Abbreviation General Debate of UNGA Legal status Active | Type IGO Location New York City | |
Headquarters United Nations Headquarters Official language English, French, Arabic, Chinese, Russian | ||
The General Debate of the seventieth session of the United Nations General Assembly commenced on 28 September and ended on 3 October 2015. Leaders from a number of member states addressed the UNGA.
Contents
Organisation and subjects
The order of speakers is given first to member states, then observer states and supranational bodies. Any other observers entities will have a chance to speak at the end of the debate, if they so choose. Speakers will be put on the list in the order of their request, with special consideration for ministers and other government officials of similar or higher rank. According to the rules in place for the General Debate, the statements should be in of the United Nations official languages of Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian or Spanish, and will be translated by the United Nations translators. Each speaker is requested to provide 20 advance copies of their statements to the conference officers to facilitate translation and to be presented at the podium. Though there is no time limit for speeches, a voluntary guideline of 15 minutes is requested. The chosen theme for the debate is "The United Nations at 70: the road ahead for peace, security and human rights."
Speaking schedule
The rest of the speaking schedule in the General Assembly Chamber is as follows:
28 September
29 September
30 September
Right of Reply
Member states have the option to reply to comments on the day (or even to the days prior), but are limited to 10 minutes for the first response and five minutes for the second response. All speeches are made from the floor, as opposed to the podium for the General Debate.
India responded to Pakistan saying that it was regrettable to once again choose to "misuse the UNGA to distort reality and portray a false sense of a picture in our region." According to them, Pakistan claims to be the primary victim of terrorism but "in truth it is the victim of its own policies of breeding and sponsoring terrorists" and that the Kashmir conflict issue carries no credibility with the world. They further agreed that Kashmir is under foreign occupation, but by Pakistan in Azad Kashmir. They also alleged that "in fact reservation of the Pakistan-China corridor goes through Indian territory illegally occupied by Pakistan" and that they deeply regret the Kashmir is unresolved and dialogue has not progressed due to Pakistan's apparent disregard for the 1972 Shimla Agreement, the 2004 declaration against terrorism and the 2015 prime ministerial meeting on the sidelines of the 7th BRICS summit in Ufa, Russia. They further claimed that India is open to engage Pakistan on outstanding issues but in an atmosphere "free of terrorism and violence." In reference to the firing incidents on the LC, "an international boundary, the world knows that the primary reason is to provide cover to terrorists crossing the border. It is not uncommon for states with serious challenges to shift blame to others as did Pakistan did with terrorism. An inability to recognise it as a homegrown problem that bites the hand that fed it. Terrorism has underlying causes the same way as the poverty of ignorance has underlying causes." In using "terror as a legitimate instrument of statecraft...the world watches as consequences spread beyond the neighbourhood." India was "willing to help if the monster wakes up to itself."
Armenia responded to Azerbaijan in saying that they were forced to take floor based on accusations by the minister of Azerbaijan. The delegate suggested that it felt like one "ever had a conversation that you realise you had before. Talked to someone and you know what's coming before you you've heard it. This moment is surreal cause you feel deja vu. The same accusations are constant. On the hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of Lewis Carrol's Through the Looking Glass the statement was from that fairy tale that everything was vice versa, confusing, upside down, the case of the best defense is good offense was a problem with short term memory. The Azeri minister is not too young to remember what happened 20 or 25 years ago." They went on to say that Azerbaijan initiated war against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh (NKO). Further there was no one to write this in the country as there is no free speech and that those who are willing to write the truth are immediately arrested. In regards to a Committee on Missing Persons, before coming to this New York meeting the ICRC arranged a meeting between the two countries' committees, which Armenia apparently repeatedly requested for 10 years. Yet the constant reply, despite the ICRC was that Azerbaijan refuses to meet and again showed that what they say was "again all upside down." They said that Azeri President Ilham Aliyev calling Armenia, including Yerevan, its own land is simply appalling. They suggested Azeri writers look at maps of ancient and Soviet times including the claim that Noah was of Azeri origin. Instead of threatening the possibility of war it is incumbent to note that Azerbaijan initiated and lost the Nagorno-Karabakh War. It would be more useful to think of negotiations on compromises. There were also mujahedeen fighting for Azerbaijan against Armenia that were killing innocent civilians; further, they may not be aware of Azeri fighters for ISIS who, every now and again, appear on the border with NKO. If Azerbaijan wanted peace, then they should allow international observers on the Line of Contact to see who is responsible for ceasefire violations. Since Armenia is willing for this to occur, it says a lot. "Nagorno-Karabakh will be part of Azerbaijan" regardless of how many times it is repeated. In regards to Turkey, Armenia is "determined to continue towards a peaceful resolution on the basis of territorial integrity." Armenia further asks what of right to self-determination and that no solution could be one-sided, biased or have a pre-judged approach.
