A/76/PV.77 General Assembly

The General Assembly will resume its consideration of agenda item 124, entitled “Strengthening of the United Nations system” to hold the debate pursuant to resolution 76/262 of 26 April 2022 on the situation as to which the veto was cast by two permanent members at the 9048th meeting of the Security Council, on 26 May 2022, under the agenda item entitled “Non-proliferation — Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. In connection with today’s debate, the Assembly has before it a special report of the Security Council circulated in A/76/853. It is my firm belief that a more efficient and accountable United Nations can help to build a more resilient world. This conviction is reflected in the fact that I made revitalization of the United Nations one of my key priorities for this seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly. That is why I welcomed resolution 76/262, which mandates a meeting of the General Assembly whenever a veto is cast in the Security Council. It is with good reason that it has been coined as revolutionary by several of the world leaders with whom I have recently met. By mandating discussion and encouraging reflection on every veto cast, it fosters further accountability of this great Organization. While the Security Council is the prime United Nations organ responsible for the maintenance of peace and security, the Charter also mandates an important role for the General Assembly in this regard. On matters of international dispute, the General Assembly has a right and a responsibility to act. At this time, when questions have been raised about the Security Council’s ability to carry out its mandate and at a time when multilateralism itself is under duress, the General Assembly and its membership have demonstrated a commitment to upholding the United Nations Charter and international law. Furthermore, I note that resolution 75/325 on revitalization of the work of the General Assembly encourages regular interaction and continued coordination between the presidents of the General Assembly, the Security Council and Economic and Social Council to reinforce synergy, coherence, and complementarity. Those values and sentiments continue to guide my presidency, and they must guide our multilateralism in its discussions. On the context that spurred the proposal, I have this to say: achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world is a universal hope. The existence and proliferation of these weapons poses an existential danger, not only to humankind, but to life itself on this planet. We as the international community must redouble our efforts to realize our common vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, and we must mobilize with conviction and energy to resolve the many security challenges that humankind currently confronts. Our constituents expect nothing less, and we owe it to them to deliver. In this task, the General Assembly has a crucial role to play. Our discussions and deliberations in this Hall can and must renew our commitments to non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Let us keep that responsibility in mind as we begin our conversation today. In that spirit, I look forward to today’s debate.

The situation concerning the Korean peninsula is an important issue and a long-standing concern for the Security Council. It has dragged on for decades and involves complex dynamics. On the whole, in the past few years, thanks to the joint efforts of all parties, the situation on the peninsula has eased. In 2018, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea committed to suspending nuclear tests and test launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles and took a number of substantive measures, including the destruction of its nuclear test site. The meeting between the leaders of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States achieved an important consensus on improving relations between the two countries, establishing a peace mechanism on the peninsula and making progress on its denuclearization. That led to a significant and positive turnaround in the situation and represented an important step in the denuclearization process. However, the United States side did not respond according to the action-for-action principle and instead returned to its former path of strategic patience and maximum pressure, repeating empty slogans calling for dialogue while increasing sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which has intensified its distrust of the United States and resulted in a complete deadlock in the talks. The current situation on the peninsula has become tense, which we do not want to see. It must be pointed out that it has reached its current state primarily owing to the fickle nature of United States policies, its failure to uphold the results of previous dialogue and its disregard for the reasonable concerns of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. That is undeniable. Where things go from here will depend to a large extent on the actions of the United States, and, crucially, on whether the United States will be able to address the core issue, demonstrate a responsible attitude and take meaningful and concrete action. In the circumstances, all the parties should remain calm, exercise restraint and avoid any action that could escalate tensions and lead to miscalculations. A fundamental resolution of the issue on the Korean peninsula requires taking a general path aimed at political settlement, dialogue and consultation. Experience has shown that dialogue and consultation are the only viable ways to resolve the peninsula issue. If dialogue moves ahead smoothly, positive progress will be made. If dialogue is stalled or even goes backwards, tensions on the peninsula will escalate. Since the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea took denuclearization measures in 2018, the United States has not reciprocated its positive initiatives, addressed the legitimate and reasonable concerns of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or demonstrated the sincerity necessary to resolve the issue. There are many things that the United States can do, such as easing sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in certain areas and ending joint military exercises. The key is taking action, not just talking about readiness for dialogue without preconditions. A fundamental resolution of the issue requires abandoning the old approach of imposing sanctions and exerting pressure. Sanctions are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. The Security Council’s harsh sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are unprecedented. They target far more than nuclear missiles and have had a huge negative impact on the livelihoods of the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In the context of the coronavirus disease outbreak in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, additional sanctions would be neither just nor humane, and would only add to the suffering of the country’s population. The Security Council’s resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are an integral whole and should be implemented in a comprehensive, complete and judicious manner. The relevant countries should not place a one-sided emphasis on the implementation of sanctions, but should also make active efforts to promote a political solution and ease sanctions in due course. The draft resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea jointly proposed by China and Russia in the Security Council is aimed at alleviating the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s problems on the humanitarian and livelihood fronts and injecting momentum into a political settlement. We hope that all parties will positively consider and support the draft resolution. A fundamental resolution of the issue requires the Security Council to play a constructive role. In the current situation, the words and actions of the Council and its members should help maintain stability and prevent chaos on the peninsula, restart dialogue and negotiations and resolve the actual humanitarian and livelihood difficulties faced by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, rather than creating obstacles to that end. In the past, the Security Council has been able to adopt resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by consensus, mainly because all the parties fully communicated with one another and were ultimately able to reach an agreement. In response to the United States’ submission of draft resolution S/2022/431, on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China put forward many reasonable proposals. We had hoped that the United States would consider issuing a presidential statement rather than drafting a resolution, as the best way to achieve a consensus in the Council (see S/PV.9048). That approach was recognized and endorsed by an overwhelming majority of Council members, but the United States was the only member to oppose it, insisting on putting the draft resolution to a vote and deliberately creating confrontation and a showdown in the Council. Considering the lack of consensus on the draft resolution, China had no choice but to vote against it, and the United States should take responsibility for that. A fundamental resolution of the issue requires safeguarding the security interests of the countries of the region. The security of all countries is indivisible, and peace and stability on the peninsula are closely related to the external strategic environment. The United States has recently provoked problems in the Asia-Pacific region and has been promoting nuclear- submarine cooperation with certain countries in the region, developing hypersonic weapons and selling cruise missiles that can carry nuclear warheads to other countries. Those actions have revealed the huge double standards and hypocrisy of the United States where the issue of nuclear non-proliferation is concerned. The United States has been vigorously implementing its Indo-Pacific strategy and strengthening military alliances with various countries in the region that increase the risks of a military confrontation. Politicians in some countries of the region are eagerly advocating for so-called nuclear sharing with the United States, intentionally turning back the clock on the historical gains that have been made on the issue of nuclear weapons, seriously affecting the process of resolving the peninsula’s nuclear issue and poisoning the regional security environment. It is not in any country’s interests to stoke confrontation between different camps in the Asia-Pacific region. We urge the countries concerned to put regional peace and security first, stop political manoeuvring, change course immediately and create an environment conducive to fostering peace and stability on the peninsula. China has always engaged in the work of the Security Council in a responsible manner and makes active efforts to maintain unity among Council members and promote stronger cooperation among all parties, with a view to carrying out the duties mandated by the Charter of the United Nations. We should point out that China takes an extremely cautious and responsible approach to every vote it casts in the Security Council and bases its judgment on the merits of the matter itself. The vote cast by China essentially depends on whether it will be conducive to resolving the problem in question, maintaining international peace and security and avoiding greater levels of tension and averting disaster. It would be entirely irresponsible and a dereliction of duty for the Security Council to adopt an unprincipled resolution, which could have serious consequences and plunge the countries and regions concerned into catastrophe. The countries of the region and the international community share the hopes for a peaceful and stable Korean peninsula. As a near neighbour, China has been closely following developments on the peninsula and has always insisted on the importance of maintaining peace and stability there, achieving denuclearization and resolving the issue through dialogue and consultation. China has been working unremittingly to resolve the issue for many years and has played an important and constructive role, as the entire international community is well aware. In the current circumstances, we hope that all the parties will continue to focus on the big picture, pursue dialogue and consultation, meet each other halfway, explore effective ways to resolve the reasonable concerns of all in a balanced manner and create conditions conducive to a resumption of meaningful dialogue as soon as possible. Together with the wider membership, China is ready to play a constructive role to that end.

I would like to begin by expressing my condolences to the Islamic Republic of Iran in connection with this morning’s train accident, which resulted in the loss of lives. On 26 May in the Security Council, Russia voted against draft resolution S/2022/431 on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea submitted by the United States (see S/PV.9048). In the public meeting that followed, we gave a detailed explanation of our reasons for that decision that is available to every Member State, and we are prepared to repeat them again. First of all, we would like to point out that our American colleagues ignored the frequent clarifications we made during the consultations on the draft resolution. We said that we would not support a document that envisaged new sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that would further exacerbate its difficult humanitarian situation. Our calls for changing the draft resolution into a presidential statement, a format acceptable to many Security Council members, unfortunately went unheard, as a result of which the only possibility for a consensus agreement on a Council document was rejected. This situation is not something new. As a matter of basic principle, we have repeatedly said that imposing new sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a dead end. Since 2006, Pyongyang has been subjected to many restrictive measures, each more restrictive than the last, at the initiative of the United States. However, as the years have gone by, it has become evident that the sanctions approach has been unable to guarantee security in the region or bring us closer to resolving the issues of nuclear-missile non-proliferation. On the contrary, in the past year the situation on the peninsula has only got worse. Our Western colleagues are accustomed to blaming the North Korean authorities for everything, but they have completely ignored the fact that Pyongyang’s repeated appeals to the United States to cease its hostile activity, which could create the possibility for dialogue, have never been taken seriously. All we hear from our American colleagues is about the need for new sanctions. Pyongyang’s accommodating steps and positive signals in 2018 and 2019 have been constantly called into question, and neither has the Council been able to find the strength to respond to them appropriately and facilitate the process of easing tensions by reducing the sanctions pressure on Pyongyang as a measure that could encourage a further rapprochement. As a result, the Security Council sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have unfortunately continued to be, in Kant’s words, a thing in itself, rather than a tool that would enable the Council to respond flexibly to the evolving situation on the peninsula. Any alternative paths to a political and diplomatic settlement, including the Russian-Chinese humanitarian draft resolution, have been rejected, and we are now reaping the fruits of the West’s short-sighted policies. Strengthening the sanctions pressure on Pyongyang is not only futile but extremely dangerous, considering the humanitarian consequences of such measures. The sanctions package imposed on Pyongyang in 2016 and 2017 has primarily affected the lives of ordinary North Koreans. Even before the start of the pandemic the country had a serious shortage of medicine and medical equipment and a stagnant economy, and the banking and financial restrictions effectively prevented North Koreans from buying consumer goods. Agriculture also suffered, as it was deprived of equipment and fertilizer. I should emphasize that all of that began even before the country closed down when the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) threatened to spread in 2020. Unfortunately, a few weeks ago COVID-19 did manage to penetrate the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the epidemic situation there is now a very difficult one. It is completely irresponsible of our American colleagues to propose new sanctions when the North Koreans are dealing with a challenge that should rather lead us to seek ways of helping their country overcome it. In that regard, we believe it is only more urgent than ever to expand the humanitarian exemptions from the sanctions measures that we and our Chinese colleagues have proposed. It has long been obvious to anyone genuinely concerned with resolving the situation in North Korea that it is futile to expect unconditional disarmament from Pyongyang under the threat of a sanctions spiral. And the creation of new military blocs in the region, such as the union of the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, raises serious doubts about their good intentions, including towards Pyongyang, and is counterproductive from the point of view of establishing a dialogue. And threatening statements about Pyongyang from the United States Administration are made with enviable regularity. In general, it seems that the primacy of political and diplomatic solutions to conflicts has been stifled, and it is happening all over the world. Preventive diplomacy, whose praises many Member States, including the United States, love to sing, is cast aside when it comes to countries that are not considered part of the so- called civilized world. It seems that our American and other Western colleagues are suffering from a kind of block whereby their only response to crisis situations is sanctions. Russia has always considered such measures, taken exclusively by the Security Council, to be the most extreme response possible, requiring constant fine-tuning and calibration. I am not even talking about unilateral sanctions, which make it impossible to implement Security Council resolutions and undermine our ability to respond collectively on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations, including in the case of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I would like to stress once again that Russia opposes any military activity jeopardizing the security of the Korean peninsula and the countries of North- East Asia. However, security issues that directly affect our country, among others, cannot be resolved through the primitive use of a sanctions cudgel, which can have serious collateral effects. We firmly believe that the quest for mutually acceptable political and diplomatic solutions is the only possible way to reach a peaceful solution to the problems on the Korean peninsula and establish sustainable security mechanisms in North- East Asia. We will get results only with the involvement of all the players in the region in the settlement process on an equal footing, without attempts to monopolize it. That should be our main task, and resolving it will enable us to normalize the situation in the region. At the same time, we would like to point out that the lack of progress on the political track threatens to further increase tensions on the peninsula, and unfortunately we are already seeing that.

