A/78/PV.3 General Assembly

Before proceeding with the items of our agenda, I would like, on behalf of the General Assembly, to extend our deepest sympathy and heartfelt condolences to the Government and the people of Morocco for the tragic loss of life and damage that resulted from the recent earthquake. I invite representatives to stand and observe a minute of silence in tribute to the memory of those who lost their lives.

The General Assembly will consider agenda item 63, entitled “Use of the veto”, to hold a debate, pursuant to resolution 76/262, of 26 April 2022, on the situation as to which a veto was cast by a permanent member of the Security Council at the 9408th meeting of the Council, held on 30 August 2023, under the agenda item entitled “The situation in Mali”. In connection with this debate, the Assembly has before it a special report of the Security Council (see A/78/341). Today’s debate is a clear demonstration that two organs of the United Nations — the Security Council and the General Assembly — can and must work together on matters of international peace and security, which is especially true in times of crisis. In that context, I welcome the Security Council’s special report on the veto cast on 30 August against the adoption of a draft resolution (S/2023/638) on the situation in Mali. I thank Security Council members for meeting the expectations of all Member States by submitting that special report to the Assembly in a timely manner. The situation in Mali remains volatile. The rise in insecurity, coupled with political and humanitarian crises, mean that the implementation of the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, which brought hope to so many, is now under threat. That vital accord, forged during intense negotiations, remains the only framework for achieving peace and stability in Mali. It must be supported. The people of Mali are suffering amid massive displacement and catastrophic need and are desperate for the food, shelter and long- term relief that only peace can provide. I urge Member States to keep their needs foremost in mind. The situation demands that the international community pursue unity and consensus. The Security Council bears the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. I urge its members to recommit to dialogue and negotiations in order to continue to work towards those goals and towards peace and reconciliation in Mali. In the General Assembly, the veto initiative offers the opportunity to be solutions-oriented in this time of crisis. I encourage Member States to consider how we can constructively advance the discussion towards peace and security; how the General Assembly can support the Security Council in upholding its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations; and what proposals we can offer for overcoming the deadlock. I welcome members’ concrete suggestions and ideas to that end. For my part, I will continue the practice of sending a short summary of the plenary debate to the President of the Security Council. Let us remember that people around the world do not view United Nations bodies as separate. They rely on us to act as one. The veto initiative has opened the door for a new form of collaboration and accountability between our two organs. Let us use it to seek unity and achieve consensus. I pledge to work in the spirit of collaboration and transparency in convening such debates whenever a veto is cast in the Security Council.

I would like to begin my statement by expressing my condolences to the Government and the people of Mali on the terrorist attacks of 7 September, which killed 49 civilians and 15 military personnel. That tragedy is a clear reminder of how important it is for the international community to bridge its differences and prioritize support for the Malian authorities in their efforts to bring security and a peaceful life to their country. Unfortunately, such a mindset did not prevail with the French penholder and other Western members of the Security Council during their consideration of the sanctions regime against Mali, as they set out to disregard the legitimate demands of the Malian people. I would like to recall that, on 16 August, the Council received a formal appeal from Bamako, which demanded the lifting of the sanctions regime. It convincingly argued the fact that the Council’s restrictions were no longer relevant. Equally important, the sanctions regime against the country had been adopted by the Council in 2017, as a direct response to an official request of the Malian Government. Russia has consistently advocated for moving away from the practice of maintaining indefinite and automatic extensions of Security Council sanctions regimes. They should adhere to benchmarks, defined targets and an established time frame for the sake of resolving issues, and should not be used as a form of external pressure. There should be a regular review to assess whether or not the regime’s actions are commensurate with the situation on the ground, with a view to making appropriate modifications, as necessary, including the easing or complete lifting of sanctions. During the negotiations on the rejected draft resolution (S/2023/638), we repeatedly said that attempts to impose external, ready-made solutions on the people of Mali will have no chance of success. However, in response to all such arguments, the Council, thanks to the efforts of Western countries, continued to ignore the views of Bamako. The failure of the negotiations was preceded by sustained efforts to reach a compromise, in which all Council members were actively involved. We particularly note the efforts of the delegation of the United Arab Emirates, which until the last moment demonstrated a constructive attitude and tried to find a compromise solution. However, as we moved closer to the voting, the true motives behind the insistent position of the Western members of the Security Council became apparent. It transpired that their primary concern had nothing at all to do with extending the sanctions regime or providing support for the effective implementation of the Algiers peace process, based on which we had prepared an alternative draft resolution (S/2023/639) that took into account the views of not only the Malian people but also the African members of the Security Council. The real reason for the intransigence of the French and other Western delegations was their uncompromising demand to retain the Panel of Experts on Mali established pursuant to resolution 2374 (2017). Moreover, the penholder of the rejected draft resolution contended that the Panel was needed to monitor the human rights situation in Mali  — a function with little relevance to the rationale for imposing sanctions regimes, or the Security Council’s role under the Charter of the United Nations. As we all know, human rights issues, including in their country-specific contexts, are regularly discussed within the Human Rights Council. The Universal Periodic Review is a procedure under its purview that has long proven to be effective and makes it possible to review the effectiveness of relevant national policies. Incidentally, as other States have done, the Government of Mali has undergone that process four times, most recently in May, and has reported on its own human rights obligations. In addition, based on Human Rights Council resolution 22/18, of 21 March 2013, a mandate was established for an independent expert on the situation of human rights in Mali, who is to regularly present reports to the Human Rights Council. As far as we know, the Government of Mali has never refused to cooperate with that expert and has hosted him in Bamako, including in February this year. Delegations of the United States and the member States of the European Union stated that human rights is the priority. Of course, they are fully aware of all those human rights mechanisms. They simply do not have any reason to accuse the Malian authorities of being uncooperative. But as we can see now, the existing mechanisms of the Human Rights Council are not enough for penholders from the former colonial Power. A more ambitious task has been set, namely to exert political pressure on Bamako, using human rights issues, so that Malians are not allowed to escape their sphere of geopolitical influence. The Panel of Experts has indeed successfully addressed that task. It exceeded the framework of its mandate. It has issued hostile and biased reports without the necessary cooperation of Malian authorities. Attention has been drawn to that issue several times. What is it, if not yet another demonstration of a neocolonial approach to an independent State in the global South? Equally as important are the efforts of the Western members of the Security Council to provoke Russia to use the veto. In response to several members’ calls for compromise, Western delegations were blunt, saying that Russia should first use the veto and only then would we look for common ground. That is what happens when the Council is dominated by the States of the collective West that essentially block any productive work, blinded by their anti-Russian frenzy. I would like to turn to the countries of the global South. Any country could be in Mali’s position if we in the Council do not stop the attempts of Western countries, which are concerned only about how to preserve their geopolitical dominance and how to continue to exploit their former colonies and developing countries in general. Please keep that in mind when we hear anti-Russian rhetoric today from representatives of the United States and its allies in the Assembly Hall. When the French penholder, despite our persistent explanations, submitted draft resolution S/2023/638 to the Security Council, we had no choice but to vote against it and submit an alternative draft resolution. We proposed a sensible compromise, with a final extension of the sanctions regime of one year but without the Panel of Experts, its credibility having been damaged. Contrary to what the French penholder had said, that compromise solution was there from the very beginning. It was there long before we proposed the alternative draft resolution. And it was well known to the members of the Security Council. Until the very last moment, there was every chance to reach an agreement. In conclusion, I would like to underscore that we will continue to hold our principled line on the use of the right to exercise the veto in the Security Council in order to ensure that, as the most important body of the United Nations, it takes balanced, responsible decisions that are in line with the aspirations of the States on its agenda and their respective peoples. We trust that in the future, rather than provoking unnecessary confrontation in the Security Council, the sponsors of draft resolutions will work — as they should — to find compromise, especially when it is easy to achieve. I now give the floor to the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer.

I want to start, Mr. President, by echoing your heartfelt expression of condolences to the people and the Government of Morocco. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as San Marino, align themselves with this statement. Last week, we saw how the Russian Federation once again used its veto in the Security Council to block the work of the United Nations, this time in Mali. We deeply regret the use of the veto by Russia against draft resolution S/2023/638, on a 12-month extension of the United Nations sanctions regime and of the Panel of Experts on Mali, which was proposed by the co-penholders, namely, France and the United Arab Emirates. The proposed draft resolution had broad support from Security Council members, 13 of which voted in favour of it. The co-penholders worked hard to seek compromise. The use of the veto in that case blatantly disregarded the will of a large cross- regional majority of 13 countries, including the African members of the Security Council. The use of the veto ignores the principle of multilateralism that we have pledged to uphold here at the United Nations, puts further obstacles on the road to peace and relief for the people of Mali and again calls into question Russia’s commitment to its obligations as a permanent member of the Security Council. The purpose of the United Nations sanctions regime on Mali was to support the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. It aimed at helping to create the conditions for addressing the many obstacles to the implementation of the peace agreement. It did so by principally targeting those responsible for obstructing the implementation of the peace agreement by imposing a travel ban and an assets freeze on them. Three individuals were subject to a travel ban and five were subject to both a travel ban and an assets freeze. The sanctions regime was supported by a Panel of Experts, which offered invaluable input to the Security Council and the international community at large with regard to the implementation of the peace agreement and the United Nations sanctions. In the light of the departure of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), the Panel of Experts would have played an even more critical role in monitoring the implementation of the peace agreement. We need all the tools at our disposal to support the people of Mali and to achieve peace. The European Union, together with the United Nations and other international partners, remains committed to the implementation of the peace agreement. The failure to renew the Mali sanctions regime, including the Panel of Experts, due to the veto by Russia removes a major tool that incentivized parties to implement the peace agreement. The already challenging implementation has now been even further undermined, which creates significant risks for peace and security, both in the country and in the wider region, as you rightly said, Mr. President. As the Panel of Experts already warned in its most recent report on 3 August 2023, “[n]on-implementation of the Agreement weakens signatory armed groups and offers terrorist groups an opportunity to re-enact the 2012 scenario” (S/2023/578, p. 17). The European Union is extremely concerned about the continued deterioration of the situation in Mali. The humanitarian situation is getting worse by the day, and we cannot ignore the level of human suffering caused by the conflict and instability. Therefore, we deeply regret the decision taken by the Malian transitional Government to request the withdrawal of MINUSMA without delay. The withdrawal of the peacekeeping force risks deepening the conflict and puts the already fragile peace agreement into jeopardy. It will put civilians at greater risk and will affect humanitarian access to those most in need. At this critical stage, we urge the Malian authorities to fully cooperate with the United Nations in order to ensure the orderly and safe withdrawal of the peacekeepers, while fully respecting the status-of-forces agreement until the final departure of MINUSMA personnel. We also call on the transitional Government to abide by its international obligations to protect civilians and to ensure that humanitarian actors are granted access and that all security operations are carried out in accordance with international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The end of the United Nations sanctions regime will only further isolate Mali. As MINUSMA withdraws, it is crucial for its core tasks to be handed over to other United Nations entities or national authorities. Cutting ties with the United Nations is not an answer to Mali’s multidimensional crisis. The vast majority of countries agree. It is deeply regrettable that the veto of one isolated Member State stands in the way of using all United Nations means to work towards peace, stability and security in Mali.