Azeribaijan then replied that it was "regretable to take the floor so late (21:44)" but that Armenia was limited to entertain the chamber with fairy tales. As for history, "of course we appreciate history in our region. An hundred years ago Armenia was a vibrant multi-ethinic area and Armenians were a minority even in Yerevan. [Since then] half the population left, so Armenia has no right to speak of human rights [as] all major human rights activists fled, including those to Azerbaijan. Recently one came to Azerbaijan. The European Court of Human Rights, whose jurisdiction Armenia voluntary accepted, and many others international organisations in addition to the UN, such as NAM ruled in favour of Azerbaijan. The president of Armenia admitted to occupying Azeri territory. As for terrorism, Armenia is the only state that venerates convicted terrorists and receives them at the highest level including by the prime minister. Contrarily Azerbaijan is not against an investigation to bring forth the truth. In fact, it has been pressing for an investigation of all violations of international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace." However, they added that this was in the interest of the "miltiary junta of Armenia led by war criminals. It is in the best interest of Armenia and the people of Armenia if the government does not partake in agreession and [instead] good relations with neighbours and the prosperty of its own people."
Armenia then used its second Right of Reply in saying that it was "hard to argue with words that don't make sense and are surprisingly harassing." They called on the presidency of the UNGA to stop or be able to interrupt the meetings which are accusing the leadership of a neighbouring country or any country of incriminating accusations but basically, and first and foremost, this was a reminder that the delegate represents Armenia, the "home to 12 national minorities who live happily and peacefully in Armenia." While it was no kin state, everyone had the same rights and privileges of Armenian citizens. Further, there was no Armenian national residing in Azerbaijan or Baku, a town populated by Russians and Jews and a city where the oil industry started now has no Armenians. After the dissolution of the USSR, NKO declared independence and was a home to ethnic Armenians for those who fled massacres in Baku. The only mandate of an international organization that was a real mandate to negotiate a settlement is the OSCE Minsk Group chaired by Russia, France and the U.S.A. was doing a wonderful job mediating very hard amongst the parties to find a solution on principles of international law. Accordingly, this had to be in line with the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity by the non-use of force and the non-use of threat of force, not to engage in counter offensives but instead sincere negotiations if there was a real interest in finding solutions and not a militaristic policy.
Azerbaijan then finished its Right of Reply saying that the second statement from Armenia was again "full of distortions and outright lies and against the spirit of the General Debate at the UN." They referred to the official statistics of Armenia which apparently suggested the population is 99.9% of one titular nation (the delegate sarcastically laughed) which had been achieved through "ethnic cleansing," which was the Azeri point. Azerbaijan supports the withdrawal of all "illegal armed formations from its territory and all foreign military unlawfully stationed in the territory of Azerbaijan. It would be more appropriate if the representative of Armenia did not misinterpret the substance of the peace process and the proposals of the Minsk Group. The Armenian representative trying to misinterpret is not reality, including the OSCE's principle set for the territorial integrity of states. At any rate, it is in the best interest of the UN and the international community if the illegal use of force is terminated and good neighbourly regions in our region could be [a] reality."