At a Security Council meeting on 26 May (see S/PV.9048), the United States submitted for adoption draft resolution S/2022/431, which infringed on the sovereignty of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I categorically denounce and reject that as an illegal act that runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations and to international law. Exercising the right to self-defence is the just and legitimate right of a sovereign State that no one can deny. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and article 12 of the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States clearly stipulate that every State has an inherent right to individual or collective self-defence. Our measures to bolster our national defence capabilities are aimed at preparing ourselves for the rapidly changing political and military situation and all future potential security crises on the Korean peninsula and in the region. That is a self-defensive option that falls under the category of our internal affairs and sovereignty. In particular, the modernization of our weapons is part of our just and legitimate right to self-defence in order to safeguard the security and fundamental interests of our State from the direct threats of the United States, in circumstances where the United States remains hell- bent on reinforcing its weapons against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the Korean peninsula and in its vicinity and has taken no concrete steps to abandon its hostile policy. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has tested its weapons on a regular basis under its national plan to modernize its self-defence capabilities. The tests have been conducted in a completely safe manner within our territory and territorial air and waters and in the open seas, with no harm done to our neighbours. Nevertheless, based on their geopolitical interests on the Korean peninsula, the United States and some other Member States are manoeuvring with the unjustified aim of making the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s rightful exercise of its right to self-defence an issue in the Security Council. At the same time, it is incomprehensible that the conduct by the United States of various types of missile tests, including of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and hypersonic missiles, has never been called into question or condemned by the Security Council. The draft resolution sanctioning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that was put to a vote in the Security Council meeting on 26 May is a product of the United States’ illegal and hostile policy aimed at depriving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of its sovereignty and its right to existence and to development. The United States has been extremely antagonistic towards the Korean people and their system since the foundation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, resorting to hostile acts that violate our country’s sovereignty, fundamental interests and territorial integrity in every area of politics, the economy and the military. While the United States has repeatedly stated that its intentions are not hostile, in practice it has adopted a policy hostile to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as its national law and is now making dangerous moves designed to deprive our country of its sovereignty and right to existence and development. Moreover, its dangerous plan to stifle the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea militarily by providing extended deterrent means, including nuclear weapons, is even more transparent. It clearly proves that the diplomatic engagement and dialogue without preconditions that the United States claims to want are nothing more than a smokescreen aimed at covering up the hostile nature of its policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and misleading the international community. The United States has branded our self-defensive military activities as a provocation and a threat without any grounds, even denying us the legitimate and normal exercise of our right to development. Such hostile policies and double standards represent outright disregard for and a challenge to the sovereignty of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The very fact that the Security Council should make an issue of the exercise of a sovereign State’s legitimate right to self-defence is contradictory, as it denies the basic spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the recognized rules governing international relations, which clearly lay out the basic principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States. If the exercise of the right to self-defence by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is regarded as a threat to international peace and security, as the United States and some Member States allege, the Security Council should give a definitive answer to the following questions. It should explain if there is any paragraph or article in any international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, stating that it is illegal for a sovereign State to bolster its self-defence capabilities or that such actions pose a threat to international peace and security. If the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s conduct of a test constitutes a threat to the international community, the Security Council should convincingly clarify why ICBM tests by the United States, which is hostile to us, are not regarded as a threat to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. If measures to bolster the self-defence capabilities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea pose a threat to international peace and security, the Council should explain to the international community why the United States is not considered a threat to international peace and security, even though it is the only country on Earth that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people by using a nuclear weapon and has so far conducted more than 1,000 rounds of nuclear tests. If the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s weapons tests, including IBCMs, are to be discussed at the Security Council, it should be explained why weapons tests and joint military exercises by the United States that directly threaten the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are not brought up before the Security Council for its deliberations. If the Security Council fails to give reasonable, impartial and clear explanations for those questions, it will be tantamount to admitting that the fact that it takes issue with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea over the exercise of its right to self-defence is unjust and illegal and goes against the basic spirit of the Charter and international law. The Security Council is not fully discharging its mission and responsibility to safeguard international peace and security. The main reason lies precisely in unfair acts, based on double standards, of the United States and some Member States that follow in its footsteps. As long as the double standards, unfairness, high-handedness and arbitrariness of the United States continue, the Council can neither fulfil its intrinsic mission of ensuring the maintenance of international peace and security nor restore the trust of the international community. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is of the view that the issue under discussion at today’s plenary meeting is a breach of international law by the United States and undermines international peace and security. In that connection, I would like to bring up some objective facts. Since the Second World War ended, one Member State, in flagrant violation of the Charter and international law, has invaded more than 10 countries militarily, got involved in overthrowing legitimate Governments in more than 50 countries, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and created 20 million refugees. That is none other than the United States. The United States in the only country in the world that has deployed nuclear weapons on the territories of other countries, connived at and assisted in ensuring the possession of nukes by a country in the Middle East and deliberately undermined the international nuclear non-proliferation regime by forming the union known as AUKUS and other small interest groups, and by transferring military nuclear technology to a non-nuclear State simply because it is an ally. The United States is the only State Member of the United Nations that makes use of and discards international treaties and conventions at its convenience. Out of selfishness, the United States has unilaterally withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran. It joins and withdraws from international organizations at will, in gross violation of international law. And I should point out once again that it is the United States that has record numbers of gun-related crimes, prisons and prisoners and the world’s worst incidence of racial discrimination. If the General Assembly never called in question the arbitrary actions of delinquent Member States and only discussed the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s legitimate exercise of its sovereignty in its efforts to safeguard its rights and interests against the illegal high-handed actions of the United States, the Assembly would be considered to be following in the Security Council’s wrongful footsteps. Every Member State should be able to correctly understand the main threats to international peace and security today. President Kim Jong Un has said that the world is facing many severe crises and challenges. Of those, the main danger is the high-handedness and arbitrary actions of the United States, which is wreaking havoc on international peace and stability. Due to the hegemonic policy of the United States, which is undermining and endangering the security environment of other countries, attention has been focused on the Korean peninsula and the Asia-Pacific region and the structure of international relations is being transformed into a new Cold War, all owing to the unilateral external policy of the United States, which is based on forming unfair political blocs. If the high-handedness and arbitrary actions of the United States against sovereign States are tolerated any longer, they will have grave consequences that will completely destroy international peace and stability. The measures taken by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to bolster its national defence capability are an inevitable choice to enable it to cope with the hostile threat from the United States in line with its right to self-defence, to respond to the security environment and to guarantee the security of the State and its people. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea attaches great importance to sovereign equality and international justice. We will actively join the international community in all efforts to ensure international peace and stability and establish a just international order. We will also work to fulfil our responsibility and role in safeguarding peace and stability on the Korean peninsula.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s important meeting. Last weekend, yet again, North Korea launched ballistic missiles  — this time multiple launches in a single day, and the largest number in more than a decade. That took place less than 10 days after the Security Council, to our deep regret, was blocked from taking action in response to North Korea’s numerous violations of previous Council resolutions (see S/PV.9048). North Korea continues to accelerate its nuclear and missile programmes as if it to take advantage of the lack of a strong reaction from the Council. One might wonder if the use of the veto against the overwhelming convergence of positions among Council members has emboldened North Korea. Needless to say, North Korea’s assertion is totally unacceptable. Having heard the explanations from those who cast vetoes, Japan must express, with a heavy heart, its deep regret that the veto was used. Those explanations fall short of the accountability that we hope to see, especially in the light of two considerations. First, by repeatedly launching 60 or more ballistic missiles since 2019, including the multiple launches on Sunday, North Korea has continued to increase the threat level to our region and beyond. Due to the exercise of the veto, the silence of the Council has left this grave situation unaddressed. Secondly, the most recent veto has blocked the Security Council from taking action according to its own decision in a previous resolution. Resolution 2397 (2017) clearly stipulates that the Council will take further measures in the event of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch by North Korea. North Korea did launch ICBMs, but the veto has prevented the Council from implementing its own decision. The credibility of the Council is at risk. The vetoed draft resolution was well balanced. It was designed to honour the Council’s commitment to take significant measures to restrain the threat that North Korea poses with its nuclear and missile programmes. It was also intended to allow for humanitarian measures to respond to the needs of the people of North Korea. I ask you, Mr. President, to imagine that a ballistic missile launched by your neighbour has landed just 150 kilometres off your coastline and that its ballistic missiles have at times flown over your territory. That is exactly what has happened to us as a result of North Korea’s missile launches. North Korea’s nuclear and missile development also has a significant impact on global security, especially in two areas. First, on the nuclear front, North Korea is the only country to have carried out nuclear tests in the twenty- first century. What is gravely concerning is that North Korea has recently even announced its intention to advance its nuclear forces at the fastest possible speed. It has also alluded to the possible use of nuclear weapons, not just for deterrence, but for other purposes. That is an overt threat to the foundations of international peace and security. Secondly, with regard to non-proliferation, North Korea has its own track record of exporting its weapons and technologies to third parties. The lack of strong action by the Security Council only harms the global non-proliferation regimes, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Those dangerous effects only reinforce the importance of ensuring that the Council takes strong action by adopting a new resolution in response to North Korea’s ICBM launches and other activities that violate Council resolutions. I would like to urge North Korea to engage in diplomacy towards denuclearization and accept the repeated offers of dialogue. It should strive to improve its humanitarian situation rather than investing in its weapons of mass destruction and missile programme. I also reiterate our most serious call to North Korea to take concrete measures towards the immediate resolution of the abductions issue. Last but not least, Japan would like to stress that despite the vetoes cast by some permanent members, all the relevant Security Council resolutions remain in effect. I call on all Member States to continue to fully and effectively implement them.

