A/77/PV.60 General Assembly

Before we proceed to take action on the draft resolution, I should like to inform members that the Assembly will hold a debate on this item at a later date to be announced. I now give the floor to the representative of Turkmenistan to introduce draft resolution A /77/L.53.

I have the honour to introduce draft resolution A/77/L.53, entitled “Role of the United Nations Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia” . The draft resolution was submitted on behalf of the five countries of Central Asia  — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and my own country, Turkmenistan  — in order to emphasize the role of the United Nations Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy in Central Asia (UNRCCA). The Central Asian countries would like to underscore the unwavering and broad interregional support of Member States for the draft resolution and are honoured to express their deep gratitude to the co-sponsors. We also would like to underline the constructive atmosphere that accompanied us throughout the entire deliberation process of the draft resolution. Preventive diplomacy remains one of the main priorities of the United Nations. The United Nations Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia is a special political mission to implement that priority in practice with a prevention mandate — the first of its kind  — that was established in Ashgabat in December 2007, at the initiative of the five Central Asian countries. The Centre promotes a dialogue among the national Governments on finding solutions to emerging problems and eliminating potential threats. It maintains regular contact with regional and international organizations operating in the region, and stimulates their peacemaking efforts and initiatives. It also cooperates with other United Nations agencies working in the field of conflict prevention. In January, the Security Council considered the biannual report of the Centre and clearly demonstrated its support for the activities of the UNRCCA. Last December, the Centre marked its fifteenth anniversary. We would like to commemorate that occasion by submitting our traditional draft resolution on the role of the Centre. In its one-and-a-half decades of operation, the Centre has provided Governments with a platform for dialogue on the most challenging regional issues, ranging from the management of common resources to transnational threats such as terrorism and violent extremism, organized crime and drug trafficking, as well as common efforts to help stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. In doing so, UNRCCA has closely cooperated with all Governments in the region and built capacities to use preventive diplomacy methods and instruments to address existing and emerging challenges. The draft resolution underlines the new and valuable experience of the Regional Centre achieved in the past few years in order to allow other countries of the world to make use of that knowledge in their preventive measures, early warning and mediation activities. The new paragraphs in the draft resolution focus on recent developments in Central Asia, in particular the regular consultative meetings of the Heads of State of the Central Asian countries; the establishment of a Central Asian zone of peace, trust and cooperation in accordance with resolution 76/299, of 28 July 2022; and joint steps on the counter-terrorism track, such as the adoption in March last year of an updated joint action plan for the implementation of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in Central Asia, and the initiative of the countries of the region to establish a United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism Programme Office in Central Asia. The draft resolution welcomes the initiatives of the Regional Centre aimed at empowering women and young people, such as the Preventive Diplomacy Academy to train young people in preventive diplomacy and the Central Asian Women Leaders’ Caucus. Within the global agendas of the United Nations on women and peace and security and on youth, peace and security, the Centre continued its activities to increase the participation and roles of women and young people in social and political life. In conclusion, we would once again like to express our gratitude to the delegations that co-sponsored draft resolution A/77/L.53 and hope that it will be adopted by consensus. We also call on Member States that have not yet become co-sponsors to do so.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/77/L.53, entitled “Role of the United Nations Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia”. 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.53, and in addition to those delegations listed in the document, the following countries have become sponsors of draft resolution A/77/L.53: Algeria, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czechia, Denmark, Djibouti, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Japan, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, the Maldives, Mali, Malta, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the Syrian Arab Republic, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/77/L.53?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 58.

We will now hear the remaining statements in explanation of vote after the voting on resolution 77/272. Before giving the floor for explanations of vote after the voting, I would like to remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The primary focus of resolution 77/272 is to remind ourselves about the cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) at a global inflection point, as we have regularly observed, when the cry of the times is for peace. We cannot afford to have any further escalation of hostilities of any kind. Nature appears to be crying out the warnings loud and clear. But we wilfully refuse to hear or see them. Sri Lanka is committed to achieving the vision of a world free of chemical weapons and the threat of their use, a world in which chemistry is used for peace, progress and prosperity. We condemn unequivocally the use of chemical weapons under any circumstances by any party, and fully support the work of the OPCW and the equal application of the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. As a State party to the Convention and therefore a member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Sri Lanka welcomes the cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW and therefore voted in favour of the resolution. We value the work of the OPCW Technical Secretariat but do not in any way condone the use of the OPCW as a political tool or as a vehicle for political expediency or to play out political agendas of particular interest to some Member States. Sri Lanka therefore abstained in the voting on the paragraphs that ostensibly seek to lose sight of the essence and focus of the resolution for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention and transfer or use of chemical weapons by State parties. Rather, the resolution should encourage stronger relations among Governments, industry, professional associations and academia to promote chemical safety and security management. Furthermore, I want to highlight the role of the OPCW in assisting its member States to evaluate their strengths and gaps in the implementation of chemical safety and security measures. What is of paramount importance is the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, chemical safety and security management, chemical security threat assessment, mitigation measures and chemical inventory management. We must not lose sight of those principal objectives. One hundred and ninety-three States committed to the Chemical Weapons Convention, 98 per cent of the global population lives under the protection of the Convention and 99 per cent of the chemical-weapon stockpiles declared by possessor States have been verifiably destroyed. Let us maintain the OPCW as an organization that transcends political agendas and efficiently ensure the effectiveness of its supervisory oversight in its purest form.

