General debate on all disarmament and international security agenda items
š³š¦ Namibia, š¦šŗ Australia, šøšŖ Sweden, šØš³ China, š·šŗ Russian Federation, š®š± Israel, šµš° Pakistan, šŗšø United States, š²š¦ Morocco
Chair, Namibia exercises its right of reply following the allegations by Morocco yesterday in this committee on Namibia's human rights record. Namibia's human rights record and commitment to good governance, transparency and the rule of law, as well as upholding its international human rights obligations, speak for itself. We do not need to respond to the baseless allegations from Morocco. A country that clearly disregards international law and treaty obligations. First, Morocco has since 1975 simply ignored the ruling by the ICJ regarding its false claims of sovereignty over the non self governing territory of Western Sahara. Secondly, as clearly heard through their remarks, Morocco rubbishes the UN Charter and UN resolutions by disregarding the established mandate of MUNURSO to oversee a referendum for the right of self determination of the people of Western Sahara. A referendum that they claim in their own words is dead and buried. Mounusso's mandate that has been renewed since 1991 is very much alive, but Morocco's Morocco deems their work dead and buried, even though they engage Mounuso on a regular basis, as indicated in the reports of the UN Secretary General. This clearly indicates that their engagement with UN entities is not genuine but superficial, with no intention of abiding by any UN decisions. MINUSO is a mission that was established by the UN Security Council, and until such a mandate is withdrawn, no individual country has a right to unilaterally declare it dead and buried unless the country concerned is bent on undermining UN processes. Third, Morocco has time and again denied access to UN and AU human rights monitoring bodies into the occupied territory of Western Sahara, which speaks volumes of the kind of acts that they that may be perpetuated there. Fourth, Morocco continues to disregard the AU Constitutive Act and AU processes, which they manipulate for their narrow agenda. Therefore, Morocco's own actions and words demonstrate their blatant disregard for the UN and its processes and international law, which undermines international peace and security. Fifth, the remarks made yesterday about the conflict in Western Sahara by Morocco before the entire world and international community are very telling. They said that the conflict is, and I quote, an artificial dispute. Yet this so-called artificial dispute occupies the entire foreign policy. Clearly, this artificial dispute is so real that it has demanded the erection of a wall of separation to keep the owners of the territory of Western Sahara away from their own land and their own resources. This wall must be disarmed. If history is anything to go by, slavery has ended. The Berlin Wall has fallen. then the writing is already on the wall for Morocco's illegal occupation. We call on Morocco to stop being on the wrong side of history and to do the right thing now, once and for all. The last colony in Africa must finally be free and their right to peace and security upheld. I thank you.
Chair, I take the floor on behalf of the delegations of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States to address some misleading assertions which have been made by one Member State regarding AUKUS cooperation. Chair, Australia's Naval Nuclear Propulsion Programme is proceeding in full compliance with AUKUS partners' respective international obligations, including under the NPT, Australia's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, and Additional Protocol. Naval nuclear propulsion was foreseen by the drafters of the NPT and remains aligned with the treaty. As the Director General of the IAEA has repeatedly made clear, Article 14 of the IAEA's Model CSA is the specific provision to support the right of states to use nuclear material in a non prescribed military activity, including for nuclear, sorry, for naval nuclear propulsion. Australia is continuing its engagement with the IAEA to develop a safeguards and verification approach for its NNP programme within the framework of Australia's CSA and AP, including an Article 14 arrangement. Chair, as we have made clear, Australia's Article 14 arrangement will not remove nuclear material from IAEA oversight. Australia's conventional armed nuclear powered submarine programme will be subject to a robust package of safeguards and verification measures, enabling the agency to continue to fulfil its technical safeguards objectives for Australia at all times. We hope all delegations will continue to reject any efforts to undermine the independent technical authority of the IAEA and its mandate to engage with states on implementation of their safeguard arrangements. The technical mandate of the IAEA is critical to the non proliferation regime and something all states, including NPT state parties, should strive to uphold. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Chair. Sweden exercised its right to reply last week in response to several distorted claims made by the Russian Federation. Our intervention still stands. But in light of continued Russian statements along similar lines, Sweden sees the need for a renewed right to reply. I have three brief remarks. Firstly, we reject the claim from the Russian delegation that Russia is not transmitting irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and nuclear threats. They are. Statements from the likes of Medvedev and Karaghanov are out there for everyone to see. Member States of this committee can judge for themselves. As a nuclear weapons state and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia has a special responsibility within the NPT to show leadership on the path towards a world free from nuclear weapons. Russia is currently moving distinctly in the opposite direction. Secondly, there is of course no bridgehead for Western countries to instigate hatred of Russia in Ukraine. One must also keep in mind that the term Russophobia is invented by Russia to pursue aggressive political objectives. If not being liked is the true concern for Russia, there are multiple legitimate options in the soft power toolbox to address the matter. And they are definitely more efficient than launching a full scale brutal invasion on your neighbour, targeting and killing civilians. Thirdly, it deserves to be repeated. NATO accepting new members to engage in collective security is not a threat to Russia or any other country. It is not a result of a so called expansionist agenda. It is a result of sovereign countries taking sovereign decisions. That might not be a world order of Russia's liking, as it diverts from the sphere of influence Russia wants to establish at the expense of its neighbors, most explicitly spelled out in the ultimatum presented in december twenty twenty one. Sweden firmly rejects the idea that might equals right, and that is one of the many reasons we will stand by Ukraine for as long as it takes. And let me highlight the logic of sequences by once again inform this plenary it wasn't until after Russia's full scale and brutal onslaught on Ukraine that Sweden saw the necessity to abandon more than two hundred years of military non alignment and join NATO. If Sweden taking this particular and sovereign decision is an example of the true problem and regrettable to Russia Then logic has it that Russia should perhaps entertain the idea of rethinking its strategy of using military aggression to achieve its political objectives. I thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. During this week's general debate, certain countries once again attempted to distort and smear China's nuclear policy and the modernization of its national defense. China firmly rejects such claims. Regarding the unfounded accusations that China is pursuing opaque and rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal and refusing to engage in arms control dialogue, China has already given a detailed response during last week's journal debate and retro reply, which I will not repeat here. Exactly sixty-one years ago today, China successfully detonated its first atomic bomb. On the same day, the Chinese government issued a solemn statement that at no time and under no circumstances would China be the first to use nuclear weapons. The Chinese government also proposed the convening of a summit of world leaders to discuss the complete prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons. As a first step, China proposed that States possessing nuclear weapons and those that might soon possess them should undertake not to use nuclear weapons, not to use them against non nuclear weapon states or against nuclear weapon free zones, or against one another. Sixty-one years on, China has been pursuing a defensive national defense policy and a defensive nuclear strategy. China has always adhered to its no first-use policy, has unconditionally pledged not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states or nuclear weapon-free zones, and has maintained its nuclear weapon nuclear forces at the minimum level required for national security. China has never participated and will never participate in any nuclear arms race. The sole purpose of China's possession of nuclear weapons is to deter other countries from using or threaten to use nuclear weapons against China and to ensure national security, not to win a nuclear war. This fundamentally distinguishes China's nuclear policy from that of other nuclear weapon states. Madam Chair, certain countries participating in NATO's nuclear sharing or extended deterrence have disregarded the global consensus on nuclear disarmament and are spreading a false narrative about the three states with the largest nuclear arsenals. China firmly opposes such irresponsible distortion of facts. China's nuclear forces are not on the same scale as those of the two largest nuclear powers, who together possess more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. Demanding that China join trilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations is unfair, unreasonable, and unfeasible. China will continue to actively contribute to international efforts on nuclear disarmament and will never agree to accept any form of coercion. On nuclear sharing, China has consistently maintained that NATO countries, by providing delivery systems and conducting nuclear mission training, effectively gain control directly or indirectly over