Let me join you, Mr. President, and others in offering our condolences to the Government and the people of Morocco after the recent devastating earthquake. I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the three Benelux countries: Belgium, Luxembourg and my own country, the Kingdom of the Netherlands. While aligning ourselves fully with the statement just made by the observer of the European Union, the Benelux countries would like to add the following three points. First, with respect to the importance of today’s debate, the Benelux countries were proud co-sponsors of resolution 76/262, which was adopted by consensus on 26 April last year. The resolution reminds us all that the power of the veto is not a privilege but a responsibility. Indeed, a permanent seat in the Security Council comes with a great responsibility to work to uphold the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. As per Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter, the Security Council acts on behalf of all Member States in carrying out its mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security. Today’s debate in particular serves to remind Russia that, after casting its fifth veto since the adoption of resolution 76/262, it will need to discuss it with the full membership and hear whether the membership agrees that its use of the veto has in fact benefited peace and security. My second point concerns the implications of Russia’s decision to exercise the veto against draft resolution S/2023/638. The Benelux countries, like others, regret the use of the veto by Russia against the draft resolution proposed by the co-penholders, France and the United Arab Emirates, for a one-year extension of the United Nations sanctions regime and the Panel of Experts on Mali. The draft resolution received the support of 13 Council members. Russia’s veto undermines our collective efforts to preserve peace and security in Mali and the wider region. It is likely to have detrimental consequences for the Algiers peace process, as well as for the Malian population. With the departure of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) and now the lifting of sanctions, key factors that underpinned the peace process have been removed. My third and last point concerns our collective commitment towards the people of Mali and the region. The Benelux countries reaffirm Mali’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In less than one year, the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara has almost doubled its areas of control in Mali. We strongly condemn the acts of terrorist groups. We are extremely worried about the deteriorating humanitarian and security situation and the human rights violations committed by all sides. In particular, we are deeply concerned by the increase in conflict-related sexual violence and the involvement of the Wagner Group and the Malian armed forces in those violations, as documented in the Panel of Experts’ report of 3 August (see S/2023/578). The Benelux countries remain fully committed to the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali and all efforts to ease the plight of the Malian people. At the request of our Malian partners and as part of the national reconciliation efforts under the peace agreement, the International Commission of Inquiry for Mali was established by the Secretary-General in 2018. The work of the Commission, which concluded in June 2020, was entirely funded by the Benelux countries. Today we reaffirm our support for the peace agreement and call on all parties to implement it. We also express our appreciation and support for the work of the Panel of Experts on Mali. With the departure of MINUSMA and the termination of the sanctions regime, as well as the termination of the work of the Panel of Experts, it is more important than ever to ensure dialogue, mediation and cooperation between Mali and the United Nations. The General Assembly has a vital role to play when it comes to advancing peace and security in Mali and the region. I hope that today’s debate will contribute to that objective.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela wishes to express its condolences to the delegations of Morocco and Libya for the devastating consequences of the natural disasters that recently struck their countries. We are honoured to speak at this meeting on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations. However, we wish to place on record that the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria does not align itself with the following statement in order to preserve the integrity of its current role in the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali emanating from the Algiers process. We would first like to take this opportunity to welcome the transparency with which the delegation of the Russian Federation today explained its reasons for exercising its right to cast a veto against draft resolution S/2023/638. In that context, we wish to recall that our Group of Friends was created more than two years ago in response to the growing threats to the Charter of the United Nations, and therefore to the urgent need to reaffirm and defend its purposes and principles, which remain as valid today as they were in 1945. We refer in that connection to the increasing recourse to unilateralism, attacks on multilateralism, claims of non-existent exceptionalism and attempts to ignore  — and even replace  — the purposes and principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations with a new set of so-called rules that have never been debated in an inclusive or transparent manner and which to date remain unknown to all. We also refer to selective approaches or accommodating interpretations of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. We consider such practices to be contrary to international law. They do not contribute in any way to addressing, through a revitalized and inclusive multilateralism and based on the principle of good faith and values such as international solidarity and cooperation, the complex, emerging and common challenges that face humankind as a whole today. On the contrary, such approaches contribute to the increasing uncertainty, mistrust, instability and tensions that are prevalent around the world. The Security Council has been entrusted with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Furthermore, Article 24, paragraph 2, of the founding Charter of our Organization provides that, in carrying out its duties, the Security Council “shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations”. That means that the Security Council is bound to respect the fundamental principles of international law, in particular those concerning sovereignty, the right of peoples to self-determination, territorial integrity, political unity and the independence of the States Members of our Organization, among others. In that context, we recognize the authority, functions and powers of the Security Council to maintain international peace and security. However, we believe that the measures provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter should be taken only as a last resort and in accordance with the purposes and principles of that founding Charter. We emphasize that such measures should not be an end in themselves and that the legitimate concerns of the country concerned must therefore be taken into account. On the other hand, it is equally important not to lose sight of the fact that, just over two months ago, the Security Council agreed to the termination of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) by unanimously adopting resolution 2620 (2023). We recall that that decision was made not only in response to the request of the State concerned, given the key principle of consent that continues to serve as one of the essential foundations for the deployment of peacekeeping operations, but in view of the assurances provided by the Government of the Republic of Mali concerning its firm commitment to both the full implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, emanating from the Algiers process, and the protection and guarantee of the security of its people within its internationally recognized borders. In that context, we would like to pay tribute to all the civilian and uniformed personnel serving under the United Nations flag who are deployed in Mali, in particular the nationals of our Group of Friends, and we recognize and appreciate their efforts and commitment to fulfilling the noble mandate entrusted to MINUSMA. Nevertheless, we must recall the concerns cited by the Government of the Republic of Mali in its request to terminate MINUSMA’s mandate, including a deep crisis of confidence between the country’s authorities and the United Nations personnel deployed in Mali. That crisis has yet to be properly addressed, and worse still, it has been exacerbated by the perceived lack of impartiality of the members of the Panel of Experts of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 2374 (2017) — which, it is worth noting, was established at the request of the Malian authorities at the time. We also recall that, in the context of the official request of the Government of Mali not to renew the measures set out in Security Council resolution 2374 (2017), there are at least two factors to consider. The first is that the party concerned in this matter — the Malian authorities  — has officially requested that those measures cease because of their negative impact on national efforts to ensure peace, security, stability, development, public services and other basic needs of the Malian people. The second is that the situation on the ground has changed dramatically over the past six years, and there is therefore no longer a legitimate justification for continuing to implement the sanctions regime in Mali. To proceed otherwise would only further undermine the current relationship between the United Nations and the Government of Mali. We also take this opportunity to reiterate our demand for a complete end to all measures of a coercive and unilateral nature imposed against the Republic of Mali, a Member State of our Group of Friends, in flagrant violation of the principles enshrined in the Charter and all norms of international law; those measures deliberately hinder the Malian authorities’ efforts to ensure the well-being of their people. In the light of everything I just mentioned, we warn today once again of the negative impact of the possible entrenchment of a Cold War mentality — an outlook based solely on confrontation and deepening of divisions among the sides and their pursuit of opposing visions and agendas. In that regard, we stress that we are at a juncture in which the strengthening of the rule of law, multilateralism, diplomacy and political dialogue are needed now more than ever. We therefore urge all member States of the Security Council to reach out to one another and work together towards the objective of maintaining international peace and security, without double standards, politicization or selective approaches. In conclusion, our Group of Friends is committed to sparing no effort in preserving, promoting and defending the prevalence and validity of the Charter — a necessary initiative to ensure that unilateral sanctions are lifted completely, immediately and unconditionally and that we continue working together and in coordination with the Government of Mali in order to ensure that the peace, security, stability, development and progress sought by the people of Mali — with whom we stand in firm solidarity — become a reality.

Let me first join other colleagues in extending our heartfelt condolences to the people and the Government of Morocco after the devastating earthquake this past weekend. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic and Baltic States — Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Denmark. Our countries thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s important meeting. It is deeply concerning that a permanent member of the Security Council continues to exploit its position to prevent the Council from conducting its duties, as seen with the most recent veto exercised by Russia, against draft resolution S/2023/638, on the extension of the United Nations sanctions regime concerning Mali and its Panel of Experts. We underline the significance of resolution 76/262. The veto initiative is a vital tool for making the Council more transparent and accountable. In that connection, we encourage the continued provision of special reports and again call for the Council to consider their formal adoption and appropriate reflection in the stand-alone section of the Council’s annual report. As signatories of the Charter of the United Nations, we have entrusted the Security Council with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and discharging its duties in accordance with the purposes and principles of our Organization. We would like to express our support for the work of the co-penholders on draft resolution S/2023/638, namely, France and the United Arab Emirates, and we regret that the use of the veto has prevented the Council from taking necessary action on yet another very important matter. The proposed draft resolution had broad support from the members of the Council, with 13 votes in favour, including those of the African members of the Council. The United Nations sanctions regime concerning Mali and its Panel of Experts were established to bolster and monitor the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. Their primary objective was to facilitate an environment conducive to overcoming challenges in implementing the peace agreement. With the regrettable decision of the exit of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), those instruments would have been more important than ever. Russia’s veto disregards the needs on the ground. The removal of those instruments increases the risk to peace and security in Mali, including in the northern regions. A potential escalation of conflict would further destabilize Mali and risk the spread of devastating ripple effects throughout the Sahel and beyond. Instability and insecurity affect the people of Mali, as seen in the latest wave of attacks that killed civilians last Friday — and we extend our condolences in that regard. We, the eight Nordic and Baltic countries, have a long history of cooperation with Mali, including on human rights. We call on all the parties to promote sustainable development and peace and honour their commitments to safeguarding civilians and upholding international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Implementing the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali remains instrumental. Similarly, we call for support for the orderly and safe withdrawal of peacekeeping forces while upholding the status-of-forces agreement until the full withdrawal of MINUSMA has been completed. The Nordic and Baltic countries will continue to support MINUSMA as best we can, including while the Mission embarks on the very challenging task of a quick drawdown. Finally, we hope the clear message from the General Assembly today on the importance of the promotion of peace and security is heard. We need a Security Council that can carry out its important mandate in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

I too would like to extend my sincere condolences to the people and the Government of Morocco for all those who lost their lives following the earthquake in the country last weekend. (spoke in English) Let me also express Canada’s solidarity with the United States and all those who lost nationals during the attacks on the World Trade Center on this day 22 years ago. We continue to remember and honour the victims and their families. (spoke in French) Australia, Canada and New Zealand (CANZ) firmly condemn the use of the veto by Russia on 30 August (see S/PV.9408) on a draft resolution (S/2023/638) of the Security Council to extend the sanctions regime against Mali and its Panel of Experts. The draft resolution would have enabled the Panel of Experts to play a decisive role in reporting on human rights violations in Mali, including those violations committed by the Wagner Group. The extension of the mandate of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 2374 (2017), concerning Mali and its Panel of Experts, is all the more necessary in the context of the withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). CANZ shares the concerns with respect to the destabilizing impact of the Mission’s withdrawal on northern and central Mali, the rising tensions between the signatories to the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali and the transitional Government, and especially the populations who are already suffering as a result of the growing instability in recent years. The threat posed by terrorist groups in Mali and the Sahel should unite us. Instead, Russia has chosen to divide us and to abandon the people of Mali. Russia did so because the Panel of Experts did its job and fulfilled the mandate given it by the Council. (spoke in English) Once again, we must call this obstructionist behaviour out for what it is — bullying motivated by Russia’s own interest in hiding the atrocities committed by the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group in Mali. It is striking that Russia routinely condemns the application of legitimate and autonomous measures by Member States in order to respond to such atrocities. However, by vetoing multilateral sanctions against individuals and entities deserving of them, Russia is ensuring that Member States are compelled to apply such measures autonomously. We continue to witness the shrinking of civic space in Mali, with human rights violations against civilians on the rise, perpetrated by armed and terrorist groups and, sadly, by the Malian armed forces in concert with the Wagner Group. I would remind those present that the Organization of African Unity Convention for the elimination of mercenaryism in Africa was adopted in 1977, largely owing to the recognition that mercenaries are known to be a factor that aggravates conflicts and civilian hardship. I must also note that mercenaries are officially illegal in Russia for those same reasons — a legacy of a nobler time. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are deeply concerned by the significant implications of the MINUSMA withdrawal for the protection of civilians, particularly in view of the deteriorating security situation in Mali. We are also concerned that the suffering of civilians, including women and children, will further increase, since those who commit violence against them will be emboldened by an increased feeling of impunity after Russia’s veto. Impunity and the absence of justice for local populations are among the root causes of insecurity and the increasing influence of armed and terrorist groups. In addition, an end to impunity is a core principle behind the stated project of the transitional Government currently in power in Mali. It is clear to us that Russia’s latest manoeuvre is not motivated by protecting civilians and improving peace and stability in Mali. On the contrary, it serves a self- interested, political agenda of destabilizing the region and pillaging its natural resources. If the Security Council fails to act, it falls to us as members of the General Assembly to stand firmly alongside Malian civil society and the Malian people in support of peace, security and sustainable development in the country. CANZ also implores the transitional Government of Mali to stand with its stated values and aims in protecting its population and building peace and prosperity, including MINUSMA’s safe, unhindered and transparent withdrawal, without restrictions on movement, assistance or supplies. Mali is the birthplace of the Manden Charter, one of the first human rights charters ever known to have existed, which paved the way for future agreements on human rights. The Manden Charter also disproves Russia’s repeated false claim that concern for human rights were somehow imposed by Western countries. May that charter’s wisdom guide Mali’s hand. Finally, in my national capacity, let me underscore that Canada has been engaged in Mali for more than 50 years. Canada’s international assistance to Mali totalled nearly $120 million in 2021—2022, including projects on health, education, economic growth, governance and gender equality in support of the poorest and most vulnerable populations who are faced with overwhelming needs.