I now give the floor to the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer.

I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the European Union and its member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania; the country of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina; as well the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Andorra, Monaco and San Marino, align themselves with this statement. We are participating in the first debate that is being held pursuant to resolution 76/262 because we believe that consideration of an issue should not end when the use of the veto has prevented the Security Council from fulfilling its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Today’s debate is about upholding the multilateral system, with the United Nations at its core, by ensuring that the Organization is able to defend international law and condemn violations of it. By launching an unprecedented number of ballistic missiles since the beginning of the year, including eight missiles just this weekend, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has demonstrated its brazen disregard for international law and utter disrespect for the United Nations. The international community cannot remain idle and allow actions that threaten the core principles of the international non-proliferation and disarmament regime and undermine the very system that we are all here to uphold. Those missile tests show the intention of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to continue developing an unlawful weapons programme that threatens its neighbours, the region and certainly beyond. That is a blatant violation of its obligations under numerous Security Council resolutions. Ignoring it, not taking action and not insisting that international obligations be upheld would be a direct threat to the ability of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security. It is more critical than ever that the international community speak and act as one. Draft resolution S/2022/431, which was vetoed by Russia and China in the Security Council, was intended to demonstrate that violations of international law have consequences, sometimes in the form of sanctions. Let me underline that sanctions are an essential instrument at the Security Council’s disposal for maintaining or restoring international peace and security. In this case, they are an essential tool in convincing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to reverse its current dangerous course of action. Some speakers today will want us to believe that we are insensitive to the plight of the population of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Let me therefore underscore that it is the regime of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that keeps its borders closed and limits humanitarian access, and the regime of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that spends the national budget on its weapons programmes, including new intercontinental ballistic missiles, while millions of its people suffer the consequences of chronic malnutrition. The United Nations sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea include a system of comprehensive humanitarian exemptions that can facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance. The draft resolution that was vetoed would have strengthened that system to also include exemptions for all products related to fighting the coronavirus disease pandemic. As the European Union, we continue to work to ensure the effective and meaningful implementation of those exemptions. Let me underline that since 1995, the European Union has been at the forefront of efforts to alleviate the humanitarian situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea through the funding of independent humanitarian organizations working in the country. We stand ready to resume the assistance, but ultimately the welfare of vulnerable communities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rests on the policy of the country’s leadership. It is our duty to limit the development of unlawful weapons systems, work for adherence to international rules and maintain respect for the multilateral system. This is what the vetoed draft resolution, which was supported by 13 members of the Council, but voted against by Russia and China, was about. Let us therefore focus on what is really at stake  — the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must cease developing weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. That is a danger to all of us. Diplomacy and peaceful dialogue are the only route to stability, peace and security on the Korean peninsula. We therefore urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to accept the hand of diplomacy that has been extended and cease its destabilizing action.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Nordic countries — Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Denmark. History is being made today, since it is the first time we are convening to discuss the recent use of the veto in the Security Council following the Assembly’s adoption of a resolution on the veto initiative, resolution 76/262. I would like to make a few remarks on the significance of this debate. The Security Council is entrusted by the Charter of the United Nations with the responsibility to maintain peace and security on behalf of us, the Member States represented here in the General Assembly. The use of the veto to prevent the Council from discharging its duties is a matter of great concern. Today’s debate provides an opportunity and occasion for the permanent members of the Council who decided to use their power of the veto to explain their reasoning for doing so, not only to the Council, but all Member States. That helps to make the Council more transparent and, hopefully, accountable. But the debate also offers other Member States a welcome opportunity to share their views on the matter at hand. We encourage all Member States to make use of that opportunity. Allow me to share the viewpoint of the Nordic countries: From 2006 until 2017 the Security Council had an exemplary track record of adopting resolutions unanimously against activities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that posed a threat to regional and international peace and security. In doing so, the Council lived up to its obligations, which are to address threats to international peace and security. The Council’s unity remains of great importance for maintaining international law and responding to such threats. In its paragraph 28, the most recent Security Council resolution addressing the ballistic-missile tests and nuclear-weapons programme of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (resolution 2397 (2017)) states an admirably clear commitment to taking action to restrict further the export to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of petroleum, “if the DPRK conducts a further nuclear test or a launch of a ballistic missile system capable of reaching intercontinental ranges or contributing to the development of a ballistic missile system capable of such ranges”. The resolution explicitly expresses the Security Council’s determination to impose specific restrictions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in case of further nuclear or ballistic-missile activities. Since the beginning of this year, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has conducted an unprecedented number of ballistic-missile tests, in clear violation of numerous Security Council resolutions. This weekend alone saw eight missile launches. I want to make it clear that the Nordic countries consider those actions to be a clear breach of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 2397 (2017), undermining regional stability, threatening international peace and security and capable of further heightening tensions. As the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency stated earlier this week, there are indications of renewed activity at several nuclear sites in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Blatantly ignoring the Security Council’s resolutions must have consequences. With the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security as enshrined in the Charter, the Council has a responsibility to step up and act in a situation like the one before us. The power of the veto must not limit the Council in fulfilling its mandate, and the Nordic countries strongly regret the use of the veto on this issue. The Security Council has clearly affirmed that the sanctions imposed are not intended to have adverse humanitarian consequences for the civilian population of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The draft resolution that was vetoed by two permanent members of the Security Council proposed to broaden the humanitarian exemption mechanism. That would have been a timely update, given the critical humanitarian needs in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, especially after the recent reports that coronavirus disease has been spreading through the country. The Nordic countries call on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to end its self-imposed blockade and allow the United Nations, its Resident Coordinator and other international organizations to re-enter and resume their humanitarian work to meet the needs of the most vulnerable. The Nordic countries will continue to uphold the integrity and credibility of the Security Council’s decisions and resolutions. We urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to re-engage in meaningful dialogue with all the relevant parties to build a basis for sustainable peace and security and take steps aimed at pursuing the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. We want to take this opportunity to urge the two permanent members of the Security Council that vetoed the draft resolution to reconsider their position on this important matter.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Benelux countries — Belgium, the Netherlands and my own country, Luxembourg. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union (EU) on behalf of the EU and its member States. The Benelux countries welcome the timely convening of this meeting pursuant to resolution 76/262 of 26 April 2022, which established a permanent mandate enabling the General Assembly to hold a debate whenever the power of the veto is used in the Security Council. We deplore the fact that the mechanism had to be activated just one month after its creation. We also deeply deplore the result of the vote that was held in the Security Council meeting on 26 May (see S/PV.9048). By using their veto power, not only did Russia and China break the Council’s long-standing unity on the matter of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s illegal programmes for weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons, but they also struck a blow to the global non-proliferation regime, jeopardizing international peace and security. The launch of intercontinental and other ballistic missiles by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea constitutes a blatant violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. The Council must be firm and follow up on its commitments by taking decisive measures unanimously agreed on in advance. With the approach of the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to be held in August, it is even more important to defend and protect the international non-proliferation regime that protects us all. Respect for Security Council resolutions is essential if we are to make it clear that the international community will not tolerate any country taking a path of nuclear proliferation. We should be clear that our debate today is about safeguarding international peace and security, not sanctions. Sanctions are an instrument to be used in cases of flagrant violations of international law, and like others, we would like to point out that the United Nations sanctions concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea contain major humanitarian exemptions. We call on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cease its destabilizing activities and instead prioritize the well-being of its people. The draft resolution before the Security Council on 26 May did precisely that. It opened the doors to additional humanitarian aid at a time when North Koreans are suffering seriously from the coronavirus disease pandemic. We urge all the members of the Security Council to take their mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security seriously. What we need now is the Council’s full commitment to the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in line with its relevant resolutions. As a previously elected member of the Security Council and former Chair of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), we want to emphasize that the General Assembly and the United Nations membership as a whole  — indeed, each and every Member State — bear the responsibility for taking resolute action to ensure that all the existing Security Council resolutions concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are fully implemented. We hope that today’s debate will encourage us all to face up to our responsibilities.

Liechtenstein deplores the casting of a veto in the Security Council by two permanent members, China and the Russian Federation, on draft resolution S/2022/431, on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, considered by the Council on 26 May (see S/PV.9048). It was the first draft resolution of the Security Council addressing non-proliferation that has been subjected to a veto, which sets a worrying precedent for the Council’s work and sends a very problematic message regarding the internationally agreed non-proliferation architecture. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent series of ballistic-missile launches, including an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), are in violation of numerous Security Council resolutions adopted since the unanimous adoption in 2006 of resolution 1718 (2006). Most notably, in its most recent resolution, 2397 (2017), the Council decided that in the case of an ICBM launch, the Security Council “will take action to restrict further the export to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of petroleum”, a commitment it was unable to fulfil owing to the use of the veto, despite the 13 votes in its favour by the other members of the Security Council. Since the adoption of resolution 1718 (2006), the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has continued to pursue technology relating to nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. The pursuit of such weapons will never make anyone safer anywhere, including in this particular situation. It rather raises the possibility of miscalculation and heightens the possibility of catastrophic effects for civilians. In its pursuit of those weapons, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has systematically diverted scant resources from a starving population, compounding a dire economic, humanitarian and human rights situation for its people and exacerbating a crisis of human security. The draft resolution before the Council would have broadened humanitarian exemptions at a critical time for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the light of the coronavirus disease situation, considering the country’s low vaccination rates and worrying general health levels. Only a few weeks ago, a veto in the Council would have been the end of the discussion. The United Nations members assembled in this Hall today would not have had an opportunity to express themselves on a situation of such clear concern to the international community as a whole. Today we are marking the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the United Nations. By adopting the veto initiative at the end of April by consensus, the Assembly has created a standing mechanism that serves both to empower the General Assembly and enhance accountability among the principal organs of the United Nations, which means that States using the veto no longer have the last word on issues of peace and security. Instead, the initiative prompts the General Assembly to assume its own responsibilities in that regard. We were not looking forward to seeing a veto cast so soon after the adoption of the veto initiative, and certainly not on the issue that was vetoed on 26 May. At the same time, today’s meeting illustrates the political value and necessity of the new mechanism. The strong participation today demonstrates the membership’s willingness to make the best possible use of this opportunity. When the Security Council is unable to act owing to the use of the veto, the General Assembly can be a constructive partner in finding potential ways forward, with the aim of improving the effectiveness of the Organization. It can of course do so by taking its own decisions on questions before it, if it so chooses. Resolution 76/262 is not prescriptive with regard to an outcome. We believe that today’s debate should inform our collective reflections in that regard, and we look forward to listening to the thoughts and ideas that this debate will produce.