1 October
Right of Reply
Pakistan responded to India's reply from the previous day in saying that India's attempts to "deny the illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir is a travesty to history. India deployed over 700,000 forces and is the only occupier which would oppose the UNGA resolution calling for the self-determination. There have been [over] 100,000 Kashmiris killed, 100's of women are widows or have been raped, children too, in the state terrorism by India. There are over 6,000 mass graves in Indian-occupied Kashmir. If India has respect for international law, it would withdraw troops and let Kashmiris decide their future in accordance with a UN mandated plebiscite to determine their future. Numerous resolutions declare that the final disposition of Jammu and Kashmir be in accordance of the will of the people by a free and impartial plebiscite by impartial the auspices of the UN. This cannot be cast aside by rhetoric, on top of talks between India and Pakistan in accordance with UNSC resolutions. It is the genius of India to oppose peace initiatives proclaimed by the Pakistani prime minister here. [Instead] India puts preconditions on a one-point agenda process and is not interested in genuine dialogue. Pakistan is, however committed. Using the bogey of terrorism obfuscates the issue. Pakistan takes part in the fight against terrorism and the world is aware except India. India is insensitive and India masks support of terrorism in Pakistan. India fails to bring the perpetrators to justice such as in the Samjhauta bombings." Pakistan also cited a swami accused of terrorism against Muslims and the "sad story of massacre of Muslims in Gujarat, fomenting terrorism in Pakistan including in Balochistan and Karachi, security and intelligence links especially with the Taliban in FATA. Yet, they said, despite India's "hostile attitude" Pakistan supports dialogue between the two countries and remains steadfast in pursuing such initiatives, in accordance with the new prime minister taking office two years ago. They hoped India responds to the "cherishes of our peoples."
Iran then responded to calling the "Israeli regime's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's smokescreen to hide his crimes against the Palestinian people. [He] allocated major parts of speech to attack all members of international community for supporting the JCPOA. Je and his cronies are expected to continue basking by keeping everyone [else] busy with phony issues." They then asked: Why keep Palestinians under occupation? "The Israeli regime gives ISIS support in Syria (amidst the Syrian civil war) and keeps tensions high in the region. They keep tensions rising because peace and stability is an existential threat. If quiet is back in the spotlight, they would have to explain their actions in the Palestinian Territories and engage in a peace process which for the past 25 years has had no result. [Thus] it is understandable why Israel was so angry with the 'nations' in the hall and the whole international community. [Meanwhile,] Iran is committed to its obligations under the JCPOA to bring stability and peace to the region." They concluded in saying that "[we] will see more angry representatives of Israel year after year in this hall."
2 October
Right of Reply
Serbia responded to Albania's speech earlier in the day in saying that in order to achieve the consolidation of international peace, Serbia invests in regional cooperation and stabilization. The delegate added that "unfortunately the prime minister of Albania abused the [UNGA] body and misled the UN members states that a dialogue is being conducted by the two states of Kosovo and Serbia and not Belgrade and Pristina. Kosovo is not an independent state and member of the UN. [Thus the] call to recognise Kosovo is in contravention of international law against the [UN] charter." Serbia further noted that such a comment "happened at a time of an important improvement between Serbia and Albania [as] reflect by the first Albanian [leader's] visit to Serbia in 68 years [as a result of the] Brussels dialogue, helped by the EU between Belgrade and Pristina. Such comments can [thus] jeopardise and set back future dialogue. Serbia's southern province is [one of] its government's top priorities. [An] effort [should be made] to reach a solution [that is] acceptable to all and take into account all communities of Kosovo and Metohija.
Albania then replied to Serbia in saying that it "wished not to speak but was compelled to talk as it was deemed important to say a few words and put the record straight. Kosovo is an independent state recognised by over a hundred states and is a part of other international organisations. Since the [self-declared] 2008 independence Kosovo was established as a worldwide geopolitical entity and praised as a contributor to stability. Kosovo and Serbia are bound to a dialogue to find a solution for the good of their [respective] peoples. With independence, the region has close once and for all the most bitter chapter in modern history. The energy this created in Balkans includes relations with Serbia from Albania. To quote Rama, 'with Kosovo becoming part of the family of nations after 100 of years of frozen conflict, guns were no longer pointed at a neighbouring window. After a century of conflict, Kosovo is at peace. [Albania] has contributed to the climate with perseverance and will continue to do what we can for peace to prevail and develop."
Turkey briefly responded to Syria in saying that the delegate will "not take [too much] time but that Turkey would continue to stand by the people of Syria" amidst the Syrian civil war.
