A/77/PV.40 General Assembly

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

The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. Regional organizations have played a key role in supporting the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), however, is an organization whose members include Russia and Belarus and whose Chief of Joint Staff is an officer of the Russian army. Against the backdrop of Russia’s illegal aggression against Ukraine, which has been overwhelmingly condemned in a series of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, the United Kingdom cannot in these circumstances support a resolution welcoming United Nations-CSTO cooperation, and therefore abstained in the voting on resolution 77/13. The United Kingdom remains committed to working together with other members of the CSTO, namely, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

I have the honour to speak today on behalf of the Republic of Belarus as a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). I would like to underscore the importance of maintaining a systematic and ongoing dialogue between the CSTO and the United Nations. The CSTO countries support the comprehensive development of balanced relations between the United Nations and regional and other organizations, including in the area of the maintenance of international peace and security. Both the General Assembly and the Security Council have stressed the importance of that cooperation on several occasions. Cooperation among various international and regional structures in the areas of both economic integration and security is a requirement for modern life. It is also a prerequisite for the sustainable development of countries and peoples in order to ensure a peaceful, stable environment conducive to progress and prosperity. Belarus opposes the politicization of traditionally constructive international documents and processes. We reaffirm the CSTO States’ interest in enhancing our cooperation with the United Nations and building on the progress already achieved. We believe that it is necessary to carry out a progressive, mutually beneficial dialogue that takes into account the interests of all States without exception and within the framework of the law in order to achieve concrete results in enhancing CSTO-United Nations cooperation. I also want to take note of and respond to the statements made today (see A/77/PV.39) by my colleagues from certain States mentioning the participation of the Republic of Belarus in Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. We would once again like to stress that Belarus has not taken part, is not taking part and does not intend to take part in that military operation, and that all the accusations against the Republic of Belarus on that issue are therefore groundless.

Nicaragua would like to explain its position on resolution 77/19, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Central European Initiative”. Nicaragua attaches great importance to cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations. However, we regret that the text of the resolution, on which there was consensus, and which focuses essentially on taking note of initiatives to improve coordination between the United Nations and the Central European Initiative in order to ensure the well-being of the peoples of our respective regions, has been politicized. Nicaragua maintains its principled position to not support country-specific resolutions that disparage and politicize the agenda of our work, an action that we believe dilutes the purpose of any resolution. We regret the fact that the concerns of many delegations, including our own, were not taken into account in the consultations on the resolution held with the entire membership. Nicaragua believes that the resolution lacks balance in its wording, because if we are talking about effects on world economies, we should be mentioning the sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation, which are in effect causing human tragedies and creating unprecedented risks for world economies, including for energy and food security, affecting not only Europe but also developing countries. That is why we voted against the sixth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 3 of the resolution, whose deletion at the time was also requested, in order to maintain the resolution’s spirit of consensus. We also believe that politicizing the resolution is inappropriate. Our delegation therefore also voted against the resolution as a whole. We encourage the facilitators to work towards a consensus-based text in the future, with a focus on the beneficial language contained in resolution 77/19, such as its encouragement to carry out further activities related to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals.

First of all, I would like to express our gratitude to all the delegations that voted against or abstained in the voting on resolution 77/13, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Collective Security Treaty Organization”. The delegation of Ukraine would also like to make an explanation of vote on resolution 77/16, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Commonwealth of Independent States”. In that regard, I would like to draw the General Assembly’s attention to the fact that in 1991 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine — our country’s Parliament — specified that Ukraine, as one of the founding members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), declined granting the Commonwealth of Independent States the status of a subject of international law. That is because the Agreement on the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Alma-Ata Protocol and the Charter of the CIS do not endow the Commonwealth with such a status. Ukraine considers cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, as stipulated in the Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, to be a vital tool for effecting the settlement of conflict and promoting peace and security. The involvement of regional organizations in peace-related tasks has intensified, and such organizations have become increasingly recognized as a vital component of conflict-prevention and -management initiatives. At the same time, we cannot support the idea of using the United Nations to promote the Commonwealth of Independent States, which, unfortunately, is not an organization that serves those purposes. It has continued to discredit itself and cannot be considered a constructive regional player. After Russia’s illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, an overwhelming majority of the General Assembly voted to adopt resolution ES-11/1, entitled “Aggression against Ukraine”, which deplores in strong terms the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine, in violation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations. That aggression is being conducted by the armed forces of the aggressor, the Russian Federation, with the full assistance and support of Belarus, a State that the General Assembly has recognized as being involved in the unlawful use of force against Ukraine. The Russian Federation and Belarus are both member States of the CIS. Today it is clear that the Russian-led Commonwealth is not going to contribute to the peaceful settlement of local disputes, as stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations and the Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States. On the contrary, it has encouraged its member States to further violate international law. We have not heard any words of condemnation or concern regarding Russia’s aggression against Ukraine by any of the CIS member States. Taking everything that I have just mentioned into account, Ukraine could not support resolution 77/16, and therefore dissociated itself from the consensus on it.

