159, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”, as contained in document A/75/940; agenda item 163, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo”, as contained in document A/75/941; agenda item number 165, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali”, as contained in document A/75/942; sub-item (a) of agenda item 166, entitled “Financing of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Middle East: United Nations Disengagement Observer Force”, as contained in document A/75/943; agenda item 167, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan”, as contained in document A/75/944; agenda item 168, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara”, as contained in document A/75/945; agenda item 169, entitled “Financing of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur”, as contained in document A/75/681/Add.2; and agenda item 170, entitled “Financing of the activities arising from Security Council resolution 1863 (2009)”, as contained in document A/75/946. Regarding sub-item (b) of agenda item 166, entitled “Financing of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Middle East: United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon”, the report of the Fifth Committee is contained in document A/75/664/Add.1. The Committee considered the draft resolution and decided to retain the fourth preambular paragraph and paragraphs 4, 5 and 39 by a recorded vote. In paragraph 12 of the report, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the draft resolution as a whole, which was adopted in the Committee by a recorded vote. Under agenda item 139, entitled “Review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations”, in paragraph 5 of its report contained in document A/75/683/Add.2, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of one draft decision, entitled “Questions deferred for future consideration”, which was adopted by the Committee without a vote. As this is the last time that I take the floor as Rapporteur, I humbly ask the Assembly’s indulgence to make some personal remarks. The seventy-fifth session of the Fifth Committee has a been a difficult one, even by our usual standards. We have faced increasingly complex substantive issues and had to adapt to new modes of work, owing to the pandemic. I commend all representatives and the Secretariat staff on rising to the challenge and bringing us to where we are today. I would like to thank the Chair of the Fifth Committee, Ambassador Carlos Amorín, for guiding us through our work. I also thank my fellow Bureau members  — Mr. Katlego Mmalane, Mr. Jakub Chmielewski and Mrs. Armağan Ayşe Can Crabtree — with whom, as always, it was a pleasure to work. Tuesday mornings will not be the same without our meetings. I am also deeply grateful to Mr. Lionelito Berridge and the entire team of the Fifth Committee secretariat. They are the bedrock of the Committee and true exemplars of professionalism and patience in putting up with our occasional antics. Lastly, I would like to thank all colleagues and friends who have sacrificed countless hours of their family time and sleep, all in the name of making the United Nations fit for purpose for the twenty-first century. We may have had our differences during negotiations, but I believe we all share the common and overarching goal of improving the Organization so as to benefit the peoples of the world. I therefore wish everyone a well-deserved summer break and look forward to seeing those who will remain with us in the fall.

I thank the Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee. Before proceeding further, I would like to emphasize to representatives that, as the Fifth Committee concluded its work yesterday evening, the reports are available in English only. It is my understanding that they will be issued in all the official languages as soon as possible. I thank members for their understanding. The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of the Fifth 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 reports of the Fifth Committee that are before the Assembly today.

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote or position. May I remind members 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, i.e., 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 decision 34/401, explanations of vote or position are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. When there are multiple proposals under an agenda item, statements in explanation of vote or position before action is taken on any or all of them should be made in one intervention followed by action on all of them, one by one. Thereafter, there will also be an opportunity for statements in explanation of vote or position on any or all of them in one intervention after action is taken on all of them. Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Fifth Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we will proceed to take decisions in the same manner as was done in the Fifth Committee, unless notified otherwise in advance. That means that, where recorded votes were taken, we will do the same. I should also hope that we will proceed to adopt without a vote those recommendations that were adopted without a vote in the Fifth Committee. The results of the voting will be uploaded to the e-deleGATE portal, under plenary announcements. I would also like to remind members that any corrections to the voting intentions of delegations after the voting has concluded should be made directly to the Secretariat at the end of the meeting and submitted via the e-deleGATE portal. I ask for the cooperation of members in avoiding any interruptions to our proceedings in that regard.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.48. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 138.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.49. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled “Special subjects relating to the programme budget for 2021”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 141.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.33. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled “Seconded active-duty military and police personnel”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 146.

The Assembly has before it four draft resolutions recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 15 of its report. We will now take a decision on draft resolutions I through IV, one by one. The Assembly will first take a decision on draft resolution I, entitled “Support account for peacekeeping operations”, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.34. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution II, entitled “Financing of the Regional Service Centre in Entebbe, Uganda”, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.35. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

We will now turn to draft resolution III, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Logistics Base at Brindisi, Italy”, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.36. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

Next, we turn to draft resolution IV, entitled “Closed peacekeeping missions”, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.32. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 154.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.38. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 155.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.39. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 156.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.40. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 158.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.41. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 159.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.42. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without the vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 163.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.43. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 165.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.44. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 166. (b) United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon Report of the Fifth Committee (A/75/664/Add.1)

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 12 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.31/Rev.1. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon”. A recorded vote has been requested.

The Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 166.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.45. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 167.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.46. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 168.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.37. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 169.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.47. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 170.

The Assembly has before it a draft decision recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft decision is contained in document A/C.5/75/L.50. We will now take a decision on the draft decision, entitled “Questions deferred for future consideration”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 139. On behalf of the General Assembly, I would like to thank His Excellency Mr. Carlos Amorín, Permanent Representative of Uruguay to the United Nations and Chair of the Fifth Committee, the members of the Bureau and delegations for a job well done. The General Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of all the reports of the Fifth Committee before it.