Brazil regrets the situation that has been created by the existence of two competing draft resolutions (A/77/PV.L.48 and A/77/ PV.L.49) on the same topic, and we are concerned about the trend of proposing alternative draft resolutions when one penholder’s draft seems unsatisfactory. We saw it in the Security Council last year and we are seeing it again in the General Assembly this year. It is a dangerous trend that threatens to undermine the working processes of the Organization and makes consensus even harder to reach. At the same time, we are also concerned about the increasing willingness to take a lack of consensus as a given and to use that lack of consensus as an opportunity to knowingly include text that makes it impossible for certain countries to engage. The work of the Assembly is and must continue to be premised on the search for consensus  — even when it eludes us, and especially on matters that should be of interest to all, such as cooperation with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). After careful consideration, we decided to abstain in the voting on operative paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 77/272, owing to the understanding that the scope of United Nations-OPCW cooperation in the Syria chemical-weapons file is sufficiently covered by operative paragraph 11. Security Council resolution 2118 (2013) sets out the mandate for United Nations-OPCW cooperation in the file and remains the basis for constructive collaboration between the two organizations. Other aspects of the OPCW’s work, while important, fall outside the scope of resolution 77/272. Similarly, we also decided to abstain in the voting on operative paragraph 12. Once again, we value the work of the OPCW in monitoring any use of chemical weapons in Ukraine and elsewhere. Yet unlike the situation with the Syrian chemical-weapons file, where we can identify a concrete Security Council decision that serves as a basis for cooperation, in this case there is no identifiable element of United Nations- OPCW cooperation that would justify the inclusion of the paragraph in the resolution. There are many things that the OPCW does that are worthy of praise, but none of them are pertinent to this resolution. This exercise has been disappointing and worrisome on many levels. We were frankly dissatisfied with both draft texts and with how the process was handled. We have witnessed division, brinkmanship and a lack of genuine interest in engaging on all sides. We voted in favour of resolution 77/272 out of our awareness of the importance of the cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW and of preserving the working methods of the Organization. However, we urge all Member States in this Hall to recommit to self-restraint as a basic principle of multilateral diplomacy. As in any political organization, self-restraint is what allows us to disagree with our peers while still engaging with them as our peers. Nowhere is that more essential than in the General Assembly, where we all gather under the principle of sovereign equality to try to advance causes of interest to all of us. Cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW is one such cause. There are many more. We stand to lose with regard to all of them if we are unable to exercise restraint in our draft resolutions and disagreements and to respect the norms and practices of the Organization.

The Cuban delegation would like to explain its vote on resolution 77/272, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)”. As a State party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, Cuba supports continued cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Regrettably, we were unable to support the resolution as it was adopted. We oppose the submission of a divisive text on cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW to the General Assembly. Controversial issues surrounding the OPCW agenda should be discussed within that organization, not manifested in the annual resolution on United Nations- OPCW relations. With regard to the agenda item we are discussing today, any draft resolution on the matter should focus on promoting cooperation and therefore highlight the issues that unite Member States, not those that divide us. We must prioritize working resolutely towards returning to the practice of reaching consensus on this issue in the General Assembly. The spirit of cooperation and unanimous support for the work of OPCW must be preserved.

Indonesia would like to explain its vote on resolution 77/272, on cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which was adopted last Monday (see A/77/PV.59). Indonesia voted in favour of the resolution to reaffirm its support of cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW. We support the resolution, which aims to emphasize the importance of strong cooperation between the United Nations and the OPCW in maintaining peace and security through the total elimination of chemical weapons. In the context, we believe that achieving consensus on the resolution is vital, as it would send a strong message of the importance of the full implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and reflect our shared interest and unity in achieving the ultimate goals of the Convention. The resolution should therefore focus on the issue itself and avoid elements that are discussed within the OPCW but are outside the scope of cooperation with the United Nations. Against that backdrop, Indonesia abstained in the voting on operative paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the resolution. While supporting the overall thrust of promoting compliance on the part of CWC States parties, we are of the view that the question of compliance should be settled through the mechanism under the Convention. We also abstained in the voting on operative paragraph 12, as we understand that the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s task under the Convention is not limited to a particular situation. Cooperation between the United Nations and other international organizations must have solid support from all States Members of the United Nations. What we see in this resolution is the opposite. As a result of egoism, we gathered in this Hall last Monday with two draft resolutions (A/77/L.49/Rev.1 and A/77/L.48) on our hands — a practice that only takes us further from achieving consensus. While we appreciate the informal meetings held by the two penholders to discuss the draft resolutions, the efforts made to reconcile the two texts were minimal. If we continue such practices we will not only see the disarmament machinery falling victim to polarities, we will also be disrespecting the General Assembly and undermining the spirit of multilateralism. We should therefore not continue on this path but should reflect on the future and find ways to move forward towards a stronger multilateralism.