Albania aligns itself with the statement made on behalf of the European Union, and I would like to add some remarks in my national capacity. We welcome this first and historic meeting on the implementation of resolution 76/262. Strengthening the multilateral system, with the United Nations at its core, is essential to delivering on defending international law, maintaining international peace and security and ensuring the legitimacy of the Security Council as well. Unfortunately, on 26 May (see S/PV.9048), two permanent members of the Security Council vetoed draft resolution S/2022/431, on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. That was the first time in the past 15 years that the Council was divided on the issue, and surprisingly, it came as the regime of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been violating multiple Security Council resolutions without any remorse and showing continued contempt for international law. Let us recall the facts. Since January, the regime in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has intensified and diversified its ballistic-missile launches. It has conducted more than 30 tests without notification or observing maritime and airspace regulations. The Council has met repeatedly on the issue but has been unable to issue any condemnation. Three days ago, on 5 June  — just one week after the draft resolution was vetoed in the Security Council — the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea launched several ballistic missiles towards the East Sea. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had never before test-fired a barrage of short-range ballistic missiles from multiple locations. Evidently, a situation in which the Security Council is blocked and the international community is divided is considered by the regime of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as licence to break the law with impunity. We remain concerned about the objective of the regime of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to enhance the operationalization of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic-missile programmes. We condemn all intercontinental ballistic-missile launches by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and call on it to end its continuing grave, unilateral escalations that are seriously threatening the Korean peninsula, the Indo-Pacific region and the wider world. We call on it to fully implement the relevant Security Council resolutions. They are not papers to be contemplated but documents to be implemented. The regrettable reality is that such misuse of the veto only tolerates repeated violations of international law and Security Council resolutions and thereby rewards a regime that is pursuing a policy of militarization and proliferation that fails to abide by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, disregards the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and other international norms and obligations and threatens peace and stability in the region and beyond. Some important, hard questions therefore need to be answered. We have to reflect on how the use of the veto in this case has contributed to the maintenance of peace and security. How has it helped the Security Council to be relevant and credible? How has it enabled the Council to perform its duties and live up to its responsibilities with regard to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? How has the Council, in this case, been able to act on behalf of the wider United Nations membership? When the leadership in Pyongyang puts the advancement of its missile programme on parade, the Council is paralysed by the veto and transformed into a spectator. Is that what we want and aspire to? When a country is brutally attacked by another, the Security Council is paralysed by the veto and held hostage. Is that what we want and aspire to? When a barrage of 16 vetoes have shielded the regime in Syria for more than 11 years, preventing a much-needed referral of the situation to the International Criminal Court, how can we claim that we support accountability? What message will it send to other obscure regimes that aspire to do the same, or even worse, and that could soon pose new threats to peace and security worldwide? If international law and the organ entrusted with the maintenance of peace and security cannot stand in their way, who will stop them? This is not the way to promote peace and security. It is not the way to strengthen multilateralism, when nowadays that is needed more than ever. It is not the way to make the world a better and safer place, which we are all committed to. The misuse of the veto undermines efforts to find just and lasting solutions, however difficult that may be. The use of the veto cannot and must not be seen as carte blanche for impunity, offering the illusion of quick solutions when in reality it reflects only the ability to obstruct. That is why Albania advocates reforming the use of the veto and supports the French- Mexican initiative for members to voluntarily and collectively suspend the use of the veto in the event of mass atrocities. The veto should reflect the principle of the responsible use of a special power, not the misuse of a privilege. We therefore need to build a culture of accountability and transparency around the use of the veto in such a way that it does not prevent the Council from taking action in situations that require strong responses from the United Nations in the spirit of “We the peoples” and on people’s behalf.

Ecuador appreciates the convening of this General Assembly meeting in accordance with the standing mandate of resolution 76/262, adopted by consensus just six weeks ago, with 83 sponsors, including my country. Through this effective transparency and accountability mechanism, we are strengthening the role and authority of the General Assembly and its relationship with the Security Council, and we are also promoting the strengthening of the United Nations system, the title of agenda item 124, under which we are meeting today. As my delegation has urged since the establishment of the mechanism that we are activating today, in the face of the so-called right of the veto enjoyed by the five permanent members of the Security Council, we the 193 members of the General Assembly have granted ourselves the right to speak. Plenary meetings like this one will therefore serve to amplify the efforts and positions of Member States. The use of the veto will no longer be the last word. The United Nations system has the capacity and must deliberate on the most pressing challenges  — even when one of its principal organs encounters particular difficulties. We appreciate that this meeting is taking place on schedule. In addition, we note with interest the special report (A/76/853, annex) of the Security Council, transmitted by Ambassador Ferit Hoxha, President of the Security Council for the month of June, who spoke before me today. Tomorrow, within the framework of the Assembly’s debate on the annual report (A/76/2) of the Security Council, I will expand on what Ecuador would expect to see in the periodic or special reports submitted by that organ in accordance with Article 24, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations. On this occasion, I will focus on the Council meeting held on 26 May (see S/PV.9048), whose record was included together with draft resolution S/2022/431 as annexes to the report to which I referred. My delegation, which highlights the positive aspects of today’s meeting, actually regrets that the mechanism has been activated only 30 days after its adoption, all the more so with the use of a double veto on a proposal on non-proliferation. Recalling that, in the light of Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter, the Security Council acts on behalf of its members, we are concerned that a project of this nature did not achieved unanimous support, and even more so that it was not adopted despite the broad support of the international community in the midst of the launching of ballistic missiles by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which my Foreign Ministry and the Government of my country have systematically condemned in the most energetic and consistent manner. Today Ecuador insists on the need for the international community to intensify its efforts for the immediate de-escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula and its definitive and verifiable denuclearization. Likewise, we urge the Security Council to act in a united manner to achieve compliance by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with its obligations under international law and the resolutions of the Security Council itself, whose vitality depends precisely on its ability to ensure their implementation. Finally, Ecuador rejects any new threat, contemplation or development of nuclear tests by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or any other State, as well as the recent threat of the use of such weapons. Ecuador therefore calls for a return to the path of dialogue and negotiations. We will closely follow the continuation of this debate, as well as the treatment given to the issue by the members of the Security Council.

I want to start by thanking the many Member States that worked on and sponsored the “standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”, including Liechtenstein, for all of their efforts that brought us to today. This meeting is unprecedented in the history of the United Nations. At a moment when the Security Council is under international scrutiny, this debate creates an opportunity for the General Assembly to promote transparency and accountability. Today we heard two delegations deliver explanations regarding the use of the veto on a critically important question of non-proliferation  — one that concerns the safety and security of all Member States. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has a long and dangerous history of proliferation. It could not be more important for all Member States to be united in confronting the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s unlawful weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and ballistic missile programmes. Since the beginning of this year, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has launched 31 ballistic missiles, including six intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), an intermediate-range ballistic missile, at least two claimed hypersonic glide vehicles and two so-called new tactical guided weapons intended for the operation of “tactical nukes”. This is the largest number of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea ballistic missiles ever launched in a single year, and it is only June. Each and every one of those launches violated multiple Security Council resolutions adopted by consensus. In response to those provocations, China and Russia cast vetoes that gave the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea an implicit nod of approval. A mere nine days later, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was emboldened enough to launch eight more ballistic missiles  — the highest number of ballistic missiles tested in a single event in the history of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. What is more, all of that occurred as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is finalizing preparations for a potential seventh nuclear test. But do not just take our word for it — the Secretary- General strongly condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s 24 March ICBM launch, the same launch that the vetoed draft resolution (S/2022/431) sought to address. And the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported observations that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is preparing its nuclear testing site. Those actions by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have been unprovoked. President Biden and Secretary Blinken have repeatedly and publicly said that we seek dialogue with Pyongyang without preconditions. We have passed that message on through private channels as well, including high-level personal messages from senior United States officials to senior officials of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We have sent that message through third parties in writing and with specific proposals. We have encouraged our allies and partners and others, including China, to convey our openness to diplomacy with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and to make it clear that we seek serious and sustained diplomacy that addresses both the concerns of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as well as those of the international community. We have offered humanitarian aid to the people of North Korea. And after the recent coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, we offered to help the country deal with the COVID-19 challenge and deliver vaccines to the North Korean people. China is well aware of our efforts because we have asked them to convey our message to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Unfortunately, we did not receive a response to that offer or to any of our offers for dialogue and diplomacy without preconditions. Instead, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea responds with repeated and destabilizing launches that threaten not only the region, but the world. For a long time, the Security Council has been united on the question of non-proliferation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. That consensus has been codified in multiple resolutions since 2006, each of them negotiated and unanimously agreed by all members of the Security Council. The resolutions worked. Over the years, the sanction measures have undeniably slowed down the country’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile development. But for those resolutions to be fully effective, all Member States must fully implement them. Let me be clear — sanctions are not a substitute for diplomacy, and they are not designed to be permanent. The United States is more than prepared to discuss easing sanctions in order to achieve the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. I know that many of our Security Council colleagues would agree. And neither are sanctions the cause of escalatory behaviour; they are a response to escalatory behaviour. There is only one country that is escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula with unprovoked launches and threatening rhetoric  — the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. But until the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea engages in diplomacy and undertakes meaningful actions towards denuclearization, we must work together in order to restrict its unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programmes. And that is exactly what the Security Council, as a whole, committed to do in 2017, determining in resolution 2397 (2017) that we would further tighten sanctions in the event of another ICBM launch by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Multiple ICBM launches later, the United States proposed a Security Council draft resolution to simultaneously curb the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile advancements and alleviate its humanitarian situation. We did that because providing humanitarian aid and addressing threats to international peace and security are not  — and never have been  — mutually exclusive, and because a new resolution was the only way to effectively address the full scope of those pressing challenges. The United States also proposed the inclusion in the draft resolution of a provision to facilitate pandemic- related aid to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and it remains committed to supporting the exemptions process of Security Council resolution 1718 (2006), under which 89 packages for assistance have been approved to date. The United States actively worked towards the adoption of the draft resolution by consensus. The Assembly heard from our colleagues that we held an inclusive and flexible process that considered all Council members’ inputs; 13 Security Council members, representing every region in the world, constructively engaged to carry out the Council’s responsibilities to maintain international peace and security. And on 26 May, 13 Council members expressed their commitment to protecting the global non-proliferation regime through their votes; 13 Council members chose to send a strong message to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that its unlawful WMD and ballistic missile development will not be tolerated and to send a signal to all proliferators that there would be consequences for their behaviour. Two Council members did not do so. Unfortunately, their explanations for exercising the veto were insufficient, not credible and not convincing. The vetoes were not deployed to serve our collective safety and security. Earlier this year, Russia and China pledged a “no limits partnership”. We hope those vetoes are not a reflection of that partnership — of a partnership elevated above the collective interests of this organ and the multilateral institutions mandated to ensure the safety and security of us all. After the Second World War, our countries came together collectively in support of a set of principles that would prevent conflict and alleviate human suffering, recognize and promote respect for human rights and foster an ongoing dialogue to uphold and improve a system that benefited all people. The most powerful countries in the world agreed to exercise a form of self-restraint. That led to our rules-based international order — the system of laws, agreements, principles and institutions that the world has built together to manage relations among States, prevent conflict and uphold the rights of all people. Non-proliferation is a critical part of that. As Secretary Blinken recently said, “[o]n non-proliferation and arms control, it is in all of our interests to uphold the rules, the norms, the treaties that have reduced the spread of weapons of mass destruction”. Sending a clear message to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that its destabilizing launches are unacceptable and working to stop its nuclear weapons programme is in all of our interests. The United States will therefore continue discussing our respective responsibilities as permanent Security Council members  — the responsibilities entrusted to us by those present at this meeting of the General Assembly. For our part, the United States will continue to work regularly, diligently and transparently with the Security Council, our allies and partners and all Member States who seek to stop the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programmes and uphold the values of non-proliferation enshrined in the very first resolution adopted by the General Assembly (resolution 1 (I)).

