A/77/PV.59 General Assembly

I now give the floor to the representative of Cuba to introduce draft resolutions A/77/L.45/Rev.1 and A/77/L.46.

On behalf of the Group of 77 (G-77) and China, Cuba has the honour to introduce draft resolution A/77/L.45/Rev.1, entitled “New Partnership for Africa’s Development: progress in implementation and international support”. The draft resolution highlights the progress made by African countries in the implementation of its various programmes and projects supported by development partners. The New Partnership for Africa’s Development draft resolution provides insight into how far Africa has come since the most recent resolution was passed by the General Assembly (resolution 76/297) and places the spotlight firmly on those areas which need support in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In many ways it is a record, year-on-year, of what Africa is achieving. The draft resolution also underscores the importance of coherent and coordinated implementation of Agenda 2063 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, while acknowledging that much needs to be done to overcome the challenges in its implementation. Draft resolution A/77/L.45/Rev.1 notes that there is a need for additional support to reduce the effects of and recover from the pandemic to enable the continent to achieve the 2030 Agenda and Agenda 2063. The G-77 and China has always supported the ambition of the Group of African States to step up international cooperation for Africa, in a spirit of mutual benefit and international solidarity. The Group welcomes the remarkable collective effort to converge the views and concerns of all parties and the immense flexibility shown in formulating consensual language throughout the text of the draft resolution. In that regard, we would like to thank all delegations for their constructive engagement and valuable inputs, which greatly enriched the draft resolution. We would also like to extend our thanks and appreciation to the coordinators of the draft resolution, Ms. Meryem Hamdouni of Morocco and Mr. Jeswuni Abudu-Birresborn of Ghana, for their brilliant work and leadership on behalf of Africa and the G-77 and China. We equally thank the facilitator, Mr. Mohamed- Esseghir Latrous of Algeria, for his tireless work in moving the process forward. The G-77 and China looks forward to the successful adoption of this important draft resolution. Also, and again on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, Cuba has the honour to introduce draft resolution A/77/L.46, entitled ¨Promotion of durable peace through sustainable development in Africa”. The draft resolution highlights the crucial role of African countries in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and the progress made in that regard, as well as in building peace for sustainable development. The causes of conflict in Africa are many. Complex internal and external factors continue to cause and perpetuate disputes in many parts of the world, including Africa. The international community should collectively uphold the leadership and ownership of African countries in suppressing conflicts by acting on the root causes of such conflicts. Additional efforts are needed, in particular a robust international cooperation and partnership on the basis of mutual trust and the full benefit of all for the common future of present and coming generations, focusing on the needs of African countries and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The draft resolution is critical to Africa, as it reflects on efforts undertaken by the United Nations, the African Union and other pertinent stakeholders to promote peace and development on the continent, outlines related areas of concern and calls for increased action and cooperation. Specifically, it calls upon the United Nations system, Member States and bilateral and multilateral partners to deliver expeditiously on their commitments and to support the full and speedy implementation of the provisions of the Political Declaration on Africa’s development needs, the 2030 Agenda and Agenda 2063 of the African Union. In order to prevent and resolve conflict at its earliest stages, we stress the importance of ensuring that the United Nations system supports the efforts of African countries to achieve sustainable and durable peace. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the report was not released in time to be considered for substantive inputs. Despite that challenge, the facilitator, Ms. Nadja Micael of Eritrea, and the coordinator, Mr. Tony Oweke of Kenya, were able to aptly guide delegations towards consensus. We would like to express our thanks and appreciation for their great leadership and excellent work. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank all delegations for their spirit of cooperation and flexibility displayed throughout this process. The G-77 and China also looks forward to the successful adoption of this important draft resolution.

Even before the current cascading crises, African countries were facing challenges in implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Agenda 2063 of the African Union. The ongoing crises have disrupted economic activities, placed severe pressure on health and social protection systems, and further burdened Government budgets, straining public finance and limiting policy space. However, those challenges have not overshadowed the progress made in African countries to mobilize domestic resources to finance crucial investments, including infrastructure and essential service delivery over the past two decades to strengthen socioeconomic progress and promote inclusive growth. As reflected in the report of the Secretary-General entitled “Financing for development in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic: primacy of domestic resource mobilization” (A/76/888), Africa’s development is primarily financed through the continent’s domestic resources, which account for over two thirds of total development financing and which significantly exceed financial inflows, including foreign direct investment and official development assistance. On average, the tax-to-gross-domestic-product (GDP) ratio reached 16.6 in 2019 in African countries, up from 14.8 in 2010, which shows progress. Maximizing domestic resource mobilization is important to build resilience against external shocks and strengthen debt sustainability in African countries. In recent years, African countries have had to borrow to finance large financing gaps. Currently, external debts account for 60 per cent of Africa’s public debt, with debt servicing absorbing more than 20 per cent of Government revenues on average. Those efforts must be supported by a comprehensive reform of the existing global economic and financial architecture. It is important to build on a more inclusive and effective international debt cooperation and to curb illicit financial flows from Africa, estimated at $88.6 billion annually, equivalent to 3.7 per cent of total GDP. It is estimated that curbing illicit financial flows could close the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals by 33 per cent. In addition, regulatory and policy reforms to strengthen trade and investment, including within the framework of the African Continental Free Trade Area, are critical to creating an enabling environment for innovation and entrepreneurship. It is also imperative to fulfil official development assistance commitments by developed countries to developing countries. Moreover, the provision of the means of implementation by developed countries in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the commitment to provide $100 billion per year, is urgently needed, as is the operationalization of the loss and damage fund, as agreed at the twenty-seventh Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to ensure the achievement of a just transition. Enhancing sound governance policies and structures is more important than ever before, particularly in the light of the implications of the coronavirus disease pandemic and other global crises of the political and socioeconomic conditions in the continent. The report of the Secretary-General entitled “Promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa” (A/77/644) underscores the importance of strengthening the effectiveness and inclusiveness of socioeconomic structures and political governance mechanisms to promote inclusion in the design and implementation of development strategies. The report also provides a comprehensive analysis of the structural problems that stem from the colonial period and how governance interacts with national and regional efforts to advance inclusive growth and sustainable development. It also underlines the importance of giving attention to asserting and increasing State presence across territories and promoting inclusive public service delivery and recognizes the efforts made by African countries to tackle external and internal factors affecting governance. It is imperative to strengthen African leadership and ownership of governance improvement processes on the continent. In that context, the African Group commends the work of the African Peer Review Mechanism in fostering the adoption of practices, standards and policies that will promote good governance, sustainable development, economic growth and political stability on the continent. Accordingly, under the President, the Group calls upon the United Nations to improve its cooperation with the African Peer Review Mechanism with a view to enhancing its monitoring capacity and exchanging ideas on promoting good governance in Africa. It is imperative to continue to strengthen the long-standing partnership between the United Nations and Africa to address those challenges. That is crucial for achieving the transformational impact of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Agenda 2063 of the African Union and realizing their shared promise of leaving no one behind. It goes without saying that we fully align ourselves with the statement made by my dear brother Pedro Luis Pedroso Cuesta, the Permanent Representative of Cuba, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina and potential candidate country Georgia align themselves with this statement. At the outset, we wish to thank Eritrea, as the facilitator of the resolution on the promotion of durable peace through sustainable development in Africa (A/77/L.46), Kenya, as the coordinator of the Group of 77 and China, and colleagues representing groups and Member States who participated in informal consultations on the draft resolution. I also want to direct a special thanks to the Group of African States for tirelessly championing the link between sustainable development and peace, which is at the heart of the draft resolution. As stated recently by Deputy Secretary- General Amina Mohammed at the Security Council (see S/PV.9250), there is only one route to durable peace: it is the route of sustainable development. Africa and the European Union have a close and long-standing partnership in a number of fields. The EU is Africa’s largest trade, investment and development partner. Deepening our partnership with Africa is a key priority for the European Union. Moreover, we believe that the multilateral system, including the Security Council, would benefit from a stronger African voice and representation. The EU continues to support African-led peace and security initiatives, such as the Silencing the Guns road map. The EU also contributes significant financial support and personnel to peace and security operations in Africa. Since 2003, the EU has committed €3.5 billion in support of African-led initiatives, contributing to early responses to crises, capacity- building and the financing of African Union-mandated peace support operations. The EU supports predictable and sustainable funding for African-led peace operations authorized by the Security Council and the ongoing discussions on the use of United Nations assessed contributions. A tangible example of that is our support to the African Union human rights compliance framework. In addition, the EU promotes the active inclusion of women and youth in the processes to attain durable peace and sustainable development in Africa. The present report of the Secretary-General on the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa (A/77/644) shows evidence of a trend of increasing violence and conflict in Africa, which is deeply worrisome. It also presents a highly relevant analysis of the impact of politics and governance on conflict and sustainable development. It documents relevant avenues to increase the presence of State institutions in remote areas and strengthen the trust and cohesion of local communities. The correlation between good governance and fewer conflicts strengthens our conviction that we need to support both the presence and the quality of governance structures that can provide public services across the territory. As we approach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) summit in September, at which we will collectively evaluate the state of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, it is worrisome that so many African countries are struggling with progress on SDG 16. We believe stronger engagement between the Peacebuilding Commission and the African Union Peace and Security Council could provide renewed impetus to accelerate the implementation of SDG 16. The European Union looks forward to further discussions of the Secretary-General’s report. In future considerations of the present draft resolution, it would be logical to time the report to allow reflections on its findings in the draft resolution itself. Regarding the draft resolution, we note that it has been updated to reflect several important developments in the past year. First, on climate change, it welcomes the twenty- seventh Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The strong adverse effects of climate change on sustainable development are well reflected in the draft resolution, but we regret that some delegations could not support the reference to the link between the adverse effects of climate change on durable peace, as the Group of 77 and China had proposed and as was supported by the European Union. Secondly, draft resolution A/77/L.46 refers to the adoption, in May 2022, of Security Council resolution 2634 (2022), on maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea. Thirdly, we want to highlight the reference to the important resolution 76/305, on financing for peacebuilding, which was adopted unanimously in September 2022. We encourage the Fifth Committee to reach agreement on assessed contributions for the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) at its upcoming session. The European Union will continue to support adequate, predictable and sustained financing for peacebuilding, including through assessed contributions to the PBF. And we will work together with the Group of African States for a positive outcome on that issue. In conclusion, let me reassure the Assembly of our ongoing and unwavering support for durable peace through sustainable development in Africa. The EU and its member States will continue to work on strengthening cooperation with our African partner countries.