I take the floor to express my delegation’s position on resolution 77/19, entitled “Cooperation between United Nations and the Central European Initiative”. My delegation voted in favour of the resolution, as we support its broader goal. However, since my delegation abstained on the sixth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 3 of the resolution, we disassociate ourselves from those paragraphs.

My delegation takes the floor in explanation of vote after the voting on resolution 77/19, entitled “Cooperation between United Nations and the Central European Initiative”. My delegation is of the view that the process leading up to the adoption of any United Nations resolution should be informed by transparency, good faith and, ultimately, the desire for consensus and unity. Moreover, contentious language must be avoided at all costs in order to maintain the spirit of cooperation and multilateralism on which the United Nations is supposed to stand. The text in question is a technical resolution purportedly aimed at strengthening multilateralism, promoting solidarity and building a united, cohesive, secure and stable Europe, without dividing lines and with shared values. What happened, then? The text is laden with politicized and hostile language that does nothing but deepen dispute, undermine the spirit of cooperation and bring more divergence to the table — not to mention that the concerns of many delegations were not taken into consideration. Targeting one country has never been a solution to problems — believe me, we speak from experience. My country has been the target of a country-specific resolution for the past 10 or 11 years. What has that done other than provide misinformed and false claims about the human rights situation in Syria? I can safely say: absolutely nothing. Targeting specific countries is not the answer. Strengthening the spirit of discord is not the answer. Adopting such a text is not a step forward. Rather, it only represents a setback in our multilateral work. That is why my delegation voted against resolution 77/19.

This statement concerns resolution 77/16, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Commonwealth of Independent States”. We thank Kazakhstan for its work on the resolution. The United States supports cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations for the purpose of upholding the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, such as respect for the human rights of all persons and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States and their political independence, including their decision to join or not join in associations with other States. The United States regrets that the resolution does not refer to cooperation between the United Nations and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in the area of human rights. We note that all United Nations Member States, including those that are also CIS member States, have international obligations and commitments to promoting and protecting the universal human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as those in the instruments to which they are parties. Measures to counter terrorism and violent extremism must respect international law obligations and must not be used as a pretext to limit the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression, by political opponents or civil society members. The United States also notes that the reference to extremism in paragraph 1 should be linked to violence. Speech that promotes an ideology or a belief alone, even extremism, is generally protected by the freedom of expression. Violent extremism should be the focus of the efforts of the States Members of the United Nations. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the mandate holders of the Human Rights Council are available to assist States with recommendations to improve the fulfilment of human rights obligations and commitments. The United States encourages all CIS members to invite the relevant special procedures mandate holders for country visits and to cooperate with them upon their recommendations. We particularly encourage the Russian Federation to grant the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, once appointed, access to the country for the purposes of monitoring and reporting on the situation there.

Australia takes the floor to provide an explanation of position on resolution 77/18, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation”. Australia continues to support cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). We were pleased to support the resolution recognizing those efforts today. However, we must note our disappointment that the resolution again references the 2025 programme of action, which unfairly singles out Israel. For that reason, Australia therefore disassociates itself from consensus on the fourth preambular paragraph. Australia trusts that its position will be taken into account in future discussions and looks forward to further cooperation between the United Nations and the OIC going forward.