I would first like to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this plenary meeting of the General Assembly to debate the vetoes cast in the Security Council on 26 May (see S/PV.9048). As this is the first General Assembly meeting to address the use of the veto following the unanimous adoption of resolution 76/262, on 26 April, I take this opportunity to highlight the collective will of Member States yearning for a more accountable and transparent Security Council. We are in this Hall today to debate the outcome of the Security Council meeting held on 26 May. It is with deep regret that the Security Council, for the first time in addressing the nuclear and ballistic missile programmes of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since 2006, failed to respond to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s serious provocations. The most recent Security Council resolution on this item, which was adopted unanimously — resolution 2397 (2017) — expressed the Council’s firm determination to take further significant measures in the event of a further intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and decided that concrete action should be taken in such case. Nevertheless, the Security Council failed to fulfil that commitment and missed an opportunity to meet the united expectations of the international community. Some have argued that the Security Council’s silence would induce restraint and dialogue from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. On the contrary, we have instead witnessed the largest number of ballistic missile launches this year, including eight launches last Saturday alone, which represents the largest number in a single day to date. And that is all the more alarming given that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is seemingly preparing for another nuclear test, as the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, also testified two days ago. While draft resolution S/2022/431 was not adopted, many parts of the meaningful debate before and after the voting resonate strongly with us. The expressed position of 13 members of the Council clearly demonstrates the overwhelming convergence of the international community’s position on the matter. That is a solemn testament to the international community’s condemnation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s continued violations of Security Council resolutions. Against that backdrop, the Republic of Korea joins the international community in condemning, in the strongest terms, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s repeated ballistic missile launches. Each of those activities constitutes a flagrant violation of multiple Security Council resolutions. The provocations also threaten the peace and security of the Korean peninsula, the region and beyond. Furthermore, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s continued activities in advancing its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes directly undermine the global non-proliferation regime, creating yet another immense challenge for the upcoming tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to stop such provocative actions, abide by all relevant Security Council resolution and respond to the call for dialogue and peace on the Korean peninsula through complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization. We also call on the Democratic People’s Republic to cooperate with the international community to mitigate humanitarian suffering from the coronavirus disease outbreak. The Republic of Korea would like to stress that the door for dialogue remains open despite the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s repeated provocations and threats, and our hand of unconditional assistance on the pandemic is still extended. The Democratic People’s Republic’s concern — whether it is a security or humanitarian one — can be much better addressed through dialogue and engagement than through self- isolation and continued defiance of Security Council resolutions. We once again urge the Democratic People’s Republic to change its course and participate in meaningful dialogue for denuclearization. And let me be clear: no one harbours any hostile policy towards Pyongyang, nor is there any reason to do so. We are deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that the humanitarian suffering of its people comes from State policy, not the ensuing sanctions. We have all witnessed how the Democratic People’s Republic dissipated its scarce resources by blowing up expensive missiles in the sky. The purpose of today’s General Assembly meeting is to debate the veto, thereby strengthening the United Nations system. In this spirit, my delegation would like to stress that when we debate the role of the Security Council, we should stay focused on this specific goal: to recall that the States Members of the United Nations have conferred on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and to urge the Council to fulfil its responsibilities. In this regard, let us collectively urge, help and guide the Security Council to function properly, in particular on the matter of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The responsibility of addressing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea issue does not lie with certain countries alone. Rather, it is a collective responsibility of the Council itself, as every past resolution explicitly ends with the phrase, “[the Security Council] decides to remain seized of the matter”. At the same time, we would like to bring attention to the need to fully implement the existing Security Council resolutions by all Member States. Article 25 of the United Nations Charter stipulates that the States Members of the United Nations must accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. This is an obligation conferred on all of us, and, as we stand in this Hall today, let us reaffirm our solemn duty.

Ireland aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer. When the veto initiative resolution (resolution 76/262) was adopted by consensus on 26 April 2022, we truly hoped it would not need to be implemented so quickly. It is always regrettable when the use of the veto prevents the Security Council from fulfilling its responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Let us be clear: the veto initiative resolution and today’s debate do not absolve the Security Council of its own responsibility in the light of the repeated violations of the Council’s own resolutions by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. That being said, today is an important moment for accountability. In accordance with its own mandate with regard to international peace and security, the General Assembly has been empowered to speak where the Council has been silenced. We strongly condemn the 30 ballistic-missile launches by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea over the past five months, including multiple missile launches over last weekend. These launches have been conducted in clear violation of multiple Security Council resolutions. In resolution 2397 (2017), the Council made clear its determination to act in the case of further intercontinental ballistic-missile launches by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Council has a clear responsibility and obligation to uphold its resolutions and decisions. Unfortunately, on 26 May, owing to the vetoes by two members, it failed to live up to that responsibility (see S/PV.9048). The Security Council’s failure to act is deeply worrying. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s activities represent not just a clear and serious threat to regional and international peace and security, but also a clear challenge to the global disarmament and non-proliferation architecture, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). At the highest level, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has declared its aim to extend the capabilities of its nuclear forces at the fastest possible speed and has engaged in threatening nuclear rhetoric. The country continues its illegal and nuclear activities at Yongbyon, as well as preparations at their nuclear-test site. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s proliferation activities must not go unanswered. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must meet its obligations under Council resolutions and abandon its ballistic-missile programme along with its nuclear- and other weapons-of-mass-destruction programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. It must return to compliance with the NPT and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and adhere to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. We urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take up the serious offers of talks by the United States and South Korea. Dialogue and diplomacy remain the only path to peace, stability and security on the Korean peninsula and the wider region. This is a challenge that affects us all, and we must be united in our response. We must ensure that the Security Council resolutions, including sanctions, are fully and effectively enforced. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s choices and actions have created a deeply troubling situation for the people of the country and the region as a whole. We urge the Democratic People’s Republic to join the international community in seeking a peaceful diplomatic solution. As the coronavirus disease adds to the humanitarian challenges in the country, we urge it to allow access for United Nations and other humanitarian actors to assess needs and provide appropriate assistance. At the same time, we urge the Security Council to meet its obligations to uphold its own resolutions and to respond in a unified and determined way to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s actions.

On 26 April, we met in this very Hall to adopt the historic resolution 76/262 (see A/76/PV.69), which seeks to strengthen the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the Council’s accountability with regard to the use of the veto. We never expected that, just 43 days later, we would be forced to activate the mechanism of resolution 76/262. Pursuant to that resolution, a special report of the Security Council (A/76/853, annex) was submitted to the Assembly, in accordance with Article 24, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, and now we have the opportunity to debate the issue and act on what would have otherwise been a fait accompli. In doing so, we are breaking the Council’s silence and putting an end to the monologue that has characterized the relationship between the Council and the Assembly for so many years. We are forming a united front against the threat posed by a rogue nuclear State, which in just five months has launched six intercontinental ballistic missiles and 23 ballistic missiles — with absolute impunity — despite the commitment entered into with the adoption of Security Council resolution 2397 (2017). When the international community is abandoned by two of its permanent members, it deserves an explanation — one that we had hoped would be more substantive. Costa Rica condemns, in the strongest terms, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s launches of ballistic missiles, including an intercontinental ballistic missile, owing to the fact that they are unlawful and destabilizing and undermine the stability of the Korean peninsula and the territorial stability of a Member State. We condemn all shows of force that may increase security risks on the Korean peninsula and undermine regional and international stability. We urge the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea to cooperate without further delay with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the full and effective implementation of its Safeguards Agreement under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), from which Pyongyang withdrew in 2003. We urge the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea to authorize the entry of IAEA inspectors, who have been warning us of the imminence of a new nuclear test through satellite images and the other methods they have had to resort to since they were expelled from the country in 2009. Costa Rica also urges the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea to refrain from planning, carrying out or threatening to carry out any action contrary to the obligations and provisions of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and it reiterates its call on the eight annex 2 States to accelerate their signing or ratification processes in that regard. Such actions by the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, which undermine the goal of the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, are taking place just months before the tenth NPT Review Conference, at a time of growing tensions and mistrust among the nuclear- weapon States. Costa Rica hopes that the nuclear- weapon States will use the Review Conference to reaffirm their unequivocal commitment to nuclear disarmament and that its outcome document will not imply a step backward in the agreements reached, or a reinterpretation of those agreements. There can be no security without human security. Costa Rica is truly distressed by the very grave humanitarian situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, a situation that draft resolution S/2022/431, which was vetoed, also sought to alleviate. No less than 40 per cent of the country’s population is malnourished, 70 per cent suffer from food insecurity, 25 per cent suffer from chronic malnutrition and millions of North Koreans are suffering and perishing because their authorities have time and again rejected offers of millions of vaccines against the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), as well as food and medical equipment, to address the country’s very grave humanitarian situation. Costa Rica encourages the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to accept — for the health and well-being of its own people  — the offer of vaccines from the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access Facility. In conclusion, let me reiterate our call to give peace a chance on the Korean peninsula by engaging in an honest dialogue, without preconditions.

