A/78/PV.99 General Assembly

Before I commence, I wish to express my gratitude to you, Mr. President, and to the Secretariat for organizing this general debate. I would like to reiterate my delegation’s unwavering commitment to the noble goal of the protection of civilians, as well as to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. I would also like to highlight the importance of bringing the perpetrators of such egregious and heinous crimes to justice, especially at this juncture, in which we are witnessing such atrocity crimes being perpetrated, persistently and on a wide scale, against the Palestinian people. We would like to reiterate that there has been no consensus concerning the scope, definition and elements of the concept of the responsibility to protect (R2P) since the 2005 World Summit. In-depth legal and humanitarian discussions are required in order to overcome any divergence and to advance towards consensus on the concept and its application. That also requires good faith and full adherence to the fundamental principles of international law, in particular sovereign equality, non-intervention in domestic affairs and respect for territorial integrity. Attempts to undermine those cardinal principles to advance a politicized agenda under the guise of R2P should be rejected. Along similar lines, we would like to stress that using controversial and non-internationally agreed terms in the context of the present agenda item would only further implicate R2P discussions, leading to more discrepancies and disagreements. Legitimate concerns surrounding the concept must also be addressed in thorough and exhaustive detail, while the assurances and commitments made by Member States under the Charter of the United Nations and with respect to the aforementioned principles  — as well as that of the non-use or threat of the use of force — must be underlined. Since at least 2005, a number of countries have raised their concerns and questions, time and again, with regard to the new concept of the responsibility to protect, in particular regarding its scope and application, as well as its arbitrary interpretation. We should bear in mind that the responsibility to protect is a new concept, not an established principle. It is necessary for those concerns to be afforded vigilant attention and considered within the report of the Secretary-General (A/78/901) under this agenda item. The United Nations should address all Member States’ positions and treat them equally. Finally, I would like to conclude my remarks by reiterating the Islamic Republic of Iran’s strong commitment to promoting and preserving all human values, as well as its commitment to the Charter of the United Nations.

My country’s delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations (see A/78/PV.96). We have taken note of the report of the Secretary- General, contained in document A/78/901. I would like to make the following remarks in my national capacity. My country’s delegation reiterates its position that the concept of the responsibility to protect is simply a theoretical framework that does not enjoy consensus among Member States. It is not an exemption from the principles of State sovereignty, the non-use of force or even non-interference in the internal affairs of States — principles that are enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. That concept is also controversial and not provided for in any existing binding international instruments, and it does not reflect customary international law. That is why it is not possible under any circumstances to use that concept as a pretext for military or other interference in the internal affairs of States, to impose unilateral coercive measures or to commit any action that runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations. My country’s delegation regrets the fact that the report of the Secretary-General did not include a reference to the principal root causes of committing atrocious crimes, namely, aggression, occupation and military intervention. It also regrets the fact that the report’s drafters did not afford enough attention to the concerns raised by several delegations, including my country’s delegation which has been raising such concerns since 2005. Regarding the concept of the responsibility to protect, in particular its scope and implementation, as well as how to prevent its misuse, as has been the case in recent years, we hope that future relevant reports of the Secretary-General will be more comprehensive and reflect the positions and concerns of all Member States. We are witnessing an unprecedented rush on the part of Western States at the United Nations and in other international multilateral forums to promote controversial concepts that are contrary to the interests of the vast majority of Member States, especially developing countries. That is by no means limited to the concept of the responsibility to protect, but also affects other concepts. It reminds us of theories that were propagated at the end of the nineteenth century, such as the theory of the white man’s burden. It was the prelude to a dark age of colonization that led to two destructive World Wars, causing untold human suffering. Later on, the true purpose behind those theories came to light. The responsibility to protect has been misused and exploited by certain Western countries to carry out acts of aggression and propagate chaos and destruction. That misuse has gravely undermined the very concept itself, as well as the debate devoted to it in the General Assembly. Many Member States are still experiencing catastrophic consequences because of the manipulation of that concept and others in the service of the neo-colonial model hidden behind shiny phrases and misleading slogans, including in relation to human rights, the protection of civilians and the promotion of democracy, among others. The positions of many Western countries on genocide and atrocity crimes committed by the Israeli occupation authorities against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have exposed the deceptive nature, hypocrisy and selectivity of those countries when dealing with issues of international law and human rights. Those countries rush to offer all kinds of military, financial, political and media support to protect the Israeli entity and enable it to continue carrying out its crimes and acts of aggression against countries in the region, including my own country, Syria. The ultimate right of human beings is the right to survive, the right to life. Yet, the policies of some Western countries target the elements of human survival in many of our Member States through acts of aggression, occupation, pillaging other countries’ wealth, as well as through coercive measures, with the aim of starving peoples, depriving them of the most basic elements of a decent life and access to basic services, including health, education, water and energy. Furthermore, they deprive them of security through spreading and sponsoring terrorism and extremism. Consequently, they use them as a pretext for intervention. We stress the need to strengthen joint efforts to save peoples from poverty and hunger, support development and reduce environmental degradation, instead of waging wars under the slogan of “the responsibility to protect” and others. Those issues are the most urgent in today’s world in which the numbers of the poor, hungry, displaced and refugees multiply while humanitarian and developmental financial support declines. In the meantime, the Western world spends trillions of dollars to wage futile wars and degrade security and stability.

Ukraine aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of the European Union (see A/78/PV.96) and would like to make a few remarks in our national capacity. We reaffirm Ukraine’s commitment to the World Summit outcome document (resolution 60/1) and the protection of all populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Ukraine is a party to the core instruments of international law relating to the prevention of atrocity crimes, the protection of populations, the upholding of human rights and the elimination of all forms of discrimination. And Ukraine is now at the forefront, protecting its own people on the ground. The principles of the responsibility to protect (R2P) reject the use of military force by one State against another under the pretence of protecting a population from alleged threats, especially when the actual goal is to occupy another State’s territory. Military force should not be employed to alter borders or occupy territories. Nevertheless, Russia has launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, using the false pretext of protecting its population from genocide. Since the beginning of full- scale invasion, the Organization’s official information indicates that the number of civilian casualties in Ukraine has reached almost 33,000, although the actual number of victims is likely much higher. Ukrainian prosecutors registered more than 111,000 crimes related to the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. Despite those losses, Ukraine is actively resisting the aggressor. Almost daily, Russia continues its policy of terrorizing civilians in Ukraine by targeting critical infrastructure and residential areas with missiles, guided aerial bombs and attack drones, resulting in significant casualties and widespread destruction. As recently as 8 July, a massive Russian attack deliberately targeted one of the most vulnerable and defenceless groups in any society — children with cancer and other life-threatening illnesses. We have consistently emphasized our Organization’s crucial role in the prevention of atrocity crimes, particularly regarding pillars two and three of the R2P. The Security Council holds a special responsibility in that regard. However, at the onset of the invasion, Russia misused its veto power to obstruct the Council from fulfilling its primary responsibility and from responding promptly to protect civilians in Ukraine. As a result, the General Assembly took on the responsibility and fulfilled its role by adopting six resolutions to that end during the eleventh emergency special session. To effectively curb aggression, it is imperative to pursue comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and to hold Russia’s military and political leaders accountable for their crimes. In that regard, Ukraine commends the issuing by the International Criminal Court of arrest warrants for the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, and its Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Maria Lvova- Belova, as well as arrest warrants for the Minister of Defence, Sergei Shoigu, and the Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces, Valery Gerasimov, on 24 June, for committing war crimes against Ukraine. But despite the arrest warrants, the responsibility for the mother of all war crimes  — the crime of aggression  — has yet to be secured, and we call the international community to work tirelessly with Ukraine on the creation of a special tribunal to hold accountable those responsible for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. This is not only about saving Ukrainian lives. It is also about averting potential global catastrophes and preventing further genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity everywhere — in Ukraine, in Georgia or elsewhere in the world — as the Russian army has been abusing R2P principles. In conclusion, two days ago, after Russia bombed a children’s hospital in Kyiv and killed and wounded hundreds of civilians across Ukraine in one day, a representative of Putin’s regime displayed his QR code in the Security Council. He also openly declared at a Security Council meeting that Russia will persist in its coercive tactics against Ukraine using military force, meaning that it will continue the annihilation of Ukrainians as a nation. I want to present the correct QR code to access a set of photographic evidence documenting the heinous crime of 8 July. I also urge the Council to help save the lives of hundreds of children who are in urgent need of medical treatment.