Canada joined the consensus today on resolution 77/18 because we strongly support its objective of strengthening cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The work of the OIC in reinforcing shared United Nations principles on gender issues in Afghanistan, for instance, has been very important. However, Canada wishes to disassociate itself from the fourth preambular paragraph of the resolution, which references the OIC 2025 programme of action — a document that unfairly singles out Israel for criticism, a practice that we believe does not move the parties any closer to direct negotiations, which are necessary to bring about the two-State solution.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position or vote after taking action. The exercise of the right of reply has been requested. May I remind members that statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second intervention and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I wish to make the following statement in exercise of our right to reply to the explanation of position made on behalf of the European Union (EU) (see A/77/PV.39) regarding resolution 77/18, on cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. A just, lasting and sustainable settlement on the issue concerning the island of Cyprus can be reached only following a process that starts with the reaffirmation of the inherent sovereign equality and equal international status of the Turkish Cypriot people, which were acknowledged by 1959—1960 agreements. The explanation of position that was read out on behalf of the EU provides an example of bias or prejudice. The EU admitted the Greek Cypriot Administration as a full member, despite the overwhelming Greek Cypriot vote in 2004 against a comprehensive settlement. Since then, the EU has been unable to adopt a balanced position on the Cyprus issue. So long as EU positions exclusively reflect the interests of the Greek Cypriots, the EU will continue to disqualify itself as an objective contributor to efforts to find a solution. Those who consider the Greek Cypriot side as the sole owner of the island should abandon that attitude. We call on everyone to focus on the reality. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is one of the two States on the island. The international community should reaffirm the sovereign equality and equal international status of the Turkish Cypriot people and act accordingly. The recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, in line with our President’s call to the General Assembly, is one means to that end. By all means, Türkiye will continue to stand by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and to be the voice of the Turkish Cypriots on all international platforms. Further details on the issue will be provided by the Turkish Cypriot representation, as needed.

I take the floor to reply to the statement made by the representative of Türkiye. First and foremost, let me once again call on the Turkish delegation to respect the names of fellow Member States. We demand and request that, as a full member of this forum, our proper name be used. A few days ago, the Permanent Representative of Türkiye, speaking in the General Assembly Hall at the resumed eleventh emergency special session, stated, “We must collectively ensure that the founding principles of the United Nations, enshrined in its Charter, are upheld. This is the only way to save ourselves from the scourge of war” (see A/ES- 11/ PV.12, p.14). In that regard, we recall the statement made by the Secretary-General in February, when he said that “the principles of the United Nations Charter are not an à la carte menu. They cannot be applied selectively. Member States have accepted them all and they must apply them all”. We encourage the delegation of Türkiye to take the Secretary-General’s statement into serious consideration. The references to Cyprus in the documents of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), including the OIC 2025 programme of action, directly contradict United Nations resolutions on Cyprus and the core tenets of the Charter of the United Nations. Let us be clear: we will not stay silent in the face of unacceptable and provocative attempts by Türkiye to promote the so-called membership of the illegal secessionist entity in certain regional organizations. Cyprus will work decisively against such actions. The statement just made by the representative of Türkiye exposes once again Türkiye’s agenda for the division, secession and partition of Cyprus, using the Turkish Cypriot community as a pretext. Unfortunately, Türkiye’s aggressive rhetoric merely confirms who is responsible for the lack of peace in Cyprus. Instead of lecturing the European Union and its member States — a community of States of which Türkiye itself wishes to become a member — Türkiye and the Turkish Cypriot leadership should abandon their unacceptable position for a two-State solution in Cyprus, resume negotiations for an agreed settlement on the basis of successive Security Council resolutions and engage meaningfully and constructively with the aim of finding a fair and viable solution to the problem of Cyprus that will genuinely reunite our country.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-items (b), (d), (k), (q), (r), (t), (u), (v), (w), (y) and (aa) of agenda item 127?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-items (a), (c), (e) to (j), (l) to (p), (s), (x) and (z) of agenda item 127 and of agenda item 127, as a whole.

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

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. I would like to remind members that, in accordance with decision 34/401, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, that is, either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation’s vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee, and that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Before we begin to take action on the recommendation contained in the report of the Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we are going to proceed to take a decision in the same manner as was done in the Committee, unless the Secretariat is notified otherwise in advance. I should therefore hope that we may proceed to adopt without a vote the recommendation that was adopted without a vote in the Committee. In the report, the Committee recommends that the General Assembly reappoint Dorothy Bradley (Belize) as a member of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2023. May I therefore take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to reappoint Dorothy Bradley as a member of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2023? It was so decided (decision 77/412).

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (e) of agenda item 118?