In its adoption by consensus, on April 26, of resolution 76/262, the General Assembly decided to establish a mechanism that would enable it to it to debate the issues of international peace and security that for practical purposes had previously been limited exclusively to the purview of the Security Council. The mechanism strengthens accountability, something that is direly needed in all the organs of the United Nations system, especially the Security Council. On May 26, one month after that resolution was adopted, a double veto was used in the Council in the voting on a draft resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, thereby activating for the first time the mechanism set out in resolution 76/262. We note that the Council submitted its special report (A/76/853, annex) on those vetoes to the Assembly in a timely manner, together with the vetoed draft resolution (S/2022/431) and the meeting record (S/PV.9048). That inherently constructive practice should be irreversible. Mexico has on numerous occasions condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s continued development of its nuclear and ballistic programmes, in open defiance of the Council’s authority and in contravention of the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent missile launches, along with its advancement of its nuclear military programme, do nothing to create an atmosphere of stability and security in North-East Asia. We therefore call for maximum restraint and insist on the need for multilateral dialogue with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, leading to the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The international community should promote dialogue aimed at a political solution, taking into consideration the ultimate goal of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The tools of preventive diplomacy, as provided for in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations, should not be disregarded. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s missile launches clearly constitute a threat to international peace and security, and the Council therefore has a responsibility to act. The use of the veto in this case is therefore regrettable. As we have pointed out before, when the veto is used it is not only the action of the Council that is thwarted; it is in fact the action of the entire membership, delegated to the Council, that is held back. It has once again become clear that the veto does not foster unity or promote the search for mutual understanding. It is an act of power. Blocking the will of others is an option that is available only to a few when they have exhausted their arguments, in the best-case scenario. The veto cannot be the last word in settling differences. We believe that this debate has opened a new chapter in the relationship between the principal organs of the United Nations — one in which the majority was given a voice, which has been undermined by the will of only two Member States. It is a clear example of the abuse of a working method. Let us put a stop to the veto in the Security Council. I invite everyone to continue supporting the French- Mexican initiative to voluntarily restrict the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities. We welcome Bosnia and Herzegovina’s recent decision to support the initiative, for which we now have 106 signatory States. These are very opportune times to strengthen the mechanisms linking the General Assembly and the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security.

We thank you, Mr. President, for convening this historic meeting. This is the first time since the adoption of the landmark resolution 76/262 that the General Assembly has assumed a vital role in addressing matters of international peace and security. This is a most fitting occasion to acknowledge and reiterate that the General Assembly is the only fully universal — and therefore the most representative — organ of the United Nations. As the embodiment and soul of multilateralism, the Assembly has priority and power over all the other organs. Under Article 15 of the Charter of the United Nations, all of our Organization’s organs are mandated to submit reports to the Assembly for its consideration. And according to Article 24 of the Charter, the Security Council acts on behalf of the Member States, which together compose the General Assembly. We hope that today’s meeting will be instrumental in ensuring that the permanent members of the Council reflect on the far-reaching consequences of their use of the veto. Türkiye is gravely concerned about the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea’s continuing development of its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. The increasing pace of missile launches, in particular since the beginning of this year, is unprecedented and alarming. Those launches represent a clear threat to regional and international peace and security, while also undermining the global non-proliferation regime. We strongly condemn the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea’s launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles and other ballistic missiles, in violation of the relevant resolutions of the Council. Türkiye is also concerned about the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea’s continuing development of its nuclear-weapons programme, in violation of its obligations under various resolutions of the Council. We urge the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea to take urgent steps to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programme in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, return to full compliance with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty as a matter of priority. The dire humanitarian conditions in the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, which have worsened with the recent outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in that country, are also deeply worrisome. We encourage Pyongyang to accept offers of COVID-19 vaccines from the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access Facility and to grant access to the World Health Organization and other United Nations agencies, as well as humanitarian organizations. There is an urgent need to ease the restrictions on cross-border movements in order to enable the delivery of food and other types of humanitarian aid to the civilian population. We maintain our firm conviction that there is no alternative to a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution to the situation on the Korean peninsula. Türkiye strongly supports a return to dialogue aimed at achieving that objective.

Austria aligns itself with the statement made earlier by the representative of the European Union in its capacity as observer. The General Assembly has convened today because of the vetoes cast in the Security Council a few days ago. The Council was unable to adopt draft resolution S/2022/431, on the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea’s continued and recently escalating illegal missile tests, which are in clear violation of the Council’s own resolutions. That is frankly incomprehensible and worrisome, even more so in the light of the upcoming tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Earlier, we heard China’s and Russia’s reasons for their veto, and I thank our colleagues for that. That is what the United Nations is for  — we come together, exchange positions and discuss with one another. But we were not convinced by their arguments. Firing ballistic missiles is no sign of the easing of tensions. Violations of binding resolutions of the Council are not a sign of an improved situation. We expect that the Council knows what it is doing when it adopts resolutions and sanctions. Therefore, when it adopts binding norms it must seek to implement them, rather than casting them in doubt. When the Council says that it will act after a violation, it must do so. For Austria, international law and the rule of law, as well as nuclear disarmament and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, are national and international policy priorities. It is therefore no big surprise that we accord particular attention to that issue. In that regard, allow me to raise two points before the Assembly today. My first point concerns international law and the need to implement our Charter of the United Nations. Austria wishes to see an active, accountable, coherent and transparent Security Council. I was disheartened, as were many others here, to see that the Council was unable to follow through on a key provision of one of its own resolutions. The Council was unable to act — as it said it would in resolution 2397 (2017) — in the case of an intercontinental ballistic missile test by the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. That casts doubt as to whether the Council will really do what it says it will do, which undermines our trust in its ability to act to protect peace and security. A violation of the Council necessitates a reaction by the Council, not a veto-induced blockade. It must lead to action towards securing compliance, not to rhetoric that undermines or casts doubt on the norms adopted by the Council itself. The permanent members of the Council have a particular responsibility in that respect because every substantive resolution  — every single sanction  — is adopted with the consent of the permanent members. An institution that adopts norms but then does not secure compliance risks becoming irrelevant. And that is not what Austria wants for the Council. Fortunately, the United Nations is not an Organization of parallel, uncommunicating silos. When the Security Council fails, the General Assembly can step in and — thanks to its own broad mandate — assume functions. In the challenging times we live in, we need an Organization that is effective and that can act. As States Members, we will not remain inactive when the law is broken. We have demonstrated that in the past and will do so in the future, and that is thanks to Liechtenstein in particular for spearheading the veto initiative, fully supported and co-sponsored by Austria, which has brought us here today. Today’s meeting is a very positive one. It shows that the United Nations is able to fix its own flaws. This is a remedy — a self-cure — that ensures that the United Nations remains effective and that we can keep the Organization that we all greatly admire. Therefore, when the Security Council fails, the General Assembly will step in  — when the Council remains silent, we will speak up. Today it is about all of us, the 193 States Members united in the General Assembly, accepting the responsibility to discuss matters and possibly also take action when the Council does not. Today we unite in strength and determination, showing the world that the United Nations works and that it can deliver. My second point is on disarmament and non-proliferation. Unlawful nuclear activities are not a national or regional issue. Unlawful nuclear activities and the proliferation of nuclear weapons concern all of us — they are a danger for all of us. Austria has long been a staunch defender of the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime, composed of treaties, conventions and binding Security Council resolutions. Austria strongly condemns the missile tests conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea in the past months. We call on the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea to cease its nuclear-weapons programme, return to the NPT and the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty as soon as possible. The complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is imperative for regional and global security. We are not there yet, but a nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea would be an unacceptable gross violation of the international norms against nuclear tests. We expect that the Security Council would act decisively in such a situation. Any disunity or lack of clarity in such a situation would be a grave setback to the non-proliferation efforts by the international community, towards which all of us have worked so hard for decades. It would also be another challenge to the NPT ahead of its tenth Review Conference. Let me therefore be crystal clear: the double veto in the Security Council on the missile tests should by no means be misinterpreted by anyone as a sign of weakness or lack of resolve at the United Nations. The convening of today’s meeting shows the determination of the United Nations not to accept challenges to the international rules on disarmament and non-proliferation. There is no room for a lack of clarity on this question  — the question of nuclear weapons, the most devastating weapons of mass destruction, the question of humankind’s survival. In this matter, the international community does not accept violations of the law. If we want to live by the rules of chaos, we can just ignore this and stand by idly. We can watch silently while the norms and rules we built up are trampled, ignored and broken  — that is our decision. But if we want to live in a system based on the rule of law, violations must trigger consequences. We know that, when violators do not feel the consequences of their violations, others may also wonder why they themselves should follow the rules  — and that is exactly what would lead to further nuclear proliferation. The violation of international law cannot be met with silence. Non-compliance with Security Council resolutions cannot be ignored. When binding norms are broken, there must be a strong and clear reaction. Today, thanks to the veto initiative, the reaction of the United Nations to such violations is loud and clear — and will remain so in the future.

Bulgaria aligns itself with the statement delivered earlier by the representative of the European Union in its capacity as observer. Today’s debate is a reality thanks to the mechanism established by resolution 76/262, which was adopted a little over one month ago. It was our hope that it would never be activated, or at least not so soon. However, with the vetoes cast by China and the Russian Federation on 26 May, the Security Council was prevented from acting on an issue of grave concern for international peace and security, namely, the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea’s blatant disregard of international law and the provisions of numerous Security Council resolutions. The Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea has launched 31 ballistic missiles since the beginning of the year. Most recently, on 5 June it launched eight ballistic missiles — after the vetoes on draft resolution S/2022/431 were cast — disproving the argument that action by the Council would only aggravate the situation. Bulgaria strongly condemns the launches of ballistic missiles by the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. They are in violation of multiple Council resolutions and are a serious threat to international and regional peace and security. We call on the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea to refrain from any further action that could increase international or regional tensions and to comply with the provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions by abandoning all its nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missile programmes and existing nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner and by ceasing all related activities immediately. With the tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) fast approaching, the failure to act on such blatant violations of the non-proliferation regime would be detrimental to the Treaty as a whole. We urge the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea to return to compliance with the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon State and with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s comprehensive safeguards agreement, and to bring into force the additional protocol of the NPT. We also call on the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty without delay. We call on all Member States to continue, as a matter of urgency, to fully and effectively implement the relevant Security Council resolutions concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea and to address the risks posed by its nuclear and ballistic programmes as a matter of urgency. The objective of today’s debate is not only to discuss the situation that gave rise to the casting of the veto, but also for the members of the Security Council to listen to the views of the wider United Nations membership. In accordance with Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council acts on behalf of the Members of the United Nations in carrying out its duties under its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. We call on the Security Council to exercise its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security and to take action. The 31 ballistic missiles launched in less than six months are more than a wake-up call and the Security Council must act now.