The Philippines thanks the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, Ms. Mô Bleeker, for presenting the Secretary- General’s report (A/78/901) (see A/78/PV.96). We are facing the highest number of violent conflicts since the Second World War. Yet, halting atrocity crimes remains an unfulfilled promise despite clear willingness among stakeholders to implement the commitments we made under the 2005 World Summit outcome document (resolution 60/1), which marks its twentieth anniversary next year. We have witnessed a growing pattern of State and non-State actors using methods and means of warfare that cast aside human life and amount to violations of international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law. That is well documented, as noted in the report. In the past 20 years, progress has been in implementing the responsibility to protect (R2P), including advancements in prevention, protection and processes that promote human rights and accountability. A wide range of tools and instruments designed to support early decision-making from an atrocity-prevention and -protection viewpoint has been made available, according to the report. We also note the framework of analysis for atrocity crimes by the Office of the Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and on the Responsibility to Protect; the work of the Peacebuilding Commission and other international mechanisms. The International Court of Justice, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has settled disputes between States concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and other relevant treaties, pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations and in line with the principles set out in the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. National courts have made important contributions, highlighting the value of national legal systems. However, overall, there is a collective failure to protect populations, as the report indicates. That failure undermines trust in the international system and highlights that the problem is not merely the commitment to the responsibility to protect in itself but understanding what the concrete implementation of that commitment looks like and requires in practice. In relation to the report, we take this opportunity to reiterate our understanding of the evolving concept of R2P and what its operationalization entails and to share developments from our end. Of the three pillars of R2P, the first pillar resonates with us. As a constitutional democracy that values the dignity of every person and protects the most vulnerable, the Philippines understands sovereignty as responsibility. The primary duty of States is to protect populations from actual harm. Indeed, the prevention of atrocities should begin well before risk factors emerge. Commitment to prevention necessitates the formulation of policies and the development of practices and structures. As early as 2009, we enacted into law the Philippine Act on Crimes against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity. It proceeds from the principle that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level. As atrocity prevention is a continuous endeavour and approaching prevention and protection as part of a continuous process requires putting an architecture in place that includes structures, policies and practices, R2P would be best implemented by strengthening national institutions for good governance. With respect to the second and third pillars of R2P, for the international community to assist and protect populations, we must work on the basis of State consent and sovereignty. Reaffirming the importance of human rights and international humanitarian law, we also worked on the United Nations Joint Programme on Human Rights in the Philippines, launched in 2021, as a tool for fostering systematic and coherent engagement among United Nations entities, Member States, international partners and civil society, based on State consent. Nevertheless, we caution that R2P should not be misused for political purposes or as a means to justify intervention. The assessment of the possible causes of failure of R2P must be impartial and evidence-based, free from double standards and hidden agendas. The application of the R2P principle must be in accordance with the parameters of the 2005 World Summit Outcome. Next year, we will mark the twentieth anniversary of that commitment and of the Summit, when all Heads of State and Government affirmed their responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. As we commemorate that anniversary, we hope that we can converge on the meaning of that solemn commitment.

Rwanda aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect (see A/78/PV.96). I would first like to thank the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect for her briefing and the Member States that spoke before us for their constructive remarks. The contributions shared are not just valuable to the understanding of our global responsibility on the matter, but they are also a building block for our efforts in the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine rests on three essential pillars: the responsibility of the State, international assistance in capacity-building and timely and decisive action. Unfortunately, we continue to witness those pillars faltering in real time. For the past three decades now, Rwanda has proven its long-standing commitment to the principle that good governance is a cornerstone of the responsibility to protect the population against crimes of genocide, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity. Turning my attention to the report (A/78/901), we extend our gratitude to the Secretary-General for his comprehensive 2024 report on the responsibility to protect. The report highlights the challenges facing efforts to de-escalate complex multi-ethnic conflicts that continue to affect innocent communities primarily. However, a lack of international cooperation continues to hinder coordinated action in the framework of the responsibility to protect. When protecting populations against crimes against humanity, it is also important to consider the cultural context and historical injustices of the communities. That allows us to address the root causes of the conflicts before escalation and the loss of innocent lives. The Great Lakes region in Africa is a case in point. It is regretful that there continues to be a lack of actionable measures beyond mere condemnations, despite early-warning signs raised by United Nations reports and other whistle-blowers. The concept of sovereignty, which is sometimes used to oppose evoking R2P, is extremely necessary and should be re-examined so that it can be understood as both a right and responsibility to give legitimacy to international action when States fail to fulfil their responsibility to protect their own people. Many instances that saw the loss of innocent lives owing to various types of phobias have often correlated with imbalances in, and abuses of, power in the name of sovereignty. Before I conclude, allow me to stress that the responsibility to protect serves as a powerful reminder of our shared duty to preserve humankind. Our discussion of the topic extends beyond mere discussions  — it aims to encourage proactive measures to prevent mass atrocities. In that context, it is pertinent to note that, just last month, we marked the International Day for Countering Hate Speech. That occasion underscored the severe ramifications of unchecked hate speech and its potential to sow the seeds of mass atrocities. Hate speech continues to proliferate, violence escalates and innocent lives are increasingly at risk on a daily basis. It is our responsibility to protect the marginalized and to counter hate speech. We wish to emphasize the remarkable work of the Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. Its efforts are indispensable to countering those destructive narratives. Rwanda reiterates the call to bolster support for the Office. Its dedicated efforts to prevent mass atrocities deserve recognition and reinforcement. Rwanda remains committed to the principle of the responsibility to protect and calls on the Security Council to address existing political and logistical obstacles, establish early-warning mechanisms and intervene before conflict escalates beyond control.