Building on the long- standing engagement of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) with countries and regions in Africa in support of their peacebuilding priorities, the Commission takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa (A/77/644) and its approach to governance as a tool for building peace and achieving sustainable development, and wishes to make the following remarks. The PBC welcomes the report’s recommendation to strengthen the concerted efforts of the Security Council, the Peacebuilding Commission and the Economic and Social Council in order to promote an approach that understands nation-building as a critical element of peacemaking, peacebuilding and sustaining peace. The strengthening of national capacities is an important component of peacebuilding. Effective and efficient national institutions can address internal factors of instability and mitigate the impact of external shocks; and collaborative and concerted action by the international community can support national institutions and address external factors of instability. The Commission takes note of the interrelation between conflict and the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and, in that regard, notes with concern the impact that the multifaceted crisis triggered by the coronavirus disease pandemic has had on the socioeconomic conditions of African countries. The deterioration of the socioeconomic situation, the climate conditions in many countries in Africa and the increased budgetary constraints resulting from the pandemic and ongoing global crises have exacerbated existing inequalities and increased the related risks. The Commission stresses the need to build peace by addressing the root causes of conflicts and instability. In that context, there is a need to support the efforts of States in building their national institutions and capabilities in a way that prevents them from slipping into conflicts and guarantees stability to enable sustainable development. The Commission underlines the importance of sustainable and inclusive socioeconomic development for sustaining peace in Africa through economic development, including, but not limited to, transnational and transregional infrastructure development, industrialization, poverty eradication, job creation, agricultural modernization and the promotion of entrepreneurship, and expresses the need for continued support to African countries, based on their national priorities and needs, aimed at the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Agenda 2063 of the African Union. The Commission takes note of the data presented in the report that suggest that good governance contributes to the implementation of all Sustainable Development Goals, while governance shortcomings may in some circumstances lead to increased risk of instability and conflict. More detailed data is required to analyse the different dimensions of governance and identify the type of policy and programmatic action that might be more effective in unlocking the potential of governance for sustainable development and durable peace in a particular country. Enhanced collaboration among the United Nations, the African Union, African countries and other stakeholders should prioritize the collection and processing of data in that area. The Commission notes that Africa’s sociocultural diversity is one of its greatest assets. It promises the development of multiple solutions to respond to emerging challenges and boosting innovation. In order to tap into that potential, it is crucial to ensure that governance structures are adapted to manage and leverage sociocultural diversity. The Commission notes that public service delivery can promote inclusion and social cohesion, when delivered in an efficient, effective and transparent way, or conversely can trigger discontent and tensions as a result of actual or perceived inequalities in and across public services. Therefore, ensuring equal access to service delivery is indispensable for promoting peace and stability, and it is also an effective tool to increase the presence of State institutions across the territory, mitigating the risk caused by the rise of armed non-State actors on the continent. The Commission notes that traditional African leadership structures and mechanisms can be pivotal in facilitating participation and service delivery. In that regard, the Commission encourages the United Nations to study the utilization of traditional leadership structures as complementary mechanisms for strengthening governance in African countries. The Commission stresses the importance of ensuring the full, equal and meaningful participation of women at all levels, and calls for the engagement of young people to overcome governance challenges. The empowerment of women and the inclusion of young people in various fields should be translated into executive policies to overcome the economic, social and security challenges. The Commission welcomes efforts by the African Union to enhance governance on the continent through a robust normative and institutional framework, including the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, and commends the work of the African Peer Review Mechanism in proposing practical measures to strengthen governance structures in its member States. The Commission encourages the United Nations to increase its cooperation with the African Peer Review Mechanism with a view to enhancing its monitoring capacity.

China associates itself with the statement made by the representative of Cuba on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. In recent years, African countries have strengthened their unity and cooperation, worked hard to maintain peace and stability and promoted development and revitalization, thereby demonstrating their wisdom and strength. At the same time, however, Africa still faces severe challenges in the areas of food, energy, finance and climate change, and there is a long way to go to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Agenda 2063 of the African Union. Supporting peace and development in Africa is the common responsibility of the international community. We should fully understand the current situation, the specific challenges and the real needs of African countries and provide them with more targeted help. First, we must respect the pathway of development and the social systems independently chosen by African countries and their peoples and support them in solving their issues in their own way. All countries should advocate openness, tolerance, mutual benefits and a win-win outcome in their cooperation with Africa. There should be no interference in the internal affairs of African countries. Secondly, we must support African countries in accelerating their pace of sustainable development and increasing investment in capital, technology transfer and capacity-building, and help Africa scale up its capacity for independent development and innovation. Thirdly, we must promote a more just and equitable international political and economic order and increase the representation and voice of Africa in international affairs. China has always supported African countries in playing a greater role in the global governance system and has taken the lead in supporting the African Union’s accession to the Group of 20 (G-20). China has always maintained the principles of sincerity, genuine results, cooperation and good faith. We believe in pursuing the greater good with a shared interest in developing our relations with Africa for a period of strong partnership with the continent featuring mutual respect, equal treatment and sincere cooperation. Since the beginning of this century, China has built more than 6,000 kilometres of railways, 6,000 kilometres of highways, nearly 20 ports and more than 80 large-scale power facilities; provided aid to build more than 130 hospitals and clinics, more than 170 schools and 45 stadiums; and funded more than 500 agricultural projects. Those achievements have played an important role in promoting Africa’s economic and social development and improving people’s livelihoods. They have demonstrated the genuine nature and quality of the relationship and friendship between China and Africa and have been widely praised by African countries and peoples. Recently, China has actively helped Africa to alleviate its debt burden. As full participants in the G-20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative, we have signed agreements and reached consensus on the issue of debt service suspension with 19 African countries. China will work with African countries and the African Union to accelerate the implementation of the outcome of the eighth Ministerial Conference of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, strengthen synergies for strategic development, jointly carry out the Belt and Road Initiative in a high-quality manner and build a community with a shared future with Africa. China has put forward the Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative. China is ready to deepen its pragmatic cooperation with African countries under the framework of the Initiatives to make a greater contribution to achieving lasting peace, development and prosperity in Africa.

In September 2015, we committed to achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and adhering to the important principle of leaving no one behind, placing the well-being of human beings at the centre of our policies. Today that principle is increasingly important. Mexico acknowledges that strengthening multilateralism is crucial for addressing the interrelated crises that have given rise to humanitarian, economic, environmental and other challenges. The issues that bring us together for today’s debate can help us to focus on some of those challenges. First, my delegation firmly believes in the importance of eradicating diseases with active and residual transmission, given that without health we cannot aspire to the level of progress and development to which we have committed. That is why Mexico joined the efforts of the World Health Organization to eliminate malaria by 2025. In 2014, Mexico implemented a strategy to certify that areas are free of indigenous malaria, which promotes measures such as strengthening surveillance and response in treatment centres, the rapid analysis of blood samples, the monitoring of mosquito species, the administration of treatment and fumigation and the installation of mosquito nets over doors and windows in exposed areas. That strategy has made it possible for malaria to be eliminated in 24 of our 32 federal entities, with fewer than 1,000 cases reported annually since 2015. Regrettably, we note that, according to the World Health Organization’s World Malaria Report 2022, of the 11.7 million malaria-related deaths between 2000 and 2021, approximately 95 per cent occurred on the African continent. Mexico is aware of the considerable challenge posed by the elimination of malaria globally. But we especially encourage Member States and the various agencies of the United Nations to work with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to prioritize concrete, urgent and effective action in the area of health in order to prevent and effectively treat the transmission of malaria on the African continent. Mexico recognizes the importance of using the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change to promote programmes and projects that can effectively dovetail with Agenda 2063 of the African Union in order to mitigate the impact of crises such as the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and climate change on the stability and functioning of the health, security and development mechanisms on the African continent. Today we have an opportunity to translate the principle of leaving no one behind by focusing on vulnerable groups, such as women, persons who are ill, persons with disabilities, migrants, refugees, LGBTI persons and girls and boys, and placing them at the heart of our development efforts in Africa. We encourage the more developed States, humanitarian and health funds and the various agencies and partners of the Organization to mobilize resources and strategies for African countries. My delegation calls upon African States to strengthen their public policies, Governments and financial systems, with the aim of achieving a level of sustainable development that prioritizes multilateralism and safeguards opportunities for development and the promotion and protection of, and respect for, human rights. In conclusion, Mexico believes in the importance of guaranteeing the quality — rather than the quantity — of the actions taken. That is why we encourage proposals and discussions that focus on the issues that bring us together today in the General Assembly, rather than merely duplicating the efforts of other Committees, which may have less impact. Organizing and focusing our efforts will enable us to advance the development of the most vulnerable States in an equitable and effective manner. Mexico would like to thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s meeting to consider the reports of the Secretary-General (A/76/888 and A/77/644). My delegation remains open to dialogue and hopes that our deliberations will strengthen our commitment to Africa and its development.

