S/PV.9962 Security Council

I would like to warmly welcome the Secretary-General, the Ministers and other high-level representatives present in the Security Council Chamber. Their presence today underscores the importance of the subject matter under discussion. Before each member is a list of speakers who have requested to participate in accordance with rules 37 and 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. We propose that they be invited to participate in this meeting. There being no objection, it is so decided. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2025/443, which contains the text of a letter dated 1 July 2025, from the Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a concept note on the item under consideration. Members of the Council have before them document S/2025/480, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by Pakistan. The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now.

The draft resolution received 15 votes in favour. The draft resolution has been adopted unanimously as resolution 2788 (2025). I now give the floor to the Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. António Guterres.

I want to thank Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Ishaq Dar and Pakistan for convening today’s open debate. The topic of today’s debate shines a light on the clear connection between international peace and multilateralism. Eighty years ago, the United Nations was founded with a primary purpose: to safeguard humanity from the scourge of war. The architects of the Charter of the United Nations recognized that the peaceful resolution of disputes is the lifeline when geopolitical tensions escalate, when unresolved disputes fuel the flames of conflict and when States lose trust in each other. The Charter lays out a number of important tools for forging peace. Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations is clear: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.” Chapter VI of the Charter is I commend Pakistan for utilizing its presidency to put forward a resolution urging all Member States to make full use of those tools in our collective pursuit of global peace. That is needed now more than ever. Around the world we see an utter disregard for, if not outright violations of, international law, including international human rights law, international refugee law, international humanitarian law and the Charter of the United Nations itself, without any accountability. Those failures to uphold international obligations are coming at a time of widening geopolitical divides and conflicts. And the cost is staggering, measured in human lives, shattered communities and lost futures. We need look no further than the horror show in Gaza, with a level of death and destruction without parallel in recent times. Malnourishment is soaring. Starvation is knocking on every door. And now we are seeing the last gasp of a humanitarian system built on humanitarian principles. That system is being denied the conditions to function, the space to deliver and the safety to save lives. With Israeli military operations intensifying and new displacement orders issued in Deir Al-Balah, devastation is being layered upon devastation. I am appalled that United Nations premises have been struck, among them the facilities of the United Nations Office for Project Services and the World Health Organization (WHO), including WHO’s main warehouse. That is despite all parties having been informed of the locations of those United Nations facilities. Those premises are inviolable and must be protected under international humanitarian law without exception. From Gaza to Ukraine, the Sahel to the Sudan, Haiti and Myanmar and many other parts of the world, conflict is raging, international law is being trampled, and hunger and displacement are at record levels. Terrorism, violent extremism and transnational crime remain persistent scourges pushing security further out of reach. Diplomacy may not have always succeeded in preventing conflicts, violence and instability, but it still holds the power to stop them. Peace is a choice, and the world expects the Security Council to help countries to make that choice. The Council is at the centre of the global architecture for peace and security. Its creation reflected a central truth: competition between States is a geopolitical reality, but cooperation anchored in shared interests and the greater good is the sustainable pathway to peace. Too often, we see divisions, entrenched positions and escalatory discourse blocking solutions and the effectiveness of the Council, but we have also seen some inspiring examples of finding common ground and forging solutions to global problems. For example, today marks three years since the signing of the Black Sea Initiative and the memorandum of understanding with the Russian Federation — efforts that show what we can achieve through mediation and the good offices of the United Nations, even during the most challenging moments. And we have seen many other recent examples, from the International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville to the Ocean Conference in Nice to the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction and the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime to the Pact for the Future adopted last year (General Assembly resolution 79/1). The Pact in particular demonstrates a clear recommitment by the world to strengthen the United Nations collective security system. Drawing from the New Agenda for Peace, it prioritizes preventive diplomacy and mediation — areas in First, the Council’s members — in particular its permanent members — must continue working to overcome divisions. The majority of situations on the Security Council’s agenda are complex and resist quick fixes. But even in the darkest days of the cold war, the collective dialogue and decision-making in the Council underpinned a common and effective system of global security — one that successfully deployed a range of peacekeeping missions, opened the door for vital humanitarian aid to flow to people in need and helped to prevent a third world war. I urge members to summon that same spirit by keeping channels open, continuing to listen in good faith and working to overcome differences and build consensus. We must also work to ensure that the Council reflects the world of today, not the world of 80 years ago. The Council should be made more representative of today’s geopolitical realities, and we must continue to improve the working methods of the Council to make it more inclusive, transparent, efficient and accountable. I urge members to continue building consensus to move the intergovernmental negotiations forward. Secondly, the Council must continue to strengthen cooperation with regional and subregional partners. The landmark adoption of resolution 2719 (2023) supporting African Union-led peace support operations through assessed contributions is a good example of how we can join efforts with regional organizations to support more effective responses. I also commend the Council’s steps to strengthen and rebuild regional security frameworks to encourage dialogue and advance the peaceful settlement of disputes. (spoke in French) Thirdly, Member States must honour their obligations under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The Pact for the Future calls on all Member States to honour their commitments in the Charter and the principles of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and the political independence of States. Those principles are all grounded in international law and rest on the commitment to prioritizing the prevention of conflict and the peaceful settlement of disputes through dialogue and diplomacy. The Pact also recognizes the critical contribution of the International Court of Justice, which celebrates its eightieth anniversary next year. As we mark the eightieth anniversary of our Organization and the Charter that gave it life and shape, we must renew our commitment to the multilateral spirit of peace through diplomacy. I look forward to working with the Security Council in that regard in order to achieve the international peace and security that the people of the world need and deserve.

I thank the Secretary-General for his briefing. I shall now make a statement in my capacity as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is a great honour and pleasure to preside over today’s high-level open debate of the Security Council on the important theme of promoting international peace and security through multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Pakistan is striving to fulfil the solemn responsibility that is the Security Council’s presidency with a deep sense of purpose, humility and connection. Our approach will continue to remain anchored in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, respect for international law and steadfast commitment to multilateralism. I thank the Secretary-General for his thoughtful and insightful remarks. We deeply appreciate his leadership and his commitment to upholding the noble I am extremely pleased with the adoption of resolution 2788 (2025) on strengthening mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes by the Council today. It is indeed a welcome expression of our collective will and the determination to pursue dialogue and diplomacy for the pacific settlement of disputes in full conformity with the Charter and the expectations of the international community. I thank all Council members for their positive and constructive engagement with Pakistan’s delegation in achieving this important consensus. Today’s debate is both timely and urgent. Multilateralism is not merely a diplomatic convenience  — it is the need of the hour. The peaceful settlement of dispute is not just a principle — it is the lifeline of global stability. The international community today faces a deeply troubling landscape of unresolved conflicts, festering disputes and new and escalating crises. Geopolitical rivalries, the erosion of trust in multilateral institutions and persistent non-compliance with Security Council resolutions continue to undermine our shared commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security and respect for international law. Around the world, unresolved disputes have morphed into prolonged conflicts. The flames of war rage in several regions across the globe. Those crises have inflicted untold human suffering, displaced millions and undermined our collective faith in the international system’s ability to deliver justice and peace. We must collectively acknowledge that durable peace is not forged through power projection or unilateralism, but through dialogue, mutual respect and inclusive diplomacy. The centrality of multilateralism, as reaffirmed in the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1), offers a framework for trust-building and cooperation, essential to conflict prevention and resolution. Pakistan remains a firm believer in the promise and power of multilateralism. As a long-standing member of the United Nations and one of the largest troop- contributing countries to United Nations peacekeeping, Pakistan’s commitment to peace is principled, enduring and consistent. The peaceful settlement of disputes is not just a moral or legal imperative; it is a strategic necessity. Despite the Charter of the United Nations providing comprehensive tools under Chapter VI for the peaceful settlement of disputes, including negotiations, inquiry, mediations, conciliations, arbitration and judicial settlement, those mechanisms remain underutilized or selectively applied. The Security Council has prime responsibility in that regard, yet we continue to witness the persistence and proliferation of unresolved conflicts, many of which remain on the Council’s agenda for decades. The selective implementation of Council resolutions, double standards and the politicization of humanitarian principles have eroded its credibility and effectiveness. The ongoing tragedies in Palestine and the Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir are vivid examples of that malice. The prolonged suffering of the Palestinian people, particularly in Gaza, remains a stark reminder of the urgent need for a just and lasting solution. Israel’s latest onslaught in Gaza has killed more than 58,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children. The humanitarian situation is dire, with civilians bearing the brunt of the violence and deprivation. We reiterate the call for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and across the occupied territory. The ceasefire must serve as a stepping stone for a broader and durable peace. Pakistan also remains steadfast in its desire for peace in our own region, but that cannot be a one-sided effort. It requires reciprocity, sincerity and willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue, for which Pakistan stands ready. Jammu and Kashmir remains one of the oldest disputes on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council. It is an internationally recognized disputed territory, the final disposition of which is to be made in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people. No cosmetic measures can serve as a substitute for the fundamental and inalienable right to self-determination of the Kashmiris, as guaranteed by the relevant Security Council resolutions. The 65-year-old Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan is a notable example of dialogue and diplomacy, working towards peacefully arriving at a water- sharing arrangement between two neighbours. The Treaty has withstood periods of trials and tribulations in bilateral relations. It is most unfortunate and regrettable that India has chosen to illegally and unilaterally hold that Treaty in abeyance, on baseless grounds, with the intention of withholding the flow of water to 240 million people of Pakistan who rely on it for their livelihood and survival. At the heart of almost all the conflicts across the globe is a crisis of multilateralism, a failure not of principles but of will; a paralysis not of institutions but of political courage. The path to sustainable peace lies in the peaceful resolution of disputes. In that spirit, I make the following humble suggestions. First, we must revitalize trust in the United Nations system, which requires ensuring equal treatment of all conflicts based on international law, not geopolitical expediency. Security Council resolutions must be implemented universally and without discrimination. Secondly, we must uphold the primacy of international law, particularly the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in resolving disputes. There must be no space for the threat or use of force, foreign occupation or denial of the right to self-determination in today’s world. Thirdly, the good offices of the Secretary-General should be effectively utilized in situations of emerging conflict and those involving protracted disputes. Greater support is merited for the Mediation Support Unit. Fourthly, peaceful dispute settlement should be a norm, not an exception. Bilateralism cannot be a pretext for inaction, when one party refuses to engage. Finally, we can promote regional partnerships in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter to support context-specific, inclusive solutions as well as to enhance early diplomatic action, including greater investment in the tools of preventive diplomacy. Pakistan’s foreign policy remains anchored in the principles of the United Nations Charter, the sovereign equality of States, non-interference, the right to self- determination and the peaceful settlement of disputes. We have always preferred diplomacy over confrontation, engagement over isolation and partnership over polarization. We covet a world that is not divided by conflict but united by cooperation and peaceful coexistence. Let this debate serve as a collective reaffirmation of our faith in multilateralism, a recommitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes and a solemn promise to those At the eightieth anniversary of the foundation of the Organization, we owe it to the peoples of the world to make the United Nations even more relevant as a platform for dialogue, but also as an institution that delivers justice, upholds international law and promotes sustainable peace. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. I give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements. Lord Collins (United Kingdom): The United Kingdom thanks Pakistan for convening this timely debate, at a time when multilateralism faces unprecedented strain. As the Secretary-General said, the world is witnessing more conflict than at any time since the founding of the United Nations. From Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine to the protracted crisis in Gaza, the international community is being tested. Our response must strive for peace and be guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Multilateralism remains the best tool we have to meet the shared challenges of the twenty-first century. The Council, as the United Nations organ with the primary responsibility for international peace and security, should play a central role. That includes through a collective commitment to the rule of law, including international humanitarian law, and to the peaceful settlement of disputes. Those are not abstract ideals. They are principles by which we could collectively prevent and resolve conflict. That is why the United Kingdom has kept those principles at the heart of its foreign policy. But as we mark the United Nations eightieth anniversary, we must seize this moment to revitalize the peace and security architecture, to champion human rights and to strengthen the United Nations development system and humanitarian architecture to ensure that all three pillars are collectively fit for purpose. We should make full use of the United Nations mediation and conflict prevention capabilities. In the Sudan, we continue to urge the warring parties to engage meaningfully with existing diplomatic initiatives, including United Nations mediation efforts, with a view to achieving a lasting national ceasefire and political solution. There and elsewhere, we need the United Nations to help to address the root causes of conflict. Peace operations should be more adaptable, more politically attuned and better coordinated with other United Nations and regional actors, leveraging new technologies and local expertise. We must focus not only on brokering peace but also on sustaining it. The United Nations efforts to verify the implementation of the Final Agreement for Ending the Conflict and Building a Stable and Lasting Peace in Colombia is a good example of that work in the field. And, here, in New York, we can make better use of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture to support national efforts to sustain peace. In underscoring that, we must recall that, crucially, sustainable peace can be achieved only through inclusive peace processes with the full, equal, meaningful and safe participation of women. The Charter of the United Nations is our shared foundation. In this moment of global uncertainty, we must recommit to multilateralism, not as a slogan but as a strategy. The United Kingdom stands ready to work with all Member States to that end, including to uphold peace, security and the rule of law.