The responsibility to protect is a relatively new concept that emerged at the turn of the century. It was cautiously adopted in the 2005 World Summit Outcome document (resolution 60/1), which precisely defined the scope of the application of the responsibility to protect as being limited to four serious and internationally condemned crimes. However, experience in the past few years has shown that Member States continue to debate the meaning and the implementation of that concept. We believe that the General Assembly debate will help Member States reach a clear understanding and achieve broader consensus on the concept of responsibility to protect. I would like to briefly focus on the following points. First, States have the primary responsibility to protect their citizens. Although the international community can help, the responsibility to protect lies ultimately with the Governments of sovereign States, in line with the principle of State sovereignty, which is a pillar of international law. Therefore, the implementation of the responsibility to protect must not run counter to the principles of State sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. Priority must be given to upholding the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Striking a balance between protecting citizens and respecting national sovereignty is critical for ensuring international peace and security. Secondly, the concept of the responsibility to protect must be applied in a clear and specific context. Countries must not broaden the concept nor adopt arbitrary interpretations that could lead to its misuse. More importantly, the responsibility to protect must not turn into another version of humanitarian intervention to achieve political goals instead of protecting civilians. The limitations of the concept must be respected to ensure that it is not used as an unjustified pretext to interfere in the internal affairs of States. Given the current pattern of contemporary international conduct, international protection could be exploited to achieve the national interests of major countries, use military force and interfere in the sovereign affairs of States. That runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations, with the ongoing divisions in the international community. Thirdly, countries must not implement the responsibility to protect unilaterally or in a manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. That principle must be implemented collectively and with the international community’s approval in order to ensure respect for State sovereignty and international laws. Resolutions on the responsibility to protect must be always collective and adopted on the basis of broad consultations among Member States to ensure transparency and accountability. Fourthly, to date, the responsibility to protect remains a concept and is not yet an international legal norm. Countries must, therefore, abstain from using it as a diplomatic tool to exert pressure on other countries. If politicized, that principle will erode trust among members of the international community and hinder international cooperation. Rather, we must focus on building a common understanding and promoting constructive dialogue about that concept. The international community must also support national Governments in addressing crime and terrorism which target civilians, undermine security and jeopardize vulnerable sectors. Furthermore, the international community must help implement the Sustainable Development Goals, counter hate speech and fanaticism, develop conflict-prevention strategies through preventive diplomacy, improve early warning mechanisms and promote human rights education and capacity-building to prevent those serious crimes. Assistance must also be provided to end impunity in cooperation with the International Criminal Court, without selectivity. Armed groups that kill civilians and commit atrocities must be designated as terrorist groups and Governments must be provided with assistance to counter them. Fifthly, the Sudan is ready to actively participate in any constructive discussion. We are open to communicating with all Member States to achieve a greater consensus on that important principle. Ongoing dialogue and constructive cooperation are key to promoting a common understanding of the concept and ensuring its implementation in a manner that achieves humanitarian objectives without undermining State sovereignty and international law. In conclusion, the Sudan remains committed to dialogue and cooperation with the international community to reach a common understanding and consensus on the principle of the responsibility to protect. We believe that open and sincere discussions are the best way to ensuring that this principle is being implemented in a manner that achieves the noble humanitarian objectives while respecting State sovereignty and international laws. We stand ready to cooperate with all Member States to achieve that objective.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s important debate. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the representative of Croatia on behalf of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect (see A/78/PV.96). We welcome the appointment of Ms. Mô Bleeker as the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect and wish her success in her new role. We believe that with her long experience and wealth of knowledge on issues related to atrocity prevention and transitional justice, Ms. Bleeker will be able to bring new dynamism to the mandate of the responsibility to protect (R2P). Bangladesh looks forward to working with her closely and hopes that she will receive support and cooperation from all concerned. We have taken note of the Secretary-General’s report, contained in document A/78/901, which attempts to evaluate the current state of the prevention of and protection against atrocity crimes and proposes ways in which the responsibility to protect can serve as a framework to enhance prevention and protection. While we appreciate the objective information on the current grim scenario of atrocity risks at the global level, which are exacerbated by the indiscriminate use of explosives and other weapons, attacks on humanitarian objects, the rise in identity-based crimes and persecution, forced displacement, famine and acute food insecurity, political extremism and hate speech, among others, we feel that the report might be still lacking information on implementation, such as data on specific measures to protect populations from atrocities or any evidence or analysis of the effectiveness of those measures. We wish to once again express our hope that in future the report of the Secretary-General will include adequate data on atrocity risks and examples of result-oriented initiatives at the national, regional and global levels. The year 2025 will mark the twentieth anniversary of the principle of the responsibility to protect. We believe the time has come to evaluate the application of R2P in the past two decades and to renew our efforts towards its objective and impartial implementation, with the United Nations playing the central role. We need to admit that the consensus on 2005 World Summit Outcome document (resolution 60/1) has been somehow eroded owing to the politicized use of the R2P principles. Allow me to share a few points. First, we emphasize the centrality of a multilateral approach in implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect, with the Security Council undertaking the main role. In doing so, it is critical to ensure synergies and complementarities among the United Nations humanitarian response, sustainable development agenda, peacekeeping and sustaining peace initiatives. Existing human rights mechanisms, including the universal periodic review and treaty body reporting, also can support Member States through evidence-based risk assessment and early warning, along with prevention and mitigation measures. As a leading contributor of police and troops to United Nations peacekeeping, we remain at the forefront of protecting civilians in many conflict-affected and transition countries, which helps national Governments’ efforts to implement the prevention agenda of the responsibility to protect. Secondly, the Security Council remains the principal organ of the United Nations for maintaining international peace and security, including by addressing threats to peace, and for preventing atrocity crimes by authorizing measures under the R2P regime. Unfortunately, increased polarization within the Security Council has been preventing it from effectively carrying out its duty to protect innocent civilians from mass atrocity crimes. For example, despite global outrage, the veto has been repeatedly used to prevent a ceasefire in Gaza in order to stop genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians. While we acknowledge the importance of the enhanced role of the General Assembly, which now has a standing mandate to hold a debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council, we maintain our principled support for a possible suspension of veto in the cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Thirdly, often discriminatory laws, policies and practices can leave the population, especially religious or ethnic minorities, open to atrocity risks. That has been the case with the Rohingya minorities in Myanmar. Extreme forms of discrimination and persecution have led to their repeated forced displacement. Bangladesh is currently hosting more than 1.2 million forcibly displaced Rohingyas who fled Myanmar in 2017 in the face of unprecedented atrocities. What happened in 2017 was not unforeseeable. Rohingyas were stripped of their citizenship in 1982. That discriminatory law was followed by other exclusionary policies and hate speech. The result was their perpetual vulnerability to large-scale violence and exodus — not once, but on repeated occasions in 1992, 2012, 2016 and 2017. The current situation in Rakhine has turned even worse, and Rohingyas are now being targeted both by the Myanmar military and non-State armed groups. At times, they are used as human shields. That establishes what is mentioned in the report  — that even when the risks are understood or clearly articulated, sufficient priority is not given to the protection of vulnerable groups. Despite all of the signs, effective measures were not taken to protect the Rohingyas or other minorities in Myanmar. The Rohingyas cannot be left alone. Neither can Bangladesh, which continues to demonstrate generosity in hosting them, despite the spiralling challenges it faces in the process. The only way a lasting solution to the crisis can be achieved is by improving the overall situation and living conditions inside Myanmar so that the Rohingya minorities are able to return to their home with dignity and rights. Fourthly, the responsibility to protect is the primary responsibility of the State. It is therefore critically important to build the capacity of national institutions and mechanisms to identify and tackle the atrocity risks and provide support to Member States in their prevention measures. We encourage the Office of the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect to engage more with and support national authorities, and to engage with community leaders, local human rights organizations, including women and youth groups. The Peacebuilding Commission has also become an important platform for Member States to discuss important issues related to peacebuilding and prevention, which can be leveraged to fulfil capacity needs in countries that are in transition. Finally, accountability is essential for preventing the recurrence of atrocity crimes. Indeed, landmark cases before national courts and international criminal courts have helped ensure accountability for perpetrators of atrocity crimes, develop important jurisprudence and generate knowledge about the nature of atrocity crimes. As a State party to the Rome Statute, Bangladesh remains fully committed to its purposes and principles and supports the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in ensuring justice for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. We have been providing full cooperation to the ICC in its investigation of the situation in Myanmar. We call upon all States Members of the United Nations to join the Rome Statute, cooperate with the ICC and allow its officials to perform their job without intimidation or interference. Taking advantage of the complementarity principle of the Rome Statute, we established international criminal tribunals to conduct the trials of individuals responsible for committing genocide and crimes against humanity during our liberation war in 1971, which played an important role in ensuring accountability and healing victims’ wounds. In conclusion, we reiterate our country’s full commitment to supporting the United Nations-led initiatives to prevent mass atrocity crimes anywhere, at any time. Let the spirit of R2P prevail over geopolitical and geoeconomic considerations so that we never again need to encounter the repetition of genocide anywhere.

At the outset, let me congratulate the Secretary-General for the thematic report on the responsibility to protect (R2P) (A/78/901) and join other speakers in thanking the Secretary- General’s Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, Mô Bleeker, for her statement. Ghana aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of the Republic of Croatia on behalf of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect (see A/78/PV.96). My delegation is encouraged by the focus of the report, which reflects several issues of concern to Ghana on the implementation of R2P. Although presented late, the report reaffirms the continued relevance of the principle, both as an expression of political commitment and as a blueprint for action to prevent and end genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. My delegation continues to support the framework for implementation of the principle, based on the three equal and mutually reinforcing pillars of R2P. The primary obligation of States to protect their populations and the collective responsibility of the international community in those efforts, as well as strategies to ensure timely and decisive responses, are all key to effectively meeting the laudable objectives of the principle. In that connection, as we approach the twentieth anniversary of the 2005 World Summit Outcome document (resolution 60/1), my delegation takes this opportunity to reaffirm its commitment its paragraphs 138 and 139 on the responsibility to protect. We call for the consistent and balanced implementation of the principle through the three-pillar framework of R2P to gain wider acceptance. As we take stock of how far we have come in the past years in a bid to chart a path for the future, my delegation acknowledges the work of the Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect and calls for wider consultations with Member States, networks, Parliamentarians for Global Action, global and regional networks of human rights institutions and ombudspersons, as well as other interested actors, so that their inputs can enrich future reports. In furtherance of such efforts, we call for more dialogue. However, we recognize that this debate complements that effort. My delegation also calls for the building of resilience, which involves developing functional institutions of good governance  — in order of priority  — at the community, national, regional and global levels. These must be anchored on the human rights approach and driven by the principles of local ownership, subsidiarity, transparency, dialogue and inclusiveness, respect for diversity, accountability, equity, rule of law and solidarity at all levels, including the global level. In our view, this nourishes stability and peace, which in turn promotes State sovereignty and international stability. We wish to emphasize that national ownership within the context of regional integration strategies is a sine qua non for sustainable and transforming R2P action. What has been playing out in parts of Africa and the Middle East, where populations are facing unprecedented levels of violence, mass atrocities and displacement, is a wake-up call to the international community on the need to preserve the R2P principle. In that context, Ghana continues to work very closely with the Group of Friends of R2P and other like-minded States to promote both national and regional ownership of R2P, with the support of the joint United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, the Global Centre for R2P, the International Coalition for R2P and other partners. In the particular case of Ghana, the disposition of Government towards working with civil society as strategic partners, the non-partisan support in favour of civil society organization initiatives by various political parties and Parliament, as well as the technical facilitation by the United Nations Development Programme Office in Ghana, helped create Ghana’s National Peace Council as an independent State institution for mediation and peace facilitation. Also of importance is the national infrastructure for peace, as part of the overall national governance and peace architecture. In our condemnation of atrocity crimes, crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, my delegation calls on the permanent members of the Security Council to exercise good leadership in situations of those grave crimes and suspend the use of the veto in situations where atrocity crimes are committed. In conclusion, Ghana wishes to emphasize that the combined effect of R2P, responsibility while protecting and responsibility to remember should help us make progress in building resilience. We call on States that have yet to ratify and implement the core instruments of international human rights and international humanitarian law to do so.