Colombia has traditionally supported the annual resolution entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)”. Colombia is firmly committed to the Chemical Weapons Convention, is grateful for and highly values the work of the OPCW and attaches importance to the relationship agreement between the United Nations and the OPCW and the cooperation expressed within its framework. Similarly, we are grateful to the Netherlands for its work as penholder of the annual resolution since 1997. Disarmament and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are pillars of Colombia’s foreign policy and constitutional mandates. We advocate the total elimination and prohibition of all weapons of mass destruction and condemn their use by any actor, anywhere and in any circumstances. We believe that we should continue to follow the current and customary procedures and working methods of the United Nations, which are designed to facilitate the consideration of specific topics and promote transparency, dialogue and decision-making. Revising and updating them are collective tasks of all Member States. We must redouble our efforts to strengthen dialogue, communication, understanding and negotiated and peaceful resolutions of all disputes. That is the raison d’être of the Organization. Our vote on resolution 77/272 under this agenda item reflects our principled position, which has already been articulated.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote after the voting. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (n) of agenda item 127?

Before we proceed to take action on these proposals, I should like to inform members that the Assembly will hold a debate on this item at a later date to be announced. I now give the floor to the representative of the United States to introduce draft amendment A/77/L.55.

The United States would like to express its support for the high-level meeting on pandemic preparedness and response, which will be a critical step in reinforcing the hard work that our colleagues in Geneva are doing, including in the intergovernmental negotiating body process. It is a shared global priority and a major focus for the United States. We would also like to thank the Permanent Representatives of Morocco and Israel for their co-facilitation of the modalities draft resolution (A/77/L.54), and we look forward to their leadership in the process as we embark on adopting a political declaration during the spring and summer ahead of the high-level meeting. While we appreciate the process, we were disappointed to have to co-sponsor amendments to the draft resolution’s eleventh and fourteenth preambular paragraphs (A/77/L.56 and A/77/L.55) today. Both paragraphs ended up with problematic language resulting from last-minute additions in discussions by a small number of delegations. We appreciate the efforts that the co-facilitators have made to navigate the difficulties, and we nevertheless think that both amendments bring us a consensus text that will set the tone for the negotiations on the political declaration. The draft amendment to the fourteenth preambular paragraph strengthens the impact of the paragraph, as its language states. In order to implement robust global, regional, national and local responses, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as well as the key leadership role of the World Health Organization within the broader United Nations response, international human rights law should be respected. Promoting and protecting the human rights of all persons is critical to an effective pandemic preparedness architecture, which I know we are all trying to achieve. We hope that all delegations can support this important draft amendment.

I now give the floor to the representative of Sweden to introduce draft amendment A/77/L.56.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its member States. The candidate countries Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the potential candidate country Georgia, align themselves with this statement. Let me first express our sincere thanks to the co-facilitators, the Kingdom of Morocco and the State of Israel. We acknowledge their efforts in facilitating the adoption of draft resolution A/77/L.54. We share their commitment to moving the overall process forward in a timely fashion and look forward to the next steps, including fruitful discussions on defining themes and topics. We pledge them our full support. The draft resolution to be adopted today is aimed at defining the modalities for the preparation and organization of the high-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, mandated by the General Assembly in September 2022 in resolution 76/301. The EU engaged actively and constructively in the negotiations on the draft modalities resolution, and we fully endorse the process and modalities as outlined in the draft resolution. Nevertheless, we have proposed draft amendment A/77/L.56 to delete the eleventh preambular paragraph, and I should like to explain why. The tenth preambular paragraph, which precedes the eleventh, fully recalls decision SSA2(5), adopted by the World Health Assembly at its second special session, as it was adopted in 2021. The EU fully supports the decision, and we also support referencing it in full in the draft resolution. The eleventh preambular paragraph, however, further recalls one particular paragraph of the decision, highlighting it above all other paragraphs in that decision. The purpose of highlighting this paragraph is to underscore a particular term and formulation — “unhindered access” — and to introduce it into the General Assembly context. While “unhindered humanitarian access” is a familiar concept, “unhindered access” in this context has not been discussed at any length. It is neither framed nor defined and has not been adopted by consensus in the General Assembly. Furthermore, the lack of clarity surrounding the term has led to its misuse. Most pertinently, it is subject to ongoing discussion among Member States in Geneva. The EU cannot support the eleventh preambular paragraph, whose inclusion could be used to prejudge or disrupt discussions and processes in Geneva  — the very ones that the high- level meeting process should support and align with. Furthermore, the paragraph is of no consequence for the scope or modalities of the high-level meeting. It would be an unhelpful precedent for the negotiation of other draft modalities resolutions, which should be focused on processes and modalities. There can be no question that the EU is fully engaged and contributes tirelessly towards improved and more equitable access, distribution and development of vaccines and therapeutics globally. Our aim is to close what we know to be significant and unacceptable gaps. We would also like to underline that the EU has been forthcoming, transparent and consistent in its position in the negotiations. We have repeatedly asked to delete the reference and have explained why at length and in detail. We have offered alternative solutions. We have suggested including a definition of the term or using other terms that are clearer and less problematic. We have suggested stripping down the draft resolution to strictly process and modalities. We broke the silence to stress that we cannot support the inclusion of that paragraph. For those reasons, we respectfully request the membership to adopt the draft amendment deleting the eleventh preambular paragraph. Let me conclude by saying that we look forward to the adoption of the draft resolution and to working constructively together on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, culminating in a successful high-level meeting in September.