My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Cuba on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. I also join others in thanking you, Mr. President, for convening today’s meeting to consider the reports of the Secretary-General on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development and on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa (A/76/888 and A/77/644). We thank the Secretary-General for preparing those reports and the facilitators for submitting draft resolutions A/77/L.45/Rev.1 and A/77/L.46. The reports made it clear once again that the countries of Africa, along with many countries of the global South, have suffered in the past not only from colonialism but also the exploitation of the natural resources that fuelled economic progress, the industrial revolution and the scientific advancement of the Western world. The causes of conflict in Africa are rooted in colonial history. The past three years have been difficult, especially for Africa and developing nations. The challenges of the coronavirus disease pandemic, the rising prices of fuel, fertilizer and food grains, the climate crisis and the increasing geopolitical tensions have had an impact on development efforts. The global Human Development Index has declined two years in a row, erasing the gains of the preceding five years. The international community’s steadfast support for Africa is therefore imperative as countries in Africa pursue the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Agenda 2063 of the African Union. In that context, allow me to flag the following key issues with regard to Africa. First, the challenges that persist as a fallout of the coronavirus disease pandemic and the Ukraine conflict have reminded us of the limitations of existing structures of cooperation. The report of the United Nations Development Programme states that access to coronavirus disease vaccines was virtually non-existent in many low-income countries of Africa. Africa will need robust partnerships to expeditiously improve public health infrastructure and build capacity, build better preparedness and localize capabilities supported by resilient and reliable supply chains. Secondly, we need to recognize the fact that terrorism is expanding in Africa. If left unaddressed, terrorism may seriously jeopardize peace prospects in several parts of Africa, which is already ravaged by armed conflicts. We need to recognize the African security initiatives that have proven their success in countering terrorism. Those are Africa’s homegrown solutions led by African countries, which have a better understanding of their causes and issues. The international community should provide sustainable and adequate financial and logistical support for such security initiatives. Thirdly, international partnerships are important for securing concessional financing for development and ensuring debt sustainability in Africa. Capacity- building support to strengthen and improve regulatory frameworks will also help in domestic resource mobilization. Financial responsibility, transparency and viability must be at the forefront when looking at financial options, including the financing of infrastructure projects, in order to prevent the imposition of unsustainable debt burdens that would add to existing vulnerabilities. In terms of project sustainability, it is equally important that they be accompanied by skill and technology transfer. Fourthly, regional integration is important for addressing the challenges, as emphasized in Agenda 2063. In that regard, it is encouraging to see the active role being played by regional and subregional organizations in Africa. The African Continental Free Trade Area, with adequate infrastructure and connectivity, can raise the potential of Africa through the free movement of goods, services, labour and capital and increase intra-African trade. Fifthly, the continuing lack of representation of Africa in the permanent category of Security Council membership is a historical injustice that needs to be corrected sooner rather than later. India has been consistently calling for greater representation of Africa through an increase in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of the Council’s membership, in line with the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. Let me conclude by stating that the partnership between India and Africa reflects the bonding of the global South, which has been forged over several centuries. India has been supportive of a development paradigm that is Africa-led and Africa-owned. India will continue to support Africa in its development priorities and remain committed to its partnership with Africa in its journey to implement the Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2063.

First of all, we align ourselves with the statement delivered by the representative of the Republic of Cuba on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela joined the consensus that will enable the adoption without a vote of draft resolution A/77/L.46, entitled “Promotion of durable peace through sustainable development in Africa”. However, it expresses its reservations with respect to the content of paragraph 23 of the draft resolution. Since my country is not a State party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 2634 (2022), my delegation reiterates the need for that Convention to be updated in the future, because it continues to include elements that prevent our country from ratifying it. The Convention’s norms are not applicable to my country, neither as conventional law nor as customary international law, except for those that the State of Venezuela has expressly recognized or will recognize in the future by incorporating them into its national legislation.

My delegation would first like to thank the Eritrean delegation for its efforts in facilitating the important draft resolution A/77/L.46, on the promotion of durable peace through sustainable development in Africa. Peace and security in Africa will always have significant effects on global stability and development. That is why El Salvador has always believed in the vital importance of consistently and firmly supporting and promoting efforts and a multidimensional approach in the areas of conflict prevention and resolution, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, as an essential component of the sustainable development of nations. My delegation echoes the concerns about the threat posed by piracy and armed robbery at sea owing to its effects on the security and economic activities of the region, in particular in the case of draft resolution A/77/L.46, with respect to the Gulf of Guinea. In that regard, we call for continued support for the efforts of the Governments of the African continent. In the face of that threat, it is important to ensure maritime security, while also clarifying that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not have an exclusive application for addressing that challenge, and that there are other legally relevant and applicable instruments that exist for that purpose. Including that type of language in the draft resolution excludes the States that are not part of the Convention and also excludes references to other relevant instruments that are part of international law and that serve to address multidimensionally the measures aimed at counteracting piracy and armed robbery at sea. As we have stated in the framework of other intergovernmental processes, El Salvador continues to stress the importance of ensuring that the language on oceans and the law of the sea does not refer exclusively to the application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as the only framework applicable to ocean activities, since there are other existing principles and instruments of international law, including the principles of international environmental law, through which we can refer in a multidimensional and progressive manner to the various converging aspects of the sustainable conservation of the oceans and their management. In conclusion, although my delegation will join the consensus on this important draft resolution, we wish to express our reservations with respect to its reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 2634 (2022), which resolution is in turn incorporated in paragraph 23 of draft resolution A/77/L.46.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item. We shall now proceed to consider draft resolutions A/77/L.45/Rev.1 and A/77/L.46, one by one. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of draft resolution A/77/L.45/ Rev.1 and in addition to those delegations listed in the document, Türkiye has also become a sponsor of draft resolution A/77/L.45/Rev.1. I should also like to announce that, since the submission of draft resolution A/77/L.46 and in addition to those delegations listed in the document, the following countries have also become sponsors of draft resolution A/77/L.46: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/77/L.45/Rev.1, entitled “New Partnership for Africa’s Development: progress in implementation and international support”. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution A/77/L.45/Rev.1?

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/77/L.46, entitled “Promotion of durable peace through sustainable development in Africa”. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution A/77/L.46?

Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of position after adoption, I would like to remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the potential candidate country Georgia, align themselves with this explanation of position. At the outset, let me express the EU’s gratitude to Algeria as the facilitator of the negotiation process on resolution 77/270. I also thank the Group of 77 and China coordinator, Ghana, as well as the Group of African States and other delegations, for their engagement. Africa and the European Union have a close and long-standing partnership, and the EU is Africa’s biggest trade, investment and development partner. We place great value and importance on our partnership, and deepening that partnership with Africa is one of the EU’s top priorities, as has been underlined by the adoption of the Joint Vision for 2030 at the EU-African Union summit held last year. Moreover, we believe that the multilateral system would benefit from an even stronger African voice. During the seventy-fifth session of the General Assembly, we supported and celebrated the return to the adoption by consensus of resolution 75/322. Last year we favoured the return of the discussion of this sub-item to the fall semester of the General Assembly in order to reflect its importance and that of sustainable development in Africa. Maintaining consensus is a priority for the EU, and we participated actively and constructively in the negotiations on resolution 77/270. We welcome the fact that the resolution was updated: it reflects the seriousness of the dire and uncertain global socioeconomic outlook. It was also updated to reflect key challenges and priorities, including the crises of food security, nutrition and energy. We join in welcoming the African Emergency Food Production Plan Facility to boost food security, nutrition and resilience on the continent and stress the EU’s continued support for sustainable agriculture and food security in Africa, as well as for recovery and resilience in the wake of the coronavirus disease pandemic. We also welcome the call to promote investments in sustainable, reliable, modern, inclusive and equitable energy systems. We are committed to harnessing the EU’s Global Gateway to respond to those and other infrastructure and development challenges. We also look forward to engaging in discussions and contributing to further updates of resolution 77/270 at the seventy-eighth session of the General Assembly, including on developments with regard to some of the most pressing crises of the day, in particular combating climate change. The EU would like to explain the reason for our reservation with regard to the use of the term “welcoming” in paragraph 17 of resolution 77/270, with reference to the adoption of resolution 77/244, entitled “Promotion of inclusive and effective international tax cooperation at the United Nations”. The European Union and its member States agree on the timeliness and importance of strengthening international tax cooperation in an effective and inclusive manner. That is why the European Union joined consensus on that resolution. However, we refer to the remarks made at the time of adoption of resolution 77/244 (see A/77/ PV.56) and recall that the high-level political agreement of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)/Group of 20 (G-20) inclusive framework on base erosion and profit-shifting is already gathering 141 jurisdictions committed to delivering a multilateral solution to address the tax challenges that all countries  — whether small or large economies, developed or developing countries — have to face in a globalized environment. Creating a new parallel track of discussions is not the right answer to the objective of strengthening cooperation and would jeopardize that common objective. Instead, the basis for meeting that objective lies in the success of the current initiatives. We should focus at operationalizing the landmark agreement reached in October 2021 under the OECD/G-20 inclusive framework, which will bring concrete benefits for all economies, including those of developing countries, in addition to more stability. While recognizing diversity, we should encourage the OECD/G-20 to continue  — and moreover to increase  — its efforts on capacity-building, in cooperation with other multilateral or regional organizations, such as the African Tax Administration Forum, in order to promote a widespread implementation of the two-pillar solution, for the benefit of all. In summary, notwithstanding its reservation with regard to paragraph 17, the EU strongly supports resolution 77/270, now and in the future, and gladly joined the consensus to adopt it today. I would like to conclude by affirming the EU’s commitment to our partnership with Africa, which I look forward to strengthening and deepening going forward.

Regarding sub-items (a) and (b) of agenda item 62, Hungary aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of the European Union, and I would like to add the following remarks in my national capacity. Hungary remains committed to promoting durable peace and sustainable development in Africa. In that regard, we are aware of the different challenges and threats facing the continent: decreasing economic growth, the food crisis, armed conflicts, religious persecution, natural disasters and climate change. The Government of Hungary responds to those problems with the Hungary Helps programme by rebuilding schools and health-care centres in order to provide assistance to thousands of internally displaced persons, promoting the social reintegration of families living in poverty, facilitating access to clean water and supporting the development of sustainable agriculture and renewable energy sources. We would also like to take this opportunity to put on record Hungary’s position concerning the twenty- first preambular paragraph of resolution 77/270 and paragraph 14 of resolution 77/271, which contain references to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. I would like to recall that Hungary did not adopt the Global Compact and does not participate in its implementation. Therefore, we would like to dissociate ourselves from those paragraphs.

Türkiye takes the floor in explanation of position on resolution 77/271. As a strategic partner of the African Union, Türkiye supports all efforts to maintain peace and security in Africa. We are also pleased to contribute, at the bilateral and multilateral levels, to sustainable development on the continent. Cooperation in combating piracy in Africa constitutes an important dimension of our partnership, and Türkiye plays an active role in international efforts to that end. Türkiye agrees with the general content of resolution 77/271, and we support its purpose. We appreciate that the resolution recognizes the significance of maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea. The threat of piracy and armed robbery in the region needs to be addressed by enhanced regional and international cooperation. On the other hand, with regard to the reference to Security Council resolution 2634 (2022) contained in paragraph 23 of resolution 77/271, I would like to reiterate that Türkiye disassociates itself from the references to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contained in resolution 2634 (2022), which cannot be construed as a change in the legal position of Türkiye with regard to the instrument concerned.

We would like to thank the facilitator, the Permanent Representative of Algeria, as well as all delegations that took part in the negotiation of resolution 77/270, for their active engagement. Canada was pleased to see that resolution return to adoption by consensus in recent years and is supportive of the overall goals and aspirations of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development and Agenda 2063 of the African Union, including the need for balanced and integrated economic, social and environmental development. However, we must take this opportunity to raise our concerns with regard to paragraph 17 of the resolution and the manner in which international tax cooperation is addressed. As stated during the negotiations of both resolution 77/270 and resolution 77/244, entitled “Promotion of inclusive and effective international tax cooperation at the United Nations”, which was adopted last December, Canada supports the need for international cooperation to ensure fair and effective taxation. We appreciate the desire among many countries for international tax arrangements that would better help harness taxation to support development efforts. However, we do not support the proposition of a new, potentially duplicative tax cooperation process at the United Nations. Canada was not alone in voicing its concerns over resolution 77/244 at the time of its adoption. Indeed, while the proposed amendment to that resolution that would have helped to address those concerns was not adopted, more than 50 countries voted in favour of the amendment. We therefore find it regrettable that delegations insisted on maintaining a focus on welcoming a specific resolution concerning which it is well understood that there was a divergence of views, rather than noting the importance of international tax cooperation. Canada joined the consensus on resolution 77/270 to lend our strong support to development cooperation in Africa and sustainable development for all, a goal that we should all ensure remains the focus of resolutions adopted under this item in years to come.

The United States is pleased to join the consensus on resolution 77/270, and we thank Algeria for its facilitation of the resolution. The United States values its close partnership with African countries to pursue the shared goals of sustainable development, security, global health, food security and nutrition, democracy, adapting to and mitigating climate change, and shared prosperity. We strongly support the African Union’s efforts to realize the goals and aspirations that the New Partnership for Africa’s Development was established to achieve. We welcome the resolution’s commitment to social protections as a fundamental component of sustainable development. In that regard, we appreciate its references to the important role of civil society and efforts to strengthen good governance, human rights and sound economic management. The United States would like to clarify its positions with regard to some of the language contained in the resolution. The United States is fully committed to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as a global framework for sustainable development, and to advancing the Sustainable Development Goals. We note that paragraph 58 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes that implementation must respect, and be without prejudice to, the independent mandates of other processes and institutions, including negotiations, and it does not prejudge or serve as a precedent for decisions and actions under way in other forums. For example, the 2030 Agenda does not interpret or alter any World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement or decision. The United States is fully committed to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and recognizes that many African countries are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. We note the importance of mobilizing financing from all sources  — public and private, international and domestic — in order to urgently scale up climate action. The United States reaffirms its support for the developed country goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion per year through 2025 to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation, action and transparency on implementation. In that context, however, we regret that the characterization of the $100 billion goal contained in paragraph 15 is inconsistent with the agreed formulation of the goal in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. Accordingly, we dissociate ourselves from the consensus on that language and underscore that it should not be used as precedent for other resolutions. We underscore our position that trade language negotiated or adopted by the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, or under their auspices, has no relevance for United States trade policy, for its trade obligations or commitments or for the agenda at the World Trade Organization, including the discussions or negotiations in that forum. While the United Nations and the WTO share common interests, they have different roles, rules and memberships. Similarly, that includes calls to adopt approaches that may undermine incentives for innovation, such as technology transfer that is not both voluntary and on mutually agreed terms. Regarding the reference in paragraph 17 of resolution 77/270 to resolution 77/244, entitled “Promotion of inclusive and effective international tax cooperation at the United Nations”, the United States refers Member States to its statement made in the Second Committee on 23 November 2022. While the United States acknowledges that the United Nations system increasingly uses the term “illicit financial flows”, we continue to have concerns that the term lacks an agreed international definition. We also note that the right to development discussed in resolution 77/244 is not recognized in any of the core United Nations human rights conventions, does not have an agreed international meaning and, unlike human rights, is not recognized as a universal right held and enjoyed by individuals and which every individual may demand from his or her own Government. Indeed, we continue to be concerned that the right to development identified in resolution 77/244 protects States instead of individuals. Lastly, while we agree that strengthening national health systems and the expansion of coordinated surveillance systems in the health sector are essential for the implementation of the International Health Regulations, we recommend the inclusion of the animal and environmental sectors as well, as the prevention and detection of, and the response to, health threats requires a multisectoral One Health approach in order to be effective and sustainable over time.

At the outset, allow us to express the Republic of Korea’s full support for our collective efforts towards Africa’s development. We therefore support the overall concept behind the timely and important resolution 77/270. However, our delegation cannot help but disassociate itself from paragraph 17 of resolution 77/270, which welcomes resolution 77/244, entitled “Promotion of inclusive and effective international tax cooperation at the United Nations” — the tax cooperation resolution. As I recall, the tax cooperation resolution faced several procedural issues prior to its adoption last year. Furthermore, there was a paragraph vote before its adoption because some issues remained unsettled and were to be further discussed in the Second Committee during the upcoming session of the General Assembly. This year’s resolution on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) is not the appropriate place or time to welcome the recently adopted tax cooperation resolution. Our delegation made that point consistently throughout the consultation process, and it was echoed by many other delegations. Also, we heard the same point voiced in this Hall as well. Proposals were proactively made to bridge the differences in positions but, to our regret, the attempts at compromise were totally rejected and brushed aside. That experience only increased our concerns that discussions at the United Nations cannot always guarantee inclusiveness and transparency or accommodate different views. I would like to take the opportunity to add one more remark. The tax cooperation resolution is not a matter for a certain group, as alleged by certain members, but for all Member States in macroeconomic terms. Therefore, we believe that any global discussion on international cooperation and tax matters must be conducted in an inclusive, transparent manner that also properly encompasses the interests of all Member States. It is our sincere hope that this practice with regard to paragraph 17 of the NEPAD resolution will not be repeated during the subsequent discussion of the tax cooperation resolution, as it is a matter of great importance to all of us.

