A/78/PV.108 General Assembly

Before giving the floor for explanations of position after the adoption of resolution 78/330, I would like to remind delegations that explanations of position are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Multilingualism is a core value of the United Nations. It allows Member States to speak to each other in their native tongues or in whichever of the six official languages they prefer. In the United States we have 42 million speakers of Spanish, who, if they constituted their own nation, would represent the fifth-largest Spanish-speaking country in the world. We have 3.5 million speakers of Chinese, 2 million speakers of French, 1 million speakers of Arabic, and nearly 1 million speakers of Russian, as well as speakers of numerous other languages. The United States is a strong supporter of multilingualism as an enabler of multilateral diplomacy, and we are proud to support resolution 78/330 almost in its entirety. However, we are deeply concerned about the resolution’s negotiation process, especially as it pertains to two paragraphs, operative paragraph 14 and operative paragraph 48. The United States, along with other countries, broke silence on Rev.3 of draft resolution A/78/L.108, based largely on our concerns about those two paragraphs. Despite the fact that silence was broken, the facilitators did not convene a meeting to discuss Rev.3. Instead, they chose to issue Rev. 4 without further deliberation with all delegations. The United States continued to work constructively, hoping that our concerns would be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I would like to outline why my delegation is concerned about those paragraphs. Rule 153 of the General Assembly’s rules of procedure stipulates that any resolution in which expenditures are anticipated requires the Fifth Committee to review its effects on the United Nations budget. That important rule ensures that the budget can be considered holistically before individual draft resolutions are adopted. In operative paragraph 14, which strengthens the human resources capacity of the Office of the Coordinator for Multilingualism, the resolution specifies how and when the Secretary- General should propose resources. That is inappropriate for a resolution adopted outside the Fifth Committee. A resolution on multilingualism is not the appropriate place to ask the Secretary-General to submit revised estimates in 2025 or to submit proposals in the 2026 budget. Rather than following rule 153, the resolution appears to violate it. My delegation is also deeply concerned about operative paragraph 48, which integrates multilingualism into efforts to impede the spread of misinformation and disinformation. Previous iterations of this paragraph were cited by the Secretariat as requiring 30 additional posts at a potential cost of millions of dollars. For the version of the paragraph that is now in place, we were told that there would be budget implications in 2026 but it is unclear what those implications will be. That vagueness is troubling, given the unknown and potentially large costs of this paragraph alone. The United States worked constructively on this resolution, but our serious concerns about its financial implications were not addressed. My delegation will continue to scrutinize the implementation of those provisions in the 2025 and 2026 budgets, and we hope all other delegations will do the same. For the reasons I have just outlined, my delegation is dissociating itself from paragraphs 14 and 48 of resolution 78/330.

Multilingualism is a core value of the United Nations and a crucial driver of better mutual understanding and greater solidarity. China hopes that the United Nations will adhere to and implement multilingualism and make effective efforts to eliminate the inequities and imbalances in the use of its official languages. We thank the Coordinator for Multilingualism for the efforts in advancing concrete action by United Nations entities to promote multilingualism and manifest the diversity of languages and cultures. During the consultations on draft resolution A/78/L.108, on multilingualism, China participated constructively and demonstrated maximum flexibility in seeking consensus. Thanks to the joint efforts of all the parties, steady progress was being made in the consultations and a consensus could have been reached. However, regrettably, after silence was broken on the draft, the facilitators failed to adopt a just position and show inclusiveness. They ignored the legitimate concerns raised by various parties and even refused to accommodate proposals for a compromise text. Such actions are not conducive to seeking consensus and are quite disappointing. Some of the content of operative paragraphs 14 and 48 of resolution 78/330 has not yet been clarified, and China has concerns about those paragraphs. In the procedural vote earlier today (see A/78/PV.107), the Chinese delegation had intended to abstain in the voting. We have asked the Secretariat to reflect that position in the record. China will continue to work with all parties to support United Nations efforts to promote multilingualism and the diversity of languages and cultures.