At the outset, allow me to express my deep appreciation to the Pakistani presidency for convening this high-level debate and to the Secretary-General for his briefing. I welcome His Excellency the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan to New York to preside over this meeting. Pakistan’s leadership in bringing us together for this important Across the world, we are witnessing the painful consequences of unresolved conflicts in which lives are uprooted, hopes are dashed, and entire regions are destabilized. The world has grown weary of a cycle in which geopolitical rivalries breed division, international obligations are set aside and Security Council resolutions, too often, remain unfulfilled. In that vein, I wish to make the following four points. First, we must confront the reality of weakened multilateralism — a cause and a symptom of so many of our collective challenges. In the aftermath of the Second World War, humankind seemed poised to establish lasting peace through goodwill, multilateralism, mediation and arbitration. For a time, unity of purpose and global consensus brought us close to preventing destructive conflicts. Today, however, many multilateral institutions are hamstrung by outdated rules and structures. Reform cannot wait, if those bodies are to respond to the complex realities of our era. Nowhere is that more evident than in this organ, as we mark the eightieth anniversary of the United Nations. For the Council to be truly representative and effective, Africa must be granted its long-overdue place at the table, with at least two permanent seats, as demanded by the Ezulwini Consensus. Without such renewal, our legitimacy and capacity to address conflicts will remain out of reach. Secondly, from the very outset of any United Nations mission, we must have a clear and realistic exit strategy, especially during complex political transitions. Our engagement should be purposeful, time-bound and aimed at empowering local actors to sustain peace themselves. Support for transitions cannot be reduced to providing electoral assistance or to treating elections as the sole marker of democracy. The United Nations and its Members must exert more effort and investment in peacebuilding and accompany societies through reconciliation and reform. Thirdly, lasting peace and security depend fundamentally on respect for international law and the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. All Members must uphold their obligations by resolving disputes through peaceful means, respecting sovereignty and honouring the resolutions of the Council. Selective adherence to, and disregard for, those principles undermine the credibility of our collective security system and erode the trust necessary for effective multilateralism. Fourthly and lastly, Africa’s rich tradition of dialogue, mediation and wisdom across the continent has prevented countless crises. The African Union’s Silencing the Guns initiative is a testament to a collective resolve to end the scourge of wars. Those initiatives deserve not just recognition but real investment. To that end, the historic resolution 2719 (2023) should be operationalized to ensure that United Nations support for African Union-led peace operations is sustainable and predictable. We must recommit to empowering those mechanisms to anchor lasting peace both on our continent and beyond. It is, after all, in the vital interest of the Council to ensure that its regional partners such as the African Union are sufficiently supported and enabled to fully discharge their responsibility as part of the global peace and security architecture. As we recently marked Nelson Mandela International Day last week, we echo the words of that leader, who embodied reconciliation and peace: “It is so easy to break down and destroy. The heroes are those who make peace and build.” Today it is imperative to renew our commitment to multilateralism and to the Charter’s vision — a world in which disputes are settled not through military might but rather by diplomacy and political solutions. As the upsurge in conflict takes hold, so does the lure of unilateralism. The resolution that we have just unanimously adopted (resolution 2788 (2025)) reaffirms our commitment to multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes. France has identified three courses of action for giving fresh impetus to multilateral action. First, the United Nations must adapt in order to boost the effectiveness of its activities. Multilateralism is not just a word. It is a method that favours joint action, planning and the curbing of rivalries over allowing might to make right in defending national interests. The United Nations is its institutional mainstay. Work is afoot to reform them. France supports those led by the Secretary-General in the context of the eightieth anniversary of the United Nations to strengthen the efficiency of the Organization and adapt it to contemporary realities. We promote the necessary reform of the Security Council, which must increase its representativeness, including that of African countries among the permanent members. Since 2015, France and Mexico have also been leading an initiative — joined by 107 States — to limit the veto in cases of mass atrocities so that the Council is not prevented from acting in such situations. The world cannot accept a Council stalemate regarding the situation in Gaza or the invasion of Ukraine. Secondly, the Security Council must play its role. Chapter VI of the Charter confers on the Security Council dedicated instruments for the peaceful settlement of disputes. When it has managed to speak with one voice, it has achieved considerable success. The 2016 Final Agreement for Ending the Conflict and Building a Stable and Lasting Peace, reached in Colombia by the Government and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia -Ejército del Pueblo and whose implementation is supported by the United Nations by decision of the Security Council, is proof of that. The Security Council must make use of all the instruments at its disposal and rely on regional organizations, civil society, women and all local actors. In the Sudan, the Council must act more decisively to promote a return to peace. Regarding Haiti, France wants to continue working with all members of the Council to strengthen United Nations involvement and restore security in line with the Secretary- General’s recommendations. Thirdly, the international community must keep working to uphold international law. France welcomes the International Court of Justice’s contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes, both in contentious matters and in an advisory capacity. Respect for international law, starting with international humanitarian law and international human rights law, so dangerously flouted of late, is one of the cornerstones of conflict prevention and resolution. That is the rationale behind France’s commitment as a co-founder of the global initiative led by the International Committee of the Red Cross aimed at revitalizing political commitment to international humanitarian law. It is also the rationale behind the fight against impunity throughout the world. While addressing the General Assembly in September 2024 (see A/79/PV.9), the President of the Republic spoke of the “greatest convergence of crises” in the eight decades of the Organization’s existence. It is up to us to address that by choosing law and diplomacy over force and by choosing cooperation and consultation over unilateralism. Against the destructive illusions of pseudo-solutions using force, our Council must embody the founding choice of the pacific resolution of disputes.

China applauds Pakistan’s initiative in convening this open debate and welcomes the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Mohammad Ishaq Dar, as he presides over today’s meeting China welcomes the Security Council’s unanimous adoption of resolution 2788 (2025) on strengthening mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Eight decades ago, the World Anti-Fascist War ended in great victory. The signing of the Charter of the United Nations established the basic norms governing international relations and manifested humankind’s common aspirations to end the scourge of war and maintain world peace. Eighty years on, the world is entering a new era defined by turbulence and transformation and peace and development remain arduous missions that are far from accomplished. The eightieth anniversary of the United Nations provides the international community with a pivotal opportunity to revisit its founding aspirations, revitalize multilateralism and forge ahead in the interests of international peace and security. I would like to highlight the following points. First, we must commit to settling disputes peacefully. It is inevitable that tensions and friction sometimes arise between countries, but pressuring, imposing sanctions or even resorting to force is often counterproductive, as that leads to greater conflicts and adds to the pile-up of hatred and animosity. Countries must respect each other’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, take seriously each other’s legitimate security concerns, resolve their differences through mutual understanding and accommodation and move towards greater consensus through dialogue and engagement. The international community  — major countries in particular — should build bridges for dialogue and cooperation rather than stoking or fuelling the flames and instigating confrontation. Secondly, we must commit to respecting the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We are witnessing many conflicts and confrontations today, not because the Charter is outdated, but because its purposes and principles have not been fully respected. The Charter is the unshakeable bedrock of the international order  — it is not an à la carte menu from which one can pick and choose. The international community must reject the law of the jungle, whereby more powerful nations bully weaker ones. We must adhere to the Charter principles, including sovereign equality, non-interference and the peaceful settlement of disputes, upholding equality of all nations — large and small — and safeguarding international equity and justice. Thirdly, we must commit to enabling the Security Council to effectively fulfil its duties. The Council shoulders the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security in the face of major crises and conflicts. It must resolutely perform its Charter-mandated functions and take timely and effective action. Council members should rise above self-interest, prioritize the common good, abandon geopolitical calculations and seek unity and cooperation. Resolutions adopted by the Council are legally binding and must be implemented in both letter and spirit, without selective application, much less double standards. The Secretary- General and his Special Envoys and Special Representatives play an important role in mediation and conflict resolution and should work in synergy with the Council. Fourthly, we must support the active role of the global South. Most countries of the global South have suffered invasion, colonization and plundering and therefore fully understand the value of peace. They represent a stabilizing, constructive and progressive force amid the tectonic changes in the world. China, Brazil and other global South countries formed the Group of Friends for Peace on the Ukraine Crisis. BRICS nations have actively voiced their positions on major hotspot issues, such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, contributing to political solutions to those crises. All parties should continue to support regional organizations, such as the African Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the League of Arab States, in deepening their partnerships with the United Nations and playing leading roles in resolving regional conflicts.