At the outset, I would like to thank my colleague from the Republic of Algeria, Mr. Mohamed-Esseghir Latrous, for his able facilitation of the consultation process on resolution 77/270. The Assembly can count on the United Kingdom’s support of the resolution. We were happy to join the consensus on its adoption. I would like to set out the United Kingdom’s position on paragraph 15. The United Kingdom views that paragraph to be in line with the language of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is mainly focused on climate mitigation efforts in relation to the $100 billion goal, which is to be jointly raised through public and private financing, as well as through other sectors. In the interests of consistency, we would like to clarify the record in order to avoid any misrepresentation of the intent behind that goal.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position on the resolutions just adopted. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 12 and sub-items (a) and (b) of agenda item 62.

The Assembly will take action on draft decision A/77/L.52, entitled “Accreditation and participation of intergovernmental organizations in the United Nations Conference on the Midterm Comprehensive Review of the Implementation of the Objectives of the International Decade for Action, ‘Water for Sustainable Development’, 2018–2028”. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft decision A/77/L.52?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 18.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation to introduce draft resolution A/77/L.48.

Before introducing draft resolution A/77/L.48, I would like to note that the situation with regard to the biennial draft resolution of the General Assembly on cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has unfortunately deteriorated over many years now. Today there are two draft resolutions on the same issue on the agenda of the General Assembly. Draft resolution A/77/L.48 was submitted first, and draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1 was submitted second, as can be seen from their numbering. In that regard and based on information we just received, I would like to propose that the General Assembly adhere to its rules of procedure, which stipulate that the first draft resolution should be considered first. We hope that Member States will support that proposal.

Since I gave the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation to introduce draft resolution A/77/L.48, may I ask whether or not the proposal by the representative of the Russian Federation is that the Assembly proceed immediately to consideration of draft resolution A/77/L.48? Do I understand correctly the motion of the representative of the Russian Federation?

We would like to propose that the General Assembly, based on its rules of procedure with respect to the consideration of draft resolutions, consider first the draft resolution that was submitted first. We hope that Member States support that.

I call on the representative of the Netherlands on a point of order.

As the host country of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and penholder on draft resolution A/77/L.49/ Rev.1, the Kingdom of the Netherlands strongly objects to the motion presented by the Russian Federation. In recent years, regrettably, the international community has been confronted with recurring allegations of chemical-weapon use. Some of those allegations have already been attributed to various perpetrators, but many incidents have yet to be investigated. We regret that the Russian Federation, after initially attending our open consultations with the entire membership, decided to submit a complete inversion of this draft resolution. We were not given any notice that it was going to happen, and there were no consultations on the Russian draft. The Kingdom of the Netherlands sincerely deplores those actions by Russia, as they are not consistent with the working methods of the United Nations and the good practice of penholdership and open and inclusive consultations. The Netherlands decided, despite those actions, to continue our process of open and inclusive consultations, as we had planned, as has taken feedback on board from all delegations. The balanced text that the Netherlands is proposing is a balanced outcome of those consultations and negotiations. We took care to be as factual as possible, avoiding qualifications that would cause undue controversy and, thereby, undermine the very purpose of this draft resolution. The Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore urges that the General Assembly act on our draft resolution first. We strongly feel that only one draft resolution should be adopted under this agenda item in order to avoid confusion or duplication. I therefore strongly object to the Russian motion and urge the General Assembly to join us by voting against it.

I call on the representative of the Russian Federation on a point of order.

We would like to note rule 71 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, according to which the question raised can be immediately decided on by the President based on those rules. Our proposal was made before the delegation of the Netherlands spoke. In that regard, we ask to once again consider our suggestion that the General Assembly should follow its rules of procedure, which state that the first draft text submitted should be taken up first. We ask for this question to be put to a vote and decided on immediately.

I have consulted with legal services. The representative of the Russian Federation moved that the Assembly first consider draft resolution A/77/L.48. However, we also heard an objection to that motion. I shall now put the motion by the representative of the Russian Federation to a recorded vote. I call on the representative of the Russian Federation on a point of order.

We would like to note, once again, that in accordance with rule 71, objections can be immediately put to a vote, but also note that objections can be decided by the President. As far as we can tell, the President has not yet made a decision on our proposal, which was submitted first. Therefore, the objection raised by the representative of the Netherlands cannot affect today’s discussions. We therefore ask once again to make a suggestion that the General Assembly should follow its own rules of procedure, which stipulate that the draft text that is submitted first should be taken up first. We ask the President to immediate make a decision in that regard.

I will now put to a recorded vote the motion that consideration of draft resolution A/77/L.48 should precede consideration of draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1.

Since we have two draft resolutions before the Assembly, I now give the floor to the representative of the Netherlands to introduce draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1.

I have the honour to introduce draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons”, on behalf of almost 50 co-sponsors. At the outset, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as the main submitter of this draft resolution, wishes to thank delegations for their constructive participation in the consultations on it. The aim of this biennial draft resolution is to highlight the importance of the continued cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The OPCW, the organization that oversees the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, contributes to international peace and security by verifying the destruction of chemical-weapon stockpiles, by working through industry inspections to prevent the re-emergence of chemical weapons, by promoting the peaceful use of chemistry for activities not prohibited by the Convention and by investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons. As co-host of the OPCW, the Netherlands has submitted this biennial draft resolution since 1997. Today’s draft resolution is an update of resolution 75/265, of 3 March 2021, and reflects factual developments since then. The global community cannot turn a blind eye to these atrocities and should work to bring those responsible to justice. The role of the OPCW is essential for our efforts towards achieving that goal. A strong message of support for United Nations-OPCW cooperation is a strong signal of the commitment of Member States in that regard. As I already stated, we regret that the Russian Federation decided to submit a competing version of this draft resolution. We believe that the text we propose is a balanced outcome of a process of consultations and negotiations, where we have taken care to be as factual as possible, avoiding qualifications that would cause undue controversy and undermine the very purpose of the draft resolution. The Kingdom of the Netherlands indeed urges that the General Assembly act on our draft resolution first, and we strongly feel that only one draft resolution should be adopted under this agenda item in order to avoid confusion or duplication. We feel that this would be a strong signal that we keep to established working methods, acknowledge penholdership, respect consultative processes and do not wish to see procedural diversions confuse our work, while at the same time expressing support for the mandate of a crucial organization in safeguarding global norms.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation to introduce draft resolution A/77/L.48.

