A/76/PV.70 General Assembly

I give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, who wishes to speak on a point of order.

I asked for the floor on a point of order because there has been a procedural mistake, as follows. I asked the Secretariat to make a statement after the adoption of resolution 76/262, and it responded by saying that speakers would be limited to only the co-sponsors. But now, when I look at the list of speakers, I see that one State that is not a co-sponsor has been allowed to make a statement. I did not want to exercise my right of reply so long as all States have the right to make statements. However, having received that response from the Secretariat, I am compelled to exercise my right of reply. Accordingly, I reserve my right to make a statement after the adoption of the resolution.

Today, with the adoption of resolution 76/262, we have established an effective mechanism for transparency, coherence and accountability. We have strengthened not only the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council but also the United Nations system, as outlined in agenda item 124, under which we considered this proposal. Today we have also contributed to the strengthening of the role and the authority of the Assembly. This is a good example of the implementation of the mandates and goals of the process to revitalize the General Assembly, and we are convinced that it will have a positive impact on the work of the Security Council. We must not confuse an overlap in functions with synergies between the two principal organs of the Organization. The standing mandate to convene a formal meeting to debate an issue when one or more permanent members of the Security Council stand in the way of the adoption of a Council resolution by use of the veto is not duplication but complementarity. The United Nations and its bodies would be but empty shells if we were to pretend that there is no relationship between those two organs. Given the so-called right to veto that is granted to the five permanent members of the Security Council, the 193 permanent members of the General Assembly have now been given the right to speak. In both cases — the right to the veto and the right to speak — those prerogatives should be exercised responsibly. For all those reasons, Ecuador, which has closely supported the proponents since the genesis of the text some years ago, and which sought to contribute to the initiative, co-sponsored the proposal. For us, it is not an end, but a starting point. For example, it is time to ask ourselves how Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, whereby “in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting”, is being interpreted and applied. The legacy that the United Nations has bestowed on humankind in the areas of development, human rights, peace and security is immense. Yet there are pending challenges, some of which are empirical. We must therefore be aware that the eyes of the international community are now more than ever focused on what the Organization can do to prevent or resolve conflict.

The veto is not a privilege. It implies duties and a special responsibility for the permanent members. The use of the veto cannot be intended to paralyse the Security Council in fulfilling its mandate to maintain international peace and security. That would be contrary to the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. Moreover, that is why France has not used the veto for more than 30 years. France condemns the unacceptable blocking of the Security Council by Russia in the context of its aggression against Ukraine. France supported the convening of an emergency special session of the General Assembly so that the international community could respond to the exceptionally serious violation of the United Nations Charter. However, the Security Council remains seized of the matter, and we are fully committed to ensuring that it continues to assume its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The aggression against Ukraine demonstrates the need to strengthen our collective security system. France is fully committed to the process of reforming the Security Council in order to make the Council more representative of today’s world, while preserving its executive and operational nature. Those developments must be in strict accordance with the fundamental values of the Organization and the responsibilities conferred upon each organ by the Charter. In that regard, the General Assembly cannot become the judge of the Security Council or of its members, elected or permanent. It is in that spirit that for several years France, together with Mexico, has been promoting an initiative on the use of the veto. That would involve the five permanent members of the Council voluntarily and collectively suspending the use of the veto in the event of mass atrocities. According to the French proposal, that framework would apply in the case of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. That voluntary approach, which strictly respects the prerogatives of the Security Council and its members, does not require a revision of the Charter, but a political commitment by the permanent members. Today this initiative is supported by 105 countries. We call on all States, in particular the other four permanent members, to join it.

I thank the President for the convening of this 70th plenary meeting of the General Assembly. Timor-Leste joined the United Nations 20 years ago. As a young country, we believe that, by strengthening the United Nations system, the Organization that we all own will move towards greater transparency and accountability. The adoption of resolution 76/262 will enhance the role of the General Assembly. The veto initiative resolution will also strengthen inclusive multilateralism and the international rule of law. We are of the view that the General Assembly has a legitimate interest and a political responsibility to express its opinion on all issues, including when a veto is cast in the Security Council. That does not mean that the General Assembly takes over the powers of the Security Council. In accordance with Article 10 of the Charter of the United Nations, the General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the powers and functions of all the other organs, including the Security Council. In that regard, the Charter and United Nations practices encourage complementarity among the principal United Nations organs. In conclusion, Timor-Leste, as a small State, believes that multilateralism and international law are the means to create a world where all States have equal rights, regardless of their geographical size. We welcome the resolution with the objective of seeing the United Nations more inclusive, transparent and accountable in delivering its mandate.