Let me begin by welcoming this year’s report of the Secretary- General (A/78/901) and reaffirming our full support for the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. We also welcome the new Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, Ms. Bleeker. The responsibility to protect remains a moral imperative and a practical framework to safeguard populations from the perpetration of atrocity crimes by both State and non-State actors. The collective commitment made almost 20 years ago at the 2005 World Summit remains painfully unrealized. It is imperative that policies and structures with advanced or preventative capabilities and the ability to respond to crises are prioritized and receive the necessary political support. As highlighted in the Secretary-General’s report, early-warning mechanisms, diplomatic engagement and international cooperation are crucial in identifying and addressing potential threats before they escalate. A proactive approach that is free from politicization remains our guiding light. While considerable progress has been made in understanding the risk factors, causes and dynamics leading to human suffering, the international community has been unable to protect populations at risk of atrocity crimes in several cases, including in Ukraine, the Sudan, Myanmar and Gaza. We must continue to invest in building resilient societies where the rule of law, respect for human rights and inclusive governance are the norms. That includes supporting national and local capacities for conflict prevention, empowering civil society and promoting social cohesion. When prevention efforts fail, we must collectively ensure a timely and decisive response. The Security Council, as the primary bearer of the duty to maintain international peace and security, must take the necessary urgent action to protect civilian populations at risk of mass atrocities. In that regard, Malta underlines its support for the French-Mexican initiative on veto restraint in the case of mass atrocities, the code of conduct of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group and the veto initiative (resolution 76/262). We welcome the report’s focus on the importance of accountability. Where prevention efforts fail, perpetrators of atrocity crimes must be held accountable through impartial and independent judicial processes. The International Criminal Court and other international judicial mechanisms are vital. Malta calls for full cooperation with those institutions and calls on the international community to support efforts to end impunity and deliver justice to victims. In conclusion, Malta encourages the Secretary- General to include assessments of the implementation of recommendations of previous reports. That is fundamental to assessing our progress for where increased efforts are needed.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item. The exercise of the right of reply has been requested. I would like to remind members that statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and five minutes for the second and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Once again we have been forced to hear lies about the so-called intentional air strike by Russia on the children’s hospital. We believe that it is cynical to speculate with regard to the death of children, which did not actually take place. The Russian Federation takes very seriously the prevention of civilian deaths. We would like to once again stress that the numerous reviews of images and videos of the incident clearly show that the hospital was hit by a Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile. Videos have put an end to all the attempts made by Kyiv and the West’s propagandists to the contrary. Russia does not strike civilian objects in Ukraine. With regard to Russia’s air strikes, one of the targets was the Artem military artillery plant, located approximately two kilometres from the Okhmatdyt hospital. There is reason to believe that the Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile that struck the hospital was meant to intercept the Russian missile that hit the plant. Such tragedies could be avoided if the Kyiv regime did not place anti-aircraft systems and military facilities in residential neighbourhoods. But, to all appearances, it does not seem interested in pursuing such a goal. Even Ukrainians on social media have pointed out that provocations by the Kyiv clique involving civilian deaths always occur on the eve of a NATO summit. Zelenskyy’s regime is exploiting such situations in order to obtain new weapons for Ukraine. Zelenskyy himself spread more lies at the NATO Summit, saying how hard it was for him to look into the eyes of the parents whose children had died following the strike on the Okhmatdyt hospital. Meanwhile, from the statements made by the head of the hospital at a Security Council meeting and the mayor of Kyiv, Mr. Klitschko, we heard that there were, in fact, no children among the dead. There were only two adults among the casualties. With regard to references by the representative of Ukraine to Russia’s so-called violation of the concept of the responsibility to protect, we would like to state that Ukraine has already tried and failed to prove that at the International Court of Justice. Russia began its special military operation pursuant to Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations — the right to self-defence — of which the Security Council was duly informed. That has nothing to do with the politicized concept of the responsibility to protect. Incidentally, the International Court of Justice, within the framework of a lawsuit instigated by Kyiv itself, rejected Ukraine’s claims about Russia’s so-called violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was allegedly effectuated in order to begin the special military operation. The Court agreed that the Convention does not regulate the use of force. Accordingly, the Russian special military operation does not fall under the competence of the Court in the context of that claim. As a result, the only issue that the International Court of Justice will be addressing  — within the framework of a lawsuit that, I repeat, is a claim that was initiated by Kyiv itself — is whether or not Ukraine committed genocide in Donbas. And we eagerly anticipate that the Court will thoroughly study the corresponding evidence, especially given the fact that the number of those who died in Donbas between 2014 and 2022 — which pre-dates the beginning of our special military operation  — are absolutely horrific. The statistic given is that 14,000 people have been killed by the so-called counter-terrorism operation waged by the neo-Nazis who came to power as a result of the bloody Maidan coup in 2014. As we know from the decisions of the International Court of Justice, the allegations by Ukraine alluding to so-called terrorism were trumped up and made under an entirely false pretext. As we know, the Court did not fulfil Ukraine’s demand to recognize the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic as terrorist organizations. As regards the International Criminal Court, which was also mentioned, the perverted and cynical logic of that institution — which referred to the evacuation of children from the area of hostilities as deportation — is something that we have already addressed. The Court has long been used as a political instrument by the collective West and has nothing to do with true justice. The various fakes through coming through the Council of Europe are no better — that organization has lost its own identity and has turned into a tool for Russophobia and serving the interests of the United States. It is not authorized to establish tribunals or registers of damages of any kind — not even according to its own founding documents, let alone international law. In summation, the statement that we heard today by the representative of Ukraine was yet another set of lies and tired propaganda, and it contained not a word of truth.

I would like to exercise the right of reply in response to the statement delivered by the representative of the Russian Federation on 1 July (see A/78/PV.97), which my delegation was unable to do that day due to time constraints. In its statement, the Russian delegation showcased the conclusions of the report of the European Union’s International Independent Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, the Tagliavini report, in an incomplete and biased manner. There are no questions with regard to the fact that aggression was exercised against the sovereign State of Georgia in 2008 and that the Russian Federation is still occupying 20 per cent of Georgia’s territories. As I already stated in my statement during that meeting, the decisions of the international courts, the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court legally attest to the very fact of Russia’s occupation and effective control over Abkhazia and similar regions of Georgia — not only during and after Russia’s war of aggression against Georgia in 2008, but also long before that.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 129?

I now give the floor to the representative of Ukraine to introduce draft resolution A/78/L.90.