China responded to the Philippines in saying that its "claim to the sovereignty of the Spratly Islands is based on historical foundation. The illegal occupation of some islands by the Philippines is the root cause of disputes between China and the Philippines...Without the consent of China, the Philippines unilaterally went to arbitration [contrary to] international law. China is opposed to [this] practice of initiating arbitration and repeatedly [warned that its] non-acceptance and non-participation is based on legal foundations and will not change. Philippines broke promises of direct negotiations by unilateral arbitration to deny China sovereignty over the South China Sea and China's maritime right In order to force China to a compromise. This will not bring a resolution. China seeks peaceful settlement based on historical facts and international law by negotiation. China and ASEAN reached a dual track approach that settlement [needed] direct negotiations by countries concerned. Peace of [the] seas [being] jointly maintained by China and ASEAN is the most realistic way to address the issue. To internationalise and judicialise will not seek a settlement [but] instead make [relations] more difficult and [harder to] justify peace and stability. China affirms [its intention] to maintain peace and ensure the seas [are used for] friendship and cooperation. China is opposed to the practice of small number of countries for stirring up for selfish purposes that jeapordise the South China Sea issue. China urges a return to discourse."
The United Kingdom's delegate responded to the comments made by Mauritius. He said that "the British government has no doubt that the sovereignty of the Chagos as [it has] been British since the nineteenth century. No international tribunal, including to Annex 7 of the Law of the Sea has ever doubted the islands' sovereignty. The United Kingdom sees Mauritius sovereignty and will cede the island when it is no longer needed for defense. In the meantime, the United Kingdom will decide when [to do so]. Defense is used to counter regional threats in terrorism and piracy. Arbitration awarded does not protect maritime use and with no view on the MPA to maintain Indian Ocean fish stocks and maintain food [sustainability]. In conclusion, the United Kingdom should maintain discourse with Mauritius and both countries [should] enter into discussion under the sovereignty umbrella. The United Kingdom attempts discourse and enters into bilateral discussions and looks forward to working with Mauritius to ensure all aspects of the MPA" are maintained.
Philippines responded to China Right of Reply in saying that it "welcome the great concern of China to peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea. The sea is an international waterway [thus it] seeks dispute [resolution] at the international level. Under international law, including arbitration under article seven of the Law of the Sea, [Philippines] reiterates that China join the arbitration tribunal and let the outcome be in accordance with international law in transparency rather than coercion and intimidation.
Serbia then used up its allocated Right of Reply in responding to Albania. The delegate said that "Kosovo is not an independent nor a member of the UN. The esteemed prime minister of Albania is the only speaker who called for recognition of a part of a sovereign country [and] its a hostile act [that should be] take[n] seriously. [It is an] hostile act to Serbia and its people who inhabit Kosovo. [By] dialogue under [the European Union's] auspices, all issues between Belgrade and Pristina are being addressed. Serbia would use all diplomatic means to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity."
China then finished its Right of Reply in responding to the Philippines. The delegate sought to "reiterate that the illegal invasion and occupation of some islands and reefs of in the South China Sea is root cause of the dispute with the Philippines over the South China Sea. By initiating arbitration, China's non-acceptance and non-participation will not change.
3 October
Closing remarks
President Mogens Lykketoft summed up the topics discussed at the annual General Debate. He said that the session was "at the end of [an] historic nine days at UN and [an] historic and comprehensive General Debate. This year [saw] the highest number of heads of state and government ever gathered to discuss the challenges of development, human rights, etcetera. As we commemorate the seventieth [session of the UNGA], it is fitting that the spirit and principles of the [UN] charter and the central role of the UN in international cooperation is reaffirmed. It is [also] fitting that General debate was preceded with [a] meeting with the pope and [achieving] the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) goals [of the Post-2015 Development Agenda].