I would like to begin by stating that the Republic of Mali wishes to convey its compassion and heartfelt condolences to the Kingdom of Morocco and its people in the wake of the earthquake that has claimed many victims and caused significant material damage. I am pleased to take the floor in this debate, which gives me the opportunity to share with the General Assembly the position of the Government of Mali on the agenda item under consideration. In order to enable the Assembly to better understand the context in which the Government of Mali, in a letter dated 9 August 2017, invited the Security Council to establish a sanctions regime concerning Mali, I will first provide a brief historical overview of my country’s request. The Assembly will recall that in Bamako in May and June 2015, the Government of Mali, the Coordination des mouvements de l’Azawad (CMA) and the Plateforme des mouvements du 14 juin 2014 d’Alger signed the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, emanating from the Algiers process. Despite the signing of the agreement, the CMA and the Plateforme continued to engage in deadly clashes in the Kidal region in 2017, jeopardizing and even compromising the implementation of the agreement. Therefore, after more than two years of unsuccessful implementation of the agreement, the Government of Mali at that time was prompted to submit a request to the Security Council in August 2017 to impose sanctions against those responsible for blocking the implementation of the agreement. Security Council resolution 2374 (2017) was therefore adopted and subsequently renewed year by year. That historical overview is very useful, as it establishes the context of the sanctions regime and its mechanisms. Moreover, the overview makes it clear that that sanctions regime concerns exclusively the implementation of the 2015 agreement, which covers only the northern regions of Mali. In other words, the other regions of Mali are not covered by the scope of the agreement. However, we note with regret that the Panel of Experts has on many occasions exceeded the scope of its mandate, as set out in Security Council resolution 2374 (2017). It subsequently became a political mechanism whose real agenda we did not know. At that time, we regularly invited the Security Council to consider that issue, which is a vital one for the Government of Mali. To take only one of the most recent examples, the Panel of Experts demanded that the Government of Mali provide detailed information on its military and security cooperation with the Russian Federation. I would like to recall that Mali’s choice of partners is a sovereign matter, and my Government insists that its sovereign choices be respected. Another example is that the Panel of Experts has extended its mandate to include Mali’s mining resources, which are exploited mainly in the southern regions of Mali, rather than in the north. The Government of Mali was not prepared to support the expansion, without a legal basis, of the sanctions regime or the mandate of the Panel of Experts beyond the strict framework established by the Security Council, namely, the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, emanating from the Algiers process. The second major problem had to do with cooperation among the Government of Mali, the Sanctions Committee and the Panel of Experts. The Government of Mali was adamant that the reports of the Panel of Experts should be made available to it before publication in order for it to make any comments it might have. We did not understand that, while the Government of Mali did not have access to the report, important passages of the report were leaked to the international press, thereby becoming public knowledge before reaching the requesting and concerned Member State. That situation led to questions and misunderstandings on the part of the Malian Government. The third major problem my Government had with the sanctions regime concerned the areas of investigation by the Panel of Experts. Like the specific geographical area, the areas in which the Panel of Experts were able to conduct investigations were limited to activities linked to the implementation of the Agreement. However, in that regard as well, it was regrettable that the Panel of Experts reports went beyond their remit to focus on political or economic issues that were totally unrelated to its mandate, such as human rights violations, mining and, as mentioned earlier, Mali’s sovereign choices. Moreover, Mali continues to be called on by a multitude of United Nations mechanisms, sometimes with contradictory requests and recommendations, which distract the Malian Administration from its main vocation of responding to the needs and expectations of its people and, at times, hamper its efforts to meet Mali’s real challenges. The next observation concerns the challenges faced by Mali and the countries in the region in implementing the sanctions regime, given the very nature of the sanctions imposed. First, with regard to travel bans, individuals under sanctions were able to avert the vigilance of traditional identification mechanisms using fake documents and taking advantage of porous borders. Most of those individuals did not use conventional airports for internal and external travel. More often than not, the authorities do not have advance information on the travels of people under sanctions in order to take action, including informing the relevant services in the countries of destination. Some individuals under sanctions have dual or even triple nationality. Therefore, despite the determination to implement the sanctions regime, Mali and the States in the region face genuine capacity challenges, in particular technical and technological challenges, in controlling the persons and goods at their borders. Regional and international cooperation was therefore essential to the effectiveness of the sanctions regime. Secondly, with respect to the freezing of assets, the low level of bank coverage allows individuals under sanctions and many other criminals to operate using cash, briefcases of money or other forms of informal transactions. Those individuals are therefore able to pursue their illicit activities, including money laundering, terrorist financing and other criminal activities documented in some of the Panel’s reports. In that regard as well, there is genuine political will to fight those criminal practices, but the capacity to do so is not always there. Instead of producing reports in a traditional manner year after year just to make observations, we were expecting tangible support from the United Nations to the States concerned to put an end to those crimes. Unfortunately, that was not the approach taken by the United Nations mechanisms, despite our repeated requests to that effect. However, it should be noted that certain individuals initially sanctioned by the Sanctions Committee are now constructively engaging with the Government in the implementation of the Agreement and in the search for peace and reconciliation among Malians. We would have liked the Sanctions Committee to take those positive developments into account, but there too we were not listened to. Finally, the Government of the Republic of Mali has repeatedly pointed out that, in addition to the signatories to the Agreement, there are other actors on the ground who pose major obstacles to the implementation of the Agreement. They include terrorist organizations and organized crime networks, including traffickers of all kinds, who pose a threat to stability in Mali and the Sahel. However, those criminal groups are outside the scope of the Agreement and therefore outside the scope of the sanctions regime. We had asked, again without success, for suitable mechanisms to mitigate or even contain the capacity of those groups that were outside of the Agreement to do damage in order to facilitate the accelerated implementation of the Agreement. Now, six years on from the implementation of the sanctions regime concerning Mali, an objective assessment of the developments in the peace process indicates that the reasons behind Mali’s request to set up that mechanism are no longer present. Indeed, the fighting among the signatory movements has come to an end. As indicated at the Security Council meeting of 28 August (see S/PV.9407), the Government of Mali has decided to give a new impetus to the confidence-building measures among the signatory parties to the Agreement, notably, through the revitalization of direct inter-Malian dialogue. In view of that, the Government of the Republic of Mali requested the Security Council, in a letter dated 15 August (S/2023/605, annex), to lift the sanctions regime concerning Mali through the non-renewal of the measures set out in resolution 2374 (2017). Turning now to the legitimate use of the right of veto by the Russian Federation, the Government of the Republic of Mali renews its gratitude to the Russian Federation for its reliable and sincere partnership. It thanks Russia for having taken the courageous decision to ask the Security Council to take into account the legitimate expectations of Mali, the main country concerned, as notified to the Security Council by my Government, which welcomes the Russian Federation’s veto, as it made it possible to put an end to the sanctions regime, which had become an instrument in the hands of a group of countries hostile to Mali and its choices and that were using it to achieve their own interests. I would like to thank the representative of Venezuela for supporting Mali on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations. The Government of Mali, under the leadership of His Excellency Colonel Assimi Goïta, Traditional President and Head of State, reiterates its commitment to the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, emanating from the Algiers process. I would like to reassure Member States once again that the withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali and the end of the sanctions regime does not mean the end of cooperation between the Republic of Mali and the United Nations. Mali remains a full-fledged member of the United Nations and, therefore, the Government intends to pursue its cooperation with the programmes, funds and agencies of the United Nations system already present in Mali, including by continuing to ensure their security. I would like to express my sincere thanks to all Mali’s friends, both bilateral and multilateral, for their invaluable support to its efforts to overcome the crisis and promote development.

Costa Rica extends its deepest condolences to the Kingdom of Morocco for the earthquake which caused hundreds of deaths and extensive destruction. Our sympathy and prayers go out to the victims and their families. Costa Rica regrets the failure of the Security Council to renew the sanctions regime concerning Mali and its Panel of Experts. Draft resolution S/2023/638, circulated by the co-penholders, France and the United Arab Emirates, was a modest renewal that should not have been controversial. It represented a thoughtful compromise among Council members. The sanctions regime concerning Mali contained reasonable and common-sense criteria for designation, such as engaging in hostilities in violation of the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali; attacks against the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali; the obstruction of the delivery of humanitarian assistance; and violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including sexual violence. In addition, the draft resolution was supported by regional voices, as all African elected members of the Security Council voted in favour of it. Costa Rica is concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian, human rights, security and political situation in Mali. The Panel of Experts reported that the fragility of the 2015 peace agreement benefits armed groups affiliated with Al-Qaida and the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara. In addition, the Malian armed forces and private foreign security personnel have been accused of committing sexual violence, including rape, during joint military operations, in a manner that the Panel of Experts suggests is systematic and organized. And now, extremist groups will most likely seize the opportunity to increase both violence and clashes with national forces, especially in the north. Those acts of violence are serious and deeply troubling, compounded by the fact that they occur in an utter vacuum of accountability. The present moment is the time to strengthen and reinforce the Mali sanctions regime, not the time to end it. The veto is not a right, but an outdated privilege. Privileges create harmful disparities that should be minimized rather than increased. In this case, a permanent member used it to protect a State with which it has deep political and diplomatic ties. Undoubtedly, that gives the wrong idea that States aligned with one of the five permanent members can evade responsibility for human rights violations and/or illegal military incursions into neighbouring States. However, the consequences of veto power go further. Often, the threat of veto, known as the hidden veto, is used to block or dilute to a minimum common denominator draft resolutions aimed at saving lives. Each time the veto is used, it paralyses the United Nations as a whole. Rather than acting, the veto forces the United Nations to assume a bystander role. That inaction is very costly and leads to grave consequences in the form of protracted conflicts and the loss of human life. That, in turn, undermines the legitimacy of both the Security Council and the Organization and makes us question whether and the era of massive, complex United Nations Blue Helmet missions in Africa has reached an end. Costa Rica urges all parties to fully adhere to the 2015 peace agreement and to comply with international human rights law and international humanitarian law. We hope that all members of the Security Council will rise to the task of safeguarding and supporting this agreement, unlike what occurred in the Chamber two weeks ago (see S/PV.9408).

I also wish to join other colleagues in expressing our heartfelt condolences and sympathy to the victims of the terrible earthquake that hit Morocco. We are assembled here today following a veto cast on 30 August in the Security Council (see S/PV.9408). Unfortunately, this is the second meeting this year under the so-called veto initiative. The Mali sanctions regime, including its Panel of Experts, has been critically important for peace and stability, not just in Mali but across the whole region, all the more so given the departure of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali. It is therefore deeply regrettable that a single Council member, Russia, blocked a draft resolution to extend the regime that had overwhelming support from other members, including the three African members of the Security Council. Russia did not engage in good faith in the negotiations despite the penholders’ strenuous efforts to seek common ground. It then introduced its own draft resolution (S/2023/639) at the last minute, without any prior consultation, and threatened that if its draft was not passed, then the issue would never be considered again in the Council. Even with that threat, not a single other Council member supported the Russian draft. This behaviour of wielding the veto towards any text other than its own is unacceptable. We therefore voted against Russia’s draft resolution. We are at a critical juncture for the peace and stability of Mali and the Sahel and West Africa region. Increasing numbers of terrorist attacks, heightened tensions, especially in northern Mali, and worsening humanitarian conditions are major concerns. Russia’s veto does not change the fact that the situation on the ground is deteriorating. It is imperative that the Security Council and the wider international community continue to pay close attention to Mali and engage with its authorities and regional actors. As a responsible member of the Security Council, Japan reaffirms our commitment to actively and constructively participate in the Council’s discussions and to contribute to sustainable peace in Mali and beyond.

At the outset, we would like to echo the expressions of solidarity with the Government and the people of the Kingdom of Morocco following the tragic earthquake in that country. It is regrettable that the first issue discussed at the seventy-eighth session of this General Assembly is once again the use of the veto in a situation that deserves the attention and assistance of the international community in order to ensure compliance with the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. We are grateful for the special report (see A/78/341) on the deliberations in the Security Council, duly provided by His Excellency Mr. Ferit Hoxha, Permanent Representative of Albania, in his capacity as President of the Security Council for the month of September, addressed to the presidency of the General Assembly. Guatemala once again joins others in expressing its rejection of the irresponsible use of the veto in the Security Council by a permanent member (see S/PV.9408). We are concerned that this occurred despite the fact that Security Council members France and the United Arab Emirates led a draft resolution aimed at renewing the sanctions regime for 1 year, as well as the mandate of the Panel of Experts until 30 September 2024, with the favourable vote of 13 of the Council members, including the three African members and an abstention by another permanent member of the Security Council. Moreover, the text was placed under a silence procedure the previous week and was vetoed by one permanent member that also submitted another non-negotiated text to delegations at the time of consideration of the issue, through which it sought to end the Panel of Experts and the sanctions regime in May. We note that the first phase of the withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) went smoothly and that the second phase is under way, making it critical to preserve stability in that country. We believe that, in view of the withdrawal of MINUSMA, the ongoing measures related to the sanctions measures will help mitigate the adverse effects on the agreement, which is of critical importance to bring about long-term peace and stability in Mali. Guatemala once again calls on the Security Council to act in a responsible manner in line with its duty under the Charter of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security based on the purposes and principles of the United Nations. As a founding Member of the United Nations, Guatemala accords the utmost importance to the Charter, which enshrines the highest ideals of multilateralism and promotes the fundamental principles of international law. The duty to prevent and suppress actions that pose a threat to international peace and security is incumbent upon all of us, as Members of the Organization, especially the permanent members of the Security Council, which shoulder specific obligations and responsibilities with regard to maintaining international peace and security.