Let me thank the Secretary-General for his valuable briefing and for his clarion call to action. I thank you, Deputy Prime Minister Dar, for your presence today. The peaceful settlement of disputes strikes at the very core of our work at the Security Council. Denmark commends Pakistan for bringing it to the forefront today. We also congratulate Pakistan for the important resolution that we adopted this morning (resolution 2788 (2025)). In joining the United Nations, every Member State undertakes a solemn commitment to uphold the Charter of the United Nations and to promote and defend its purposes, its principles and its values. Today, that commitment is threatened as never before. We believe it is high time not only to recommit to those principles and values, but to take concrete steps to implement them. The peaceful settlement of disputes encompasses a broad range of actions — from the use of diplomacy, dialogue and mediation, to taking confidence-building measures; from early warning mechanisms to crisis management measures. We have those tools at our disposal. We have recommitted to them in the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1). What is needed, as ever, is the political will and the courage to use them. Denmark believes that those tools are underutilized and undervalued. Allow me to highlight several recommendations in that regard. First, the good offices of the Secretary-General and his envoys is a vital role and an important tool to promote the peaceful resolution of disputes. That instrument requires adequate resources to lead and support mediation and preventive diplomacy. It should be actively used in a bold and forward-leaning way, even when the risks of failing are high. We also underscore the ability of the Secretary-General to bring matters to the attention of the Council in Article 99 of the Charter as an important tool in prevention. Secondly, we, the Member States, must fulfil our obligations under Article 33 and seek solutions to any dispute by peaceful means. Dialogue, preventive diplomacy and mediation must become our first ports of call. Failing that, there are still other avenues. Legal disputes should, as a general rule, be referred to the International Court of Justice, and we encourage all Member States to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice has an increasingly important role in upholding international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Thirdly, we, the Security Council, need to utilize all means and measures at our disposal to deliver on our mandate. Chapter VI of the Charter provides a range The Council should also make more use of its authority to call on parties to settle their disputes by peaceful means and to make recommendations on procedures that could be taken. In that regard, we underscore the obligations in Article 27, paragraph 3, stating that in decisions under Chapter VI, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. Our credibility depends not only on our ability to resolve and settle disputes, but on our ability to foresee and, critically, to forestall them. That means investing more in prevention and peacebuilding, including confidence-building measures. It also means supporting civil society, grassroots organizations and youth initiatives, and ensuring women’s full, equal, meaningful and safe participation in peace and security efforts. Concretely, the Council should consider organizing horizon-scanning and situational awareness briefings and considering early responses. When the warning signs are clear, our resolve must be firm. Such an approach could save lives, resources and decades of development gains. In conclusion, in this Organization, we have all committed to saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war. However, commitments on paper will save no one. Now is the time to maximize our use of the tools provided under the Charter. Let us harness their full potential and uphold our responsibility to maintain international peace and security.

We would like to thank the delegation of Pakistan for organizing this open debate on promoting international peace and security through multilateralism and peaceful settlement of disputes. We are grateful to the Secretary-General for his briefing. We supported the corresponding resolution crafted by our Pakistani colleagues (resolution 2788 (2025)). The process of finalizing that document was hampered by attempts by certain members to politicize the issue. We note the efforts of the sponsors of the initiative, which ultimately did not give in to those attempts. Nor did they allow the resolution to become a platform for the United Nations Secretariat to promote conflict prevention mechanisms that are beyond the control of Member States. Both the meeting and the document adopted are intended to spotlight the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes, something to which the Russian Federation attaches great importance. States are obliged to settle their disputes through means and mechanisms agreed upon among them. That goal has been the cornerstone of the United Nations since it was established. At the same time, we are convinced that international peace and security can only be ensured through strict and conscientious observance of all principles of international law, in their entirety and inextricable interconnectedness. It is of the utmost importance that those principles be implemented in good faith. However, certain States have opted for ignoring that premise and deliberately politicizing mechanisms for dispute settlement, which not only engenders increased tensions in international relations, but may also cause irreversible damage to the activities of the most important judicial and arbitral institutions. The peaceful settlement of international disputes, the subject of today’s discussion, is enshrined in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations. That principle is reaffirmed in a number of authoritative consensus-based documents of the General Assembly, including the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. Sovereign States are free to choose any peaceful means for settling disputes. Neither certain means nor a combination thereof can be imposed on countries. The Security Council has the right to recommend appropriate solutions to the parties, but that right should be exercised pragmatically, with due regard for the specifics of each situation, as well as with a deep understanding of the historical and regional context and the root causes of the dispute. We stand convinced that without adherence to the principles of good faith and mutual consent of the parties, no effective dispute settlement is possible in principle. Obviously, in the absence of the consent of one or both parties, decisions by mechanisms tend to be illegitimate in nature and will not be enforced. Equally important are the principles of respect for State sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs. Any form of external pressure, manipulation of procedures and selective approaches are likely to undermine the authority of international mechanisms, reducing them to instruments of geopolitical disputes. That decline can be clearly seen in the conduct of international institutions of criminal justice, on which the international community used to pin its hopes. In that regard, our common objective now is to shield the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, from abuse and manipulation. The International Court of Justice’s authority and effectiveness directly hinge on its independence and impartiality, qualities that the Court has managed to preserve, despite attempts by certain actors to drag it into dubious political adventures. The Court’s increased workload attests to the high level of trust that States place in that body. Nevertheless, the International Court of Justice’s funding remains completely incommensurate with its importance and size, and with the scope of the tasks entrusted to it. We believe it is fundamentally important to provide the International Court of Justice with the necessary support from Member States, especially in the light of the Secretary-General’s UN80 initiative. We call for a redistribution of resources to those bodies that are genuinely working to strengthen international law. In that regard, the International Court of Justice is undoubtedly a body that deserves support. The issue of conflict prevention, mediation, and good offices tends to be one of the most popular topics at the United Nations, and it is a priority for many States and the United Nations Secretariat. However, we see a paradox: while supporting those principles in word, States in conflict are often reluctant to delegate those powers to the United Nations, because they view that as interference in their domestic affairs, and the United Nations itself is gradually ceding ground as the most active mediator in international conflicts, alleging a lack of influence or geopolitical contradictions. Another example here is the early warning principle, which was also reflected in the resolution adopted today. We do not support that concept, since in most cases it has been harnessed to justify intervention in a situation for political reasons that serve the interests of only one single group of countries. We are convinced that the effectiveness of the Secretariat’s preventive diplomacy efforts is rooted in trust. Many countries are openly casting doubt on the impartiality of those efforts and are rejecting the deployment of missions to their territories. Some view them as externally imposed mechanisms, which promote an agenda that is extraneous to national priorities and see them as useless at best and an instrument for exerting pressure at worst. We believe that, in those countries, concerns about Furthermore, United Nations efforts should not be overburdened by tasks that reflect the ideological agenda of any given group of countries. We do not downplay the importance of peacebuilding efforts, the issues of gender equality, combating sexual violence, development assistance and tackling climate change. However, those issues cannot be at the forefront of United Nations political mediation efforts. It is time to acknowledge that there are no universal indicators of conflict. Unfortunately, we see this issue arise, for example, in the efforts of the Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisers, which afford priority to those ancillary matters. Another recent trend, in our view, is the chronic disregard for, and failure to implement, agreements reached through peace efforts, including Security Council resolutions. It does not suffice to conclude agreements; they must be implemented. Examples abound. A clear case in point is the Minsk agreements, which, as European leaders put it, were signed with the precise intention of not implementing them and of stalling for time. That is the most glaring example of failure to prevent conflict. Another important ingredient of peaceful dispute resolution requiring consideration is reliance on reliable data. The dissemination of unverified information and, at times, outright disinformation by the mass media and non-governmental organizations is a hallmark of our times. Such biased data often seeps into United Nations documents and is actively used by the Organization’s staff. We must buck that trend. The array of means of peaceful dispute resolution therefore offers States a wealth of possibilities for settling their differences. However, the desired outcome can be achieved only if parties to a dispute apply those means in good faith and in a coordinated fashion, without solutions being imposed from outside. We are genuinely interested in restoring the United Nations central role in the maintenance of peace and security through peaceful means, with due regard for the Security Council’s primary responsibility for that task. It is our hope that both the Secretariat and the Council will draw the requisite conclusions in good time.

At the outset, I would like to welcome your presence, Mr. President, and congratulate Pakistan for presiding over the Security Council for the month of July. I would also like to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing. The promotion of international peace and security through multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes lies at the heart of the Charter of the United Nations and should remain a common priority for all Member States. Having recently marked the eightieth anniversary of the United Nations, we cannot but reflect on the tremendous toll of the Second World War on countries such as Greece and on the firm belief that conflicts and wars should and can be averted. Greece was proud to be among the first countries to sign the Charter of the United Nations and thus became one of its founding members. The peaceful settlement of disputes is among the very principles that form the bedrock of the United Nations. Greece fully adheres to the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes and seeks to promote a wide array of tools for their prevention and resolution on the basis of the primacy of international law, as set out in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations. Moreover, Greece is a firm proponent of the rules-based multilateral system, which stipulates that United Nations Members should refrain from the threat or use of force against other Members. We believe that respect for international law and commitment to the principle of good neighbourly relations are of paramount importance for safeguarding and Allow me to offer some more reflections. First, Greece spares no effort in promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes, utilizing all the tools enshrined in the Charter and participating in relevant initiatives. Respect for international law and the promotion of good neighbourly relations remain the solid basis of that endeavour, and we emphatically call on all Member States to uphold the same principles as the only viable way for peaceful coexistence, prosperity and stability. At the same time, the implementation of Security Council resolutions by all Member States and international organizations is an essential component for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is also crucial that all Member States respect international law and adhere to all major conventions, as Greece has done. Secondly, during our tenure in the Security Council, we are determined to work in an efficient and productive way in order to further promote the peaceful settlement of disputes and respect for international law and the Charter of the United Nations — long-standing principles of Greek foreign policy. Guided by the triptych of dialogue, diplomacy and democracy — the motto of our tenure as an elected member of the Security Council for the 2025-2026 term — Greece brings a principled voice to this table. Those are not just words but are the core tenet of our foreign policy and of our participation in the Security Council as an elected member. In that context, we seek to act as a reliable and constructive interlocutor with all United Nations Member States, maintaining channels of communication open, not only with our neighbours but with the whole international community. Lastly, an increasing number of disputes across the continents continues to require our collective attention and engagement. The year 2025 offers an opportunity to collectively reflect on the accomplishments of the Organization and to build on solid values, reiterating our steadfast support for the Charter of the United Nations and international law. As a staunch supporter of multilateralism and international law with the United Nations at its core, Greece remains committed to promoting peaceful dispute settlement as the only viable way for sustaining peace.