The Russian Federation, together with China, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Republic of Belarus and Nicaragua, submitted this draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in order to restore its consensual nature, which has been eroded recently due to the continuing politicization of the topic of chemical weapons, both within the United Nations and in other international organizations. We do not agree with that approach. We believe that the goal of the biennial draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW, as well as of other similar General Assembly resolutions, is to express the support of Member States for cooperation between the United Nations and international and regional organizations. Our draft is strictly factual in nature and is fully aligned with sub-item (n) of agenda item 127. The text is devoid of any political bias. In it, we propose that the General Assembly express appreciation for the work of the OPCW to support compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention by strengthening the capacity of Member States in that area. We also note the upcoming fifth special session of the Conference of the States parties to review the operation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to be held in May. We call on Member States to support draft resolution A/77/L.48 and thereby show support for cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW, which ought to be unpoliticized. Unfortunately, we have seen that poisonous trend in the activities of these important organizations over the past few years. With regard to the accusations made against us just now, we would like to note that we were open to dialogue and prepared to engage in meaningful discussion on the draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW. We pointed out the critical shortcomings with draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1 during consultations and later, including through the dissemination of a note. However, the Netherlands chose to escalate the situation. We are deeply disappointed that today we saw yet another attempt to revise the long-standing practices of the United Nations. Instead of following the rules of procedure, a number of Member States wanted a draft that was submitted much later to be examined first, which would obviously have far-reaching consequences for the work of the General Assembly. I would like to again stress that the United Nations and the OPCW do not belong to a select group of countries that wants to dictate to the rest of the world what should or should not be in a draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW, a group of countries that wants to decide which comments should be taken into account and which should be abandoned. In our approach to the draft resolution, we have based ourselves strictly on the content of the agenda item. The Netherlands unfortunately purported to expand this content, allegedly to include other items within the purview of the OPCW, but even this dubious approach was used very selectively. I note that, out of the 13 paragraphs of the draft, 7 are directly linked to Syria. Other issues on the OPCW agenda have been fully ignored. By contrast, draft resolution L.49 mentions Ukraine, which has nothing to do with the issues being discussed today. We are clearly seeing attempts to use this document to promote certain States’ own political agenda. We categorically reject this attitude towards the draft resolution, and we called on the Netherlands to change its approach and take into account the legitimate concerns of a number of States. Unfortunately, today, we are seeing a continued politicization of this agenda item as well and efforts of certain States to force other States to choose sides. Although the Dutch draft has been updated twice, it still lacks important information, mentioning instead certain issues that go beyond the temporal scope of the two-year resolution and beyond this theme. We therefore felt compelled to at least give some kind of respectable nature to the draft resolution. We would therefore like to propose the following draft amendments to draft L.49. We propose including a new paragraph 5, which would be worded as follows: (spoke in English) “Emphasizes that achieving a world free of chemical weapons is of paramount importance and welcomes progress towards this goal in the recent years, in particular, the ascension of Angola, Myanmar and the State of Palestine as non-chemical-weapon-possessor States, which brings the number of States parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction to 193 in total”. (spoke in Russian) We also propose deleting paragraphs 6 and 7 of L.49, which state, respectively, (spoke in English) “Recalls the report of the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction on its fourth special session, held in The Hague on 26 and 27 June 2018, and also recalls the decision adopted at the special session entitled ‘Addressing the threat from chemical weapons use’, and “Notes the establishment of the Investigation and Identification Team of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as announced at the ninety-first session of the Executive Council of the Organization in a note by the Technical Secretariat, EC-91/S/3, dated 28 June 2019, entitled ‘Work of the Investigation and Identification Team established by decision C-SS-4/DEC.3 (dated 27 June 2018)’, in which all States parties were informed about the establishment of the Investigation and Identification Team with the purpose of identifying, in compliance with C-SS-4/DEC.3, the perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic”, (spoke in Russian) because these two paragraphs do not fall within the two-year temporal scope of the draft resolution. We also propose replacing, in paragraph 8, the word “of” with “that” and inserting the word “so-called” after the words “report of the” and the following text after the word “C-SS-4/DEC.3”: (spoke in English) “whose establishment was announced in a note by the Technical Secretariat without prior consultations with all States parties or any corresponding decision”. (spoke in Russian) We also propose replacing the words (spoke in English) “and expresses appreciation for the work done in this regard” (spoke in Russian) with the words (spoke in English) “provided no clear indication that the Team had based all of its assessments on the samples collected and analysed under the chain of custody”, (spoke in Russian) so that paragraph 8 would read as follows: (spoke in English) “Takes note with grave concern that the first report of the so-called Investigation and Identification Team pursued into paragraph 10 of decision C-SS-4/DEC.3, whose establishment was announced in a note by the Technical Secretariat without prior consultations with all States parties or any corresponding decision, entitled ‘Addressing the threat from chemical weapons use: Ltamenah (Syrian Arab Republic) — 24, 25 and 30 March 2017’, released on 8 April 2020, as well as the second report of the so-called Investigation and Identification Team, entitled ‘Addressing the threat from chemical weapons use: Saraqib (Syrian Arab Republic) — 4 February 2018’, released on 12 April 2021, as well as the third report of the so-called Investigation and Identification Team, entitled ‘Addressing the threat from chemical weapons use, Douma (Syrian Arab Republic) — 7 April 2018’, released on 27 January 2023, provided no clear indication that the Team had based all its assessments on the samples collected and analysed under the chain of custody”. (spoke in Russian) In paragraph 9, we propose the following amendments: replacing the word “of” with the word “that” and the words (spoke in English) “and welcomes the transmission of that decision and its associated reports to the Security Council and the General Assembly through the Secretary- General” (spoke in Russian) with the words (spoke in English) “was adopted by vote of 29 States parties in favour, 3 against and 9 abstentions”, (spoke in Russian) so that the paragraph reads as follows: (spoke in English) “Takes note that the Executive Council decision EC- 94/DEC.2, dated 9 July 2020, entitled ‘Addressing the possession and use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Arab Republic’ was adopted by a vote of 29 States parties in favour, 3 against and 9 abstentions”. (spoke in Russian) In paragraph 10, we propose the following amendment, replacing the words “Takes note of” with the words “Takes note that”, and inserting after the words “the Syrian Arab Republic” (spoke in English) “was adopted by a vote of 87 out of 149 States parties participating, with 15 against and 34 abstentions”, (spoke in Russian) so that the paragraph would read as follows: (spoke in English) “Takes note that decision C-25/DEC.9, dated 21 April 2021, of the Conference of States Parties of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, entitled ‘Addressing the possession and the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Arab Republic’, was adopted by a vote of 87 out of 149 States parties participating, with 15 against and 34 abstentions”. (spoke in Russian) We also propose deleting the following words in paragraph 11: (spoke in English) “notes in this regard the transmission by the Director General of all monthly reports, as well as all reports of the fact-finding mission, during the reporting period, and expresses appreciation for the work done in this regard”, (spoke in Russian) so the paragraph would read as follows: “Recalls Security Council resolution 2118 (2013) of 27 September 2013, in which, inter alia, the Council, requested the Director General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to report to the Security Council, through the Secretary General, on a monthly basis, on the implementation of resolution 2118 (2013) and the decision of the Executive Council of the Organization of 27 September 2013, and also recalls paragraph 5 of Security Council resolution 2209 (2015) of 6 March 2015, in which the Council welcomed the intention of the Director General to include future reports of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons fact-finding mission in the Syrian Arab Republic, which was mandated to establish the facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemical for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic, as a part of his monthly report to the Council”. (spoke in Russian) We also propose, in paragraph 12, deleting the words “Expresses grave concern regarding the situation arising from the aggression against Ukraine, and” and inserting after the words (spoke in English) “[w]elcomes the fact that the Technical Secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons closely monitors developments with regard to any possible use of chemical weapons”, (spoke in Russian) the following: (spoke in English) “provided that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is the organization given responsibility by States parties to ensure the impartial, independent and professional implementation of all provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, including article 11; and calls upon all Member States to promote international cooperation in the fields of chemistry for peaceful purposes through the transfer of relevant technologies, material and equipment and the removal of all and any discriminatory restrictions that are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction”, (spoke in Russian) so the paragraph would read as follows: (spoke in English) “Welcomes the fact that the Technical Secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons closely monitors developments with regard to any possible use of chemical weapons, provided that the OPCW is the organization given responsibility by States parties to ensure the impartial, independent and professional implementation of all provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, including Article 11; and calls upon all Member States to promote international cooperation in the field of chemistry for peaceful purposes through the transfer of relevant technologies, material and equipment and the removal of all and any discriminatory restrictions that are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction”. (spoke in Russian) I would ask that these draft amendments be put to a vote.

In the light of the considerable length of these oral draft amendments, I shall suspend the meeting, during which suspension I will ask the Secretariat to update the background documents and seek clarification with the Russian Federation as to whether these draft amendments represent one draft amendment or a series of independent draft amendments.

The representative of the Russian Federation has submitted a single oral amendment to A/77/L.49/Rev.1. I now give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I will list the additional sponsors for both draft resolutions, A/77/L.49/Rev.1 and A/77/L.48. First, I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution, and in addition to the delegations listed in document A/77/L.49/Rev.1, the following countries have also become sponsors of the draft resolution: New Zealand, Türkiye and Ukraine. Next, I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution, and in addition to the delegations listed in document A/77/L.48, the following countries have also become sponsors of the draft resolution: Belarus, China, Nicaragua, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Delegations wishing to make a statement in explanation of vote before the voting on any of the draft proposals under this agenda item are invited to do so now in one intervention. Before giving the floor for explanations of vote before the voting, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I just wanted to once again express our regret that the Russian Federation is now introducing new language that has not been signalled or communicated before, and basically is also not in its own version of draft resolution A/77/L.48. We do not see that as contributing to a fair and transparent process, and it is potentially confusing the wider membership. We therefore urge Member States to vote against the draft oral amendment to draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1.