Nearly two and a half years ago, on 4 March 2022 (see S/PV.8986), I began my statement at the emergency meeting of the Security Council with the words of the President of Ukraine, “We have survived the night that could have stopped the history of Ukraine and Europe”. That meeting was held after a night in which something unimaginable happened — the armed attack and seizure of a nuclear power plant, consisting of heavy shelling of the power plant’s facilities and the killing of its personnel. On several occasions throughout history, humankind has witnessed that nuclear power plants can be not only sources of energy, but also repositories of immense potential dangers. Ukraine is well aware of the extent of those dangers, as we are still suffering from the disastrous consequences of the explosion at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant  — consequences that spread throughout Ukraine, its neighbouring countries and far beyond. The repercussions from a potential incident at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant  — the largest nuclear power plant in Ukraine, which has deliberately become an integral element of Russia’s military strategies  — would be even more catastrophic. Such repercussions are not limited by geography or politics. Radiation knows no borders. It can disperse, affecting countless lives and environments far from the epicentre of an event. Radioactive fallout, once released into the atmosphere, can travel great distances and affect regions far removed from the accident site. Guided by that understanding, Ukraine has always been a responsible contributor to nuclear safety, even after the safety assurances enshrined in the Budapest Memorandum, in exchange for handing over the third- largest nuclear arsenal, were not honoured. The lack of accountability for Russia’s violations of the Budapest Memorandum spurred Russia to increase its nuclear- related threats during its invasion of my country. Since March 2022, the issue of the illegal occupation and militarization of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant has been high on the United Nations agenda, both here in New York City and in Vienna, as well as in many national capitals. I note that, in resolution ES-11/6, entitled “Principles of the Charter of the United Nations underlying a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine”, adopted on 23 February 2023, the Assembly urged Member States, in particular, to cooperate in a spirit of solidarity in order to address the global effects of war on nuclear security. Meanwhile, nuclear safety, security and safeguards in Ukraine have been regularly addressed in Vienna at the meetings of the governing bodies of the International Atomic Energy Agency on that issue. It is worth noting that the General Conference and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency adopted a series of resolutions to express concern about the precarious nuclear safety situation at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, to urge Russia to withdraw its military and other unauthorized personnel from the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant and to demand the immediate return of the power plant to the full control of Ukraine. In that regard, I would like to express my gratitude to all the States that have supported the relevant decisions of the governing bodies of the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, the fact remains that Russia has not heeded the repeated calls of the General Conference and the Board of Governors and continues to violate the fundamental principles of nuclear safety and security. It should be noted that the issue of radiological and nuclear safety was also discussed recently at last month’s Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland, to which all peace-loving States were invited. We thank all the summit’s participants for their contributions, which are reflected in the summit’s joint communiqué. In the context of the events I have mentioned, we believe that there is an urgent need to take another decisive step to reaffirm and develop the General Assembly’s position on the threats to nuclear safety and security arising from the invasion of Ukraine. That is why today we are introducing draft resolution A/78/L.90, entitled “Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant”. It is important to note that the draft resolution fully supports the International Atomic Energy Agency’s mandate to address nuclear safety and security risks during armed conflict and recognizes the importance of the seven indispensable pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during armed conflict and the five concrete principles to help ensure nuclear safety and security at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant. Furthermore, the text welcomes and encourages the continued efforts of the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency in that regard, including through the continued and reinforced physical presence of the Agency’s Support and Assistance Mission to Zaporizhzhya. I thank the 59 Member States that have co-sponsored the draft resolution. We are encouraged by that strong solidarity and support, which we urgently need. We did indeed survive the night in which Russia attacked the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, bombed its facilities and killed its operating personnel. We survived when Russia used the plant for military purposes and false-flag operations. We survived when Russia mined the perimeter of the site. We survived when Russia disregarded the technological processes at the nuclear power plant. However, if one stands idly by, that luck will not last forever, and an incident will be inevitable. Nuclear safety and security depend on our ability to take a firm and common stand on the inadmissibility of the continued occupation and militarization of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant. I therefore urge all Member States to vote in favour of draft resolution A/78/L.90, on the safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant. We owe it to future generations to ensure that the horrors of nuclear disasters do not recur. By voting in favour the draft resolution, Member States will reaffirm their strong commitment to the norms and principles of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, as well as to the principles and standards of nuclear safety and security. By voting in favour, they will recall that attacks must not be directed against civilians or civilian objects, in particular critical energy infrastructure. By voting in favour, they will reiterate their support for the International Atomic Energy Agency and its activities on the ground. By voting in favour, they will demonstrate their commitment to contributing to ensuring peace and preventing nuclear incidents and catastrophes. I call on all Member States to shoulder their responsibilities by supporting the draft resolution.

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/78/L.90. For the Assembly’s information the draft resolution has closed for e-sponsorship. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of draft resolution A/78/L.90, and in addition to the delegations listed in the document, the following countries have also become co-sponsors of the draft resolution: Belize, Cabo Verde, Fiji, Georgia, the Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Singapore, Tonga, the United Kingdom and Vanuatu.

Before giving the floor to those representatives who wish to speak in explanation of vote before the voting, may I remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.

When many of the Member States, having received an invitation to the pseudo-peace and pseudo- global get-together in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, in June, asked us for our opinion on that venture, we urged our colleagues not to harbour any illusions about the true intentions of its organizers. Those intentions were plain to see — to use every trick in the book in order to lure as many countries as possible into coming to pose for a group photo so as to create the appearance of universal support for the Kyiv regime and its Western sponsors. In addition, it was obvious from the very beginning that this get-together was built around the so-called Zelenskyy formula, a pseudo-peace formula which, as we know, is not aimed at a peaceful settlement and is nothing more than an attempt to present Russia with an ultimatum. In order to lure anyone other than Western States and their satellites to come to Switzerland, the agenda included only three of the most seemingly innocuous aspects of the so-called peace efforts, including the issue of nuclear safety and security, which is of concern to many. The organizers, we were told, portrayed the gathering as a one-time event with no implications or follow-up. That became a decisive point for many, who, out of politeness, added their attendance to that European Union and NATO get-together. As we now have the opportunity to see for ourselves, our Western colleagues cannot be trusted — not even in such trivial matters. Today, before our very eyes, draft resolution A/78/L.90, provocatively entitled “Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant” is being pushed through in the General Assembly. Behind the facade, its main objective is clearly visible: to endorse the outcome of the meeting in the Alps with the General Assembly’s blessing in order to try to promote the false Western narrative about the source of threats to nuclear facilities in Ukraine. I think it is obvious to all reasonable persons present here that such a sensitive and specialized issue should be discussed in the United Nations Office in Vienna under the auspices of the agency that possesses the relevant mandate, expertise and competence for that purpose. Indeed, such discussions take place there on a regular basis. Moreover, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mr. Rafael Grossi, formulated seven pillars of nuclear safety and security, as well as five principles for ensuring the safety of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, which he presented to the Security Council (see S/PV.9334). One of those principles on the inadmissibility of any attack against the plant is regularly violated by Ukraine, as the Agency’s experts present at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, with Russia’s consent, are able to verify. There is ample evidence in that regard  — right now I am holding the wreckage of a Ukrainian uncrewed aerial vehicle that attacked the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant on 7 April this year. We will not go into the details of the above-mentioned regular and numerous attacks now, as our country regularly provides the Security Council, the IAEA secretariat and the entire international community with data on the actual situation at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant and its adjacent territories. Mr. Grossi himself regularly briefs the international community on the situation at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, including attacks on that Russian facility, and periodically reports on the situation to the Security Council. However, the sponsors of the draft resolution — who are well aware of the position of Mr. Grossi and his team and know that the IAEA did not support the Bürgenstock final document — are not bothered by the lack of endorsement from the competent specialized international body. After all, their true goal is to exploit this pseudo-nuclear package to sneak in political elements that have nothing to do with the stated issue. Even a cursory glance at the text is enough to make that clear. In order to achieve that goal, they are willing to make many sacrifices and even undermine the IAEA’s efforts to ensure the nuclear safety and security of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant. I would like to note separately that, having realized what a dirty game they have contrived, the sponsors of this opus decided to resort to non-inclusive and non-transparent methods of work on the draft. As members are well aware, they flatly refused to consider any amendment proposals from a large number of delegations seeking to depoliticize the draft. Many colleagues complained to us that they had learned of the vote only the day before and that they had been unable to coordinate with their capitals because of such unscrupulous methods. If Kyiv were truly interested in nuclear safety and security, it would not be launching regular reckless attacks on the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, its associated infrastructure and the town of Enerhodar, where plant employees and their families live. That is the only real threat to nuclear facilities in Ukraine today. However, there is not a single word about it in the draft resolution being put to the vote today, once again underscoring its detachment from reality. That is not even the main harmful element contained in the Ukrainian text. After all, thanks to the efforts of the Kyiv regime and its sponsors, the General Assembly has unfortunately adopted a considerable number of documents that are politicized, detached from reality and do not enjoy consensus. Make no mistake: votes in favour of today’s draft resolution will be counted in Kyiv, Washington, Brussels and London as evidence of support for their policy of further escalation of the Ukrainian conflict. That will be to the detriment of steps taken by certain reasonable members of the international community to find a peaceful, sustainable and long-term solution to the conflict. It also means that additional tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Ukrainians who have long been unwilling to fight will be rounded up on the streets and thrown into a senseless meat grinder to serve Western geopolitical interests and the personal interests of the Zelenskyy clique that has usurped power in Kyiv. Let us work together to prevent them from implementing their disastrous scenario for Ukraine. We call on the sensible members of the General Assembly to clearly express their position on yet another harmful and highly politicized initiative by Ukraine and its sponsors and to vote against the draft resolution.