I thank Deputy Prime Minister Dar for convening this important debate. I also thank the Secretary-General for his briefing. Eighty years ago, in the wake of the devastation of two world wars, the United States convened the nations of the world to envision a better future. They formed the United Nations, with the aim of saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Those nations recognized that, even in a peaceful world, disputes would still arise among States, but they determined that disputes could and must be resolved peacefully. The United States firmly believes in that basic founding principle enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Across the globe the United States continues to work with parties to disputes, wherever possible, to find peaceful solutions. In the past three months alone, we have seen United States leadership deliver de-escalations between Israel and Iran, between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda and between India and Pakistan. The United States, under President Trump’s leadership, played an important role in encouraging the parties to reach those resolutions, which we applaud and support. In particular, we call for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Russia must cease its attacks on civilians and fulfil its obligations under the Charter. We call on other United Nations Member States to stop providing Russia with the means to continue its aggression. The war must end. For peaceful dispute settlement processes to be credible, their outcomes must be implemented. We again call on China to abide by the 2016 ruling of the Arbitral Tribunal convened under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is both final and legally binding on China and the Philippines. For nine years now, China has refused to live up to its obligations as a party to the Convention. Instead, China has continued to publicly reject the ruling, interfere with the exercise of high seas freedoms as reflected in the Convention and assert expansive and unlawful claims that infringe on the sovereign rights and jurisdictions of other South China Sea littoral States, including the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Viet Nam. We once again condemn China’s expansive and unlawful maritime claims in the South China Sea and the dangerous and destabilizing ways in which it attempts to enforce them. Over the years, the international community has developed robust mechanisms to help States to reach agreements. However, some of those mechanisms are flawed, as they are subject to bias against particular countries, or seek to exceed their jurisdiction to the detriment of the sovereignty of all States — another principle in the United Nations Charter. The United States staunchly opposes such overreach, even as we support true contributions to international peace and security. It is critically important that institutions and structures aimed at facilitating the peaceful settlement of disputes operate with due regard for the States’ sovereignty and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The United States is ready to continue working with the United Nations and with other United Nations Member States to support peaceful means of resolving differences.

Your Excellency Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Sierra Leone commends the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for convening this timely and significant high-level open debate and for facilitating the resolution adopted today (resolution 2788 (2025)). Today’s debate reinforces one of the core purposes and principles of the United Nations — the promotion of international peace and security through international cooperation and the peaceful settlement of disputes, as enshrined in Chapter VI, Articles 33 to 38 of the Charter of the United Nations. We also express appreciation to the Secretary-General for his insightful briefing. As a country that endured the horrors of conflict and now enjoys the dividends of peace, Sierra Leone speaks from experience. Our transition from civil war to stability was made possible through regional and multilateral cooperation, including action and the good offices of the United Nations, the pivotal role of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union, supporting inclusive national dialogue and ownership. The journey started with a leadership decision to mediate amid brutality and resentment. It is now a journey that testifies to the promises of the Charter — that with political will and international solidarity, peace is possible, sustainable and transformative. Our commitment to multilateralism is unwavering. As an elected member of the Council and a nation that has benefited from the Peacebuilding Commission’s support, we continue to promote inclusive dialogue, reconciliation, justice and Sierra Leone believes that this body needs to be urgently reformed, a view that underscores our commitment to the Common African Position on Security Council reform, as put forward by the African Union. Eighty years ago, the United Nations emerged from the ashes of global war with a solemn promise to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. For more than eight decades, multilateralism has helped to prevent conflicts, resolve disputes and foster development. However, persistent inequalities, geopolitical tensions and new global challenges, from climate insecurity to technological disruption, demand that we renew and reinforce our collective commitment. In that regard, Sierra Leone wishes to highlight four key points. First, the Security Council must move from rhetoric to action. Principles must be backed by practice. Chapter VI of the Charter offers an extensive toolkit for peaceful dispute resolution, including negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, the good offices of the Secretary-General and judicial settlement. Those tools are not mere aspirations. They are binding instruments of action. Among them, judicial settlement plays a vital role, and we reaffirm the importance of the International Court of Justice in that respect. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice provides a peaceful and legally binding mechanism for resolving inter-State disputes and upholding international law. Sierra Leone also encourages strengthened engagement between the Council and regional organizations. Our experience in West Africa, with ECOWAS, the African Union and the Mano River Union, has demonstrated that proximity, legitimacy and shared values enable more agile and context-specific responses. That regional-global complementarity is central to the African Peace and Security Architecture and aligns with the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. Secondly, the Security Council must improve its follow-up and implementation of adopted resolutions. That means proactive monitoring, regular briefings by special envoys and mediators and avoiding selective engagement based on geopolitical interests. We must overcome challenges of non-compliance, weak enforcement and Council divisions. Durable peace requires consistency, credibility and a principled approach. In addition, the Council and the broader United Nations system must also address root causes such as marginalization and non-inclusion of minorities, governance gaps and competition over resources, which often lie at the heart of disputes. Thirdly, the Secretary-General should be fully empowered to act early and decisively. We support the use of Article 99 in instances in which emerging crises threaten international peace and security. The good offices of the Secretary-General must be actively used to facilitate dialogue and de-escalation, as was exhibited last week on the Cyprus question. We call for enhanced cooperation between the Secretary-General and regional leaders. Regional diplomacy and quiet backchannel engagement often lay the groundwork for official mediation. We also underscore the need for adequate and sustained funding for the mediation work of the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and the Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisers, which remains a valuable tool. Fourthly, and finally, we must shift from reactive crisis management to proactive conflict prevention. Preventive diplomacy should be institutionalized through consent-driven horizon scanning, early warning briefings and partnerships with regional organizations and civil society. The Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1), particularly Actions 13 through 18, offers a blueprint for building Our post-conflict peacebuilding efforts, including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, hybrid accountability mechanisms and community-based reconciliation, have provided a model of restorative justice. We now share those lessons through South-South cooperation, peer exchanges and mediation training. Previously on the Security Council’s agenda and now a member of the Council, Sierra Leone is both a witness to the power of multilateralism and an advocate for its future. We reiterate our belief in the enduring relevance of the Bandung Principles, including mutual respect for sovereignty, non-interference, equality and peaceful coexistence. Those values, shared across the developing world, remain central to the global peace and security architecture. Let us not wait for the outbreak of conflict before we act. Let us use the tools of diplomacy, solidarity and justice. We must remain committed to upholding the principles of the Charter, advancing the rule of law and strengthening multilateralism as the cornerstone of a more peaceful, equitable and secure world.

I welcome you to the Security Council, Your Excellency Mr. Mohammad Ishaq Dar, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, and commend Pakistan on choosing this subject for today’s open debate. I also thank Secretary-General Guterres for his powerful message. The formation of the United Nations 80 years ago was driven by the catastrophe of two world wars, which brought untold sorrow to humankind. Multilateralism triumphed as world leaders united across geopolitical divides to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Consequently, the primary purpose of the United Nations, as stated at the very beginning of the Charter, was to maintain international peace and security and, to that end: “to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations, which might lead to a breach of the peace” (Article 1, para. 1). Today, as the United Nations approaches its eightieth anniversary, we are seeing the highest number of conflicts since the Second World War, creating untold suffering for millions of people. The core humanitarian principles aimed at protecting innocent civilians are being violated, and the protections afforded to humanitarian personnel that are considered sacred are being grievously eroded. We need not look any further than what is taking place in Gaza today, even though other examples abound. The international community must encourage all parties to conflict to settle their disputes using the comprehensive menu of options under Article 33 of the Charter, which includes negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resorting to regional agencies or arrangements and other peaceful means of their own choice. History has shown that States that have chosen to resolve their disputes through peaceful means have seen many positive outcomes. The international system needs more States in conflict to choose that path. Indeed, it must be underscored that in every instance where there has been conflict and war, the resolution has inevitably come through one of the very means offered in the Charter — most often negotiation and mediation leading to ceasefire or peace agreements. Sadly, by this time, too many would have lost their lives and critical infrastructure would have been destroyed requiring immense resources for rebuilding. In Guyana, we too have chosen peace through our application to the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 33 of the Charter, in relation to an unlawful claim to two thirds of our territory. In conclusion, I reaffirm Guyana’s commitment to multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Global solidarity for peace has never been more crucial. We must choose peace on every occasion.