Today’s meeting is significant, as it is the first meeting of the General Assembly convened in accordance with resolution 76/262. Singapore has been a strong and consistent advocate for a more transparent, effective and accountable Security Council that is able to respond swiftly and decisively to global crises. Permanent membership is a privilege that comes with special responsibilities, which must be discharged fully and responsibly in support of international peace and security and to strengthen the multilateral system. We recognize that permanent members have the right to cast a veto, which is granted by the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter also confers the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security to the Council. Therefore, exercising the right to cast a veto comes with significant implications, which should not be taken lightly. Singapore co-sponsored resolution 76/262 because we believe it is critical to ensure greater transparency and accountability every time a veto is cast. We are meeting here today because two permanent members of the Security Council, namely, China and the Russian Federation, exercised their vetoes and prevented the adoption of draft resolution S/2022/431 on 26 May. The draft resolution would have imposed additional sanctions on relevant entities, but more important, it would also have updated the humanitarian exemptions to the United Nations sanctions regime on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which is especially relevant in view of the ongoing coronavirus disease outbreak in the country. The members of the Security Council must work together and in good faith on this critical issue affecting international peace and security in order to return to the consensus that had existed in the Council since 2006. Singapore is gravely concerned about the frequency of ballistic missile tests conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since the beginning of this year. In particular, Singapore condemned the intercontinental ballistic missile test held on 24 March by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in violation of Security Council resolutions and of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s 2018 moratorium on such tests. Those recent tests have raised tensions on the Korean peninsula and present a threat to regional peace and security. Singapore calls on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cease all provocations immediately and fully comply with its international obligations and commitments under all relevant Security Council resolutions. Singapore takes its obligations under those resolutions very seriously and implements them rigorously and consistently, including by prosecuting those who have violated the domestic laws that give effect to those sanctions. We would like to also urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to work with the international community to accelerate the provision of much-needed humanitarian assistance to the people of the country.

On May 26, along with the majority of the members of the Security Council, France supported draft resolution S/2022/431, condemning North Korea’s ballistic missile launches and aiming to strengthen measures to put an end to them (see S/PV.9048). We regret that the Security Council was blocked by the opposition of two permanent members, who chose to protect the North Korean regime. We are in a situation not seen since 2006, with risks of long-term negative effects on the non-proliferation regime. All members of the General Assembly are concerned about the effects of the crisis in North Korea, whose regime abandoned its 2018 moratorium on long- range ballistic missile launches and nuclear testing. The country has also clearly stated that it would use nuclear weapons for purposes other than deterrence. At the same time, the activity at the Punggye-ri test site continues, and it is feared that a seventh nuclear test could take place in the very near future. The pace and severity of North Korea’s provocations since the beginning of the year are unprecedented. Just a few days ago, eight new short-range ballistic missiles were fired almost simultaneously. France condemns those developments in the strongest terms, which systematically violate the resolutions adopted unanimously by the Security Council. In the face of the current escalation, our priority must be to implement sanctions effectively. This is a collective effort, and all the members of the Assembly must work to ensure it. We must also update the sanctions in order to effectively address North Korea’s nefarious activities, particularly in cyber space. That was the purpose of Security Council draft resolution S/2022/431. I would like to say in no uncertain terms that to ease sanctions while North Korea’s provocations continue to mount would be incomprehensible and irresponsible. Therefore, France calls for the resumption of a genuine political process. All actors in the region must invest in and resume dialogue in order to move towards complete, verifiable and irreversible disarmament, in accordance with Security Council resolutions, and North Korea must take action on the proposals to that end. I would like to conclude by underlining our great concern about the humanitarian situation, in particular the disastrous epidemic situation in North Korea. It is all the more regrettable that the regime continues to devote most of its resources to developing weapons- proliferation programmes that violate international law, instead of providing for the basic needs of its people. France takes great care to ensure that the relevant exemptions are systematically granted and is ready to contribute, together with its partners, to strengthening humanitarian aid. This is an urgent situation. The North Korean regime is a threat to its people, its neighbours and the world as a whole. That is why we will spare no effort to ensure that the Security Council is able to act in the future — that is its role — and re-establish its unity in the face of this major challenge to international peace and security.

I would like to thank the President for convening this meeting. Today’s meeting is a historic step towards further strengthening the transparency of the United Nations. In an Organization in which not all Members are equal, the convening of today’s meeting under resolution 76/262 reminds us of why it is said that with great power comes great responsibility. It is the responsibility of all Member States to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. That responsibility is even greater for the members of the Security Council, particularly those with veto power. It is therefore unfortunate that we are here today, because it simply means that the Council has failed. It has failed to agree on how to pronounce its position on the breaches of its resolutions by a Member State. Indonesia remains concerned about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s continued breaches of Security Council resolutions. We also urge it, as a Member of this Organization, to fully uphold all its international obligations, including by complying with Security Council resolutions. We also remind all parties to refrain from actions that could lead to a further deterioration of the situation on the Korean peninsula and in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. That is particularly important given the developing situation in the country with regard to the coronavirus disease pandemic. Indonesia believes in improving the interaction between the Security Council and the General Assembly because we believe it will contribute to greater accountability and legitimacy for the Council and strengthen the United Nations as a whole. Today’s meeting is indeed a reflection both of that effort and the complementarity of the work of the Council and the Assembly. However, we should not resolve only to increase the number of meetings without effectively resolving the core issue at hand. The Charter of the United Nations is clear on the role, mandate and competence of both the Council and the Assembly. Therefore, I again wish to emphasize that we have been convened today under resolution 76/262 because the Security Council failed in its duty. It is therefore important to encourage it to go back and to make progress on the issue at hand. Our discussions in the Assembly must not be a substitute for the work and responsibilities of the Council.

Today’s meeting was convened because the Member States in this Hall decided to act by enacting the veto initiative, a new mechanism for ensuring transparency and accountability. Today is therefore an important day for the United Nations. Australia strongly condemns the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. Its unprecedented tempo of destabilizing ballistic missile tests since September 2021 amounts to a series of clear violations of multiple resolutions of the Security Council. That pattern of activity includes a resumption of intercontinental ballistic missile launches and, most recently a salvo of eight ballistic missiles on 5 June. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s apparent preparations to undertake a nuclear test at Punggye-ri are deeply concerning. Further nuclear testing by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would pose an unacceptable threat to global peace and security and international non-proliferation and disarmament efforts. Australia reaffirms its call on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to comply with its obligations under the resolutions of the Council, including the requirement to abandon its nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and ballistic-missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. We also call on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take the constructive steps of signing and ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty as a priority, and to return to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Strong action from the Security Council is essential to limiting the further advancement of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s illegal weapons of mass destruction and ballistic-missile programmes. As such, Australia supports the adoption of a draft resolution pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations aimed at tightening sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. China and Russia’s decisions to veto draft Security Council resolution S/2022/431 are deeply regrettable. Their decisions undermine existing Council resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and go against the will of the international community. The Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Its failure to hold the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to account is an abrogation of that responsibility that undermines international disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. Inaction by the Security Council risks normalizing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s illegal behaviour and emboldening it to continue its flagrant violations of Council resolutions. We urge China and Russia to honour their responsibilities as Security Council members, including their commitments under Security Council resolution 2397 (2017) to take further action if the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resumes intercontinental ballistic missile testing. Australia remains steadfast in its commitment to enforcing the existing Security Council resolutions concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and we urge all Member States to do the same. Effective sanctions enforcement requires a global effort. Finally, while I have the floor, I wish to briefly respond to earlier statements regarding the AUKUS partnership, which is a continuation of the long- standing efforts of its three partners — Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States  — to uphold the international rules-based order and ensure that the Indo-Pacific region remains stable, secure and free from coercion. Australia’s decision to acquire conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines is something that we are pursuing openly in order to contribute to the region’s security and stability. AUKUS is not a new defence alliance, a new pact or a new treaty. It complements existing regional partnerships and arrangements. Let me be clear: Australia is committed to upholding all its non-proliferation obligations and strengthening the integrity of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, and AUKUS partners are engaging closely and transparently with the IAEA.

At the outset, I would like to welcome the initiative today to have the representatives of China and Russia explain before the General Assembly the reasons that led them to cast a veto on draft Security Council resolution S/2022/431. Brazil is committed to strengthening the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime and to the strict observance of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. In that regard, since the beginning of our mandate as an elected member of the Security Council, we have condemned in the strongest possible terms all actions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that are in violation of Council resolutions. For the same reasons and based on the understanding that it is high time that the Council respond firmly to the violations of its decisions, we voted in favour of the draft resolution in question. We have concerns about the inherent humanitarian impact of economic sanctions. We also recognize that such coercive measures have limited effectiveness in changing a State’s behaviour, especially in cases of comprehensive sanctions regimes that tend to last indefinitely in time. Nevertheless, the inclusive and transparent manner in which the Permanent Mission of the United States conducted negotiations on that draft resolution enabled Council members to have their main concerns reflected in a balanced and robust final text. Had it been adopted, the draft resolution, although perhaps not ideal, would have been a necessary response to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s provocations. For years, issues relating to nuclear proliferation, including proliferation on the Korean peninsula, have been a point of convergence among Council members, both permanent and elected. While it is undeniable that the international security environment has undergone fundamental transformations in recent times, the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains and needs to be properly addressed. If we have the common goal of achieving the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, we must also find a common way to pursue that goal. In this year alone, we have witnessed more than 30 ballistic missile launches by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including at least six intercontinental ballistic missiles. We have also witnessed worrisome rhetoric from the North Korean leadership about the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons beyond deterrence purposes, and there is clear evidence of the resumption of preparations for a new nuclear test. Restoring Council unity and appropriately addressing those issues is crucial and urgent. We call on Council members to put aside whatever differences, interests and hidden agendas they may have in other areas and focus solely on that objective. I would now like to turn to the systemic implications for the United Nations as a whole of the meeting we are having here today. Exchanging views through recourse to specialized jargon and the overutilization of clichés and catchphrases is a common characteristic of multilateral diplomacy. One of the most common such phrases that we use in our Organization is “breaking down the silos”. What that truly means is that we should strive to avoid artificial barriers and conflicts concerning competencies within the different parts of the United Nations system. We should all be committed to that objective in order to minimize overlaps and enhance cooperation and coordination among the entities of the system. My delegation has substantial concerns with regard to the gradual attempt to transpose the concept of “breaking down the silos” to the intergovernmental bodies established by Member States in the Charter of the United Nations. Today’s debate is precisely one such instance, as it seems to move towards a blurring of the division of functions between the Security Council and the Assembly. There seems to be a misconception that the General Assembly, by virtue of its universal membership, is in some way hierarchically above the Security Council. It is worth recalling that the Charter defines both as principal organs of the United Nations, working side by side with the remaining principal organs, each with very specific functions and powers. It is also worth recalling that Article 12 of the Charter specifically and unequivocally establishes the separation of powers between the Assembly and the Security Council whenever the latter is exercising the functions assigned to it in the Charter. The Assembly is therefore precluded from making any recommendations with regard to the specific situations of which the Council is seized. When resolution 76/262 was adopted, my delegation, while supporting its general thrust towards enhancing transparency before the wider membership, also expressed certain misgivings about aspects of the initiative. First, we believe the concept of transparency and accountability would have benefited from a corresponding requirement for the Security Council to explain to the General Assembly the motivations behind any mandate for the use of force. Secondly, in the same line of concern regarding the blurring of mandates between the two principal organs, the mechanism carries the potential to question the authority and legitimacy of the Security Council, as well as to discourage Council members from seeking common ground in divisive situations, the very core of our functions here as State representatives. It is also worth recalling that, in and of itself, the veto cannot be construed as a failure of the Council’s mandated responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security. It would be prudent to recall that the requirement of positive votes from the five permanent members of the Council is a structural component of the institutional machinery of our Organization, with the essential objective of curtailing decisions on the use of force by one country or group of countries. Finally, Brazil has a known and long-standing position in favour of reforming the Security Council. We also have a history of respect for, and contribution to, the Organization in the fields of the environment, disarmament, development and human rights, to name just a few. It worries us to see our whole system, which has promoted high ideals and created so many expectations for our peoples, following the winds of circumstance  — and thereby blurring its very founding principles.