Israel is supportive of the notion that the United Nations system should be strengthened and reformed in a manner that would amplify the responsibility and transparency of Member States with regard to their decisions and votes. The question of resolution 76/262, entitled “Standing mandate for the General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”, which was just adopted, had to do with the privilege of the five permanent members of the Security Council to cast a veto, thereby preventing the adoption of a Security Council draft resolution  — a privilege enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. That privilege should be taken very seriously and should not be misused. However, in some cases, a draft resolution put forward to the Security Council is the actual misuse. In some cases, the text of certain draft resolutions is the problem, not the veto itself. Israel is of the opinion that in cases when a specific draft resolution that does not promote international peace and security is put forward to the Security Council, the veto should be cast. We hope that the resolution adopted by the General Assembly just a short while ago will not be abused to undermine the use of that tool when appropriate, as has been done in the past with other United Nations procedures with regard to my country. We noted that the Palestinians joined as a co-sponsor of the resolution. We wish to note for the record that we object to their inclusion as a co-sponsor of this resolution. In that context, we recall that, under paragraph 5 of the annex to resolution 52/250, entitled “Participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations”, dated 13 July 1998, the Palestinians have the right to co-sponsor draft resolutions and decisions on only Palestinian and Middle East matters. The subject matter of the resolution that was adopted today falls outside the scope of the parameters set forth in the annex to resolution 52/250. Hence, their inclusion as a co-sponsor of today’s resolution is in direct conflict with the agreed rules and regulations of this organ. We urge full adherence to the United Nations agreed procedures and decisions in order to preserve the integrity of this institution.

The exercise of the right of reply has been requested. I would like to remind members that statements in the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and five minutes for the second, and should be made by delegations from their seats. I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

In fact, I did not want to request the floor for the right of reply. As I mentioned before, I initially sought to deliver a general statement. However, as one can see, something is wrong, and I reserve the right to deliver a general statement, either before or after the voting. Today we heard statements from the representatives of certain States referencing their concerns about the humanitarian situation in my country. Those same countries, including the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada, insist on using coercive measures to stifle the Syrian people and deprive them access to basic needs such as food, medicine, health care, electricity and fuel. Their behaviour contradicts their expressions of humanitarian concern and unmasks their mendacious slogans about respecting the principles of international law, the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and all the resolutions of our Organization that repeatedly stipulate and confirm that such coercive measures are not legal and constitute violations of human rights. I wish to refresh the memories of the representatives of those States with respect to the ongoing atrocities perpetrated by the forces of the illegitimate international coalition, which razed the entire city of Raqqa and other regions to the ground. Paradoxically, that coalition is led by the United States and a number of its partners, including the United Kingdom and Canada. The reference by the representative of the United States to the use of the veto right in the Security Council, with respect to allegations of chemical-weapons use in Syria, is misplaced. That is because the use of the veto, in that specific instance, was to correct the trajectory of the investigations about the allegations of using chemical weapons in Syria. The reports that emanated as a result of such investigations about those allegations were politicized and manipulated by the United States, given that the investigations depended on non-credible sources so that the United States and its partners could build on those reports to accuse Syria. In his statement, the representative of the United States of America called for accountability, trials and the internationalization of the Syrian dossier, as well for investigations to be conducted, among other things. However, if we truly need an international investigation, then why not carry out an international investigation targeting all those who supported, financed and facilitated the transfer of terrorists from all over the world into Syria? Why not investigate those who sold, bought and got commissions for smuggled oil across Syrian borders, and those who facilitated the trafficking through black markets of Syrian heritage, which belongs to the cultural heritage of humankind? Why not designate as war criminals all those who planned, coordinated, organized and logistically supported the military operations in Raqqa, Aleppo, Idlib, Damascus and other destroyed Syrian regions? Perhaps the most important question is the following: despite their sources and capabilities, are the Western intelligence services unable to tell us the origin of the huge funds that came into Syria from organizations and States? Before talking about an international tribunal to hold Syria accountable, and before talking about a criminal tribunal, I would suggest an international tribunal to hold accountable all those who contributed to the destruction of the Syrian State.

We have heard the last speaker on this item. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its considerations of agenda item 124.