Panama thanks the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for convening this open debate, which addresses a subject that is of utmost importance and relevance: the future of multilateralism as a tool for conflict resolution. We welcome His Excellency Mr. Mohammad Ishaq Dar, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan. We welcome and are grateful for the valuable participation of Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, and that of the Ministers of State and other high-ranking officials who are honouring us with their participation. Today the world is experiencing the highest number of concurrent armed conflicts since 1946. The worsening crises in Ukraine, Gaza, Myanmar, the Sudan and Haiti, among others, send us an ominous message: we have a long way to go to achieve our mission of consolidating international peace and security, and it even appears that we are experiencing a setback. The solidarity and interdependence that brought us together eighty years ago to prevent the horrors of war from ravaging the world again led to the ratification of the Charter of the United Nations and established the foundations of the system of multilateral governance that has endured until now, helping to reduce extreme poverty, hunger and insecurity in the world. However, today we are witnessing a gradual degradation of that system into one dominated by mutual distrust, disinformation, political obstructions, financial constraints and unilateral arbitrariness. The lack of political will to implement the reforms and innovations necessary to adapt to new realities and deal with increasingly complex conflicts is worrisome. Panama reiterates its unequivocal call for the Council to uphold and protect the Charter of the United Nations. For our small country from the global South, the United Nations was, and will continue to be, the main vehicle for internationalizing our causes — from the transfer of the Panama Canal into Panamanian hands, to efforts to promote global maritime security. The multilateral nature of the Organization has empowered us to respond effectively to arbitrary impositions by powerful countries. For us, a developing Latin American country, a world order in which countries impose their protectionist interests instead of working together towards the common good is inconceivable. With the advent of globalization and growing interconnectedness among nations, isolationism has taken the form of a misguided rejection of State responsibility, which time and again has proven to have no tangible effect on safeguarding peace and global security. By contrast, multilateralism is the bedrock of stability and global well-being. We have no other alternative. We must therefore ensure inclusive Panama believes that territorial integrity, sovereignty and the right of peoples to decide their own destiny are non-negotiable. The acceptance of all Member States of that fact is critical to resolving protracted conflicts. Those considerations are not, however, antithetical to the universal and binding nature of human rights, individual freedoms and the mandate that the Charter confers on the Council to take proportionate measures in response to acts of injustice, human rights violations and war crimes. The Charter vests in the Security Council the power to promote and maintain international peace and security. Those tasks are not merely a matter of legal mandate; they are a moral duty. The lives of millions of people mired in tragedy, crisis and famine depend on our actions. The UN80 Initiative and the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1) provide an absolutely pivotal opportunity to effect profound change in how we fulfil our mandate. It is crucial to make use of existing tools and adopt an inclusive perspective on conflict prevention, whereby women, youth, Indigenous Peoples and civil society play a key part. We support closer ties between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission — a platform that has served as a crucial bridge between the General Assembly and the Council. We call for a bolstering of the mechanisms for sharing information with the Economic and Social Council and with regional and local organizations engaged in peacebuilding efforts. The Latin American region has robust examples of that, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Inter-American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) includes mechanisms that are grounded in the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes and supports procedures such as good offices, investigation and conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement. It is worth remembering, however, that the primary role in upholding multilateralism as an effective tool for conflict resolution is ultimately rooted in the actions of Member States. Proposals will not translate into a decline in active conflicts or the eradication of humanitarian tragedies, if we do not trust ourselves nor cooperate in good faith in order to address global challenges, from climate change to profound global socioeconomic inequality. Moreover, the indiscriminate use of the veto, the lack of representation of the global South, and the unilateral obstruction of consensus are direct impediments to accomplishing our task. Panama considers initiatives that propose reforming the Security Council to be worthwhile. In a watershed moment, the Council, which had convened in Panama in 1973 (see S/PV.1704), by majority, encouraged the parties to successfully negotiate a new treaty to eliminate tensions and secure the transfer of administration of the canal into Panamanian hands. When genuine commitment exists, the Council can and must act as a genuine force for peace. The United Nations must remain the cornerstone and driver of multilateralism. We demand principled commitment and political will. Programmes, mandates and missions will be only as effective as Member States allow them to be. May today’s crises serve as a warning about the devastating consequences of a world riven by extremism, unilateral arbitrariness and a dearth of solidarity. Let us reflect and contribute constructively so that international cooperation flourishes and we are

Let me begin by acknowledging the timeliness of this meeting and thanking His Excellency, Mr. Mohammad Ishaq Dar, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, for initiating this important meeting today. I also thank the Secretary-General for his insightful briefing today. We continue to witness how complex and protracted conflicts, driven by a range of underlying causes, give rise to hostilities and humanitarian crises. In that context, our commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes must be reaffirmed, with a greater emphasis on preventive diplomacy and the use of the tools stipulated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations. Let me highlight three points today. First, mediation and good offices are recognized as useful tools within the range of the preventive diplomacy measures outlined in Article 33 of the Charter. In an increasingly complex conflict landscape, that mechanism offers timely and effective responses that can help to ease tensions before they escalate and to prevent the outbreak or reoccurrence of the violence. The United Nations prompt, well- resourced and professional mediation support is, therefore, crucial. In that respect, we commend the work of the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA) and its Mediation Support Unit for providing well-timed expertise to envoys and field missions. As demand for such mediation support continues to grow, those efforts should be backed by sustained and predictable financial resources. For our part, the Republic of Korea has steadily increased support for the DPPA’s multi-year appeal, contributing approximately $3.5 million — the highest amount among donors last year. Such a contribution will help to strengthen the United Nations capabilities in mediation and crisis response, and we hope that the international community will continue to extend support to the multi-year appeal. Secondly, the expertise and growing responsibilities of regional and subregional organizations should be fully utilized in every step of dispute resolution. With their deep understanding of the underlying causes of conflict, regional bodies are uniquely positioned to deliver context-specific dialogue and mediation tools. Their influence, legitimacy and proximity make them indispensable partners in crafting sustainable peace. In that regard, we take note of the African Union’s (AU) ownership and leadership in solving African conflicts throughout the peace continuum, from the AU’s Continental Early Warning System, peace support operations such as the African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia and Center for Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development. With that in mind, strengthening strategic partnerships between the Council and regional organizations is essential for ensuring that the Council’s decisions are informed by local realities, thereby reinforcing its capacity to actively respond to conflict in a sustainable and context- specific manner. Thirdly, preventive diplomacy should go hand in hand with efforts to build inclusive and lasting peace. Preventing the outbreak or relapse of conflict requires addressing its underlying causes and creating the requisite conditions for sustainable peace. That, in turn, calls for investment in community-based conflict reduction, early-warning and early-action mechanisms and the engagement of all stakeholders, including international financial institutions and United Nations country teams. Such efforts must align with national priorities and complement one another through robust coordination and communication. In that vein, we underscore the roles of the United Nations country teams, under the leadership of Resident Coordinators, and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) in coordinating efforts by various actors to enhance their impacts and synergies. For example, the Gambia’s experience, marked by strong national ownership and coordinated international support and facilitated In conclusion, the peaceful settlement of disputes is the first and most essential step towards the realization of sustainable peace, as rightly pointed out in the resolution that we adopted today (resolution 2788 (2025)). The Republic of Korea stands ready to support the United Nations efforts aimed at promoting preventive diplomacy through the full utilization of Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.

I thank you, Deputy Prime Minister Dar, for convening today’s very timely debate. We also want to thank the Secretary-General for his energizing briefing. The peaceful settlement of disputes is a cornerstone of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. As a legal and moral duty, it rests squarely with the parties involved, in particular their leaders. Drawing from our own experience, I can affirm that the peaceful resolution of any dispute requires courage, political will, determination and time. Those are often scarce commodities, especially in moments of crisis, and must be demonstrated by all sides. That is precisely why the role of the United Nations, including the Security Council, remains vital. Using tools provided by the Charter, we can offer constructive guidance and support in helping to prevent crises. Slovenia welcomes the resolution adopted today (resolution 2788 (2025)), although we would have wished for a stronger Security Council voice on the matter. Allow me to raise the following points for consideration in today’s discussion. First, international law must be respected, complied with and upheld. That includes international humanitarian law, international human rights law and, in a broader sense, Security Council resolutions and all agreements and decisions reached through peaceful means, including judicial and arbitral rulings, orders and advisory opinions. The Council is often called on to address complex and destabilizing situations that undermine regional stability, threaten peace and cost innocent civilian lives. Those crises frequently arise from agreements that have been broken, abandoned commitments and diminished political will, replaced by the misguided belief that a military solution is possible. Respect for international law is not optional, and neither is it something that is imposed on us. It is our voluntary and strong commitment — a fundamental obligation. Secondly, there is no higher price than that of recovering and rebuilding a country torn apart by conflict, where the very social fabric of communities has been torn by the horrors of war. That is why preventing conflict is not only a moral imperative to avoid human suffering but also a shared strategic and economic necessity that requires the commitment of all — large and small donors, the public and private sectors and civil society alike. Mindful that effective and sustainable conflict prevention and peacebuilding must be nationally led and owned, Slovenia encourages Council members to engage more in early-warning efforts, including through the potential of new technologies. We should pay more attention to early indications of human rights violations and abuses. We must consider developments related to climate security, as has proven useful across Western and Central Africa. The Council should collectively ensure that peace operations are guided and equipped to carry out preventive diplomacy and strengthen post-conflict democratic processes on the ground, as we have done after the civil wars in Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Finally, no agreement can withstand the test of time if it is not reached through an inclusive process. A peace agreement that excludes half of the population is unlikely to endure. The root causes of disputes, such as marginalization, historical grievances and systemic inequalities, must be reflected at the very moment when

My delegation wishes to begin by expressing its sincere appreciation to His Excellency Mr. Mohammad Ishaq Dar, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, for presiding over this important high-level debate and for placing the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, at the heart of the Security Council’s agenda. We also thank the Secretary-General, Mr. António Guterres, for his valuable briefing and continued commitment to preventive diplomacy and multilateral engagement. I also reiterate my gratitude to the Secretary-General for his principled and courageous stance in promoting, defending and upholding multilateralism and the tenets of the Charter of the United Nations. Despite tremendous challenges and pressures, that stance remains intact regarding the terrible situation in Gaza. Let us be clear: the prolonged catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza is nothing but the reflection of the Security Council’s failure in the discharge of its primary responsibility to maintain peace and security, the erosion of multilateralism and the prevalence of might over right. This debate is both timely and necessary, as the international community faces persistent crises, complex regional tensions and growing challenges to the rule of international law. As crises persist and unilateral approaches proliferate, Algeria reiterates its firm belief that respect by all for international law and peaceful dispute settlement are the only sustainable paths to international peace and security. In that context, Algeria would like to make the following points. First, the peaceful settlement of disputes is a cornerstone of Algeria’s foreign policy. Dialogue, mediation, good offices and legal mechanisms that respect sovereignty and non-interference remain our preferred tools for preventing and resolving conflicts. Secondly, the Charter’s mechanisms, enshrined in Chapter VI — negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement — must be fully utilized and applied with impartiality. Thirdly, we fully support the good offices of the Secretary-General. And, in the current climate of financial constraints, Algeria joins those who affirm that prevention must remain a strategic priority. In that perspective, we support a rational and equitable allocation of resources aligned with the Secretary-General’s UN80 Initiative. Fourthly, in our regional context — at the intersection of the Maghreb, the Sahel and the Western Mediterranean — Algeria remains actively committed to conflict prevention and conflict resolution, in coordination with regional organizations such as the African Union. Fifthly, we support closer coordination between the Council and the Peacebuilding Commission, particularly in addressing root causes and supporting nationally owned peacebuilding strategies. The ongoing review of the peacebuilding architecture is a good opportunity to reinforce coherence and complementarity across the United Nations system. In conclusion, we call for an inclusive, equitable and representative multilateralism that actively prioritizes and strengthens the pacific settlement of disputes in full accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The representative of China has requested the floor to make a further statement.