The Assembly will now consider draft resolutions A/77/L.51 and A/77/L.54 and draft amendments A/77/L.55 and A/77/L.56. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I will now announce the additional sponsorships for both draft amendments A/77/L.55 and A/77/L.56. First, I should like to announce that since the submission of draft amendment A/77/L.55, and in addition to the delegations listed in the document, the following countries have also become sponsors of the draft amendment: Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Secondly, I should like to announce that since the submission of draft amendment A/77/L.56, and in addition to the delegations listed in the document, the following countries have also become sponsors of the draft amendment: Albania, Georgia, Iceland, Japan, Monaco, North Macedonia, Norway, the Republic of Moldova and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

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

Promoting and protecting the right to health and access to quality health services for all people has been a priority for Cuba. We are fully committed to United Nations efforts to build collective progress in addressing the health challenges facing the international community. The capacities of the United Nations and our countries must be strengthened to meet the health needs of our people and ensure that we are better able to cope with current and future diseases. We hope that the high-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response mandated by resolution 76/301 will contribute to that purpose. We also reiterate our full support for the World Health Organization and its role within the United Nations system. The coronavirus disease pandemic has been an eloquent demonstration of the unjustness of our international order. As always, the developing countries are the ones that suffer and will continue to suffer disproportionately from the adverse socioeconomic effects of the international situation created by the virus. The lack of access faced by developing countries to the resources, knowledge and technologies needed to address those challenges is one of the characteristics of the current international order, in which inequality is inherent. It is vital that we work to replace it with a new one that emphasizes solidarity and international cooperation. Draft amendment A/77/L.56 represents everything that is wrong with the current international order. It seeks to remove an express reference to the need to address existing gaps in preventing, preparing for and responding to health emergencies and for developing countries such as my own to have timely, equitable and unimpeded access to the resources, knowledge and technologies necessary to meet those challenges. The eleventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/77/L.54, which draft amendment A/77/L.56 seeks to delete, was the result of lengthy negotiations and reflects the consensus language reached in Geneva. It is striking that those who accepted that language in Geneva do not accept it now in New York. For those reasons, Cuba will vote against draft amendment A/77/L.56, and we encourage all delegations to do likewise. Moreover, we regret the non-transparent way in which draft amendment A/77/L.55 was presented. It seems that the intention, rather than demonstrating a genuine interest in shedding light on the issue of human rights, was to minimize the relevance of the Charter of the United Nations. In any case, Cuba will continue to support our Organization’s efforts to strengthen the capacities of countries, particularly developing nations, to deal with the challenges facing the South. We are ready to contribute our modest experiences to the negotiation process on the political declaration to be adopted at the high-level meeting in September of next year.

We thank the co-facilitators, Morocco and Israel, for their hard work in arriving at a final draft of draft resolution A/77/L.54. The world is struggling with challenges to its post- pandemic economic recovery. The devastation of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the discriminatory practices that characterized the global response have severely affected developing countries. As we are all aware, the COVID-19 pandemic has called into question the overcentralized nature of globalization. It has also led us to seek greater resilience and reliability for supply chains. Without equitable access to medical countermeasures such as vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics, there can be no discourse about strengthening health systems and their resilience, and there certainly cannot be universal health coverage. In effect, without equity we will see only a rerun of what we saw in the COVID-19 pandemic. We cannot afford a vaccine divide. India will therefore vote against draft amendment A/77/L.56, which seeks to delete the eleventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/77/L.54, on pandemic preparedness, and we call for retaining the paragraph as proposed by the co-facilitators. We also reject the proposal in draft amendment A/77/L.55 to introduce new language into the fourteenth preambular paragraph, which was done at the last minute without following the negotiation process.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela would like to explain its position on draft resolution A/77/L.54, entitled “Scope, modalities, format and organization of the High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response”. At the outset, we would like to thank Morocco and Israel, the co-facilitators of the draft resolution, for their efforts to achieve consensus on the modalities of a draft resolution with such a far-reaching objective, one that the Member States will have to implement with the high urgency and priority that the issue requires, in the aftermath of the terrible onslaught of the coronavirus disease pandemic and its subsequent effects, which demand further efforts to ensure global recovery. Venezuela believes that all the preambular paragraphs proposed in the draft resolution are appropriate, especially the eleventh, which relates to the need to fill the gaps in preventing, preparing for and responding to health emergencies and to ensure unrestricted, equitable, timely and unimpeded access to medical countermeasures such as vaccines, treatments and diagnostic tests, the lack of access to which is both a major current topic of debate and a structural cause of so much death and human suffering. For all of those reasons, Venezuela opposes any draft amendment aimed at removing from the debate the key element of multilateral forums on preventing, preparing for and responding to pandemics, as well as — and especially — on the importance of creating synergies and international solidarity between the global South and States of the North on such a far- reaching issue, and as a fundamental principle of the Charter of the United Nations.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on draft amendment A/77/L.56 on behalf of Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay and my own country, Brazil. First, we want to express our deep appreciation to the missions of Morocco and Israel for conducting the negotiation process on draft resolution A/77/L.54 in an open and transparent way, and for employing all available efforts to reach a balanced text and possible compromise. We regret the proposal to delete a whole paragraph of the text. The paragraph in question, the eleventh preambular paragraph, was agreed to by consensus by all Member States at the World Health Assembly, contains verbatim language and enjoyed broad support from developing countries from every region during the negotiations on draft resolution A/77/L.54. It speaks to the hardship of what almost every single developing country faced during the coronavirus disease pandemic — the lack of access to medical countermeasures such as vaccines to uphold the right to health of our peoples. Promoting unhindered, timely and equitable access to medical countermeasures in future health emergencies is one of the main reasons behind the purpose of a World Health Organization instrument currently being negotiated in Geneva. That is why this paragraph is part of the preambular section of decision SSA2(5), which established an intergovernmental negotiating body to draft and negotiate a World Health Organization convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. And that is why developing countries defended it in the draft resolution on the scope, modalities and format of the high-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. To delete that paragraph, as proposed in draft amendment A/77/L.56, is to remove one of the very reasons why we want to convene such a meeting. We will therefore vote against the draft amendment and invite others to do the same.