First of all, I would like to express my deepest condolences to the Government and the people of Morocco in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. The Republic of Korea stands with them at this difficult time. The Republic of Korea welcomes this opportunity for the General Assembly to debate the veto cast by Russia at the Security Council on 30 August (see S/PV.9408). We deeply regret that the Security Council failed to adopt the draft resolution (S/2023/638) on renewing the sanctions regime in Mali. In keeping with similar draft resolutions adopted since 2017, it aimed to support Mali in implementing the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. It was the product of extensive negotiations and compromise in good faith among Council members and, as a result, had the firm support of 13 Council members, including the three African members of the Council (A3). But all of that was undermined by the use of the veto by one permanent member. The abrupt termination of the Mali sanctions regime gives rise to serious concerns about the implementation of the peace agreement, which had already been stalled. It will also lead to unforeseen consequences in the light of the anticipated withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). Had the draft resolution been adopted, it would have served as a United Nations mechanism for monitoring and enforcing measures to counter obstructions to the implementation of the peace agreement. It would also have mitigated the impact of MINUSMA’s withdrawal on the peace agreement and Mali’s situation as a whole. It is regrettable that the United Nations presence on the ground has now been significantly reduced in the absence of the Panel of Experts on Mali established pursuant to resolution 2374 (2017) and MINUSMA. While we take note of the request of the Malian authorities, it was for the benefit of Mali and the Malian people’s long-lasting peace and stability that the A3 supported the draft resolution, together with 10 other members of the Council. And that is why it is our responsibility to question the use of the veto and the genuine intentions of the permanent member that exercised it. The political, humanitarian and security situation in Mali and the wider region remains deeply concerning. It is more imperative than ever for United Nations agencies and regional organizations to renew and extend their support for Mali. The situation in Mali is not isolated within its borders. Rather, it is closely linked with that of the Sahel and West Africa. The wider region currently faces increasing insecurity, owing to unconstitutional changes of Government, increasing threats of violent extremism and the spread of transnational organized crime. It is also a region that faces a challenging humanitarian situation fuelled by deteriorating socioeconomic circumstances and the adverse effects of climate change. The Republic of Korea, for its part, is deeply committed to joining international and regional efforts to engage with and support African countries in addressing the root causes of conflict. Building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions will actively contribute to sustainable peace in Africa. Together with such a process, strengthening African ownership, in addition to adequate, predictable and sustained financing, will be key determining factors. As an incoming member of the Security Council, the Republic of Korea will work tirelessly with all members of the Council, including the A3, as well as other African States Members of the United Nations, to bring sustainable peace, stability and prosperity to Africa. This is the fifth time that a veto was cast since the adoption last year of the landmark resolution 76/262, on the use of the veto. Each instance has not only undermined the Council’s legitimacy and credibility to carry out its core mandate but also highlighted the dysfunction of the Security Council in the face of humanitarian crises, aggression, regional instability and the nuclear threats of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The arbitrary use of the veto comes at the expense of international peace and security, and it is not a minor hindrance. It is in that regard that my delegation takes this opportunity to reiterate its support for all initiatives aimed at limiting the use of the veto.

Malta aligns itself with the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union. We would also like to join other members in expressing our sincere condolences and sympathy to both Morocco and Libya on the devastating loss of life following the earthquakes and flooding in those countries. Malta deeply regrets that the veto was used by the Russian Federation to end the Mali sanctions regime (see S/PV.9408). The carefully crafted draft resolution (S/2023/638) was the result of extensive efforts by France and the United Arab Emirates to reconcile all positions among Security Council members. It also enjoyed wide and cross-regional support within the Council. The pivotal role of the Mali sanctions regime and the Panel of Experts on Mali established pursuant to resolution 2374 (2017) in supporting the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali cannot be underestimated. It was lauded by Council members as a historic opportunity to achieve lasting peace in Mali. The accompanying establishment of the sanctions regime and the Panel of Experts was fully aligned with that commitment. The failure to renew the sanctions regime poses additional challenges to the peace process. The sudden withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) should have served as a strong signal for the Security Council to unite in support of the implementation of the peace agreement. Regrettably, that opportunity was rejected. With no mechanisms for peacekeeping and monitoring in place, we must now redouble efforts to ensure that the situation in Mali does not become more dire, unpredictable and volatile. Our key objective with the proposed renewal was to produce an outcome that places Mali’s security and stability at its core. It should be noted that the sanctions regime and the Panel of Experts had until then been the only source of monitoring the implementation of the peace agreement following the withdrawal of MINUSMA. That is why, as a Council member, we voted in favour of that draft resolution. The last-minute submission by the Russian Federation of an alternative draft resolution (S/2023/639) was equally unhelpful. The fact that all Council members either rejected or abstained in the voting on that proposal speaks for itself. On this occasion, we also reiterate our appreciation to the Panel of Experts for its commendable work over the years, especially in submitting highly detailed and quality reporting of the realities on the ground, often at great risk. As Security Council members, we stand ready to remain engaged in discussions aimed at improving the situation in Mali. We strongly urge all Council members to engage in good faith for the benefit of the people of Mali.

Albania aligns itself with the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union. It is regrettable that we meet today to discuss Russia’s use of the veto power, which once again undermines the multilateral system we have built to maintain international peace and security. Albania supported draft resolution S/2023/638, which was submitted by France and the United Arab Emirates to renew the targeted sanctions on Mali and extend the mandate of the Panel of Experts, as a compromise text. Russia’s veto disregarded the views of the Security Council, including its African member States, as 13 members voted in favour. The sanctions regime was created to support the implementation of the 2015 Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in Mali and to address obstructions thereto. As the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) departs, I would like to emphasize that the Panel of Experts played a crucial role in monitoring the implementation of the peace agreement and United Nations sanctions, through regular reports to the Committee established pursuant to resolution 2374 (2017), concerning Mali. Disturbingly, the Panel of Experts recently reported that systematic human rights abuses, including conflict-related sexual violence, were carried out by the Wagner Group to advance its own security objectives in Mali. We are concerned that such violations may go unchecked without such reporting. We urge all parties to adhere to international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The peace agreement remains an essential instrument for securing long-term peace and stability in Mali. We urge all stakeholders and international partners to remain committed to its implementation. The people of Mali should be at the centre of our deliberations.

Let me start by joining others in expressing our condolences to the Kingdom of Morocco and its people after this weekend’s tragic earthquake. Resolution 76/262 is an important mechanism for ensuring that permanent members of the Security Council who use their veto must justify its use before the General Assembly. It is therefore deplorable that we once again find ourselves holding Russia to account for abusing the veto in a way that undermines international peace and security. Russia likes to claim that it stands up to so-called Western hegemony. Yet it is Russia alone that has repeatedly used its veto to impose its will on the rest of the world, where it has failed by force of argument or logic to win the votes to support its position. Amid escalating violence in Mali and as the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali comes under increasing pressure, the decision to renew the mandate should have been straightforward. And following their tireless efforts, the co-penholders produced a compromise text that the rest of the Council approved with 13 votes in favour. But instead of working for a compromise, Russia submitted at the last minute a take-it-or-leave-it draft resolution of its own (S/2023/639), which would have dissolved the Panel of Experts. The Russian text received no support — literally not a single additional vote. That summarizes better than anything else the legitimacy of Russia’s arguments. Those latest actions by Russia set a dangerous precedent  — the first time that a United Nations sanctions regime has been ended with a veto. There is no justifiable explanation for that, and Russia failed to provide one today. The simple truth is that Russia used its veto alone to end Security Council measures aimed at supporting peace in Mali. That veto will undermine the implementation of Mali’s peace agreement, reduce the Council’s access to information and harm Mali’s prospects for long-term stability. And it is no wonder that Russia wanted to censor the Panel of Experts. The Panel’s final report (see S/2023/578) exposed the Wagner Group’s role in human rights atrocities in Mali and showed that under Wagner’s watch, the so-called Islamic State in the Greater Sahara has almost doubled its area of control. A security partnership with Russia is clearly neither in the interest of Mali’s people nor the solution to Mali’s insecurity. The United Kingdom remains committed to supporting the peace process in Mali, as well as security across the wider continent. We urge the transitional Administration to comply with its responsibilities under international law. We urge the rest of the world to unite in order to help to stabilize the situation in Mali.

I would like to join others in extending our deepest sympathy to the Government and the people of Morocco, as well as the families of the victims in Libya, following the recent devastating natural disasters. It is regrettable that only two months after the last debate on the use of the veto held by the General Assembly (see A/77/PV. 90), one of the first substantive debates of the seventy-eighth session is once again devoted to that subject. The use of the veto by a single member of the Security Council, the Russian Federation, puts an end to the sanctions regime designed to support Mali in the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali and promote stability in the region. It does so precisely at a time when the United Nations and its partners are preparing for the rapid and sensitive withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). We welcome the submission to the General Assembly of the special report of the Security Council on the use of the veto (see A/78/341). Our debate today can help enhance the transparency and accountability of the Council vis-à-vis the General Assembly. Similarly, we believe it is important that summaries of the discussions on the veto initiative held in the Assembly, as well as the recommendations addressed to the Security Council, be transmitted to the Council. During last week’s open debate in the Council, we heard many strong calls for an improvement of its working methods (see S/PV.9410). In particular, as was emphasized once again, the responsible use of the veto and the renunciation of the use of the veto when the Council needs to be able to act in the event of mass atrocities are important. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank the two thirds of the Assembly that already support the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct and invite the other members to join. Let us not forget that the Security Council has an obligation to act on behalf of the entire international community. Its primary responsibility remains the maintenance of international peace and security. To that end, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the Council has several instruments at its disposal  — among which sanctions regimes are one important element. As an elected member of the Security Council and along with almost all its other members, Switzerland voted in favour of draft resolution S/2023/638, on renewing the sanctions measures on Mali. Along with almost all Council members, we played an active role in seeking to forge a consensus. We believe that the text submitted by France and the United Arab Emirates, which I would like to thank for their efforts, represented an acceptable compromise. As our colleagues in the Council mentioned, we find it difficult to see an alternative draft resolution (S/2023/639) submitted at the last minute as a genuine attempt to find a common Council position. Negotiations must be conducted in good faith, not by threatening to use, or using, the veto to impose the point of view of a single Council member. It is therefore the duty of all members, whether permanent or elected, to forge a consensus that will enable the Council to fulfil its main mandate effectively and responsibly. Switzerland will continue to be fully committed to that end. Switzerland will also continue to be committed to the protection of the civilian population and the promotion of peace in Mali and the region, whether at the Security Council or in the context of our long- standing bilateral cooperation.

Let me first offer my condolences to the Government and the people of the Kingdom of Morocco following the recent devastating earthquake. The United States condemns Russia’s veto on 30 August (see S/PV.9408) of the draft resolution on Mali sanctions renewal (S/2023/268), both for its impact and for its naked assertion of Russian national ambition over the stability of West Africa, and indeed the entire African continent. Russia found itself isolated in the voting after refusing to engage in multiple rounds of negotiations and then trying to bully the Council into supporting its alternative draft resolution (S/2023/639) to force the premature sunsetting of sanctions and the demise of the Panel of Experts that had exposed its own destabilizing role in Mali and the region. It is neither support for Mali nor concern for West African stability that informed Russia’s veto of the Mali sanctions renewal, but rather its continuing efforts to prop up the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group and its mercenaries across Africa. The Mali sanctions Panel of Experts named the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group in its August 2023 final report (see S/2023/578). It is no surprise that Russia wanted to block further reporting on the Wagner Group, which is a transnational criminal organization backed by Moscow. Partnering with the Wagner Group makes countries less democratic, less prosperous and less secure. The demise of the sanctions regime comes at a time when the relations between signatory armed groups are increasingly tense and objective assessments in the form of United Nations expert panel reporting remain essential to the maintenance of peace. Russia’s unilateral action defied the support afforded to the renewal of the Mali sanctions regime by 13 of the 15 members of the Security Council, including the three African members of the Council, namely, Gabon, Ghana and Mozambique. Such an obstruction of sanctions by Russia, in its all-too-familiar quest to stifle actions that spotlight its own transgressions under the guise of championing the sovereignty and independence of others, is nothing new. Russia has repeatedly blocked actions, not just for Mali but across United Nations sanctions regimes. But its usual pattern is to degrade sanctions more slowly and methodically in a less public way. Russia’s decision to veto the renewal of the Mali sanctions regime is different. It ups the ante in a very public way, and its explanation strains credulity. It coincides with open reporting on Russia’s efforts to court the support of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in violation of those sanctions, in order to help it secure arms to prosecute its unprovoked war of aggression on Ukraine. A muted response to, or silence in the face of, Russia’s actions to undermine sanctions  — not just with respect to the situation in Mali but across all sanctions programmes  — threatens the credibility of this institution and the efficacy of its peace and security architecture. The most fundamental responsibility that falls to the States members of the Security Council is the maintenance of international peace and security. Sanctions are a fundamental tool designed to facilitate those efforts. We can and should discuss how sanctions can be better designed and implemented in the service of mediation efforts, peace processes and negotiations to resolve conflicts, but we should not excuse Russia’s obstruction as anything other than self-serving and destructive. The United States looks forward to working with all Member States in good faith to renew sanctions regimes, where appropriate, in order to advance regional peace and prosperity. We will continue to support the implementation of the Algiers accords, which if fully implemented would lead to greater peace in Mali. We remain concerned by the reports of violations of the ceasefire and call on all signatory groups to return to dialogue and peacefully resolve disputes.