I would like to respond briefly to the statement made earlier by the representative of the United States. I would like to emphasize that China has indisputable sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao and their adjacent waters. China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea have sufficient historical and jurisprudential basis. China’s position on the South China Sea arbitration case has been consistent and clear. China does not accept or recognize the so-called “arbitration award” and rejects any claims or actions based on it. In fact, in recent years, through the joint efforts of China and countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the overall situation in the South China Sea has remained stable, and there are no problems with freedom of navigation and overflight. China has consistently worked with the countries concerned to properly manage differences related to the South China Sea through dialogue and consultation on the basis of respect for historical facts and international law. Let us take a look at the United States, which in complete disregard for the historical context of, and objective facts concerning, the South China Sea, has been stirring up trouble and sowing discord wherever it can, thereby undermining mutual trust among countries of the region. Whereas the United States has, to date, not acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it often assumes the role of judge vis-à-vis the Convention, issuing directives to, and interfering in the affairs of, other countries — an utter absurdity. The United States also deploys offensive weapons in the South China Sea, including land-based intermediate-range missiles, and frequently dispatches large, sophisticated vessels and aircraft there to conduct military reconnaissance exercises in the name of freedom of navigation, blatantly intruding into China’s territorial waters and airspace. It is clear to all who it is that wants to stir up trouble in the South China Sea and destabilize the region. It is equally self-evident who it is that is engaging in coercion and bullying in the South China Sea and threatening freedom of navigation.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Tomáš Taraba, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Environment of Slovakia.

I wish to thank you, Mr. President, for organizing this debate on this important issue. Slovakia aligns itself with the statement to be delivered on behalf of the European Union. In addition, allow me to highlight a few points in my national capacity. First, we live in a divided world in which conflicts are multiplying dramatically. Slovakia strongly appeals to Member States of the United Nations to solve situations of tension and conflict and existing disputes by political and diplomatic means and to refrain from the threat or use of force. We appeal to States in conflict to cease armed action. The closest armed conflict to our borders is the ongoing war in Ukraine. Slovakia joins international partners in calling for a full and unconditional ceasefire and the start of meaningful talks so as to lead to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine in line with the Charter of the United Nations. Thirdly, the peaceful settlement of disputes is most effective when it is fully owned by the parties directly involved and when those parties themselves choose and apply procedures and means best suited to their needs and perspectives. Slovakia is of the view that the United Nations must be adequately equipped to lend its support in that regard, as appropriate. Next, I would like to stress the value of regional and subregional organizations and arrangements in the pacific settlement of regional disputes. They are close to the problem and know about the local dynamics. Slovakia believes that cooperation with them ought to be further enhanced. Lastly, a point that my country believes merits further attention is the need to adjust the existing instruments for the peaceful settlement of disputes to the constantly evolving nature of disputes. Slovakia commends the ongoing peace-facilitation activities of the Secretary- General, including, most recently, his renewed attempt to revive the stalled Cyprus peace talks. Slovakia is prepared to continue facilitating bicommunal dialogue between Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot political parties in Cyprus. I would also take this opportunity to thank those Member States that play important mediation roles in different crisis situations around the world. I close by saying that despite criticism and challenges, for Slovakia, the Security Council remains a vital international forum for multilateralism. The Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1), adopted by Member States in September 2024, presents several ambitious actions to improve the Council’s effectiveness and to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. Slovakia remains committed to the successful implementation of that important document.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Maris Sangiampongsa, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Thailand.

Thailand congratulates Pakistan on assuming the presidency of the Security Council this month and commends your leadership, Mr. President, in convening this timely and important debate. We stand ready to engage constructively, drawing on Thailand’s long-standing commitment to the promotion of international peace and security. Against a backdrop of rising tensions, geopolitical mistrust and overlapping crises, Thailand is deeply concerned about the growing reliance on power projection and confrontational approaches, which risk further escalating the situation. That underscores the urgent need to redouble our collective efforts and embrace new approaches towards the peaceful settlement of disputes. Thailand wishes to address three key points. First, at this difficult time, our commitment to the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations must be strengthened. Thailand emphasizes that disputes must be solved through dialogue, mutual respect and cooperation, while firmly upholding the principles of non-interference and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. Thailand highlights Article 33 of the Charter, which outlines a broad spectrum of peaceful means for resolution. That diversity of approaches reflects the reality that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Peaceful Secondly, Thailand recognizes the role of the United Nations in promoting peace and non-violence. In that spirit, multilateralism creates an enabling environment in which solutions can be pursued effectively, reinforcing the legitimacy and trust that underpin peaceful settlements. We support efforts to strengthen the United Nations capacity for conflict prevention to ease global tensions by revitalizing existing mechanisms and developing innovative approaches to early warning, confidence-building measures and dialogue, taking into consideration the specific context of each situation. In that regard, Thailand welcomes the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1) and supports the call to intensify the use of preventive diplomacy and the pacific settlement of disputes as outlined in Action 16. Thirdly, partnerships between the United Nations and regional organizations are critical to reducing tensions and promoting international peace and security. Their complementary role must be recognized and further promoted. Over the years, the architecture and mechanisms of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have helped to foster an environment of mutual trust and have contributed to peace and stability beyond the Southeast Asian region. That has been achieved through ASEAN’s consensus-based and non-confrontational approach, practical confidence-building measures and a flexible approach to preventive diplomacy. We believe that ASEAN and the United Nations complement each other and that they can contribute to global efforts in strengthening peaceful settlement mechanisms, mindful of regional contexts and sensitivities. Let us not lose sight of our collective responsibility to secure peace and security for future generations. Thailand urges all parties to engage in dialogue and diplomacy in good faith as the cornerstone of conflict prevention and resolution. We stand ready to work alongside all partners to transform our commitment to international peace and security into a lasting reality.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Bakyt Sydykov, Minister of Economy and Commerce of Kyrgyzstan.

Allow me to extend my delegation’s sincere gratitude to the Pakistani presidency for convening this timely debate and to all the speakers for their insightful contributions. As a steadfast advocate of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Kyrgyz Republic reiterates its full commitment to multilateralism and the peaceful resolution of disputes. The contemporary global landscape is marked by unprecedented and interconnected challenges — from protracted conflicts and geopolitical fragmentation to transnational threats, including climate change, terrorism and cyberinsecurity. Those issues demand collective, coordinated action under the leadership of the Security Council. As the cornerstone of the global security architecture, the Security Council must uphold its mandate by fostering dialogue, cooperation and mutual trust among Member States. The strength of the United Nations lies in its ability to harmonize diverse perspectives into common solutions for peace. Kyrgyzstan — a landlocked country in Central Asia — has gained valuable experience in maintaining stability within a complex regional environment. We have identified inclusive governance, inter-ethnic harmony and sustainable development as the core foundations of our domestic stability. The same principles guide our foreign policy, which is rooted in respect, non-interference and the peaceful resolution of disputes. We regard multilateralism as essential to addressing global challenges. No single State, regardless of its size or influence, can tackle those issues alone. Kyrgyzstan therefore calls for a strengthening of the Security Council’s role in promoting Conflict prevention and mediation are not abstract concepts but practical tools for stability. Kyrgyzstan actively engages in regional initiatives across Central Asia to promote dialogue, build confidence and uphold international law. A testament to that commitment is the full resolution of border issues between Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Through political will and compromise, we averted escalation and instead paved the way for sustainable development. We firmly assert that lasting peace requires justice, equality and opportunity for all. Kyrgyzstan remains dedicated to the women and peace and security agenda and the meaningful inclusion of youth in peace processes. Every voice must be heard. Moreover, climate change accelerates instability, particularly in Central Asia. Addressing its security dimensions is imperative. Kyrgyzstan supports an expanded mandate for the United Nations in the areas of preventive diplomacy, mediation and peacebuilding, in particular in vulnerable and post-conflict regions. In that regard, we believe that it is necessary to strengthen the role of the United Nations as the global coordinator of humanitarian efforts, increase the participation of small States in Security Council decision-making and ensure inclusivity and fairness in international conflict resolution mechanisms. We also support initiatives to reform the global governance system with a focus on equal participation and fair representation for all States. In conclusion, my country reaffirms its unwavering adherence to international law. We champion good-neighbourliness, intercultural dialogue and collective action against transnational threats, from terrorism to cyberthreats. Only through unity can we secure a peaceful, just and sustainable future for all.

I now give the floor to the representative of Bulgaria.

Bulgaria aligns itself with the statement to be delivered on behalf of the European Union (EU), and I would like to make the following points in my national capacity. Bulgaria welcomes the opportunity to engage in this important high-level open debate and reaffirms its unwavering commitment to upholding the principles of international law enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the rules- based international order, with the United Nations at its core, as the bedrock of effective multilateralism. However, the powerful remarks made this morning remind us that reaffirming commitment to the Charter of the United Nations eight decades after its adoption is not enough. Amid growing geopolitical tensions and with the implementation of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development lagging behind, what is required is active engagement by members of the international community, with concrete actions and renewed political will to reinvigorate international cooperation and to prioritize solidarity over division and progress over paralysis. The process of negotiating and adopting the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1) serves as a powerful example in that regard. The Charter of the United Nations provides a robust framework for advancing the cause of international cooperation by offering critical mechanisms to maintain international peace and security, such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, good offices and judicial settlement. While resolving international disputes through peaceful means remains a priority, the best way to settle a dispute is to prevent it. In that vein, Bulgaria supports strengthening the connection among early warning systems, preventive diplomacy, development cooperation and peacebuilding initiatives to address potential conflicts before they emerge or escalate. Recent developments in the Middle East confirm the importance of diplomatic initiatives in resolving complex disputes, and we welcome the negotiations for a ceasefire in Gaza, spearheaded by the United States, Qatar and Egypt, with a view to securing a permanent end to hostilities and the release of all hostages and addressing the dire humanitarian situation in the Strip. Almost four years since Russia started its unprovoked, full-scale invasion and war of aggression against Ukraine, we reaffirm our support for Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders and for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Lasting peace emerges not through imposed solutions but when parties to conflict and stakeholders pursue agreement through the modalities that they deem the most appropriate. That principle is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which rightly emphasizes the paramount importance of achieving sustainable peace. Turning to the special responsibility that the Council holds for the maintenance of international peace and security, it is worth recalling that Article 24 of the Charter clearly spells out the way that the Council should act: promptly, effectively, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations and on behalf of United Nations Member States, who have vested the Council with power. Each veto or threat to use the power of veto brings mounting human suffering and serves as a call to the General Assembly to step in and not shy away from exercising its functions and powers under the Charter of the United Nations. With that in mind, Bulgaria has joined the core group of the “veto initiative” led by Liechtenstein, welcomes the Assembly for Peace digital handbook and is of the view that the General Assembly should consistently demand that the Security Council apply the Charter of the United Nations in its entirety, including the provision to abstain from casting a veto in Article 27, paragraph 3. In conclusion, Bulgaria believes that the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes forms the core of an inclusive, accountable and effective multilateral system — one that delivers peace, democracy and sustainable prosperity for all. It cultivates genuine partnerships and mutual respect, fosters common understanding of risks, challenges and opportunities, upholds established rules and principles and brings solutions to pressing global problems.