Mexico aligns itself with the explanation just delivered by the representative of Brazil on behalf of a number of countries. In that regard, we regret that today a group of countries finds the textual and factual reference to decision SSA2(5) of the World Health Assembly contained in draft resolution A/77/L.54 unacceptable and proposes amending it through draft document A/77/L.56. The decision referred to in the eleventh preambular paragraph of the draft resolution recognizes the need to address the gaps that of course continue to exist in preventing, preparing for and responding to health emergencies, in particular in the development and distribution of medical countermeasures such as vaccines, treatments and diagnostic tests and in ensuring unimpeded, timely and equitable access to them, as well as in strengthening health systems and their resilience with a view to achieving universal health coverage. We must not forget the obstacles, challenges and difficulties the world has faced and continues to face in responding not only to the coronavirus disease pandemic but to other epidemics and pandemics, such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. That is a priority issue for Mexico and many other countries. Moreover, this should not be an issue that divides our countries into those with resources and those without. Pandemics affect all countries, and as has been said repeatedly in recent years, no one is safe until all of us are safe. Ensuring unimpeded access to vaccines for all, regardless of nationality, is a priority, including for the interests of nations themselves. Mexico urges all delegations to vote against draft amendment A/77/L.56 and to retain the eleventh preambular paragraph in the draft resolution as proposed for adoption by the co-facilitators.

Malaysia takes the floor to deliver an explanation of vote before the voting on draft resolution A/77/L.54, entitled “Scope, modalities, format and organization of the High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response”, and the related draft amendments to be considered for adoption by the General Assembly. The coronavirus disease pandemic has shown us that our capacities for preventing, preparing for and responding to health emergencies are lacking and vary widely from one country to another. There is therefore an urgent need to boost those capacities so that we can be well prepared for the next pandemic. International cooperation, as well as in achieving equity in the field of health, is paramount in that regard. Malaysia believes that the draft resolution presented by the co-facilitators is relatively balanced and that its contents reflect the theme of the text. Considering that, we are perplexed that some delegations have presented amendments to the draft resolution that would upset the delicate balance struck. The proposal in draft amendment A/77/L.56 to delete the eleventh preambular paragraph is outright baffling, especially since the paragraph is taken verbatim from decision SSA2(5) of the second special session of the World Health Assembly, which was adopted by consensus and sponsored by more than 120 countries. We are extremely alarmed that language that was previously agreed on is no longer considered acceptable to the proponents of the draft amendment. We firmly believe that the elements contained in the eleventh preambular paragraph are essential to addressing gaps in preventing, preparing and responding to health emergencies, especially in developing countries. The argument for deleting the eleventh preambular paragraph on the basis that it touches on substance is, to put it simply, ironic. There are other substantive issues incorporated in the draft resolution, some of which were introduced by the proponents of the draft amendment. This is regrettably another example of efforts to stonewall the priorities of the developing world. It is imperative that the resolutions adopted by this body reflect realities on the ground and address real problems that we face worldwide. It is for that reason that Malaysia will vote against draft amendment A/77/L.56, on deleting the eleventh preambular paragraph of the draft resolution. Malaysia believes that multisectoral and multi-stakeholder cooperation is important, especially in efforts to achieve equity in the field of health, which must not be subjected to undue limitations and constraints. We should remind ourselves that the purposes of the United Nations, as outlined in Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, include “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”. We believe firmly that the formulation of the fourteenth preambular paragraph as presented by the co-facilitators is more than sufficient and that draft amendment A/77/L.55’s introduction of new language is unnecessary. It is concerning that the draft amendment to the text was introduced in a way that subverts the negotiation process. Recognizing the importance of that process, Malaysia will support the draft resolution as a whole. We sincerely hope that Member States can work together towards the high-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, particularly on the negotiations of the political declaration.