We have heard the only speaker in explanation of vote before the vote. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/78/L.90, entitled “Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant”. A recorded vote has been requested. [Subsequently, the delegation of Liberia informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.]

Before giving the floor for explanations of vote after the voting, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

China abstained in the voting on resolution 78/316, entitled “Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant” on the basis of China’s consistent position on the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis, our independent judgment of the merits of the matter at hand and our strong desire to promote the early resumption of dialogue and negotiations and the early realization of a ceasefire. More than two years into the full-scale escalation of the crisis in Ukraine, the ongoing conflict has led to massive casualties among innocent civilians and the widespread destruction of infrastructure, posing great risk to the safety and security of Ukraine’s nuclear facilities. China opposes armed attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities, including nuclear power plants, and calls on all parties to exercise calm and restraint, to adhere to the spirit of humanity, to observe scientific rationality and to maintain communication and cooperation. All parties must strictly abide by the Convention on Nuclear Safety and other international laws, scrupulously observing the bottom line of nuclear safety, and must avoid taking any action that could jeopardize nuclear facilities, instead guarding resolutely against human-made nuclear incidents. China supports the seven pillars and five principles proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure nuclear safety in Ukraine and supports the constructive role that the IAEA continues to play in promoting the safety and security of nuclear facilities in Ukraine, as well as the relevant elements of the resolution just adopted. Conflicts all end at the negotiating table. This fighting rather has gone on for far too long, and its prolongation could only compound the suffering of innocent civilians and bring more unpredictable risks to the region and the world at large. It is an interest of all parties to promptly cease fighting and seek a political settlement. The focus for now is to uphold the three principles of no expansion of the battlefield, no escalation of fighting and no incitement by any party in order to de-escalate as soon as possible. The sooner talks start, the sooner peace will arrive. We call on the international community to create conditions and provide assistance for the resumption of direct dialogue and negotiation between the two sides. Regrettably, this resolution does not highlight the urgent need to promote dialogue and negotiations and seek a political solution. Nor does it emphasize the need to fundamentally resolve the security problems in Europe and to build a balanced, effective and sustainable security architecture. Given the gap and distance between the draft and China’s consistently held positions, we had no choice but to abstain in the voting. On the Ukraine question, China has always maintained that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States should be respected, and the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, adhered to. The legitimate security concerns of all States should be taken seriously, and all efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of the crisis, supported. China has no selfish interests on the Ukraine question. We have actively promoted peace talks in our own way and will continue to play a constructive role for a political settlement.

My country’s delegation takes the floor to explain its vote after the voting on resolution 78/316, entitled “Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant”, under agenda item 62. The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic reiterates the importance of ensuring the safety and security of power stations in Ukraine. However, the resolution before us today is highly politicized and targets a Member State. It has objectives beyond its main goal, and it has been drafted in a hasty manner. Moreover, the sponsors of the resolution did not share it with other Member States and transparency was not taken into account. The resolution was not introduced to the Member States to express their concerns and make the necessary amendments, in accordance with the practice adopted at the United Nations. The resolution was drafted unilaterally behind closed doors, while its contents focus on political aspects that are far from the issue of nuclear safety and security. In conclusion, given the above and given that the International Atomic Energy Agency is the international forum with jurisdiction over this issue, the delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic voted against the resolution.

Cuba attaches high priority to ensuring the safety and security of all nuclear facilities in Ukraine, Russia or any other country. In the context of the current conflict in Europe, it is the responsibility of the General Assembly to contribute as much as possible to minimizing the risks of a nuclear accident, which would have devastating consequences for the lives of people and for the environment in that region. The nuclear incident at Chornobyl showed the catastrophic result of a nuclear accident. Cuba contributed to mitigating the effects from that tragic event by providing comprehensive medical care for free in our country to more than 26,000 people affected, including 22,000 Ukrainian children and their families. Guaranteeing the safety and security of nuclear facilities requires all parties concerned to cooperate in good faith. We regret the hasty presentation of resolution 78/316 and that a transparent and inclusive consultative process, open to all Member States, did not take place. Had those consultations taken place, Cuba would have played an active and constructive role and would have presented various amendments for the consideration of the other delegations. Similarly, the delegation of Cuba would have duly listened and considered the proposals of other countries, in the interests of bringing our views closer together on such a sensitive and relative issue as nuclear safety and security. In any part of the world, nuclear safety and security is a matter that concerns us all, with implications for all. That is why the differing opinions should have been heard and considered. The resolution does not facilitate or promote the fundamental cooperation required by all parties in order to ensure the safety and security of nuclear facilities and avoid a nuclear accident. On the contrary, the text considers a number of diverse issues, some of which are quite confrontational and divisive, as attested to by a number of voting rounds in the General Assembly. As a result, the resolution waters down and marginalizes what should have been the main priority in this case. Cuba believes that this priority is to make a firm and clear call to all parties involved to respect the five basic principles for protecting the integrity of nuclear facilities and for preventing a nuclear accident, as set out by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency in May 2023. For those reasons, Cuba voted against resolution 78/316. Our country will continue to firmly support all efforts aimed at ensuring the safety and security of nuclear facilities in Europe and the rest of the world. Sheikh Al-thani (Qatar) (spoke in Arabic): The State of Qatar voted in favour of resolution 78/316, just adopted, entitled “Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant”, based on its foreign policy of committing to the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, namely, non-use or threat of use of force and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means while committing to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Member States. The State of Qatar has urged all parties to exercise restraint and address the dispute through constructive dialogue and diplomacy. We reiterate that the State of Qatar is completely ready to participate in any international and regional efforts to immediately resolve the Russian-Ukrainian crisis peacefully. The State of Qatar stresses its firm commitment to the Charter of the United Nations and international law. We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.

Jordan reiterates its steadfast positions regarding respect for international law and the Charter of the United Nations and the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of States, as well as the principle of good neighbourliness. We also reiterate our position on the need to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Ukraine, while respecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity, in accordance with international law and the Charter. That is clearly reflected in Jordan’s voting in favour of the General Assembly resolutions on that matter. Jordan abstained in the voting on resolution 78/316, adopted today, because the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, is the body involved in the issues related to the safety and security of nuclear facilities. In that context, we reiterate our call on all those involved to continue making great efforts to exercise restraint and de-escalate as they seek to resolve the dispute through peaceful means in order to restore security and stability through dialogue and negotiations at this critical juncture, in line with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, for the sake of the protection of civilians. In that regard, we also call for cooperation from the international community and the United Nations system in order to achieve those objectives.

Mexico abstained in the voting on resolution 78/316, given a number of elements in the text, including political issues and what really should be the essence of the draft resolution, namely the safety and security of the nuclear facility in Zaporizhzhya. The position of my country will remain consistent with resolutions adopted during emergency special sessions of the General Assembly with regard to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Since the onset of this conflict, Mexico has condemned Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine, both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, simply because it runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations and international law. As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico indicated less than a month ago, we are urgently appealing for the preservation of the integrity of nuclear facilities in Ukraine. Military activities in nuclear sites in Ukraine are not justifiable. These are clearly identified facilities, and attacking them is expressly prohibited under international humanitarian law. The safety and security of nuclear facilities must be safeguarded at all times, and the same is true for any element ensuring the safety and security of such facilities. Mexico supports all the technical efforts of the IAEA Director General, despite the very volatile atmosphere, to ensure that the parties fully comply with their obligations to ensure the safety and security of the facilities. We believe that the consultative process on the text was rushed, and the concerns of a number of delegations, seeking to bolster the technical elements of the text, were not clearly reflected. That was the case with Mexico. We hope that the results of the adoption of the resolution will lead to genuine support for the work of IAEA on the ground. Mexico has repeatedly called for a settlement to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict through negotiation, mediation, dialogue and diplomacy. Statements by the General Assembly and other United Nations entities should maintain a clear distinction between the political, humanitarian and nuclear components. Only thus can we contribute to reaching a peaceful solution to the conflict.