I now give the floor to the representative of Portugal.

Portugal aligns itself with the statement to be delivered on behalf the European Union and wishes to add the following points in its national capacity. We meet today as the world faces converging crises — geopolitical fragmentation, rising conflict and an erosion of trust in institutions. That context makes the peaceful settlement of disputes not only a legal imperative but a political and moral one. Multilateralism, with the United Nations at its core, must be strengthened and adapted to a more complex and polarized global landscape. As we navigate UN80, that means a United Nations system that is coherent, anticipatory and inclusive. Portugal believes We also reaffirm our commitment to mediation and preventive diplomacy, long- standing pillars of Portugal’s foreign policy. As a recent member of the Group of Friends of Mediation, we support peer learning across regions and inclusive, locally rooted approaches. Trust and access are critical in today’s mediation efforts, and these must be fostered through transparency, listening and proximity to affected communities. We have also engaged within the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries to promote political dialogue and cooperation among member States. In addition, we highlight and promote the role of women and youth in peace processes. Portugal is a strong supporter of the common pledge for women’s participation and remains committed to advancing resolution 1325 (2000), as it marks its twenty-fifth anniversary this year. We are equally supportive of efforts to expand mediator networks in the United Nations and strengthen regional capacities. Diplomacy is essential but not sufficient. Peaceful dispute resolution also hinges on the early detection of risks, sustained political commitment and the legitimacy born of trust and inclusion. It requires defending the role of international law, especially that of the International Court of Justice, but also ensuring that parties to disputes abstain from voting, in line with Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations. And it requires that we match ambition with implementation, including through the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1), whose Action 16 offers a blueprint to reinforce the Organization’s role in mediation and trust-building. Portugal will continue to act as a bridge-builder through our development cooperation efforts, our engagement with regional organizations and our promotion of prevention and good offices — including if elected to the Security Council next year for the 2027–2028 term. We stand ready to work with all partner Member States, regional organizations and civil society to make peaceful settlements not the exception but the norm. In conclusion, we thank the Pakistani presidency for this initiative.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

At the outset, I wish to express my appreciation to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, in his capacity as President of the Security Council, for convening this important meeting. In the current delicate global context, the subject under discussion assumes greater significance than ever before. Regrettably, the international community is increasingly being confronted with the rise of unilateralism, the instrumentalization of sanctions, the flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a growing disregard for the rule of international law. The Holy Qur’an says, “We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person — unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land — it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life, it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind.” (The Holy Qur’an, V:32) Since the establishment of the United Nations and throughout the eight decades of the Security Council’s operations, more than 300 wars and armed conflicts have transpired, resulting in tens of millions of casualties and injuries. Dozens Over the past eight decades, the Israeli regime, which has gone so far as to weaponize even food and water against innocent civilians, including children, has carried out more than 3,000 terrorist operations, displaced more than 7 million Palestinians, martyred and wounded hundreds of thousands and imprisoned more than 1 million Palestinians. This is the very same regime that has launched military aggressions against its neighbours, remains a party to none of the international instruments on disarmament and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and maintains hundreds of nuclear warheads in its arsenal. And the Council is well aware of the catastrophic consequences that the possession of nuclear weapons by such a criminal regime entails for international peace and security. During this very same period  — notwithstanding the United States’ unconditional support for this regime and its exercise of the veto against more than 55 draft resolutions submitted to the Security Council in response to the regime’s atrocities — over 550 resolutions have been adopted against the regime by the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council. Yet none have been implemented owing to the political shielding extended by certain States that purport to champion human rights and the cause of international peace and security. With such a heinous record of crime and aggression, in the early hours of 13 June, the Zionist regime — under the command of a war criminal against whom an arrest warrant has been issued by the International Criminal Court — launched an act of aggression, in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles of international law, initiating armed attacks against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States, a permanent member of the Security Council, subsequently, and in full complicity with the aggressor regime, conducted a series of strikes against three of Iran’s safeguarded, peaceful nuclear installations under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In a statement steeped in deceit, the representative of the regime, addressing the Council on 20 June, claimed that the military aggression against Iran had been carried out in full conformity with international law, in adherence to the principles of distinction and proportionality, and that only military targets had been struck. I hereby inform the Security Council that the military aggression and campaign of familial assassinations carried out by the regime in question have resulted in the martyrdom of 1,100 individuals, including 132 women, 45 children, and 26 members of medical and healthcare personnel; the injury of 5,750 others; the destruction of more than 8,200 residential units, 17 hospitals and healthcare facilities; 11 ambulances; and various other civilian infrastructure within the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This criminal regime targeted Evin Prison in Tehran, martyring more than 70 innocent individuals, including family members of detainees. In another act of aggression, in an attempt to assassinate a university professor, the regime martyred 15 members of his family. In yet another armed assault, the very same regime struck a 14-story residential building, martyring 60 people, among them 20 children. In a letter dated 27 June addressed to the President of the Security Council, the representative of the United States, in an audacious attempt to justify its aggression against Iran’s safeguarded, peaceful nuclear facilities, shamelessly claimed that the strikes had been conducted within the framework of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, allegedly to neutralize the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme First, Iran has not, over the course of recent centuries, initiated armed aggression against any State. We have not threatened the United States with military attack. We maintain no military bases in proximity to the United States. In stark contrast, the United States possesses over 5,000 nuclear warheads  — an inhumane weapon it has, in fact, employed against innocent civilians in Japan. It operates more than 700 military bases across over 130 countries, with several hundred thousand deployed forces. It has established multiple military installations in the Persian Gulf region and around the borders of Iran. Which, then, is truly the threat to international peace and security — Iran or the United States of America? Secondly, Iran’s nuclear programme has always been exclusively peaceful in nature and has remained subject to the most rigorous oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). For over three decades, the Zionist regime has propagated the claim that Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons, thereby deceiving certain countries and manipulating public opinion. But where, indeed, is this alleged nuclear bomb? Is it not patently absurd that a regime that itself possesses every category of weapon of mass destruction, is party to none of the relevant international instruments — and whose eight-decade record is replete with aggression, atrocity and barbarism  — now levels unfounded accusations against a State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)? Thirdly, the invocation of the right of self-defence, under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, is legally valid only when an armed attack has occurred. In the absence of such an attack, any resort to force constitutes an act of aggression. Neither the United States nor the Zionist regime of Israel had been subjected to armed attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran. While the majority of nations condemned the aggression perpetrated by the Zionist regime and the United States against my country, it is deeply regrettable that three European States, the Security Council, the Board of Governors of the IAEA and its Director General adopted a partisan stance and failed to fulfil their respective responsibilities. One must take heed of the fact that Iran was subjected to aggression at the hands of two nuclear-armed regimes. Yet, the United States and its allies obstructed the issuance of any resolution in both the Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors. The Chancellor of Germany described the Israeli regime’s aggression as “the dirty job” on their behalf. The French Minister of Defence openly admitted to military participation in support of the regime. The British Prime Minister, in politically motivated remarks, sought to legitimize the attacks by portraying Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme as a threat. The IAEA Director General, rather than condemning these assaults, still remains preoccupied with seeking inspections of the targeted facilities — ostensibly to assess the extent of the damage inflicted upon Iran’s nuclear installations through the attacks. Such silence, such complicity in aggression and deliberate inaction, have all gravely imperilled the rule of law at the international level. Is this the multilateralism and maintenance of international peace and security that the Council claims to uphold? Is this the justice that the Charter promised to humankind? If the Security Council is incapacitated in the performance of its duties, then what institution remains to safeguard international peace and security? An attack on safeguarded nuclear facilities constitutes a grave crime. What message does the failure of the Board of Governors and the Security Council to issue a resolution of condemnation — and the refusal of the Director General of the IAEA and certain permanent members of the Security Council to denounce the attacks — send to the Agency’s member States? Why have these States and institutions remained silent in the face of the Alongside the legitimate and resolute defence of its people and territory, the Islamic Republic of Iran will pursue all of its rights to the realization of justice through diplomatic, legal and judicial avenues available under international law, including recourse to international courts and tribunals. States are prohibited from recognizing situations resulting from violations of peremptory norms of international law; failure to observe that prohibition gives rise to their international responsibility. The acts of aggression by the Israeli regime and the United States against Iran constitute a violation of the jus cogens norm prohibiting aggression. Third States are under an obligation not to recognize such acts as lawful, nor to extend any assistance or support for the maintenance of such an unlawful situation. A nuclear-armed State Party to the NPT, together with a nuclear-armed regime outside the framework of the NPT, has launched a military attack against the nuclear facilities of a State Party to the NPT  — facilities that were fully subject to the safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Now, three European States — two of which are permanent members of the Security Council and have themselves violated the provisions of resolution 2231 (2015) — have openly declared their intention to reinstate Security Council sanctions that were initially imposed two decades ago in connection with the very same facilities that are claimed to have been destroyed, and which were subsequently terminated pursuant to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Such an extraordinary level of double standards and disregard for the purposes and principles of the Security Council  — on the part of its own members  — is truly inconceivable. The three European States lack legal standing; and, given their failure to fulfil key obligations under the JCPOA, as well as their support for the aggressor during the recent acts of aggression, any attempt to trigger the snapback mechanism in relation to an agreement that has not been implemented for seven years constitutes a clear abuse of process and is legally invalid. Such an attempt must be unequivocally rejected. We firmly believe that peace is not achieved through bombs and coercion, but through respect for rights, justice and diplomacy. The normalization of aggression must be unequivocally rejected. The Security Council must not be reduced to a tool at the service of the interests of particular Powers; rather, it must serve as the guardian of justice, peace and security for all nations — irrespective of their size, power or political orientation. Regrettably, it must be stated with the utmost clarity that the Security Council has either been unable or unwilling to respond appropriately and resolutely to blatant acts of aggression against the national sovereignty of certain States, military occupations, genocide, unlawful economic blockades and the sponsorship of State terrorism. The list of these failures is long and deeply troubling. History shall be the judge of whether the Security Council has faithfully discharged its solemn responsibilities towards the world’s nations. Iran is a peace-loving nation, but let there be no miscalculation. We stand united and resolute in the face of aggression and will exact a heavy toll upon any aggressor. The enemies of Iran have set their sights on the independence and national unity of our country. Yet, our powerful armed forces and united people have utterly dashed their hopes. Iran stands proud and steadfast. We did not seek war, but we shall defend our people and homeland with the ferocity of a lion. The aggressors must know that their conspiracies shall fail — and it is Iran that shall endure.