The United Kingdom had intended to call for a vote on paragraphs 14 and 48 of draft resolution A/78/L.108, on multilingualism. It is unfortunate that the Russian Federation chose not to let the voices of all Member States be heard. Multilingualism is a critical element in an effective multilateral system, encouraging diversity and tolerance and ensuring that the important work of the Organization can be communicated and understood globally. We cannot expect people around the world to understand and value the important impact of the work of the United Nations unless they can easily access relevant information. The United Kingdom is a leader in the fight against misinformation and disinformation, and as we stressed throughout the negotiations to all involved, a slight grammatical tweak would have generated wholehearted support for operative paragraph 48. We will continue to counter misinformation and disinformation across the United Nations and in the international community. However, we consider that resolution 78/330, and particularly but not exclusively the two paragraphs I mentioned, contains provisions and proposals for action that remain unclear. Furthermore, we consider that the resolution comments on budgetary matters, which is more appropriate for expert discussion in the Fifth Committee. We would also like to register our concerns about the lack of transparency throughout the process, particularly during the final stages of the negotiations. We have shown significant flexibility, in an attempt to generate a text that would attract unanimous support across the membership, including by proposing cross- regionally supported language addressing concerns about the resolution’s cost and process. It is regrettable that the co-facilitators were unable to engage with us to that end and that the final text included no compromises. The United Kingdom’s support for the fundamental role of multilingualism in the United Nations is unwavering. However, we reserve our position in anticipation of discussions in the Fifth Committee, and looking further ahead, we urge all parties to take a different approach and bridge divides in our negotiations at the Assembly’s eightieth session.

I would like to explain Japan’s position on resolution 78/330, entitled “Multilingualism”. Japan fully recognizes that multilingualism, as a core value of the Organization, contributes to the achievement of the goals of the United Nations. That is why Japan has actively contributed to building consensus in previous and current sessions. However, Japan regrets the significant lack of transparency in the process of reconciling Member States’ positions, especially during the final stage of the negotiations, when we expressed our maximum flexibility on compromise. Japan repeatedly asked the co-facilitators to provide an opportunity for negotiations in order to resolve the outstanding issues and bridge the final gaps. We deeply regret that despite our efforts to foster constructive dialogue, that opportunity could not be realized.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position after the adoption of resolution 78/330. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 124?

I have been informed that no Member State has requested to take the floor for the debate on this item. We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/78/L.109. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution, and in addition to the delegations listed in the document, the following countries have also become sponsors of draft resolution A/78/L.109: Bangladesh, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, the Philippines, Thailand, Uruguay and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/78/L.109, entitled “United Nations action on sexual exploitation and abuse”. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/78/L.109?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 128?

We will now hear explanations of position on draft resolution A/78/L.104/ Rev.1, adopted as resolution 78/324, entitled “Consideration of decision 14/1 of the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing, entitled ‘Recommendations regarding the identification of possible gaps in the protection of the human rights of older persons and how best to address them’”, from the 103rd plenary meeting, held on 13 August 2024. Before giving the floor for explanations of position on the resolution, I would like to remind delegations that explanations of position are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Mexico thanks the Permanent Missions of Argentina, Austria, Canada, Chile, Germany, the Philippines, Slovakia, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Türkiye and Uruguay for introducing resolution 78/324, as well as the delegation of Chile for facilitating it. Mexico welcomes the fact that the draft text was adopted by consensus, because we firmly believe in the need and importance of advancing discussions on the protection of the human rights of older persons. Older people play a vital role in society. Beyond contributing the wisdom and experience accumulated throughout their lives, they are guides in their communities, sharing values and traditions that are crucial to the social fabric. It is therefore essential to respect and protect their human rights in order to guarantee their welfare and ensure that they continue to contribute fully and actively to our society. Every human being can become an older person. As an international community, we need to speak with a united voice to ensure that all people can age with dignity. However, it is unfortunate that we have been unable to give the Human Rights Council an explicit mandate, and we hope that as the resolution says, the relevant United Nations bodies will consider the recommendations adopted in decision 14/1 of the Open- ended Working Group on Ageing and will continue to make progress on the issue. Lastly, Mexico would like to take this opportunity to express appreciation for and acknowledge the work of the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing for the past 14 years, as well as the positive contributions of Member States and the active participation of regional commissions, national human rights institutions and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. The text, adopted by consensus, expresses the General Assembly’s agreement. Mexico reaffirms its commitment to respecting and protecting the rights of older persons and is confident that, through multilateralism, we will find the best way to protect their rights and ensure that their role in society has a positive impact on new generations.