nuclear weapons in violation of the letter and spirit of the MPT. For a long time, the Internet community, including non-aligned countries, has expressed doubts and opposition to NATO's nuclear sharing arrangements in various forms. China urges the relevant countries to take seriously the legitimate concerns of the international community. On land based intermediate range missiles, China reiterates that its missile capabilities are entirely defensive in nature and are deployed within its own territory, posing no threat to any country. Some countries, however, are transferring and forward deploying missiles in Asia Pacific through their allies, seriously undermining the existing international arms control and non-proliferation architecture, eroding regional peace and security, and destabilizing global strategic balance. China urges these countries to cease their provocative actions, stop the forward deployment of land based intermediate range missiles in Asia Pacific, and end the proliferation of missiles and related technologies capable of delivering at WMDs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, the Russian Federation uh rejects any uh uh unfounded accusations against it, including the one just made, which a comment that has no uh connection to reality by the delegation of Sweden. We call on those delegations who uh uh have any doubts about the explanations provided by Russia regarding the national position of our state regarding various matters that they raised to once again uh to carefully read the statements that have been made by us from the beginning of the session of the first committee of the General Assembly. As part of our right of reply, I think they will find all the answers to the issues they raise. Also, we believe that we cannot fail to respond to yet uh more uh remarks that have nothing to do with reality that have been senselessly and recklessly directed against our country. In particular, the situation with regard to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. As part of uh uh well in conditions of uh a continuing degradation of uh uh the situation in international security, uh in particular around the CTBT, a very complex situation has arisen. There are no prospects for the treaty to enter into force. However, this is not due to the fault of Russia as many are trying to uh present it. Starting in nineteen ninety nine uh uh various American administrations uh under bogus pretexts have refused to ratify this treaty. No practical steps for the benefit of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty since then have been taken by Washington. It's clear that the United States is not interested at all in joining this treaty. In these circumstances, and also taking into account the current political situation as a whole, our country uh considered it the imbalance that uh arose between Russia and the United States with regard to obligations under the CTMBT unacceptable. Therefore, the revoking bias of the ratification of the treaty m uh Rectified this situation. The federal law on this uh decision entered into force on the second of November of 2023, and we want to once again stress that we're talking about r the revocation of the ratification of the treaty. In spite of this step, Russia remains a signatory of the CTBT treaty with all of the rights and obligations uh pertaining to it. We continue to fully participate in the preparatory commission of the CTBTO and we are uh adhering to the moratorium on nuclear tests, which was uh uh In introduced uh back in 1990 uh under the USSR, a clear example of the commitment of Russia to the CTBT is the conclusion on the 14th of December of 2023 of the construction of the Russian segment of the International System of Monitoring, which is the largest. That segment is the largest, the second largest, and includes 32 facilities. Currently we're continuing to cooperate with the uh temporary technical secretariat of the preparatory committee of the CTBO, uh and we're continuing work on ensuring uninterrupted operation of the aforementioned facilities. Thank you for your attention.
Thank you, Chair. A brief response to statements heard today made by several states from the Arab group as well as others. Israel rejects any accusation based on a biased and one sided view of the complex situation in the Middle East, especially if it fails to acknowledge the needs of a member state to confront continuous threats to security and its right to protect its citizens from murderous terrorist groups. Israel will continue to exert its duty and right to defend its population. Hoping for a different future where terrorists and their patrons do not put the security of the region at risk. In light of the recent developments in the region, we call on all reasonable and responsible parties to join this task. Chair, in response to the statement made by Lebanon, as Lebanon understands very well the catastrophic implications of the activity of terrorist organizations and Hezbollah specifically, as well as the rogue Iranian behavior that had such negative implications in Lebanon for decades. We call on it to join the vital task of eliminating terror and providing security to the region. Echoing lies and falsehoods against Israel is just unhelpful. I thank you.