At the outset, I would like to thank each and everyone for their generous words and congratulations and support. The seventieth session will be exceptionally busy and the General Debate helped to identify issues that [others] felt need attention. Since the summit on sustainable debate, the General Debate focused on the road ahead for peace, security and human rights. The matter most consistently raised was the plight of refugees, migrants and IDPs across the world and calls for an unprecedented global response in international law and solidarity. [In] building on the secretary-general's meeting, I will attend the global bank group and IMF meeting in Lima on 9 October and highlight the need to finance SDG implementation and a more comprehensive financial response to ongoing humanitarian responses. [sic] Furthermore, in mid-to-late November I will hold a meeting on the global refugee crisis, humanitarian crisis, especially in Syria and its neighbours, highlighted repeatedly. As such, many called for a new effort by global and regional powers for a peaceful solution in others parts of the Middle East, including the Middle East peace process, highlighted as a source of concern.
[Other issues include,] addressing peace in Africa, parts of Europe and beyond and stem the spread of extremism. Boko Haram, ISIL and other extremists...highlights as [an] affront to humanity. [Delegates mentioned] maintaining international peace and security [and] many acknowledged[d the] SDGs. [There is a pressing] need to address the root causes of conflict. Regional and sub-regional organisations [play a] role in peace and security. [Many] highlighted a critical need to address small arms and light weapons to nuclear non-proliferation. The JCPOA was rightly recognised as an important step and significant diplomatic achievement [in this regard].
Many [delegations] welcomed the re-establishment of diplomatic ties between Cuba and the United States. Cop 21 in Paris to address climate change was [also] repeatedly raised, especially by SIDS and others particularly vulnerable to climate change. More than 70 countries submitted INDCs -- now 146 -- who demonstrated belief that Paris can and must succeed. [It] can and must bring hope to millions [of people] across the globe. [As part of the] SDGs, numerous leaders recalled universal implementation is imperative and financing, including the need for developed countries to meet the 0.7% [of GDP] target for aid. In field of health, encouraging news [came] from West Africa [in regards to the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa], while not [yet] over, it has been tackled with determination by affected countries [and] with assistance from the UN and the world. In [regards to] human rights, some [delegations] recalled challenges to discrimination, [especially the] need to realise the rights of women and girls. A high level review on United Nations Security Council Resolution 325 on women, peace and security was highlighted by many as important for the year.
[Delegations highlighted] the pressing need to reform the UNSC to affectively fulfill its mandate and reflect the geopolitical way of today. Hopes [were also] expressed on holding a transparent process to find the next secretary-general next year. [This is a] synopsis of the many issues raised over the past six days. The breath and depth of discussion demonstrates once again the task of this organisation is enormous. As president of the seventieth session, rest assured I will do all I can to make real progress across each of the three pillars. To conclude, [I would like to offer my] sincere appreciation to all the staff of the UN who made the week a great success. In particular, [I would like] to thank interpreters. security, maintenance staff and others [whose] professionalism has been outstanding and [a] credit to yourselves and others. I wish to the General Assembly to conclude agenda item eight.
Right to Reply
After initially closing the session, Lykketoft then reopened the session and called on those who had asked to use their Right to Reply.
Indonesia replied first to the speeches of "Tonga and the Soloman Islands on 29 September and 1 October, respectively." The delegate said that his country "reject references to human rights issues in West Papua." Such "references are dangerously misleading and compel [us] to set the record straight. Human rights protection has been an important part of the country's priorities. National laws protect and guarantee the human rights of all citizens. No country big or small, developed or least developed is free of human rights problems. Indonesia not an exception but, as one of the biggest, has put in place institutions and resolutions to combat [violations thereof]. Indonesia works with national civil society and national human rights institutions for the protection of human rights. These provide necessary checks and independent reviews to make sure human rights are monitored and protected. Said mechanisms in Indonesia are reliable and [offer] protect[ion] in a democratic manner. Indonesia remains actively engaged regionally and globally in human rights, including practices in human rights practice and promotion. My delegation is not convinced that reverence in [the aforementioned] statements was appropriate or had any merit. They contained inaccurate allegations about human rights in certain parts of Indonesia. political considerations were misrepresentations of facts. The government of Indonesia invests large resources to the development of all aspects of life in Papua and West Papua, including promotions of human rights. Both provinces have wide autonomy in national laws and elections for governors and governments, [which are] accountable to the people of Papua and West Papua, including in human rights. To conclude, the Indonesian government attaches great importance [to relations] with Pacific islands as some people of the country share [a lot] in common with the Pacific islands. To reiterate, the government is committed to engage in good faith with Pacific islands."