The position of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is well known, is consistent and remains unchanged. Iran emphasizes upholding the principles and purposes enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including the principles of the sovereign equality, independence, unity and territorial integrity of States. We reiterate the need to end the conflict in Ukraine and emphasize the critical importance of finding a peaceful solution based on the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. The Islamic Republic of Iran has urged all parties to fully comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law. Any attack against nuclear facilities, during peace or war, is prohibited under to the rules of international law, including the decisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). We recognize the urgent need for a comprehensive, multilaterally negotiated instrument prohibiting attacks or threat of attacks on nuclear facilities. My delegation emphasizes that the International Atomic Energy Agency is the sole intergovernmental organization within the United Nations system with the mandate and experience to deal with the technical subject of nuclear safety and security. Any attempts to undermine the mandate, competence and central role of the IAEA in the area of nuclear security should be avoided. After carefully considering resolution 78/316, my delegation has decided to abstain in the voting. However, we remain committed to achieving a peaceful and sustainable resolution of the conflict and are willing to engage in constructive dialogue and cooperation with all parties to attain those important goals.

South Africa wishes to express its continuous concern that the war in Ukraine persists despite its devastating impact and negative humanitarian effects on civilians, especially women and children. We strongly condemn any attack on, and bombing of, civilian infrastructure that leads to the destruction of schools, hospitals and medical centres and call on all parties to adhere to the obligations and the essential principles of international humanitarian law. Allow me to set out South Africa’s position on resolution 78/316, before us today. At the outset, South Africa wishes to underscore the importance of nuclear security and safety and the central role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in strengthening and coordinating the respective nuclear security and safety frameworks globally. In that regard, we commend and support the tireless efforts of the IAEA Director General, Mr. Grossi, and the staff of the IAEA’s Support and Assistance Mission to Zaporizhzhya to secure and maintain nuclear safety, security and safeguards at Ukraine’s nuclear power plants amid extremely challenging circumstances. Having considered the resolution before us today, South Africa’s assessment is that it predominantly covers technical matters more suited for consideration by the technically competent authority, namely the IAEA, rather than by the General Assembly, where it is being presented. It is our considered view that by bringing a resolution of this nature to the Assembly, it might further politicize the issue, rather than allowing the competent technical authority to deal with the matter. South Africa believes that language related to the broader conflict in Ukraine could have benefited from taking into account and acknowledging all efforts towards peace and its importance for ensuring the safety and security of all nuclear facilities, especially in conflict-affected areas. For these reasons, South Africa was unable to vote in favour of this resolution and abstained.

I take the floor after the voting in explanation of Ghana’s vote in favour of the resolution just adopted (resolution 78/316), entitled “Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant”. Ghana’s position on the war of aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine has not been in doubt since February 2024. We have done so in support of the principles we have all resolved to abide by, as contained in the Charter of the United Nations and in consonance with established international law. With respect to the safety and security of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, we have always held our support for the demilitarization of the nuclear site, in accordance with prevailing international commitments not to involve such sites in active conflicts. However, we believe that the politically inspired elements of the resolution that we just adopted do not necessarily advance the cause of peace in Ukraine and distract from the primary goal this resolution should have had, which is to address the technical concerns related to nuclear safety and security for the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant. There are also speculative elements in the resolution, which should not have been the case. Nonetheless, Ghana has voted for the resolution in the hope that, despite all the concerns we have raised, practical expressions of our collective aspiration for peace and for pathways to peace would be developed on the basis of good faith and inclusive dialogue in order to resolve the persisting conflict in Ukraine and its global effects on peace, security and economic stability.

We have heard the last speaker in the explanation of vote after the vote. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 62.

I now give the floor to the representative of the United States to introduce draft amendment A/78/L.91 to draft decision A/78/L.89.

I will be brief in introducing this draft amendment (A/78/L.91). Our delegation believes that civil society organizations must be able to participate in the Summit of the Future to ensure that their voices are heard and that their input is provided. Partnership with civil society is essential if we seek to actually achieve the goals that are being discussed in the Summit. We urge other delegations to vote in favour of this amendment.

We shall now proceed to consider draft decision A/78/L.89 and draft amendment A/78/L.91. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft amendment, and in addition to the delegation listed in the document, the following countries have also become sponsors of draft amendment A/78/L.91: Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Delegations wishing to make a statement in explanation of vote before the vote on any proposal under this item are invited to do so now in one intervention. After action on all of them, there will be an opportunity for explanations of vote after the vote on any or all of them. Before giving the floor for explanations of vote before the voting, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Viet Nam supports the participation of relevant non-governmental organizations (NGOs), among other stakeholders, in United Nations processes, as long as their objectives and activities are in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, we welcome NGOs whose contributions can enrich discussions and implementation of the Summit of the Future’s key outcomes, while maintaining the Summit’s focus and integrity. We thank the President of the General Assembly for respecting the views of Member States and for compiling, through a non-objection procedure, a list of NGOs seeking participation in the Summit, as contained in document A/78/L.89, for consideration by Member States and final decision by the Assembly, in accordance with resolution 76/307, paragraph 11, on modalities for the Summit of the Future. It is regrettable that a proposed amendment was introduced to bring back NGOs previously objected to by Member States. It is undeniable that certain NGOs listed in the amendment are actively engaged in hostile and politically motivated acts against specific Member States. While supporting the engagement of relevant stakeholders, we cannot endorse the participation of those contentious entities that would undermine the principles of the Charter, as well as the objectives and spirit of the Summit of the Future. It is crucial that we give serious consideration to the legitimate concerns raised by Member States regarding NGO participation in the work of the United Nations. These concerns play a vital role in our decision-making process, as they help to ensure the integrity of United Nations platforms and their intended purposes. Our delegation will therefore vote against draft amendment A/78/L.91 and call upon all Member States to do so. Our vote is to preserve the sovereign right of a State to object to the participation of NGOs that carry out hostile activities towards it. Our expressed views and stands with respect to non-governmental entities must be respected, not disregarded.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia attaches great importance to the Pact for the Future. That is why my country has actively participated in all of the stages of the drafting process of the Pact and in preparation for the Summit of the Future. I would like to refer to resolution 76/307, on modalities for the Summit of the Future, which was adopted by consensus on 8 September 2022. Paragraph 11 of the resolution calls on the President of the General Assembly to draw up a list of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations, academic institutions and representative of the private sector who may participate in the Summit, to “submit the proposed list to Member States for their consideration under a non-objection basis”, and to bring the list to the attention of the Assembly for a final decision by the Assembly on their participation in the Summit. While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia welcomes the participation of NGOs, civil society organizations, academic institutions, the private sector and other organizations in the work of the United Nations, we also stress the intergovernmental nature of the United Nations work, which is one of the key principles on which the United Nations bases its work. This is why any decision on the participation of any NGO in the Summit must be based on the non-objection procedure, as referred to in resolution 76/307, in particular paragraph 11, give that consensus among Member States is a key factor to ensure the success of the Summit and achieve its desired outcomes. Because of this, we will abstain from voting on the draft amendment.

At the outset, I reiterate my country’s commitment to supporting the effective participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in all activities and processes of the United Nations because they are effective and key actors in achieving our common objectives. Many Yemeni NGOs have actively and positively contributed to various United Nations activities over the past few years. Still, we cannot overlook the fact that some NGOs may participate in activities that run counter to the purposes and objectives of United Nations activities and forums. They may carry out politically motivated activities. We have had many instances in which some of these NGOs have misused their consultative status at the Economic and Social Council for purposes that run counter to their status. We received a list of NGOs proposed to participate in the Summit of the Future. The list was circulated to Member States for consideration. We asked for the omission of a number of Yemeni NGOs, because they do not meet the legal criteria set by concerned parties. We also examined the activities of some of these NGOs, and we realized that they are affiliated with the terrorist Houthi militias, or their activities aim to promote the agenda of these militias in areas under their control or in those sympathetic with them. Indeed, these organizations were not included in the revised list circulated by the President of the General Assembly. We are grateful for this. However, to our surprise, these organizations are listed in the proposed amendment before us. Therefore, we will abstain from voting on this draft amendment. We look forward to the Summit of the Future, and my delegation will pursue its positive engagement to ensure a successful Summit.

