Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor to exercise our right of reply. Uh, we cannot turn a blind eye to the dynamics surrounding the discussion on the draft article under this item, even here today in this room. The recurring practice of transforming international legal instruments and discussions on potential new ones into politicized platforms provide yet another argument against advancing an international convention on this topic. The debate we are witnessing in this forum today demonstrates how a discussion intended to be professional and constructive can be diverted to serve neopolitical short-term agendas. Such a politicized atmosphere undermines both the credibility and the effectiveness of our work. It shifts the focus from substance to polarizing rhetoric, erodes trust in the process, and leads delegations to assess proposals based on political alignments rather than on their substance and merits. We consider the legal matter before us to be important and complex, with significant implications for the development of international law. Yet, the unfounded political accusations directed at us during today's discussion neither serves the debate nor advance the work of the CIS Committee. Further, the weaponization of legal discussions against member states and the insertion of political context into abstract and general legal debates do not serve an advancement of our collective task. Rather, they undermine and stand in opposition to our mutual efforts. Mr. Chair, philosopher John Rawls sought to identify fair governing principles by imagining them being chosen from behind a veil of ignorance. Similarly, as a paraphrase, we believe that creating new legal tools should be done under such veil, disconnected from specific contexts and neuropolitical agendas. Mr. Chair, of course, we have much to say in response to every distorted and unfounded political allegations or accusations. However, We believe that engaging in such exchange would be counterproductive. It would waste the forum's valuable time and would not contribute to the substantive legal dialogue before us. We will respond to these accusations at the appropriate time and in appropriate forums. There are already enough, some would say too many, political UN forum where such accusations may and should be addressed. Here in the Sixth Committee, under the item before us, we will confine ourselves strictly to presenting our legal positions as we have already done in our national statement. I thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah.
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.
Speaking timeChair (6%) · Colombia (5.4%) · President of the General Assembly (5.2%) + 33 more