Thank you, Chair. I'm compelled to take the floor in response to the statement made by the Indian Ambassador. Perhaps the esteemed Indian Ambassador did not read his own words carefully. While talking about conflicts elsewhere, he said, India does not believe that solutions can be found through war and conflict. Yet it was India that launched unprovoked aggression against Pakistan on the night of 7 May 2025. An act that plunged the entire region into crisis. Hostilities ceased only on 10th May, following Pakistan's position of strength after downing of seven Indian aircrafts and the request of a ceasefire that came from India, facilitated by President Trump and other friendly countries. President Trump has spoken countless times about it. India to this day refuses to acknowledge the very mediation that helped it escape its own misadventure. It is India, not Pakistan, that repeatedly vows to undertake future strikes under the nuclear overhang. Imagining that such reckless rhetoric enhances deterrence, it does not. It only exposes the delusion of a political leadership that mistakes brinkmanship for strategy. India's ruling party and military establishment may succeed in feeding their domestic polity with disinformation. Manufacturing imaginary victories and turning defeats into propaganda gains, but they cannot deceive the international community. Like all aggressors, India follows the familiar playbook commit aggression, cry victimhood, and cloak expansionism in the language of counterterrorism. Let us be clear, Chair. India actively sponsors, aids, and abets terrorism in my country and beyond. Its intelligence agency has been directly collaborating with terrorist outfits to sponsor terrorist acts in Pakistan and undertake extraterritorial assassinations in other countries. Pakistan has sacrificed over 90,000 lives in the global fight against terrorism and remains one of its most steadfast partners of the international community. Chair, India boasts of its no first use doctrine, but conveniently omits the exceptions and policy statements by its own leaders that contradict this claim. If India truly seeks nuclear risk reduction, why has it avoided the bilateral dialogue on these issues since 2012? Chair, for decades strategic stability between any two nuclear armed states has relied on mutual risk awareness and crisis communication. This delicate balance has prevented catastrophe even in moments of high tension. India's emerging military doctrine seeks to dismantle this equilibrium, imagining a utopian new normal where conventional strikes against a nuclear armed neighbor can be treated as cost free adventures. Wars do not follow scripts. The belief that one can initiate hostilities, control escalation, and dictate the term of peace is delusional. Chair Indy also lectures others about prosperity and governance. While millions of its own citizens live in abject poverty and deprivation, perhaps it should first ensure the well being of its own people. Before weaponizing economic narratives and international financial institutions to score political points against its neighbor. Chair, India would do well to abandon its self-surfing fiction, shed the arrogance of impunity, and return to serious result oriented dialogue for peace, stability, and conflict prevention. Pakistan remains steadfast in its commitment to peace, stability, and responsible conduct, but equally resolute in defending its sovereignty and national security. We continue to believe that peace lies not in posturing and propaganda, but in dialogue, diplomacy and mutual respect. I thank you.
Chair, thank you for the floor. I'd like to respond to the statement by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea that alleged exceeding of nuclear weapons limits. Chair, the United States continues to abide by the New Start Treaty's central limits and to fulfill all of its treaty obligations that are not addressed through U.S. countermeasures which are fully consistent with international law. As the United States reported earlier this year, from January 1st to January to December 31st, 2024, the United States eliminated six Minutemen III ICBMs. Three by test launch, two by static firing, and one using New START Treaty elimination procedures. And eight tried into SLBM first stages, four using New START Treaty elimination procedures and four by strategic by static testing, in accordance with New Start Treaty provisions on means for removal from accountability. Separately, Chair, a few states have commented about the U.S. use of strategic trade controls during the general debate or mistakenly implied that such measures restrict or constrain trade in sensitive goods. I'd like to provide some information to demonstrate otherwise. The United States leads global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by championing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and supporting international safeguards through the IAEA. We enforce robust export controls to fulfill our nonproliferation obligations and provide reassurance that sensitive goods, materials, equipment, and technologies will not be misappropriated or diverted to programs that undermine global or regional security, including weapons of mass destruction programs. These controls are complemented by international multilateral commitments like the Nuclear Suppliers Group and other export control regimes. These regimes maintain and update their guidelines and provide transparency and predictability to facilitate trade and build confidence among trading