China thanks Morocco and Israel, the co-facilitators of draft resolution A/77/L.54, for their considerable efforts to promote consensus among Member States. The final text they submitted reflects a balanced and constructive approach. It is the outcome of the greatest consensus achievable and as such enjoys the support of the vast majority of Member States. China supports the co-facilitators’ text. Regrettably, however, a small minority of Member States, flouting the spirit of multilateralism, insisted on submitting draft amendments to impose their own views on others, thereby undermining the efforts of the general membership and the co-facilitators to find consensus. More surprisingly, the changes those countries are seeking to make through their draft amendments would minimize the importance in the context of the Charter of the United Nations, which is a universally recognized set of international rules. What they are attempting to remove is a consensus text that was agreed by a majority of Member States at the World Health Assembly. We deeply regret the attempts by those countries to challenge the established consensus and weaken the Charter. We call on all Member States to support the co-facilitators’ text. Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response require the international community to work in unity and in concert by pulling together to prevail over the challenges. We call on Member States to uphold true multilateralism and to do their utmost to preserve consensus and reject division.

Last year, on 2 September (see A/76/PV.98), we introduced resolution 76/301, asking the General Assembly to call for a high- level meeting in New York during the seventy-eighth session of the General Assembly. The essential aim of the meeting is to support efforts to find fair and long- lasting solutions to the global inequities and inadequate responses that the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted. To that end, our Heads of State and Government will adopt a succinct political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Today we have before us draft resolution A/77/L.54, on the modalities of that meeting, and we are extremely grateful for the commitment shown by our co-facilitators to presenting a text that is fair and balanced and will allow for a constructive process and engagement in September. With the COVID-19 pandemic now in its third year, the need to develop inclusive and durable solutions for pandemic preparedness, prevention and response remains more important than ever. It is our belief that a continued demonstration of political will is vital to ensuring that whole-of-society approaches to pandemic preparedness, prevention and response are adopted and operationalized. For that, we need concerted political action at a global level, an increase in international finance and a willingness to adopt every possible measure to address the issue in a whole-of-society approach. We knew that despite the fact that this task is a procedural one, the current political realities and contexts would be critical to consider and reflect on, even at this early stage, and that this modalities draft resolution and its preambular text would therefore need to reflect those realities so as to set the scene in which the high-level meeting will take place. The reality is that the global pandemic and possible future pandemics have the potential to be an existential crisis for humankind. Unfortunately, the pandemic was also a demonstration of the worst elements for the cohesion of the global community, as countries resorted to protectionism instead of equitable access and cooperation. Indeed, national self-preservation was prioritized over our shared humanity, and it served only to prolong and exacerbate the damage created by the global health emergency. We recognize now that had we cooperated then and unconditionally served each other rather than ourselves, we would have collectively fought the pandemic more effectively and eased the suffering of millions. Despite that context, the negotiations on the draft resolution before us demonstrate that this lesson has not been learned, and we cling to our national interests as if a competitive advantage were critical to surviving another pandemic. As a result, we are voting on a preambular paragraph that is reproduced verbatim from decision SSA2(5) of the World Health Assembly and is consensus language from that process. We are voting because draft amendment A/77/L.56 proposes to delete that language from the draft resolution by deleting its eleventh preambular paragraph, undermining our collective responsibility and rejecting humanity in favour of individualism. It is an unfortunate situation, but it is with pride that South Africa will vote against the draft amendment. We will do it because it is the right thing to do, and because the lessons learned over the past three years cannot be forgotten and we want to ensure that they are translated into the political declaration. We have also taken that decision because the eleventh preambular paragraph reflects the Geneva process, which is something we critically need to support. South Africa remains steadfast in supporting the World Health Organization in leading global efforts to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics, as well as in supporting future preparedness to foster a comprehensive multisectoral approach to strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to combat future pandemics. We also want to say that it is unfortunate and regrettable that draft amendment A/77/L.55, the other proposed amendment, has come at the last minute without any opportunity to negotiate its relevance in the text. It is our view that the high-level meeting in September will facilitate the political direction for the global community and support the pandemic prevention, preparedness and response processes that are currently being discussed in Geneva, which we have pledged to support and want to reinforce. It is imperative that we cooperate and coordinate with one another so that we can prepare and prevent future epidemics from spreading and becoming pandemics. Ensuring that will require coordination at an international level through political will and by placing collective interests over those of individuals.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote or position before the voting. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/77/L.51, entitled “Scope, modalities, format and organization of the High-Level Meeting on the Fight Against Tuberculosis”. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to adopt draft resolution A/77/L.51?

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Krzysztof Szczerski, Permanent Representative of Poland to the United Nations, and Mr. Bakhtiyor Ibragimov, Permanent Representative of Uzbekistan to the United Nations, who ably and patiently conducted the discussions and complex negotiations in the informal consultations on resolution 77/274. I am sure the members of the Assembly join me in expressing our sincere appreciation to both of them. The Assembly will now turn to draft resolution A/77/L.54. Before proceeding to take a decision on the draft resolution, in accordance with rule 90 of the rules of procedure, the General Assembly will first take a decision on draft amendments A/77/L.55 and A/77/L.56, one by one. The Assembly will first take a decision on draft amendment A/77/L.55. In the absence of a request for a recorded vote, may I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to adopt draft amendment A/77/L.55?

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft amendment A/77/L.56. A recorded vote has been requested.