I would like to explain our position on resolution 78/324, entitled “Consideration of decision 14/1 of the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing, entitled ‘Recommendations regarding the identification of possible gaps and the protection of the human rights of older persons and how best to address them’”. This is our exercise of our sovereign right as a Member State — a right that was denied without warning during the meeting on 13 August (see A/78/PV.103) at which the resolution was adopted. My delegation regrets that on a matter as important as the protection of the human rights of older persons, the resolution was adopted following a process that was marred by a lack of professionalism and by utter disrespect and disregard for the views and concerns that a wide majority of Member States had repeatedly expressed during the informal consultations and informal bilaterals with the facilitator and the proponent delegations of the core group. No sufficient, compelling, logical arguments have been put forward by the facilitator on behalf of the core group of countries proposing the resolution to explain to delegations the basis for the initiative and the reasons for the urgency of such a hasty process. I would now like to detail the many procedural and process concerns surrounding the resolution. With regard to the procedural aspects, decision 14/1, adopted by the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing at its fourteenth session, held in May, does not appear in a separate General Assembly document. It is merely reproduced in the report of the session, which in itself has a conference-room number that does not confer on it the status required for consideration as a formal submission to the Assembly. Paragraph 26 of decision 14/1 states that the Working Group “decides to present these recommendations” — meaning the recommendations in paragraph 25 of the same decision — “for the consideration of the General Assembly”. But in that connection, the recommendations have not been subject to any formal procedures for presentation for the consideration of the General Assembly. They are contained in a conference-room paper. The General Assembly cannot consider what has never been formally brought to its attention. Accordingly, the resolution should not be deemed a consideration of decision 14/1 or of the recommendations it contains. In addition, the recommendations referred to, as per the language of paragraph 25 of decision 14/1, constitute inconclusive options submitted for the consideration of Member States. Through the resolution under discussion, Member States have therefore not considered any of those options with a view to promoting further concrete discussions of next steps on the protection and promotion of the human rights of older persons. Regarding the mandate of the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing, the resolution merely represents an attempt to depart from established practice. It does not constitute any precedent to be relied on in any future process related to the creation or conclusion of mandates of subsidiary bodies or processes of the General Assembly. We want to point out that the mandate of the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing was created by a Third Committee resolution (resolution 65/182) on the follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing, and that consideration of the Working Group’s mandate and outcomes, including the mandate’s amendment or conclusion, should be made within the framework of its parent resolution. We also want to highlight that Member States have not considered the options, and that it is therefore premature for the General Assembly to encourage relevant bodies of the United Nations to consider those options. With regard to questions about the process, and contrary to what the facilitator has claimed, the negotiations were neither professional nor constructive. Silence was broken on the draft resolution (A/78/L.104). However, further iterations of the draft text were not submitted to any process of consultation with the delegations that broke the silence. More than one revision was circulated, suggesting, incorrectly, that this was discussed with the delegations that broke the silence, creating further confusion for delegations that were isolated from the process. Egypt is supportive of the promotion of the human rights and welfare of older persons, based on our obligations under international human rights law and on the universality and indivisibility of all human rights. That falls under a wider context of the legislative, policy and programmatic agenda in the area of social development in addressing the issue of ageing through a holistic approach. It is regrettable that resolution 78/324 fails to promote the agenda of the promotion of the human rights and well-being of older persons. However, we agree that owing to Member States’ evident lack of interest in participating in its deliberations, the Working Group has not been able to further that agenda. After years of discussion, the Working Group has reached a point where it has been unable to identify gaps and therefore to agree on a conclusive way forward. It is regrettable that some delegations that were not even members of the core group have resorted to a campaign of misinformation and disinformation, circulating rumours that the resolution was threatened by a vote, which is not true. My delegation has consistently tried to assist the core group in presenting a substantive resolution that truly helps to advance the protection of the human rights and welfare of older persons. However, and contrary to what is being claimed, the resolution that was adopted does not serve that purpose. The fact that it was adopted without a vote does not mean that it is supported. It just indicates that the process and substance did not deserve to be dignified by a call for a vote.