At the outset, my delegation regrets that draft resolution A/77/L.48, introduced by the delegation of the Russian Federation and sponsored by my country’s delegation and a number of other delegations was not considered. That draft text is about cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and its content is in line with its title. It could have been adopted by consensus if the Western countries had acted professionally and objectively. My delegation would like to explain its vote before the voting on draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons”, introduced by the delegation of the Netherlands. In that context, my country’s delegation would like to make the following general comments. First, the delegation of the Netherlands has insisted for the fifth time in a row on introducing selective wording in that draft resolution, which contains references to contentious resolutions. The delegation of the Netherlands knows well that those resolutions are controversial within the OPCW, as they were adopted by voting against the practice established to adopt draft resolutions of the Organization by consensus. My country and many others have several comments and serious concerns, which we expressed at the OPCW in The Hague. Secondly, the delegation of the Netherlands ignored all appeals from Member States at the only negotiating meeting that it held, namely, to adopt the draft resolution by consensus. It prioritized its narrow political interests over adopting a sovereign and technical resolution that positively reflects cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW. Thirdly, I would like to recall that all the resolutions under agenda item 127, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations”, were adopted by consensus. None of those resolutions mentions issues currently being debated in any other organizations. However, the delegation of the Netherlands was unique in politicizing that draft resolution, reflecting a non-professional approach. Since the delegation of the Netherlands is insisting on politicizing that draft resolution and transferring the technical debate of the OPCW from The Hague to New York, I would like to clarify the position of the Syrian Arab Republic with regard to the politicized paragraphs of the draft resolution, namely, operative paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9. They refer to the resolutions related to establishing the so-called Investigation and Identification Team (IIT), which is illegitimate, along with its reports. It was established outside the mandate of the Chemical Weapons Convention by manipulating its provisions given that voting should not be a tool to violate the Convention’s mandate. The Team also followed erroneous working methods and lacks legitimacy, setting a dangerous precedent by allowing a technical organization to deal with the use of chemical weapons in explicit violation of the mandate given to it by the Security Council. With regard to operative paragraph 10, it refers to an unjust decision based on unreliable report of the IIT. It also lacks legitimacy because it was adopted by less than half the States parties to the OPCW. Contrary to other resolutions adopted by consensus within the OPCW, that draft resolution constitutes a precedent in the history of the OPCW, as it is directed against a member State that voluntarily joined the Convention and has honoured all its commitments under the Convention. With regard to operative paragraph 11, it mentions the reports of the OPCW Fact-finding Mission (FFM), which worked at a distance. It chose to rely on open sources and information presented by terrorist organizations and their arms such as the White Helmets. In addition, the FFM violated its competencies and the working methods contained in the annex to the Convention with regard, for example, to the collection of evidence and samples, as well as maintaining the chain of custody. Its conclusions, such as the FFM report on the presumed incident in Douma, are illogical and non-scientific. Several independent experts presented a detailed scientific report, listing all the allegations regarding that alleged incident, and showing that that incident was falsified and fabricated. The FFM proved to be a tool used by certain countries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and France, to politicize the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s work in Syria. With regard to operative paragraph 12, it provides additional proof of the politicized selective approach adopted by the delegation of the Netherlands, with the support of Western countries. That paragraph contains language that targets certain countries. I reaffirm that the Syrian Arab Republic categorically condemns the use of chemical weapons by anybody, anywhere, anytime and under any circumstances. I recall that Syria took a strategic and voluntary decision to join the Chemical Weapons Convention. Since then, even before the Convention’s entry into force, we have fully cooperated with the OPCW with regard to Syria. We announced our initial declaration and destroyed all our chemical stocks in record time. To date, Syria continues to cooperate in an open and transparent manner with the OPCW Technical Secretariat and its legitimate technical teams. In conclusion, in the light of the Syrian Arab Republic’s serious concerns regarding a number of paragraphs in the draft resolution, my delegation requests to put to a vote the politicized operative paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and then to vote against the draft resolution as a whole. I call on Member States that uphold the principle of professional work and the provisions of the Charter to raise their voice against politicizing that technical item of the agenda and vote against those politicized paragraphs. I call on them not to accept the text of the draft resolution as currently presented.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the potential candidate country Georgia, and the countries of the European Free Trade Association Iceland and Liechtenstein, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Andorra, Monaco and San Marino, align themselves with this statement. The EU continues to support the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) politically, diplomatically and financially to ensure the full and effective implementation of, and universal adherence to, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). We remain steadfast in defending the organization against deliberate and baseless attacks on its integrity and credibility. We reiterate our call on those States not yet party to the CWC to join the Convention without further delay. They will actively contribute to the preparation of the fifth Review Conference of the States Parties to the CWC, which will be an opportunity to consider how to further strengthen the implementation of the Convention. From all those angles, we find the biennial draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons”, to be very important. We support its robustness, and in that regard, we appreciate the work of the traditional penholder of the draft resolution, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as host country to the OPCW. That is why we co-sponsored the Netherlands draft resolution presented as A/77/L.49/Rev.1 in a unified manner and hoped that the General Assembly action would focus on the well-rounded draft resolution presented by the usual penholder. We deplore the procedural obstacles that Russia, supported by a few States, has created with the intention of undermining the process and making the adoption of the Netherlands draft resolution more difficult. Disregarding for a while the fact that Russia hijacked the role the penholder of this draft resolution without any prior consultations and sufficient support and/or without a responsible approach to drafting and focusing on the amendments proposed, we find them very problematic. Russia is attempting to erase the past 10 years of the work of the OPCW by obliterating the reality on the ground, as reflected in the OPCW’s reports. The results of the investigative work of the OPCW, notably those of the OPCW fact-finding mission in the Syrian Arab Republic and the Investigation and the Identification Team, on cases of chemical weapons use in Syria have been consistently shared with the United Nations and regularly discussed by the Security Council as matters directly relevant to international peace and security. That is why it has to be reflected in the current factual manner in the draft resolution addressing cooperation between the two organizations. We are therefore unable to support the Russian proposals. We will vote against the amendments, and we urge everyone to do the same.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain the position of my delegation concerning draft resolutions A/77/L.48 and A/77/L.49/Rev.1, both under agenda item 127 (n), “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons”. First, I would like to express the fact that Iran strongly condemns the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere and under any circumstances. We believe that the use of such weapons, like other types of weapons of mass destruction, is a crime against humanity. From our perspective, this biennial draft resolution should aim to strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons collectively and collaboratively. In that regard, we acknowledge the fact that draft resolution A/77/L.48 represents a consensual approach, which was previously experienced at the sixty-seventh session of the General Assembly. We believe that this draft resolution is a step in the right direction and can put an end to the trend of division among Member States, which has been polarizing the performance of their respective organizations. However, we note that draft resolution A/77/L.49/ Rev.1 is yet another unbalanced draft text, which is furthering the unfortunate situation that has arisen from reflecting the views of only a limited number of Member States in the most politicized manner, while disregarding the views of others. A thorough consideration of its paragraphs could prove that this draft resolution neither correlates with its title, nor reflects points and issues towards that process. It contains some unrelated issues, particularly in its operative paragraphs 5 to 12, which are unacceptable in this draft resolution. We believe that it is essential for this draft resolution to focus on cooperation between the two organizations by confining the scope of the draft resolution to topics covered by the agreement between those organizations. It is important to remind the General Assembly and its membership that this draft resolution is not a country-specific one nor a document focused on implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, for which an annual resolution is adopted by the General Assembly. Finally, we have consistently emphasized that technical issues should be resolved collaboratively and within the respective competent bodies, rather than through political pressure, which has repeatedly jeopardized the credibility and integrity of the disarmament machinery. We called for the avoidance of including any contentious issues during the informal consultations on draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1 by offering greater input. Unfortunately, that concern was not met. We therefore have no choice but to vote in favour of draft resolution A/77/L.48 and against draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1.

We take the floor in explanation of vote before the voting on draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1. We will not delve into a profound analysis of the document. Contrary to what we heard earlier from the representative of the Netherlands, the Russian Federation made its comments known on numerous occasions during consultations and subsequently in writing —a note to that effect was circulated to all the permanent missions. We would like to stress once again that a draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is currently being discussed. Blatant attempts to politicize even that issue clearly demonstrate that certain delegations do not view the United Nations as an Organization made up of members on an equal footing to discuss serious international problems, but as a platform to promote their own foreign policy objectives. That is totally unacceptable and undermines the spirit of the Organization. We once again call on Member States to focus on the issue at hand today. We hope that our willingness to finally reach at least some form of compromise on the provisions of the draft resolution in order to thereby preserve the important annual resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and OPCW will not be ignored once again. Otherwise, we will vote against both the paragraphs that we find unacceptable and draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1 as a whole. We call on Member States to do the same, especially as draft resolution A/77/L.48, which we introduced, remains a viable option. We would like to remind the observer of the European Union that we have advocated for the General Assembly to follow its own rules of procedure today. To say that is akin to creating an obstacle to consideration of the issue is simply untrue. Not only should our document have been considered first, but it was intended to be a unifying and depoliticized document that would adhere to the goals and principles of the annual resolution. The adoption of such a draft resolution continues to remain possible.

I will try to be brief. (spoke in Russian) We believe that draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (A/77/L.49/Rev.1) is extremely important and serves as a key element not only of the chemical weapons non-proliferation regime, but of the entire international security system. Therefore, we are convinced that the subject and the issue of the adoption of the draft resolution must be considered in a broader context. However, given the current reality and what we have seen today in this Hall, it appears that the international security system is cracking, and divisions are growing. Unfortunately, certain countries systematically continue to improve all means of eliminating their neighbours, which we cannot accept. The universal document, which was intended to serve as a guide for the non-proliferation of chemical weapons, is now replete with irrelevant private issues and serves the interests of certain States. We believe that such a situation is unacceptable. In that context, we support draft resolution A/77/L.48, which was submitted by the representative of the Russian Federation. We reaffirm what our Russian colleagues said earlier: it was submitted in accordance with the rules of procedure and the Charter of the United Nations.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the voting. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons”. In accordance with rule 90 of the rules of procedure, the Assembly shall first take a decision on the oral draft amendment submitted by the representative of the Russian Federation. A recorded vote has been requested.