Today’s debate marks a milestone in the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council. The fact that we are meeting today following the use of the veto by two permanent members of the Council on a draft resolution on non-proliferation (S/2022/431) proves that the United Nations can reinvent itself. Those vetoes do not therefore mean a dead end but instead an opportunity for we, the Member States, to shoulder our responsibility on an issue that concerns us all. Nevertheless, when the Assembly adopted resolution 76/262, which we supported, we had hoped to see it activated as rarely as possible, in line with our long-standing commitment to a more responsible and restrictive use of the veto. The fact that we are meeting so quickly for the first time under that resolution’s mandate is disappointing for three reasons. The first disappointment is that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea abandoned its own moratorium on long-range ballistic missile tests in March and has repeatedly violated the resolutions of the Security Council on that issue. By violating its commitments under international law and continuing to develop nuclear weapons and increasingly sophisticated delivery systems, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is challenging the global non-proliferation regime. We urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to return to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) promptly and to submit to, and comply fully with, the inspection regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We also call on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and, in the meantime, to fully observe a moratorium on nuclear-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions. Moreover, no progress has been made on addressing the potential negative effects of sanctions on the humanitarian situation in the country. Living conditions in North Korea are even more strained than usual in the context of the pandemic and the measures taken by the Government to respond to it. Switzerland has supported the humanitarian needs of the North Korean people for several decades. Had it been adopted, draft resolution S/2022/431 would have introduced practical changes to the sanctions regime and facilitated the work of international and multilateral actors. While we regret that the draft resolution was vetoed, we welcome the new wording of its text and hope it will serve as a guide for future draft resolutions. Finally, there must be a return to constructive dialogue between the members of the Security Council and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as well as within the Council. The Council should not remain silent in the face of a clear threat to international peace and security and non-compliance with its resolutions. In addition, nuclear-weapon States have an obligation to uphold their special responsibilities with regard to non-proliferation. But we all have the responsibility, in the lead-up to the NPT Review Conference, to find common ground and reduce the grave risks associated with weapons of mass destruction. Setbacks like the one we are discussing today need not be permanent. We, the Member States, must remind the Council of its duty to engage in dialogue and to act in order to address the threat being posed by the breakdown of international non-proliferation law. The Security Council has an essential role to play in preventing the security situation on the Korean peninsula from drifting into dangerous territory. In the meantime, previous resolutions of the Security Council remain valid, and all Member States have an obligation to fully implement them. We will continue work to achieve further understanding and dialogue on this issue, especially if we are elected to the Security Council tomorrow.

Let me thank His Excellency Mr. Abdulla Shahid, President of the General Assembly, for organizing this meeting pursuant to resolution 76/262, entitled “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”. This is a landmark moment. It is the first time that a meeting of the General Assembly has been convened following the use of the veto in the Security Council. It is being held under resolution 76/262, which was adopted on 26 April, only weeks ago. Regrettably, the first veto activating the resolution’s mechanism was cast just one month later, on 22 May (see S/PV.9048). Poland has been an active member of the core group and a co-sponsor of that initiative, which appears to be an important step towards enhancing multilateralism. We believe it will contribute to improving the United Nations system and strengthening international peace and stability. On far too many occasions, the use of the veto would irreversibly have put an end to discussions on contentious issues. Now, thanks to the newly established practice, deliberations can continue within the wider United Nations membership, which creates the possibility of communicating our expectation that the Council deliver on its mandate as outlined in the Charter of the United Nations. That highlights even further the significance of the Council in carrying out its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. We are convinced that the initiative will boost the efficiency of the United Nations system and restore its credibility in the eyes of international public opinion. The excessive use of the veto is particularly harmful in situations that call for swift and decisive action, such as Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. These days, the rules-based international order is being brutally attacked. The ongoing war has global implications for peace and security, which is why the need for an efficient Security Council is more urgent than ever before. We are therefore disappointed about the recent vetoes cast by China and Russia concerning additional sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for its continuous, blatant violation of Security Council resolutions. The adoption of a new resolution could have  — and should have  — sent a clear signal in condemnation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s reckless behaviour in recent months. It could have shown our determination to hold such behaviour accountable. Benefiting from the opportunity to participate in this debate on the situation created by the use of the veto on the North Korea draft resolution (S/2022/431) , let me express our national position in that regard. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s missile and nuclear programmes pose a serious and constant threat to the security and stability of the region and beyond. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s military activity is a major proliferation challenge of our time and requires the attention of the international community. Poland is concerned about the indication of ongoing North Korean nuclear programme development. Activity observed at the Yongbyon site and the Punggye-ri nuclear test site indicates that North Korea is consistently developing its military nuclear programme, in breach of international law. We strongly condemn those activities. We call on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty and, in the meantime, to fully observe the moratorium on nuclear-test explosions or any other nuclear explosion and refrain from any action contrary to the object and purpose of the Treaty. The denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea remains an absolute imperative and priority for the entire international community. Unfortunately, for the time being, we do not see a willingness on the part of Pyongyang to engage in denuclearization talks. We are deeply disturbed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s unprecedented escalation of missile tests conducted since the beginning of 2022. We condemn in the strongest terms the test of yet another intercontinental ballistic missile, conducted on 25 May. That act constitutes a further deliberate violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and undermines both international peace and security and the global non-proliferation regime. It also confirms that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea uses all available means to coerce the elevation of its status in the region. We will therefore not stop calling on the North Korean authorities to abandon the country’s nuclear, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic-missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. We also call on Pyongyang to immediately cease all related activities, return to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and fully comply with the numerous Security Council resolutions on the matter. We hope that in the future the Security Council will once again stand united against the North Korean regime’s militarization efforts, which threaten peace and security both on the Korean peninsula and worldwide. Our message both now and in the future to all those who stand against international law and principles should be clear: no business as usual. Those responsible must face the consequences of their actions.

At the outset, my delegation wishes to extend its condolences to the Islamic Republic of Iran for the lives lost as a result of this morning’s distressing accident. We would like to express our solidarity with the families of the victims and wish a speedy recovery to the injured. The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic listened to the clarifications made by the representatives of the Russian Federation and China of their justified objections to the draft resolution on imposing further sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (S/2022/431). In that regard, my delegation would like to make the following observations. My delegation joined the consensus on resolution 76/262. However, we are concerned about the possibility of that resolution being exploited by some in a politicized manner that does not serve the objectives of its adoption. The Security Council needs to play a positive and constructive role in order to settle disputes peacefully and ensure that its measures help ease tensions and prevent situations from deteriorating, in accordance with its primary mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security. However, today we are witnessing political polarization and attempts by some members of the Council to isolate other Council members and neglect their concerns, moving the Council away from its balance and objectivity, while causing divisions within it and limiting its ability to collectively respond and support efforts for a peaceful settlement. That prolongs and exacerbates the crisis. Other countries, whose concerns are being ignored, are left with no choice but to object to such draft resolutions and vote against them. Despite the fact that Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of the United Nations allow the Security Council to take steps to maintain international peace and security, resorting to the use of those Articles needs to be a means and not an end in itself. The facts, as well as the Council’s effective implementation of its sanctions against a number of Member States, show that those who risk losing the most and being affected the most are the peoples of those countries, owing to the effects of sanctions on essential sectors and development and the enjoyment of basic human rights. Despite the failure of those sanctions and the need to reform them, the Council has in most cases been unable to spare civilians their catastrophic consequences — or even to reduce and mitigate them. Since 2006, the Council has adopted 10 sanctions- related resolutions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. However, the reality is that the sanctions imposed against that Member State have not taken into account the root causes that led to the degradation and destabilization of the Korean peninsula, while failing to ensure its security. The sanctions imposed on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have had unacceptable humanitarian consequences and constitute a direct threat to its citizens. It would therefore be inhumane to promote and increase those sanctions, given the coronavirus disease pandemic that has currently spread across the country. Despite a series of measures taken by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since 2018 to calm the situation on the Korean peninsula, the United States has subsequently moved further away from dialogue and diplomacy. The hesitant United States policies and its lack of reciprocity with regard to the positive initiatives taken by North Korea, in addition to its imposition of so-called independent secondary sanctions that exceed the sanctions imposed by the Security Council, have obstructed dialogue. They have also added to the lack of trust in the commitment of the United States to seeking a lasting solution to the crisis. Over the past decades, the United States and its allies have used dozens of vetoes unjustly against the peoples of our region, especially with regard to the Palestinian question, while obstructing a peaceful solution to dozens of international problems. The United States must abide by the resolutions of the Council in order to prove its credibility and seriousness to the international community. The United States needs to commit to upholding the resolutions of the Council instead of blocking them, which it has done from the founding of the United Nations until the present day. In conclusion, my delegation stresses the need to commit to the purposes and principles of the Charter and to support true pluralism based on the provisions of international law, including by implementing Security Council resolutions in a balanced manner that is not an end in itself. My delegation also stresses that the failure to respond to Pyongyang’s repeated calls for an end to the hostile activities against it, while ignoring its right to protect its own people and to ensure respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the failure to implement promises made to that country and provide it with guarantees while ignoring the facts related to the humanitarian effects of the sanctions — all of that means that imposing additional sanctions is politically and morally unacceptable and proves the correctness of the States opposing the imposition or strengthening of such sanctions.

We have heard the last speaker in this debate for this meeting. We shall hear the remaining speakers this afternoon after the following item scheduled for consideration in this Hall.

I wish to inform members that the following representatives have been elected Chairpersons of the Main Committees of the General Assembly at its seventy-seventh session and are accordingly members of the General Committee for that session: First Committee, Mr. Magzhan Ilyassov of Kazakhstan; Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), Mr. Mohamed Al Hassan of Oman; Second Committee, Ms. Lachezara Stoeva of Bulgaria; Third Committee, Mr. José Alfonso Blanco Conde of the Dominican Republic; Fifth Committee, Mr. Philippe Kridelka of Belgium; and Sixth Committee, Mr. Pedro Comissário Afonso of Mozambique. I congratulate the Chairs of the Main Committees for the seventy-seventh session of the General Assembly on their election.