My delegation would like to deliver the following explanation of position following the adoption of resolution 78/324. As a nation with an ageing population, Malaysia attaches great importance to the work of the Open- ended Working Group on Ageing. We have been actively involved in its work during the 14 sessions that have taken place. We are also a member of the Group of Friends of Older Persons. However, with regard to the resolution that the Assembly adopted last month (see A/78/PV.103), my delegation feels compelled to express its concerns about the process by which the resolution was presented for the consideration of Member States. We believe that deliberations on such an important mandate require a more thorough evaluation that should not be rushed. In addition, the resolution mandating the process of the Open-ended Working Group is a long- standing text presented in the Third Committee by the Group of 77 and China. We therefore believe that any decisions regarding the mandate of the Open-ended Working Group, including its potential termination, should be reviewed by the Third Committee before being brought to the General Assembly. We are disappointed that the Group of 77 and China was bypassed on that important issue, which undermines the principles of multilateralism and cooperative decision-making. While Malaysia joined the consensus on the resolution’s adoption, we hope that such a contentious approach to the resolution will not be repeated in future discussions. We call on all Member States to adhere to established practices and foster a more inclusive approach.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position after adoption. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 119.

Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on Friday, 8 September 2023, the Assembly decided to include this sub-item on the agenda of the seventy-eighth session. In connection with this item, I have received a letter dated 2 July 2024 from the Permanent Representatives of Finland and Türkiye to the United Nations, requesting its inclusion on the provisional agenda of the seventy-ninth session of the Assembly. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to include the sub-item on the draft agenda of its seventy-ninth session? It was so decided (decision 78/565).

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 31?

Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting on Friday, 8 September 2023, the Assembly decided to include this item on the agenda of its seventy-eighth session, on the understanding that there would be no consideration of this item by the Assembly. In connection with the item, I have been advised that the Permanent Mission of the Comoros to the United Nations has requested that it be included on the draft agenda of the seventy-ninth session. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to include this item on the draft agenda of the seventy-ninth session? It was so decided (decision 78/566).

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 37?

Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on Friday, 8 September 2023, the Assembly decided to include this item on the agenda of its seventy-eighth session. In connection with the item, I have been advised that the Permanent Mission of Turkmenistan to the United Nations requests the inclusion of the item on the draft agenda of the seventy- ninth session. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to include this item on the draft agenda of the seventy-ninth session? It was so decided (decision 78/567).

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 64?

Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on Friday, 8 September 2023, the Assembly decided to include this item on the agenda of its seventy-eighth session. In connection with the item, I have received a letter dated 24 July 2024 from the Permanent Representative of Mauritius to the United Nations, requesting the inclusion of the item on the draft agenda of the seventy-ninth session of the Assembly. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to include agenda item 88 on the draft agenda of the seventy-ninth session? It was so decided (decision 78/568).

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 88?

Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on Friday, 8 September 2023, the Assembly decided to include this item on the agenda of its seventy-eighth session. It is my understanding that it would be desirable to include the item on the draft agenda of the seventy-ninth session of the General Assembly. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to include it on the draft agenda of its seventy-ninth session? It was so decided (decision 78/569).

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 119?

Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on Friday, 8 September 2023, the Assembly decided to include this item on the agenda of its seventy-eighth session. It is my understanding that it would be desirable to defer consideration of this item to the seventy-ninth session of the General Assembly. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to include it on the draft agenda of its seventy-ninth session? It was so decided (decision 78/570).

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 152?

I should like to remind delegations that the following agenda items remain open for consideration during the current session of the General Assembly: 9, 14, 18, 18 (c) and (d), 20, 25, 25 (a), 26, 29, 31, 31 (a), 33 to 36, 39 to 45, 58, 63, 68, 72, 72 (a) to (c), 73, 75, 75 (a), 80, 113, 113 (b), 114, 115, 115 (f) and (g), 116, 120, 123, 125, 127, 128, 131 to 151 and 153 to 160. As Members are aware, those items have either been included on the draft agenda of the seventy- ninth session of the General Assembly or mandated for inclusion on the provisional agenda of a future session. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration at the present session of agenda items 9, 14, 18, 20, 25, 26, 29, 31, 33 to 36, 39 to 45, 58, 63, 68, 72, 73, 75, 80, 113 to 116, 120, 123,125, 127, 128, 131 to 151 and 153 to 160 and their relevant sub-items?