Since draft amendment A/77/L.55 was adopted, we shall proceed to take action on draft resolution A/77/L.54 as amended. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/77/L.54, entitled “Scope, modalities, format and organization of the high-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”, as amended. I now give the floor to the representative of Sweden on a point of order.

I understand that the draft amendment proposed by the European Union was not adopted, but we would like to call for a vote on the current text of eleventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/77/L.54.

A separate recorded vote has been requested on the eleventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/77/L.54, as amended. Do I hear any objection? I call on the representative of Pakistan.

We would like to request that the representative of Sweden and you, Mr. President, clarify what is meant by a vote on the eleventh preambular paragraph. Clarification would be helpful for all delegations so that they know how they wish to proceed in the voting.

I now give the floor to the Secretariat to clarify the process.

Through you, Mr. President, I should like to advise the delegation of Pakistan that, in the recorded vote conducted on the eleventh preambular paragraph, a vote in favour means that a delegation is in favour of retaining  — keeping  — the eleventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/77/L.54. A vote against the eleventh preambular paragraph means that a delegation is against retaining that paragraph, meaning that the delegation wants to see that paragraph deleted.

I hope this satisfies the query of the delegation of Pakistan. I call on the representative of Brazil.

I would request clarification as to exactly how the voting is going to proceed. Are we going to vote first on A/77/L.54 as a whole and subsequently on its eleventh preambular paragraph? Following the guidance of the Secretariat, I understand that a vote in favour means retaining the eleventh preambular paragraph and a vote against means removing it from the text, which, as a side note, seems to me a bit absurd as we just had that very same vote, but I would request a clarification of the entire procedure.

I now give the floor to the Secretariat for further clarification.

Through you, Mr. President, I would like to advise the delegation of Brazil that when a paragraph vote is requested, the first vote is on that paragraph, and then, after the vote on the paragraph is conducted, the Assembly will proceed to take action on the draft resolution as a whole.

I hope that further clarified the process for the representative of Brazil. Is there any objection to this procedure? There being none, I shall therefore put the paragraph to the vote first. I now put to the vote the eleventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/77/L.54, as amended.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution, A/77/L.54, as amended?

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to His Excellency Mr. Gilad Erdan, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations, and His Excellency Mr. Omar Hilale, Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations, who avidly and patiently conducted the discussions and complex negotiations in the informal consultations on resolution 77/275. I am sure the members of the Assembly will join me in extending our sincere appreciation to them. Before giving the floor for explanations of position after adoption, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

On behalf of Japan, we welcome the adoption of resolution 77/275, entitled “Scope, modalities, format and organization of the high-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” under agenda item 128, “Global health and foreign policy”. We would also like to express our appreciation for the leadership and dedicated efforts of the co-facilitators, Morocco and Israel. Allow me to take this opportunity to express the following points that Japan wishes to underline. First, while appreciating the adoption of resolution 77/275 on the high-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, we would like to reiterate the importance of placing all health-related issues within the context of universal health coverage and the health sector as a whole, and of strengthening the overall health agenda within the United Nations system. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has reminded us of the importance of strong health systems as the foundation for achieving universal health care and health security. We believe that the time has come to address health issues in a comprehensive manner, integrating various efforts in the health sectors that have historically been siloed by disease and by system. In this regard, we strongly recognize the importance of this year’s three health-related high-level meetings and of ensuring coordination and harmonization among them. Secondly, there is no question about the importance of ensuring access to such existing health products as medicines, diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics. On the other hand, there is no doubt that in the event of another pandemic caused by emerging or re-emerging pathogens, such as COVID-19, the ability to rapidly develop new high-quality health products to deal with it will be essential. For example, without the rapid development and subsequent delivery of new vaccines for COVID-19, it is quite unlikely that we would have been able to resume in-person meetings here in New York, such as today’s. From this point of view, we believe that ensuring access to existing health products should be mentioned in proper balance with the development of new health products. In that regard, we believe that the wording of the eleventh preambular paragraph was inappropriate, and we agreed with the proposal to delete it. Thirdly, the World Health Organization is currently leading several health-related discussions in Geneva, including on an international system for pandemic preparedness and response, and we need to respect the process. In this regard, we appreciate the reference in the fourteenth preambular paragraph to the United Nations Charter, which spells out promoting and encouraging respect for human rights among the purposes of the United Nations. In the same vein, we are very pleased to see the proposed additional reference to the obligation of States under international human rights law embraced by all States Members of the United Nations. Finally, we are committed to contributing constructively to the high-level meetings and the debates on the outcome documents on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. We look forward to intensive discussions with Member States on ways to harmonize various health challenges while achieving maximum impact.