At the outset, I express deep condolences to the people of Morocco who lost loved ones to the devastating earthquake. I wish those affected by the natural disaster a swift recovery. It is clearly stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations that developing friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the right of peoples to self-determination, while taking other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace, is one of the main purposes of the United Nations. The work of the Security Council must be carried out in full compliance with those principles. All discussions should be held, and all decisions made, in a way that ensures full respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of States, taking into account the legitimate concerns of the Member States directly concerned with the issue on the Council’s agenda. With regard to the issue of sanctions in particular, they must never be used as a tool to pursue an impure political purpose or to interfere in a State’s internal affairs in order to serve narrow self-interests. As everyone knows, the Security Council imposed a sanctions regime on Mali in 2017, following a request by the Government of Mali, in order to promote a settlement on the basis of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. But since the Malian Government has now officially requested the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali to withdraw, there is no single basis or justification for maintaining the Panel of Experts under the sanctions regime, which is no longer effective in the Malian peace process. Therefore, the Russian delegation exhaustively demonstrated maximum tolerance and flexibility by insisting on holding substantive negotiations and discussions in order to reach consensus among Member States. It even submitted a draft resolution (S/2023/639) that properly reflected the concerns of both parties as much as possible and endeavoured to make its adoption a possibility until the very last moment. However, the United States went on to take advantage of the imbalanced power structure within the Council’s membership, which it has enjoyed for many years. It ignored all the constructive opinions offered by the Russian delegation, refused to engage in substantive negotiations and discussions and took the situation to the extreme by forcing a vote on the draft resolution (S/2023/638) on which it insisted. The United States therefore inevitably forced the Russian delegation to use its right to veto. Today we witness such misbehaviour in the Security Council at every stage of its work. It is a well-known fact that respect for the principles of sovereignty, equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of States is openly ignored in the Council. Under the deceptive pretexts of peace and security, human rights and democracy, interference in States’ internal affairs is ubiquitous in the Council and the sovereignty of independent States is being suppressed, leaving the people to suffer immeasurably in the maelstrom of political confusion. Such high-handedness and arbitrary practices in the Council are particularly rampant, with respect not only to the issue of Mali but also the discussions on the dangerous situation on the Korean peninsula, in which nuclear war may break out at any moment due to the joint military exercises and hostile military actions of the United States and South Korea. In conclusion, the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reaffirms its constant position that international peace and security can never be maintained unless the existing imbalanced structure and anachronistic double-standard working methods of the Security Council are comprehensively reformed. I strongly request the Council to withdraw all unjustified sanctions and coercive measures and to stop all interference in internal affairs by dissolving its Committee established pursuant to resolution 2374 (2017), concerning Mali, and its Panel of Experts at the earliest possible date, as well as to ensure the full sovereignty and independence of the Government and the people of Mali in order to enable them to successfully advance the peace process based on their own wishes and decisions.

I would like to join my colleagues in expressing my condolences to the people and the Government of Morocco for the loss of life and devastation following the recent earthquake. Bulgaria aligns itself with the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union. We are meeting today because of yet another veto exercised by the Russian Federation (see S/PV.9408), this time against a technical draft resolution (S/2023/638) on the renewal of the Security Council sanctions concerning Mali. While it is unfortunate that the first debate of the new session of the General Assembly has to be on the use of the veto, it is important for Member States to have an opportunity to express themselves, and we welcome the timely scheduling of this meeting. Less than two months ago (see A/77/PV.90) we discussed another veto, which had been once again exercised by the Russian Federation against draft resolution S/2023/506, on the extension of the mandate for cross-border aid through the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing in Syria. The similarities of the circumstances in both instances are striking. Both vetoed draft resolutions went through rigorous negotiation processes, enjoyed the wide support of Council members and would have been critical for the maintenance of peace and security. Yet they were both vetoed by the Russian Federation. The veto against the draft resolution on the renewal of the sanctions concerning Mali undermines the principles of multilateralism; ignores the prevailing view of the Council, including that of the African members of the Council; eliminates the process of engagement with Mali and the wider region; renders empty the extensive work of the co-penholders towards compromise with Council members; and creates serious obstacles on the road to peace. Moreover, it is completely against what the Charter of the United Nations envisages and what the United Nations membership expects from a State vested with the responsibilities of a permanent member of the Security Council. The measures foreseen in the vetoed draft resolution were meant to be a sign of support and international engagement in Mali. Had it been adopted, it would have extended measures against those who obstruct or threaten the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, the implementation of which remains critical for long-term peace and stability in Mali. It would also have allowed the Council to maintain its focus on the situation during the current second phase of withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali. Now all of that is no longer an option because of the veto. Bulgaria is deeply concerned about the worsening political, humanitarian and security situation in Mali and the region. We remain committed to the peace agreement and call on the Malian authorities and all stakeholders to work towards peace and stability. This is the fifth veto exercised by the Russian Federation since the adoption of resolution 76/262, and the fifth debate of the General Assembly following such a veto. We need to consider concrete ways of how these debates can assist the Security Council in fulfilling its obligations under the United Nations Charter. We encourage the members of the Council to formally consider the summaries of these debates, as they communicate the views of those on whose behalf they are meant to act.

I would like to begin by joining colleagues in extending our deepest condolences to the people of Morocco and Libya following the loss of life and the appalling devastation arising from the recent earthquake and flooding in those countries. Ireland stands in full solidarity with the people of Morocco and Libya at this time. Ireland aligns itself with the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union. I also want to take this opportunity to extend our sincerest congratulations to the President on the commencement of his term as the seventy-eighth President of the General Assembly. While we welcome the convening of this important debate, it is deeply regrettable and disappointing that, less than two months after our previous meeting on the veto initiative (see A/77/PV.90), we must return to the Assembly again today to discuss yet another attempt by the Russian Federation to impede the work of the Security Council — this time in Mali. At such a critical juncture for the people of Mali, Ireland is dismayed by the Russian Federation’s decision to veto draft resolution S/2023/638, which was put forward by the co-penholders, France and the United Arab Emirates, to extend the Mali sanctions regime and its Panel of Experts for a further 12 months. The draft resolution, I should note, enjoyed the support of 13 Council members, including the three African members of the Council. That veto is an abuse of privilege. It is an affront to the core principles of the United Nations and a betrayal of the Malian people. It further underscores the need to abolish the veto and reform the Security Council. That veto and efforts to dissolve the Panel of Experts come amid allegations that the Malian armed forces, alongside foreign security personnel who are presumed to be the Wagner Group, have reportedly committed sexual violence, including rape, during joint military operations. Such acts, if confirmed, are abhorrent and completely unacceptable. Let me be clear: conflict- related sexual violence can amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the perpetrators must be held accountable. Far from doing what is best for Mali as it claims, Russia has once again sought to use its position at the United Nations to excuse its own behaviour and stifle uncomfortable truths. The purpose of the sanctions regime was to support the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, which continues to face immense challenges. By failing to renew those measures, the international community risks losing one of the last remaining tools for incentivizing the parties to implement the peace agreement and to monitor its progress. The situation in Mali remains a matter of grave concern. Tensions between signatory movements and the transitional authorities have intensified, endangering the fragile peace in the region, while extremist groups continue to sow chaos and terror. Amid the ongoing withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), Ireland calls on the transitional authorities to fully cooperate with the United Nations in order to ensure an orderly, safe withdrawal and to respect the status-of-forces agreement until the final element of MINUSMA has departed. We condemn the attacks that have targeted civilians, peacekeepers and national security forces in recent weeks, including the ceasefire violations in Ber, and we urge the transitional authorities to renew their engagement with the signatory movements. It is essential that the United Nations remains fully engaged in support of the peace agreement, as well as with the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States, in order to ensure that the political transition is completed within the agreed timeline. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty and a grave disservice to the people of Mali, the peacekeepers and the humanitarian workers who have given their lives for this cause.

Let me join the President and other speakers in expressing our condolences to the people and the Government of Morocco. I also wish to thank the President for ensuring that the Assembly was able to meet promptly with respect to the veto cast late last month, in line with the terms of resolution 76/262, which ensures that a veto in the Security Council is no longer the end of the conversation. We hope that the President will continue to institutionalize the practice of sending a summary of discussions under this item, including a summary of today’s discussion, to the Security Council. We are extremely concerned by the Russian Federation’s latest casting of a veto (see S/PV.9408), with respect to both the content of the draft resolution (S/2023/638) that was vetoed and what that veto means for the functioning of the Security Council. The situation in Mali has deteriorated at an ever-faster pace since the coup in 2021 — Mali’s third coup in 10 years. The fatalities from organized political violence recorded in the first six months of 2022 surpassed the numbers recorded in all of 2021. The termination of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali after the removal of consent by the transitional Government and the growing influence of mercenaries, particularly in the north of the country, have further worsened the security situation and led to a removal of safeguards for human rights and the rule of law. The vetoing of the draft resolution submitted by France and the United Arab Emirates  — which was supported by 13 Council members — will leave Mali’s people at the mercy of the country’s proliferating violence. The veto we discuss today is the first ever veto cast against a draft resolution on Mali. What had been an area of strong consensus among Council members is now one of division and paralysis. That veto was cast in opposition to 13 votes in favour of the draft resolution, including the votes of all three African members of the Security Council. It was also cast in defiance of the need for accountability for those who foment Mali’s increased violence, specifically with the aim of dissolving the Panel of Experts tasked with analysing information on the implementation of the sanctions regime. In that regard, we note that the alternative draft resolution (S/2023/639) proposed by Russia, which would have dissolved the Panel of Experts, received no support from any Council member. Furthermore, Russia’s claim that the Council could either support its draft resolution or there would be no draft resolution  — the second time in two months that it has employed that kind of blackmail in relation to a veto — demonstrates disregard for Council processes, as well as for the vision contained in the Charter of the United Nations that the Security Council does its work on behalf of the United Nations membership. Russia is therefore increasingly using the veto in the service of its own military prerogatives and political goals, with complete disregard for diplomatic approaches, thereby fundamentally undermining the effectiveness of the Security Council and its central place in the United Nations system. Over the lifespan of the Organization, the General Assembly has repeatedly addressed items related to peace and security where the Security Council is blocked by the exercise of the veto, with Ukraine being but the most recent example. Developments over the past few months, including the veto we are discussing today, point to the increased urgency of the need for the Assembly to take action in the context of the debates convened as a result of the exercise of the veto. We ask the Council to revisit the renewal of the sanctions regime for Mali and, importantly, to do so before the end of this month, when the mandate of the Panel of Experts expires. In the meantime, we note that the Assembly is able to make recommendations, including to the Council, to renew sanctions regimes and reappoint the Panel of Experts.