Separate recorded votes have been requested on paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1. There being no objection to those requests, I shall first put to the vote paragraph 6 of the draft resolution.

I shall next put to the vote paragraph 7 of draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1.

I shall next put to the vote paragraph 8 of draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1.

I shall next put to the vote paragraph 9 of draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1.

I shall next put to the vote paragraph 10 of draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1.

I shall next put to the vote paragraph 11 of draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1.

I shall next put to the vote paragraph 12 of draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1.

I shall now put to the vote draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1 as a whole, for which a recorded vote has been requested.

The representative of the Netherlands has moved, within the terms of rule 91 of the rules of procedure, not to take action on the next proposal, namely, draft resolution A/77/L.48. I would like to recall that the second sentence of rule 91 reads as follows, “The General Assembly may, after each vote on a proposal, decide whether to vote on the next proposal”. I shall now put the motion by the representative of the Netherlands to a recorded vote.

The representative of the Russian Federation has asked for the floor on a point of order.

We would like to explain our vote on the motion by the representative of the Netherlands. Of course, we voted against it. I would like to note that today’s meeting was the culmination of discussions on the issue of chemical disarmament — a demonstration of how that issue has been forcefully politicized by any available means by a certain group of States that insistently promote their own agenda, which as we have seen today bears no relation to the actual issue of chemical disarmament. We would like to once again call on Member States to consider the consequences that could have for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and for the United Nations as a whole.

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

I would like to express my delegation’s profound concern about the growing trend of introducing competing draft resolutions, with no desire at all for negotiation. For several years now, that has been a repeated occurrence in the First Committee, and we are now faced with the same situation in the plenary. The substantive issue of the draft resolutions being considered is put on the back burner, and this forum becomes more an arena for disruption and antagonism than one for negotiation, to the detriment of diplomacy and the constructive spirit that should guide us. In the case at hand, the substantive content of draft resolution A/77/L.48, which was submitted by the representative of the Russian Federation, and of draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1, which was submitted by the representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, is in general acceptable — all the more so as both have overlapping elements that could have led to a single text had there been genuine negotiations. But that did not happen. I would like to clarify that Mexico abstained in the voting on paragraph 12 of resolution 77/272 because the issue of Ukraine is not currently part of the area of cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Mexico’s position on the conflict in Ukraine has been made very clear in all our statements and votes, both in the Security Council and the General Assembly. We hope that in the future, in order to preserve and strengthen the exercise of multilateral diplomacy, we will not give more importance to competing draft resolutions than to good-faith negotiations and will not include matters that are not central to the draft resolutions being considered.

Mr. President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to take the floor. China has concerns about resolution 77/272, which was submitted by the Netherlands as draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1. China co-sponsored draft resolution A/77/L.48, which was submitted by the Russian Federation. I wish to explain China’s position in that regard. As a founding signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), China has always been committed to safeguarding the object and purpose of the Convention and is firmly against the use of chemical weapons by any country, organization or individual, under any circumstances. In recent years, amid the growing political confrontation within the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), certain countries have used chemical-weapon hotspot issues to undermine parties that hold different views and have resorted to putting proposals to the vote at every opportunity, seriously poisoning the cooperative atmosphere at the OPCW. China is concerned about that situation. In our view, the draft resolution submitted by the Netherlands should have focused on cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW, upheld the traditional consensus-building spirit, fully respected the concerns of States parties, demonstrated the solidarity of Member States and, above all, avoided any politicized content that could exacerbate tensions and differences and that bore no relation to the topic of the draft resolution. That would have effectively safeguarded the healthy and sound working environment at the United Nations. I would also like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the broad membership to the issue of the destruction of the chemical weapons abandoned in China by Japan. Nearly eight decades have passed since the end of the Japanese war of aggression against China. Yet the catastrophe and the suffering caused by the war continue to plague the Chinese people. The large quantities of chemical weapons abandoned on Chinese soil by Japan remain a serious threat to the life and property of the Chinese people and the safety of the environment and pose a major challenge to the realization of the object and purpose of the CWC. Regrettably, the process to destroy those weapons has encountered serious delays over the years, and the destruction plan has been postponed four times. Given the accelerated process to destroy chemical-weapon stockpiles, Japan’s abandoned chemical weapons have become a major obstacle to the goal of a chemical-weapon-free world. China hopes that the international community, the United Nations and the OPCW will pay more attention to the destruction of abandoned Japanese chemical weapons, and urges Japan to fulfil its responsibilities in good faith and expedite the destruction process. The implementation of the Convention is now at a critical juncture. In view of the upcoming fifth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention, China stands ready to actively participate in the review process and continue to work with Member States and States parties, practice true multilateralism and strive to build a world free of chemical weapons.

Egypt stresses its support for all cooperation efforts between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) aimed at achieving the objectives of the Chemical Weapons Convention and ridding the world of such weapons. Egypt had hoped that one draft resolution would be adopted by consensus on that subject instead of two separate draft resolutions being put to the vote. As such, Egypt voted in favour of resolution 77/272 but abstained in the voting on a number of its paragraphs, given that they address specific issues inscribed on the agenda of the OPCW. Egypt is not a member of the OPCW. To address specific issues in such a resolution is to politicize a resolution that is technical in nature. That is why Egypt abstained in the voting on those controversial paragraphs. For those reasons, Egypt once again calls on Member States to maintain the technical nature of the annual resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW in the future and to adopt a single draft resolution by consensus in order to support cooperation between the two organizations.

Malaysia takes the floor in explanation of its vote on draft resolution A/77/L.48 and on resolution 77/272  — submitted as draft resolution A/77/L.49/Rev.1  — both entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons” and submitted for the Assembly’s consideration. In our statement in explanation of vote on resolution 75/265 (see A/75/PV.56), adopted under the same agenda item two years ago, in March 2021, my delegation had expressed hopes for a refined text that would facilitate the future work and operations of the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Unfortunately, this year we have moved further away from our goal of consensus, with the submission of two competing draft resolutions. While the Assembly decided to adopt resolution 77/272 as contained in document A/77/L.49/Rev.1 and not to consider the text contained in document A/77/L.48, we deeply regret that the initiators of those draft resolutions were unable to reach agreement on a single text that could be broadly supported by all delegations. That is yet another instance of the increased polarization within this organ, which goes against the spirit of multilateral cooperation embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. There is no doubt about the importance of the OPCW as the implementing body of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Sustained cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW is important for attaining the CWC’s overarching objective of the total elimination of chemical weapons. However, as was the case in previous years, resolution 77/272 contains references that either do not relate directly to its title or do not enjoy consensus among Member States. The issues contained in paragraphs 6 to 10 of resolution 77/272 were duly covered in the annual First Committee draft resolution on the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was recently adopted by the General Assembly as resolution 77/73. Those paragraphs, which among other things discuss empowering the OPCW with an attribution mandate, involve well-known divergences among Member States and may detract from the main objective of promoting cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW. With regard to paragraph 11 of resolution 77/272, my delegation maintains the position that there was no need to include a lengthy reference to a Security Council dossier in that text. With regard to paragraph 12 of resolution 77/272, Malaysia’s position on the issue of Ukraine is clear and remains unchanged. We firmly believe in the importance of upholding the rule of law, the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. However, we are of the view that the inclusion of that issue in resolution 77/272 poses unnecessary complications in the context of the subject at hand. Furthermore, the OPCW’s role in ensuring the full implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention applies in all parts of the world, whether in peace or conflict situations. Recognizing the importance of cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW, Malaysia once again voted in favour of resolution 77/272 as a whole. However, for the reasons I mentioned, Malaysia abstained in the voting on paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the resolution, as well as in the voting on the oral draft amendment to it. We believe that the proposals submitted in the Assembly Hall today, while addressing some of our concerns, would have benefited from ample time for deliberations. We sincerely hope that, when this item is next before the General Assembly, we will consider one draft resolution that is focused on promoting cooperation between those two critical organizations.

Due to the lateness of the hour, the Assembly will hear the remaining speakers in explanation of vote after the voting at a later date, to be announced. The exercise of the right to 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 five minutes for the second intervention and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I would like to briefly react to the issue of abandoned chemical weapons raised by the Chinese delegation. In accordance with the destruction plan agreed between Japan and China, Japan has been making, and will continue to make, the best possible efforts to complete the destruction. I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm Japan’s unwavering commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the destruction of abandoned chemical weapons. We remain fully dedicated to advancing cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Given the time constraints, I will briefly respond to the representative of Japan’s statement in exercise of the right of reply. The fact is that, as long as the chemical weapons left in China remain there, the Chinese people will suffer from those weapons. That is one of the grave war crimes committed by Japan during its aggression against China. China welcomes Japan’s position expressed earlier and hopes that Japan will step up its efforts in that regard, including by dedicating more personnel and resources to the destruction of all chemical weapons by 2027 and to tackling the issue of contaminated soil, among other issues, in a responsible manner. China will continue to maintain its cooperation with Japan and provide the necessary support.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (n) of agenda item 127.