Russia has requested a vote on the draft amendment (A/78/L.91) proposed by the United States, pursuant to which all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to whose participation various Member States had objected previously will now be able to participate in the Summit of the Future. Our country supports dialogue among all stakeholders, but we are of the view that this dialogue must take place within the framework of certain procedures, norms and rules. For many years the non-objection basis has been one of such norms. It allowed us to uphold the intergovernmental nature of this Organization and the effectiveness and collective nature of its decisions. Unfortunately, in recent years we have witnessed a reverse trend, in which the opinions of Member States have been taken into account less and less and decision-making has not been collective or consensus based. As a result, we can hardly be surprised that Member States cannot guarantee accountability for the decisions that are adopted or a willingness to implement them. In our view, small nations are particularly at risk. Their voice is no longer equal to the voice of those who have the power to disregard others’ opinions. The sovereign equality of States is also being undermined. We are convinced that it is more important than ever to return to respect for the principles of decision-making on a non-objection basis and through consensus, at a time when efforts are being made and voices are being heard in the United Nations in favour of establishing a more equitable, multipolar world order and restoring trust between nations. Russia will vote against this draft amendment. We urge delegations to support the non-objection principle and the equality of States.

We were glad to see that language on civil society participation was included in resolution 76/307, on the modalities for the Summit of the Future, which allows for meaningful civil society participation in this important Summit. These modalities allow us to see the rationale for objections to the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This transparency is essential to ensuring that the conference will include voices from a range of experts across the topics in the Summit of the Future. We are grateful that the language has given the decision-making power back to the Assembly rather than to any single Member State. However, we regret that Member States continue to use the non-objection basis to attempt to block NGOs from other countries on political bases. Non-objection basis does not have to be the norm of the General Assembly, and indeed it is no longer the norm. In that vein, we support the draft amendment by the United States (A/78/L.91) and recall the joint priority of ensuring an inclusive and transparent process that is open to stakeholders, including from civil society, academia and the private sector. We believe that it is crucial that civil society organizations are granted wide participation in the Summit. Their input is critical in this process. It would be a disservice to not take advantage of all the tools we have, and this includes partnerships with civil society.

My country is grateful to the United States delegation for the draft amendment they put forward today (A/78/L.91), and we would like to explain our decision to vote in favour of it. No governmental process would be complete without the active participation of civil society. Mexico believes that, as Governments, we must listen to various viewpoints and opinions with regard to the best way to ensure that our agreements benefit people directly. In our view, the Summit of the Future should allow the participation of any non-governmental organization that applies to be included in the process under the criteria set out in the accreditation process. As in previous processes, objections to civil society organizations have not been shared with the entire membership. Once again, the principle of transparency established in resolution 76/307 has not been respected, because the list of non-governmental organizations subject to objections was not circulated to the States Members of the Assembly and there has been no explanation of the objections submitted. For example, there was an objection to a Mexican organization, and we do not know why. As a result, my delegation will vote in favour of the reinstatement of those non-governmental organizations to the original list submitted for consideration by the Assembly for adoption. Mexico considers that the Summit of the Future will benefit from the inclusive participation of non-governmental organizations regardless of whether my country agrees or not with the viewpoints they express, because the value added of such participation derives from the exchange of viewpoints and shared experiences. Mexico will continue to advocate for the inclusion of all actors that wish to participate in the Summit, in line with the principles of resolution 76/307. Furthermore, we urge all other members to support such efforts, in order to strengthen the debates and ensure that the outcomes of the Summit of the Future enhance the effectiveness of the United Nations for all countries and, especially, all people.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the voting. Before we proceed to take a decision on draft decision A/78/L.89, in accordance with rule 90 of the rules of procedure, the Assembly shall first take a decision on draft amendment A/78/L.91. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft amendment A/78/L.91. A recorded vote has been requested.

Since draft amendment A/78/L.91 was adopted, we shall proceed to take action on draft decision A/78/L.89, as amended. The Assembly will take action on draft decision A/78/L.89, as amended, entitled “Participation of non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions and the private sector in the high-level Summit of the Future”. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to adopt draft decision A/78/L.89, as amended?

Before giving the floor for explanations of vote after the voting, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The Togolese delegation would like to make the following comments in explanation of its vote following the adoption of the amendment (A/78/L.91) introduced by the delegation of the United States of America. It is important to remember that the Summit of the Future is an intergovernmental process, the modalities of which were defined in a consensus-based manner by the Member States in resolution 76/307, of 8 September 2022. In that regard, my delegation would like to point out that, according to the silence procedure for the adoption of the list of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other non-State entities which will be invited to take part in the Summit, the Member States are entitled to formulate their reservations with regard to the list and to indicate the reasons for their reservations to the presidency of the General Assembly and to the organizations concerned. In fact, that procedure, which is part of our Organization’s practice and is taken up by resolution 76/307, is founded on a no-objection basis, the aim of which is to facilitate consensus and avoid recourse to a vote on procedural issues. Therefore, in our view, the amendment that has just been adopted contravenes the spirit of the silence procedure. With regard to Togo in particular, my delegation notes that the NGOs L’humanité au cœur de nos actions and Soutien social, which it requested to be excluded, are included in the text proposed by the United States of America. The Togolese Government’s reservations about those two organizations stem from their failure to comply with the legal requirements for operation in Togo that any organization has the responsibility to fulfil. More specifically, those two NGOs are operating illegally, as they do not have the necessary permission issued by the relevant Togolese authorities. It is clear that no Government could authorize an organization without a legal basis for operations to be involved in intergovernmental processes such as the Summit for the Future. Therefore, Togo abstained from voting on the amendment and will continue to express reservations about the participation of those two NGOs in the work of the Summit of the Future.

Cuba is convinced of the usefulness and benefit of civil society participation in the work of the United Nations. Various Cuban civil society organizations engage in activism and show increasing interest in contributing their experiences to the work of the Organization. The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization with procedures that enable non-governmental organizations to participate and to support the work and deliberations that take place here on important international issues. On the basis of those procedures, thousands of organizations whose activities and programmes are in line with the purposes and principles of the United Nations now have consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. In that regard, the established United Nations procedures and practices for civil society participation must be respected. At the same time, we are concerned that there are attempts to impose formulas that undermine and disregard the non-objection principle, which we must salvage and safeguard in its original sense. The amendment presented today (A/78/L.91) once again reveals the intention to distort that principle, and it contributes to politicizing the work of the United Nations. For that reason, Cuba decided to abstain in the voting on it. Our abstention is in no way a judgment on the majority of the non-governmental organizations included in the amendment. We are also opposed to the attempt to pass off as civil society organizations those organizations whose activities run counter to the Charter of the United Nations and international law and to them being used to subvert constitutional order in developing countries. That practice undermines the legitimacy of and affects genuine civil society actors, who do have very important experience to share with the work of the United Nations and its real programmes on the ground for peace, development and human rights.

The Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledges and appreciates the valuable participation of non-governmental organizations in the Summit of the Future. However, we believe that the amendment (A/78/L.91) regrettably undermines and bypasses the non-objection basis enshrined in paragraph 11 of the resolution on the modalities for the Summit of the Future (resolution 76/307). In that regard, and in order to uphold the process and respect the modalities that we negotiated and agreed upon, we decided to vote against the amendment. Our decision is rooted in our commitment to respect the consensus on an agreement that we reached during the negotiations on the modalities.

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

We have noted the outcome of the voting, and we would like to request clarification from the Secretariat as to whether the decision can be considered as having been adopted if most Member States are not present and voting. We have noticed that the number of present and voting Member States is only 78, which is less than half of the total membership of the United Nations. We would be grateful for the Secretariat’s comments on that.

I now give the floor to representative of the Secretariat to address the point of order.

Apologies for the delay. We were just counting the numbers. According to rule 85, a simple majority of members present and voting is required for the adoption of any draft proposal. Looking at the numbers of members present and voting on amendment A/78/L.91, we have 62 plus 16, which is 78. The majority here is 62. Abstentions do not count. I hope that explains it.

If there are no further requests for the floor, the General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 122.