Mexico joins the consensus on resolutions 77/274 and 77/275 and appreciates the efforts made by the Permanent Representatives of Israel, Morocco, Poland and Uzbekistan as co-facilitators during the two processes. However, we cannot overlook the most important limitation that my country identifies in both resolutions: the mention that the political declarations of the high-level meetings must be adopted by consensus. Historically, Mexico has maintained a consistent position with regard to the consensus. For my country, consensus is a desirable aspiration rather than an end in itself or an ultimate goal. As the rules of procedure and the Charter of the United Nations establish, decisions of the Assembly must be taken by a majority of the members present and voting. Consensus does not mean unanimity. It means the will expressed by a large majority of the members present, while unanimity can mean in practice the granting of 193 vetoes, diminishing the democratic character of the General Assembly and affecting progress on such important issues as prevention, preparedness and response to future and existing pandemics, to the detriment of our future as humanity on this planet. Accordingly, Mexico regrets this unnecessary limitation in the resolutions we adopted today. Nevertheless, my country is working proactively to reach an ambitious outcome with a view to achieving a positive and action-oriented impact. Mexico reaffirms its commitment to the successful deliberations of the high-level meetings on combating tuberculosis and on prevention, preparedness and response to future pandemics in order to achieve results that go beyond the texts, and which respond to global health challenges. It is our obligation in the present to bet on a healthier and more prosperous future.

I have the pleasure to deliver this statement on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and my own country, Canada. We would like to thank the co-facilitators as well as all delegations that took part in the negotiations on the scope, modalities, format and organization of the high- level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response for their active and constructive engagement. Our countries have abstained from voting on the draft amendment to the eleventh preambular paragraph. We share similar concerns with those States that voted in favour of the draft amendment over the reference to “unhindered access”, a term that potentially has different meanings for different delegations, and which is still being discussed in more technically focused forums, including at the World Health Organization (WHO). While we do not believe this is the appropriate venue for its negotiation, we also recognize that the text in resolution 77/275 is making a factual reference to the preambular paragraph in decision SSA2(5). While we did not vote to amend the reference in a preambular paragraph of this modalities resolution, we will not support stronger or action-oriented language in the political declaration on this topic. Additionally, we reiterate our long-standing position that modalities resolutions should be focused on organizational arrangements and not address issues of substance. As we and many delegations stated at the outset of this process, we must ensure that this meeting lends political support to important processes under way in Geneva under the auspices of WHO, the negotiation of a new pandemic instrument, and amendments to the international health regulations. The meeting should build political momentum and support for critical reforms to the global health architecture to better prevent, prepare and respond to the next pandemic, and ensure that pandemic prevention, preparedness and response are embedded across the United Nations pillars. It is imperative that we refrain from undermining these processes in any way. We must also ensure that the negotiation of the political declaration remains focused on the mandate and is conducted in a transparent and Member State-driven manner. The high-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response will be an important meeting and a first of its kind in New York. We look forward to working together with all delegations, as we prepare for this milestone event.

Switzerland thanks the delegations of Israel and Morocco for facilitating the negotiations on resolution 77/275 on the modalities of the high-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. As the resolution emphasizes, continued multilateral cooperation and engagement is needed to prevent future global health emergencies such as the coronavirus pandemic. Our shared commitment to strengthening pandemic preparedness and response must ensure coherent global health governance, with a strong and effective World Health Organization (WHO) at its centre. Accordingly, it is crucial to ensure the complementarity of discussions and work between Geneva and New York. In the spirit of multilateralism, we did not wish to oppose references stemming from agreed language at the special session of WHO in November 2021 and therefore to delete the eleventh preambular paragraph on unhindered access. However, we were not in a position to vote in favour of this paragraph either, as we do not consider it appropriate to make such a reference in a resolution on the modalities of a high-level meeting, especially since decision SSA2(5) is already referenced in its entirety. Furthermore, we wish to avoid creating a precedent for the substantial discussions to come. For these reasons, Switzerland decided to abstain from the voting on the draft amendment on the eleventh preambular paragraph of resolution 77/275.

We thank the facilitators of the negotiations on the modalities resolution on the high-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (resolution 77/275), the Permanent Representatives of Israel and Morocco, for their efforts to find mutually acceptable compromises and solutions in a spirit of neutrality, impartiality and consideration for the interests of all parties. The Russian delegation supported the draft text and joined the consensus on its adoption. Our support for the resolution reflects agreement with the plans to hold such an important event in the area of global health, a priority for the Russian Federation. At the same time, that cannot be interpreted as support for the inclusion of substantive paragraphs in modalities decisions and resolutions of the General Assembly. In that regard, we are also referring to the amendment introduced by a group of countries on the issue of human rights. Such issues will be discussed in depth during the negotiations on the political declaration of the upcoming high-level meeting. In addition, we are forced to express disappointment at the inclusion, in paragraph 10 of the resolution, of language on the decisive role of the General Assembly in approving the list of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) participating in the high-level meeting. We are convinced that it is important to include organizations with the appropriate professional competence to participate in such an event. It should take place in an orderly manner, in line with an agreed agenda, as well as the past practice of selecting participating NGOs, with consensus among States Members of the United Nations being key. Unfortunately for us all, despite the constructive spirit of many States, the facilitators of the consultations did not opt for balanced solutions in that regard. The same situation can be seen in resolution 77/274, on the modalities of the high-level meeting on tuberculosis, which is under consideration today. We would also like to draw attention to the eighth preambular paragraph, which mentions the report of the Group of 20 High-Level Independent Panel on Financing the so-called Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response. We note that the report presents the private opinion of experts. It should also be emphasized that the term “global commons” used by the expert community was not agreed on within the United Nations. The Russian Federation will also proceed on that basis in the future.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote after the voting. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 128.