First of all, I would like to express my sincere condolences to the people and the Government of Morocco for the terrible consequences of the earthquake of 8 September. It is regrettable that, in less than two years, the General Assembly has had to meet four times in accordance with the mechanism established in resolution 76/262 to consider the situation created by the veto cast by one or more of the permanent members of the Security Council, in addition to the discussions held at the emergency special session. Today we address the Russian Federation’s veto of a draft resolution (S/2023/638) submitted by the United Arab Emirates and France to renew the sanctions regime for Mali. Mexico served as Chair of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 2374 (2017), concerning Mali, during its recent participation as an elected member of the Security Council, and together with France it submitted the draft text of Security Council resolution 2649 (2022), which renewed the sanctions mandate until last August. We therefore have first-hand knowledge of that mandate, which was established at that time at the request of the Malian authorities themselves. From its establishment in 2017, the 2374 Sanctions Committee provided the Security Council with a forum in which to follow up the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali and contribute to its proper implementation, in close coordination with countries and organizations in the region. The reports of the Panel of Experts assisting the Committee constituted a reliable and independent source of information on the situation in Mali and made it possible to take informed decisions in support of the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. It should be emphasized that the Malian authorities have always been involved in all matters relating to the implementation of the mandate of the Panel of Experts. Moreover, the 2374 Committee sought to give the Malian authorities the opportunity to express their views on those reports and on any matter related to the implementation of the sanctions mandate. It is therefore worrisome that the veto has deprived the Security Council of that subsidiary body in the delicate circumstances created by the situation in Mali and the Sahel without proposing an alternative mechanism to replace it, particularly given the ongoing withdrawal process of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali. Finally, that veto hinders the Security Council from fulfilling the responsibility entrusted to it. The humanitarian emergency and political instability that violent extremism and organized crime inflict on that country constitute a threat to regional and international peace and security. Without a doubt, the relevance and effectiveness of the mechanisms that the Security Council has deployed in conflict situations to date must be considered objectively. That exercise must grant their rightful place to the voices of the countries directly affected by violence. However, it is unacceptable that the suppression of the 2374 Sanctions Committee was the result of the misnamed “right of veto”. Therefore, it becomes evident once again that the veto is an act of power. Blocking the will of others is an option that is available only to a few after they have run out of arguments. The veto cannot be the last word in settling differences. Mexico stresses the need for the Security Council to continue to monitor the situation in Mali and to uphold its responsibility to contribute actively to peace and security throughout the Sahel, in coordination with regional authorities and actors, in accordance with Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter. Consequently, when the veto power is exercised, it is not only the action of the Security Council that is paralysed but in fact the action of the entire membership delegated to the Council. And that will always be unacceptable.

Austria aligns itself with the statement made by the observer of the European Union. (spoke in French) I join others in expressing our sincere condolences to the Government and the people of Morocco following the recent devastating earthquake. (spoke in English) Once again, we gather in the General Assembly because the Russian Federation, a permanent member of the Security Council, has blocked Council action. On 30 August, Russia vetoed draft resolution S/2023/638 designed to support the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. Thanks to the veto initiative, we have the opportunity to hear the reasons for the veto and discuss them in the General Assembly. Austria welcomes this measure, which holds Security Council members accountable to the wider membership of the United Nations. First, I would like to say a word on the veto and the responsibility of all of us to ensure the tools of the Charter of the United Nations are used effectively. The Security Council, as set out in the Charter of the United Nations, holds the primary mandate for upholding international peace and security and acts on behalf of all of us. According to Article 24, the Council is responsible for ensuring prompt and effective action by the United Nations. The Permanent Five have been accorded a special responsibility with their right to veto. The use of the veto should not be construed to hinder the Council in the discharge of its duties in fulfilling its mandate. The veto should not be considered a free pass to violate the core principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Secondly, let me address the draft resolution that was blocked in the Council. The Council’s failure to agree on the renewal of Mali’s sanctions regime threatens peace and security not just in Mali, but the entire region, particularly during a very sensitive time of the withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). The travel ban and assets freeze are useful tools of the Council to prevent illicit financial transfers and to restrict armed groups in Mali and in the region. The situation in Mali during this crucial time requires our collective support, and the provisions set out in the draft resolution vetoed by the Russian Federation remain critical to peace and security in Mali. That is the view of the majority of the Council. The resolution received 13 votes in favour. The Russian veto particularly stands out since the countries from the region, the three African non-permanent members, supported the continuation of the sanctions regime. Russia acted against that support, thereby endangering peace and security in Mali and the region. Following the withdrawal of MINUSMA, the Panel of Experts was the only United Nations mechanism to monitor and report on human rights abuses, as well as facilitate efforts to implement the peace agreement. Without the Panel of Experts, the Council’s oversight and engagement on Mali’s peace process will be affected. Too many people have suffered from the ongoing violence in Mali and deserve a peaceful future. The peace agreement thus remains critical, and we call on all signatories to fully implement it. The Council needs to fulfil its mandate and uphold peace and security in Mali and the wider region at this critical stage by supporting the full implementation of the peace agreement. The Council members need to put people’s lives first and put national interests second.

I would like to begin by expressing Germany’s deep condolences to the people and Governments of the Kingdom of Morocco and Libya. Germany fully aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union. In addition, I would like to add the following remarks in my national capacity. At the outset, let me stress that we deeply regret the latest veto cast by Russia, this time against draft resolution S/2023/638, proposed by the United Arab Emirates and France for a 12-month renewal of the Mali sanctions regime established through Security Council resolution 2374 (2017) in 2017. By yet again casting a veto and going against the will of the countries of the region and without the support of any other member of the Security Council, Russia has single-handedly forced the end of a crucial United Nations mechanism, which was established to support the maintenance of peace and security in Mali and the Sahel region. The sanctions regime is not an end in itself but had a clear purpose. It was established by the Security Council to support the implementation of the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali by allowing targeted designations of individuals violating and obstructing it. It was basically meant to support peace in Mali. In addition, its designation criteria included attacks against the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), the obstruction of humanitarian aid and human rights violations. In other words, it was meant to protect United Nations peacekeepers and the Malian population. In the context of an accelerated MINUSMA withdrawal, intensified tensions between the Malian Government and signatory armed groups and a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation, Russia’s decision to force the end of the sanctions regime and the mandate of the Panel of Experts is irresponsible. The Panel of Experts played a crucial role monitoring compliance with the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali by all sides. Russia’s insistence on abolishing it speaks volumes about its true intentions. Despite continued efforts to find a consensus on the renewal of the sanctions regime in the lead-up to the vote, Russia has refused to seriously engage with other Council members, in particular from the region, and to work towards a solution. No other member of the Security Council supported Russia’s last-minute draft resolution S/2023/639, tabled without prior consultations, which is proof that it was merely an attempt to undermine efforts to reach consensus. By repeatedly threatening to veto any draft resolution other than its own and denying consultations to find a compromise subsequent to its veto, Russia recklessly put its national interest over the interest of the countries of the region. The stability of Mali and the Sahel region are too important to allow one single Member State to jeopardize it. We therefore call for renewed United Nations efforts to ensure international support for the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali.

At the outset, let me extend my deepest sympathy and heartfelt condolences to the people and the Government of Morocco. As to the matter at hand, Czechia aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union. I now wish to make the following remarks in my national capacity. The adoption of resolution 76/262 in April 2022, commonly referred to as the veto initiative, is a welcome and significant step in enhancing the accountability and transparency of the Security Council and in strengthening the role of the General Assembly at the same time. Today we are all gathered in this Hall again today because of the veto cast by the Russian Federation in the Security Council to block a renewal of the United Nations sanctions regime, including travel bans and assets freezes, that targeted anyone violating or obstructing the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, hindering aid delivery, committing rights abuses or recruiting child soldiers. We are concerned by the role the Russian Federation has chosen in the Security Council. First, Russia moved to eliminate draft resolution S/2023/638 proposed by the penholders, only to introduce its own draft resolution S/2023/639 with no opportunity for discussion or negotiation. Moreover, the objective of Russia´s draft resolution was to end the Panel of Experts’ reporting mandate. We regret to say that the situation in Mali has not improved at all recently and will only deteriorate further with the departure of United Nations troops. The litany of human rights violations, notably the violence against women, perpetrated not only by members of Russia’s Wagner Group but also by the Malian Armed Forces, is deeply troubling. The negotiations, based on the principles of the Algiers Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, are not progressing, and the conflict between the Azawad movement, in the north, and the Government, based in the south, threatens to flare up again. The looming concerns over the potential postponement of the presidential election, scheduled for February 2024, further exacerbate our worries. After the withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, the Panel of Experts emerged as the only United Nations mechanism capable of monitoring and reporting on human rights abuses and facilitating efforts to implement the peace agreement. Let us be clear: the Russian Federation’s decision to abolish the Panel of Experts’ reporting mandate was a deliberate attempt to prevent the publication of uncomfortable truths about Wagner Group’s activities in Mali, which destabilize the whole region. It is imperative to understand that all members of the Security Council, especially the permanent members, hold a special responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Our recurring meetings underscore the lamentable reality where one member of the Security Council misuses the veto power to put its own interests above that noble aim enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The veto in the Security Council should not be viewed as a mere privilege; it is a profound responsibility. We therefore see no justification for ending the United Nations sanctions concerning Mali, let alone vetoing their renewal.

At the outset, we would like to express our deepest sympathy and heartfelt condolences to the Government and the people of Morocco and Libya for the tragedies we have been witnessing as a result of the natural disasters that struck both countries. The United Arab Emirates underlines its support and solidarity to both countries during these difficult times. Turning to the theme under discussion, we would like to thank the President for convening this meeting. As a co-penholder, alongside France, the United Arab Emirates made concerted efforts during the negotiations with the Security Council members to adopt draft resolution S/2023/638, aimed at renewing the mandate of the Panel of Experts and the sanctions regime against those responsible for obstructing the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. However, it is regrettable that the Security Council could not renew the draft resolution despite the wide-ranging Council support for Mali in its implementation of the peace agreement, especially following the withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) from the country. In that regard, I would like to touch upon some aspects of the negotiation process. The United Arab Emirates was an eager participant during the negotiation process with the Member States and the Council and coordinated regularly with Mali, the country concerned, throughout the three weeks. We took into consideration the viewpoints of the countries of the region. Our primary goal was to reach a text that tackled the majority of the concerns in a way that would ensure the successful adoption of the draft resolution. We consulted with the members of the Security Council, especially upon receiving a letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mali (S/2023/605), in which he asked for an end to the sanctions regime and to the reporting mandate of the Panel of Experts. Most of the Security Council members stressed the need to continue our negotiations and coordination with Mali. Based on the above, we made reference to the letter from Mali in the draft resolution and added language that stressed that the Security Council would review the provisions of said draft resolution to take into consideration the concerns of Mali. The United Arab Emirates continued presenting various proposals during the negotiation process in order to find common ground and bridge the gap, including on the day of voting on the draft resolution and during the consultation meeting directly thereafter. Nevertheless, all the proposals failed to achieve the necessary consensus to maintain the Panel of Experts reporting mandate and the sanctions regime. We stress the need for all signatory parties to implement the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, as it is critical to ensure the peace and stability of Mali and the region. Since we were unable to renew the mandate, it is imperative to avoid any further complications. We also stress that dialogue is the only way to surmount the difficulties encountered during the implementation of the agreement. We support international mediation efforts in that connection and look forward to the role that will be played by the United Nations in continuing to provide support to Mali with the aim of implementing the agreement in line with the current negotiations between the Mali authorities and helping MINUSMA transfer its duties. In conclusion, we will continue following up on the developments in Mali. The United Arab Emirates supports all efforts aimed at bringing peace and stability to Mali, which will also meet the aspirations of its people.

Let me start by extending South Africa’s condolences to the Kingdom of Morocco and its people for the many lives lost and the terrible damage as a result of the devastating earthquake last weekend. Likewise, South Africa also extends its condolences to the people of Libya and its Government for the loss of life and damage there. I thank the President for convening this plenary meeting of the General Assembly to consider the situation in Mali and for inviting all States Members of the United Nations to contribute to the discussion. This meeting takes place in the context of Liechtenstein’s initiative, which mandates the General Assembly to deliberate on issues of international peace and security following a veto cast in the Security Council by one or more of its permanent members. Although we are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the issues of peace and security in the General Assembly, we regret the prevailing polarization of, and widening divisions within, the Security Council — largely perpetuated by the complex and heightened geopolitical tensions. We remain deeply concerned by the multiple and complex challenges engulfing Mali, including poor socioeconomic development, persistent insurgency, the deteriorating security and humanitarian situation and the volatile political climate. The coups in Mali, as well as the rising number of unconstitutional changes of Government in the West and Central Africa regions are of deep concern to South Africa. Unconstitutional changes of Government undermine efforts to promote democracy, good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law. The continent has made great strides, in recent decades, to stem the tide of unconstitutional changes of Government and forged ahead with comprehensive approaches to addressing political and socioeconomic challenges. Those recent developments have the potential to reverse the gains made in those regions towards achieving political and developmental goals. In accordance with its Constitution and the African Union’s normative frameworks, such as the Constitutive Act and the Lomé Declaration on Unconstitutional Changes of Government, among other frameworks, South Africa condemns in the strongest terms any unconstitutional changes of Government. In the case of Mali, we fully support the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States to work together with the transitional Government in Mali to implement the road map, restore constitutional order and embark on a peaceful return to civilian rule. It remains crucial for the transitional Government and the signatory parties to strengthen their efforts towards the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali in order to improve the country’s stability and strengthen its critical institutions. A peaceful process geared towards resolving all outstanding issues in the context of the peace agreement remains paramount in order to build on the gains made. South Africa believes that, although Security Council sanctions are not an end in themselves, they may be applied as a useful tool for creating conditions that are conducive to achieving a peaceful solution to a conflict. It is therefore imperative that we continue to strive for fair mechanisms that are consistent with monitoring the appropriate application of sanctions and their effectiveness in furthering peace and stability. In conclusion, South Africa wishes to reiterate the importance of preserving and protecting the territorial integrity of Mali. The Malians have been on the receiving end of the consequences of challenges faced in Mali. In that regard, we emphasize that the needs of the Malian citizens should be at the core of the efforts of the transitional Government, and we stress its obligations in advancing the interests of the Malian citizens.