I now give the floor to the representative of Austria.

We consider it a distinct privilege to address the Security Council and its members. We thank Pakistan for convening this timely debate at a time of multiplying crises and heightened geopolitical tensions. The Security Council has both a clear mandate and a moral responsibility to safeguard international peace and security by making full use of the tools provided by the Charter of the United Nations, first and foremost, the peaceful settlement of disputes. For Austria, a small and militarily neutral country, it is the cornerstone of our foreign policy. We rely on an international system in which disputes are settled through dialogue, not domination, in which law prevails over force and in which cooperation triumphs over confrontation. Austria has long championed the primacy of diplomacy and dialogue. As a staunch advocate of effective and inclusive multilateralism, we firmly believe that negotiated solutions are the only sustainable path to peace. That conviction is reflected in our enduring support for mediation, conflict prevention and the Secretary-General’s good offices. The instruments enshrined in Chapter VI of the Charter, including negotiation, mediation, conciliation and judicial settlement, are as vital today as they were back in 1945. But to be effective, they require political will, persistence and above all, a genuine commitment to peace. Austria, therefore, welcomes the renewed focus on prevention and peaceful dispute settlement in the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1) and calls for those principles to be fully integrated into the daily work of the Security Council and the broader United Nations system. In that context, Austria supports the strengthening of the mediation architecture of the United Nations, including through increased resources for the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and its Mediation Support Unit. Austria equally advocates early, inclusive and coordinated preventive action, in close cooperation with regional and subregional organizations. We also emphasize universal respect for international law and the United Nations Charter as the foundation for peaceful relations regardless of size. Austria also calls on the Council to invest in sustainable peace. That includes supporting inclusive national dialogue processes, ensuring women’s full and equal participation in peace efforts and working more closely with the Peacebuilding Commission, particularly in transitions and in post-conflict situations. More regular horizon-scanning briefings could help to anticipate risks before they become emergencies. During the Summit of the Future, our leaders recommitted themselves to the United Nations Charter and to multilateral cooperation. The Pact for the Future reminds us that peace does not begin in the Council Chamber. It begins with the will to resolve disputes through dialogue and compromise and with the courage to uphold common rules even when they are inconvenient. Peace requires leadership. It requires investment and it requires trust. Austria remains fully committed as a host country to the United Nations in Vienna as a consistent supporter of mediation and prevention and as a candidate for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for the period 2027–2028.

I now give the floor to the representative of Liechtenstein.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s debate. Liechtenstein fully supports efforts in the Council to make better use of its powers and functions under Chapter VI. We see the increased need for the pacific settlement of disputes across the globe, given that armed conflicts are taking an increasingly long time to resolve and with an increasing toll on civilians. The importance of Chapter VI also arises from a similar dynamic playing out in the Council, which has for a few years now been increasingly unable to use its Chapter VII functions to end ongoing conflicts. We note in that respect that, under Article 25 of the Charter, all decisions of the Council are binding in the same manner. The membership has taken important steps in recent years to highlight the role of mechanisms under Chapter VI, notably in Action 16 of the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1), which urges the Secretary-General to ensure that the United Nations is adequately equipped to lead and support mediation and preventive diplomacy. Even at this time of financial stress for the Organization, Liechtenstein reiterates that mediation and preventive diplomacy is an investment that pays many times over  — not only in the cost of warfare averted but in the fundamental value of human life and dignity. Liechtenstein continues to extend our support in that regard to the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs’ Mediation Support Unit and the Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisers. Liechtenstein wishes to highlight two further topics that we believe can enhance the implementation of Chapter VI of the Charter. First, we note that Members of the Council have a specific and additional obligation when considering decisions taken under Chapter VI of the Charter, to abstain from voting when they are a party to a dispute. That binding obligation, contained in Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter, and reaffirmed by leaders in last year’s Pact for the Future, is clearly germane to the aim of Chapter VI — to seek a resolution at the earliest possible stage of disputes between Member States of this Organization. The perception that a State might act as judge in its own case in a vote of the Council could indeed harm prospects for dispute settlement. As part of the implementation of the Pact, we hope that Member States will consider formulating criteria that can enable the full and consistent implementation of that obligation. Efforts taken under Chapter VI must also take into account the full range of conflict drivers. Liechtenstein has long noted that many conflicts begin in the responses of States to communities, including minority groups, seeking a greater degree of internal self-determination, which can include autonomy, self-governance or self-administration. Those so-called self-determination conflicts constitute approximately half of the armed conflicts occurring since the 1960s. While self- determination claims are not the only driver of conflict in those situations, it is a dimension that we believe is understudied by mediators and underacknowledged by States. That is why for many years Liechtenstein has had its own initiative on preventing and resolving self-determination conflicts. Our initiative highlights the

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Darragh O’Brien, Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment and Minister for Transport of Ireland.

I now give the floor to the representative of Indonesia.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening this open debate, and I also thank the Secretary-General for his valuable briefing. Against that backdrop, allow me to share three points. First, United Nations reform has indeed become a necessity. We must use the eightieth anniversary of the United Nations as momentum for restoring its relevance. That requires restoring trust in multilateralism and updating it to keep pace with the twenty-first century. The Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1) has given us the road map for the way forward. We must restore global confidence in the Council’s ability to act as an effective force for peace that reflects the global conscience. That requires a Council that can promote trust, solidarity and shared responsibility and amplify the voice of smaller nations through genuine dialogue so that the Council can reclaim its role as the primary platform for collective efforts for peace, reducing possible entry points for unilateral interventions and ensuring that disputes are addressed through dialogue and diplomacy, not dominance. Secondly, we must enhance the United Nations strategic foresight for preventive diplomacy, early warning and dispute resolution. Making better use of digital technology and artificial intelligence to enable better data-driven policy analysis will accelerate the United Nations early response to track conflict trends and early warning, providing guidance for timely peacemaking processes, including good offices and mediation. Moreover, New York processes must better connect with those on the ground, including United Nations field missions, field offices and regional organizations. Thirdly, we must ensure adequate support for United Nations peace processes. Today’s conflicts are increasingly difficult to resolve. We must therefore ensure adequate, predictable and sustained financing for peacebuilding, peacekeeping and United Nations dispute resolution. We must also invest in local and regional peace actors to amplify local ownership so that the peace process reflects the needs of those most affected, not just the agenda of the powerful. As our institution faces significant pressure, we must use all avenues, including the UN80 Initiative, to actually make better investments in peace. The future of multilateralism and its capacity for the peaceful settlement of disputes rely on our capability to prioritize peace over might and force. Indonesia stands ready to collaborate with everyone to safeguard multilateralism.

I now give the floor to the representative of Kazakhstan.

Let me begin by expressing our appreciation to Pakistan for convening this important open debate on an issue of fundamental importance for the maintenance of international peace and security. Kazakhstan The President of Kazakhstan has consistently reaffirmed my country’s commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. This year, marking the eightieth anniversary of the Organization, we once again emphasize that upholding the fundamental principles, including the renunciation of the threat or use of force, respect for territorial integrity, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the genuine commitment to multilateralism and international law, remains essential for safeguarding global stability. Kazakhstan firmly supports all efforts to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, including negotiations, mediation, conciliation and engagement with regional organizations. We highlight the enduring relevance of the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes and the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Kazakhstan consistently advocates for a strengthening of the central role of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security. In that regard, we underscore the importance of further enhancing the role of the Secretary-General as a key mediator and a moral authority in conflict prevention and resolution. The importance of preventive diplomacy, multilateralism and regional cooperation in maintaining peace cannot be overstated. As a founding member and an initiator of all major regional cooperation frameworks in its neighbourhood, Kazakhstan strongly believes in the value of regionalism as a cornerstone of preventive diplomacy and peaceful dispute resolution. A case in point is the United Nations Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia, an organization which we have in Central Asia. The Conference on Interaction and Confidence-building Measures in Asia, initiated by Kazakhstan, stands as a modern and inclusive platform for fostering mutual trust and promoting dialogue among Asian nations. Likewise, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, of which Kazakhstan is a founding member, has evolved into a key mechanism for strengthening regional stability through confidence-building along borders, demonstrating the political will of its Member States to address complex regional challenges through peaceful means. Sustainable development is an integral part of global efforts to promote peace and security. In that context, Kazakhstan attaches particular importance to the establishment of the United Nations Regional Centre for the Sustainable Development Goals for Central Asia and Afghanistan in Almaty, which is expected to contribute to advancing stability and to steady progress towards a sustainable and peaceful future in our region. Lastly, Kazakhstan supports the continuation of regular debates on this topic on the United Nations platform for the purpose of sharing experiences and disseminating best practices in peaceful dispute resolution in order to strengthen collective efforts in preventing conflict and building trust among nations.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Philippines.

As a founding member of the United Nations, the Philippines reaffirms its commitment to the Charter of the United Nations and its firm adherence to the rule of law among nations as essential to multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Upholding the Charter means adherence to its fundamental principles and active engagement with the United Nations processes, including through the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization. The Special Committee has contributed significantly to enhancing a common understanding of the Charter. The Philippines highlights the The Manila Declaration recognizes the primary role of the Security Council and the role of Member States in strengthening the Council so that it may fully and effectively discharge its responsibilities in the area of the settlement of disputes or of any situation that is likely to endanger international peace and security. The Declaration reaffirms that Member States must, inter alia, encourage the Council to make wider use of the opportunities under the Charter to review disputes or situations, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security; consider making greater use of the fact-finding capacity of the Security Council; encourage the Security Council to make wider use of the subsidiary organs; and encourage the Security Council to act without delay, particularly in cases where international disputes develop into armed conflicts. In line with the spirit of the Manila Declaration, through the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea we gave an example of how States should resolve their differences — through reason and through right. Resorting to the peaceful settlement of disputes through arbitration and credible and competent international tribunals plays a key role in the interpretation of international norms and should not be seen as an unfriendly act among civilized nations. As a trusted partner, pathfinder and peacemaker, in the pursuit of peace, the Philippines is ready to work with all nations towards enhancing observance of the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes in relations between States and to contribute to the elimination of the danger of the recourse to force or to the threat of force; to promoting a policy of cooperation and peace and of respect for the independence and sovereignty of all States; to enhancing the role of the United Nations in preventing conflicts and in settling them peacefully and thereby strengthening international peace and security.

There are still a number of speakers remaining on my list for this meeting. I intend, with the concurrence of the members of the Council, to suspend the meeting until 3 p.m.