partners. These regimes provide an international benefit by identifying materials, equipment, and technologies that prose proliferation risks. They also promote standards and practices that facilitate responsible trade of those items. These regimes publicly release their technical control lists and transparently share best practices for assessing proliferation risk with members and non members alike. The regimes are voluntary, non binding, and respect national sovereignty. The control lists and guidelines for transferring sensitive materials, equipment, and technology are implemented on a national basis. While there is no explicit right to technology in either the NPT or the Biological Weapons Convention, as some have claimed, the United States supports the objective that all countries should have access to technologies that hold the promise to enrich lives, create prosperity, and solve global challenges. This access must be paired with the assurance that goods will not be misused, misappropriated, or diverted to programs that undermine international security. When these conditions are met, trade makes the world more secure and more prosperous. I want to stress that export controls apply to less than 1% of U.S. exports. Denials constitute an even smaller percentage. In the very few cases where the United States denies an export license, it is often due to proliferation concerns regarding unauthorized end uses or end users. An example would be concerns of diversion to military programs or to an unsafe guarded nuclear facility. The United States has taken an active role in assisting countries to develop economically beneficial, comprehensive strategic trade controls. Our export control and related border security program engages with countries to promote the adoption, implementation, improvement, and harmonization of strategic trade control practices and legislations. Far from constraining global trade in sensitive goods, the mutual implementation of export control lists enables and enhances legitimate trade and boosts foreign direct investment. Recent studies have shown that when both exporters and importers have strategic trade controls, dual use sectors experience annual increased trade. The economies involved also experience an average annual increase in foreign direct investment. Beyond helping states prevent proliferation and carry out their obligations under existing arms control treaties and UN Security Council Resolution 1540, strategic trade controls implementation facilitates high tech global trade and helps countries climb the industrial value chain and boost economic development. Thank you.
Madam Chair, Namibia persists in venturing into areas that have absolutely nothing to do with the mandate of this committee. By b politicizing the work of the Affairs Committee now, which is something new and not constructive at all, Namibia undermines the spirit of seriousness, responsibility and cooperation that must guide our collective deliberations in this committee. Madam Chair, it is inappropriate and constructive and definitely telling that Namibia is the only delegation among more than hundreds who spoke so far to bring up a matter outside the scope of this committee. Equally telling is the selective use of the principle of self determination which Namibia continues to systematically deny to the people of Caprivi, the last occupied colony in Africa. I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the suffering of the Caprivi people who have endured decades of repression and ongoing human rights violations by Namibia. Denying them their human rights, including their inalienable right to self-determination, which Namibia likes to speak loudly about abroad. The brave people of Caprivi who dared to demand their independence have been silenced, detained without access to legal counseling, or forced to exile. A lot of people of these people were tried in the so called quote Caprivi treason trials. Several of the defendants in this trial died in custody without ever having been able to learn the outcome of their trial. In this regard, Namibia distinguished itself by holding one of the longest and most ineffective trials in Africa. Madam Chair, this is not Morocco saying so. Indeed, all these human rights violations have been documented by the UN, including the Human Rights Committee, which has also reported proven cases of torture, beachings, and deprivation of food and medical assistance, as well as the Committee Against Torture, have the report here. Which stated that it is concerned that the detainees in so-called Caprivi High Treasure trials were denied fundamental legal safeguards and were severely tortured during the trials. Furthermore, the committee is concerned at the long betrayal detention periods, in some cases amounting to more than fifteen years cases of death in detention. Madam Chair, it is almost ironic, if not tragic, to hear Namibia lecturing others about self determination while turning a blind eye on its dark records of human rights violations in the Caprivi region. Does Namibia intend to offer self determination to the Caprivi people? Of course not. On the contrary, it has offered them torture abductions, and I said the list is long. Even exclusion from civil servants, la function public, and the denial of their human rights simply for demanding the very right Namibia invokes here elsewhere. Madam Chair, I have to admit that Namibia is right about one thing that the referendum is indeed dead and buried, and it is not Morocco saying so. It is the Security Council that says so. In all its successive resolutions, it says so. It underlines the inapplicability of the referendum. In the Secretary General reports, So