Let me express our sincere condolences to the peoples and the Governments of Morocco and Libya for the loss of life over the past few days caused by natural disasters. Slovenia aligns itself with the statement made by the observer of the European Union. We are deeply concerned that the General Assembly has convened again under resolution 76/262 to discuss the use of the veto by a permanent member of the Security Council (see S/PV. 9408). This marks the second instance in the past two months in which a permanent member has blocked the Security Council’s action (see S/PV.9371), thereby undermining the collective efforts of the Council’s other members to promote peace and humanitarian efforts on the ground. We strongly believe that the right of the veto is a privilege that entails immense responsibility when addressing matters of global peace and security. As the Security Council acts on behalf of all Member States, the veto should be used responsibly, with transparency and a sense of accountability. It must never be used to block actions needed to maintain peace and security, and neither should it be misused for self-interest unrelated to the situation at hand. Slovenia supports efforts and initiatives to limit the use of the veto. Therefore, my country deeply regrets the Russian Federation’s decision to once again employ the veto to block the adoption of draft resolution S/2023/638, on the renewal of measures established under Security Council resolution 2374 (2017) and the extension of the mandate of the relevant Panel of Experts. We have closely followed the deliberations in the Security Council with regard to the situation in Mali. We note the concerns raised by Mali and understand that sanctions should be employed as a last resort, in a targeted manner, in order to support Mali in its pursuit of peace and stability. We have also taken careful note of the perspectives shared by the regional partners who are facilitating peace efforts in Mali and are directly affected by the region’s instability. Those partners clearly expressed their support for maintaining the measures adopted by the Council, while emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the peace agreement, particularly during the current fragile period for Mali. A total of 13 members of the Security Council from all regions of the world supported the assessment that the continuation of the measures I mentioned is crucial for implementing the peace agreement. It is therefore deeply regrettable that a single permanent member took it upon itself to overturn the decision of the majority to support those who have been working alongside Mali to achieve peace and prosperity for its people, thereby potentially impeding the progress made to date. In conclusion, allow me to reiterate our firm belief and long-standing position that the use of the veto should be exercised responsibly and with careful consideration of the consequences it has on the ground, particularly for the people of Mali in this instance. We are therefore deeply saddened that we have once again witnessed the Council’s inability to fulfil its mandate due to the use of the veto. Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that the progress achieved in Mali will persist and that all stakeholders, including in the region, will stand in solidarity with the Malian people to secure a peaceful and prosperous future for them.

First of all, I would like to extend our heartfelt condolences to the peoples and the Governments of Morocco and Libya for the tragedies that recently affected their respective countries. Italy aligns itself with the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union. Yet again, we are called to discuss the use of the veto by a permanent member of the Security Council. While we regret the circumstances that brought us here today, we welcome the opportunity to highlight the relevance of the implementation of resolution 76/262 and reiterate our strong opposition to the use of the veto. The veto power contradicts the principle of the sovereign equality of States, which is central to the Charter of the United Nations, and it should be the basis of any future reform of the Security Council. Through this debate, we therefore aim to add our voice to that of the other members of the General Assembly in order to strengthen multilateralism and increase the transparency and accountability of the United Nations architecture. In addition to being at odds with the general principles of multilateralism, the use of the veto by the Russian Federation during the Security Council meeting on the situation in Mali held on 30 August (see S/PV.9408) is deplorable for at least three reasons. First, the veto prevented the Security Council from discharging its vital responsibilities with regard to the situation in Mali, which continues to endanger regional and international peace and security. Secondly, the veto was a disruptive unilateral move that substantially ignored the position of the vast majority of Council members, including the position of the members of the region, which unanimously voted in favour of the renewal of the mandate of the Panel of Experts. Thirdly, the veto weakens the oversight capacities of the Security Council and the United Nations system at a critical moment for the political transition in Mali and the implementation of the peace agreement. Mali is also dealing with the delicate process of the withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, which has already proven to be a very challenging process. We realize that there is a need to review sanctions regimes in the light of the evolving situation on the ground, while taking into account the positions of interested Member States. However, in the specific case of the regime concerning Mali, the sanctions were never meant to penalize a Member State. On the contrary, both the travel ban and assets freeze measures against a limited number of individuals and the mandate of the Panel of Experts were adopted to support the implementation of the peace agreement. In particular, Italy appreciates the work of the Panel of Experts and the detailed information provided in its reports. In vetoing the renewal of the sanctions regime, the Russian Federation deprived not only the Security Council but the entire international community of a useful tool for examining and deciphering the political and security situation in a country that is stricken by a complex crisis. We encourage the transitional Government of Mali to keep the door open to multilateralism and remain ready to engage with the United Nations and its membership to support peace and prosperity in Mali and the wider Sahel region.

My delegation would like to join in the condolences that the members of the Assembly have expressed to the people of the Republic of Morocco as a result of the earthquake they suffered in recent days. I thank the President for convening this meeting on the implementation of resolution 76/262. That mechanism was activated once again as a result of a veto in the Security Council when draft resolution S/2023/638, on the situation in the Republic of Mali, was under consideration. I will refer first to the issue that led to the use of the veto and then to the issue of the veto itself. On the first point, I must acknowledge the efforts of the co-penholders, France and the United Arab Emirates, which led to a broad and inclusive process of consultations that resulted in the submission of a balanced draft resolution that sought to preserve, first and foremost, the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. The renewal of the sanctions regime and the Panel of Experts, in the view of Ecuador, are the last and most effective tool available to safeguard the peace agreement from those who have sought to undermine it, directly or indirectly, especially after the transitional Government called for the withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in June. MINUSMA had been an essential part of an international mediation, and its withdrawal from Mali within the time frame set by the transitional Government, which is unprecedented and clearly insufficient and even dangerous in terms of security for United Nations staff, leaves a serious vacuum in the peace agreement, a vacuum that has already led to ceasefire violations. Moreover, the Panel of Experts was also an element of support to the mandate for the observance and promotion of and respect for human rights and international humanitarian law in the country, and its dissolution would exacerbate, as in fact it did, the situation in the territory. I would like to stress our unequivocal rejection of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. However, combating terrorism must be conducted within the framework of respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. It is not acceptable that, despite the unanimous decision of the 10 elected members of the Security Council, who were elected by the Assembly, the Panel of Experts could not be renewed because of the decision and arbitrariness of a single State. Do we not say “nothing about Africa without Africa”? Do we not say that “African problems need African answers”? Well, that was an opportunity to move from words to deeds and to ensure that the Security Council be guided in its decisions by the position of the three African members of the Council, which unanimously supported the draft resolution. How can a veto be understood or justified in that context? That question brings me to my second point, namely, the abuse of the veto in the Security Council. I underscore that this meeting contributes to the transparency and accountability that strengthen the role and authority of the General Assembly, as well as its relationship with the Council. The mechanism promotes the strengthening of the United Nations system. When resolution 76/262 was adopted, Ecuador emphasized that, given the so-called right to veto of the five permanent members, the other members of the Assembly have the right to participate, in other words, the right to speak, debate and discuss. Therefore, we invite all members of the Assembly to contribute to this debate, which serves to amplify the efforts and the positions of the Member States. In implementing Article 27 of the Charter, we cannot ignore paragraph 1 of Article 24 whereby the Security Council acts on behalf of the Members of the United Nations. The abuse of the veto consists in the adoption of a neocolonialist guardianship, which has no legitimacy whatsoever. It is time for us to move forward in our discussions on the veto and deepen this mechanism to increasingly restrict the abuse of the Charter of the United Nations.

I express Kenya’s deep condolences to the people and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and the people and the Government of Libya for the loss of lives following the devastating tragedies in their respective countries. Kenya’s delegation extends its gratitude to the President for convening this debate pursuant to resolution 76/262. On this date exactly 22 years ago, a terrible crime was committed on the various soil upon which we now stand. The terrorist group of Al-Qaida, in violation of all laws of war, attacked the twin towers in New York City, claiming over 3,000 innocent lives from more than 80 countries. Its cruelty, aimed at advancing a venomous ideology, pulls apart the principles this Chamber is designed to safeguard. We mourn the souls lost on that fateful day, and we also pay special tribute to the courageous first responders who perished in the line of duty. Our own nation’s history bears a grim resemblance. Three years prior, Nairobi was similarly targeted, leaving dozens of our citizens dead. At the hands of the same terrorist organization. We urge both current and incoming members of the Security Council to recall the unprecedented actions in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, a seismic shift in our international security landscape. Following those grim days, the Council’s swift adoption of resolution 1373 (2001) laid a groundbreaking foundation for our present counter-terrorism, legal and policy frameworks. Indeed, the Security Council has been an instrumental catalyst in responding to the threats of Al-Qaida and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It has adopted over 40 resolutions, established committees and initiated strategies to which States are obliged to comply. It has built powerful instruments to its credit. Today we also express our condolences for the 49 Malian citizens murdered by terrorists in eastern Mali less than a week ago, and we mourn the 15 Malian soldiers killed in the line of duty. Those are the latest attacks in a decade-long string of terrorist assaults on the Sahel. We urge delegations to consider the implications for our collective of the seeming inability of the international community, rallied by the Security Council, to respond to the mounting threat of terrorism in multiple African countries. Today’s debate regards the casting of a negative vote by a permanent member of the Security Council. But it is an appropriate occasion to remind the General Assembly of our broader strategic situation. The United Nations counter-terrorism architecture is struggling to adapt to emerging threats, particularly those festering in Africa. It is disconcerting that, as the threats mount on the ground, the Council’s unity is eroding into politicization  — almost solely on the basis of competition among great Powers. We implore the Security Council to refocus its energies on the exceptional threat of terrorism that stretches from Mali across the Sahel and the Horn of Africa. A rejuvenated and depoliticized Council can pave the way for effective united action against Al-Qaida and affiliated groups. We need the Council to support innovation and bold change in United Nations peacekeeping, especially in situations where terrorist groups have overwhelmed national capacities. Different training and funding models will need to be embraced, including United Nations-assessed funding for regional forces. Political missions will need to be led by energetic and skilled envoys who have the ability and will to adapt to the increasingly complex conflict environment. And as we mark the first anniversary of resolution 76/305, on financing for peacebuilding, I urge delegations to explore all options for adequate, predictable and sustained financing for peacebuilding, including through voluntary, innovative and assessed financing. In conclusion, we encourage all permanent members of the Security Council to return to the clarity of purpose they showed following the 11 September 2001 attacks. The people most threatened by terrorist groups, in the Sahel and elsewhere, deserve the attention of a Council that treats their lives as sacred and of equal value.

Allow me to start with two sad reminders. First, I present our deepest condolences to our neighbouring friends, the Kingdom of Morocco, for the devastating consequences of the earthquake, and to Libya for the terrible floods. As today is 11 September, allow me also to recall the tragic events of 22 years ago. Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union. In our national capacity, we would like to add the following remarks. As co-sponsors of the veto initiative, we believe that this debate is very relevant, although it is one we would rather not have. Like others, we deeply regret the use of the veto by the Russian Federation on the draft resolution proposed by the co-penholders — France and the United Arab Emirates — for a 12-month extension of the United Nations sanctions regime and the Panel of Experts on Mali. Regret is the right word, indeed. The sanctions regime and Panel of Experts on Mali were set up following a request by the Malian authorities. Such a request was a sign of commitment towards the full implementation of the Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, in cooperation with the international community, honouring its role as guarantor of the agreement, as established in its article 54. That sign of commitment is now being replaced by a very different one. And this is taking place at a particularly delicate moment, coinciding with the departure of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) and amid a deteriorating security situation and a severe humanitarian crisis. It may be worth recalling here that all those structures  — MINUSMA, the sanctions regime, the various regional and international initiatives in favour of peace and stability in Mali and in the wider region of the Sahel  — all of them were created in reply to requests of assistance from Mali and the region itself. They are now being withdrawn and dismantled, at the request of the Malian transition authorities. Nonetheless, it may also be worth noting how much easier it is to point at the shortcomings of those structures and at the problems they did not solve than it is to try to grasp all that they prevented and the millions of lives that they have positively impacted. In conclusion, we reiterate our concern about the continued deterioration of the situation in Mali and our concern about how the withdrawal of MINUSMA and the removal of the sanctions regime risk further deepening the conflict and jeopardizing the peace agreement. We echo others in urging the Malian authorities to fully cooperate with the United Nations so as to ensure an orderly and safe withdrawal of the peacekeepers. Finally, we again encourage the Security Council members to enclose the special report (see A/78/341) in the next annual report, together with a summary of this debate.