Tonga then replied to Indonesia. "At the outset, let me state that Tonga values diplomatic relations with Indonesia and recognises the sovereignty of Indonesia over its population and affairs. However, through reports of alleged human rights violations, [Tonga] has concerns and proposes to engage in a friendly way and hold dialogue. Not just Tonga, but perhaps other Pacific island countries, [in order] to gain more understanding, [would like to] conduct a fact finding mission with the cooperation of Indonesia. To conclude, Tonga holds high regard for Indonesia and its diplomatic relations with Indonesia but would like to register concern for allegations of violations [and leave] room for dialogue and to address the concerns of Tonga [by] hold[ing] more dialogue with Indonesia."
Lykketoft then said that he regretted to breaking order of speakers but that it was better to finish one discussion before moving to another one. He then called on Iran and the Solomon Islands.
Iran then took to the floor in saying its delegate was reacting "to the baseless allegations by Bahrain made yesterday [in] repeated fabricated allegations of Iranian interference in the domestic affairs of Bahrain. [There are] fabricated in their minds. Accusations against Iran are all the more worthless as it covers up the governments violations of a majority of the Bahraini people and sought to [perpetuate] minority over majority. No doubt as long as a minority suppresses right of a majority and [then] blame[s] outsiders, [it] will not help to resolve its own problems. More outlandish [comments] were [made] by Bahrain and later the [United Arab Emirates] in reaction to Iran over the Hajj pilgrimage this year and how pilgrims were treated. It is obvious that statements by both countries are unwarranted and unhelpful as the issue is none of their business." The delegate further took issue with others parts of the Gulf Arab countries' statements saying that the name "in reference to body of water between the Arab peninsula and the Iranian plateau" the countries "should know as the whole world, including the UN, is the Persian Gulf. From the sixth century before Christ [the name has been] used as it is today. It was also used by Arab people amidst turmoil in 1960s. It is unfortunate that Arab officials use outdated and Cold War-tainted terms. Needless to say politically motivated change in geographical names is rejected by the UN as it creates tensions and other adverse consequences. Similarly on the issue of three islands. Iran reiterates its full sovereignty over the three islands and measures taken on the islands by Iran are based on the principle of sovereignty and territory integrity of Iran. Thus claims seen as interference are rejected. Iran always takes friendship with all its neighbours and all countries [seriously]. Thus. [Iran is] ready to talk with the U.A.E. in view to strengthening bilateral relations and remove misunderstandings between the two countries. [However, the] territorial integrity of Iran over the islands is non-negotiable." The delegate further took not of and "categorically reject[ed] what Canada said. [The comments] demonstrate how Canada's Conservative government believes in a smokescreen [that] hides [its] policy of distortions against Iran and how [Iran] regret[s] [that the] JCPOA is harmful to their Iranophobia. [As far as] human rights [is concerned], Canada violates the rights of African[s and the]...indigenous and [also] backs Israel...in [pursuing the cause of] so-called "human nights"
Solomon Islands then replied to Indonesia. "To reiterate, [Solomon Islands has] deep respect to Indonesian sovereignty and our relations with Indonesia. [Solomon Islands would thus like to] also note the statement delivered by Indonesia and would like to reiterate that the UN charter is based on three pillars: security, peace and human rights and development. [I] also wish to reiterate that all states have a legal duty and moral responsibility to uphold, respect and promote human rights and take preventive measures against human rights violations in accordance with the UN charter and applicable international laws. On the issue of human rights violations in Papua and West Papua, we have made it clear in our statement to the General Assembly that we would like to work with Indonesia and we would like to work with everyone within the United Nations Human Rights Commission. We would like to work within the multilateral framework, to work with the Pacific Islands Forum countries and others to address human rights violations wherever they may occur. [To] underscore, we seek dialogue and cooperation with Indonesia as alluded to by the leader of the Pacific Islands Forum. [We] would like to work with them and address some of these issues within the context of the UN charter and within the context of international law."
Lykketoft then concluded the session, including the Right to Reply and ended the General Debate for the year and continued with item eight of the agenda for the year.