Morocco is on the right of right side of history, contrary to what Namibia said. Morocco is on the right side of history, the side of peace, stability and development and the regional unity. The right side of history is to defend the right side of history is uh is what Morocco follows, but the opposite, Namibia is not following the right side of history because Namibia is defending separatism, to clinch to a referendum that is no longer uh applicable, that is dead and buried, and to ignore the will of the international community. So just to say that to defend self determination at home, not defending at home to the Caprivi people and preaching it here, is ironic actually and it's tragic. And we call on the preacher to abide and respect what they are preaching about. I thank you. And now call on the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thank you, Madam Chair. As for the absurd claims made by the representative of the Israeli regime, a regime with no moral, legal, or political standing to lecture others, I categorically reject and unequivocally condemn them. It is deeply ironic that a regime with a long record of aggression, crimes, and defiance of international law dares to accuse others. Today, its representative has again attempted to distract this forum from the atrocities committed in Gaza and Lebanon by fabricating baseless allegations against Iran. Madam Chair, distinguished colleagues, by distorting the reality of resistance to occupation and apartheid by labelling it as terrorism, the Israeli regime engaged in a deceptive form of victim blaming. It means accusing others, including its own victims, of the very crimes it commits, in order to deflect attention from its actions and evade accountability. The representative of the Israeli regime is once again attempting to portray his regime as the victim rather than the habitual perpetrator. But anyone who has seen Gaza knows that such a claim collapsed under the weight of reality. The undeniable truth is that the Israeli regime has always been the victimizer. It established itself by displacing an indigenous people, seizing their lands, destroying their villages, and committing grave crimes to impose its existence. The creation and continuation of this regime have been inseparable from oppression. The principal victims yesterday, today, and still are the Palestinians and people of other neighboring countries. Over the past two years, the Israeli regime has not allowed international media from entering Gaza, not out of concern for journalist safety. For it has killed more than 200 Palestinian journalists. But because it seeks to conceal the truth, it wants no witness to its crimes. By suppressing access to information, it enables itself to lie with impunity and escape responsibility. Yesterday, the representative of the Israeli regime shed crocodile tears for the people of Iran. Let me be clear. No one is deceived by such an empty show. No one will accept expression of sympathy. From a regime whose hands are stained with the blood of the Palestinian people. Through decades of occupation, aggression, and oppression, atrocities most brutally manifested in Gaza over the past two years. The Iranian people, above all, reject such gestures from such a source. And now call on the representative of the DPRK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation would like to exercise the right of reply in response to the statement made by the United States. State the root cause of the ongoing security crisis around the world does not lie in the legitimate and natural exercise of sovereign rights of independent states. It lies in the conduct of the United States and its allies. Who pursue their own geopolitical ambitions while disregarding the legitimate security concerns of other nations and regions, as well as the overall global security environment. It is the United States who spends astronomical military expenditure, introduces new missile defense system at Golden Dome, for what deploys its nuclear gravity bombs in the UK, stations ground based medium range missile systems in Japan. On the other hand, The United States is massively deploying strategic bombers, stealth fighters, and various reconnaissance assets in the vicinity of the DPRK. All of these are driving the regional and global security situation to the brink. We strongly urge the United States to immediately stop its dangerous and destabilizing military moves. I thank you, Mr. Chair. The following delegations are unable to exercise their right of reply due to time constraints. Namibia for his second intervention. They will be heard as the first speaker to exercise their right of reply at the next meeting. Distinguished delegates, we have exhausted the time available for this meeting. The next meeting of the committee will be held tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. sharp in this conference room. Before adjourning, I would like to remind delegations that tomorrow, 17th of October, we will have meetings in both in the morning and in the afternoon. Now I would like to thank the interpreters for staying a little bit longer to enable us to continue our conversation. The meeting is adjourned.
Verbatim from the transcript. A reply is identified from its own words, the Chair's grant, or its place in the right-of-reply sequence; delegations and addressees follow the transcript's attribution.