At the outset, I would like to extend our sincerest condolences and express our solidarity with the Government and the people of the Kingdom of Morocco and Libya following the recent tragedies. El Salvador welcomes the convening of this plenary debate, which we are holding pursuant to a mechanism that we believe is key for strengthening the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council. We are therefore grateful for, and take note of, the special report (see A/78/341) of the Security Council, prepared in accordance with paragraph 3 of resolution 76/262. And while we believe that this debate is a step towards holding the Security Council accountable to this universal organ of the United Nations, namely the General Assembly, we are concerned that it is the fifth time that we hold a debate after a permanent member of the Security Council has exercised the veto, keeping the Council from taking the decision and acting in a unified fashion. El Salvador is following closely the political, humanitarian and security situation in Mali. As a troop-contributing country to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), we believe that it is key to maintain the most stable environment possible in the context of the drawdown and withdrawal of the Mission. As pointed out by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the Head of the Mission two weeks ago (see S/PV.9407), the process has proven to be of an unprecedented scale and complexity. We must therefore consider the serious risks related to the prevailing security situation and the acts of violence that have already taken place against MINUSMA staff. Therefore the deliberations and decisions of the Security Council at this time are critical to ensure that this process is carried out in an orderly and safe fashion. We are particularly concerned that, in this context, the Security Council has not arrived at an agreement on the situation in Mali, and we hope that this situation will not be repeated. In that connection, it is important to recall Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations, according to which: “[i]n order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.” El Salvador therefore joins the States that spoke before it in calling on the Security Council to exercise its duties in an effective and responsible manner, putting the interests of the people of Mali and their rights at the centre of its actions. In conclusion, my delegation acknowledges and commends the decision of the President of the General Assembly, at its seventy-eighth session, to continue the practice of preparing a summary of the debates we are holding, pursuant to resolution 76/262, in a manner that enables us to clearly and concisely present the recommendations issued by us, the Member States of the General Assembly.

At the outset, I express our condolences to the Kingdom of Morocco and to Libya for the victims of the recent catastrophes. We wish a speedy recovery to all those affected. We appreciate the timely convening of this debate, as mandated by resolution 76/262, to discuss the reasons for the use of the veto by one or more permanent members of the Security Council. Since the Dominican Republic co-sponsored that resolution, it welcomes the constructive participation of Member States this afternoon, as it demonstrates the importance they attach to this issue. Today’s debate ensures that the veto does not go unnoticed; in turn, it facilitates accountability and allows the entire membership to have a voice on the various issues under discussion. In that regard, we express our concern about the frequency of veto use in recent years, including in serious situations of international peace and security, human rights violations and even circumstances of dire humanitarian crises. We therefore underline that Security Council members have a commitment and responsibility to peace, security and the best interests of humankind, especially in countries in conflict, and should therefore refrain from using the veto as if it were a right. During its membership in the Security Council, the Dominican Republic had the honour and responsibility of chairing the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 2374 (2017), concerning Mali. During that period, it was able to see the decisive role it plays as a tool to monitor and assist in the fulfilment of the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. But above all, in the various exchanges we had with Malian society, especially with women and young people, we were able to perceive that their hopes were pinned on the United Nations as a friendly and supportive hand, accompanying them on their path towards sustainable peace. At the current juncture, amid the withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali and the influence of active terrorism in areas of the country, in addition to the precarious humanitarian situation, in particular indicators of catastrophic levels of food insecurity, we must ask ourselves if we are really on a path that will enable us to achieve peace or, rather, one that will generate uncertainty and despair for the civilian population, so affected by this situation. The Dominican Republic shares the view that, in the light of the resurgence of confrontations between the parties, compounded by what I have mentioned above, the Security Council should not put an end to a mechanism that, for better or worse, provides a safeguard for the peace agreement, as several African countries have expressed. Therefore, despite the current impasse, we urge the members of the Council, together with the Republic of Mali, to find a new opening to resume their talks so that, in the not-too-distant future, a sanctions regime can be reinstated, as well as a panel of experts, in order to contribute effectively to the implementation of the 2015 peace agreement and to continue to shed light on the obstacles that might arise along the way. In our view, the alternative will not have positive effects and could be a gateway to impunity and the deepening of violence and the ensuing humanitarian crisis. Our greatest wish is that the United Nations can accompany the Republic of Mali and its resilient population in the construction of its much-desired peace and future prosperity, far from violence and under a rule of law that protects the most vulnerable.

My delegation joins others in expressing our deepest sympathies for the tragic loss of life in the Kingdom of Morocco and in Libya due to recent natural disasters. Brazil expresses its appreciation for the efforts made by France and the United Arab Emirates regarding draft resolution S/2063/638, on the renewal of the sanctions regime applied to Mali. The support for the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali and the monitoring activities of the Panel of Experts were the main elements that justified Brazil’s vote in favour of this draft resolution. The drawdown and withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali also influenced our position on the draft resolution. Unfortunately, once again, the continued and profound divisions among Council members made it impossible for the organ to discharge its duties under the Charter of the United Nations. As we have stated many times, the diminishing legitimacy and effectiveness of the Security Council call for an urgent reform of both its composition and working methods. For its part, Brazil will continue to support and engage in constructive dialogue in the hope that we can overcome our differences and ensure that the Security Council properly fulfils its mandate.

I, too, would like to join others in expressing heartfelt condolences to the Government and the people of the Kingdom of Morocco for the devastating earthquake, and of Libya for the terrible floods. I also want to commemorate the tragedy of 11 September 2001 today, 22 years later. In addition to the comments made on behalf of the European Union, I would like to deliver some additional points on behalf of my country. The veto initiative has reinforced the voice of the General Assembly and will hopefully increasingly act as a moral compass leading to a more responsible use of the veto. We are appreciative of the opportunity to make use of this valuable instrument. This time, the use of the veto by Russia, on renewing the Mali sanctions regime, including the mandate of the Panel of Experts, at the time of the ongoing withdrawal of the peacekeeping force, creates significant risks for peace and security in Mali and in the wider region. We deplore the withdrawal of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), and we are extremely concerned about the continued deterioration of the situation in Mali with regard to both security and humanitarian aspects. And we sadly acknowledge the significant proof of that deterioration already with the attacks on the departing convoys in July and the more recent wave of attacks that took place over a 24-hour span last Thursday and Friday in the Gao and Timbuktu regions, which resulted in 49 civilians and 15 soldiers killed. In the light of MINUSMA’s departure from Mali, the Panel of Experts would have played an even more critical role in monitoring the implementation of the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. Supporting peace and stability in Mali cannot be appropriately achieved without those tools and mechanisms. Moreover, apart from affecting the security environment during the next phase of the withdrawal of MINUSMA, the situation could endanger civilians even more and affect humanitarian access to those in need. Furthermore, we call on the Malian authorities to remain committed to the implementation of the peace agreement and hold responsible those trying to obstruct that peaceful political path for the benefit of all in the region.

The delegation of Ukraine aligns itself with the statement of the European Union. We would also like to make some remarks in our national capacity. It is regrettable that the Security Council yet again failed to exercise its primary responsibility when draft resolution S/2023/638 on the sanctions regime against Mali and the extension of the mandate of the Panel of Experts, submitted by co-penholders France and the United Arab Emirates, was vetoed in the Security Council on 30 August. However, we are not surprised that Russia once again abused its veto right, this time to terminate the sanctions regime. What is especially alarming is that the Russian Federation disregarded the position of the vast majority of Council members, as well as the States of the region, including the African members of the Security Council, who have been in favour of the extension of the travel ban and assets freeze restrictions on the basis of the draft resolution presented by the co-penholders. The political, humanitarian and security situation in Mali has been deteriorating. In that regard, we consider the sanctions regime and the work of the Panel of Experts as crucial elements in ensuring peace and stability in Mali. Unfortunately, the failure of the Council to adopt the draft resolution on sanctions will have a significant impact on Mali’s peace process at this critical time for the country and for the Sahel and the West Africa region as a whole. Ukraine hopes that despite the reckless actions of the Russian Federation, the Council will be able to adopt the draft resolution on the renewal of the sanctions regime in Mali as soon as possible. In conclusion, the failure of the Security Council to adopt the draft resolution on this matter, as well as other cases of the use of the veto in recent years by the permanent member to block different draft resolutions, including on Ukraine, while ongoing aggression or atrocity crimes were being committed, once again prove the need for deep and comprehensive reform of the United Nations, in particular in the context of the veto right.

Sierra Leone conveys its heartfelt sympathy and offers its deepest condolences to the people and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco following the devastating earthquake and to the people and the Government of Libya following the equally devastating floods. The delegation of Sierra Leone thanks the President of the General Assembly for convening this meeting. I also thank all relevant stakeholders for their committed support and dedication to advance discussions for a lasting peaceful solution not only for Mali, but also for the Sahel and the larger West African region. That underscores the relevance of multilateralism, to which the delegation of Sierra Leone will continue to underscore its commitment. We take due note of the statement delivered by Mozambique on behalf of the African member States of the Security Council (A3) on the situation in Mali during the debate in the Council (see S/PV.9408). Sierra Leone believes that the veto was conceptualized to promote international peace and security, consistent with the other principles and obligations of the Charter of the United Nations. Its use therefore must not defeat that purpose. That is why Sierra Leone subscribes to the need for a comprehensive reform of the United Nations system, which will significantly contribute to upholding the principles, objectives and ideals of the Charter of the United Nations for a fairer world based on universalism, equity and regional balance. Regarding the situation in Mali, we acknowledge that considerable resources have been invested by relevant peace stakeholders, including the United Nations, to achieve sustainable peace and stability. With the imminent departure of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission (MINUSMA), there is an urgent need for a sustainable mechanism to complete the transition and subsequent stabilization in the country. That has been provided for through the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. All efforts and approaches for lasting peace and stability should be considered and addressed with the crisis and humanitarian situation of the Malian people in mind. Efforts should be made to ensure that consultations are constructive, balanced and aimed at achieving the best outcome for peace and stability in Mali. Sanctions are important enforcement measures at the behest of the Security Council to, inter alia, achieve conflict resolution. The targeted Mali sanctions regime was predicated on that important purpose, and its extension would have served that purpose, considering the current violation of the ceasefire agreement among the parties to the conflict. It is therefore important that the full and safeguarded implementation of the Agreement be ensured. The political and security situation in Mali continues to be of great interest to the African members of the Security Council and the wider international community. In support of that engagement, they unanimously voted in favour of the renewal of the mandate extending the measures against those who take actions to obstruct or threaten the implementation of the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. The full and effective implementation of that Agreement remains critical for the long-term peace and stability of Mali. We recognize that the A3 gave due consideration to the request of the transitional Government of Mali. We support the approach where such consideration is given to the measures established in support of the effective implementation of the peace agreement that would benefit Mali and the Malian people in their quest for peace, security, stability and prosperity. As we acknowledge the work of co-penholders France and the United Arab Emirates in their efforts during the negotiations to drive consensus, Sierra Leone regrets that a compromise was not found, through the use of the veto, on draft resolution S/2023/368. We wish to reiterate that the use of the veto in the Security Council must be in line with discharging the collective responsibility of the Council. Effective dialogue is therefore necessary at all times. Proper consultations to strike compromises in order to develop balanced resolutions should be done in good faith, exhausting all avenues for consensus-based outcomes. Any politicization in the use of the veto has the potential to render the Security Council ill-placed to capably carry out its purpose in situations such as in Mali, which is bordering on a humanitarian crisis. The veto should be used to further the purposes and principles of the United Nations and not to breach or undermine international peace and security. Let me conclude by stating that my delegation attaches great importance to accountability and therefore commends the General Assembly for not only adopting the landmark resolution 76/262 aimed at holding permanent members who cast vetoes accountable, but also seeking determination on the use of the veto by the permanent members of the Security Council. However, comprehensive reform of the Security Council is the only way forward to realize an effective, efficient, inclusive and democratic Council. Sierra Leone finally calls on all parties involved to continue the constructive engagement and dialogue to ensure the Security Council and the United Nations continue to serve their purpose to promote international peace and security for the people.

We have heard the last speaker in this debate. I would like to thank the interpreters for making it possible for us to finish the list of speakers. I also join in expressing solidarity and condolences to the Kingdom of Morocco and to Libya following the tragic events that have struck those people and their Governments. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 63.